Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Pacheco 'Still' Ahead in Early Polling

Pacheco and MEAVDay and Huizar

Here we go again. Poll Number 2 has been released from the Pacheco camp, and the results are similar to the last one.

Targeted Communication Poll Results:

If the race were held today who would you vote for?
Responses %Q_Resp
Pacheco 39.3
Huizar 12.1
Other 9.1
Not Voting 11.2
Undecided 28.4

Targeted Communications indicates that the results reported have an estimated margin of error of +/- 4% with a 95% level of confidence.

Grove Insight Poll Results:

If the race were held today who would you vote for?
Responses %Q_Resp
Pacheco 45
Huizar 14
Other 6
Undecided 35

For additional information on these polls, you can watch Pacheco Campaign Manager Robert Urteaga on KJLA/LA TV (Ch. 57 locally) Sunday, June 26 at 8:00 pm go over the Targeted Communication Poll results

(Also spotted at MattSzabo.com )

As far as the first poll, Huizar gives his response via the LA Downtown News:

Huizar, however, was unimpressed with the findings, saying they reflect only current name recognition. "I'm not the least bit worried about this poll," said Huizar, noting that the election is four months away. "I'll quickly surpass any base Pacheco has." Huizar also said Parke Skelton and Sue Burnside have joined his campaign team. Burnside will handle field operations while Skelton, who engineered Villaraigosa's recent victorious mayoral campaign, will be a consultant.


Blogger Chief Parker said:

Nick Pacheco -- Former CD 14 Charter commissioner -- former Councilman for 4 years can't get past 50%.

Trouble, trouble, trouble.

June 26, 2005 1:45 PM  

Anonymous ChiefParkerIsADumbAss said:

Jose Huizar.

President of the LAUSD (County Wide Organization)

and CURRENT incumbent for four years in over 1/2 of CD 14

and can't get over 12%.

Worse trouble, trouble, trouble.

June 26, 2005 2:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hey, you forgot that Huizar just ran a "campaign" costing over $400,000.00 in the district and is still at 12%.

That included giving out mugs in the parts of CD14 that his school board seat did not cover, and taking out ads in the Eagle Rock newspaper.

For this, I heard Sleazy Huizy is going to be investigated by the LA City Ethics commission big time!

And yes, Chief Parker is a biased idiot.

June 26, 2005 2:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Geez - if this blog is going to retain any credibility, it's got to do something about Chief Parker.

What a moron...

June 26, 2005 2:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


How does one spin such a vast Pacheco lead into trouble for him?

June 26, 2005 2:10 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Sue Burnside must be a Trojan Horse in Huizar's camp. I thought she was Tokofsky's (Huizar's arch enemy) girl.

June 26, 2005 4:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Jose? You are the president of the LAUSD and a Trustee of Princeton University. You must have a little knowldege of math. Please look at both polls and see what you have to do to avoid getting knocked out in the primary. Thank you.

June 26, 2005 4:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Robert Urteaga, Pacheco campaign manager, versus Huizar consultant, David Cobb. Tonight on Channel 57 at 8 o'clock. The Chat Room.

June 26, 2005 4:19 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Has Burnside ever run a campaign in the 14th? Getting Mexicans out to vote is a lot tougher than wealthy Jews. And Huizar states that he will surpass Nick's base? This base has stuck with Nick despite all the lies that Parke put out about him and his supporters, i.e. the Mothers of East L.A.. Maybe it's time for these voters get to know the real Parke, obviously Huizar doesn't know him.

June 26, 2005 8:14 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Just saw "The Chat Room". David Cobb is not the sharpest knife in the draw. Didn't he realize he was insulting his own client when he called it a Pacheco-Villaraigosa race? Isn't Jose man enough to stand up against Nick? Must the mayor-elect fight the LAUSD president's battles for him?

June 26, 2005 9:29 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

He called it a Pacheco Villaraigosa race so all of the AV support transfers to Huizar

Huizar is not AV and he is stupid to mark them under the same knife.

June 26, 2005 10:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:



June 26, 2005 10:45 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Just saw Huizar at LA County Democrats Dinner, and he can't even acknowledge regular folk. I could care less about both, I don't live in CD 14, but Pacheco who was also there came off more real.

June 27, 2005 1:37 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

In today's L.A. Times:

"Although we all happen to be Latino, all of us in these positions push a very inclusive agenda that's very important for the well-being of the city as a whole," said Huizar, who recently pressed the L.A. Unified board to require college prep courses for all high school students. "

Is this why the drop out rate, home ownership rate, business ownership rate,unemployment rate, crime rate, and general quality of life for Latinos has remained virtually unchanged in 30 years - despite all these Latino politicians. Ethnic pride doesn't put food on the table, doesn't make your neighborhood safer and doesn't keep your kid in school. What McGreevy failed to point out is that all these politicians have non-Latino handlers/consultants/advisors, who have brainwashed them into believing that a non-Latino agenda is the way to get elected. Just like when Bradley was mayor. He got in because of the Watt's riots and his tenure ended with the Rodney King riots. Non-Blacks convinced him that a non-Black agenda was the way to go, and look at the results. History is repeating itself all over again.

