.
.
.
By overwhelming public request, the Orange Juice Blog is KEEPING IT SIMPLE here. Most of these recommendations are from Greg Diamond and/or Vern Nelson, who both happen to be Democrats. When Vern and Greg disagree that will be noted. When our other bloggers, such as Ryan who is a Republican, agree or disagree, that will also be noted.
When we can, for if you’re interested, we will link to our previous oceans of commentary of why we made each of these recommendations. Now VOTE! (But maybe not TOO early if you’re still not sure…)
Statewide Offices
Governor: JOHN CHIANG! “EVERYBODY JOHN CHIANG TONIGHT!”
Lieutenant Governor: ELENI KOUNALAKIS.
Secretary of State: Vern says RUBEN MAJOR.
Controller: Vern says BETTY YEE.
Treasurer: Vern says FIONA MA.
Attorney General: DAVE JONES!
Insurance Commissioner: Vern says ASIF MAHMOOD.
Member, State Board of Equalization: DAVID DODSON!
United States Senator: Vern says KEVIN DE LEON. Greg says HILDEBRAND.
U. S. Representatives
The Fighting 38th – LINDA SANCHEZ
The Fighting 39th – Greg says THORBURN. Vern & Donovan say CISNEROS. Ryan says SHAWN NELSON.
The Fighting 45th – We have NO IDEA. But whoever gets thru to fight Lying Mimi, we will fully support in November.
The Fighting 46th – Vern says write in LOU NOBLE. Donovan’s choice LOU CORREA will win in a cakewalk anyway.
The Fighting 47th – ALAN LOWENTHAL.
The Fighting 48th – Vern says HARLEY ROUDA, Greg is staying mum.
The Fighting 49th – DOUG APPLEGATE, hands down.
State Legislative Offices
State Senate
District 29 Recall of Josh Newman? Greg, Vern, and Donovan say HELL NO!
. . . . . . But Ryan says YES!
District 29 replacement if Josh N is recalled? Vern says Bruce Whitaker; Ryan says either Whitaker or Ferguson. Greg says that unless your choice is Ling-Ling Chang, your choice is going to lose — so don’t vote for the recall because Ling-Ling is just playing you for a fool.
District 32 – ALI TAJ.
District 34 – JESTIN SAMSON!
District 36 – MARGGIE CASTELLANOS!
Assembly
District 55 – Vern doesn’t like any of the candidates. Greg is writing in GIL CISNEROS. He is from Yorba Linda and HE could win!
District 65 – SHARON QUIRK SILVA!
District 68 – MICHELLE DUMAN
District 69 – Vern says write somebody in; Vern wrote Jeanine Robbins.
District 72 – JOSH LOWENTHAL!
District 73 – SCOTT RHINEHART!
District 74 – COTTIE PETRIE-NORRIS!
NONPARTISAN OFFICES
Judge of Superior Court Office 13 – KEEP TED HOWARD, we haven’t heard anything bad about him and have no idea why someone’s running against him.
Superintendent of Public Instruction – TONY THURMOND!!! Important!
County Superintendent of Schools – Write in Gina Clayton-Tarvin!
COUNTY OF ORANGE
Supervisor, 2nd District – BRENDON PERKINS!
Supervisor, 4th District – Vern unenthusiastically says JOE KERR, as the preferred Cynthia Aguirre has no chance. Greg was that sole holdout in DPOC against endorsing Kerr — he likes Kerr but preferred no endorsement — but with Doug Chaffee spending freely he is now falling in line behind Kerr. Bothe Vern and Greg see Chaffee and Lucille Kring as the worst choices in their respective major parties, with Kring winning worst overall.
. . . . . . . . . Ryan and Cynthia say TIM SHAW
. . . . . . . . .
Supervisor, 5th District – Seriously, everybody write in former San Clemente mayor KATHLEEN WARD, who has worked hard (AGAINST Supervisor Lisa Bartlett) to keep the 241 toll road from being extended through the south county. Vern story coming.
Assessor – NATHANIEL FERNANDEZ EPSTEIN!
