Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Friday, January 28, 2011

Free for All Friday

Huizar Whitewashing

All the stories are after the jump...

How did they just find this out now? The LAUSD cop who was reportedly shot last week in Woodland Hills FAKED the whole thing?

Not so pleasant Betty Pleasant at it again.  Nope, she isn't obsessed with Bernie Parks.  This time she's accusing the Mayor of racism for not inviting her to his party.  Maybe it's not racism but that no one can stand Betty and her mouth? Will she tell the Mayor to kiss her back side?

Expect Michael Trujillo or Mulholland Terrace to spin this to somehow being Sarah Palin good googly goo right wing whitey agitprop,  but Red Spot uncovers that the Councilman Last Seen as Jose Huizar paid nearly 30 gs  to a consultant to "advise" how to give away turkeys for free.  Despite the fact that other electeds working with community groups had been doing just fine at the task for years.

Paul Hatfield has a blow by blow following an appearance by School Board candidates Louis Pugliese and Tamar Gatalzan at a recent Valley Village Neighborhood Council meeting.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said:

Its time for the Feds to investigate Huizar and crew.

January 28, 2011 12:05 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Red spot's Turkey post sounds like just the same kind of "boo hoo" look at me, whining that one of the public commneters from Boyle Hgts. was engaging in at City Council the day after the meeting was cancelled (same person who did most of the heckling of Huizar at Glassell Pk. forum). Turns out she was mostly hurt because she was a "-2" and because Huizar didn't personally pick up the phone and ask HER how to do things in Boyle.

Now it's the same whining because Scott can't run the turkey giveaway so he can feel important. It all comes down to "why didn't you ask me? I could get a few people there for free turkeys.

Boo hoo.

From now on he's no longer "Red Spot" he's "Fredo" to Huizar's "Don Corleone."

"I can handled things! I'm SMART! Not like everybody post at Mayor Sam's... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!"


January 28, 2011 12:17 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Speaking of whitewash, Mailander is in full blown crazy drunk mode at his blog right now!

January 28, 2011 12:20 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

MT-1 and MT-2 have the night off, so let me try and debunk Rud Spit's latest malicious slander.

(You know, Higby, some people do actually READ the motions Scottie boy links to, and can tell he's making crap up out of whole cloth. You don't seem to be one of them.)

There's nothing in that CLARTS motion that says the consulting fee was JUST for one Turkey giveway event, or even just that kind of event . . . just because that's the ONLY one Red Spot actually knows about.

The five-month-long consulting agreement, for roughly $5K a month took place over a time period (Aug. - Dec.) when CD14 and most other council districts host MANY public events that require someone to help pull off the logistics.

If as it seems to appear, the person handling them as an "outside" firm, once did part or all of the same job as a full-time employee - then that's pretty standard practice in a lot of fields. Someone leaves as a full-time employee, but contracts back their service to handle similar tasks on a temporary basis.

AND, as an independent contractor, they now have to pay their own SSI, their taxes, their own medical - versus having them on as an employee for that whole period, when their total comp+benefits package would probably have run much, much more (at least 1.5X salary.

SO, rather than some exorbitant payola, the event planner working OUTSIDE most likely cost the district LESS than she would staying as a F-T employee.

Are you really going to continue to back up all of Red Spot's total fabrications of these things - pretendng a FIVE MONTH consulting agreement for $27K for special events coordination was JUST to run a single-day's event?

I don't know what kind of scutt labor RS does between scurrilous posts, but ask him to ask his employer if the TOTAL cost as an employer over a 5 month period isn't AT LEAST 30-35K, a lot more than the consultant recieved.

Same sh*t, different year.

6 years ago, Higby was "vouching" for the accuracy of Villaraigosa creating


while AV pretended to be the CD14 CM.

And now he's just as dishonestly vouching for Red Spot's


Say your prayers over this, Minister Higby, now that you found Jesus. God don't look kindly on people who repeatedly "bare false witless" about others.

January 28, 2011 12:56 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

L.A. Times has the full slam on Huizar outpacing Rudy Martinez's campaign $21,630 to Ruy's $215 for the last 4 weeks of this campaign. (It's too late do good "figgerin" but that's either 1000 percent more, or 10,000 percent more for Huizar). In any it mean Rudy raised less than $1 for every $100 Huizar did.


I'm sure the red spotter spinners will bill this as, "Rudy saves onstitutents the costs of having to support his campaign" but the reality is, he's also saving them from having to pay him a salary for the next 4 years.

Capice? HOOOOO ha!

(As someone pointed out earlier, the hapless Alvin Parra received campaign contributions more than three times what Martinez has raised in his. And Alvin got trounced!)

January 28, 2011 1:13 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

All its taken is the negative media stories to let people know the antics behind closed doors of Huizar antics. At community meetings now the talk is the Community Member grades, the blight and 3rd world look of Boyle Heights with 68% illegals living there, businesses gone under cause they couldn't compete with illegal vendors and Huizar turned a blind eye, lost of health care clinics, historic sites being demolished, Huizar did nothing, streets a mess, out of control garage sales, and with all the money Huizar has in his discretionary funds failed to do anything to help his own district. Lied about trash fee hike, Voted for DWP rate hikes knowing seniors live on a fixed income, Lied about Measure B the solor energy BS, CLARTS Fund abuse that is soon to hit the papers and more

January 28, 2011 6:26 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mr. Higby:

News Story
VineGate: Why an FBI Investigation is Warranted
By Bob Blue


Damage Caused by CRA’s Outweighs Benefits
Michael Sinkov


January 28, 2011 8:28 AM  

Blogger Michael Higby said:

Good spin, Mike.

January 28, 2011 8:38 AM  

Blogger Michael Higby said:

Mailander calling JoeB a "surly drunk activist" is akin to me calling, oh, I don't know, maybe Phil Jennerjahn a "right wing fat blogger."

January 28, 2011 8:39 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

12:56 aka MT

Yo' Spinsta!

January 28, 2011 8:47 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

8:38 a.m.

May I call you, Tom?

Turd-jillo's probably having a good laugh at you thinking I'm him, Higby. Especially since I used to trash his AV apologetics pretty damn good.

