1. Jordan’s Death Absolutely Demands Investigation!

Jordan Brandman, whose death was discovered at his home last Friday night, was as deeply embedded as anyone in Anaheim’s Cabal-related perfidy. He was also angry, feeling betrayed, and (we can surmise) losing the income stream he had put together during and after his time on the Anaheim City Council. He was well-placed, if he chose, to be a key witness in any upcoming investigations, civil actions, and prosecutions that might emerge over the next few years.

A piece by Jordan’s longtime booster, Public Relations professional Daniel Chmielewski, owner and essentially sole writer (if one doesn’t count press releases) of The Liberal OC blog, asserted that “Anaheim Police discovered his body after a family member requested a welfare check because Brandman would not answer his phone” and that “Multiple sources [told him that] Brandman died of an apparent overdose.” One of his sources, a “Brandman friend,” supposedly told him “‘It’s going to come out anyway, Dan, you might as well report it. … He trusted you enough to come out to you, you might as well report it.” Even presuming that such a source existed (which … we don’t) and believed that Jordan would have wanted Chmielewski to report on his death (which … we doubt) because he had been willing to come out to Chmielewski (which we … wait, huh?) the important news is that Chmielewski seems to have gotten this news especially quickly, and supposedly from “multiple sources.”

[Note that, to be fair, I’m merely presuming that Chmielweski’s acutal first name is “Daniel” given that so far as I can tell he never uses it; for all I know, it could be “Slobodan,” “Bodgan,” “Brendan,” or even … “Jordan”! (I can’t picture him being an Aidan.” And of course, he it really could just be “Dan.” Sad, if so. I’m really rooting for Slobodan, but I’d take Bogdan and the odds.]

Chmielewski’s putative source(s) helped mold the public discussion by attributing the death to an “overdose” — a detail that did not appear in other media reports of that day, which say simply that he was “found unresponsive,” that “there were no signs of foul play,” and that “a cause of death had not been revealed.” So: if it was an overdose, how did Chmielewski’s sources know it — and how did more established news (local television and print media) miss it? If Brandman committed suicide and left a note, no one has mentioned it publicly. To this day, no cause of death has been revealed. (Perhaps some established news organizations should talk to Brandman’s friends and family to see if anyone received this information, and when if so, and if that info was conveyed to Chmielewski. He will not reveal his sources, of course, but they could ask if his multiple sources are his gut and his fervid imagination.)

The “how did he die” question has displaced a far more serious one: “how do we know that there was no foul play?” There may have been “no signs of it” that night, but was his cause of death one where signs would necessarily be evident? If there were a note that we could presume that Brandman had written reasonably contemporaneously — one written in his usual script, not shakily in a way suggesting duress — then that could be highly suggestive, but no such thing has been mentioned.

Does this speculation perhaps strike the reader as morbid? It’s not — that’s why I tried to lighten thing up with the “Bogdan” digression — and neither is the assertion in my headline that a forensic autopsy would be called for. (When I started this piece last weekend, that was not yet an untimely suggestion; I can only hope that the Sheriff/Coroner’s and/or District Attorney’s office realized that foul play was a real possibility here and ordered one by themselves.)

Consider who Brandman was and what he knew:

• a potential key witness in several significant legal matters
• matters involving some of the wealthiest and most powerful entities in California
• who stated publicly that he felt he had been abandoned by his longtime friends to whom her had been of great service
• who was largely thought to have become “erratic” of late
• who had just moved into a new home, but was apparently facing financial difficulties
• who had been attacked in public media (Chmielewski’s blog, which had long championed him) for betraying his friends
• who (apparently) died alone under what I think we’d still have to call “mysterious circumstances”

Sure, that sounds like someone who might have committed suicide or to have been too rattled to follow a medication regimen designed to keep him alive. But, frankly, it also sounds like someone who could have murdered.

As is true of most readers, I expect, my mind rebels against the prospect that Jordan could have been murdered (because he “knew too much” and was a danger to tattle) by anyone who could have been harmed by his future testimony, or who might face extortion by him to gain the financial support to which he may have thought he was entitled. But lots of actual murders — especially within families, but also otherwise, seem impossible to anticipate or to explain rationally after the fact. They still warrant full investigation — and frankly, while I have no reason to think that Brandman’s family would want to leave the matter alone, whether to investigate is not their choice.