Until Latino politicians focus on a Latino agenda, nothing in our community will change. We've obviously got the numbers but nothing will change until we clean up the mess in our house first. Do you think the crack epedemic in South Central would have happened if Bradley thought the same way? This is why Ghandi respectfully dismissed his non-Indian advisors when his revolution was launched making it a real change of power resulting in the largest democracy in the world. Given who's pulling these Latino politician's strings, Los Angeles is a long way from this type of poltical/economic/educational/social success.

June 27, 2005 6:36 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Touche postser. Pacheco has an up this time round because he now has all those people who voted for Antonio and now realize it was a mistake. I'm sure Jose will put Antonio's mug on his mailers hoping to get the votes. Jose is already coming off like a whimp using ADV has much as he can.

I agree with poster that Jose should stand like a MAN himself. He's in big trouble with all the problems LAUSD has and now he wants to jump ship. I can hardly wait for debates. Pacheco will blow Jose away. I want Jose to answer why he hasn't done a damn thing about dropout rate, racial tension, making it harder for students to graduate now with A-G program, overcrowding etc.

June 27, 2005 8:48 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Daily News
Millions could go toward new LAUSD garage
The Los Angeles Unified School District is again considering building a $49 million parking garage for top brass and their staff a year after the plan ignited an outcry over finances.

June 27, 2005 8:59 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

$49 MILLION to park FAT cat cars, when all they can manager to GRADUATE is 49 PERCENT of the high school students in the city!!!

Let them hire a couple dozen out-of-work LAUSD High school dropouts to valet their cars to existing lots -- most of them probably owned by VIGNALI's daddy!

I'd MUCH rather see that $49 million going to pay people they screwed out of a decent education - so at least they can stay off WELFARE!

June 27, 2005 9:44 AM  

Blogger Chief Parker said:

I'd like to personally welcome the Pacheco Cut and Paste crew to our humble website.

Cut and paste crews who cruised these halls in the past have failed miserably, primarily because they were and are insane. Just like you guys. I am betting you are the same lame people.

Cut and Paste all the way to another political loss!

June 27, 2005 10:09 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Really ingenious comeback Parker. Are you the one feeding Sleezy Huizy his lines. And why are welcoming us back, we never really left. Unlike Huizar, we know a thing or two about loyalty. Otherwise we'd be bloggin on LA Observed.

June 27, 2005 10:45 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I forgot to mention Parker, there's a fine line between insanity and genius and I asure you, there is some genius to our madness.

June 27, 2005 10:47 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Chief Parker, it's your "crew" that posts the issues we only comment.

June 27, 2005 10:52 AM  

Blogger Mayor Frank said:

Thoughts on the last three comments in Parker's defense -

1)(LA) Observed won't let you comment
2) There is more madness than genius :)
3) His "crew" does post the topics. You or your crew of voices in your head carrying on conversations with yourself are what he is refering to.

Paste away dum dums

June 27, 2005 11:20 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mayor Frank:

Lately the difference between madness and genius has been an election day victory. Not a very high standard, especially in the 14th District. And I thought Parker was a voice in me head. Thanks for clearing that up. Regarding LA Observed, I only picked them because given Mayor Sam's posts, they are the ones who seem to be bunching up his panties. I've never even visited the site - again, thanks for clearing that up. What would insanity be without the sane to define and guide?

June 27, 2005 11:54 AM  

Blogger Mayor Frank said:

Friedrich Nietzsche once said "In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

Says a lot about our Sister City, doesn't it!

June 27, 2005 12:12 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Wait, didn't Richard Muerlo friend of Antonio and Jose's buy Taylor Yard land from LAUSD by bidding just a $mil over LAUSD? Now I see they have $49 mil to waste on garage. The kids in Northeast area could have had a school but Jose thinks a parking garage is more important.

Definitely don't vote for him.

June 27, 2005 12:24 PM  

Blogger Mayor Sam said:

Yea that's right you can't blog away on LA Observed.

June 27, 2005 12:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Friedrich Nietzsche also said "God is dead." I'm sure Skelton has this posted on his wall somewhere. And Nietzsche also said, "I think, therefore I am." With a little variation this applies to Tony the Liar and Sleezy Huizy - the quote should read "Parke thinks, therefore I am." They should put this quote up in their office walls.

June 27, 2005 12:28 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Rene Descartes said "I think therefore I am." Jose Huizar says, "I think....what Antonio tells me to think."

June 27, 2005 12:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

After a while you can't tell the difference between one European politcal theorist from the other. But they were all branded insane in their lifetimes, right?

