Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Thursday, December 02, 2010

Outtakes from CD 14 Exclusive: Did Councilman Huizar violate Ethics Commission's "Blackout Rule"?

"BIG HUIZZY is watching for your comments, ** Disclaimer below"

"Stage banner from November 13, 2010 Valley Blvd Bridge Block Party".

"Another Councilmember Jose Huizar banner from November 13, 2010 Valley Blvd Bridge Block Party".

"This Councilmember Jose Huizar banner along Alhambra Road during November 13, 2010 Valley Blvd Block Party".
Is CD 14 Councilman Jose Huizar once again in violation of Ethics Commission rules?
According to multiple sources, Councilman Huizar violated the Ethics Commission's "Blackout Rules" which prohibit sitting officeholders from promoting their name and image, once they file papers for re-election.
Councilman Huizar pulled papers on November 8, 2010. That was five days before the Valley Blvd Bridge Block on Saturday, November 13, 2010. The following photos above (all taken by this blogger), show multiple banners which identify clearly Councilman Jose Huizar. According to my sources, Ethic Commission rules state that publicly-funded events, cannot promote the image and name of the officeholder, once they declare for re-election.
Further, its apparent that Councilman Huizar sought to "gain political capital, through the act of giving". It seems that Councilman Huizar was engage in politicizing his Turkey Giveaway. This after a filing documentation with the Ethics Commission and then publicizing the endeavor on his official city web page.
Also on his web page , one can find this twitter message.
Some disturbing news about one of my opponents in the CD 14 race. http://fb.me/OT5K7use yesterday reply
** Morning update: This twitter has been remove.
Interesting that Councilman Huizar feels that it is O.K. for him to use his official, public web page to dispense information on his challengers for re-election.
But this type of ethical behavior is par for the course from Councilman Huizar. He has been fined in the past and as Neon Tommy reported, is the recipient of three legal defense funds.
Thus, while the likes of Parke and Mikey are digging years back into the past of Rudy Martinez, Councilman Huizar once again is flirting with violating ethic rules and tapping the Attorney Stephen Kaufman's speed-dial button.
Your thoughts..............
Scott Johnson in CD 14
** Disclaimer: Any comments that disparage Councilman Huizar may result in you being disinvited from any future "Huevos with Huizzy" events, no Christmas toys for your community groups, no return calls from the latest CD 14 staffer added to the payroll, or the ultimate, defriending from Councilman Huizar's Facebook Page

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said:

Uh Red, that's not Jose's official (as in City) page, that is his official (as in Jose for City Council 2011) page. Details matter dude.

December 02, 2010 10:33 PM  

Anonymous Charmion said:

I have to ask this, Red Spot.

You're posting two subjects in a row about essentially the same subject. And, you're using the same photos you used a few days ago.

If it were YOU looking at this, you'd be suggesting a conspiracy.

Why can't you just relax a bit, let people enjoy (or not enjoy) the posts, without having to stuff another one about the SAME subject an hour after you posted the last one?

Do you really have nothing else to enjoy at home? A book? A dog? Friends? A girl?

I guess I didn't need to mention a book, since you don't sound like someone who reads much.

December 02, 2010 10:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Didn't you post this exact same post 3 or 4 days ago?

You feeling okay?

December 02, 2010 10:38 PM  

Blogger Unknown said:

Red, you're turning this blog into the "Bash Huizar" blog. That's not very fair and balanced is it?

December 02, 2010 10:40 PM  

Blogger Red Spot in CD 14 said:


We could retur to bashing Mike Gatto as the LA Times reports tonight.


December 02, 2010 10:52 PM  

Blogger Red Spot in CD 14 said:


With the LA Times report on Mike Gatto, i guess we can safely return to reporting the facts on the 43rd Assembly District Office Holder.

Just like how I am reporting the facts on Councilman Huizar.

BTW, how is the sound of diesels at the Zorro Marxist Driving School?

December 02, 2010 10:58 PM  

Blogger Unknown said:

It sounds very similar to your broken record reporting. Same shit, different day.

December 02, 2010 11:01 PM  

Blogger Red Spot in CD 14 said:

Broken reporting Joe?

The Times and the Daily News sat on this Gatto story through the election.

Now they are compel to report the facts.

BTW Joe, did I ever complain about your incessive Meg bashing?

