Measure D may have been all for naught. Santa Ana Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez may not even run again for the Council in November. My sources tell me that there is a very good chance that Alvarez will be appointed to the Superior Court, in Orange County. If that happens, Alvarez will not be allowed to run for the City Council.
So why did Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido and Councilman Sal Tinajero sign on to Measure D in the first place? The answer, I think, is that the judicial appointment is not guaranteed. Claudia was hedging her bets by promoting Measure D as a back-up plan.
However, Alvarez broke the law during the Measure D campaign, which was run out of her house. A teacher was recruited by the Measure D campaign to record a robo-call that implied that the local teacher’s union was supporting Measure D. That turned out to be a lie, as the head of the Santa Ana Educator’s Association repudiated it publicly. Even worse, the call did not identify who paid for the call, which is a violation of state law.
According to the L.A. Times, “The FPPC will investigate if it receives a complaint, but it can also chose to investigate on its own, said spokesman Roman Porter. Those who make such calls without identifying themselves can be fined $5,000 per violation, he said.”
So we all need to call the FPPC and file complaints about the robo-call! To find out how to do that, go to this link. You may also call in an anonymous complaint, to 916-322-5660 or toll free at 866-ASK-FPPC.
The last thing Orange County needs is Alvarez in judicial robes! I would rather see her defeated in her Council reelection bid in November than see her sworn in as a judge. What a horrible mistake that would be!
But lawyers, and judges, are NOT allowed to break the law. Alvarez’ robo-call did break the law. Now we can make sure she is NOT appointed to the Superior Court. Call or write the FPCC right away!
The voters of Santa Ana have spoken and we should all now work together against the many problems we have in the city. I call on the Council and neighbors to put aside our differences and work together for the common good. Let’s put this election behind us and make Santa Ana a great place to live and work!! Won’t you join us?
Art, rather than saying mean things about Councilwoman Alavarez, why don’t you help her get that appointment as judge? Can you imagine the how exciting it would be for young Latinas to see someone like Claudia, born in Mexico, attain such a post? We should all be rooting for her. Vaya con Dios Claudia! Se se puede!!!
Posters 1 and 2,
Nice try, but no cigar. The voters have indeed spoken, and almost half of them are pretty pissed off about Measure D – and at Claudia, Sal and Miguel.
And no, I don’t think we ought to be rooting for Alvarez, who lied, lied, lied during the Measure D campaign.
Once the FPPC pursues a complaint against Claudia, her chances of becoming a judge will be zero.
She should be in front of a judge, not on the bench.
“So we all need to call the FPPC and file complaints about the robo-call!”
Give it a rest already. Your side lost and that’s that. No matter how much you huff and puff the results will remain the same.
The voters of Santa Ana rejected your message. These shrill attacks won’t change that.
Poster 5,
Shrill attacks? Claudia broke the law with that robo-call and she needs to answer to the FPPC. Clearly she has no respect for our election laws. This is not someone we need on a judicial bench!
#5 people that VOTE have every right to complain. If a person does not vote well they have no right to complain in my book.
I don
Did anyone call the FPPC and get a verbal answer? I am sure that is what the campaign did. they probably got the go ahead and did it. The FPPC rarely does anything in writing. As for teachers, all you need is one or two and you have santa ana teachers. It may be a tad misleading but it is not illegal. Isn’t Tinajero a teacher? doesn’t he have friends in Santa ana Unified?
So much for power of this blog.
Prop “D” is derivative of Prop 93 which prevailed overwhelmingly.
Yet none of you idiots would make any parallel to it in your propaganda.
It is not that Claudia is smart – she is only affirmative action chick – but you are stupider then her.
Wow, she’s really just not an attractive girl.
Cook,
In California, under Penal Code Section 422, a criminal threat has five elements: (1). the accused willfully threatened to commit the crime that will result in death or great bodily injury; and (2). the accused made the threat with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat; and (3). the threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and the immediate prospect of execution; and (4). the threat actually caused sustained fear in the victim; and (5). the sustained fear was reasonable.
In situations where the final two elements (4) an (5) of the crime of criminal threats are not present, the speaker may be charged with an attempt to make a criminal threat. People v. Benitez, 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 242, 251 (3rd Dist. 2001).
So for a simplicity Cook, if you can prove elements (1), (2) and (3) you can file complaint with the Orange County DA.
Art,
Did your girl, Janet Nguyen, receive a fine of $5,000 for a violation of both state law and county regulation? Her chance to be re-elected will be zero, nil, nada.
#13, you sound crazier than Art!
Poster 14,
Touche! BTW, the Claudia story has been confirmed by another pajarito. Apparently Tony Rackauckas wants very badly to move Claudia out of the office, and into judicial robes. My guess is that he has finally soured on her, and he cannot wait to “promote” her the heck out of his department! Can’t say that I blame him…”Crazy Claudia” is not someone you want to spend a lot of time with!