Episode 38 - New California and Chriss Street, The CFO of Secession

In this episode of The North State Breakdown, we take a closer look at a growing secessionist movement called New California and its increasing influence in Shasta County. We explore how fringe political ideas are gaining traction through public contracts, coordinated messaging, and claims of government failure.

Transcript

Welcome to the North State Breakdown with Benjamin Nowain. Chris Street has become a familiar name in Shasta County. He was nearly appointed county CEO and recently was awarded a $40,000 contract to advise on building a health care facility without a competitive bidding process.

But his ambitions extend far beyond our county's borders. Street serves in a leadership role with New California, a movement that argues California's government has failed and must be replaced. New California refers to itself as a provisional government, according to its official communications. It has proposed its own constitution, appointed its own officials, and outlines a strategy to gain federal recognition.

But how did we get here? And why is someone with Street's background not only back in government, but shaping a blueprint that could remake it all together?

Today, we're going to break it down his history, his influence and the movement building around him.

Let's begin.

Before Chris Street arrived in Shasta County, before the rhetoric, the revival, the reinvention, he was a financial official at the center of one of the more serious fiduciary scandals in California history.

In 2010, a federal bankruptcy court ruled that Street had breached his fiduciary duty as trustee of the End of the Road Trust. The judgment? Over 7 million in damages.

The court found that Street used trust funds to pay himself excessive compensation, finance luxury hotels, hire chauffeurs, and even cover cosmetic procedures, including Botox treatments.

Judge Richard Neiter concluded that Street had depleted the trust and violated fundamental standards of oversight and transparency. Street later won a 10 million dollar malpractice suit against his attorney, but the original ruling remains fully intact. The court never reversed its findings.

He wasn't legally cleared of wrongdoing. He was compensated for his attorney's failure to defend him.

The fallout in Orange County was swift. His political mentor, John Moorlach, publicly called for his resignation. Street was stripped of his investment authority.

Instead of stepping down, Street doubled down. He held press conferences where he denied wrongdoings and blamed others for misleading the public.

Chriss Street

Street defended his record, reiterating that his office had performed well despite the court's ruling. Critics described his response as part of a recurring pattern: deny, deflect, reframe.

Even years later, Street refused to let the case go.

Street filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's judgment. The judge didn't just deny it. He called the arguments legally meritless, filled with irrelevant, verbose, and unconnected factual assertions.

Street's new evidence, the court said, had no bearing on the original findings. It was the final word in a case that defined the start of his political career, not with reform or redemption, but with litigation and deflection.

By the time Chris Street resurfaced in Shasta County, the headlines about fiduciary failure had faded from public memory. But the man who arrived wasn't changed, only rebranded.

In early 2023, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors considered hiring Street as the new County CEO. When the news broke, local pushback was immediate. Investigative articles, online comments, and public concern mounted, according to local reports, as residents learned or were reminded of Street's financial history. The board withdrew the offer before it could be finalized.

But Street wasn't finished.

In February 2025, he re-entered the picture, not through a public hiring process, but via a $40,000 contract that was awarded without a public bidding process. There was no request for proposals, no formal process, and no recent or public sector health care experience.

The contract came to public attention only after it was placed on the Board of Supervisors' agenda for approval.

Why was he being brought in? What exactly was he advising on? And who decided he was qualified?

If his role was justified on financial strategy grounds, that raises even deeper concerns. Given Street's documented record of fiduciary misconduct and his litigious nature, placing him near public budgets should have been a non-starter.

Street took to the microphone at a Board of Supervisors meeting in April 2023.

Chriss Street

The County Auditor disputed his claims shortly afterward:

Auditor Controller Nolda Short

But the damage had already been done.

That auditor was Nolda Short, Shasta County's elected Auditor-Controller.

And what makes this moment more telling is that Supervisor Kevin Crye, one of the board members closest to Street politically, has repeatedly called her his favorite public official.

District one Supervisor Kevin Crye

So when she pushed back on Street's allegations, it wasn't just a bureaucratic formality. It was a direct, data-backed rebuttal from someone he's publicly called credible.

Chris Street's reemergence in local politics wasn’t just about Shasta County. It was about something much bigger.

A second act as the Vice President of New California State, where he became the chief architect of a radical financial narrative.

His primary weapon? Fear.

In New California public calls and Zoom meetings, Street paints an apocalyptic picture of the state's economy. He calls California "structurally bankrupt," claims it's on the brink of financial collapse. Street has suggested in multiple public calls that the federal government could cut off billions in grants due to the state's mismanagement.

During a January 26, 2025 New California Zoom call, Street issued this stark warning:

Chriss Street

Zoom Meeting Attendee

Chriss Street

No documentation. No citations. Just numbers delivered with confidence.

Later in that same call, a participant asked:

Zoom Meeting Attendee

Chriss Street

He did not name any insurance carriers, cite negotiations, or explain how the discount would be implemented.

The number stood on its own, confident, specific, and unsupported.

Street uses the language of economics to legitimize radical politics.

Every claim he makes leads back to one message, California is doomed and only New California can save you.

This is a common tactic in political movements. Amplify economic anxiety with confident, number-driven predictions, then frame radical change as financial necessity.

