You can help us put a stop to online scams before they grow too big and end-up ruining thousands of lives. A scam is a scam, doesn’t matter if it’s big or small. Now that this is out of the way, let’s get started with the review.
Mike Carroll Iverine is a well-known name in Irvine, California, and a controversial individual. He is a city lawmaker who frequently garners media attention—thoughafterwardsarily for the proper reasons. Mike Carroll Iverine‘s past is cloudy, raising concerns about his morals and intentions.
However, his efforts to repair his reputation and rehabilitate his image have only increased scepticism about his genuine motives. This article examines Mike Carroll Iverine‘s life and career in depth, offering insight into the controversy and his claimed involvement in “Fake PR” techniques.
Mike Carroll Iverine, who was born and reared in New York, attended American University before going on to St. John’s University Law School. He would build his future legal and political careers on the knowledge and abilities he acquired throughout his university years.
Venturing into the Legal and Corporate Arena
Carroll’s legal career got off to a strong start at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, L.L.P. His abilities quickly got him hired as the general counsel and chief compliance officer of a publicly traded business on the NASDAQ. Mike Carroll Iverine afterwards relocated to another renowned law firm in New York City, where he concentrated on corporate and securities law, further honing his abilities and building his reputation in the business world.
Carroll’s professional path dramatically changed once he was elected to the Irvine City Council in 2019. His commitment to public service won him support from both parties despite their political disagreements. Carroll’s participation in the Community Services Commission and Planning Commission only served to highlight his dedication to the growth of the community. In November 2020, he was elected to a four-year term on the council, capping his political career.
Mike Carroll Iverine: Controversies and Allegations
Mike Carroll Iverine has enjoyed political success, but his administration has been dogged by scandals and claims of unethical behavior. The suspected misuse of $70,000 in city funds for mailers promoting virtual town halls was one such event. These mags, which prominently included Carroll’s name, are said to have been distributed to a limited list of addresses that Mike Carroll Iverine himself reportedly gave, raising doubts about Carroll’s motivation.
Concerning accusations of fraud that date back to 2007, there was another debate. Dee Fox, an Irvine citizen, attempted to bring up the matter during a city council meeting but was hushed by Jeff Melching, the municipal attorney. The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the council after this occurrence because it raised questions about the transparency of the council and how it handled comments from the public that might have been defamatory.
The “Fake PR” Saga
Mike Carroll Iverine has been accused of using “Fake PR” techniques to restore his reputation amid these scandals. He is accused of using several websites, including Crunchbase, AccessWire, and About. Me, to promote a favourable public image. His unexpected participation in interviews with relatively unrecognized websites has stoked rumours and prompted concerns about his honesty and integrity.
Philanthropy and Volunteer Work
Mike Carroll Iverine has participated in various voluntary and charity endeavours despite the controversy. He has been on the boards of the Orange County Press Club and OneOC, among other institutions. He received the President’s Volunteer Service Award for his unpaid labour on behalf of the Orange County Rescue Mission and its Village of Hope.
Families are important to Carroll, who lives in Irvine with his wife and two daughters. His aptitude for striking a balance between personal and professional responsibilities is impressive and says a lot about the man he is.
Despite obvious violations of city policies, Irvine continues to withhold its investigations into Councilman Carroll Mailer’s spending.
Despite unambiguous proof that City Councilman Mike Carroll Iverine broke at least one city policy, an inquiry into the $70,000 in Irvine tax money he used to buy mailers for the city appears to be stagnating at the local level.
After learning that Mike Carroll Iverine, a Republican seeking reelection to council this year, attempted to use money from his staff budget to pay for a series of mailings distributed to voters promoting virtual town halls, City Councilwoman Melissa Fox, a Democrat running for state assembly, filed a complaint against Carroll.
The mailings were distributed to addresses on Carroll’s address list rather than to the entire city and did not mention that he was running for office but prominently featured his name. Voice of OC has written to Mike Carroll Iverine and the city for clarification on the origins of the list, but neither has replied.
In an email to Voice of OC, the Fair Political Practices Commission, the top campaign finance watchdog in California, announced it would not be looking into the complaint. No explanation for this decision was provided.
According to Kimberly Edds, a spokeswoman for the Orange County District Attorney’s office, it is against company policy to acknowledge or deny the existence of an inquiry.
A month after the complaint was made, the Irvine City Council has mainly remained mute regarding their intentions to look into the matter. Council members Anthony Kuo and Farrah Khan have not responded to numerous requests for comment.
Mike Carroll Iverine declined to respond to several requests for comment but attacked Fox for using her staff budget to hire four aides, calling the allegation a “political hatchet job.”
Following the FPPC’s denial of her complaint, Fox declared she would not pursue the case any further.
“I don’t have any goals. During a phone conversation with Voice of OC, Fox stated, “It’s not my responsibility to look into other council members. I believed there to be something wrong, but it is not my place to determine whether or not that is the case.
The only council member to criticize Carroll’s behaviour is Republican Mayor Christina Shea, who demanded an investigation in an email to municipal officials that Voice of OC was able to get.
Shea asked, “I’d like to know how many other Council members make it a habit to send out unsolicited mail…and at what cost to our budget. “I think a public hearing might be necessary.”
The mayor of Irvine is the only council member who has the authority to put an item on the agenda without the approval of another council member, and Shea confirmed in a text message to Voice of OC that she intended to do so at some point in October.
Despite the absence of any official investigation, a Voice of OC investigation discovered that Caroll’s expenditures were in contravention of at least one city rule.