I’ve had to think about this a lot because I’ve been subject to threats of death and violent reprisal for actions I’ve taken on this blog — only one of which (beating, not death, though you never know how a beating will go) I considered plausible, but which I didn’t report to Brea Police because if something happened it probably would have been outside of the city — but always by relative pissants who didn’t have many orders of magnitude as much to lose as Disney or Arte Moreno, and a lot less than others who have been acting on behalf of the Cabal. And I’ve never had anywhere nearly as much inside information about criminality as Brandman had. My knowledge is mostly limited to embarrassing affairs and drug use, most of that secondhand, and to Democratic Party secrets about how completely scared count and state representatives are about standing up to their leaders. But all it takes is one amoral idiot who is asked by one member or associate of such a member to do something outrageous, and the victim is still just as dead. Administering what was intended to be a non-fatal dose of something that turned out to be fatal due to drug interactions or other especial fragility of the victim is still murder, or at best manslaughter.

Time is of the essence here [I wrote last weekend, and sorry for the personal-business-related delay in publication] because the absolutely worst thing that could happen, if there are mysteries about Brandman’s death, would be for him to be cremated prior to a thorough investigation. For all I know, that has already happened; I hope not. (Even if he were only buried, he could probably be exhumed for examination; but most of what I know of medical examiners comes from fiction and from following the bizarre aspects of Pittsburgh’s Dr. Cyril Wecht.) But if this is a mysterious death — as public information so far suggests that it is — then it really does have to be investigated, and the chips must fall where they may.

2. What (Bog?)Dan Chmielewski Wrote

The thrust of Chmielewski’s July 27 piece — headlined “Jordan Dan’s Revenge Story Hits“ is to try to lay blame for Brandman’s death on two good reporters from the LA Times, Adam Elmahrek and Gabriel San Roman, whom Chmielewski claims are targets of “significant anger” from Brandman’s friends for “their expose on Brandman last summer which Brandman’s friends believe pushed the former councilman over the edge.”

Chmielewski writes: “News of Brandman’s passing spread quickly among his friends this morning.  There is sadness, anger, and regret. And there’s significant anger directed at Los Angeles Times reporters Gabriel San Roman and Adam Elmahrek for their expose on Brandman last summer which Brandman’s friends believe pushed the former councilman over the edge.”

(“Brandman’s friends” again. Come out, come out, whoever you are!)

The problem with this assertion is that Jordan apparently cooperated actively with the Times reporters, as you can easily tell by reading the story, and by an account I can no longer find actually sought out Elmahrek in the first place! (That link is not hidden behind a paywall; if you have access you should certainly read the original story at the Times itself.)

Let’s take a look at the introduction to the Elmahrek & San Roman story:

The role of powerful business interests in Anaheim — home to Disneyland Resort and Angel Stadium — has come under renewed scrutiny amid an ongoing federal corruption investigation that became public last year. FBI affidavits detail strong alliances between city leaders and several unelected power brokers, alleging that a covert, self-described cabal “wielded significant influence over the inner workings of Anaheim’s Government.”

But just how deep those alliances were wasn’t clear until now.

In a series of interviews with The Times, Brandman provided a rare insider’s look at how the city was run from when he became a council member in 2012 to when he stepped down in disgrace two years ago. His account, along with texts, emails and city records reviewed by The Times, describe relationships that went much deeper than the typical transactional ties that often bind lobbyists and government officials.

Former Anaheim Council Member Jordan Brandman provided a rare insider’s look at how the city was run, describing relationships between city leaders and unelected power brokers that went much deeper than the typical transactional ties that often bind lobbyists and government officials.

Now if Brandman had spilled his guts to Elmahrek (who was considered the top journalistic chronicler of Anaheim during much of the time when Brandman was active) and San Roman (a tall journalist-activist from the city with ties to Gustavo Arellano and Duane Roberts) over three or more interviews, why would Jordan be mad about it? (Perhaps if he was materially misquoted, yes, but there’s no evidence that he ever conveyed that sentiment to anyone, let alone anyone who is willing to be named.) And even if this whole thing had come out in some conversation that Brandman had with Elmahrek that he thought was confidential (which is obviously not the case), why would Brandman’s friends and family be mad at the reporters doing their job as reporters?