(I do a MUCH netter job than that overpaid amateur, and besides, what I POST is probably closer to the truth). Read the file yourself, Rid Sput's interpretation is pure evil fantasy. The boy ought to write comic books about superheroes, not politics.

And did I mentione, I work for FREE? Not that Huizar couldn't afford it. He's raking in money faster than Rudy's drunken bar patrons can spill their drinks.

January 28, 2011 8:49 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Don't tell me that a Council office needs to hire someone to give away turkeys. Huizar must have something like 2 dozen people on his staff, way more that any other City Councilmember in the United States. What are all those other people doing?

The other choice would be to let a nonprofit give them away. Of course we all know that the purpose of giving away the turkeys is to win voters and supporters so that's why the Councilman wants to do it himself.

January 28, 2011 9:01 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If Huizar has so much more money why is it that I only get mail from Rudy and have my door knocked by his people.

Where is Huizar's money going? is that being luandered by Gustavo also?

January 28, 2011 9:23 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Trujillo yaps way too much.

Its not too late to get off the Huizar ship buddy.

Huizar, Francine and Gustavo will trying on their orange jump suits soon enough.

January 28, 2011 9:31 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mailander's going Charlie Sheen over at his blog! The only thing missing is the porn stars!

January 28, 2011 9:51 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Oh come on.... Francine would have worn the Turkey suit for free!

January 28, 2011 10:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


It's one of the weakest intellectual tricks to re-state (incorrectly) someone else's argument and them pretend to defeat it.

No one said the council office "needed to hire someone just to give away turkeys."

But, you did.

Yes, you DEFEATED your own argument.

Great debating skills. Enjoy the milk and cookies and your afternoon nap, junior. You're really outdone yourself.

January 28, 2011 10:43 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Let's play a game...

What would a legitimate Council District 14 look like?

Who are the people of CD14? Who are the voting stakeholders?

What would this district look like on a map?

Start fresh...erase the lines

and don't pay attention to the State Assembly, State Senate, Congressional Districts or the US Senate Districts.

Clear your mind and think.

We want to help balance the budget and contribute to the ethical government of the CITY OF LOS ANGELES....

Everything else is garbage...

January 28, 2011 10:47 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Simple answer. Rudy is unknown and is blowing all his money early on to get recognition. It won't work, and he'll be out one-quarter million of his own house-flipping funds.

He knows nothing about the dynamics of local L.A. politics.

Huizar is known, and has also easily been elected four times in this area of L.A., most by huge landlsides.

The people Rudy Rich reaches these 5-6 weeks before the election will forget him by the time they vote, and Rudy doesn't have enough money left to maintain any momentum until the end.

This is why amateur runners burn out halfway through distance races and experienced ones last until the end.

The most important thing now for Rudy's hired campaign hands - who have known for months now he can't possibly win - is to burn up as much of the money he's set aside (and get as much into their own pockets before Rudy figures out he's being taken for a ride).

If your one of Rudy's "friends and family" posting here, you can keep enabling him to waste money, or you can suggest he take a good hard look at how his hired hacks are rolling him like some drunk behind his own bar.

January 28, 2011 10:51 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Yes, and while you're at it, "visualize whirled peas."

(who was it who said)... "some people see things as they're not and just keep banging their damned heads against the inevitable until they pass out."

January 28, 2011 10:54 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I think I've figured out that Red Spot and as an accomplice, Higby, both know that most of what they post is made up and untrue, but they just enjoy the game.

Especially when some hapless reporter somewhere else plays with it for awhile in REAL new media.

It;s got to be some form of "punked" where they just laugh and laugh... "can you believe that idiot reporter went along with our conspiracy theory - didn't even check the figures, dates, etc., himself. Of COURSE the $27K consulting contract wasn't just for one event or for giving away turkeys."

How perversely cynical.

And, what a legacy when you get to the end of your lives. "For fun, I made up lies about people in public life, intentionally misrepresenting facts and figures, so that they had to expend their (useful) lives unscrambling the facts for the easily deceived."

Beats prank calls, I suppose. Smaller phone bills, anyway.

Maybe the Enquirer is hiring?

January 28, 2011 11:02 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Got another vidoe from Rudy today, good stuff.

January 28, 2011 11:03 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I too envision a district where all the old remaining white middle-class hillside dwellers* could someday lock arms within one district's boundaries and sing the words to that old non-spiritual "Free of vagrants, taco trucks, illegals, and poor people . . . at last."

(Now who the hell's gonna mow our lawns and burp our grandbabies?)

*It's bad enough they control all the neighborhood councils in the area.

January 28, 2011 11:10 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Rudy Rich told the Times he set aside as much as $250,000 in personal funds for this race to "remain independent" -- when the obvious truth is because he knew he couldn't raise money from the district.

He has no support - still.

If his efforts to get elected were gaining ground, and all the door-knocking and phone-baggering was working, people from the district would want to contribute to his campaign. Instead, he raised far more money in the early months (from friends and family - now maxed out) than he has since.

January 28, 2011 11:18 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


And it was W.C. Fields who said,

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it."

January 28, 2011 11:20 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Rudy Rich is good on video-tape. Those you can edit.

Real political life you can't.

He's failed, it's over. The information that the ship is sinking just hasn't reached the wheelhouse yet, and he's barking orders (like he does to the illegal day laborers he hired to flip houses on TV).

At least maybe this time the captain will go down with the ship and we'll be done with this con man.

January 28, 2011 11:23 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

When does "Fredo" post another lying conspiracy theory about CLARKS bars?

Comments are getting fewer and farther between

January 28, 2011 11:24 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Funny thing about "spin" is it's all in the eyes of the beholder.

To paranoid, fearful, angry conspiracy theorists, the oft-proven FACT that JFK was killed by a lone nutcase named Oswald is just "spin" too.

I doubt whether anyone from Huizar's campaign or staff would bother to post here, even on their own time. The hardcore haters here are beyond being able to recognize facts and plausible explanations. Why waste the time. If someone is trying hard to rebut them here, it would have to be some well-meaning person who sees the huge potential danger in putting a misguided amateur like Rudy Martinez in any position of authority over other people.

