I’ve been searching for work for close to two years and have many years experience in IT. I’ve applied for multiple positions which I am both qualified for and skilled in. It seems strange that I’ve never gotten a call or email for an interview. Has anyone else had this e experience with their hr department?

If you can’t access 911, use 951-776-1078 for true emergencies.

I need to know which one is faster to get an appointment, or do they both have long wait lists and it doesn't matter which I choose? I already have a referral for Loma Linda, but they are already scheduled out through February and have longgg waiting list. Should I just stick with my referral or try to get a new one to Rady (formerly known as CHOC).

I am homeless with my 20 year old son and my 4 cats. We have been homeless since 9/15 and so far between selling some of my belongings, being able to borrow because I get social security and can pay back small amounts to a cousin, some payday loans which I hate using but need I have been able to keep us in a hotel room. I am tapped now and tonight will be our first in the truck. I have done all the call 211, I receive SNAP went to DPSS they denied me anything at all, called all the numbers my son and I donate plasma…..I won’t put my animals anywhere. They’re ESA for my son. If he were to be separated from them he would curl up and die.
I’m chronically ill and I am exhausted. Trying to find money, going from hotel to hotel packing and unpacking the truck for things we need. I have no clean clothes don’t remember even when I showered despite being in a hotel. I’ve been in constant pain having such vivid nightmares that the night before last I actually screamed, my son said it sounded like I was being killed. It scared the ish out of him out of the cats, last night I woke up right before I screamed out fire.
I e put up a gofundme me, got prayers and you should call County connect, 211…. Was CashApp $5 and asked what are kinks and turn ons by the oldest son of an ex bf, I have known him since he was 7. He’s 32 and told me I shouldn’t see him as a 14 year old anymore and he’s always had a crush on me, he won’t just give me money but I can earn it.
I am so tired, I am so sick right now.
I have two ways I feel are the most effective way to help my son and I. If anyone can send any amount of money to $BinxDingus so I can find another room or tell me where it’s safe to park and sleep overnight in Moreno Valley.
Thanks

Why I believe Judge Natalie M. Lough should be voted out when her seat next comes before voters

I’m a mother who appeared before Judge Natalie M. Lough in Riverside County family court. Based on my experience, I do not believe she should continue serving in this role.

I left her courtroom feeling belittled, dismissed, and unheard. I felt that my efforts to proactively raise concerns about my child were treated with suspicion, and that the information I presented did not receive the careful consideration it deserved. In my experience, her manner was rude and unprofessional.

Family court decisions affect children’s safety, stability, and relationships for years. Parents deserve a judge who listens carefully, examines the evidence, and treats people with dignity, including when ruling against them.

I cannot speak to Judge Lough’s private motivations or every case she has handled. I can speak to how I experienced her courtroom, and why it left me deeply concerned about her judgment and temperament.

I encourage voters to scrutinize her record, learn about judicial elections, and support a qualified challenger when the opportunity arises. Judicial accountability matters, especially when children live with the consequences.

If you have appeared before Judge Lough, what was your experience? Please keep comments factual and protect children’s identities. The goal is public accountability, not personal harassment.

Is the next academy class 227? Or 122 if so has anyone got an email or any updates

I think the news today speaks for itself for the reason. I created a petition to start the process to get him out before 2028.

https://c.org/rkY5P2fdsG

In April 2020, the Hemet Police Department became a foundational testing ground for a powerful new surveillance network. Official Hemet City Council documents note that the city was one of the first police agencies in the United States to partner with Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based startup founded in 2017. Before this partnership, Flock had primarily marketed its cameras to neighborhood homeowners associations (HOAs) and private entities. However, by June 2020, Hemet went live with its first 20 intersection cameras, integrating the private tracking system directly into its Real-Time Information Center (RTIC) and serving as an early municipal pipeline for a corporate startup.

This rapid integration quickly turned Hemet into a corporate marketing tool. During the first few months, Hemet PD used the data to recover stolen vehicles and execute arrests. While the city celebrated, Flock capitalized, heavily using Hemet's rapid data results as a national marketing blueprint. Hemet effectively became a proof-of-concept case study, which Flock used to pitch and sell its invasive camera networks to thousands of other law enforcement agencies across the country.

While Hemet was the earliest adopter of this network in Riverside County, its role as a national "early adopter" helped normalize city-wide tracking nationwide. By embedding a young startup's private surveillance infrastructure into public policing long before the technology faced widespread public scrutiny, Hemet helped clear the path for an apparatus that monitors citizens across more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies today. What began as a localized experiment in Hemet ultimately served as a catalyst for the massive expansion of private surveillance across the United States.

