Explosive Audio Contradicts Newsom on Deadly Wildfire Blame

Daphne Moon 0 3 min read

Newly uncovered audio evidence has emerged that directly contradicts the official narrative from Democratic California Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration regarding the catastrophic Palisades Fire, casting serious doubt on the state’s repeated denials of responsibility for the initial blaze that preceded it. This revelation centers on the Lachman Fire, which sparked on January 1st and later re-ignited into the devastating Palisades Fire, with Pacific Palisades residents having long accused the state of negligence. While Governor Newsom’s office has consistently rejected claims that the state bore any responsibility for monitoring or containing the initial fire, a KNX-AM/FM journalist has obtained a nearly three-minute recording of dispatch calls that appears to confirm the Lachman Fire originated on state park property, fundamentally undermining the administration’s defensive position.

The audio recording, a critical piece of evidence, begins with a Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority (MRCA) official contacting a dispatcher from an allied agency with State Parks, explicitly stating he was en route to a brush fire and identifying its location. The official is heard clearly stating, “If you wanted to reach out and advise the Topanga sector folks, it’s at the top of Palisades Drive,” and crucially noting that the fire was on state parks property. The dispatcher acknowledges this, responding, “Okay. All right, I’ll go ahead and reach out to the Topanga sector.” This initial exchange explicitly places the incident within the state’s jurisdiction from the moment it was reported, contradicting later claims of ignorance or non-involvement.

However, the recording reveals a concerning sequence of confusion and attempted reassignment of responsibility. When the dispatcher contacts another official to relay the information, a note of doubt is introduced. The dispatcher states, “There’s some discrepancy, but one of the MRCA units went in service and said it is to advise for that section.” The second official then pushes back forcefully, asserting, “I don’t mean to throw shade, but I’m 99% sure it is not State Parks property.” This skepticism, voiced despite the firsthand report from the MRCA official on scene, suggests an immediate bureaucratic impulse to distance the state from potential liability.

This internal doubt was swiftly overruled by on-the-ground reality. In a third call made by the dispatcher to the Fire Paramedics Operator 253 line, which was connected to a command post at Station 23, an official provides definitive confirmation. That official states unequivocally, “Yes, it is going to be in State Parks property. And yes, you do need to send a representative,” before providing a specific location. This conclusive exchange within the audio recording leaves little room for the state’s later denials, proving that state authorities were not only notified but were explicitly told to send a representative because the fire was burning on land under their stewardship.

In response to the release of this audio, the Newsom administration has doubled down through a statement from Marty Greenstein, Deputy Director of Communications & Marketing for California State Parks. Greenstein claimed, “State Parks never said, in court or otherwise, that the department was not notified of the Lachman Fire. To be clear: State Parks was not aware that there was a fire continuing to burn underground.” He further argued that the area was within Los Angeles city limits, making it the LAFD’s responsibility, and that “State Parks personnel being on scene in no way means that they were responsible for, or in control of, firefighting activities.” This legalistic parsing of responsibility stands in stark contrast to the plain language in the audio, where state officials are directly advised of a fire on their property and instructed to send a representative, indicating a clear level of operational involvement and duty of care.

This new evidence adds substantial weight to the existing allegations from residents and a separate investigative report. Following the arrest of an alleged arsonist, officials confirmed the Palisades Fire was a continuation of the Lachman Fire. Previously released text messages from firefighters had warned that the Lachman Fire had not been properly extinguished, with hot spots still smoldering, yet resources were ordered to leave the area. Furthermore, a Los Angeles Fire Department report stated a parks representative was contacted and on scene at the Lachman Fire by 4 a.m. on January 1st. All of this directly contradicts the state’s legal claim, reported by NewsNation, that victims could not blame California because the state allegedly “had no notice of the Lachman Fire from the start.” The audio recording proves that claim is demonstrably false.

The legal ramifications are significant. Over 3,500 victims of the Palisades Fire have filed a $10 billion class action lawsuit alleging negligence and mismanagement by government entities. In light of this new evidence, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge has ordered the depositions of five California State Parks employees and the turnover of related documents. Additionally, NewsNation obtained a photograph showing a California State Parks representative speaking with firefighters at the Lachman Fire site, providing visual corroboration to the audio proof that state personnel were actively involved on the ground from the earliest moments of the crisis. This accumulating body of evidence paints a picture of a state apparatus quick to deny accountability in the aftermath of a disaster, even as records emerge showing its clear connection to the chain of events.

Send this to a friend