California Adds More States to Suggested Retirement Locations

California maintains an enemies list of other States that don’t go along with their Liberal, humanist, intolerant, and anti-Christian worldview. However, I view this list as suggested places to retire or generally get away from the tyranny of California. Places where traditional views of marriage and family are still in fashion. Yes, the home of Obama’s “bitter clingers” those places that still believe in God and guns as ways to enjoy freedom and safety both in this life and the life to come.

Instead of letting conscience be your guide—a freedom that government cannot allow—California has to do the thinking for you in order to make sure you make the” right” decision. They take the idea of “there ought to be a law…” very seriously.
Note that one metric of tyranny is the number of laws on the books that are only selectively enforced. This is contrary to equal justice for all.

Oh, and for those Liberals that might stumble across this blog, don’t ever try to tell me that you can’t legislate morality. Gary North and others rightly have pointed-out that all law at its core is religious. Here is a gem from the State of California which mandates morality and religion.

AB 1887 adds section 11139.8 to the California Government Code and prohibits state agencies from requiring any of its employees, officers, or members to travel to any state, or approving a request for state-funded or state-sponsored travel, to any state that after June 26, 2015, has enacted the following:

• A law that voids or repeals, or has the effect of voiding or repealing, existing state or local protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
• A law that authorizes or requires discrimination against same-sex couples or their families or on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

In order to help agencies comply with the provisions of AB 1887, the California Attorney General (AG) will develop, maintain, and post on his or her website a current list of states that, after June 26, 2015, have enacted the aforementioned discriminatory laws or practices. At this time, we believe Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee meet the criteria of states that have enacted discriminatory laws after June 26, 2015.

FOUR NEW STATES ADDED: URGENT!  As of June 22, 2017, four additional States have been added to California’s ban on state-funded and state-sponsored travel.  The additional states include Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Texas, in addition to the previously banned states of Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kansas.  For additional information regarding Restricted State Travel, please review the Attorney General’s link Attorney General – AB 1887’s Travel Prohibition.

California wants to be its own country so instead of seceding all at once, it is excommunicating one state at a time until it will finally be offended by all. Thus far, 14.2 percent of the country is off limits. Look for this list to grow significantly later this year when the Supreme Court upholds the right of religious people to not have to bake cakes for homosexual “marriage” ceremonies.

Meanwhile, I have yet another reason to consider Texas as a retirement destination.

BOE Update

Governor Brown signed AB 102 today which kills off the State Board of Equalization on July first. (Yes three short days from now.) Virtually all power and staff assigned to BOE are now under the direct control of the governor and not members elected by the voters of California. The new agency—California Department of Tax and Fee Administration—has spring fully formed from its parent’s corpse.

Sadly, tyranny marches on and I have yet to find anyone that even cares.

Feinstein Lies on Healthcare

Mark Twain is often credited for popularizing the statement, “there are lies, damn lie, and statistics.”

Here’s an example from today’s news.

Sen. Feinstein: 4 Million Californians Would Lose Health Care Under Senate Republicans’ Bill

California’s senior senator said Tuesday that 1.6 million Californians would lose coverage next year.

Per Cover California’s March 2017 enrollment numbers, they insure 1,386,280 people.
Thus more people would lose coverage than are even on the program!!

This includes both legal and illegal residents of the State. And furthermore, “Obamacare” (which is actually “Arnoldcare”) is the law for California whether it is nationally or not. The real issue is how much will the national government subsidize California’s utopian dreams?

I Spell William R-E-A-L-L-Y R-I-G-H-T

I’ve been a loyal reader and blogger in this space for about 10 months, but who’s counting, except maybe the CRA.  I want to just re-hash a few things William has been really right about and clear up some questions about who I really am.  First and foremost, William nailed it on healthcare. He has been saying this since late last year folks; do not kid yourself he is no Johnny come lately.  He has been pounding the table about Lyin’ Ted having never submitted any piece of legislation let alone an attempt at drafting legislation, during his brief DC tenure.  The GOP created a CRA-esque lie about all the legislation that would occur the minute they had control of all levers of DC.  This is due in part to the in depth knowledge prior to the 2016 election that the Republicans would keep the House and Senate, and in all likely hood lose the Presidency.  Then Donald J Trump won, and the congressional GOP went on full tilt.  William and I are willing to wager better than 50% of the GOP members of congress voted for Hillary or 3rd party to keep the “repeal and replace someday” slogan alive.

