ByteSize Network

Tag: Sacramento

  • Geena Davis to Star as Dorothea Puente in HBO True Crime Drama

    Geena Davis to Star as Dorothea Puente in HBO True Crime Drama

    Geena Davis is set to star as Dorothea Puente in an upcoming HBO true crime drama. The series will explore the life and crimes of Puente, a notorious Sacramento landlady who murdered elderly and disabled boarders for their Social Security and disability checks in the 1980s. This casting brings a prominent actress to a role depicting one of America’s most infamous female serial killers.

    The production is being developed by Joshua Michael Stern, Michael Rosenbaum, and Jeff Frost. Their involvement suggests a detailed and dramatic portrayal of the events surrounding Puente’s crimes. The project aims to capture the chilling reality of the murders and the deceptive facade Puente maintained.

    The Crimes of Dorothea Puente

    Dorothea Puente’s criminal career spanned decades, evolving from petty theft and forgery to serial murder. Her most infamous period occurred in the mid-1980s in Sacramento, California. Puente operated a Victorian boarding house at 1426 F Street, catering to vulnerable individuals.

    These tenants often included the elderly, the homeless, and those with mental disabilities. Puente presented herself as a compassionate caregiver. She promised a safe haven and assistance with their finances. In reality, she systematically drugged, murdered, and buried her victims in the backyard of her residence.

    The motive for these murders was financial gain. Puente cashed her victims’ Social Security and disability checks. She forged their signatures and continued to collect their benefits long after their deaths. This scheme allowed her to maintain a comfortable lifestyle.

    Discovery of the Murders

    The discovery of Puente’s crimes began in November 1988. Social worker Judy Moise reported a missing tenant, Alvaro Montoya. Montoya was a developmentally disabled man placed in Puente’s care. Police began investigating his disappearance.

    During their initial search of the property, investigators noted disturbed earth in the backyard. Forensic teams soon began excavating the area. On November 11, 1988, the first body was unearthed. This discovery led to the unearthing of several more bodies over the following days.

    A total of seven bodies were eventually found buried on the property. Each victim had been drugged, typically with sleeping pills, and then suffocated or poisoned. The scale of the murders shocked the community and garnered national media attention.

    The Investigation and Trial

    The investigation into Dorothea Puente’s activities was extensive. Detectives uncovered a web of deception and manipulation. Puente had a history of criminal behavior, including previous convictions for fraud and robbery. She had served prison time for similar offenses involving drugging and robbing elderly people.

    Puente fled Sacramento shortly after the first body was discovered. She was apprehended in Los Angeles days later. She had attempted to find another elderly man to victimize. Her capture brought her back to Sacramento to face charges.

    The trial of Dorothea Puente began in 1993. Prosecutors presented compelling evidence. This included the bodies found in her yard, forged documents, and testimony from surviving victims and witnesses. The defense argued that the deaths were accidental or committed by others.

    On August 26, 1993, a jury convicted Dorothea Puente of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder. She was found guilty of the murders of Benjamin Fink, Leona Carpenter, and Dorothy Miller. The jury was hung on the remaining six murder counts. She received two life sentences without parole plus an additional 15 years to life. Puente maintained her innocence throughout the proceedings.

    Puente’s Earlier Criminal History

    Dorothea Puente’s criminal record predated the Sacramento boarding house murders. In the 1960s, she was convicted of operating a brothel. She also faced charges for forgery and passing bad checks. These early offenses established a pattern of deceit.

    In 1982, Puente was convicted of drugging and robbing elderly people. She served three years in prison for these crimes. Upon her release in 1985, she was forbidden from operating a boarding house. She violated this parole condition almost immediately.

    Her ability to charm and manipulate authorities and victims alike was a recurring theme. She often targeted individuals who had few family connections or who were otherwise vulnerable. This allowed her crimes to go undetected for extended periods.

    Geena Davis and the Role

    Geena Davis’s casting as Dorothea Puente marks a significant turn for the actress. Davis is known for roles in films such as Thelma & Louise, A League of Their Own, and The Accidental Tourist, for which she won an Academy Award. Her career has largely featured characters with strength and agency.

    Portraying Puente will require Davis to embody a darker, more complex character. Puente was described as outwardly benevolent but inwardly ruthless. The role presents a challenge to depict this duality. It demands a performance that conveys both the deceptive charm and the cold calculation of a serial killer.

    The true crime genre often attracts acclaimed actors. These roles allow for deep exploration of human psychology. Davis’s involvement signals the project’s ambition to be a serious dramatic work. The focus will likely be on the psychological underpinnings of Puente’s actions and the impact on her victims.

    HBO’s True Crime Portfolio

    HBO has a strong track record with true crime productions. The network has produced several acclaimed documentaries and dramas in the genre. These often explore complex criminal cases and their societal implications. Examples include The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst and I’ll Be Gone in the Dark.