I strongly suspect that his family was not — and that the “friends” that Chmielewski spoke to were mainly or fully the former friends or their confidantes and supporters that Brandman accused of abandoning him after all he did for them. If there was a “secret message” in the date of his death, exactly ten years after the infamous Monday morning meeting he called to politically eviscerate then-Mayor Tom Tait, a dogged Cabal foe (though a supporter of Disney in most non-Cabal respects, reminding him of his brazen service to them on that anniversary would likely have been it.)

[Author’s Note: In contrast, I could understand why they would be angry at this blog, given that we broke the story of “Jordan’s Vicious Texts” reporting Brandman’s crude and cruel excoriating his City Council colleague Denise Barnes — but if any of them confronted us (and pseudonymous comments don’t count) about that I would simply answer that we regret the psychic toll if may have taken on him, but we are acting as journalists here and it was a significant and legitimate story! If Jordan was prone to say things like this, the responsibility for calming and talking wisdom to him belonged to … his friends! For my part, I spent the earliest part of my relationship with Jordan protecting his right to stay in the closet if he chose, because stereotypical gay attributes don’t actually prove anything about what one does with one’s body, and later pleading with him to get away from the poisonous crowd he was with and literally encouraging him to “turn State’s evidence against them if he knew of wrongdoing. I’m very sad that he didn’t.]

Chmielewski adds: “for some, including me, [Brandman’s death was] not a surprise.” Well, gosh! Tell us more! Was this because Brandman fulminating was to Chmielewski about Elmahrek and San Roman? (Did he even? I doubt it!) I’m so interested in what Chmielewski could possibly have meant by that!

Well, to be honest, I do have a suspicion myself. Brandman, based on the LA Times reporting, was very sensitive to his financial state, especially after he left the City Council, and felt that he was still being relied upon to keep Cabal’s secrets even without getting paid to do so. So if anything “pushed him over the edge,” financial concerns — and feeling friendless and adrift without good job prospects — were a more likely culprit. In fact, the LA Times story could even be read as a sort of attempt to extort of blackmail the Cabal, along the lines of “you had better take care of me or I might tell the authorities everything I know.” That would not be at all admirable, of course … but it would be human, especially for someone who — at least as long as I’ve known him after we met him in 2010 when I was pointedly excluded from a post-Truman Dinner cigar-smoking afterparty where Jordan was in attendance — had little apparent ability to get ahead other than by depending on the largesse of wealthier and more powerful patrons.

We can choose from a slew of examples of Brandman’s statements recounted in the Times piece:

• He had close personal relationships with lobbyists from the Cabal, sending them notes telling them that he loved them and receiving the same — (and I don’t know whether “crying on their shoulder” was a figure of speech)
• He received the precious Mickey Mouse watch had belonged to Disney lobbyist Carrie Nocella’s father, by her mother
• He remained close friends with Nocella and fellow Council member Kris Murray after he lost his election to Dr. Jose Moreno in 2014, having dinner with them three or four times a week
• He considered Nocella and Murray to be “his sisters,” saying that he “trusted them with his life”
• Brandman then got “a new job working for a consulting firm co-owned by a prominent lobbyist who did work in Anaheim”
• Flint told Brandman in April 2020 to vote to fire then-City Manager Chris Zapata, who opposed Todd Ament’s plan to give more money to a tourism program. When Brandman said that he liked Zapata, Flint told him this vote would decide who was and who wasn’t on the Cabal’s “team”
• Facing the prospect of ostracism if he opposed the council majority on an important vote like this, and possibly or losing his $30,000/year appointed Orange County Water District Board seat, Brandman did as ordered
• Brandman was also concerned about losing his acknowledged his position consulting for the Building Industry Assn. of Southern California (which paid him $118,000 on top of his $27,000-plus as a council member

I’ll expand on the above list later. Suffice it to say that Brandman had profited considerably from his relations with the Cabal and felt compelled to do its bidding — but that since then they had abandoned him.

Perhaps telling the truth about his relationships with the Cabal is what Chmielewski considered to be “taking revenge.” But simply identifying his closeness with Nocella and Murray, how he had profited from his relationships with Cabal actors, and that he had “paid the piper” when called upon to do it doesn’t really sound like “revenge” to me. Brandman’s statements can’t easily be read as “seeking revenge.” The revelations might be ethically disgusting, but nothing there is actually incriminating. They were not so much “I will now expose you!” as “if you don’t take care of me I might expose you!”

