glenn-church

Home

Complaint
1) 3/21/2026 - FPPC complaint filed electronically and confirmed via email f/u 3/30/2026 (automated systems not functioning property
2) 3/24/2026 - Copies of FPPC complaint & cover letters mailed to: 1) Monterey County Board of Supervisors - Clerk of Board 2) Monterey County DA 3) Monterey County Civil Grand Jury 4) California DOJ (AG) 5) FBI San Fran office 6) US Attorneys Office Northern District 7) US DOJ Public Integrity Section

Documents
view - FPPC complaint - SEI 700 related Perjury, Disclosure Fraud, Conflict of Interest (and more) (3/20/2026) - 43 pages
view - "Fraud Forest" orientation letter sent to all investigators and Supervisors - but not sent to FPPC (3/23/2026) - 6 pages
view - Cover Letter to Monterey County Board members -- sent to all investigators - but not sent to FPPC (3/23/2026) - 2 pages

Church's SEI 700 Forms

Filing Year 2023      | 2024 | 2025   | 2026
Filed w/ County Clerk 230202c 230202ca(230316) | 240307c ???     | 250302c                 ??? | 260216c
Filed w/ State (FPPC) 230202s 230202sa(230316) | ???? 240322s | 250302s 250302sa(250327) | 260217s
State Filing Index   1 2 ??? 3 4 5 6
Candidate Forms 220302 260225
Analysis - gDoc (60 pages)

Other
20170309 || 20171012 Assuming and Leaving Office - Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency - Alt. Board Member Alt. Director
20230303(20230509) - Assuming Office - Monterey One Water (Amended)
2026 filings (also bifurcated) (state - adds property and specs mkenzie jobs / cty - no mckenzi specs missing 2 properties)

The table above contains links to Monterey County California, District 2 Supervisor, Glenn Church's SEI 700 forms (Statement of Economic Interest forms).

SEI 700 form responses are the most critical information needed by the public to oversee Political, Judicial and Appointed people in a democratic system.

SEI 700 form responses are intended to expose all financial interests over $2,500 and the obvious potential sources of conflict of interest for all elected and appointed officials in the state, remembering that "judges" are also elected officials too.

Documents are to be examined, accepted and managed by 1) the locally appointed Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for each of 58 counties, 2) the elected Clerk of the County for each of 58 Counties, and 3) the Clerk for the 50 year old state oversight agency, the FPPC (the Fair Political Practices Committee).

In 2024, 2025, and 2026 Church e-filed dramatically different data to the County and the State. To the county he failed to properly disclose 1) 12M+ in commercial real estate, 45+ commercial leases, Real Estate Related LLCs with Partnerships inside them with Real Estate Brokers 2) his wife's role as Editor of the largest local paper and 3) multi-county boards. To the state he failed to disclose over a dozen county boards. And to both, he failed to disclose even more boards, per his recorded statements about being on 27 boards 4 months into his term. And these are the high points that are straight forward. There is a lot of other deceit than can be discussed. This data was submitted under penalty of perjury.

Table of Contents (for this webpage only)

Church's SEI 700 Forms

Church's 2024 and 2025 Bifurcated Filings and an intro to his woefully incomplete County Filings

Introduction to Document Stamps ( manual and electronically applied )

116 Clerks + 1 called to the Court of Public Opinion

Introduction to the FPPC Attorneys and other FPPC Key Players

Introduction to Church's 2023, 2024, & 2025 SEI 700 Forms ( paper filed in 2023 // bifurcated e-filing in 2024-2025)

2023 forms give rise to a need for Federal / Military Investigations into Church, his staff, three levels of Clerks, and at least 7 FPPC related Attorneys

2024 forms give rise to far greater Concerns for Church, his staff, the Clerks and at least 7 FPPC related Attorneys

2025 forms give rise to yet greater Concerns for Church, his staff, the Clerks and at least 7 FPPC Attorneys

2023-2025 Detailed Chronology ( Glenn Church SEI 700 Filings )

2023

2024

2025

Intro to Glenn Church

Next stop? Nobody knows...

Church's 2024 and 2025 Bifurcated Filings and an intro to his woefully incomplete County Filings

The SEI 700 forms filed with the County and the State are supposed to be the exact same document. Not merely the same content, for information control purposes, the same document.

No copy of any document should only be found at the county or the state

No different content should be found on forms with the same dates at the County and State, because it is supposed to be the same document.