One huge red warning flag already was Martinez's release of the personal, private contact information contained on one of the lists from Huizar's offices - the one from El Sereno.

He obviously cares more about winning a grudge match, or even just embarrassing the guy who will eventually win, than looking out for the best interests of people he says he wants to "listen to" and represent.

I guarantee you, if he had asked them, and "listened" most would have said, please don't post my phone and e-mail on the Internet.

Why would a responsible person do that? It wasn't necessary; it could have been redacted and only the names and rating lefts visible -- and would have still served his purpose, without the huge invasion of hundreds of people's safety and security.

Dedicated community volunteers's personal privacy, even if they're on the "other" side for these few weeks of campainging, is just "collateral damage" for his carpet-bombing to try and reach Huizar.

The people he says he will respect more than Huizar has deserve better and they deserve a public apology, at the very least -- now that teh damage can't be undone.

January 28, 2011 11:41 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:



It's not like those people signed in at a public meeting and had some reason to think their info would be released.

Bad, bad, bad thinking from Rudy's campaign - if there's any real thinking going on there at all.

As a government (not LA City) employee, I can guarantee you just don't put "civilians" out in harm's way like that - for any reason.

Incredibly poor judgment there. No wonder more people don't get involved in the process, if their safety is going to be used as a pawn in someone else's election chess game.

January 28, 2011 12:10 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Since Higby was once an accomplice of Mailander and Trujillo don't you think he is wise to their sombrero of tricks?

Just ask Kevin Roderick, Ron Kaye or Walter Moore!

January 28, 2011 12:20 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

He’s a crank with a hard drive and a no-talent crank at that.

I read his stuff and came to the conclusion he attacks to get readers. It worked once, so why not try it again.

Does MayorSam have higher ratings that Street Hustle?

January 28, 2011 12:23 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I can't wait to see if Jon Regardie at Downtown News (apparently one of Huizar's favorite columnists?), will grace us with more JAWS and nautical parables about the CD14 campaign in his next column - especially now that Rudy Rich's dingy has run out of gas in hostile waters (i.e., most of CD14).

January 28, 2011 12:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If Higby could be "wise" to someone's tricks, the embarrassingly grammar- and truth-challenged Reed Sput would have been booted out years ago.

January 28, 2011 12:26 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Higby the Internet is a bitch and so am I. Did you not write the following about Mailander? Were you wrong about him as you were when you told us that Villaraigosa would be a great Mayor, that Zuma Dogg is a "civic treasure" and that Phil Jennerjoke is "smart?"

Read your own words fatass - and weep:

"Joseph provided significant sunshine and water to Mayor Sam not only contributing great and often provocative content but machinating behind the scenes to expose the blog to the movers and shakers in local government as well as local media.

Mailander provided me with many chuckles whether it was his goading of uptight Westside blogger Kevin Roderick, his creation of catchphrases such describing the LA Times as the Former Fishwrap of Record and coining fun aburdities like 80 FAKE HUIZAR WONDERLANDS (a sly cross-referencing of Councilmember Jose Huizar's trucked in snow holiday events and criticism of alleged fake neighborhood watches claimed by Mayor Villaraigosa when he was a Councilman). Though "bloggers" like Roderick referred to Mailander as living in a parallel universe and the "farting wonder" of LA journalism Marc Cooper called Joe the "village idiot of the local blogosphere," it was Mailander more often than not who called out "nanny poo" bloggers such as Roderick, Cooper and Mickey Kaus (who imagined a gang riot in Brentwood one Halloween evening.)"

January 28, 2011 12:29 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Why are the Huizar supporters so full of brotherly love in advising Rudy to save his money and pull out of the race? The more I read these posts, the more I think Rudy has a chance. Rudy, you have $500.00 coming your way.

January 28, 2011 12:35 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Thank you 12:29 I did intend to mention the intellectually challenged last remaining white guy in public housing.

One might surmise though that Mailander ought not to be surprised that Higby, Joe and Scotty turned on him. He created those monsters.

January 28, 2011 12:36 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"Joseph Mailander has the Midas touch in reverse: everything he touches turns to shit."

January 28, 2011 12:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Such B.S.

Every election cycle some dunderhead whose inexperience would doom the district to four years of famine and pestilence wastes ALL our time, created warring hostile camps (his, albeit a loud, but very tiny one) and distracts elected officials from their work by throwing the hat from his empty head into ring.

Two elections ago it was the rerun of having a tarred-and-feathered ex-CM with no self-awareness that he was a pariah to CD14, last election- a disgruntled ex-employee who should have been fired twice before he jumped ship for gross incompetence, and now - a bored millionaire with a multiple-conviction criminal record repeating two redundant over-rehearsed sentences everywhere he goes about "what he'll do".

Duh.... "I'll listen" and uh..... I'll be "transparent". Uh, um - "did I get those right Mr. Hacopian, because I don't want Mr. Pacheco to beat me with that stick again?"

The "brotherly love" is for the district, which deserves and already has much better leadership than any of those three could ever have offered. (Rudy can sit on his money and rotate).

PLEASE, do send Rudy $500. That'll double whatever else he actually raises between now and March 8, and probably give him a wet dream later that same night.

And, you deserve to pay for the mistake of buying into the latest unqualified scam artist.

Consider yourself fined $500 for being a sheep.

January 28, 2011 1:12 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

RIP Martinez.

La Opinion just spoke to several Pacheco staffers alleging the same money laundering scheme.


January 28, 2011 1:23 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Whatever candidate you support what I find truly outrageous is if a resident supports Mr. Martinez or any community member support Martinez they are called "Huizar Haters." This is a clear indication as to the mentality of the Huizar campaign. They and their supporters fail to recognize that many constituents have very serious issues that haven't been addressedin years. These constituents have been verbally attacked, made fun of, threatened. This is exactly the way Antonio ran his campaign as well. Intimindation is the known factor for these Latino politicians. They use it to scare business owners and seniors. When they speak out they are called "Haters." This shows the lack of maturity, lack of character and lack of education the other side is all about. Sadly, if you are a Latino and you don't support a candidate instead of the issues being the focus you become the target. This is why Latino communities will never be improved.