December 02, 2010 11:14 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

JoeB is right Scotty, you are a broken record and an embarrassment to English teachers around the world.

December 02, 2010 11:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Given that most of the people in CD14 don't give a crap about all of this petty political goings on in their district, and 14/15ths of everyone in the city doesn't care at all, why is there so much room given to CD14 pettiness? Can't MS set limits?

December 02, 2010 11:33 PM  

Blogger Red Spot in CD 14 said:

These photos of Huizar's banners have not been posted here until now.

The Huizzy billboard and cop car are the new avatar of the "Outtakes" post.

deal with it.

December 02, 2010 11:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Typical Huizar, playing fast and loose with the law.

December 02, 2010 11:48 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Same sh#t, different day, same loser, lowlife butt licker.

December 02, 2010 11:53 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Joe B is right. You lose credibility when all you do is attack, attack, attack. Why never focus on issues? And you call yourself the serious and responsible blogger when talking to the media. Come on Red Spot.

December 03, 2010 1:36 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

All anyone has to do is look at that facts and issues on the horrible way Huizar has voted at city council. He's missed key votes because he failed to show up. Just two months ago they lost quroum cause Huizar failed to show up. He's voted in favor of DWP every time because he's the Mayor's lapdog. He's hired a thug who instead of speaks to the issues attacks any constituents who opposes Huizar. If Huizar has that type of person Mike Trujillo as his campaign manager who has in the past threatened senior citizens then I say Vote his ass OUT. Ask why he named the corner of 7th & Broadway after a family Deljiani who gave him campaign money. Ask him why he LIED about Measure B. The first campaign promise Huizar made to constituents was to AUDIT all the non profits in CD14. He never Did because many gave him money. Ask Huizar why he has the highest turn over of employees. Ask Huizar where is the documentation on all the CLARTS fund money. Ask Huizar why he's been lying all the time that there are 80 neighborhood watches. There aren't that many citywide. THere are maybe 10 in CD14 total and its documented.

December 03, 2010 5:50 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I wish whoever runs this blog would at least make sure the drivel posted has some basis in fact. The "blackout" during campaigns has to do with mass mailing.

Huizar can't have his picture (or maybe even his name) included in mass mailings (more than 200) sent at city expense. But the "blackout" period has nothing to do with the regular commencement of council business. It has nothing to do with putting up banners showing his name and photo at official city events which he is officially hosting, sponsoring and participating in.

Blackout doesn't mean Huizar completely ceases to exist and is completely out of the public eye for the next five months except having to do specifically with his campaign. Otherwise they'd have to take his name off the office doors and office signs, put a blue dot over his face during council and redact his name from motions he's submitting.

Get with the program. Not only is the constant Huizar-bashing really annoying, but it's also so obviously misinformed it plummets the credibility of this blog and anyone who bothers to believe anything in it.

December 03, 2010 9:21 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Red Spit doesn't need to be concern with reporting "fact" - he's a "commentate" not a journalist - just as he keep yammering about alcohol being serve during a fundraiser at an Armory in CD14 run by the city (as if it was illegal), when it's absolute not.

BUT, that wasn't the reason for posting...

Can someone explain how the Huizar haters keep getting away with bashing his voting record, but never posting any examples (in 5 years) -- of what they mean?

Even worse, they often contradict themselves, saying back-to-back, things like:

"The entire city council always votes in lockstep - 15 AYES"

"Huizar missed IMPORTANT votes''

1) Can anyone who keeps posting this drivel explain just ONE key issue that Huizar missed an "important vote" on where his vote -- one way or the other -- would have changed the outcome?

I seriously doubt it.

2) If Council is a monolithic voting block, WHY does it matter which one of the 15 missed which vote?

Is UNANIMOUS 15, any different than UNANIMOUS 14, or UNANIMOUS 12, or UNANIMOUS 10?

Complain, complain, bitch, and moan.

With all the money that I'm sure is being spent by Huizar's challenger's camp in "opposition research" -- going over Huizar's record with a fine-tooth comb, why haven't the more general "bad voting record" BS comments been replaced by SPECIFIC examples of them?

Usually, that means there ARE NO SPECIFIC EXAMPLES (or else too few to validate the generalized "bad record" BS, and they're just hoping that if they keep telling the same lie OVER AND OVER, it'll stick with other malcontents out there.

If the opposition camp had ANY substantive evidence to support this blanket claim, they would have at LEAST shared it with their illiterate peanut gallery here, by now.