For the county to have a document the state does not, and the state to have a document the county does not, Church had to engage in something improper, and 3 levels of clerks had to fail at their jobs.

Clerks are the Guards of the Gates of Democracy. They are paid handsomely to ensure cross checks on each other and complete documents are accepted, with no obvious procedural errors or omissions of material content. Clerks are the gatekeepers to a healthy, transparent Government. Clerks are to government and public safety as TSA agents are to airports and public safety. A failure of these Guards is a breach of the Gates of Democracy.

The 2024 filings above show something is very wrong. The county has a document the state doesn't have. The state has a document the county does not have AND the content is quite different. They aren't remotely the same documents nor do they have the same content.

From these two documents, it's clear someone authorized bi-furcated e-filing -- allowing an e-file submission to the county and a separate submission to the state -- in a way that destroys document integrity and chain of custody required for the proper protection of Democracy.

The two initial filings in 2025 were filed the same day but it turns out they have dramatically different content via bi-furcated e-filing too.

The 2025 amendment required by the state is not found at the county at all, and that partially makes sense as the county doesn't even know what got put on file with the state. However, the county should have never accepted the 2024 or 2025 form or allowed either to stand without amendments, due to a lack complete addresses for business listings, incomplete Verification blocks and more.

There's also major problems with the 2023 filings as well, but they are of a totally different concern.

The 2023 filings were paper filings done the old way. No e-file involved.

The most critical fact for the filing is page count, noted on page 1, by the filer. That notice ensures all pages intended to be conveyed by the filer have been given to the clerk for review and none have been lost after filing.

On the first filing Church wrote 10 pages inclusive of Schedule C's but the document on file only has 9 pages and no schedule C. On the amended filing. Church simply left the page count blank creating a patently incomplete document. Instead of rejecting the document wth no page count, three levels of clerks accepted it?

Page count errors and omissions should never have gotten past one clerk, but it seems they got past 3, including the one at the FPPC. How does that happen?

In 2023, investigations of Church , the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the Clerk of Monterey County should have been initiated by the FPPC -- long before the 2024 and 2025 events were allowed to transpire. HOWEVER, given the FPPC is allowing bi-furcated e-filings, as shown in 2024 and 2025, it means the entire Clerk cross check system at the county and state level has been dismantled. That means we have no Guards at the Gates at all even though all are drawing hefty paychecks. It means the Gates to Democracy have been breached from the inside, and facts now suggest this may have transpired many decades ago.

What you are about the read will dramatically change the way California is governed forever.

Introduction to Document Stamps ( manual and electronically applied )

Prior to Technology, an SEI 700 form would have been completed by hand or typewriter, by the Politician or appointed person and then given to the Clerk of the Board or County for review. The clerk would review for completeness, then stamp it, and then send a stamped copy to the State for their records. The state, upon receipt would review it as a cross check, stamp the same document with their own stamp such that the document had two stamps on it and they would file their copy. The two create a "chain of custody" and assurance that both county and state officials had the same document.

The image to the right shows what the state copy of Church's first 2023 filing looks like. The stamp noted with (1) is the Clerk of Monterey County's stamp. The stamp noted with (2) is that of the State / the FPPC (the Fair Political Practices Commission) .

When clerks maintain document control a document gets multiple stamps.

With the advent of the internet and "e-filing", those required to fill out this form were allowed to use an internet interface for document creation and submission. If we imagine first that an e-file system exists for the county, a proper system would enable form completion and submissions for review by the Clerk of the County. The Clerk would need to do a cursory check for reasonably completed information before applying a digital stamp.

Then what to do about the State's Copy?

The easiest thing would be to send the the state/FPPC a PDF of the digitally stamped copy, and they could then review and apply their own digital stamp to the same copy and file it for their records too.

There is no situation in which two stamps, a county stamp and a state stamp, should not be found on the FPPC copy of county level SEI 700 Forms.

When SEI 700 is filed with monterey county this is the stamp it gets.

The Stamp to the right is what is being applied by the FPPC to SEI 700 forms being e-filed with them.

For any documents relevant to a county (for county officials vs state officials) that stamp should never appear on a document that does not also have the county stamp on it.

When SEI 700 is filed with the state/.FPPC this is the stamp it gets.

Also, regarding efiling, does a "typed name on a signature line" feel like it provides the same legal bind that a hand written signature does?