January 28, 2011 1:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Where's Gloria Allred when you need her?

(Oh yeah, she's a democrat!)

When Mighty Meg threw out her potentially embarrassing illegal alien housekeeper, G-L-O-R-I-A was janey on the spot to defend her and trash Whitman.

Now, (Mini-Meg) Rudy Martinez's mentor and spirit guide to how to lose a campaign - "Tricky Nicky" Pacheco throws out one of his illegal employees (Carlos Lira's wife) who won't contribute more to Rudy, and NOBODY is there to pick up her similar law suit.

Come-on Glo, be nonpartisan in your ambulance chasing, just once. Your(real) law firm could make mincemeat of Pacheco's fake one!

January 28, 2011 1:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Where's the blogger to post tne "new" GATE scandal.

$500-GATE, Pacheco and Rudy twist in the wind over rigged contributions, DAY #3.

January 28, 2011 1:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

FREDO Spot won't help with covering Nicka Pacheco latest ethics bumble.

Nick taught Scott everything he (don't) know about CLARKS. He owes him silence and/or "spin."

January 28, 2011 1:47 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Buh bye Rudy.

It appears Pacheco's ex employees are no more loyal than the ex-listmaker and constituent "discrimator" for Huizar that you're related to.

January 28, 2011 1:49 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


The leaders who have made the most difference in this society, have not been the one's that just said "that's the way it is, get over it."

If that is all your community has to offer, I'm sorry I bothered...

Maybe we should find a way to neuter the power brokers in CD14.

If you were to take away the CRA money, the CLART fees, the descretionary accounts,.... then outlaw Council District outsourcing of any kind, you might have something!

You'd also have to redefine the definiton of a non-profit. All labor and management hours should be donated, otherwise all you have is a business that doesn't have to meet any standards or compete. The concept is a joke.

January 28, 2011 1:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Good of RS to post Rudy's latest slam mailer.

Shows (AGAIN), that he's clueless and/or dishonest.

It once again ID's CLARTS funds as "taxpayer money".

CLARTS does not come from taxes, period. It's no more "taxpayer money" than fines from speeding tickets.

January 28, 2011 1:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


You mis-state the response.

Didn't trust your own power to rebut it, huh?

I thought so.

January 28, 2011 2:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


So what you Huizar staffers are saying is that Rudy can't run the district because he is not part of the Alatorre Mafia underworld?

January 28, 2011 2:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

1:42 p.m.

"This is why Latino communities will never be improved."

Okay, if you say so.

I'll just stop trying - since you're so sure.

January 28, 2011 2:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

somebody let the barking little chihuahua out at Joseph Mailander's blog!

January 28, 2011 2:06 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

11:24 No Need To Post. Evidence and Posts submitted to Feds.

January 28, 2011 2:06 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It's a quick, simple connect the dots exercise to get to calling anti-Huizar posters, especially here, "haters."

Since Rudy Martinez has no real qualifications for the job, and Huizar isn't guilty of anything that would disqualify him from another term or two ("prove" otherwise?), what else explains the venom?

"Hate" is really the only thing that motivates this kind of intense anger against one candidate and support for another, especially when the one they're heading TO - Martinez, has shown nothing in his character, background, intellect, plans, positions, knowledge of the district (of even willingness to learn about it), that recommends him for the job.

He's not even the "transparent" person he claims to be, avoiding real, believable explanations about some really slimy looking episodes in his fairly recent past.

He has two things only going for him in this race:

1) He's rich.

2) He's not Huizar (and thus, the "hate" comments are justified about any of his ardent supporters that aren't already friends and family).

You don't even see the usual anti-Huizar bloggers out there saying "yay, Rudy" -- only "boo, Huizar."

Nope, it's hate, obviously.

January 28, 2011 2:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

2:01 p.m.

You mis-state the response.

Didn't trust your own power to rebut it, huh?

I thought so.

January 28, 2011 2:19 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


WHOA there cowboy,


There was very clearly misappropriation of funds by this Councilman. The legal procedure for using this money is clear in the original city documents. By telling people that the funds simply weren't "taxes" by defintion, is dishonest.

There are all kinds of fees and special assessments collected by the City that are protected from theft just like "taxes." There are legal uses of the money and illegal uses of the money.

I want to hear your explanation!

Go for it....let's see what you've got.

January 28, 2011 2:19 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

1:59 PM - It's "taxpayer money" in that it belongs to the taxpayer and is for the benefit of the taxpayer.
Are you playing a game of semantics here?

January 28, 2011 2:23 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

2:01 Martinez is not part of the Alatorre gang. He has to lose at all costs.

January 28, 2011 2:25 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

That's pretty funny, 2:01, considering Rudy is the only convicted criminal in the race.

Maybe you should avoid references to "underworld" - under the circumstances, you know... stones, glass houses, that sort of thing?

(So I guess what you're saying Rudy IS qualified to run the district because he was caught and convicted for his crimes - and everyone else involved has only been accused (with no proof)?

Sorry, don't get that logic... we need a dumber variety of "criminal" in office, so maybe we have a better chance of catching them red-handed?

It's pretty thin, but maybe there's some really obtuse way to get that by the voters. Work on that.

January 28, 2011 2:25 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The drunken Joseph Mailander continues his rotgut vodka fused ranting, now he's calling JoeB a woman basher!
Soon JoeB will be a gang banger and murderer if Mailander doesn't pass out soon

January 28, 2011 2:26 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

2:19 p.m.
(yet again)

You mis-state the response.

Didn't trust your own power to rebut it, huh?

I thought so.

(How many "straw man" arguments does it take to prop up Rudy Martinez's campaign? Answer: We'll never know - he's done!)

Go back and re-read that post you're responding to without your pointy tin-foil conspiracy hat one.

Let your brain BREATHE!

January 28, 2011 2:29 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Show me where it says that, in the CLARTS ordinance that it "belongs to the taxpayer..."?

(NAH, I ain't the one playing semantics!)

Once something goes into City coffers, and becomes "discretionary" how can it "belong" to someone who never paid into it, and has no control over its use, per ordinance?

You may be able to make the point that it's to be used for the benefit of taxpayers (and it ALL was according to the City controller), but you can't honestly say it "belongs" to the taxpayer.