Mike Carroll Iverine transferred money for the mailers from his council aide account. He could not do that, though, because of the way that fund is managed under city rules.
The city regulation states that the Council Executive Assistant Program’s approved money “shall be used only for Council Executive Assistant salaries and benefits.” “City Council approval was required for the transfer and/or expenditure of Council Executive Assistant funds for other city programs/projects.”
Despite several requests, city staff has not yet made copies of the council executive aid budgets available.
Shea also requested that municipal officials investigate how Carroll distributed the mailers to the staff after hearing rumours that he did so without first going via the city manager’s office, which is against the city charter.
Even at the meeting held in response to Fox’s complaint, the council never discussed Carroll’s mailers in public. The resignation of city manager John Russo and a resolution condemning any manipulation of the US Post Office before the November election were the main subjects of conversation that evening.
Voice of OC has submitted a public documents request to the city for any communications regarding the mailers and any other details regarding what city employees learned about the expenses on Tuesday afternoon. We are awaiting the city’s answer.
Irvine City Attorney Criticized by ACLU for Silencing Public Commenter
The Irvine City Council was urged by the American Civil Liberties Union to publicly reprimand their city attorney for silencing a resident during a public debate.
The critique appears in a second letter the ACLU received from the city in the previous month.
The letter was a response to the civil rights organization’s letter to the city last month, in which they criticized the councilmembers’ plan to enforce new regulations on public speech as being unlawful.
The main grievance in the April 19 letter was on city attorney Jeff Melching preventing Dee Fox, an Irvine resident, from participating at both of the council’s March meetings. The letter praised the city for changing the rules and offered a few clarifying questions.
In light of Melching’s action, it is unclear if municipal attorneys should intervene to prevent citizens from making allegedly defamatory remarks during public discussion.
At the meeting on March 8, Fox entered and started talking about a 2007 lawsuit that named Costa Mesa homeowner Michael Carroll in a case involving fraud that both he and the Sage Credit Company settled for $65,000.
It’s unclear whether Mike Carroll Iverine who serves on the Irvine City Council is the same guy who is named in the fraud case. Questions concerning the situation received no responses from Carroll or Melching.
According to the plaintiff’s statements, Fox claimed that Mike Carroll Iverine and his partner established a network of mortgage loan branches as part of their scam.
Melching then silenced the speaker, claiming that the matter was outside the scope of what was acceptable for public debate because it was out of the city’s jurisdiction.
To be clear, Melching added, “Councilmember Mike Carroll Iverine has never been found guilty of fraud or any other crime by any court. “I’d also like to warn Ms. Fox… She is not shielded from slander or libel responsibility by speaking in this venue.
Fox terminated the call.
When Fox called to speak at the following meeting on March 22, Melching again interrupted her when she brought up the Sage Credit Company.
“A public speaker is not protected from slander under the Irvine municipal law. That is a friendly caution, not a threat, Melching added. She has already accused Councilmember Carroll of committing a felony in comments made to the city of Irivne. The documents that are supplied don’t support what she claims.
Before Fox could answer, the timer for public comments expired.
Carroll remained silent both times Fox spoke about the accusations from the dais.
There is no proof that the Michael Carroll named in the case is the same Mike Carroll Iverine who serves on the Irvine City Council, despite the ACLU attaching the lawsuit Fox was referring to in their letter.
According to Councilman Carroll’s LinkedIn page, CorpGen Counsel was his new law practice at the time the complaint was filed in 2007.
The Aames Investment Corporation, which manages a “portfolio of high-yielding subprime mortgage loans,” was mentioned as his previous employer, according to Bloomberg.
The ACLU staff argued in their letter that the city couldn’t forbid Fox from discussing the litigation; even if her words were defamatory, the right course of action would be to sue her for defamation rather than forbid her from speaking at all.
According to Peter Eliasberg, the ACLU’s Southern California chief counsel, “The City Attorney does not have the authority to silence a member of the public addressing the City Council simply because the content of the speech is unpleasant or unflattering.”
Eliasberg also that the council takes action to prevent this from happening because the new public comment rules the city approved barring “personal, impertinent, slanderous or profane” remarks could inspire more commentators to be silenced similarly.
The subject of defamation does not frequently come up at council sessions, despite Melching frequently removing commentators from other meetings for various reasons including talking about an issue that was already decided on the agenda or speaking about an issue that the city has no influence over.
Eliasberg concluded by stating that the council should “rectify any chilling effect resulting from the new language… and officially recognized (e) that Mr. Melching’s conduct was improper.”
Even if public commenters’ speeches are untrue, according to Councilman Larry Agran, they should be permitted to continue.
In a phone interview with Voice of OC, Agran stated that “the mayor, the city attorney, as well as the city clerk, should all be in the business of facilitating speech, not inhibiting it or somehow ruling it out or ordering based on content.” “Use of the word slanderous is unquestionably an unacceptable form of intimidation.
Although Carroll has made significant political and professional strides, it is impossible to overlook the claims and scandals that surround him. Serious concerns about his ethics and motivations are raised by his apparent participation in “Fake PR” tactics. While rebranding is not illegal, it is unethical to conceal the truth.
A complex individual with a diverse profession and a troubled past, Mike Carroll Iverine. His various accomplishments demonstrate his dedication to community improvement, environmental preservation, and public service.
But his alleged efforts to conceal the truth and sway public opinion serve as a reminder of how important openness, truthfulness, and integrity are in public service. The triumphs and controversies of Carroll’s journey serve as a clear reminder of the value of moral behaviour in politics.