Auditor-Controller – Vern says TONI SMART, Greg finally agrees! TO-NI, TO-NI!
Clerk-Recorder – Vern says old OJ friend HUGH NGUYEN!
District Attorney – BRETT MURDOCK!!! The three others are UNTHINKABLE.
Sheriff-Coroner – DUKE NGUYEN!
Treasurer – Write in CYNTHIA AGUIRRE!
County Board of Education, Dist. 2: DAVID BOYD!
County Board of Education, Dist. 5: MARY NAVARRO!
State Ballot Measures
Prop 68 – YES (?) Vern is torn.
Prop 69 – YES ON THE JOSH NEWMAN TRANSPORTATION LOCKBOX!
Prop 70 – NO
Prop 71 – Yes.(?) Greg is torn.
Prop 72 – YES!
Local Ballot Measures
Irvine Measure B, to have an OC Veterans’ Cemetery – HELL YES!
(Any more we don’t know about? Please mention in comments.)
For superintendent of public schools don’t you mean Tony Thurmond?
Of course, we wanted to see if you were paying attention!
Leonore Albert Sheridan running”in name only”!!
Hey Vern I thought I was Donavan?…so there is a real Donavan!!..or is he in name only??
Hey thanks for your service there, compadre! (On the Lenore suit.)
But her endorsements are pouring in! And the comments on this post are just unbelievably supportive!
http://www.theliberaloc.com/2018/05/16/albert-sheridan-lands-former-california-deputy-ags-endorsement-for-da/comment-page-1/#comment-268984
“Unbelievably” is the word, all right….
Pretty sure I’m real, but then, Descartes’ arguments about “I think, therefore I am” were a bit confusing and ultimately rather circular. So far, Greg’s the only one of you guys that I’ve met in person though, but eventually that’ll change.
“The Fighting 46th – Vern says write in Lou Noble. LOU CORREA will win anyway.”
Put me down as a Correa supporter too. Met him twice at brown bag lunches and public forums and was struck by the fact that (a) he actually HAS public forums, and (b) what he’s done makes a lot of sense.
“District 29 Recall of Josh Newman? Greg and Vern say HELL NO! Ryan says YES!”
I’m in the HELL NO camp as well on this one too.
I’ll put you down as a Correa supporter, I hope I didn’t come across that way. I’m writing in Lou NOBLE, a very different person.
New to town, you lack the painful memories the rest of us have of decades of disappointments and betrayals. Ah, the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
LOL, hardly a spotless mind, but yes, quite new to town.
At some point, I’d really like to hear your and Greg’s reasons. Correa (the other Lou) strikes me as a centrist Dem – propublica puts his voting record at 88% with Lowenthal, and 90% with Linda Sanchez, whom both of you like.
Yeah, one of these days. He hasn’t been too bad of a Congressman, the year and a half he’s had.
For example, just in the past couple weeks, Lou voted with the Republicans to roll bank banking regulations. He’s always doing stuff like that.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll216.xml
*Yeah…well Lou better make sure we get our Vietnam Service Pin…..or we will have to have 2nd thoughts.
*Anyway, we totally have a different read on this election as you might gather. Katie Porter needs your vote to go against Mimi in the 45th, Ed Hernandez is a nice bald guy for Lt. Governor. Hans or Harley against Dana. Doug for Issa’s seat….but he does worry us,
he won’t answer e-mails (ours anyway!). Not a good sign. Sheriff, we are going with
Harrington (if he shaves the stash) over Barnes. (We need our Press Passes back!)
Betty Yee is too cool….for Treasurer. Xavier Becerra wins the AG race in a walk. Gavin slides in from 2nd base on a inside the park home run. The rest? Who cares?
Lt. Gov.? Hmmm. Very tough! Kamala want Elini and Feinstein seems to want Ed.
Thanks again this election Vern. You have become my go to voter guide.