William also nailed it on CA GOP being relegated to third party also ran status in this state.  Truth be told, I have a feeling most of the California GOP has moved to Texas, Arizona, or Nevada already.  I look forward to the day when William makes his move and relocates closer to X.

Before I close I want to say this, it has come to my attention that 2 members of a CRA unit in south Sacramento County have been saying my columns are incorrect or full of lies.  I say this to both of them, if my analysis or anything is wrong I will happily retract and delete the fallacies.  Unfortunately there will be none, because I haven’t shared anything not true.  Aaron Park was supposed to be in jail, remember or was I wrong about that?  People who the CRA endorsed?  Was that incorrect?  These two are suffering from a term called Trumpaphobia, a term I’m coining because this is what happens when you wanted Ted Cruz to be nominated, then when that failed voted for Hillary to preserve status quo.

But here I will tell you who I really am; I am a former CRA vice-chair.  I am a former unit president.  I no longer live in the state of California. I’m not in Jefferson either for the CRA folks who read this.  Don’t even get me started on that movement.

Til next time,


Obituary: State Board of Equalization 1879 – 2017

Comedian Joan Rivers used to lament that she liked Las Vegas more when crime was organized.

Her eye was original. Twenty years ago, when everyone was talking about how wonderful it was that Vegas had been cleaned up and the mob had been thrown out, Joan said no, no, no, they are ruining the mystique. First of all, she said, those mobsters knew how to care for a lady, those guys with bent noses were respectful and gentlemen, except when they were killing you. Second, she said, organized crime is better than disorganized crime, which will replace it.

—Peggy Noonan

We here in California are in the transition from disorganized crime to organized; also known as one party rule. The consolidation of power has been breathtakingly broad in its scope and rapidity, and it’s just getting started. Last month we had the bogus transportation tax that was whisked thru the entire legislative process in seven days—yeah all committees, approval by both legislative houses, and the signature of the governor.

This month, the governor and his fellow travelers are putting on another display of raw power politics. Their latest target is the State Board of Equalization (BOE). Over the last several months, a carefully crafted plan has been systematically and flawlessly executed to do to BOE in six months what Charles Munger Jr. took a decade to do to the California Republican Party—abolish it in all but name. BOE will exist only as a vestigial organ of the State Constitution that serves no purpose.

While this could very well be one of the longest blog posts that I have ever written, I think you will be just as amazed as I was when I started digging into this campaign. Part of the length of this post is to preserve in the public domain quotations that tend to end-up behind paid firewalls of various media outlets and also to insure that I am not accused of taking things out of context.

My introduction to this subject was a peculiar post from former CRA bigshot, Steve Frank. Steve has a very abrasive way of writing and often exaggerates but given his recent humiliation in having to retract a story about Charles Munger Jr last month, I figured that he must be forced to vet his material better; at least for now.

Steve and I both know folks that work at the Board of Equalization so I figured that he must have something good. On the face of it, the claim in his post was outrageous; however, it was easy enough to verify it. The other curious thing was the dates. This article was posted on June 19th from a press release by Diane Harkey, Chairwoman of BOE, dated June 13th about a Constitutional budget deadline on June 15th.

Frank writes:

The Board of Equalization is dead.  Thanks to the Democrats, bureaucrats, instead of elected officials will decide tax cases.  In a comparatively short time—a whole government agency, elected by the people exists, now, in name only.

Death of California Board of Equalization: SB 86 and AB 102

OK, so why did Frank take so long to get this posted? He is a prolific blogger and often posts five times a day. (I think the short answer is that Harkey got no traction with the mainstream media in trying to shed some light on the governor’s actions.) I cannot find her press release on the BOE website or her linked page as Chairwoman. Also, a quick Internet search turns up nothing on this. Steve, by default, actually scooped everybody else. As I will illustrate, it’s a pyric victory because the fix was in.

Some background about BOE would be helpful to understand what is about to happen.

Established in 1879 by a constitutional amendment, the BOE was initially charged with responsibility for ensuring that county property tax assessment practices were equal and uniform throughout the state. Currently the tax programs administered by the BOE are concentrated in four general areas: sales and use taxes, property taxes, special taxes and the tax appellate program.
Link: BOE History

As currently configured, BOE has five members. Four members are elected every four years with each representing a particular area of the state and the fifth member is the State Controller.