Does that remove some of the zing from what is supposed to be an immediately actionable document?

Can you imagine any attorney who may want to pursue public figures for fraud would think e-filing, bi-furcated e-filing and/or a typed signature was a good idea?

Who approved the entire e-filing process, the bi-furcated e-filing process, and the use of typed signatures and when did that happen?

-------------------------------------------------------

If I told that sometime in the past, the FPPC, California's top oversight agency for political integrity, an agency run completely by California Licensed Attorneys, started to allow e-filing with typed signature and bi-furcated e-filing, with the County and the State, with absolutely no system to ensure identical data and document control, nore authorship for that matter, how would that make you feel?

Then, what if I told you that Supervisor Glenn Church took full advantage of bi-furcated efiling by presenting dramatically different information with the county and the state in 2024 and 2025 -- after doing a paper form in 2023 that had an entirely different set of issues that should have resulted in investigations of Church, and two levels of clerks by the Attorneys at the FPPC itself, how would that make you feel?

What you are about to read should startle you to no end. As you read this keep reminding yourself, this has all been overseen and rolled out by California Attorneys and Judges.

116 Clerks + 1 called to the Court of Public Opinion

There are 58 Counties in California.
Each County has a Clerk of the County which is an elected position like Sherriff , DA , Auditor, Treasurer.
Each county also has a Clerk of the Board for their Supervisors. That position is an appointed position/employee of the Board.

Thus, there are 116 County Clerks (58+58) whose primary job is Document Control.
If none of the county clerks have filed notices of concern with state and federal authorities
about loss of document control with the e-file systems,
it would suggest ALL COUNTY CLERKS and ALL CLERK OF BOARDS were organized in an odd way.

How long have they been allowing bi-furcated e-filing and direct filing with the FPPC?

Of course, the FPPC Clerk would also know there were issues. She happens to be Chinese with a PhD in Materials Engineering.
I'm confident an engineer would understand systemic document control concerns (too).
She is then supervised by 3 or more FPPC Staff Attorneys responsible for enforcement --
and 4 of the 5 Appointed FPPC Commissioner's have law degrees --
and Commissioner E. Dotson Wilson was Clerk for the CA Assembly for over 30 years.
He would instantly know this was a humongous concern .

And it's so much worse than anything you can imagine now.

Introduction to the FPPC Attorneys and other FPPC Key Players

These are the Attorneys overseeing the FPPC...

Other FPPC engaged professionals...

Extremly wealthy ex CA politician

Clerk for FPPC
PhD Materials Engineering

A CPA.

Introduction to Church's 2023, 2024, & 2025 SEI 700 Forms ( paper filed in 2023 // bifurcated e-filing in 2024-2025)

County Copies - Church's 2023 form was "paper filed". That means a paper copy was given to the clerk for recording. Oddly, as a result, paper copies had to be physically retrieved from the Clerk because apparently they can't figure out how to scan and post pdf copies (as if it's the 1990s). Church "e-filed" his 2024 and 2025 data, so pdfs for those are available via the Monterey County Website.

State Copies - The 2023, 2024 and 2025 documents were all retrieved as PDFs from the FPPC website.

The fact that the state made the "paper filed" 2023 documents easily available as pdf just like they did the 2024 and 2025 e-file records exposes Monterey County's insincerity in pretending paper filed documents should only be retrievable in person. (countyFraud#1)

2023 forms give rise to a need for Federal / Military Investigations into Church, his staff, three levels of Clerks, and at least 7 FPPC related Attorneys

2023 Gross Processing Concerns reveal numeriuos Violations of Statute and the potential for multi-tiered Civil/Criminal Conspiracies being organized, supervised, ignored, and/or concealed by at least 7 Attorneys at the FPPC.

In 2023, an SEI 700 form was filed in a patently incomplete manner. It should never have been accepted by the Clerk of Monterey County, but it was. Then an amended form was filed and accepted with the Clerk of Monterey county with an even worse procedural omission . Then both documents were mailed/transmitted to the FPPC where they are stamped 1 minute apart and the gross errors should have triggered a 2nd amended filing and investigations. At this time there is no reason to believe any investigations were initiated nor proper remedial steps taken to correct two errant filings.