Congrats Lenore, on your NEW charges of MORAL TURPITUDE http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/16-O-12958-2.pdf
COUNT FIVE
Case No. 16-0-1295 8
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1)
[Failure to Release File]
6. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1), by failing to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property, as follows: On February 11, 2016, and on July 1, 2017, respondent’s client, Nira Schwartz-Woods, instructed respondent to release her file materials and documentation to her. To date, respondent has not released to Schwartz—Woods her papers and property.
7. By not releasing Schwartz-Woods’s papers and property to her at SchwartzWoods’s request, respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property.
COUNT SIX
Case No. 16-0-12958
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d)
[Seeking to Mislead a Judge]
8. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d), by seeking to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law, as follows: on or about November 4, 2016, respondent attached as “Exhibit E” to her “Motion to Quash Subpoena for Non—Trust Fund Banking Records” which she filed with the State Bar Court in State Bar Case No. 16-O-12958, a document which she falsely declared under the penalty of perjury to be a “true and correct copy of my retainer with Nira Woods for $20,000.00” which she knew to be a false document at the time she made the declaration and provided it to the State Bar Court.
9. By filing with the State Bar Court a document which she knew to be false, and by falsely declaring under the penalty of perjury that it was a “true and correct copy of my retainer with Nira Woods for $20,000.00,” respondent sought to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
COUNT SEVEN
Case No. 16-0-12958
Business and Professions Code, section 6106
[Moral Turpitude: Misrepresentation to State Bar]
10. Respondent intentionally violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, by committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: on or about November 4, 2016, respondent attached as “Exhibit E” to her “Motion to Quash Subpoena for Non-Trust Fund Banking Records” which she filed with the State Bar Court in State Bar Case No. 16-O-12958, a document which she falsely declared under the penalty of perjury to be a “true and correct copy of my retainer with Nira Woods for $20,000.00” which she knew to be a false document at the time she made the declaration and provided it to the State Bar Court.
11. By providing to the State Bar Court a document falsely purporting to be “true and correct,” which respondent knew to be false at the time she made the declaration and provided it to the State Bar Court, respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.
12. A violation of section 6106 may result from intentional conduct or grossly negligent conduct. Respondent is charged with committing intentional misrepresentation. However, should the evidence at trial demonstrate that respondent committed misrepresentation as a result of gross negligence, respondent must still be found culpable of violating section 6106 because misrepresentation through gross negligence is a lesser included offense of intentional misrepresentation.
COUNT EIGHT
Case No. 16-O-10548
Business and Professions Code, section 6103
[Failure to Obey a Court Order]
13. Respondent disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring respondent to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of respondent’s profession which respondent ought in good faith to do or forbear by failing to comply with the court’s minute order dated February 10, 2015 , which required that respondent pay a sanction of $875 in the case entitled Bonnie L. Kent and Teri Sue Kent Love in their capacity as Joint Trustees of the James Kyle Kent, Jr. “Spousal Trust” et al. v. Fin City Foods, Inc., et al., Orange County Superior Court case number 30-2014—O0713792—CU-MC—CJ C within 30 days of service of notice of ruling, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6103.
DATED: May 14, 2018 By:
NOTICE — INACTIVE ENROLLMENT!
YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BAR COURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6007(c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT OF HARM TO THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR TO THE PUBLIC, YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS AN INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVE ENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANY DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT.
NOTICE – COST ASSESSMENT!
IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEDURES RESULT IN PUBLIC DISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE STATE BAR IN THE INVESTIGATION, HEARING AND REVIEW OF THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10.
*****************
You smell DA material? Me either.
But this IS the choice of Dan Chmielewski, the Liberal OC, and “OC DEM” … only because this blog opposes her. Thanks for helping re-elect Rackauckas, jerkoffs.
Measure B is no longer only about whether Orange County veterans will have the cemetery and memorial that they deserve on the grounds of the old El Toro Marine Base.
It has now also become about whether Irvine will allow the return to power of Larry Agran and his cult. For decades, Agran ran a one-man-rule operation in Irvine, made backroom deals with developers to the detriment of Irvine residents, and squandered hundreds of millions of dollars in an embarrassing excuse for a supposed Great Park. His authoritarian reign of terror and error has been well chronicled in the press and especially in the reporting of R. Scott Moxley at the OC Weekly. It is well-past time for it to come to an end.