In the story, Brandman says little about Cabal corruption that wasn’t already publicly known (although he did present a colorful “Gilded Age” metaphor); he mostly spoke about how he had been a loyal servant but was now being scorned. They might be read as blackmail or extortion — but not as “revenge” because they don’t themselves contain harmful new information. If he had harmful information, he was holding it back for the moment: a powerful strategy, unless he were to, um, die or something. But underlying him, as all concerned would have realized, is the implicit threat that he might testify under oath against them.

So it’s possible to read Chmielewski’s piece — the one that begins with the boldfaced quote “If You Seek Revenge, You Should Dig Two Graves; one for Yourself” — as a warning shot against Brandman fired on behalf of the Cabal. To paraphrase: “You want to open your mouth about us? That would not be good for your health!”

(Again, this can be considered to be a possible criminal case, and investigators do need to have access to all of his communications to see what if any information he was prepared to divulge — and when and to whom he mentioned it, if at all.)

Let’s leave things there for now while we go back and review Chmielewski’s full story for clues. I’ll have to reprint Chmielewski’s entire July story here in order to preserve it, because it might be gone from The Liberal OC once Chmielewski realizes that his well-informed anonymous sources for today’s story that were likely among the same ones that steered him towards the previous one. We’d hate to lose that important link to understanding Jordan Brandman’s death. All boldface emphasis after the first line is mine.

Jordan Brandman’s Revenge Story Hits

July 27, 2023 Dan Chmielewski Uncategorized 15

[Copyrighted Photo Excluded]

“If You Seek Revenge, You Should Dig Two Graves; one for Yourself”

Insiders have been bracing for the LA Times “Jordan Brandman’s revenge story” for the last month.  It was supposed to come out over the July 4^th Holiday weekend and didn’t, leaving some to wonder if the LA Times fact checkers would kill it.

If you haven’t seen it yet, read it here and then read this story about Anaheim Police looking into a credible threat made by Brandman that somehow eludes public records disclosure.  The Daily Beast had an interesting take as well.

Brandman resigned in August of 2021; he really had no choice in the matter.  His behavior was erratic and his friends were concerned about his mental health.  It would not have surprised me to wake up one morning then to learn he had taken his own life.  And to be honest, I would not surprise me if it still happens.

COVID19 isolation, serious mistakes over the content of horrible text messages he sent in confidence, and comments made to staff and friends collided to the point where the only real way for him to save himself was to resign.   In both stories in the LA Times, Brandman takes little to no responsibility for his own actions or well-being. No remorse or accountability which is shocking.

From the LA Times story:

Leaders of the cabal and other city lobbyists were Brandman’s political allies and advisors, the shoulders he cried on. He told them he loved them in text messages reviewed by The Times, and they wrote that they loved him too.

His tenure on the council ended in scandal after violent and misogynistic texts he sent became public. Even then, it wasn’t the electorate or government officials who forced his hand but a group of his onetime friends and allies who met behind closed doors with Brandman to push him to quit.

Brandman blamed his erratic behavior on circulatory issues affecting oxygen flow to his brain, but desperately sought to retain his council position when it was clear he was unable to.  A pair of support hose would have helped his cicruclation. [sic]

In reading the story, I’m not convinced Brandman is in a good place mentally.  The story, which I’m sure Brandman hoped would hurt those who tried to help him, actually makes him the bad guy.

There was a reason why these two stories were published separately that is really reprehensible and beneath the venerable LA Times. Together, there is a clear narrative that an elected official was having a severe mental health crisis and all of his colleagues, associates, staff AND Anaheim’s CM and PD responded with an understandable, and confidential, welfare check. Separated out, it has been made to look like he made threats that were investigated and were covered it up. That is completely unfair to all the people who tried to help Brandman.

I’m not surprised at all by the inner workings of Anaheim, developers, Disney and other business interests. What I am surprised about is why the FBI hasn’t charged Harry Sidhu or Jeff Flint.  Why hasn’t Todd Ament been sentenced yet?

Where the story doesn’t go are how Brandman’s behavior has cost him lifelong friends.  If he’s truly seeking atonement, he has many calls to make. And I’ll guess he never will because those bridges are already burned.

I called him a few times after he resigned and he seemed to be in a better place but still had some ground to cover.