202302022c 202302022s - The 20230202 Document states it has 10 pages and a schedule C, but only 9 pages and no schedule C exist. Businesses Interests were named with no descriptor for nature of business. (and other comparable concerns). The document was patently incomplete. The document should never have been accepted by the Clerk of Monterey County during intake review. For some reason, the document was accepted and stamped, but it was not immediately sent to the state. It seems after acceptance, someone realized the problems and forced an amended filing. (negligence/fraud/conspiracy/other). The county form was sent to the state 60+ days later with the ammended form.

20230202ca(20230316) 20230202sa(20230316) - The amended filing, 20230202a(20230316) , has NO PAGE COUNT noted on the first page. Other content that was previously absent was filled in albeit not satisfactory for intent of the content. The page with a list of committees that was previously page 2 was no longer included with the filing. Again, the document was patently incomplete, and should never have been accepted by the Clerk of Monterey County upon intake review for the page count omission alone. Yet, for some reason, the document was accepted and stamped. Several weeks later the original filing,(202302020) and the amended filing ( 20230202a(20230316) ) were sent/transmitted to the FPPC. The FPPC accepted and stamped both filings within 1 minute of each other. The FPPC, upon receipt of two patently incomplete documents based on bad page count notations alone -- stamped by the Clerk of Monterey County -- should have initiated / referred an investigation into 1) The Clerk of Monterey County 2) The Clerk of the Board of Supervirsors for Montrerey County and 3) Glenn Church. Furthermore, the FPPC should have demanded a 2nd ammended filing to correct the page count matter at a minimum, while also expressing concern for the missing Board / Director memberships and other matters.

What is described above exposes a system in which

The Clerk of Monterey County is artificially complicating the delivery of paper SEI 700's to the public
The Clerk of Monterey County and the Clerk of Board of Monterey County are not performing or fulfilling critical public assurance and cross check duties they are trusted and employed to execute
The FPPC is not performing or fulfilling critical public assurance and cross check duties they are trusted and employed to execute

Unknowns which are relevant to consider conspiracy...

At this time it's unknown what if any information the FPPC was provided between the original filing and the amendment -- which seemed to have transpired fully at the county level first .
At this time it's unknown what if any information the FPPC obtained between the filing of the incomplete amendment and mailing/transmittal to the FPPC.
At this time it's unknown if any actions were taken by the FPPC after stamping the documents.

Investigation Comments

No facts exist to suggest the State of California Legal Lobby has the integrity to investigate this matter. Furthermore, there is a conflict of interest given it is Licensed CA Attorneys responsible for the FPPC and they themselves are already in "oversight" roles.
Few facts exist to suggest the US Department of Justice can or should be allowed to investigate this matter without Military Oversight given the obvious concerns with the handling of the Charlie Kirk NOT 30-06 murder weapon.

And 2024 and 2025 are WORSE...

2024 forms give rise to far greater Concerns for Church, his staff, the Clerks and at least 7 FPPC related Attorneys

The 2023 forms show a proper "chain of custody" on SEI 700 forms with a Clerk of Monterey County stamp followed by an FPPC stamp.

The 2024 forms show a systemicl chain of custody breakdown where by a filer can easily get a form on the with the county that is totally different from the form filed with the State. The loss of procedural chain of custocy is beyond obscene, and it is compounded by the fact E. Dotson Wilson, a law school graduate and Clerk of the Assembly for over 30 years is one of five appointed Commissioners for the FPPC.

20240307 - In 2024, on 3/7/2024, Church "efiled" his SEI 700 form with The Clerk of Monterey County and/or the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ). The clerks should have rejected the efile submission for incomplete addresses for numerous business entities (an incomplete verificatoin block and many other things). Instead it was digitally stamped. In the event that form was deemed acceptable, a stamped copy should have then been sent by the Clerk of Monterey County or the Clerk of the Board to the FPPC. But that didn't happen.

20240322 - In 2024, on 3/22/2024, Church "efiled" his SEI 700 form directly with the FPPC . The form content on page 1 was different indicating it was not a direct copy. On pages 2 and 3, a dozen board / director listings shared on the 3/7/2024 filing had been removed and totally different board/director roles exposing participation in numerous multi- county boards were provided. These had not been disclosed by Church on any prior filings either. That submission, did, however, contain full and proper addresses for business entities in a way that had not been done 2 weeks prior when efiling with the county.

