Mayor Sam Exclusive: Attorney General Kamala Harris "Grants" the City of Commerce's "Leave to Sue In Quo Warranto" to expel Hugo Argumedo from City Council
** Blogger's Note: In a Mayor Sam Exclusive, we have been made aware of a legal ruling via California Attorney General Kamala Harris that gives the City of Commerce the right to pursuit the expulsion of just-reelected Officeholder Hugo Argumedo from its City Council.
The half-brother sibling of the infamous Southeast Los Angeles County Chacon Political Family, was force to resign in 2010, after pleading down a Felony Perjury Indictment, to a Misdemeanor Charge of Obstruction of Justice, which included the provision that he could not hold elected office for four years.
From the eleven page ruling,,we can extrapolate that the City of Commerce has good standing for moving forward with its granted remedy ........, and that the legal counter from Hugo Argumedo is semantically shallow, at best as exampled in the excerpt below.
Article VII, section 8 of the California Constitution (section 8) directs that, “Laws shall be made to exclude persons convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, or other high crimes from office or serving on juries.”10 Section 8 contemplates legislative action to give it effect, and the Legislature enacted several statutes accordingly. Most relevant to our inquiry here is Government Code section 1021, which provides, “A person is disqualified from holding any office upon conviction of designated crimes as specified in the Constitution and laws of the State.”11 The city contends that Government Code section 1021 bars Argumedo from holding the office of city council member12 because his conviction for obstruction of justice amounts to malfeasance in office within the meaning of section 8. Argumedo makes two arguments in opposition: (1) his conviction does not amount to malfeasance in office within the meaning of section 8; and (2) section 8 and Government Code section 1021 apply only to a current term of office rather than operating as a permanent disqualification.
In judging the background documentation from the case, Argumedo's actions were no momentary lapse of memory. Instead, they were a choreographed effort by Francisco Leal to stall legally, the potential further monetary loses from his questionable work on behalf of the city ......., even as he worked certain community members to initiate a Recall Campaign against those who supported replacing him with current City Attorney Eduardo Olivo.
The one irony in this whole saga, is also the fact that it was Hugo Argumedo, who through his former allies at the time of Leal's Termination, brought in Eduardo Olivo to replace Leal. But soon after his appointment, Olivo and Argumedo became bitter foes, setting the stage for Argumedo's rapprochement with Leal ......, and his infamous testimony under oath-----Scott Johnson.