Proponents of Flock cameras often argue that tracking public data is a small, harmless sacrifice to ensure community safety. However, this logic sets a dangerous precedent.. it trades core constitutional liberties for the illusion of total security. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". If we accept the pro-Flock premise that rights can be negotiated away for a slight reduction in crime, we open the door to eroding the entire Constitution. To see how quickly this logic collapses under its own weight, look at what happens when you apply that exact same "temporary safety" argument to the rest of our fundamental rights:

The 1st Amendment protects your right to worship and associate privately. However, mass plate readers can log every car parked outside churches, mosques, and political rallies.
Would you hand over a logbook of every church service, political meeting, or private gathering you and your children attend if the police promised it would help them identify local radicals?

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense and security.
Would you give up your right to own a firearm if the government promised it would prevent a criminal from ever using one against your family?

The 3rd Amendment prevents the government from forcing citizens to house soldiers during peacetime to save on military housing.
Would you let a soldier move into your child’s spare bedroom if the government promised it would lower your personal federal income taxes?

The 4th Amendment protects you from warrantless tracking. Yet, these networks permanently map your daily movements across public roads without a judge ever signing a warrant.
Would you let the government attach a permanent GPS tracker to your bumper if it meant finding your own car if it ever gets stolen?

The 5th Amendment guarantees the presumption of innocence. Instead, this system treats everyone as a suspect, building digital movement profiles on millions of citizens under no active investigation.
Would you give up your right to remain silent if you were pulled over tomorrow and forced to immediately prove to an officer where you have been driving for the last 30 days?

The 6th Amendment guarantees your right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers to prevent wrongful, rushed convictions.
Would you give up your right to a jury if you were falsely accused and a judge could fast-track you straight to prison to save the taxpayers money?

The 7th Amendment preserves the right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits to ensure regular citizens, not just powerful entities, decide legal disputes.
If a massive corporation sued you for your life savings, would you let an automated AI algorithm decide the verdict if it guaranteed a faster resolution for the court system?

The 8th Amendment prohibits excessive, barbaric punishments to ensure penalties fit the severity of the crime.
Would you authorize the police to publicly beat a shoplifter on your street if it guaranteed that no one would ever break into your local grocery store again?

The 9th Amendment protects fundamental rights not explicitly listed, like personal privacy. These cameras obliterate that privacy by recording when you visit a therapist, a divorce attorney, or a medical clinic.
Would you give up your right to medical privacy if the state promised to lower your health insurance premiums in exchange for a log of every doctor and specialist you visit?

The 10th Amendment ensures that powers not explicitly given to the federal government belong to local states and communities. However, mass surveillance networks create centralized federal and multi-state data-sharing webs that bypass local town oversight.
Would you surrender your right to vote on local town policies if an automated federal agency promised it could manage your neighborhood's security from Washington?

The 14th Amendment guarantees that the law must treat all citizens equally. In practice, these cameras are disproportionately placed in low-income and minority neighborhoods, creating a biased tracking loop.
Would you accept the police setting up a permanent, around-the-clock checkpoint right outside your neighborhood if it meant dropping the local crime rate by 5%?

The 14th Amendment also protects you from arbitrary state actions. Because the software suffers from plate misreads and database typos, innocent drivers are routinely stopped at gunpoint over computer glitches.
Would you willingly accept the risk of being treated like a violent felon if you knew a simple computer typo could get you pulled over at gunpoint on your way to work?

The 15th and 19th Amendments guarantee all citizens the sacred right to vote without discrimination or interference. Yet, positioning mass surveillance grids outside voting centers means the state logs the exact date, time, and frequency of your civic participation.
Would you be willing to sign your name and your political party on a public billboard outside your polling place if the government promised it would eliminate voter fraud entirely?

The 24th Amendment ensures that citizens do not have to pay a fee to exercise their constitutional rights. Yet, proponents of automated enforcement casually argue that if you cannot afford rising registration fees, toll errors, or automated fines, you simply shouldn't drive.
Would you agree to pay a private tech company a mandatory digital fee every single time you back out of your driveway if it promised to use that money to fix your local roads?

If you answered 'no' to a single question on this list, even the ones that have nothing to do with Flock, then you have conceded the entire safety debate.. you agree that a positive outcome can never justify stripping away a fundamental right.

You cannot claim that sacrificing liberties for public safety is a virtuous compromise, only to backpedal the second a right you personally care about is on the chopping block. That isn’t a principled stance, it is pure hypocrisy. Our Constitution was deliberately designed as an interconnected shield. It does not allow us to bargain away the 4th Amendment for temporary safety while expecting the rest of our freedoms to remain intact.