In Street's telling, there's no room for gradual reform or democratic processes. There is only collapse, and the solution is not a vote. It's a replacement.

Chris Street's voice doesn't stop at podiums or Zoom calls. It extends into print through Mountaintop Media, a platform that critics have stated performs more like government-sponsored news rather than a reputable source of information.

It’s where economic alarmism is repackaged as commentary and used to promote the movement's ideological goals.

Street’s articles on Mountaintop Times follow a tight script, grim headlines, confident tone, and conclusions that always lead to one thing:

California is on the brink of disaster.

Here are just a few examples.

In one article, Street claims that a federal spending review caused an immediate crisis for California alone, while the rest of the country remained unaffected. That sense of California as economic outlier, and a failed one at that, runs through much of Street’s writing.

In another article, he goes further, describing the state as outright insolvent and almost entirely dependent on borrowed federal money.

And even when there are surpluses, Street casts them as temporary illusions, the product of short-term gains rather than responsible budgeting.

In this piece, Street argues that even the windfall from tech sector capital gains taxes isn’t enough to save California from structural deficits.

The throughline in all of these articles is clear. California is presented as broken Bankrupt, and on the edge of collapse.

A narrative Street repeats not only in local forums, but in every medium available to him.

This rhetoric isn't new for Street.

Back in 2009, as Orange County Treasurer, he appeared on Fox Business, predicting a U.S. credit downgrade.

News Host

Chriss Street

The message was clear: catastrophe is coming unless leadership like Street can change course.

But Street isn't the only architect of this rhetorical ecosystem.

Paul Preston, the founder of the New California movement and its self-declared Governor Pro-Tempore, isn't just a political figure. He's the ideological nucleus of the entire campaign.

Preston blends constitutional rhetoric with biblical framing, positioning himself as both strategist and moral leader.

In an April 2025 episode of Mountaintop Media, in a recorded interview with Leslie Sawyer, Preston made the following claims:

Paul Preston

In a February Zoom call, New California leaders also laid out a five-point petition to federal authorities calling for sweeping actions, including emergency powers and direct recognition:

1. Declare an insurrection in California

2. Invoke the Emergency Economic Powers Act

3. Recognize New California’s “reorganized government”

4. Declare Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations

5. Pass the New California Admissions Act, (granting them statehood)

   
   

It wasn't a traditional legal strategy. It was a request for executive action that would skip standard constitutional processes.

Mountaintop Media functions less like traditional journalism and more like an advocacy outlet for local politicians and their personal interests, including New California. For that, Chris Street is one of its most prolific contributors.

By now, the vision of New California may sound fringe. But perhaps the most surprising critics aren’t progressives or mainstream commentators. They're the founders of the State of Jefferson movement.

On April 13, 2025, the weekly radio program Jefferson State of Mind aired a broadcast that delivered a scathing takedown of Paul Preston.

Longtime Jefferson leaders Janet Chandler, Terry Rapoza, and Mark Baird didn’t just express concern:

Janet Chandler

Terry Rapoza

Winn Carpenter

Janet Chandler

Terry Rapoza

Winn Carpenter

Their critiques weren’t ideological. They were structural.

Chandler dismantled Preston’s frequent invocation of the West Virginia model:

Janet Chandler

Mark Baird, one of the Jefferson movement’s original legal strategists, was even more direct:

Mark Baird

And when the group discussed New California’s draft constitution, the alarm grew louder:

Janet Chandler

Terry Rapoza

Janet Chandler

The Jefferson movement, while ideologically distinct and often controversial — built its campaign around public process: signature drives, legal filings, town halls.

New California, by contrast, has skipped all of that.

And when those who helped pioneer secessionist thought in California are sounding the alarm, it raises a simple but crucial question:

If this isn’t what they fought for, then who exactly is it for?

Say what you will about the Jefferson movement. They have stayed committed to legal process, public accountability, and electoral legitimacy.

That alone puts them in a different category from the shadow regime forming under Chris Street and Paul Preston.

Preston has openly stated his intent to repeal Reynolds v. Sims, the Supreme Court case that guaranteed one person, one vote.

Paul Preston

That structure would give Lassen County, with a population of 30,000, the same power as Los Angeles County, with nearly 10 million.

It's not a formula for representation, but for entrenching rural dominance.

This is not a design flaw, it's the plan. This isn't just secession. This could be described as sedition in slow motion. They aren't imagining a better government. They're constructing a parallel one where control replaces consent, and they're testing it right now. In meetings, in declarations, in podcasts, and in public contracts, like the one awarded to Chris Street right here in Shasta County.

This isn't theoretical. This is a blueprint in motion.

Now this isn't just a story about New California. It's a story about Shasta County and how our institutions are being used to legitimize a movement that doesn't believe in them.

Chris Street's rise in Shasta County wasn't accidental. It was a reflection of the county's shifting political priorities.

This county, our county, is being used as a test case, a staging ground, a soft launch for something far more destabilizing.

And if we don't push back, if we don't demand transparency, accountability, and adherence to actual law, we risk becoming the first county captured by a political fantasy masquerading as a plan.

Street and Preston represent a movement that has repeatedly shown disregard for elections, transparency, and accountability, favoring power claimed without consent.

If we normalize this, we don't just lose trust in government.

We lose control of it.

And that’s The Breakdown.