What is described above exposes a system in which

The Clerk of Monterey County, the Clerk of the Board and the FPPC are all participating in two different SEI 700 efiling systems with no "chain of custody" or document control as is required to ensure all parties have the same documents
The "digital signatures" for the efile documents are merely typed names -- thus providing no legally actionable document as is intended for the SEI 700 forms.

Church Specific Concerns

His 2024 county efiling exposed over 12 boards that should have been disclosed in 2023 paper filings. .
His 2024 county efiling was without address details he had included on his 2023 paper filings
His 2024 county efiling exposed the existance of two Real Estate Partnerships but without any information needed to identify the properties.
His 2024 state filing exposed 4 or more multi county boards that should have been disclosed in 2023 paper filings and his 2024 county efile.
His 2024 state filing concealed the 12 boards he exposes to the county two weeks prior.
His 2024 state filing exposed more detailed informaton about the real estate partnerships that was used to discover an estimated $15 Million in commercial rental properies that were not disclosed at all in 2023, with no indication they had been acquired in 2024.
Other

NOTEs:

it is common knowledge that paper forms are not available from the monterey county website. (the website shows them unavailable) Thus adding more content in 2024 to a county efile record was readily retreivable but not easy to compare to 2023 paper filings create a situation in which people might assume what was in 2024 was in 2023 and by that time he had had over 1 year to make laws without any possiblity of discvoery of his cross county Commercial Real estate interests (or others)
It is NOT common knowledge that SEI 700 form copies from the FPPC are available to the public via their website. Thus filing a different copy with the FPPC/State vs the County would have been presumed by most filers to have been only discoverable by the Clerks of Monterey County (if at all).
This filing behavior resulted in concealing information from county constituents while then exposing information to the FPPC in a way that appears as if transparency was transpiring or had transpired (while also concealing other information from them).

2025 forms give rise to yet greater Concerns for Church, his staff, the Clerks and at least 7 FPPC Attorneys

The 2024 forms expose a systemic chain of custody breakdown and a scheme to get different forms on with the County and State.

The 2025 forms expose a more deviant exploit of the system. On 3/2/2025 at 8:37am, an e-file submission was made to the state and 45 minutes later , at 9:22am, a separate and different e-file submission was made to the county. Thus anyone just comparing report dates on file with the State and County would see the same date stamp and they might "assume" those two filings were the same when they are NOT. Then, the state demanded an amended form (and the county did not, and they did not get a copy of the one demanded by the state because the reporting is now bi-furcated with no chain of custody).

20250302s - On 3/2/2025 at 8:37am Church efiles form with the state./FPPC. The multi-million dollar Freedom Real Estate Parnership disclosed in vague way in 2024 is removed and multi-county board and director disclosures are made as they were the year prior.

20250302c - On 3/2/2025 at 9:22am a totally different form copy is efiled with the county. All detailed addresses are watered down to vague like year prior for tehe county, and the 12 local board/director roles are disclosed while the multi-county are not.

20250302sa(20250327) - On 3/27/2025 an amended filing is made with the state. it appears only one board/dirctor position was added on page 2. That amended filing is not made with the county.

What is described above exposes a system in which

Repeat of 2024 - The Clerk of Monterey County, the Clerk of the Board and the FPPC are all participating in two different SEI 700 efiling systems with no "chain of custody" or document control as is required to ensure all parties have the same documents
Repeat of 2024 - The "digital signatures" for the efile documents are merely typed names -- thus providing no legally actionable document as is intended for the SEI 700 forms.

Church Specific Concerns

Those doing the efiing got more clever about trying to hide the existance of two different processes by filing on the same day and nearly the same time.
His 2025 county efiling exposed over 12 boards that wer not on his 2024 state filing or his 2023 filings
His 2025 county efiling was without address details just like in 2024, even though he had included on his 2023 paper filings
His 2025 county efiling exposed only 1 Real Estate Partnership that was totally absent from 2023 and reprsented in comparable vague in 2024.
His 2025 state filing again exposed 4 or more multi county boards that should have been disclosed in 2023 paper filings and his 2024 and 2025 county efile.
His 2025 state filing concealed the 12 boards he exposes to the county in 2025 and 2024 but not 2023
His 2025 state filing continued to expose the more detailed informaton about the real estate partnerships that was used to discover an estimated $15 Million in commercial rental properies that were not disclosed at all in 2023, with no indication they had been acquired in 2024.
Other

NOTEs:

This filing behavior resulted in concealing information from county constituents while then exposing information to the FPPC in a way that appears as if transparency was transpiring or had transpired (while also concealing other information from them).