Link: BOE map

Currently, George Runner (1) and Diane Harkey (4) are Republicans on the Board and Fiona Ma (2) and Jerome Horton (3) are the two Democrats. Ma and Harkey represent San Francisco and Los Angeles respectively. Please understand that these districts are drawn-up by population, (this issue will come up later in my discussion). The swing vote is interesting because the State Controller, Board member number 5, is a former member of BOE, Betty Yee. She formerly represented San Francisco.

Often the members of the BOE are legislators that were termed out under the legislative term limits laws. Harkey, Horton, Ma, and Runner were all in the legislature before being elected to BOE. Yee seems to have cut her political teeth in the Executive Branch.

Interestingly, no media coverage places any blame for the actions of the Legislature or Governor in this controversy on either Harkey or Runner. What has transpired is largely a Democrat operation to deal once and for all with BOE.

BOE has long been a thorn in the side of California’s elected officials. They can create precedent and have the right to modify regulatory actions enacted as a result of changes to law touching on the tax code. Arguably their most important function is as an appellate body when taxpayers want to appeal actions of the State. These appeals are not just limited to the actions of BOE but appeals of most taxing authorities in the State are routed thru BOE. BOE has been a buffer and interested third party in tax disputes. On their website you can easily find appeals of Fire Fees, Franchise Tax Board, Sales and Use Tax, and property tax matters.

The next thing to keep in mind as you read thru the material that I’m about to present is that many actions taken by BOE members with regards to civil service versus political appointees are identical to those of staff in the legislature. Legislative staffers often draw simultaneous paychecks for their civil service job at the legislature—their “day job” if you will—and also income from political consulting work for their member or other candidates. The transition from one to the other might involve carrying two cell phones or alternating schedules to accommodate the political cycle. Things during “election season” frequently operate in the gray areas of the campaign finance laws. Since the legislature writes and funds enforcement of campaign finance laws they tend to get a pass on enforcement as long as they don’t get too far out of bounds.

In short, BOE members learned how to navigate the legal minefield of civil service versus political appointee issues by their time at the legislature. My purpose is not to debate the merits of the current system, just to acknowledge how it works and to warn reads that they may encounter some hypocrisy as the story unfolds.

For most people, the current dust-up first appeared in newspapers like the Sacramento Bee in March of this year. The article below is coverage of a Department of Finance Audit.

March 24, 2017

Audit: California tax collectors on ‘parking lot duty’ for promotional events as politicos push boundaries

The audit takes particular aim at board member Jerome Horton, finding that he has reassigned public employees to work for him, arranged events that strayed from the agency’s mission and opened a call center in his district without securing the consent of his fellow elected leaders. Horton has defended his outreach events as a way to reach large numbers of taxpayers. His staff did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday.

Later on the article states:

It’s the first of several audits on the Board of Equalization that are expected to be released in coming weeks. The Legislature requested the investigation last year following another audit by State Controller Betty Yee in November 2015 that showed the agency had misallocated $47.8 million in sales tax revenue.

Further on

In one instance, the Finance Department found that 113 Board of Equalization employees spent a workday last November helping with parking and registering guests at a “connecting women to power” conference in Escondido sponsored by Board of Equalization member Diane Harkey.

Horton did what?

Unlike other elected members, Horton offers a rotational program that allows civil servants to spend a year working in his office before returning to their normal assignments.

His use of BOE resources has come under scrutiny over the years. Last year, The Bee revealed that Horton decorated his Sacramento office with $118,000 worth of designer furniture. The story prompted the agency in April to revise its procurement policies in a manner that improved transparency on smaller contracts.

Horton’s “connecting women to power events” have gained press attention intermittently since 2010, with reports in Bloomberg and the Los Angeles Times noting the connection between his Board of Equalization events and a nonprofit foundation that his wife created. Last year, Horton solicited $81,500 in donations to the nonprofit, California Educational Solutions, to support the business conference and a project he promotes that helps lower-income families get help filing income taxes.

