Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Evening Brief on an Infantile Politico's latest Clensing of 43rd Assembly District Delegat(ians) for this Seventh Day

As many disenfranchise 43rd Assembly District Democratic Activists deal with the latest disempowering actions of an insecure politico, we ask our Blue Friends whether they want an "Infant Assemblyman", turned "Slobo Mikey", to be their next State Senator? 
The iconic, timeless portrait of a certain 43rd AD Infant Assemblyman
** Blogger's Note: Some 150 years and a day after the declared end to an American Blue and Gray Bloodletting, a modern day political brawl between "Blue Brothers and Sisters" in the California 25th State Senate District, has commenced ......, and the disenfranchisement of a ethnic group is the foundation for this latest  "Intra-Blue Political Schism". 
In a ideal 21st Century American Political World (especially within the confines of the Democrat Party), racial identity politics would be a far forgotten afterthought. Gone should be the day when Democrats (before the Republican-supported Civil Rights Act) took the lead in attempting to suppress voter empowerment based upon skin color.
But bluntly, for those who are register Democrats in the 43rd Assembly District, with a last name ending with "ian", the political cleansing of empowerment is becoming the norm under the reign of  infamous "Infant Assemblyman", turned potential 25th State Senate Candidate "Slobo Mikey" Gatto.
With the State Democratic Party Convention forthcoming later in the month in Red Orange County, this local "Blue on Blue Bloodletting" is creating a Fort Sumter-like volley of charges and counter-charges which we excerpt below---Scott Johnson.  
Why does "Slobo Mikey" have issues with his "ian constituents" (allegedly)?

The facts on the nullification of the 2015 43rd Assembly District Democrat Delegate Elections:
As of the latest count, at least 117 of the 738 who voted either did not live in the 43rd Assembly District or were not members of the Democratic Party — both requirements to vote for the party-specific positions — according to a memo from Chris Myers, managing director of the California Democratic Party. Another 100 or so could not be verified one way or the other. Twelve of the 14 members of the winning Democrats United slate saw their election nullified as a result. Berdj Karapetian and Shant Sahakian, however, received enough votes that the number of ineligible voters would not have affected their outcomes, officials ruled.
From the "Slobo Mikey" Blog of Record (allegedly).
A special committee of the California Democratic party just found conclusively that over 117 people fraudulently voted in our local Assembly level caucuses, and their's was a pretty straightforward inquiry of comparing the voters and seeing if they were legitimately qualified or not.  Our donkeyfolk have never been the types to admit instances of voter fraud so this was hugely significant and everyone with half a brain knew exactly what was going on there; one side winning only by bringing a ton of fraudulent voters to the event. However, the Glendale News Press, in an article personally "handled" by editor Dan Evans instead of a regular reporter, curiously put out this piece of tripe.  Below we attempt to translate what really is going said or unsaid. "Though state Democratic officials rejected claims of outright fraud..." Say what?  The party found that at least 117 voters, and as many as 200, fabricated that they lived in our district or lied that they were Democrats.  Does anyone really think that 200 people, or even 100 people, from Santa Monica to Arcadia, and registered Republicans, simultaneously rose up and decided to come spend a Saturday caucusing with our humble local Democratic party at a hard to find location?

Lets remember that the former "Infant Assemblyman" is not above "SLAPPing" at his perceived political enemies (allegedly).
I attended the election for delegates in January and quite frankly there was no system in place to determine if the voter lived in the 43rd Assembly District, was registered as a Democrat, could not vote under the same rules applicable to primaries, voted more than once or even had a pulse. One could submit a ballot, wait in line again to receive another ballot, scribble a signature and submit a second ballot. In the News-Press, based on Berdj Karapetian’s allegation, the results of the election were overturned because of the influence of Mike Gatto. This is the same Karapetian who with the assistance of former News-Press columnist Ron Kaye accused Gatto of discrimination because at the last election for delegates the organizers checked voter registration.
As one of the California Democratic Party delegates unseated last month by the party’s Compliance Review Commission, I read Dan Evans “ballot redo” article with great interest (“Memo reveals ballot issues” May 2, A1.) As a 43rd Assembly District resident living in Silver Lake, I don’t live in the same state Senate District that Anthony Portantino and Assemblyman Mike Gatto seek to win, so as the saying goes, “I don’t have a dog in that fight.” Still, I am concerned about accusations of tainted votes that played a role in the decision to invalidate my election and 11 of my colleagues. If there was fraud, and we have evidence that there was, it's Gatto’s team who tried to steal the election. After getting caught, they’re demanding a revote due to fraudulent votes that their team turned out for the Gatto slate.

 Will voters in the 25th State Senate District choose to be represented by a 21st Century practitioner of polling place Ethnic Cleansing (allegedly)? 
From a email via Democrat Hugh Esten:
> As matters stand, it appears that the actions of one
> Democratic elected official, Assembly Member Mike Gatto, may
> succeed in effectively excluding a large group of Democratic
> voters from representation in our Party.  As it
> happens, these are disproportionately voters of Armenian
> descent.  If the effect of an action visibly denies
> representation to one group of voters at the expense of
> another, the motive for the action demands the closest
> examination.  In this case, the motive does not
> withstand examination.  Discrimination on the basis of
> ancestry is odious in any context, but when it occurs within
> our own Party it cannot go unanswered. 
> How did we arrive at this pass?  On January 11, the
> slate of delegates supported by Assemblyman Gatto at the
> ADEM caucus for District 43 was defeated by an ethnically
> diverse "Democrats United" slate, which won all 14 delegate
> seats.  Armenian Americans, among others, turned out in
> large numbers to vote for the United slate.
> Turnout for this year's caucus in the 43rd AD was nearly
> twice that of the previous caucus, held in 2013.  The
> Party has not provided a procedure for checking voter
> registrations at ADEM caucuses.  The caucus in the 43rd
> was conducted under the same rules as those held in 79 other
> districts in California that weekend.  Given the size
> of the turnout, and the absence of any system of checking
> registrations at these events, some irregularities were
> inevitable.
> No evidence has been produced that irregularities were
> systematic, favored one side over the other, or affected the
> outcome.  However many ineligible voters participated,
> in most cases we have no way of knowing how they
> voted.  In some cases we can make an informed
> guess.  Gatto's District Director Justin Hager voted,
> presumably for his boss's slate, but the Party itself and
> the local newspaper of record have confirmed that he was not
> registered in 43rd AD and was not eligible to vote.
> Christina Schilling was a candidate on Gatto's slate.
> Presumably she voted for herself, but the Party has
> determined that she is not a registered Democrat and was not
> eligible to vote, although she did.  The Party also
> possesses documentation of her efforts to recruit other
> non-Democrats to vote.  It seems unlikely that these
> violations were accidental.  Perhaps all of the
> perceived irregularities were accidental, but if we're
> looking for evidence of deliberate fraud, it would appear
> that it favored Mr. Gatto's slate.
> Anyone who attended this year's caucus can tell you that
> Gatto's forces were well organized.  Arrivals were
> greeted by his District Director.  His staff and
> volunteers were stationed at every point of the long
> registration line.  They appeared to be very much in
> control of the situation.  I personally had to dissuade
> some participants from leaving without voting, because they
> feared the process was rigged in the Assemblyman's
> favor.  To all appearances, this game was played by the
> house rules, but this time the house lost.
..... that was until the "Household Powers to Be" decided who they wanted to disenfranchise.

Your thoughts ..............
Scott Johnson in CD 14

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home