2023-2025 Detailed Chronology ( Glenn Church SEI 700 Filings )

2023

Summary - Via paper filing, Church filed patently incomplete documents with the Clerk on two occasions. No clerks were engaging in document control. Church omitted reference to over $15 Million in commercial real estate and other facts.

1/3/2023 - Church Inagurated as District 2 Supervisor
1/26/2023 -- Church signed his first SEI 700 form.
2/2/2023 -- Church's first SEI 700 form was stamped by the County Clerk even though it was woefully flawed. He stated 10 pages but only 9 were filed and Schedule C's were identified by absent. We've documented 10 other major concerns with content and omissions. It's unclear how or why the County Clerk accepted the document. This document was NOT immediately sent to the State/FPPC for filing. It is presumed the County Clerk, after accepting the document demanded an amendment, but why accept an incomplete document? countyCopy 2023

3/3/2023 -- Church signs an Amended SEI 700 form
3/16/2023 -- Church's amended SEI 700 form is stamped by the County Clerk even though it had no page count specified at all. In this filing Church removed committee filing information he had given prior, he filled in some blanks from prior but in a way that was not responsive to the information needed, and we were still able to document 10 other major concerns. It's unclear how or why the County Clerk accepted the document. This document was NOT immediately sent to the State/FPPC. countyCopy 2023 amended

4/6/2023 3:40pm - Church's 2/2/2023 SEI 700 form is stamped as received by the FPPC. stateCopy 2023
4/6/2023 3:41pm - Church's 3/16/2023 SEI 700 form is stamped as received by the FPPC. stateCopy 2023 amended

NOTE: The FPPC filing (state filing) has both County and FPPC stamps on them as is appropriate for documenting chain of control. The county copy only has a county stamp on it.

2024

Summary - Via bi-furcated efiling, Church filed totally different fact sets with the County and State . No clerks were engaging in document control. Church included reference to over $15 Million in commercial real estate with enough clarity to identify it on his state filing only (and other concerns)

3/7/2025 11:37 PM (Tuesday) - Church e-filed his SEI 700 with the county. 20240307c

Date / Time Stamp - At this time the e-file stamp is presumed to have been applied automatically when he submitted it -- as more of a "submission stamp" not an "accepted stamp", given no clerks are expected to be working at 11:37PM on a Tuesday Evening.

Procedurally - This document was lacking in full addresses in a manner that should have warranted an amendment.

Factually - there are many contradictions between this document and his 2023 filing. This document is not on file with the FPPC.

NOTE: Confusion between submitted and accepted stamping is also known to be transpiring in Monterey County Courts.

3/22/2024: 8:48 PM (Friday) - Church e-filed this SEI 700 with the state. 20240322s

Date / Time Stamp -As with the county submission, at this time the e-file stamp is presumed to have been applied automatically when he submitted it -- as more of a "submission stamp" not an "accepted stamp", given no clerks are expected to be working at 8:48 PM on a Friday Evening.

Procedurally - This document had no County Clerk stamp on it as is required to assure document control and chain of custody.

Factually - This document contains enough information to identify over $15 Million in commercial real estate not properly disclosed prior. (and other concerns)

Summary - Church used bi-furcated form filing to get one version of his SEI 700 on with the county and another with the state. There are no document controls in place to prevent this from happening.

2025

Summary - Via bi-furcated efiling, Church filed totally different fact sets with the County and State . No clerks were engaging in document control. Church repeated the 2024 filing pattern of providing vague and incomplete information in the county filing and more complete but differrent information on the state filing.

3/2/2025 8:37 AM (Sunday) - Church e-filed his SEI 700 with the state. 20250302s

Date / Time Stamp - Like 2024 comment, at this time the e-file stamp is presumed to have been applied automatically when he submitted it -- as more of a "submission stamp" not an "accepted stamp", given no clerks are expected to be working at 8:37 AM on a Sunday Morning.

Procedurally - This document had no County Clerk stamp on it as is required to assure document control and chain of custody. This document is not on file with the county.

Factually - This document contains enough information to identify over $15 Million in commercial real estate not properly disclosed on 2023, 2024, or 2025 county filings. (and other concerns). This document is not on file with the county.