They didn't pay it - they can't get it back - and the elected official is under no obligation to spend it any way other than at his DISCRETION, within the rules for it's expenditure (AGAIN... HE DID!).

Don't go confusing ownership with "for the benefit of".

January 28, 2011 2:38 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Yeah you're right we should have a councilman that has all the resources of a mafia kingpen at his fingertips.

That always makes for a good politician.

January 28, 2011 2:53 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Here is where you are absolutely wrong!

The councilman had no right to transfer the money to a descretionary fund at all.


Thank You ...next.

January 28, 2011 2:58 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The SUPREME irony of all this bitching and moaning about how CLARKS bar money is supposed to be spent, it that is the moaners ended up being right (won't happen), it would probably blow up in their couple dozen faces and do damage to the whole district.

Under the very ordinance that created it, if could easily go something like this:

1) In some imaginary world for Huizar-haters, the controller (or some other authority) would suddenly reverse herself and say the money spent on admin/salaries, etc. over 3 years, wasn't used appropriately, and that that much had to be corrected.

2) In some way, it has to be put back... (docking CD14's other amenities for the next 4 years, or cutting staff salaries, forcing layoff of 5-6 people, or ???).

3) The allegedly mis-used funds would then be declared forfeit under section 5.540 (f) of the ordinance --because they hadn't been spent "within the fiscal year" collected, and would then automatically roll into the general fund anyway -- with no way to appeal that. All of it would NO LONGER be of ANY use to CD14, which would be underbudgeted everywhere else, and the money would now be at the whim of all 15 coumcilmembers, for ANY use they decide. (And this would be regardless of who was in office in CD14).

In the final laugher, each of the the other 14 each use their portion to keep THEIR staffers from having to furloughed next year, and CD14 is the ONLY district with far less people available to service constituent requests.

...once again, don't start getting excited, it's not going to happen that way - and we'd better all be glad. All the election-period ranting will end soon. After Rudy's 16th minute of (local) fame is over. But that's the path the ranters are taking you down - mutually assured destruction of CD14's finances in the future, all just to take swings at Huizar.

January 28, 2011 3:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Find me the passage in teh CLARTS ordinance and then come back with it.

You can't, you won't. I'm looking right at it.

There's NO language at all even close to that lie you just posted.

January 28, 2011 3:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


How many embezzlement cases were defended with the same argument....

"but judge...I thought partying with my friends at Princeton was for the benefit of the taxpayers."

January 28, 2011 3:13 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

2:53 p.m.

2:01 p.m.

Such bad debaters... almost as bad as Rudy.

... you mis-state the response.

Didn't trust your own power to rebut it, huh?


(You just can't do that. When I say "my dog is brown" you can't come back with "so you admit your dog has fleas"... you see just how stoopid that is?

January 28, 2011 3:13 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

So the argument now is,

CD14 constituents should not make a big deal about the theft of funds, because they may get stuck with the bill?

Sometimes that happens when you elect the wrong people. They represent you, and YOU get stuck cleaning up the mess.

January 28, 2011 3:17 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Good point, either way, that money isn't going back in for use for future CD14 amenities.

That ship has sailed. So the only benefit to the district to keep bringing it up it to slime Huizar by innuendo.

(hmmm, I thought Parke Skelton was the master of that kind of misdirection, but he's working with Huizar this time. Has he been holding night classes for remedial campaign consultants?)

January 28, 2011 3:17 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

WOW, the Rudy spinners, the only cadre backing a convicted felon for office, have lost their minds.

The only way they can make their boy look "clean" by comparison is to suggest Huizar is in bed with organized crime?


They really have no confidence whatsoever in their boy being able to make people forget he was a battering, battering, loitering, (what was the fourth? - drunk driving?) criminal well into his adult life.

January 28, 2011 3:22 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

For all of talk of Huizar having a lot of turnover, I remember Pacheco wasn't a whole let better, with 2-3 people in each position over 4 years.

If he hasn't changed his spots, then his lawfirm probably has the same problem, which can only mean we'll be hearing from "ex-employees" who were told to illegally donate to Martinez, and get reimburse, about one a week for the rest of this election cycle.

Drip, drip, drip. Each being assassinated by Pacheco in the press for blowing the whistle.

Well, beats hearing daily from every amateur out there what HIS definition of a CLARTS amenity really is.

January 28, 2011 3:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Look up the definition of embezzlement before you go any further.

Nothing having anything to do with CLARTS or CLARKS can be described as anything even close.

Be glad you're anonymous. That was downright libelous.

January 28, 2011 3:29 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Child, that wasn't even close to being "the argument" -- if you didn't really understand the perfectly logical way it was laid out as a "what if" then you should have raised your hand and asked for clarification.

Let me rephrase (in short words) for you.

NO THEFT... not by any definition, anywhere.

NO 'WRONG PEOPLE ELECTED' (your opinion, okay... that's 1). 66 percent of voters who cared enough to show up 4 years ago say your wrong and the vast majority will agree again in 6 weeks.

NO MESS TO CLEAN UP... (sorry, keep wishing).

The moral of the story is that bitchers and haters can make life far worse for all, but don't usually care if they think they can say "I won" somewhere down the line, to hell with who gets hurt.

PEEPS, pay attention. I won't let you RESTATE what I post and then say you're "explaining" if for others.

Those are just bad lies.

January 28, 2011 3:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


That wasn't even what happened.

Get away from this blog and read a real newspaper - just one. You're being poisoned here.

January 28, 2011 3:38 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

That should be the sub-title for this blog.

"The House of Bad Lies"

One or two people who actually read the laws and rules seem to be able to deflate every argument posted by people like Red Spot within a couple minutes of his long tedious posts.

Really bad lies.

January 28, 2011 3:40 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

What's with the "peeps" homie!

January 28, 2011 3:40 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The arguments against the way Huzar spent CLARTS money seem real similar to the people in the past who say they won't pay their federal taxes, because they're opposed to whatever war the U.S. is in at the time.

It's not for you to decide how it's spent. It's for your elected representatives.

We empower them every four year to make those decisions.