June 27, 2005 12:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Yes, mad geniuses

June 27, 2005 8:26 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Who is running for Jose's seat on the Board? We have to get someone better in there than Jose.

June 28, 2005 7:50 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Jose is not going to win, but the Times did mention Lourdes "Lou" Calanche. She is a current city commissioner, East L.A. College professor and former Alatorre staffer. Even if Huizar doesn't win for CD14, does de deserve another term on the school board? There doesn't seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel with the current leadership.

June 28, 2005 7:58 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To previous Anon:

Why on earth would we want anyone associated with Mr. Cokehead running our schools? Wasn't she on the clock when he was using?

Haven't we given him enough access by electing his protege to the Mayor's office? Lou couldn't even get more than 1000 votes when she ran for council last time.


June 28, 2005 9:25 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

1:37 AM

Huizar is judging on what you wear or say, but disregards the fact that millionaires are not always packaged as his limited mindset projects.

Huizar is a snob. This is reality.

June 28, 2005 10:03 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Can you say drunk driving record?

June 28, 2005 10:08 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

9:44 AM

This is what will happen next. From the incompetence of leadership at LAUSD, we will see a major lawsuit from previous LAUSD students that were cheated from an education.

Major $$$$, better save the parking garage money for the lawsuit administrators. The A-G will not work, it will create more drop outs. You cannot force students to enter college, you can give them a choice instead. This is not the way Huizar. Not every student is the same.

June 28, 2005 10:10 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mayor Frank,

Until today, I realize you really might be Parke Skelton.

Shit. Why are you here? Must be boring at work.

June 28, 2005 10:16 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

10:08 Who has a drunk driving record? Anonymous journalist would love to know.

June 28, 2005 10:20 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Didn't Calanche already run against Tokofsky and come in last?

June 28, 2005 2:39 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Correction: she came in last behind the winner, Tokofsky, then Rios, Sigalas, and then Calanche.

June 28, 2005 2:41 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Si es el senor tomador Huizar, el Macho.

June 28, 2005 9:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

No es Srta. Calanche

June 29, 2005 9:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Which one of us doesn't liked to get sauced and put peoples lives in danger?

June 30, 2005 11:09 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Bottom line Pacheco is the biggest loser ever in the History of LA City Council Politics! He needs to get a reality check because he is an idiot with BAD breath and needs a SPEECH 101 class, even though it will not help him surpass his inadequacies and innate stupidity.

Get a life Pacheco! Face it! It's over for you and your fucked up clan of LOW CLASS supporters who lack any respect, morals, integrity, class and style. They are uneducated and need Etiquette 101. Your second mother Juana Guiterrez is a Latina version of a "Ma Parker."

June 30, 2005 11:50 PM  

Anonymous Lincoln Heights said:

Let's not forget Martin Gutie Ruiz her son and "PACHUECO's campaign" manager. He promises to pay you, hires you, makes you work long hours, and at the end of the job he says sorry the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ran out.

No UNION with any integrity would back this guy who condones the expolitation of his own workers.

June 30, 2005 11:51 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Juana Gutierrez spread her legs to have her big army of kids to help her by commanding her family members what to do. Lie, Cheat, Steal, and pretend they are the biggest shit in ELA.

June 30, 2005 11:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


NOBODY has the right to attack a well respected mother and leader like Juana Gutierrez.

The previous post is way out of line.

My name - Nick Pacheco - will be on the ballot, not hers, nor my mother's.

You want to come after me, I understand that's part of campaigns, but do not under any circumstances attack Juana Gutierrez.

All of her children are testaments to the values we promote: pursuit of a good education, remaining true to your values and supporting your community.

Nick Pacheco

July 01, 2005 1:04 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To the above: Then stop the fighting AND blaming others for your problems. YOU make your own burning bridges. And dirty campaign stradegies. Worrying about who's against you all instead of truly campaign work. No one cares that cares about the community what you or near family does until the battering from your devoted followers. Focus on a clean campaign if you can! And as for your devoted followers to do the same. Respect THAT!

July 01, 2005 4:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I knew Nick was a stealth poster.

July 01, 2005 5:02 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


July 01, 2005 10:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Quite trying to save your ass!!! Gimme a break!
Show me your friends and I'll tell you what kind a person you are.

July 01, 2005 11:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

TONY CASTRO: Why Returning From the Dead Will Be a Test of Character for Pacheco
By: Tony Castro
Political Columnist
Originally posted 3/18/2003

LOS ANGELES — Nick Pacheco is hurting, and he doesn’t understand — not really — why he was booted out of office after being the new kid on City Hall’s political block just four years ago.

“You tell me, do you really think I have a political future left?” he asks. “After losing this race? Or do you think I still have a political future because I lost to Antonio [Villaraigosa], the political messiah?”

The sarcasm doesn’t sit well. But Pacheco is hurting. He is still trying to come to grips with becoming the first incumbent Los Angeles City Councilman ousted in a primary election in modern history.