My last communication with him was in May 2022 when the news broke about the FBI investigation in Anaheim.  He texted me the Voice of OC story on his former consultant Melahat Rafiei resigning from the CDP and DNC.  I texted back to say “I hope you’re well.”  He replied “I’m alive and grateful to be. Thanks for saying you’re sorry by the way.”  I didn’t apologize but sent back a thumbs up to acknowledge the first part of his text.  I’m not sure what he expected me to apologize for.

The story, I believe, effectively ends Brandman’s possibility of holding public office again.  When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging, especially if it’s the second of two graves you’re digging for revenge.  If his job with BIA is based on political relationships. good luck with that.

Anonymous comments are often a good way to find out what Chmielewski is thinking; there is an amazing consonance between what Liberal OC commenters seeking the safety of anonymity think and what the owner of the blog things.  (Could just be a gigantic pulsating coincidence!)

15 COMMENTS

1. 1. One Who Knows
      JULY 28, 2023 AT 6:57 AM
      Weak sauce! Jordan claims he is doing this for atonement? Gossiping about former friends is NOT atonement. Atonement is making things right with those you wronged. Jordan was not some innocent bystander who just found himself caught up in the cabal, he regularly went along with them and admitted in the article he knew his actions were harmful to the community. Certain cabal stunts he didn’t just go along to get along, he was the ring leader, case in point, what he tried to pull during the stick to district elections. His idea, his plan, his execution. While he claimed to be for district elections, we have seen more excitement from a dog about to be neutered than Jordan pushing district elections. He constantly committed actions harmful to the Latino community, where is his atonement, his apology, his attempt to make things right? Instead he gaslit the community and did everything he could to barricade the door shut for young Latin@s wanting to get involved. Thanks for the gossip and confirming some of our theories about the cabal’s actions but how about some real atonement if you really found God. Until we see some real action, this is weak sauce.
   2. El Colorin
      JULY 28, 2023 AT 5:59 PM
      I have limited capacity for sympathy. Mine continues going to the folks Jordan screwed over on his climb. No acts of atonement so far. Just words. Payback is a bitch sometimes.
           Dan Chmielewski
      JULY 29, 2023 AT 4:16 PM
      I’m grateful for the phone calls and text messages about this story. Let’s see if it’s the Sunday print edition
            Dan Chmielewski
      JULY 30, 2023 AT 1:56 PM
      Interesting layout on page 1 of the Times this morning.
   3. Jordan’s Therapist
      JULY 31, 2023 AT 8:27 AM
      It is hilarious to watch many of these cabalists trip all over each other trying to save face. All of them need my services if you ask me.
   4. Gabriel San Roman
      JULY 31, 2023 AT 8:46 AM
      Only popping in to say how amusing it is to see folks chat about the supposed publication date of our story only to get it so wrong.
      I guess the Anacrime gossip mill ain’t the most reliable, after all.

      Dan Chmielewski JULY 31, 2023 AT 9:59 AM
      GSR —
      Two things:
      1. My sources on possible publication date of your piece proactively reached out to tell me it was coming July 4 weekend. When it didn’t, my response was “story is going through a fact-check.”
      2. I’m surprised at what you didn’t report. And I’m actually curious why it came out online days before the print edition. Nice job all the same. I think what Brandman tried to do backfired on him.

   5. Sam Zell
      JULY 31, 2023 AT 1:54 PM
      I always thought the LA Times reporters weren’t allowed to comment on blogs

      Dan Chmielewski
      JULY 31, 2023 AT 6:55 PM
      They can do Twitter and Facebook as long as they don’t compromise their beats. Blog commenting is not approved but it’s a different ownership group now so maybe that’s changed

1. Greg here again,  Here are some observations about the above:

1. Who are these “insiders” who were “bracing” for the LA Times story?  Why were they “bracing”?  When did they start “bracing”?
2. Why would Times “fact checkers” have killed this story?  The reportage is about Brandman’s accusations of mostly private interactions.  How does one fact-check whether he’s telling the truth about, say, having liked Zapata but given into demands to fire him?  Seeking information from others involved is all that they were ethically supposed to do — and they did!

3. Again: this sounds to me like a warning shot from the Cabal: not so much because of what Brandman said to the Times, but because of what he might say — especially as a witness — if he were to appear in court or testify by deposition about what he had seen.  Again, it doesn’t look to me like Brandman wanted revenge, but rather that he wanted to be compensated accordingly if he were going to remain silent on the Cabal’s behalf.

