Glenn Tanner – the “Losers’ Leader”: Stay tuned for the tragically sad story of Palos Verdes Estates resident Glenn Tanner and how he has coped with a life of losing. We will walk readers through his devastating defeat in the Torrance 2000 City Council election (where his ~ 7,200 vote total was merely around half of the top winner, Congressional challenger Frank Scotto). In 2015, Glenn Tanner lost again – rejected by Palos Verdes Estates in his bid to fill an open city council position (click here). Below you can read about his defeat three years later as the co-head of failed PVE Measure opposition vehicle “PVE-Smart”. Be prepared to learn of his anguish at being beaten even by small-brained peacocks who torment him in his own neighborhood. Finally, we shall write about how his reputation for being intellectually and socially challenged apparently caused him to drop out of any effort to run for PVE City Council (2018). Sit down and absorb the lawsuit filed against him by Cynthia Ahearn (2006). Is it true that his poor wife Lisa Tanner does all the heavy intellectual lifting for their little enterprise MEP (Maximum Energy Professionals, or Marketable Engineered Products, depending on the year in operation).
ALERT: Glenn Tanner kicked off Nextdoor.com by the site’s administrators for violating Community Guidelines (click here)
How Glenn Tanner’s Fragile Ego Cost the anti-tax Side the Measure E Parcel Tax Election:
Background: This section only exists due to Glenn Tanner (and associates) determining to propagate falsehoods on the same subject; the truth needed to be told. In December 2017, Glenn Tanner graciously was included in a small group meeting in a private home to discuss strategy for educating PVE voters of the prudence in voting down a prospective $45,000,000 parcel tax (Measure E). Also in attendance were four members of the Bluff Cove Homeowners Association (BCHA; http://www.bluffcove.org). Measure E was the successor to Measure D, which in March 2017 upon receiving only 60% of the vote failed to achieve the 2/3 required for special purpose (non-general) parcel taxes in California. At the meeting and in line with his reputation, Glenn struggled intellectually to conceive, much less contribute, anything but his vitriol for PVE City Council and then-Captain Mark Velez. He appeared to despise the City Council for reportedly rejecting his effort to be selected for that governmental body in 2015 when three seats were open (went to Vandever, King and Lin-Peterson). He voiced disdain for Mark Velez for what Tanner described as Velez’s alleged abuse of Tanner’s son. Glenn’s wife Lisa Tanner, though proving herself later to be one of the more duplicitous and disingenuous people some of us ever have met, did contribute the idea of marketing the Sheriff located in Malaga Cove as “PVE’s own special Sheriff dept.” However, she apparently determined later to abandon any open support for the Sheriff in favor of a confusing pro-PVEPD/anti-tax message (see below).
BCHA’s Pro-Sheriff/Anti-Tax Message: The BCHA recognized immediately that very few people in this world are willing to sacrifice personal safety/security for a City’s fiscal soundness, especially when the cost of the former amounts on average to only $800/year. The morally questionable PVEPD Union’s obvious game plan was going to be to scare voters into fearing life under the Sheriff’s protection: response times, PVE street navigation, familiarity with residents all would be fodder for fear. Therefore, it was important that the BCHA’s message make clear that the Sheriff would deliver at least the same level of personal safety as the PVEPD, but do so at a fraction of the cost. Thus, PVE residents could have their cake (personal safety) and eat it too (municipal financial soundness w/o more taxation). This message was so obviously the one that needed to be told that only fools such as Glenn Tanner, Tom Bosseler and Parvin Jensen (see below) could fail to understand it. To see the product of the BCHA’s extensive efforts, please click http://www.bluffcove.org/measure-e/
“PVE-Smart” and Its Poorly Marketed, Confusing Message: Instead of supporting the Sheriff openly, Glenn and Lisa Tanner, along with questionably qualified attorney David Rice, decided essentially to subjugate, if not ignore, the issue of personal safety via the PVEPD or LASD. It seems the reason for this came down to the absence of two traits in Glenn Tanner: courage and judgment. First, to openly and vociferously tout the Sheriff as the best choice for PVE law enforcement, one essentially is openly and vociferously rejecting the PVEPD for the same role; that takes courage, as if the PVEPD were to survive Measure E those who were pro-Sheriff had the notoriously selective-enforcement PVEPD with which to deal. Glenn Tanner, when it comes down to it, is a coward, probably due to a life of losing elections and being rejected socially for his unattractive peccadillos, uncooperative spirit and generally angry demeanor. Second, Glenn Tanner and Co. just had bad judgment, not realizing that pushing the pro-PVEPD/anti-tax message was confusing at best, and misguided at worst.