He chafes at reading the post-mortems, especially those that report Villaraigosa’s election triumph claims of having overcome what he has called the sleaziest campaign ever in Los Angeles — and also boasting that he did it without ever having gotten down in the political gutter himself.

Pacheco doesn’t believe any of that. He denies that his campaign engaged in any dirty politics and asserts that it was Villaraigosa’s campaign that indulged in last-minute attack mailers.
“Why don’t you [in the new media] call him on that? Why do you allow him to get away saying that?” he demands to know.

Mostly, though, Pacheco can’t understand how it came down to this: Getting not even 40 per cent of the vote and losing in what, for primary election purposes, wound up a 56 percent of the vote landslide for Villaraigosa, the former Assembly speaker and now the prince of not only the Eastside but of the city as well.

Nick Pacheco is hurting, and he is looking for some kind of political Ben-Gay to salve his wounds. Last week, he wrote United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta, demanding an apology for a political mailer sent out by the UFW on Villaraigosa’s behalf that accused Pacheco of a long laundry list of “sleazy politics.”

“I am writing because my family, especially my parents, were extremely hurt by your personal attacks against me during my recent re-election campaign,” he wrote.

Unfortunately for Pacheco, he is just now perhaps realizing the depth of the resentment he incurred for the controversial political mailers sent to voters last November by his longtime friend Ricardo A. Torres II that attacked Villaraigosa and his family in a manner that was roundly decried as some of the dirtiest tactics in the history of Los Angeles politics.

Those mailers cornered Pacheco into a niche of the city’s political consciousness from which he may never escape, no matter how much he protests as he did in the letter to Huerta.

In the letter, Pacheco replies to a handful of allegations with denials that hide behind cleverly used buffers, such as laying the blame for the November attack mailers purely on Torres when few doubt that Pacheco was completely blameless.

But Pacheco insists. He also blamed the infamous “Gloria Morina” telephone scam on another friend, Martin GutieRuiz. That was the 2001 mayoral campaign prank in which a woman pretending to be Supervisor Gloria Molina placed calls to Latino voters criticizing Villaraigosa and urging votes instead for Rep. Xavier Becerra, another Latino primary opponent.

The calls were traced to a phone bank owned by Pacheco, though a district attorney’s investigation failed to turn up enough evidence for charges.

But then when are politicians, except the inept as well as corrupt ones in suburban cities, ever charged with any kind of crimes?

Pacheco protests with the innocence of the Boy Scout handle that was given to him during his 1999 election. He may well still be the Boy Scout, but his pals Torres and GutieRuiz sure as heck aren’t. He should know that former prosecutors have no business hanging out with high-tech gang-bangers in business suits.

Mostly, though, Pacheco fails to realize that the unspoken retort from anyone hearing his complaints is that perhaps he reaped what he sowed.

Besides, no one wants to hear it now. The only thing more pitiful than a loser’s wails and moaning are a sore loser’s wails and moaning.

My advice to Nick, which he didn’t hear over the din of self-pity, was that there is always political life after death and that the next time around he should do two things: Learn who his friends really are and put together a better staff.

Pacheco didn’t want to hear that. His friends don’t want to hear that. His staff doesn’t want to hear that.

It hurts too much. The truth always does.

July 02, 2005 12:28 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

And Tony Castro sure knows the truth. I bet Castro didn't even read any of those D.A. reports. He did, however, contact Nick's friends later to apologize. I'm sure he didn't want a lawsuit up his ass. What a crock of shit.

July 02, 2005 2:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Los Angeles Times, Sunday
February 23, 2003

Perfectly Forgetful Pacheco

Los Angeles City Councilman Nick Pacheco has skirted the bounds of propriety before, but this time he's outdone himself. He gave tens of thousands of public dollars to a nonprofit group with the same address as a political committee that reported spending an equivalent amount to campaign for his reelection. Instead of thoroughly explaining this doesn't-pass-the-smell-test coincidence, he and his supporters are on the attack against challenger Antonio Villaraigosa, whose campaign first unearthed the questionable funding reported in Friday's Times.

While the county district attorney's office launches yet another investigation into the councilman's campaign practices, Pacheco claims he did not even know of the connection between the nonprofit group and the campaign committee. Let's review the connections and decide whether Pacheco's claim makes sense. You may need a white board to keep track:

Between Dec. 30 and Jan. 21, Pacheco gave $36,500 -- on top of $30,000 in recent years -- to Madres del Este de Los Angeles-Santa Isabel, an Eastside nonprofit organization headed by Juana Gutierrez. Mothers for Nick, the political committee that shares Gutierrez's Boyle Heights address, reported to the City Ethics Commission in late January that it was spending $36,085 to campaign independently for Pacheco. According to the California secretary of state's Web site, Mothers for Nick took over the name La Colectiva, a now-disbanded group that was run by Gutierrez's son, Martin GutieRuiz, a college friend of Pacheco's. La Colectiva's claim to shame was its role in the 2001 mayoral race, in which Pacheco backed James K. Hahn over Villaraigosa. A woman impersonating county Supervisor Gloria Molina placed recorded phone calls to voters slamming Villaraigosa. The district attorney's office investigated and found that La Colectiva used a phone bank owned by CAL Inc., a nonprofit group formed by Pacheco -- who said he knew nothing about the calls.