If anyone needs additional reasons to vote Yes on Measure B — in addition to concern for OC veterans and their families — stopping the attempted return to power of Larry Agran is a compelling one.
See our just posted Weekend Open Thread, Mike.
RE: Prop 69, this doesn’t do what it says it does.
It’s an embarrassment to the state and an insult to your intelligence that this is even on the ballot. Vote no.
As you’ve already essentially said that getting rid of Josh is war and any tactic is justified because your opponents supposedly did it first, your judgment on both what it says and what it does is suspect.
I’d suggest that people read the Voter Information Guide before they vote, if they find your position even mildly plausible. Here, I’ll quote from it. I won’t quote the argument FOR it — that would be too obvious; I’ll quote from the argument AGAINST it!
I generally like John Moorlach despite usually disagreeing with him on issue other than improving fiscal oversight, and find that he plays a useful role in the legislature, one that is the best we can expect from a district that it unlikely to elect a Democrat ever — but he’s just plain nuts here. He goes on to ask whether they are saying that this measure — which was proposed by Josh Newman and was necessary to get hiss vote! — means that “Sacramento can’t be trusted”?
YES, SENATOR MOORLACH! THAT’S WHAT IT’S SAYING! THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THAT YOU MAKE ALL OF THE TIME: THAT FUNDS ARE SIPHONED OFF FROM THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES AND USED ELSEWHERE! AND SO REQUIRING A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF POLITICAL AGREEMENT, ONE THAT WOULD VERY LIKELY REQUIRE REPUBLICAN SUPPORT, IS A SERIOUS AND USEFUL REFORM. FOR ONE THING, IF THIS IS VIOLATED, THERE WILL BE LAWSUITS THAT CAN SHUT THAT SIPHON DOWN! DON’T PLAY US FOR IDIOTS; THIS IS THE SORT OF POLICY THAT IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES YOU YOURSELF WOULD BE PROMOTING — SO STOP THE CROCODILE TEARS AND AGREE THAT EVEN IF YOU DIDN’T LIKE THE ORIGINAL BILL, WHICH BY THE WAY IS RIGHT NOW BEING USED TO FIX THE HORROR OF THE 57/60 INTERSECTION UP WHERE JOSH’S VOTERS LIVE, IT IS A GOOD THING TO TAKE EFFORTS TO AMELIORATE ABUSE OF THE SYSTEM, YOU CLOWN!
(Whew!)
The floor is yours, Ryan. You’re not going to get away with blithe overstatements this time. I know that you’re willing to say anything you think will work to boost the Newman recall and eliminate the Democratic supermajority — about which I’d care far less about IF YOU WEREN’T TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY PARTY’S BEST STATE SENATOR (much as Moorlach is yours) — but broad swipes like this will end up all over your face.
“As you’ve already essentially said that getting rid of Josh is war . . .”
Nooooooope. Never said that.
Never said anything close to that.
Paraphrasing yoiu: “Democrats must be stopped; it’s not Newman’s fault that he’s the weakest gazelle.” That’s an argument for justifying collateral damage. I’ll have more on this tomorrow or Tuesday morning, written with sadness. You picked our best gazelle, because your party is too weak to do anything else. It’s sickening.
1) Don’t use quotes when paraphrasing
2) That’s not me.
3) I didn’t pick anyone. I waited quite some time to take a public position on the matter, actually.
I stand by opinion on my endorsement of the recall, but if you’re going to get bent out of shape about it, you could do me the decency of responding to my argument and not some Frankenstein’s monster that holds me accountable for everything anyone supporting the recall has ever said.
Prop 69 does precisely what it says it does; Moorlach’s complaint (in his anti-pro rebuttal) is that it doesn’t do MORE than it says it does. He thinks that CalTrans needs to fire 3300 architects and engineers – and designate registration fees, tonnage fees, etc. to road repair. He doesn’t actually have a problem with what this law does (except that it’s embarrassing to even claim that it’s needed).