(Note to journalists in L.A. When doing the obligatory first profile of the challenger -- after being hounded by his campaign flack -- when he mentions "Huizar's bad voting record" at least have the cajones to back him down a bit and say "so, give me a few examples -- maybe one per year of service".

Shouldn't by THAT hard if the record is SOOOO bad.

They'll "have to get back to you that" . . . but at least them you'll be able to hold on to your press credentials for another year, for having asked THE OBVIOUS.)

December 03, 2010 11:01 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

hey 11:01 am - nice spin rick coca! i like the game but the players are getting old. red spot get some new blood to give input and you rick maybe someone else from your office can start spinning!

December 03, 2010 11:58 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


I seriously doubt whether Huizar's over-paid campaign hacks have time to post spin here, but just to make Red Spot happy with himself, let's accept that silly premise for the sake of argument.

So, if that's TRUE...

Is this the best response Huizar-hater Red Spot can come up with (posting anonymously), to a DIRECT challenge to one of his central claims about Huizar's record in office -- a full-on "put up or shut up" callout to RS?

A response that goes something like this:

"nice spin, Rick Coca"

(as if the supposed name of the person posting it means he no longer has to back up his insults with facts?

I reiterate... Rudy "WALKING DEAD" Martinez, just had his campaign flipped on it's ass over his past shilling for big tobaccco -- something that, this early in the campaign, means it's probably some of the least damaging dirt they have on him.

So, it's over. The zombie may still be walking, but this one's done.

BUH-bye, Rudy. Thanks for playing.

The Huizar haters better jump ship now, get out of mama's basement apartment, and try to help Tony Butka get the last 499 of his petition signatures signed before next week's deadline, or they won't have ANYone to prop up against Huizar.

December 03, 2010 12:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

11:01am since you asked for it.
Huizar VOTED NO to allow city council to take jurisdiction over DWP
Huizar VOTED NO to allow city council to FIRE the Mayor's corrupt DWP commissioners
Huizar VOTED YES to give DWP general managers $5 million in backpay
Huizar VOTED YES to give DWP a RAISE when no one else got one
Huizar VOTED YES to put Measure B the solar energy bill that was a outright lie and would have cost the city Millions on the ballot with no community input
Huizar VOTED with his collegaues to name 7th and Broadway after Deljiani family because they contributed to his campaign again no community input
HUIZAR VOTED to give the Rancheros a Special Day
Huizar ignores the illegal vending problem in CD14 hurting legal businesses

December 03, 2010 12:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Even the fawning reporter at the Weekly admitted there was no "good" vote on the DWP, rate payer, etc. It's was a Catch-22, clusterf*ck all the way around.

But, does Rudy Martinez even know what "D-W-P" stands for yet, or will we have to wait for his first "annual report" for that.

You also conveniently ignore the main points...

Would ANY other vote by Huizar (or any replacing him), have made ONE damn bit of difference? On any of these?

No, it wouldn't.

Did he "miss" any of these "important" votes -- NO, or else you wouldn't have anything to bitch about.

Your circular logic is annoying to anyone with half a brain, and is probably REALLY pissing off Rudy's handlers, because it's REALLY exposing the vapid weakness of the bigger lie.

Plus, your OPINIONS (all they are), about how these were teh "wrong" votes is shared by a small minority of the city voters -- the ones NEEDED to win against an incumbent.

December 03, 2010 1:36 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Even if the City Council were to vote 15-0 on every vote it does matter who is there and who isn't because being at the Council meetings is what we pay them to do.

What they do when they get there is a separate issue.

December 03, 2010 6:30 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

1:36 Pm let me educate you. When Councilman Parks was in the building during the DWP vote for council to take over jurisdiction, they need only ONE vcote for it to pass. Parks not in chambers but could hear what was going on via the sqauwk box and he decided to whimp out and not go to chambers for the vote. HIS VOTE WOULD HAVE PASSED THE MOTION FOR COUNCIL TO TAKE OVER DWP. So your logical is dumb. It does matter how Huizar VOTES.

December 04, 2010 5:46 AM  

Blogger Unknown said:

I thought you had to get a special approval to post signs in LA- otherwise the City will fine the violator. I doubt there was a proper approval for these signs to be put up on State property like that bridge.

December 13, 2010 9:42 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home