In November, when Villaraigosa announced that he would run against Pacheco, district voters received particularly nasty mailers attacking him. La Colectiva's former attorney, Ricardo Torres, another college pal of Pacheco's, claimed responsibility. Pacheco -- you guessed it -- said he knew nothing about the mailers. These tactics are one reason The Times endorsed Villaraigosa over Pacheco in the City Council race.

Taxpayers deserve better than these insults to their common sense. They also deserve an explanation of the $250,000 "discretionary" account that Pacheco tapped for the Madres -- in $5,000 dribs and drabs so as not to have to follow city contracting guidelines.

City Controller Laura Chick, who adamantly denies Pacheco's contention that she authorized his expenditures, needs to audit how the city clerk oversees these slush funds. The City Council, in turn, has Pacheco to thank for this suspicion-fueled attention.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.

July 02, 2005 3:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:









WAKE UP CD 14!!!

July 02, 2005 6:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Agree with prev. anon. All of the past reps for CD 14 are the bottom of the litter.

July 02, 2005 10:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Tony you hit it right on the nail about Pacheco. Thanks!

July 03, 2005 10:59 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Tony Castro is a paid for and bought journalist. Look at his court record. Pacheco was the victim of a sleaze campaign by Villaraigosa. Nowhere was Pacheco implicated in any of the stuff mentioned on this blog. It's interesting that Villaraigosa supporters criticize Nick's supporters and yet are 10 times worse.

July 03, 2005 9:12 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

As self-taught legal eagle Marty said himself on this blog, watch what you say, even anonymously -- about Tony Castro or anybody else. (There are some really good lawyers getting ready for you amateurs.)

10 times worse? We've never seen the evidence of a sleaze campaign against Nick, but we all know what was thrown at AV. (Some of us even know what he threw against Victor, but we'll save that for another time.)

What would be 10 times worse than the Torres mailers? Nick was a victim of a negative campaign you give absolutely no evidence of??? Be serious. Nick was a victim of a backlash to the Torres mailers combined with the superior resources AV put together, combined with serious doubts about Nick personally.

Interesting that none of you compulsives has responded to the LA Times editorial. Who bought and paid for that? Huh Marty, Nick, Ric, Robert, et al?

July 03, 2005 9:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

9:48 PM ANON says:

"Interesting that none of you compulsives has responded to the LA Times editorial. Who bought and paid for that?"

We don't live on this blog. And if you haven't noticed, it's a holiday weekend, a time to be with family. Maybe you didn't get this e-mail, it's still making the rounds. A Spanish news reporter quoted from it at Tony's swearing in.

September 23, 2003

To: Open Letter to all concerned

Fr: Juana B. Gutiérrez, Co-Founder and President Madres del Este de Los
Angeles – Santa Isabel (MELASI)

Re: Antonio Villaraigosa’s attack on Juana B. Gutiérrez and MELASI

Dear Friends,

I am writing to set the record straight and to clear my name. Several months
ago, unwarranted and unsubstantiated accusations were made against me by
Antonio Villaraigosa during his campaign to become Los Angeles City
Councilmember of the 14th District.

Antonio’s attack on my integrity and on my record as an activist
was initiated for the sole purpose of denigrating me personally and the
organization I helped to found because I endorsed his opponent.

In addition to sharing with you the sequence of events regarding
fabrications and allegations made against me by Antonio Villaraigosa, I am
including a text copy of the City Ethics Commission memo below that
exonerates me and the Madres del Este de Los Angeles – Santa Isabel from any

Fabrication # 1: Several months ago, recently elected Los Angeles City
Councilmember Antonio Villaraigosa attacked me personally and the
organization I helped to found by alleging that city funds were
misappropriated. He fabricated a story in which he claimed that
approximately $60,000 were given to MELASI by the City and that MELASI used
that money to help finance an independent group supporting the re-election
of Councilmember Nick Pacheco (Villaraigosa’s opponent). He further claimed
that I was the central figure in committing these alleged actions because I
had allowed my house to be used to house part of that campaign. He did this
despite the fact that he understood very well that I have allowed political
candidates and others, including him and his political allies, to use my
house in support of different campaigns.

Fact #1: MELASI is a volunteer-based organization with a staff of 100%
unpaid volunteers. MELASI never took any overhead from City funds. As is
demonstrated in the receipts and other documents that were submitted to the
Los Angeles City Ethics Commission, the funds went to pay for successfully
executed community services and programs.