The moment you concede that the government can systematically track your daily movements without a warrant, you yield the very ground required to defend every other right on this list. If you are willing to give up the 4th Amendment to catch a car thief, how can you complain when the exact same logic is used to strip away your property, your privacy, or your voice?

So, ask yourself: Are you truly willing to let a private tech company redefine your fundamental liberties, or do you only value the Constitution when it is convenient for you?

A physical breach of a Flock Safety automated license plate reader by a hacking collective known as stegan0gram has exposed the massive scale of local surveillance networks. Instead of merely vandalizing the equipment, the hackers dismantled a camera and its solar-powered assembly directly from the field to reverse-engineer its components. By analyzing the hardware, they successfully bypassed security measures to extract a local encryption key, granting them full access to the device's internal storage and operating software. The raw files were subsequently shared with transparency organizations and investigative journalists, fueling a broader public discussion on privacy.

The data recovered from the single compromised unit revealed a staggering volume of daily public logging. Over a brief 21-day period, the lone camera logged roughly 50,000 vehicles and generated more than 1.6 million images, proving that a single passing vehicle triggers a rapid burst of up to 100 individual photos. Furthermore, the localized software did not just read license plates; it actively tracked humans, bicycles, and dogs. The system cataloged highly specific details like car dents and bumper stickers, and it stored thousands of brief, one-to-two-second video clips alongside high-resolution still images.

The security compromise has amplified the national debate surrounding automated police surveillance. Flock Safety stated that the unauthorized removal of its hardware is illegal, maintaining that its centralized cloud network remains secure and unaffected by the physical theft. However, the revelation has already drawn sharp political reactions, motivating federal lawmakers to propose restrictions on public funding for automated license plate readers, while other political figures continue to defend the technology as a vital tool for modern law enforcement.

Alexander Ravy Vanny, a former eight-year veteran deputy with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, was sentenced in February 2026 to six years in state prison following a highly publicized trial. Vanny, who was based out of the Hemet Sheriff's Station, weaponized his law enforcement authority to conduct a relentless stalking and harassment campaign primarily targeting his former fiancée, Madeline, after their separation in mid-2024. His actions culminated in two separate arrests, initially following a sexual assault investigation involving a department volunteer, and later for escalating stalker behavior while out on a $1 million bail.

Central to the prosecution's case was Vanny's illegal exploitation of the department's Flock ALPR network. Vanny routinely ran unauthorized searches through the protected police database to track his ex-fiancée's daily travel and pinpoint the identities of men who visited her home. Beyond the Flock system, Vanny integrated an array of high-tech surveillance tactics into his stalking campaign, including affixing physical GPS tracking devices to her vehicle, installing hidden wireless cameras in her apartment to spy on her roommate, and utilizing an illegal infrared device in his car to manipulate city traffic lights while pursuing her.

The critical escalation point of the case occurred at Chappies Bar in Hemet, where Vanny used electronic surveillance to track his ex-fiancée on a night out. Prosecutors asserted that Vanny confronted her at the bar, aggressively demanded she return home with him, and forcibly threw her into his truck against her will when she refused. While his defense attorney argued the incident was simply a misunderstood attempt to act as her designated driver, the event led to a kidnapping charge. An Indio jury ultimately deadlocked 10-2 in favor of guilt on the kidnapping count, prompting the judge to declare a mistrial for that specific charge. Rather than pursuing a retrial, prosecutors allowed the case to proceed directly to sentencing

Though the jury hung on kidnapping, Vanny was convicted on 10 other criminal counts encompassing both felony and misdemeanor offenses. His convictions included stalking, unauthorized use of protected electronic data (for the Flock database breaches), possession of child pornography, witness intimidation, illicit eavesdropping, and violating a protective order by possessing a firearm. Combined with a sentence-enhancing allegation for committing felonies while out on bail, Superior Court Judge James Hawkins ordered Vanny to serve six years behind bars at the Smith Correctional Facility.

https://mynewsla.com/crime/2025/12/06/ex-deputy-convicted-of-multiple-charges-for-stalking-harassing-former-lover-2/

One of the best-priced 3-bedrooms in Eastvale

📍 Gated community inside Gateway South, across from Eastvale Gateway

🏡 3 Bed / 4 Bath | 1,499 sq ft | Built 2015

✔️ EV-ready garage + flex space (floor 1)
✔️ Open kitchen, island, private balcony (floor 2)
✔️ Primary suite w/ walk-in closet + 2 more beds (floor 3)
✔️ One of the lowest HOAs in the area
✔️ Resort-style pool, spa, park + BBQ
✔️ CNUSD schools
📍 Eastvale, CA DM for the address