    This new drama fits within HBO’s established interest in high-quality, narrative-driven true crime. The involvement of Joshua Michael Stern, Michael Rosenbaum, and Jeff Frost further supports this. Stern is known for writing and directing, while Rosenbaum and Frost have extensive production experience.

    The series will likely adopt a meticulous approach to historical accuracy. It will aim to recreate the atmosphere of 1980s Sacramento. The show will also likely delve into the systemic failures that allowed Puente’s crimes to continue. This includes an examination of social services and law enforcement responses.

    The End of Dorothea Puente

    Dorothea Puente spent the remainder of her life incarcerated. She was initially held at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla. She continued to maintain her innocence, often giving interviews from prison. She claimed the victims died naturally and that she merely buried them to avoid trouble.

    Puente died on March 27, 2011, at the age of 82. Her death occurred from natural causes at the Central California Women’s Facility. Her passing closed the chapter on one of California’s most notorious criminal cases. Her legacy remains a cautionary tale about hidden evils within communities.

    The HBO drama will bring her story to a new generation of viewers. It will revisit the chilling details of her crimes. It will also explore the societal context that allowed her to operate for so long. The series will invite audiences to confront the darker side of human nature and the vulnerabilities of society’s most marginalized members.

    Victims suffered. Families grieved. Justice was sought.

    Sacramento.

  • The Midnight Maneuver – Why Newsom is Rushing to Sink the Billionaire Tax

    The Midnight Maneuver – Why Newsom is Rushing to Sink the Billionaire Tax

    California Governor Gavin Newsom is aggressively lobbying legislative leaders to sink a proposed state wealth tax on billionaires before the June 25, 2026, legislative deadline, citing concerns over severe capital flight and the volatility of taxing unrealized gains. The clock is running out in Sacramento. If the bill advances past the final committee cutoff, it heads to the floor. The governor does not want it on the floor. He wants it dead in committee.

    Sacramento operates on deadlines. June brings the ultimate cutoff for the current legislative session. Bills that fail to pass out of their house of origin by this date are effectively dead for the year. This hard deadline forces political maneuvers into the open.

    The current iteration of the billionaire tax is the most aggressive yet. Backed by progressive lawmakers, the legislation targets the ultra-wealthy in a state known for producing them. But the political winds have shifted. California is facing structural budget deficits. The state relies heavily on a small fraction of taxpayers to fund its operations. The governor recognizes the fragility of this arrangement.

    Newsom is working the phones. His administration is leaning on committee chairs. The message is clear. The wealth tax is a non-starter. The political risk is too high. The economic risk is catastrophic.

    The Mechanics of the Billionaire Tax

    The proposed legislation is not a traditional income tax. It is a tax on net worth. The mechanics are complex and unprecedented at the state level.

    The bill establishes a 1% annual tax on global net worth exceeding $50 million. That rate climbs to 1.5% for net worth exceeding $1 billion. It applies to all assets. Real estate. Stock portfolios. Art collections. Offshore accounts. Private equity holdings.

    Taxing wealth requires valuing wealth. This is the first major hurdle. Liquid assets like publicly traded stocks are easy to value. Illiquid assets are not. Valuing a private tech startup in Silicon Valley is an exercise in speculation. Valuing a complex web of real estate holding companies takes years of forensic accounting.

    The California Franchise Tax Board would be tasked with this massive undertaking. The agency would need to hire hundreds of specialized auditors. The administrative burden alone would cost the state millions before a single dollar of revenue is collected.

    Taxing the Unrealized

    The core of the controversy lies in taxing unrealized gains. Traditional tax systems tax income when it is realized. You sell a stock, you pay tax on the profit. You sell a house, you pay tax on the gain.

    The wealth tax changes this paradigm. It taxes paper wealth. If a founder’s startup valuation jumps from $100 million to $500 million, they owe tax on that increase, even if they have not sold a single share. They have no cash from the gain, but they have a massive tax liability.

    “Taxing unrealized gains forces founders to liquidate their ownership just to pay the tax bill. It fundamentally alters the control structure of American innovation.”

    Critics argue this forces business owners into an impossible position. They must sell shares to pay the tax. Selling shares dilutes their ownership. It hands control of California companies over to outside investors. It punishes success before that success is actually monetized.

    The Silicon Valley Exodus Threat

    Capital is mobile. Billionaires are the most mobile of all. Newsom’s primary concern is not the mechanics of the tax, but the behavioral response to it.

    California has already witnessed a high-profile exodus. Elon Musk moved Tesla’s headquarters to Texas. Oracle moved to Austin. Hewlett Packard Enterprise relocated to Houston. High-profile venture capitalists and tech founders have quietly changed their primary residencies to Florida, Nevada, and Texas.

    These states have one thing in common. Zero state income tax. Zero wealth tax.

    The proposed wealth tax would accelerate this trend. The math is simple. A billionaire living in Palo Alto facing a 1.5% annual drain on their total net worth has a massive financial incentive to establish residency in Miami or Austin. A $10 billion net worth equates to a $150 million annual tax bill. Moving saves that $150 million every single year.