“PVE-Smart” Proves Itself to be Really, Really Dumb:
Glenn Tanner, typically given his incompetence, bungled his effort to lead the Anti-Measure E effort right out of the shute. Tanner, with an ego that is a Grand Canyon to his pothole capabilities, decided not to either a) cooperate with the BCHA to present one unified argument to appear on the ballot opposing Measure E, or b) submit one from PVE-Smart (Tanner & Rice) that would compete with the BCHA on a random, flip the coin basis to be the one appearing on the ballot. No, Tanner and Rice instead tried to outsmart the BCHA – bad move. Tanner/Rice tried to pull a quick one on the BCHA by hastily creating a formal PVE-Smart entity that these two cretins didn’t realize would stand pari-passu with the BCHA, a bonafide though under-the-radar association ahead of Measure E. Thus, instead of leapfrogging a pro-Sheriff/anti-tax individual within the BCHA, Tanner/Rice would find themselves in the same position as if they had secretly not tried to “cut the line.” It wasn’t long before Glenn Tanner exposed the depth of his stupidity: he forgot the correct name of his PVE-Smart entity and as a result entered the wrong name onto the required governmental form for submitting a ballot argument. That’s right – after all of David Rice’s hard legal work to setup the entity, Tanner couldn’t even write down the correct name of the entity submitting it! The result: only the BCHA entry qualified, and therefore was selected to appear on the Measure E ballot.
“PVE-Smart” and Its Divisive, Envious “Weasel” Tactics:
Glenn Tanner should have been used to losing by this point. The number of times the word “loser” has been attached to “Glenn Tanner” is immeasurable. However, he reportedly was in a state of shock when learning of the BCHA’s victory in the “Measure E primaries.” David Rice was livid. He foolishly had hitched his wagon to Tanner’s, and now was beginning to realize that this train’s frequent destination is the dark abyss of defeat. Now, assuming that defeating Measure E was truly Tanner/Rice’s goal, did they throw their support behind the ballot victorious BCHA, which already had erected its Measure E webpage while PVE-Smart only had registered a domain name? No, that would require humility and good judgment, both in very short support within Glenn Tanner and David Rice. Instead, they began a campaign of maligning the BCHA and its members. Yes, these fools thought that denigrating the public faces of the “No on E” movement was a wise strategy for defeating Measure E. Tanner reportedly went on a multi-month jihad against the BCHA, maligning the BCHA and its members to the local newspaper’s reporter/editor covering Measure E, on social media websites, and in private conversations. Lisa Tanner in her innately bad judgment (she married Glenn, after all) thought it would be wise to become a Nextdoor.com “lead” and work to remove users who were openly opposing Measure E. That’s right – she thought it would help beat Measure E to remove users who were opposing Measure E. Simple-minded and unfocused Glenn Tanner just didn’t get it: to anyone even slightly intelligent, it was clear that the PVEPD Union and its allies considered the BCHA to be the primary threat to Measure E passing, and thus made the BCHA the target of a smear and discrediting campaign. So what does uber-loser Tanner do? He joins the Yes side by similarly smearing and discrediting the BCHA. Tanner even would battle directly Joan Davidson, the controversial wife of councilman Sandy Davidson, all the while Joan and Sandy were fighting to discredit the BCHA. So, you had the leader of the YES side (Davidson) getting assistance from Glenn Tanner in attempts to discredit the leader of the NO side (BCHA). Yet, in Glenn Tanner’s delusional, twisted and envious mind, it was the BCHA that was divisive, despite the fact that BCHA members openly were highly supportive of everything Tanner/Rice did to oppose Measure E (even when the BCHA thought it was idiotic). Glenn Tanner’s fragile ego was in tatters – there was no way he was going to find a way to swallow his pride and do the right thing by supporting the BCHA. No, high on misguided pride and short on money, the proletariat Tanners essentially began begging for financial assistance to pay for two well-designed but terribly confusing anti-Measure E mailings. Again, the convoluted message was something to the effect, “You should vote NO on Measure E because we have this ‘fine” police department that keeps you safe and who you have grown to love, but they cost a lot of money including pensions and that is risky to the City’s financial soundness.” Yeah, that was Tanner/Rice’s brilliant messaging to oppose Measure E.