3/2/2025 9:22 AM (Sunday) - Church e-filed his SEI 700 with the county. 20250302c

Date / Time Stamp - As with 2024 comments, at this time the e-file stamp is presumed to have been applied automatically when he submitted it -- as more of a "submission stamp" not an "accepted stamp", given no clerks are expected to be working at 9:22 AM on a Sunday morning.

Procedurally - This document was lacking in full addresses and proper verification block information in a manner that should have warranted an amendment. This document is not on file with the FPPC.

Factually - this document mirrors his county 2024 filing -- but both of those contradict 2023 filings and 2024 and 2025 bi-furcated state filings. This document is not on file with the FPPC.

3/27/2025 - 9:26 AM (Thursday) - Church e-filed his ammended SEI 700 with the state. 20250302sa(20250327

Procedurally - This document had no County Clerk stamp on it as is required to assure document control and chain of custody. This document is not on file with the county.

Factually - At this time it appears only a single record was added on page 2 related to a Committee/Director/Board position he had left off. NOTE: the entire list was focused on multi-county entitities unlile the state filing.

Intro to Glenn Church

Glenn Church is the Monterey County Supervisor for District 2. Church was elected in 2022 when he was around 63 years old. Church ran on a "small businessman / local Christmas Tree Farmer / concerned about the environment and political corruption " ticket.

Church stated and suggested numerous ways he could relate to the rural hard working citizen and nobody seemed to know much about him other than what he shared.

As part of his campaign, Church mentioned his father had been supervisor for 12 years and he identified him as a Christmas tree farmer with strong environmentalist interests too. It sounded like a pretty simple "like father like son story with son just coming of age in his 60's ready to lead the community".

What was NOT covered in his campaign website the fact that his father was a Commercial Dynamo, having flipped real estate for a 100% profit before he was 18 while tending to over 200 beehives. It also was not pointed out that his father had become a county supervisor when he was in his 30's and managed Christmas tree farms in Monterey and Eldorado County CA as well as Minnesota and Massachusetts, long before air travel was affordable or cell phones for sure. He also omitted reference to his father as a Korean war veteran and having served on over 40 boards with a collective networking time of over 150 years.

What also was NOT covered was that his great great (great) grandfather was not only a farmer dating back to the 1860's he ran for Monterey County Supervisor in the 1860s -- indicating the family had political interest and understanding dating back over 160 years -- and in fact, with that knowledge, it would seem his family was likely some of the first to engage in California Politics and Commerce after a "State Constitution" had been put in place and after land grants were made.

What also was not disclosed is what seems to be a $15 Million+ real estate portfolio, 5 condos in an Antique mall, the full nature of a 30+ year soil consulting business serving S and P 500 companies, the State of CA and Stanford.

What also was not disclosed is that he may ahve been running a soils and compost busines OUT OF the local private dump -- which when all otherr facts about famliy history are put together -- seems he may have some type of vested interest in as well.

Might any of those facts caused you to question some of the statements made about his ability to relate to the working and small business man?

After a Supervisor is elected, they are required to file Statement of Economic Interest 700 forms (SEI 700 forms). These are intended to document all commercial and financial interests of a new politician such that "conflicts of interest" can be easily identified and managed properly by the media and constituents. These documents should require completion prior to an election, but that's another level of concern that will come later.

Next stop? Nobody knows...

This event with Glenn Church has exposed multiple families that date back to the founding of California and unbelievably corrupt level of thought. It has exposed the Legal Lobby engaging in the creation of systemic policies to encourage concealment of fact and fraud. It has exposed an oversight system for Politicians, Attorneys and Judges that was rigged by Attorneys and Judges for communal benefit. It has also exposed a flock of Clerks , the most important Guards of the Gates of Democracy, as corrupt as a 3$ bill.

There are case studies of countries that have worked through entrenched legal lobby corruption. Georgia, post Soviet Union break up seems to be the best example to date. There the corruption was in law enforcement and the legal lobby. This may have actually gone well past that on a scale of 10x given the population of Georgia was about 4 Million when that transpired. El Salvador has also recently recovered from a Judicial problem, but with only 6 million or so at that time, it too is at a smaller scale.

California may be able to recover from this, but the demolition and repair of the Legal Lobby, Judicial problems, Clerk problems, political problems and other Commercial Problems now known but not covered in this article like multi-decade real estate brokerage fraud and small business corruption off the charts will have to come at the County Level.

Next stop? Nobody knows...

Page updated

Report abuse