4. I’m going to reprint two paragraphs from the above — because I think that they may have a lot more to say about why Brandman might have killed himself than anything that Elmahrek and San Roman wrote:

   Brandman resigned in August of 2021; he really had no choice in the matter.  His behavior was erratic and his friends were concerned about his mental health.  It would not have surprised me to wake up one morning then to learn he had taken his own life.  And to be honest, I would not surprise me if it still happens.  COVID19 isolation, serious mistakes over the content of horrible text messages he sent in confidence, and comments made to staff and friends collided to the point where the only real way for him to save himself was to resign.   In both stories in the LA Times, Brandman takes little to no responsibility for his own actions or well-being. No remorse or accountability which is shocking.

5. I’ll note another interesting thing Chmielewski wrote:

   My last communication with him was in May 2022 when the news broke about the FBI investigation in Anaheim.  He texted me the Voice of OC story on his former consultant Melahat Rafiei resigning from the CDP and DNC.  I texted back to say “I hope you’re well.”  He replied “I’m alive and grateful to be. Thanks for saying you’re sorry by the way.”  I didn’t apologize but sent back a thumbs up to acknowledge the first part of his text.  I’m not sure what he expected me to apologize for.

   The story, I believe, effectively ends Brandman’s possibility of holding public office again.  When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging, especially if it’s the second of two graves you’re digging for revenge.  If his job with BIA is based on political relationships. good luck with that

6. Chmielewski was likely correct about the prospect of Brandman’s losing the BIA’s sinecure — unless they were afraid of how he might testify about them, and I doubt that they were much at risk in anything Cabal-related — but Brandman was clearly obsessed with his finances (one reason why the Times story reads like a plea to keep paying him off if he was going to remain silent).  (The BIA tie, I believe, derives from Brandman’s tie with the Labor movement, especially the Building Trades, who would be considered extremely influential in Anaheim if they were not dwarfed by their sometime allies in the Resort District.  Mentioning this would have been a punch to the gut for Brandman.

7. To the extent that Chmielewski’s piece sounds like a threat to Brandman, or at minimum a goad to suicide — people think you’re crazy, you have no friends left, you’re going to lose your income, no one would be surprised if you killed yourself — they question is: WHY?  Well, Chmielewski makes that quite clear!  Brandman has harmed people, has not expressed remorse, and has not apologized and retracted.

   This is sort of amazing if you think about it.  Chmielewski presents no factual assertion that anything specific Brandman was quoted (or paraphrased) as saying in the Times is wrong.  So what is Brandman is accused of doing wrong?  Essentially, ratting on his friends!  This is a point where Chmielewski seems to be acting actively as an agent of the Cabal, trying to convince Brandman that he went too far (by discussing the Mickey Mouse watch and Zapata?) and, more importantly, trying to ensure that he never went anywhere hear so far again.

8. Or is it possibly not the Cabal itself?

   This is where the reference to Melahat Rafiei is interesting.  Chmielewski, a public relation professional by trade, has long been considered to be a mouthpiece for Rafiei, who for many years had Brandman as her #1 political client.  (Brandman was, after all, a DPOC “Golden Boy,” especially favored by longtime former Chair Frank Barbaro, despite Brandman’s close relationship to Kris Murray.)  That suggests the possibility that Chmielewski is here doing dirty work for Rafiei.  Rafiei could have had more ability to mess with Brandman’s relationship with the BIA than the Cabal would.  And Rafiei, with a truly Trumpian fervor, is doing her best to avoid jail time for any of the matters in which she’s been involved.  (She’s also about a million times smarter than Trump.)

9. But why would Rafiei — who I believe is still awaiting sentencing for her role in Anaheim (and perhaps also Irvine and/or Santa Ana) politics — be worried about Brandman?  Perhaps, and I can’t prove this, because she had the most to lose if Brandman went on more of a confessional.  He didn’t mention Rafiei in the story, but I don’t doubt that he knew a hell of a lot about her history and practices.  She benefits more that most from the threat of adverse testimony being foreclosed.
   