Please note that Betty Yee moved from BOE to SCO (State Controller’s Office) in 2015 and one of her first acts was to audit BOE. Her audit found an error rate of 0.07967 percent for an agency that handles 60 billion dollars. Folks, that’s statistically zero. This and the fact that BOE employees move back and forth from political to civil service jobs in exactly the same way as the legislative staffers is the basis for all that follows.

Three days later, BOE member Fiona Ma chimed in

Link: Ma Letter #1

Dear Governor Brown:

I am writing to ask that you immediately appoint a Public Trustee to manage the day-to-day affairs of the California Board of Equalization. This extraordinary step is necessary and appropriate to restore public trust and to address the various serious issues outlined by the recent Department of Finance audit.

At this point, you have Yee and Ma both tag teaming to paint a bullseye on BOE as the focus of scandal while throwing their fellow Democrat Horton under the bus.

About two weeks later, Governor Brown jumps on the bandwagon and calls for an investigation.

April 13, 2017

Gov. Brown calls for an investigation of alleged mismanagement at California’s tax board

Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday asked state prosecutors to investigate allegations that employees of the state Board of Equalization misused state resources.

He also suspended the board’s ability to approve new contracts, hires and promotions, requiring those actions to be approved by other agencies including the Department of General Services.

In a letter to board members, Brown also said he would ask legislative leaders to come up with new laws to address “serious problems” with the agency that were identified in a recent state Department of Finance audit. The audit uncovered mismanagement in the agency, which is responsible for collecting $60 billion in taxes annually.

Once Governor Brown chimes in, BOE is not just a local or state story; it is elevated to a national story.

April 14, 2017

California’s Tax Collection Agency Engulfed in Scandal

Five weeks later, Ma is back and proclaiming that things are even more dire than she thought back in March.

May 23, 2017
Link: Ma Letter #2

In response to my letter to the Governor on March 27, 2017 (see attached), I am encouraged by the Governor’s actions that instituted additional controls of the BOE operations by suspending BOE’s delegated authority for making decisions on personnel, contracting, and technology matters.

However, more still needs to be done. I am writing to strongly urge the Legislature to immediately direct the State Auditor to investigate the day-to-day affairs of the BOE, and issue a report to the Legislature and Governor on or before February 1, 2018. The report should include recommendations to the Legislature and Governor on administrative and legislative remedies to immediately address the findings in the various audits.

Two days later, this editorial was published

May 25, 2017
California Board of Equalization, classic case of going astray

The board’s refusal to embrace a single governance policy this week makes no sense. Meanwhile, board member Fiona Ma wants another state audit. What a mess. If the Board of Equalization won’t reform itself, Gov. Jerry Brown and the state Legislature should force needed changes upon it.

Three weeks later, Steve Frank is announcing that BOE is no more because of SB 86 and AB 102.

What happened?

In a nutshell, we just got scammed.  This whole progression was a carefully crafted campaign to discredit and then diminish the State Board of Equalization. Yee and Ma were working hand-in-hand with their party leadership to destroy BOE and replace it with a new agency controlled by handpicked people loyal to the governor. This kind of tactic and its scale were once common in the Soviet Union but are unfamiliar to most in this country.

My primary piece of evidence is the fact that the legislation to abolish BOE and replace it with handpicked bureaucrats appointed by the Governor was introduced in both house of the legislature in January of this year. Yep, over two months before the media campaign against BOE was launched.

Below is a summary of the legislation as it appeared earlier this week.

SB 86 introduced January 11, 2017

This bill would establish, in the Government Operations Agency, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration and would place the department under the control of a director appointed by the Governor and subject to confirmation by the Senate. The bill would also authorize the Governor to appoint a chief deputy director and a chief counsel.

This bill would transfer to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration the various duties, powers, and responsibilities of the State Board of Equalization relating to the administration of various taxes and fees except for those duties, powers, and responsibilities imposed or conferred upon the board by the California Constitution, as specified, and the duty to adjust the motor vehicle fuel tax rate for the 2018–19 fiscal year. The bill would, for these purposes, also provide for the transfer to the department of the board’s employees serving in civil service, the rights and property of the board, and the board’s funding, as provided.