Fabrication # 2: Villaraigosa claimed that MELASI and the independent group
were both located at my house at that same time.

Fact # 2: Had he any clue of goings on in the community, Villaraigosa would
have realized that MELASI had moved to the former CSO building on 1st Street
and Chicago five years ago. In fact, the memo from the Ethics Commission
that exonerates us is addressed to that location. MELASI has not worked out
of my house for several years. Still, I have opened my house to community
activism and political campaigns in the past and will not be intimidated
into limiting my activism in the future.

Fabrication #3: In the LA Times article, reporter Matea Gold claimed that
the District Attorney was conducting an investigation into the allegations
fabricated by Antonio Villaraigosa.

Fact #3: On the Monday morning after the article ran, MELASI called the DA’s
office because we wanted to walk in with all receipts in order to
demonstrate our innocence and clear our name. The DA’s office responded that
no such investigation was taking place. The District Attorney’s office never
contacted us regarding the supposed investigation. Yet, the Los Angeles
Times continued to falsely claim that the DA had launched an investigation.

Role of the Media

The night before publication of Antonio’s false allegations against me and
the Madres del Este de Los Angeles – Santa Isabel, Los Angeles Times
reporter Matea Gold called my house to try to get a quote. I was
unavailable, but when I read the story, the accusatory tone convinced me
that the article had already been written before she called and that the
call was purely perfunctory.

The fact that she did not try to reach us until the night before
the story ran demonstrates that she had no real interest in gathering all
relevant information or in writing a well-balanced article. In fact, she
based her story solely on the fabrications made by Antonio Villaraigosa’s
campaign and did not even bother to check for any facts. The Times ran a
sensationalist editorial in the following Sunday’s edition which highlighted
these fabrications as fact and refused to print my written response to their

Matea Gold has reported on community affairs and should have
known that MELASI’s offices were located at First Street and Chicago and not
at my house as she reported. Further, Ms. Gold should have checked the
validity of the allegations and should have called the District Attorney’s
office before reporting that they were conducting an investigation.
Lamentably, Matea Gold and the Los Angeles Times editorial staff were
irresponsible and unprofessional in their rush to judgment.

Moreover, the Los Angeles Times refused to print responses from
myself and others who wrote letters criticizing the coverage and Antonio’s
allegations as unfounded. Such slight of objective balance on the part of
the LA Times’ editorial staff and misconduct on the part of the reporter
highly suggests that the Los Angeles Times was more interested in running a
sensationalist story right before an election rather than sorting out facts
and practicing responsible journalism. We reject such poor journalistic
ethics as nothing short of holding the truth for ransom.

Thankfully, the other media in Los Angeles recognized the highly politicized
rhetoric in these allegations and proceeded with caution. The sole exception
was La Opinion, the Spanish language newspaper and a subsidiary of the L.A.
Times and Tribune communications.

La Opinion, through its reports and through the opportunistic
op-ed writings of California State University, Northridge assistant
professor David Diaz called on me to demonstrate to the public where that
money had gone. Had he done his homework, they would have known that we had
already submitted all the paper work and were fully cooperating with the Los
Angeles City Ethics Commission.

David Diaz knows me. All he had to do was ask and I would have
been more than happy to tell him that all of our documents had already been
submitted to the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission. But in my view, he had
already taken sides in the election. I don’t begrudge him his political
opinion, but believe it would have been more ethical to admit to it rather
than attempt to present himself as objective.

Surprisingly, UFW Vice President Dolores Huerta jumped into the
attempt to discredit me and our organization without first checking with me
whether such allegations had any validity. Dolores Huerta permitted her name
and image, and that of the UFW, to be used on a political flyer paid for by
Antonio Villaraigosa’s campaign which included English and Spanish versions
of the Los Angeles Times’ spiteful editorial that personalized its attack on
me and our organization.

This was especially hard to take considering my long history of
working in the interest of campesinos with her, Cesar Chavez, Arturo
Rodriguez and the UFW. What made it even more difficult was that I had come
to expect more out of Dolores Huerta and the UFW than what they
demonstrated. I have yet to understand why they would allow themselves to be
used in order to perpetuate false allegations and attempt to assassinate the
character of one of their lifelong supporters.

My husband Ricardo ran into Antonio recently and asked why he
had attacked me. Antonio responded that he went to the Times with that story
because he was trying to “protect” me and the Madres from being used. When
pressed further, Antonio admitted that his political advisors had told him
that he had to attack me (since I had endorsed his opponent) in order to


I am grateful to the community organizations that immediately came to our
support. I am grateful to Dr. Rodolfo Acuña, Dr. Mary Pardo, and
Congresswomen Lucille Roybal-Allard who recognized the political nature of
this fabricated story. While many understood the political charades that
were being played out, Dr. Acuña, Dr. Pardo, and Congresswoman Roybal-Allard
were among those who recognized the outrageousness of the allegations and
publicly questioned this insidious attack. I commend them for their courage
to stand with me against the political powers that be at a time when others,
including elected officials with whom I have worked closely, stood idly on
the sideline, or, as one supporter wrote, “ran when things got hot.”