Sure you can vote them out. But there's no way that's going to happen over this relatively small amount of money and the extremely small number of people using it for campaign fodder.

January 28, 2011 3:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

(3:17 needed REALLY small words in order to understand. "Peeps" is two letters shorter then "people.")

Hope it helped.

January 28, 2011 3:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


so I am looking at something called the "CLARTS Ordinance...."

Is this what we are talking about?
It states...

Appropriations from the fund shall be authorized upon recommendation by the councilperson of the district, only by the City Council by resolution on a project by project basis, and shall be used exclusively for purposes set forth in subsection (b)

(b) The Fund shall be used for the purpose of financing community ammenities within the City of Los Angeles Council District 14.

So first,

The Councilman clearly has the authority to recommend a project to full council. Not choose the project himself and spend the money.


It clearly says that the Council, not Huizar, is supposed to make a decision on the expenditures on a project by project basis. This would imply that the Council should vote on the expenditure directly not a transfer into a discretionary fund.

and finally,

Does anything he spent money on look like it could be defined as an amenity related to recyling? There should be a clear nexus. A beautification project of some sort comes to mind... maybe a park bench...not salaries and consulting fees.

A fee is collected for a specific purpose by law. You can't just slide it into the general fund or a Council Office discretionary Account..

That my friends, would be a clear violation of the public trust..and illegal.

If this is not the right document, I think we would all appreciate seeing the real thing.

January 28, 2011 4:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Isn't it time for mommy to pick the Huizar-haters up from daycare?

They're just wriggling all over the place trying to justify changing councilmembers now.

Maybe you've had them at the keyboards way too long, Hacopian. They're not going to accidentally type anything from Shakespeare today. . . diminishing returns, you know?

January 28, 2011 4:02 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


OK, let me rephrase. Huizar has more staff than any other City Councilmember in the country outside of L.A., but maybe including L.A.

There is no reason why he couldn't use his staff to do the turkey giveaway. I believe that he used city staff in the past. He should not have paid an outsider to do something that was solely for his personal and political gain.

Also, since NCs have to put all their financial transactions on the Internet so the public can see how their money is spent, Huizar should lead the way by volunteering to do it himself and put in a motion calling for all of his colleagues to do the same.

January 28, 2011 4:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Sorry. we empowered the City Council not Huizar! And if the politician can't follow the rules he should be tossed to the curb...or put in jail where he can't hurt anybody.

January 28, 2011 4:31 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

4:16 p.m.

NCs don't. Only draft warrants and credit card transactions (which only tell you "where" the money was spent - not for what).

And, NPGs, for example, are bulk transfers - often larger than most other NC transaction - to non-profits and school, which stakeholders have no direct way to find out about. (Not unlike some of the CLARTS transfers).

Before that, there was petty cash, which no one outside of DONE had any detailed tracking for.

January 28, 2011 4:58 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


RIGHT, now you're getting it, Huizar DID use inside staff before... his OFFICE MANAGER/Events Planner person.

Then that position was eliminated, and he used the EXACT SAME PERSON, but as a private contractor, to do that job and several OTHER events over a 5-month period. And, it endig up COSTING US LESS that way than if she had stayed on staff (because you have to cover all benefits for a staff person).

Just because you don't see the staff "costs" of doing certain things -- because they get a salary (and benefits) doesn't mean it doesn't COST the taxpayers something -- and USUALLY it costs more.

Last year, Huizar stopped using City departments (DWP, etc.) to put up and light holiday trees in several communities. The oustide contractors charged thousands of dollars less than L.A. City departments did before.

This year they did the same thing with grass median maintenance - mowing, trimming and it cost about ONE/THIRD as much.

He's saving the taxpayers money ALL over the place, often by using outside contractors, just like this, who often get LUMP sum payments (but which total less).

This turmoil here is over Huizar SAVING money.

What gives???

January 28, 2011 5:06 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Nice try at being an amateur attorney, but the real ones that work for the city (called "City Attorneys") say your interpretations are wrong.

Ain't that a bitch. You're outranked.

January 28, 2011 5:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

PLEASE don't compare this to NC spending.

Councilmembers couldn't get away with the kind of selfish waste that NCs do, feeding their faces at every meeting, paying for pet projects for which they have fiduciary control.

All without any conflict of interest statements having to be filed.

January 28, 2011 5:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The City Attorneys are there to spend hundreds of millions of dollars TO DEFEND THE CITY COUNCIL AND PREVENT THE CITY FROM GETTING SUED.

Certain Council People spit in the face of the taxpayers by doing things any freshman attorney would know is illegal.

They do it anyway, when a special interest is calling the shots.

How much time and resources do you think are spent trying to justify what Huizar and others are doing?

I have very good english comprehension skills. The meaning of this contract, written in English, is very clear. The contract is specifically written to stand up to a test of logic.

An Attorney would probably charge $500 per hour to try to confuse the issue, but sorry..... it is clear.

The sad thing is that these types of things are slipped through Council everyday because the other Council members refuse to police each other.

"You stay out of my district, Ill stay out of yours."

That does not mean these transfers are legal. It just means Huizar should have been caught about $1.6 million ago.

January 28, 2011 6:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Since you're going to nitpick my posting and avoid it's basic point, let me reiterate it:

Huizar should lead the way by volunteering to post all of his discretionary expenditures on the Internet, and put in a motion calling for all of his colleagues to do the same.

January 28, 2011 6:33 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


... it doesn't mean they're illegal. That's just your interpretation. Every get their own interpretation; no one gets their own set of "facts."

City attorneys are there to keep the city from getting sued, which means they would have advised the controller not to make the transfers if they were illegal.

They didn't; she did. All because they are legal.

Tough darts!

January 28, 2011 6:38 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is exactly like what happened with the Neighborhood Councils.

The City sets up a bureaucratic agency to perform oversight and it loses control.

The Neighborhood Council officers soon figure out that nobody is watching, and the money starts disappearing.

Next thing you know, the NC financing is taken away because the insiders know what is happening.

CRA...same thing

Huizar's Office ...same thing

The next logical step is to dismantle the broken system that allowed for the abuse.