This bill would authorize the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration to adopt regulations, including emergency regulations, necessary or appropriate to carry out these provisions. The bill would authorize the department to conduct certain inspections and examinations related to the administration of the taxes and fees under its jurisdiction. The bill would prohibit the director, the chief deputy director, and the chief counsel from divulging information concerning the business affairs of companies reporting to the department and would make it a crime to violate this prohibition. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would rename the secretary of the State Board of Equalization as the executive director and would specify that the board retains the authority to appoint the executive director and prescribe and enforce his or her duties. The bill would require each member of the board elected by the voters of an equalization district to have one office in Sacramento and one district office. The bill also would require each member of the board elected by the voters of an equalization district to have 2 staff persons who are exempt from civil service and other civil service staff persons, as specified. The bill would require board member procurements to be processed through the Department of General Services. The bill would repeal the authority of the board to request that the Governor convert one civil service position of the board into an exempt position, to obtain copies of licensee photographs from the Department of Motor Vehicles, and to conduct district investigations. The bill also would restrict ex parte communications in relation to a board adjudicatory proceeding.

Link: SB 86

AB 102 is virtually the same wording and was introduced January 10, 2017
Link: AB 102

The Legislature is famous for “gut and amend” bills in the eleventh hour of their closing session but this action is a magnitude of difference that is of astounding proportions. Gut and amend an entire agency and the biggest revenue generating one in the state. Wow!

The Board of Equalization will continue to exist in name only because to abolish it would require a constitutional amendment and a vote of the people. This would allow the actions of the Governor and Legislature to come under scrutiny and be subject to debate. In a one party state, this is a waste of time and resources and who knows? Having the BOE might be a good political tool to wield at some future date. If it can be unmade then it can just as easily be made into something else. (Think Mary Shelly does politics here.)

Each BOE representative will be allowed one office in Sacramento and one office in their district.

Oh, the effective date for creating the new agency and transferring all assets and responsibilities is July 1, 2017.

Today is June 23 and the bill has yet to be signed by the Governor. If the fix was not in, how would you expect a new agency to be up and running in less than a week?

Other thoughts

BOE would have had the lion’s share of the work collecting the new transportation tax enacted last month. Now the Governor can direct the money as he sees fit. Don’t be surprised if some finds its way to the bullet train to nowhere.

Lastly, BOE was the last Republican bastion in California. It was a safe harbor for people like George Runner to speak about fiscal conservatism and common sense tax policy. This bully pulpit is no more. Gone also is the safe haven for current CRA President Tom Hudson and former Sacramento County Republican Chair Sue Blake. Both Hudson and Blake are staff attorneys at BOE. The 2018 election cycle will be a much different environment for both.


Flee the Wrath to Come

John the Baptist warned those of his generation to “flee the wrath to come.” Instead of heeding his warning, he was beheaded for his trouble. Those that crucified his cousin, Jesus of Nazareth, a few years later said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”

True to their wishes, the wrath-to-come arrived in the form of a Roman army about forty years later. The wrath visited upon them and their children resulted in the death of most, the systematic and total destruction of their nation, and the enslavement of the few survivors. True to his warning, no loss of life is recorded for the Christians that obeyed the prophecy given by Jesus to flee when they saw the signs foretold.

Whether any of us can truly avoid the wrath to come upon our nation is doubtful but clearly some areas and people will do better than others. In my opinion, ground zero of the “wrath to come” is California. The late columnist Herb Caen used to call San Francisco “Bagdad by the Bay.” That was seventy years ago. Now, I think California can be thought of as “Sodom by the Sea.”

California is hell-bent on becoming “anti-America.” The people of California wish to remake the State into a dystopian socialist paradise devoid of petroleum, hydroelectric or nuclear power, water storage, commercial farming, privately owned automobiles, liberty, Christians and other bigots that insist on such Victorian ideals as right and wrong or personal responsibility, firearms, prisons, and small businesses. Instead, they want free college for all, publicly subsidized transportation, free healthcare, their own foreign policy, only electric vehicles within their borders, more government jobs, multiculturalism, legalization of recreational drugs, government backed pensions for all, and a bunch of other neo-Marxist crap dreamed up by baby-boomers.  Oh, and all this will be paid by taxes on “the rich” whoever they are.

Liberals here have successfully turned the Constitution from a document that insures liberty into the suicide pact that protects evildoing and punishes the righteous. Nothing in California escapes the corruption of the almighty State. They are going places that not even George Orwell envisioned. California and other places dominated by Liberals have metastasized into a Tim Burton-like modern twist on the Roman Empire.