One supporter wrote privately that people will one day come to
realize the magnitude of this attack and the fact that the power brokers of
this city would go as far as to fabricate a story to eliminate political
opposition in order to get their preferred candidate elected to office. She
wrote that when they came to realize the truth about these fabrications,
those “who ran when things got hot” would themselves come to question the
nature of their profession and, for that matter, their commitment to the

I stand firm and proud by my record.


Juana B. Gutiérrez,

President and Co-Founder,
Madres del Este de Los Angeles – Santa Isabel.


Text of the memo sent by The City Ethic Commission follows:

July 24, 2003

Mothers of East Los Angeles – Santa Isabel
2130 E. 1st. Street, Suite 303
Los Angeles, CA 90033

Re: Whistleblower Complaint #03-292

This letter is to inform you of the final disposition of the
above-referenced complaint received by this office on February 21, 2003,
regarding a potential misuse of funds received by MELASI. Our inquiry found
insufficient evidence of a violation of laws within City Ethics Commission’s
jurisdiction to warrant further action. Accordingly, the complaint has been
placed in a closed status.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.



Kirsten M. Pickenpaugh, Esq.

Senior Investigator


There's much more. D.A. reports; court rulings; personal e-mails; do you really have the time for all this?

July 04, 2005 8:22 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Marty can try to drown the truth with paper and verbiage and hide behind mom, but it won't work. Circulating an editorial based on facts does not consitute a "sleaze campaign." You haven't backed up the charge.

The LA Times editorial does not say that MELASI and "Mothers for Nick" shared the same address, so all those paragraphs are a straw man:

"Between Dec. 30 and Jan. 21, Pacheco gave $36,500 -- on top of $30,000 in recent years -- to Madres del Este de Los Angeles-Santa Isabel, an Eastside nonprofit organization headed by Juana Gutierrez. Mothers for Nick, the political committee that shares Gutierrez's Boyle Heights address, reported to the City Ethics Commission in late January that it was spending $36,085 to campaign independently for Pacheco. According to the California secretary of state's Web site, Mothers for Nick took over the name La Colectiva, a now-disbanded group that was run by Gutierrez's son, Martin GutieRuiz, a college friend of Pacheco's."

The editorial plainly says that "Mothers for Nick" shares mom's address, who is the founder of MELASI, which is the beneficiary of public monies disbursed by Pacheco. It further says that MFN took over the legal name of Marty's operation after it collapsed in scandal. He didn't answer that point.

About the money, he didn't answer the point of the pattern with which it was doled out:

"Taxpayers deserve better than these insults to their common sense. They also deserve an explanation of the $250,000 "discretionary" account that Pacheco tapped for the Madres -- in $5,000 dribs and drabs so as not to have to follow city contracting guidelines."

About receipts, just one word: FUNGIBLE. Look it up.

July 04, 2005 9:49 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The last poster, Parke Skelton, I presume, who somebody who Parke tells what to write, is really lacking in any facts. The poster not so cleverly is trying to hide behind an
"editorial based on facts" (that's good for a laugh) rather the real facts of the investigation clearing "Mothers" and Pacheco.

Parke is just bitter with Nick over the houses built in his neighborhood, spoiling his peace and quiet. What a reason to go on a life long crusade against anybody? But if somebody is willing to pay you, why not.

July 04, 2005 6:35 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Here's a fact: $36,500 in our TAXPAYER MONEY funneled by NICK PACHECO in small increments over a period of THREE WEEKS (Dec. 30 '02 - Jan. 21 '03) in the middle of his reelection campaign to an organization (MELASI) headed by a person (Gutierrez) who, at her home address, houses an "independent expenditure" committee ('Mothers for Nick') on his behalf, that coincidentally reports spending $36,085.

This is no crusade or lifelong issue, just what Nick Pacheco did two years ago, the last time he had his hands on our money, where he wants to put them again. These aren't relevant facts in deciding whether he's a worthy candidate?

July 04, 2005 9:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Here's a real fact 948 poster;
July 24, 2003

Mothers of East Los Angeles – Santa Isabel
2130 E. 1st. Street, Suite 303
Los Angeles, CA 90033

Re: Whistleblower Complaint #03-292

This letter is to inform you of the final disposition of the
above-referenced complaint received by this office on February 21, 2003,
regarding a potential misuse of funds received by MELASI. Our inquiry found
insufficient evidence of a violation of laws within City Ethics Commission’s
jurisdiction to warrant further action. Accordingly, the complaint has been
placed in a closed status.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.



Kirsten M. Pickenpaugh, Esq.