    • Texas offers zero state income tax and aggressive corporate incentives.
    • Florida offers zero state income tax and a booming tech sector in Miami.
    • Nevada offers zero state income tax and immediate proximity to California.

    Newsom understands this math. He knows that California cannot afford to lose its golden geese. The state’s progressive tax structure relies entirely on these ultra-high-net-worth individuals staying put.

    The Revenue Paradox

    California’s budget is a paradox. It is the fifth-largest economy in the world, yet it suffers from extreme revenue volatility. This volatility is tied directly to the stock market.

    The top 1% of earners in California pay nearly 50% of all personal income tax collected by the state. When the stock market booms, tax revenues soar. The state runs massive surpluses. When the tech sector slumps and IPOs dry up, tax revenues plummet. The state faces massive deficits.

    In 2026, California is grappling with this exact deficit scenario. Progressive lawmakers view the wealth tax as the solution. They project it could raise over $20 billion annually. They want to use this revenue to fund education, healthcare, and green energy initiatives.

    The governor’s office views these projections as fantasy. The projections assume the billionaires will stay and pay. The administration believes they will leave. If just ten of California’s wealthiest residents relocate, the state loses billions in existing income tax revenue, far outweighing any gains from the new wealth tax.

    It is a classic Laffer Curve dilemma. Raising the tax rate too high actually decreases total tax revenue. Newsom is a Democrat, but on this issue, he is acting as a fiscal pragmatist. He is protecting the existing tax base.

    The Exit Tax Provision

    Lawmakers anticipated the capital flight argument. To counter it, they included an unprecedented enforcement mechanism. The exit tax.

    Under the proposed legislation, moving out of California does not immediately sever the tax liability. The wealth tax would follow former residents. It would apply to a declining percentage of their wealth for four years after they establish residency in another state.

    If a billionaire moves to Texas in 2027, California would still claim the right to tax a portion of their global wealth in 2028, 2029, and 2030.

    Legal scholars have immediately flagged this provision. It faces massive constitutional hurdles. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to travel freely between states. The Commerce Clause prevents states from unduly burdening interstate commerce.

    Attempting to tax a resident of Texas on wealth held outside of California is a legal minefield. It guarantees years of litigation in federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court would almost certainly intervene. Newsom’s legal team has warned him that the exit tax is likely unconstitutional and unenforceable.

    The Political Calculus for Higher Office

    Newsom’s actions in Sacramento are never purely local. They are always viewed through the lens of national ambitions.

    The 2028 presidential cycle is already taking shape. Newsom has spent years building a national profile. He has debated Republican governors. He has campaigned in red states. He is positioning himself as a pragmatic progressive capable of winning a general election.

    A state-level wealth tax is toxic to a national campaign. It alienates the moderate swing voters necessary to win the presidency. It provides endless ammunition for political opponents. It paints the candidate as a radical wealth confiscator.

    More importantly, it alienates the donor class. Presidential campaigns require billions of dollars. Silicon Valley is a primary ATM for the Democratic Party. Newsom cannot afford to go to war with the very people he will need to fund a future national campaign.

    Sinking the billionaire tax allows Newsom to thread the needle. He maintains his pro-business credentials. He protects the state budget from capital flight. He avoids a messy constitutional battle over the exit tax. He keeps his national viability intact.

    The Mechanics of Killing a Bill

    Governors rarely veto bills of this magnitude. A veto is a public confrontation. It forces a messy override battle. The preferred method is quiet execution.

    Newsom is utilizing the legislative chokepoints. The Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee is the first hurdle. The Senate Appropriations Committee is the ultimate graveyard. Bills that cost the state money are sent to the Appropriations “suspense file.”

    The suspense file is where controversial legislation goes to die without a public vote. Committee chairs, working in tandem with legislative leadership and the governor’s office, simply hold the bills in committee. When the June deadline passes, the bills expire silently.

    This requires intense backroom lobbying. Newsom’s staff is presenting the stark budget realities to committee members. They are highlighting the legal vulnerabilities of the exit tax. They are providing internal data on recent high-net-worth departures. They are giving lawmakers the political cover they need to let the bill stall.

    What Happens After the Deadline

    If Newsom succeeds and the bill dies on June 25, the issue will not disappear. The structural deficit remains. The progressive base will demand alternative revenue sources.

    The battle will likely shift to the ballot box. California’s initiative process allows advocacy groups to bypass the legislature entirely. If they gather enough signatures, they can place a wealth tax directly before the voters in a future election.

    A ballot initiative is much harder for a governor to control. It requires a massive, expensive opposition campaign. Business groups like the California Chamber of Commerce are already building war chests for this exact scenario.

    For now, the focus is the June deadline. The governor is playing defense. He is protecting the fragile ecosystem of California’s economy. He is guarding his own political future.

    The clock ticks down in the capital. Lawmakers draft the bills. Lobbyists make the calls. Governors draw the line. Sacramento.