While many have attempted to stem this precipitous decline in Western Culture, my wife and I, like many before us have concluded that our time in California is coming to an end. As a result, my family has developed an exit strategy. Seven years from now, we plan to be far away from the formerly golden state. The apocalypse is coming but hopefully we will time it so we are long gone when everything comes apart.

You Can’t Afford to Live Here

“A new report says that in California, the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,608 and to afford this level of rent and utilities—without paying more than 30 percent of income on housing—a household must earn $5,359 monthly or $64,311 annually.”
Link: You Can’t Afford to Live Here

The article then goes on to point out that this equates to $30.92 for a 40 hour workweek. For those of us in “the Valley” things are slightly more favorable but…



GOP Hunting Season

Today some guy that was identified as a crazy leftwing nut that supported Bernie Sanders opened fire at several Republican Congress members playing baseball.

Link: Congress baseball gunman was a Trump-hating Bernie supporter: Hero cops kill white Illinois man, 66, who opened fire on Republican lawmakers on the President’s birthday, leaving five injured

Right on cue, leading Democrats were calling for stricter gun control laws; however, none were calling for civility and an end to calls to kill President Donald Trump.

Link: Gov. McAuliffe on Scalise Shooting: ‘There Are Too Many Guns on the Street’

Link: You Can Brutally Kill Donald Trump In A New Video Game. Progressive Outrage Nowhere To Be Found.

Link: Actors ASSASSINATE ‘Trump’ in SICK Theater Play

Link: GOP rep. received threatening email with subject line ‘One down, 216 to go…’ after lawmaker shooting

It’s time for Liberals to shut up and admit that they lost in November, Get over it. This blood is on your hands.

When Cookies Attack

Cookies are what advertisers use to track your browser history and try to get you to buy stuff on the Internet but sometimes they don’t know when to say when.

From Foxnews website today

A guy dies in a car wreck so of course I need to go to the Cars movie.

This kind of inadvertent social insensitivity is where artificial intelligence could help advertisers. The keyword “die” should trump any other word in the headline. If only Google had the money to prevent such stupidity…but they get paid for views and clicks.

Prodigal Snowflake

Regrettably, CRA is not the only dumpster fire we are following these days.

The story that you are about to read is true. Names were withheld to give plausible deniability to those involved.

A young boy lived with his mother and grandparents in a village not far from the big city. Mother and grandmother doted over the boy. Mother was thrilled that her son liked many of the same things that she and grandmother liked. The young boy attended the village school. The young boy was a little slower than his peers in some areas of learning and development. Mother had two options on how to deal with this problem. Option one was to tell the son that he needs to try harder and yes it would be difficult at times. Option two was to shelter the son from his learning difficulty by convincing the teacher to selectively withhold the expectation of achieving the same standards as his peers. Mother decided that option two was better for her son.

As the son grew, he did well in school. He had great short-term memory recall and as a result, he performed well on him tests; however, logic was not his strong suit. If he was given “A” and “B”, he had difficulty getting to “C”. Others that knew him were concerned about this lack of logical thinking but since he was sheltered by mom and grandmother, nothing consequential ever resulted. At an early age it was even regarded as innocence and endearing. Of course, not knowing that he didn’t know, he thought this was the norm for people.

Like many in his generation, he was very self-focused. Upon meeting him, people were impressed with his confidence, poise, and demeanor. All anyone had to do was ask him about himself and he could talk for hours. Most adults thought he was wonderful, mature, and very together. Truly he does make a great first impression; however, those close to him notice that what other folks miss is that all he talks about is himself.

Now son is an adult. By exempting him from having to try harder in his youth, the son has not been pushed to be a fully functioning adult. Too bad for him that the real world doesn’t operate by accommodating those on the fringes of society.

Said son returned home after college and was offered a transitional period to move from being a student and into adulthood. He landed a job after college and was given a chance to live at home for $300 per month in rent. This “rent” covered his auto insurance, cell phone, and other expenses that mom was paying but felt her son should be responsible for now that he had a job. Mom continued to pay for food and did the cooking. By most standards this was a bargain. Rent also served the purpose of having him learn that along with his paycheck came the ability to pay his own way in society.