Discretionary funds will become history. No-bid contracts will become illegal (as they already are in most parts of the City)

A few years ago people tried to stop the corruption in the City Council by shifting power to the Mayor. Now they regret it. If you have a criminal in charge of the Mayor's Office, you've lost the whole City. The fact that he controls at least two Council Offices just makes things a lost cause.

The next shift in the balance of power will be to the Council as a body. New rules will hold the entire Council responsible for ALL criminal activity that they are currently too lazy or self motivated to stop.

What Huizar was doing, was well known to the other Councilpeople. They should all be ashamed for standing by and watching the citizens of LA be raped.

January 28, 2011 6:58 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

6:33 p.m.

At the Glassell Park forum, he said he would. (And then his opponent made a copycat promise right after).

Let's hold Huizar to that. He will be the councilmember in CD 14 for the next 4 years, maybe even 8 more, and that promise is probably on tape.

So, that's settled. Thanks!

Each district's constituents should demand the same from their elected representations. It's not Huizar's job to tell his peers how to do their job, but perhaps they'll learn from his example.

January 28, 2011 7:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

and I bet nothing else shady ever gets through the Council Chambers either, because the City Attorney and Controller would never let that happen!

What planet are you living on!

January 28, 2011 7:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Great idea, 6:33

It won't stop all of the armchair quarterbacking that goes on in bitching posts like this one, but it will probably cut it back some.

After all the crap Huizar's taken on CLARTS etc., motivated by the intentional misrepresentation of his spending - here and on others, I'm betting he'll see that as something to save him some headaches. Every expenditure, who it went to (groups, etc), what they were going to use it for, in which community, and how it benefited the community. That's once again way more detail than the average neighborhood council boardmember understands about their own spending (let alone their stakeholders).

And very few NCs ever ask their stakeholders how that money should be spent.

January 28, 2011 7:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The question you should be asking is WHY is this even happening?

There is no need for a Council Office to have ANY discretionary money.

These people spend $7 billion a year. They have almost 40,000 employees to provide services for their constituents.

The idea that the world will come to an end if a Council Office can't slip money to people on the side is offensive.

January 28, 2011 7:33 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The Neighborhood Councils could not even be trusted with the VERY SMALL amount of money they were given. These were advisory boards set up to hold meetings and make recommendations to the Council Offices. Money was supposed to be for things like printer ink.

NEVER was the NC system meant to be set up with discretionary funds to give away to people and organizations.

In comparison, the Council Office has an almost unlimited access to cash and resources. If you have a shady council person, they will find a way to work the system for their maximum political advantage.

The CRA has been very popular... huge budget, little oversight.

My new favorite is the Cultural Affairs Department. Basically dismantled, this department is on life support, but perfectly capable of writing "cultural grant checks" for the Councilpeople.

The street furniture fund is one that has provided hours of enjoyment to the Council. Someone else here can go into the details but it seems to involve money directly from the advertising companies straight into Council discretionary accounts. Ever wonder we have such an illegal billboard problem?

Don't forget event fee waivers, that until recently were given out like candy. This is a way to reward political cronies by selling City streets.

The newest trick is to take donations from an event promoter as a "gift" that ends up in the Councilperson's discretionary account... Last one I saw was for $20,000....

So for the people that think that Huizar couldn't have done anything illegal with CLARTS because there are checks and balances in the system....


January 28, 2011 8:14 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize that I would ruin your Council Office finances by catching you stealing for the public.

January 28, 2011 8:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


"Stealing FOR the public." ?

HA, you rebutted your own argument with your slopiness.


January 28, 2011 8:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Yeah, that's good idea, stick everything in the general fund - no "discretionary" funds at all.

That way we won't have to watch community groups fight over the crumbs. Because there will BE NO MORE CRUMBS.

Everything in one huge pot where it will be wasted by City departments and nothing will trickle down to the communities themselves.

January 28, 2011 8:41 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

As someone who's community and schools have benefitted greatly from council discretionary funds, I really take offense as that being referred as "slipping money to people on the side."

Those were probably some of the best outlays the city made last year. They improve community spirit, and may life a bit more bearable.

January 28, 2011 8:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

7:09. The difference between the way the City Councilmembers and NCs spend their discretionary funds is that the NCs do it in a public meeting and the checks are reported on the Internet, and the City Councilmembers do it all privately.

8:14. At the insistence of Dennis Zine, who was being pushed by the West Hills NC, the City Council made it OK for NCs to give money to community groups. So it isn't true that this was never the purpose of the NCs. If this had been the case, the City Attorney and City Controller would never have approved the expenditures.

January 28, 2011 9:34 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Are saying that "Huizar is union busting by using private company to the same job for less?"

January 28, 2011 9:40 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Most of the discretionary money is used to buy votes.

And if you don't like how the City is spending your general fund money...

First thing you need to do is get a councilman who doesn't deliberately schedule meeting with cronies during 80% of the Council meetings.

It might be nice to have a Councilperson that at least sits in his seat and pretends to listen to the concerns of the public.

If you are a big union supporter I have bad news for you....a huge percentage of the city's resources are committed to pensions and benefits. The unions have caused this.

Get some leadership that is willing to actually address the budget issues.

No matter what part of the City you are in, everybody thinks somebody else is getting the money. The fact is, the City can't even afford to fill its potholes. It has no business giving CRA money away, and slipping money out of the Council Offices, until basic infrastructure needs and public safety needs are met.

You also should think about bringing in a Councilperson who recognizes the need to attract a middle class. Do you think the City can continue to attract poverty and live off of government welfare forever.

Who thinks CD14 could sustain itself financially? Are you proud of the existing conditions in your council district?

I don't know if Rudy would make the perfect Councilman, I don't even know him, but the current administration is failing in EVERY regard.

The city is in dire straits, and it can not afford to be pillaged for 4 more years.

January 28, 2011 9:42 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


I'm glad you liked the projects. Who do you think actually paid for them? Did Huizar take out a mortgage on his house?

Why couldn't those very same projects have happened through a normal Council process?

Maybe because they couldn't be justified because there is no money?

If you don't force the Council to work together the graft and corruption will continue. They need to work as a committee. The process needs to be open and transparent, and they need to be willing to police each other.