Everyone knows it was Parke and Barkan who orchestrated this charade. This attack forced the Madres to cancel their yearly scholarship fund, they had given out nearly $400,000 in the previous 10 years. Parke, think anyone would give money to a non-profit lambasted by a baseless L.A. Times editorial. And you call us wreckless!

You know what that money was used for? Toys and turkeys so that impoverished youth in our Boyle Heights housing projects can enjoy something remotely familiar to Christmas. All the receipts are there, filed with ethics and I'm sure your partner in crime, Laura Chick thoroughly investigated these funds for you - oh, and of course, for the public as well. Not a shred of evidence of any wrong doing. Just a nonprofit trying to do good.

And so what if the same address was used. As someone mentioned earlier, Juana was blessed with a large family - nine children. After all her kids went to college and went on with their own lives and families, Juana was left with a five bedroom house on a 3/4 of an acre in the heart of Boyle Heights. Parke, you want to know what else this house was used for? As storage for the local park's sports equipment, after three successive years of theft and vandalism that cost our Boyle Heights kids seasons of baseball, football and basketball seasons. The house was also used as a meeting area when UNO and Las Madres were founded. It was used as a phone bank and volunteer mobilization site for nearly all of Gloria Molina's, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Gilbert Cedillo, and Vickie Castro campaigns, in fact, Alex Padilla even slept at this house when he ran Cedillo's campaign. Antonio Villar even broke bread in this house. So by your assertion Parke, and the L.A. Times as well, everyone of these individuals is also a crook.

See what happens when you get fools running campigns in communities for which they have no personal attachment and very public ignorance of it's people, history and culture.

Regarding La Colectiva, here is what your esteemed Times had to say about it;
"The district attorney's office also investigated whether La Colectiva mixed public money with campaigning during Pacheco's 1999 campaign, when the group worked for Pacheco about the same time it had a county contract to do outreach for the state Healthy Families program. The investigation was closed in May 2002. No charges were filed."

The only facts are that Antonio lied, or should I say Parke and Barkan lied. And yet Huizar fires his consultant and hires Parke. Think the Gutierrez Family will let you get away with another such insult, Parke?

July 05, 2005 10:25 AM  

Anonymous Homie said:

Still uncontested facts:

$36,500 in TAXPAYER MONEY funneled by NICK PACHECO in small increments (i.e., avoiding advance official scrutiny) over a period of three weeks (Dec. 30 '02 - Jan. 21 '03 -- after Christmas) in the middle of his reelection campaign to an organization (MELASI) headed by a person (Gutierrez) who, at her home address, houses an "independent expenditure" committee ('Mothers for Nick') on his behalf, that coincidentally reports spending $36,085.

Money and receipts are FUNGIBLE. Who doesn't have tons of receipts after the holidays? Want some more?

Nick knew nothing about this "independent expenditure" campaign? At his friends' house, the proud nerve center of his neighborhood and district, while in the middle of the political fight of his career?

"Was never indicted" makes for a great campaign slogan.

July 05, 2005 10:53 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

In response to 8:22 AM, July 04, 2005:
Fabrication #1, #2, #3...
Fact #1, #2, #3...
All proof of the fact that Madres made sure her ninos got an enducation so they can write and speak for her and fabricate untruths. Usually one who points the finger of blame at others, in reality is pointing the finger at oneself...

Reputable LA Times Reporters should be commended for such GREAT JOURNALISM!!! It's about time REPORTERS write and expose the truth about what is really happening in the City of Los Angeles.


July 05, 2005 12:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

10:53 ANON

There is much more evidence than just receipts. There are the hundreds of volunteers that took part, the thousands of children and their parents, and of course, virtually every Spanish television station. But no matter what proof we provide, we're still nothing but a bunch of lying Mexicans to you. Believe what you want, the facts are clear.

And for the 12:03 ANON

We'll see if it worked or not come November.

July 06, 2005 10:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

We are confused about the Mothers of ELA? Are there two organizations or one?

July 06, 2005 11:48 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The bickering from Parke the wannable latino and the anon seems neverending. Parke, get a life. Find a real job you commie bastard. Son of a b****! Go lick AV's ass some more and finish licking Huizar's on the weekends.

July 06, 2005 10:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Response to last anon--

Gee looks like you are really pissed-off at AV!


July 09, 2005 12:54 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Nick is an idiot and a punk. Always acted like he knew what the hell he was doing- he represents latino politicos at their worst. Not-so-pretty, pendejos.

Pretentious- both while in and after he got kicked out of office. He's a has been. We're ready for someone like Jose- who might be accused of being pretentious- but is SMART and is a person with integrity. And when Jose wins, Lou makes the most sense for school board. She's from the community, understands education issues and is ready to fight for kids.

Advice for Nick: stick to your day job. Or- my bad- are you running because you need one?

July 10, 2005 11:30 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home