A Domestic Violence Survivors’ Advocate Takes Apart Fizzling Ling Chang’s Final Assault on Josh Newman

.

.

.

[Ed. Note: Domestic Violence Survivors’ Advocate Nancy West will be starting after the election as a contributor to OJB.  She’s taken a keen interest in the Ling-Ling Chang campaign’s bizarre and inappropriate attacks on Josh Newman regarding women’s issues.  Nancy will start out, then I’ll add some thoughts from a lawyer’s perspective towards the end.]

Strange! What could this be?

Strange! What could this be about?

Oh! It's about cynicism. Deep, scabrous, ugly cynicism -- using a domestic violence victim to bamboozle voters. And it's shameful.

Oh! It’s about cynicism. Deep, scabrous, ugly cynicism — using a domestic violence victim to bamboozle voters. And it’s shameful.

[1] Nancy’s Take on This Mailer

How many things can we find wrong with this letter/mailer by Ling Ling Chang’s representation? Let me count them. (As an advocate for domestic violence awareness, I have plenty to say about an Assemblywoman exploiting our cause.)

1. Any representative for DV survivors who takes in a battered woman knows NOT TO CALL THE ABUSER! And they certainly know not to cuss him out by leaving “an angry message” — an action Which would, in all likelihood provoke him to retaliate, thus placing the victim and the caller in heightened danger.

2. Any educated woman, as Chang claims to be, should know that leaving a voicemail is recorded, and therefore is NOT a “private remark” — rendering her voicemail legally available for publishing, and/or transferring by the receiver.

3. Anyone watching the video can clearly make the obvious distinction that Ling Ling Chang’s actual voice was added to her face and not intended to fool anyone into thinking that it was a public speech. I believe the text even asserted that Chang’s voice appeared to be electronically added to her image — but that it was definitely her voice.

4. Congratulations to the author of this mailer, who publicly admitted in writing that it is the voice of Ling Ling who speaks this way when she thinks it’s private, and further thinks this sort of behavior is in the best interest of domestic violence survivors. Thanks for the clarification.

5. I know nothing about the source of said video, however it appeared to be something that Josh (or someone favoring him) found in the Internet and shared. But why wouldn’t it be produced by the DV perp — whom she provoked with her so called “private remark” and would likely see it as an opportunity to expose her inept professionalism?

6. I didn’t see any mailers from Josh regarding this recorded voicemail — despite that such a mailer would have been a supreme opportunity to expose Ling Ling’s true colors.   But let’s keep in mind the plethora of lies Ling Ling contrived about Josh — lies that her stoop even to the all-time low of exploiting survivors of domestic violence.

And finally:  This added after finding Ling Ling’s f-bomb online. Here it is…

I can’t hear where she’s protecting, or defending a “battered woman” because this commentary is clearly provoking with comments like, “bring it on”. Contrary to defending a “battered woman” it sounds more like she’s angrily defending herself after being called a liar. This audio recording is definitely the one from the video, and in my opinion indicates that there was never a battered woman involved–  leaving me to believe wholeheartedly that Ling Ling Chang is continuing to exploit battered women to meet her ends, since this mailer arrived today.

Ling-Ling Chang’s F-Bomb-Ladden Audio – California Political Review

Candidates for public office are not perfect, just like the rest of us.  Recently, someone dredged up an audio file from 2006 attributed to Ling-Ling Chang, currently a Republican candidate for the 55th Assembly seat, who made the voice mail during the same time as her term on the Walnut Valley Water…

[2] Greg’s Take on This Mailer

As a politico, I find this mailer to be so strained that seems like the final death squawk of a dying campaign.  (Which, come to think of it, it probably is.)  As an attorney, I see it as a deliberate attempt to bamboozle voters and — through its publication — a possible ethical abuse of the legal process.

First: there’s a reason you don’t see people sending out campaign mailers saying “Candidate Z was warned to cease and desist about” some practice — and that is because being warned by an opponent’s lawyer is ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS!  I can send a “cease and desist letter” to the Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk firm tomorrow “warning them” about their practice of conspiring with a campaign to bullshit voters in campaign mailers — and it would mean NOTHING on its own.  Publicizing one’s own demand letter is unusual in the first place, as it suggests that it’s being used in a public relations stunt; doing so in the waning days of the campaign just confirms it.

Here, watch this:

I DEMAND THAT BELL, McANDREWS, AND HILTACHK NOT ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF PROCURING CORPSES OF INDIGENTS FROM THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY MORGUE, DEEP-FRYING THEM, AND SERVING THEM TO THEIR ATTORNEYS AT THEIR FIRM’S HOLIDAY PARTIES!

See?  After sending that letter, I can LEGITIMATELY send out a mailer saying that

Bell McAndrews has been warned against engaging in acts of group cannibalism!

… and it doesn’t mean a damn thing — there OR here!

If they had thought that they had a case to make, they would have filed an injunction — the way Newman did against Chang.  But instead they thought — rightly — that they were full of it.  So they “filed” a pretend case in the “court of public opinion.”  What losers!

Meanwhile, the claim that Newman altered a video with the intention of making it look like Chang was giving a speech in public itself seems likely to be actionable defamation.  There was no “assertion” going on at any point in the video — let alone a “false” one.

I really hope that Ling-Ling does include this in the counterclaim that she files after Newman sues her (and her collaborators) for libel over the heinous and defamatory stunts that they’ve pulled in this campaign.  Being a judge is hard work, and it’s always nice to have something to laugh at — before flinging it out the door and docking the filer for costs and fees.

As for voters — please don’t be fooled by these liars, because they’re not only lying, but they’re not even lying well anymore.  Just go to the voting booth tomorrow and make Ling-Ling go away.

P.S.  I don’t recall why Clarence Thomas is on this graphic I made for the 2014 campaign, so don’t even ask.  I do remember that it had something to do with Dissembling Ling lying and that it was a lot of fun to create.


About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-retired due to disability, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally runs for office against bad people who would otherwise go unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that. Corrupt party hacks hate him. He's OK with that too. He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)