The son was told that one of the benefits of this stay at home was to get him up to speed with age appropriate responsibilities so that he could be a fully functional adult and not become the dreaded roommate from hell. However, within a short period of time it became apparent that he was unwilling to learn. He refused requests to pick-up after himself, respect others, and do his share in exchange for living at home.

Son paid no heed to those around him. When the entire household was in bed, he would do things to keep others awake. This included laundry, showers, slamming doors, having tantrums about where he left his keys, and a general disrespect of others. He was asked to shower, do laundry, and other chores while others were awake and he refused. Here are three examples compiled from eye witness accounts:

Exhibit 1 Laundry
His typical way of doing laundry was too simply to pile it on the bedroom floor until the wet towels caused the smell to become so unbearable bad that mom had to complain. Then a huge stack of it would be crammed into the washing machine with a scoop of soap and run. The clothes were frequently left at this stage of the process for several day thus necessitating the process be started all over again. Once washed, his cloths were never folded or put on hangers in the closet, instead they were wadded-up and stored on the bedroom floor or on occasion shoved in whichever dresser door was the emptiest.

Exhibit 2 Safety
One day, his hard working mom was injured at work. Mom’s back went out and she had to take time off. For several weeks, mom needed a walker and could barely move. The son had the habit of deliberately leaving his stuff in the path from the hallway to the kitchen. (Gym bag, jackets, shoes, car keys, etc.) His injured mom had to try to negotiate this minefield of crap in the common areas of the house just so she could fix the son dinner and do a few things around the house. When son was asked to be considerate of his mother’s injury, he retorted that it was unfair to be held to this standard of common decency. He felt that picking up after himself was an unrealistic expectation and he categorically refused to do it.

Exhibit 3 Dishes
While mom or others did the cooking, son was often expected to help with dishes. As you might expect by this point in the story, he approached this chore with the same gusto as laundry. Most but not all dishes made it into the dishwasher but wiping down the stove, countertops, the kitchen table and other surfaces was not done. Son dismissed the idea that cleaning the kitchen involved making it ready for the next meal. Son said that such an instruction was unfair and too difficult for him to be expected to remember despite his private college GPA of about 3.85.

After about a year of constant refusals to act his age and honor and obey him mom, the son was given the ultimatum that many parents have issued to their children, “If you don’t like it here then move out.”

For him, the ultimatum was an invitation to try the path of least resistance. He reasoned, why change or grow-up when I can solve my problem by moving out? So he did.

After living on his own for a while, the son thought it would be good to have a place to entertain people and the studio apartment that he was living in was too small for that. Thru a friend, the son was told about some poor dude that needed a roommate. I’m sure the son made a good first impression so the roommate thought he knew what kind of person that he was agreeing to live with. Son and the new roommate agreed to rent a house and each signed on for their half of a one year lease. Prior to moving into the house, the roommate knew virtually nothing about the son.

Within a short time, the roommate had had enough and asked the son to go live elsewhere. Three months after moving in, the son was shopping for a new place and by month four, the son had moved out. The new apartment where the son moved, required him to sign a one year lease.

Son now has two concurrent leases to pay. Son has maintained that it was ok to move out of the house because he could afford both leases but hoped that he could find someone to take the balance of the first lease.

Six months after signing the first lease, the son now wants to be excused from the balance that he owes. He tried asking the landlord to excuse him but they refused saying he signed the lease and thus is legally obligated to pay the money. Son thinks that it is unfair that the roommate is living by himself and really isn’t looking too hard for someone to take over the balance of the lease.

Recently the son has got it in his head that he was evicted by his old roommate despite the fact that he moved out voluntarily. Not only is he still on the lease for the house but he still retains a key. Currently, son is hunting for a lawyer to take up his cause and get him out of the remainder of the lease.

Mom is frustrated that son won’t listen to her anymore. She now regrets sheltering the son from consequences when he was a child and wishes that he had taken another path. Sadly, emotionally the son is still a child even if the calendar says he is approaching age 30. Mom jokes that the son just waited until his mid-twenties to exhibit teenaged rebellion.

If you happen to be looking on Craig’s List, Facebook, or social media for a roommate or potential spouse beware because the son is still out there.

Meanwhile, we here at ReallyRight send our condolences to the mom.