Their attack is a variation on a straw man: the bill ONLY does what it says it does, more is needed (fire those architects!), and since all those other things they also want done, the whole thing ought to be canned. Weak.
Nooooooope. It does not.
Keep telling yourself that though. Denial’s like a nice warm blanket.
Cozy and stupifying.
How can you hold this position? That’s an adept summary of what Moorlach wrote. Several of us here can read, you know!
Because it’s correct.
If it were actually correct, you’d have a stronger argument to make.
The only reason to vote down Prop 69 is to pretend that Josh did not condition his vote on a pretty effective system to prevent abuse.
You want him to have screwed up. He didn’t. That’s inconvenient to your argument; I feel for you. Either way: Yes on 69. It’s a good move.
He made a vote based on the promise of another vote?
Sounds like vote trading. That’s a crime in this state, isn’t it?
Call the cops, Ryan. Maybe they can explain it to you.
This is a good place for me to note that “Democrat” Josh Ferguson is a total fraud. He joined the party shortly before filing, running as a Democrat because it seems like a plausible pathway to victory — which might explain why Ryan wants Josh removed. But anyone who votes yes on the recall imagining that Josh would not be replaced by Ling-Ling is deluding themselves. I notice a dearth of attacks on Ling-Ling, so maybe people have decided that that’s OK.
Testy, testy, Greg.
If a dime of lock boxed dough goes for “transit” it deserves an automatic no vote.
And of course No Kerr – Coto de Caza Carpetbagger. That goes without saying.
[Has something to say about the voter registration of one of the candidates being “American Independent.” We’ll check out whether this is so. Meanwhile, sir, stop using two different names to join in our conversations — or it’s ALL going overboard. Thanks! — Ed.]
Well, he was correct. The candidate (whom we like) did make that silly but common mistake, to register as American Independent thinking that means “independent.”
And I’m correct that this person has been using two different names. You know how to check it out.
There are two “names” sharing an IP. Could be the same person or might not. Chuck Johnson and Ryan Cantor shared the same IP address a week or two ago. I don’t know why that would be so important, there’s no slander here. I think it’s a fact that this particular candidate registered as “American Independent,” which was a silly mistake, I’m still backing them.
Dan C is always doing happy
fatdrunk man back-flips because he thinks he knows who a commenter is from their IP address, and half the time he’s wrong.To be clear, I’m not Chuck Johnson.
When new commenters show up at the same time, posting in items on the same topic, repeatedly using the same IP address, that’s a pretty good sign that there is some tie between them.
Dan is also a drunk, at least at DPOC meetings, so you should probably call them “happy drunk man back-flips.” “Drunk” is much more conducive to back-flips than “fat.” But I’d rather criticize him on more substantive grounds.
The point, though, is that they are comically unsuccessful backflips.
And nothing this commenter (s) have said are worthy of censure. Again, Toni did register as an American Independent, thinking that was independent. She’s an auditor, not a politician.
Greg, Reset your router. You should change your password while your at it.
Shouldn’t we all?
I have only ever posted as “No Name.” My husband also posted something recently under his own name. I didn’t realize spouses were not allowed to be interested in the same topic and post independently. We normally have rather different political outlooks, though we are closer than usual on the CA-39 primary. As a woman online, I prefer posting pseudonymously. (And preferably without revealing my gender; it’s well-documented that female commentators get different reactions than male ones do.)
Hey! Do you guys plan on publishing a voters guide for the November 6th election? The mail in ballots have already been delivered to OC residents, and I know most college students will be mailing them sooner rather than later because we’ll be busy studying for midterms shortly.
Im a huge appreciator of your blog as a second opinion, I like both the TLDR voters guides like this and the ones that go a little more in depth. Thanks for the work you do!
Thank you, Evelyn! It’s all a matter of time. We might do one that, at least at the start, will not be as comprehensive as usual. Or we maybe be possessed by some spirit and wake up to find ourselves having typed one in some fugue state.