Reject the status quo..

January 28, 2011 9:50 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Re: 9:50s response to my 8:44


Don't type responses and smoke your medical maijuana at the same time.

Those messages are completely unrelated.


January 28, 2011 11:50 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Sort of a burn it all down, anarchistic idea.

Anyone would be better, right?

Yeah, um gee. I don't know how to break this to you, but, um.

That NEVER works out.

Google Jesse Ventura for further study

Google "anyone but James Hahn" and see how Villaraigosa came into power.

Yeah, no. Not good civic planning.

January 28, 2011 11:54 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Half the blogger are here are like that old African American character on SNL's Weekend update thta just keeps yelling.

"FIX IT" - without any sense of what "IT" actually is, much less how to "FIX" it.

To the simple-minded, it's always the fault of whoever's in office ( regardless of how limited their powers are), and they's ALWAYS criminals, regardless.

As predictable as the tides rolling in and out.

January 28, 2011 11:58 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


I'm sorry you did not get my point!
I've personally seen some good projects that took creative routes in the funding process. That doesn't mean that the Councilman should have this much power. Why do you think the criminal organizations in control of CD14 want to hang on to this council district so bad? Because they want to represent the community?

The issues are related.

Huizar was able to make so many discretionary decisions because the Council is dysfunctional. They are supposed to work together to set priorities.

Instead, they have developed this concept of letting Council Offices get away with all kinds of crap. THEY HAVE SHIFTED POWER TO THEMSELVES by keeping millions off the books and unaccounted for.

My point was that Huizar NEVER should have had the discretion to give anything away. Discretion means "not subject to any kind of oversight."

Most, if not all of the Council people have contributed to this situation. A slush fund is a slush fund is a slush fund...

Huizar is by far the worst offender, he's like a teenager you can't leave home with the liquor cabinet unlocked.

January 29, 2011 9:49 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


All your opinion, supposition, gossip, rumors, and recently "discovered" (lies) from his opposition.

You're entitled to it.

I deal in facts and proof.

Sorry, we're not in the same "market" and can't do business.

January 29, 2011 11:53 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The idea of having "discretionary funds" is in itself evidence of the inefficiency of the City Council and it's system of handling things. The funding for all district items should uniformly go before the council for some routine opportunity for public scrutiny.

It's often considered to be a burdensome process that can be bypassed through creation of the "discretionary funds" category that rely on a CM's decision on how to spend it.

If the process generally were not so tedious, maybe discretionary funds would not be needed, at least needed in the sense of simpler access.

The area as to "merit" for the spending choice of a CM is another matter, maybe benefitting from inclusion with other spending decisions, however.

But to have a simpler, speedier form of access to funds for what's ostensibly something aiding conditions for consituents in a district means that the existing ways are too burdensome to follow.

Maybe what should be done is to change the processes to remove unneeded obstacles in the regular process.

And if the "obstacles" of delay are found to be with an actual postive function, then consider whether speedy access to funds should not be so speedy and available by decision of single CM vs. a decision of the majority on the Council.

In cd-14

January 29, 2011 2:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Why should we care what you deal in?

What you are trying to do is discredit people and stop the truth from getting out...

A person with any sense of logic would come to the conclusion that you are probably being paid to blog here.

Nobody is paying me to spend my Saturday here...this is a public service announcement... And frankly I don't care what you think, as long as the people in the community know what has been going on. That's how I sleep at night...You abe to sleep OK?

January 29, 2011 3:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


You have a very disconcerting way of referring to the truth as a commodity.

Believe it or not, to some, the truth is not for sale.

January 29, 2011 3:22 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


What does a blogger get paid these days?

Did you get an OUTREACH Contract through CLARTS to be with us today?

January 29, 2011 3:25 PM  

Anonymous g said:


January 29, 2011 3:41 PM  

Anonymous g said:


January 29, 2011 3:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is a very goog article from the LAWeekly.

It involves Jose Huizar, A fallen Planning Commissioner convicted of bribery, Club 740, a liquor license, and prostitutes...good reading if you have the time.

By the way, a police captain was trying to shut this place down. He was transferred.


January 29, 2011 4:06 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

OK did anybody understand what g said?

I lost track.. pro-Huizar...Pro-Rudy..

I'm not sure if I am supposed to feel unamerican or not?

January 29, 2011 5:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Understands the problem.

It would actually take GOVERNING SKILLS to fix the broken processes, but if the Huizar's of the world really don't give a crap about good government, and they spend ALL of their time dishing out favors to cronies, nothing ever gets fixed!

So the Planning Department is too slow, so Building and Safety is too slow, so Public Works is too slow...solution slide the money into a discretionary account and go around all the checks and balances.

Wow, how efficient is that?? ..when I don't have anybody elses silly policies getting in the way...

Competitive bid contracts will really slow a guy down too... We'll just give the contract to my friends and be done with it.

Besides I can't make promises to people if I can't control the bid process.....duh

January 29, 2011 5:23 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

9:42PM, Very nice rah-rah speech. Never seems to work. But fear not. The proper authorities have bookmarked the right blogs. And I don't mean Kamala. We know she isn't going to blow any whistles. Why waste time with her office? Why waste time with pep rallies to vote them out when it never works? If you aren't typing your editorial for people who work on Wilshire Blvd, why waste your time, anymore.

So if you have anything actual and factual besides hot air, post it now. Or forever hold your peace.

January 29, 2011 8:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


January 29, 2011 9:20 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

8.41, I suggest you vote for a council member who will have oversight of what is spent in his or her district. It seems you don't have the confidence Huizar can or will.

January 30, 2011 5:31 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

How nice of 11.53 to allow another person an opinion. But he's in another business, he tells us - only facts and proof.

How do you live without having an opinion? What facts and proof do you bring to Mayor Sam?

The only facts I seem to have read lately (and rarely on Mayor Sam because at the end of the day it is not a court of law but definitely about opinions) is the CLARTS fund ordinance and a record of disbursements.

January 30, 2011 5:40 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

We the people of CD14 has spoken
Jose Huizar needs to be investigated, when right NOW..

FBI come on down.
City Hall is waiting.

January 31, 2011 8:31 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home