10. I don’t know that it’s against the law — except for the family of a decedent having a tort claim for wrongful death based on a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress — to shame and beleaguer a fragile person to death on behalf of a client and patron (or, if Chmielewski does have ties to the Cabal — and I recall him being awfully positive about Brandman’s chum Kris Murray — for a de facto business associate.)  I tend to doubt it, especially given that what he said about Brandman was probably true; it’s his motivation for slagging him that’s actually at issue.  (Think: why would you say in print that someone in dire emotional straits was likely to commit suicide?)  What it is, at a minimum, is repulsive — and frankly doubly so if one is doing it for money or power.
11. ADDED!  Credit here goes to Vern, who has a better memory than I do.
    

    Greg, the “account you can no longer find” showing that Jordan sought Adam out is a THIRD thing that came out in the Times that day, a “newsletter” from Adam sorta hawking the two bigger stories, and it’s NOT behind a paywall:

    https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2023-07-25/the-broken-relationships-that-built-disneys-grip-on-anaheim-essential-california

    From that:

    “…That was until I got a phone call several months ago from a former council member named Jordan Brandman. He was an important member of the council majority, and he was a key Disney ally. I had been trying to speak with him for years. Before I joined The Times, I covered the city and its government for Voice of OC.

    “He had always dutifully avoided me, never once calling me back. But now Brandman, who is Jewish, was asking my forgiveness in a Jewish ritual of atonement. And he said he was ready to tell me everything…”

    And supposedly, mutual friends of Dan and Jordan are mad at Adam for letting Jordan do that?

3. Conclusion

The County law enforcement agencies should be investigating the death of Jordan Brandman as a criminal act.  They should get on with a forensic autopsy now.  I expect that it wasn’t one — but there was clearly motive — thanks to Chmiewlewski for that! — as well as means (if it was indeed an overdose) and possibly opportunity.  I hope and believe that his family would want to know the truth.

As part of that investigation, they should probably have a talk with Chmielewski with points made above:

1. Who was worried about the Times story?  Were they “sources” at all?  Why were they worried?  Were they real people?
2. What did he think that Brandman had done wrong?  Does he have evidence that he wasn’t telling the truth?  Or was it only that he had alienated his friends?  Why did he think that that would justify demanding (or implying the necessity of) an apology?
3. What was he trying to achieve by his taunting of Brandman?  Was he himself trying to further a conspiracy?
4. Or, was he trying to protect someone outside of the Cabal — like Melahat Rafiei?  (I’m sure that they can come up with their own lines of questioning beyond what I’ve said.

As they consider that, they may want to consider something that Chmielewski once said on his blog (on a Great Park audit then taking place in Irvine):

The auditor clearly doesn’t grasp the function of public relations, public affairs, marketing, marketing communications or government relations. The public relations industry wants that seat in the boardroom next to the CEO or the chairman; we seek that sort of clout and that sort of influence. It’s taught in colleges. It’s advocated by PRSA. It’s referenced by every successful PR pro that organizations who place PR at the C-suite get it and typically benefit from PR counsel. Larry Agran does understand that which is why Forde & Mollrich were present at so many Park planning sessions. The auditor does not get it but then no one on this council majority understands the value of marketing or communications either, which is evidenced by how much they cut the budget for the 2013 Solar Decathlon (and the bad marketing dollars were reflected in poor promotion and low attendance for the first weekend of the event).

I realize that freedom of the press may prevent anyone from demanding answers from Chmielewski about anything I’ve mentioned above.  But does it extend far enough to let someone who “wants that seat in the boardroom next to the CEO or the chairman; we seek that sort of clout and that sort of influence” to help silence a witness on a client’s behalf have that full protection?  I do not know that that is what Chmielewski did with his vicious attack on Jordan Brandman, but it my opinion it’s the sort of thing that might have done as much as anything else to drive him to suicide.

I wish that Jordan were still alive and free to talk about what he knew.  Can Chmielewski and his PR clients honestly say the same?

EPILOGUE (10/10)

Not-Bog Dan C, who may or may not have changed his given name to “Daniel” at some point in his life, answered this post in his fashion (i.e., ignoring most of the important stuff and summarily rejecting the rest) on yesterday Oct. 9.  If you haven’t seen the comments, you should check them out.  Not-Bog’s story is linked therein.  Note, by the way, that I have known a Bogdan who was a nice smart guy and a proud Pole.  No shame in having a legitimately ethnic given name!  (Again, I would have guessed “Slobodan” for Mr. C., but that might be a bit too on the nose.)