The Result – Tanner’s Idiocy Lost the Election: Measure E lost by 125-130 votes out of nearly 6,000 cast (click here). It is highly likely that had Tanner/Rice, after losing in the “primary” ballot statement contest in January 2018, determined to support rather than oppose the BCHA February-April, many more than those 130 votes would have swung toward “No.” We have heard that It was always the BCHA’s concern that “this moron Glenn Tanner” would find a way to screw things up (e.g., place a lame anti-Measure E statement on the ballot, never put up a “Vote No” website, be a divisive force against other anti-tax contingents), and sure enough, he did. After all, losing is what Tanner does best.
Tom Bosseler: a sad existence as a reportedly failed inventor; formerly of Xerox, Bosseler now reportedly spends his final years cooped up in his modest “shed” (aka extremely modest dwelling) pontificating on a social media site. Neighbors have claimed rarely to see him outside. Tommy Bosseler sadly seems to be a confused, “shed”-dwelling soul worthy of much pity. However, his poorly conceived alliance with Glenn & Lisa Tanner and associated divisiveness against the leader of the Anti-Tax Measure E platform has cemented his position on this website. Tom Bosseler pathetically has been an argumentative fixture on Nextdoor.com, making truly sad attempts to display what he considers his superior intelligence all the while exposing himself as a solitary malcontent. You can see below the increasingly typical reaction from Bosseler’s neighbors to his disruptive, divisive behavior.
Preliminary investigations into Bosseler have proven him essentially to be a non-entity both in society and professionally; this would explain why he squanders so much time on Nextdoor.com post-Measure E. Anyone with information on Tom Bosseler is encouraged to email Ankur@savepvefromtonyd.com.
Parvin Jensen: This woman is truly pathetic and it somewhat saddens one to examine her seemingly poor life. Indeed, Jensen like her leader Tanner suffers a life of losing. Even before her poorly contemplated alliance with sufferer Glenn Tanner and pseudo-intellectual Tom Bosseler, Parvin Jensen was on the losing side in PVE. In May 2017, Peasant Jensen applied for perhaps the lowest volunteer position in PVE – the Traffic Safety Committee (click here). This is a position that nobody who values their time and talent would accept, much less submit an application. Yet, after being interviewed on May 30, 2017 (click here), Parvin Jensen was rejected for one of three openings amongst only eight applicants. Alongside Tanner and Bosseler, habitual gossiper and “shed” dwelling Jensen appears to lead a tragic peasant life. Her existence is so worthy of sympathy that she may not make the cut to have her own webpage expose. Indeed, one cannot help but pity Parvin Jensen when stumbling across something she has written – it makes one wonder if she is semi-illiterate or somehow under the influence of something when writing. One thing is for sure: She does not understand that there was a First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that allows for free speech. She seems to have a fantasy that law enforcement has some duty to deprive citizens of this First Amendment right. One struggles to determine whether or not to laugh at Parvin Jensen, or cry for her. Perhaps doing both is the solution? If she is capable of using a computer, she is encouraged to Google “First Amendment right to free speech” and utilize whatever plebian education she received to comprehend its meaning. I only wish I knew how to sign off now with a little fish icon.
Definitions to be used for this webpage:
“Shed“: a relatively small sized dwelling constructed with unimpressive materials and overall quality; often built many decades in the past and resultingly having an aged appearance.
“Peasant“: a person regarded as coarse, boorish ignorant, etc.
This web page and related posts and commentary represent both facts and opinions of the Coalition to Save PVE about Glenn Tanner, Lisa Tanner, David Rice, Tom Bosseler & Parvin Jensen, and related parties, as protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Posted comments made by third parties represent their own representations of facts and own opinions.
Suggested free speech reading for “lawyers” written by the leading American First Amendment attorney UCLA professor Eugene Volokh (who has been an advisor) and thought leader attorney/professor Aaron Caplan:
One-to-one Speech vs. One-to-many Speech:
Free Speech and Civil Harassment Orders:
This is why this website never shall be forced to close by any American court of law or survive an appellate process. The U.S. Constitution is not to be ignored.