A Defense of Brandman! Then a Vicious Tusk-Rattling Counterpunch to the Snout.

.

.

.

Brandman Defenders Deflect Successfully Deflect Attention from Brandman Campaign Violations to Elizabeth Novack

[You will simply have to get used to the prospect that the next 15 months — or maybe 15 years, or 15 decades if life-extension technology for those who can afford it continues to improve — will include lots of back-and-forth about allegations of wrongdoing by Anaheim City Council member Jordan Brandman.  We do want to present all sides of the story, so we’ll note the defense of one of Brandman’s two biggest online supporters (the other being Republican apparatchik Matt Cunningham): the Illiberal OC’s Chumley.  His defense of the “Brandman’s use of his School District office for his election campaign” scandal (note to self: come up with a catchier name for it), entitled VOC report target should have been Novack, not Brandman appeared last Saturday.  Emphasis added throughout. — GAD]

The Voice of OC reported a story on a confidential report commissioned by the Anaheim Union High School District on Friday that seems to go overboard on accusations that Brandman used a district office to do campaign work; a closer read of the report shows that the VOC buried the lede and the real target of the December 2014 report was Superintendent Elizabeth Novack and her alleged mistreatment of employees at the District’s office.

The VOC story doesn’t mention this in the lede paragraph and offers no photos of Novack while using a picture of Brandman to lead the piece off.  Reporter Adam Elmarek also fails to disclose the author of the report, Daniel Shinoff, of the Los Angeles Law Firm Stutz Artiano Shinoff and Holtz, had been suspended from further legal work for the San Diego School Districts in March according to a report by the San Diego Union Tribune and would be the subject of a malpractice lawsuit by the San Ysidro School District .

…

To read the actual report posted by VOC versus the actual story has led sources to speculate VOC is unduly attacking Brandman because former State Senator Joe Dunn, an early financial backer for the Voice of OC, is rumored to be making a run for Congress.  I’m not buying that because of the high ethical standards of VOC publisher Norberto Santana, but that hasn’t stopped the gossip machine that Voice broke the story of a December 2014 report now to go after Brandman.  Elmarek’s story offers no explanation as to how they acquired the report or when.

But the report on Brandman’s activities are not solid proof anything improper was done.  Brandman was a member of the AUHSD at the time and had every legal right to use the office.  In addition, of the items he asked staff to print out, there is absolutely no specifics about what documents they were.  Unless those documents were related to rules about running for city council, any documents pertaining to anything in the city of Anaheim would be completely in context with Brandman’s work for the district.  Very little of the current report has to do with Brandman with most of the references from witnesses acknowledging he was in the office and his presence was known.

Great!  There’s your defense!  It should be noted, however, that a commenter going by the name “Marc Anton” (who, if memory serves, is no fan of mine) offered his own reply last night, and it has already started collecting a fan club in certain corners of the blogosphere:

Misdirection much?

The report clearly investigates Mr. Brandman’s conduct and finds he was misappropriating public resources of the School District. Whether there was a second, and perhaps larger, target to investigation is largely irrelevant.

It is also [par] for the course that Dan attacks the attorney who conducted the investigation based upon another school district contending the attorney committed malpractice. First, that is an allegation of wrongdoing. So, in essence, Dan is attacking the results of an in depth investigative report and its conclusions by saying “someone totally unrelated to the matter is alleging that the attorney who conducted the investigation committed malpractice on an entirely differrent matter.” Or, in other words, allegations of incompetence in another matter, by a different client, are being used to attack documented evidence that Mr. Brandman did, in fact, commit the act of which he is accused. Alleged wrongdoing used to prove the allegations in one case disprove the allegations in an entirely different matter. Unspecified allegations at that. Whew. Dan. You bring Ad Hominem to a new level. Classy.

One would like to think that you would at least be concerned about the obvious, repeated, and verified misconduct by Mr Brandman as a public servant. No, I am [] referring to disputes regarding (bad) policy decisions he has made, or whether he is is barman for Disney and big corporate interests. Those are at least issues of values we can politically disagree on. What I am referring to is (1) using school resources for his private purposes (misappropriating public resources) as a sitting School Board Trustee; (2) taking public funds for a study and report he never completed until caught (theft of county tax payer funds); (3) Overt plagiarism in a submitted partial initial draft of said report, said plagiarism being committed while an elected trustee of the school board (plagiarism as an elected EDUCATIONAL TRUSTEE); (4) appointing a openly bigoted, anti-Latino minuteman to as his appointed representative on a committee to study whether Latinos are being disenfranchised by the city of Anaheim and whether the existing districts should be changed to ensure Latinos are not disenfranchised (kind of like asking Benjamin Neten-yahoo if Palestinians are disenfranchised) . . . we could go on, but the point is made.

At some point, allegations are not simply allegations. They are a pattern and practice of corrupt practices that reveal a rotten core. Sure, you can look at the surface and shine it up, and deflect people attention by saying “I hear rumor the bananas are green,” but eventually, Dan don’t you want to at least acknowledge the apple isn’t what it is painting itself to be? If you are a grocer, do you want to put that apple out in the “fresh fruit” display? More apt, as you hold yourself out as an ostensible food critic of the democratic political world of OC, if you see all this evidence of cockroach and vermin infestation at Chez Brandman, does it enhance your credibility to attack the Public Health Inspector who wrote up the cockroach infestation by claiming someone alleges he missed a cockroach infestation somewhere else?

While I am positive you will simply respond with nothing more than ad hominem attacks on me to deflect from these points, as you do with all others who comment on your blog and disagree with you, why dont you aspire for more? Why not address each of these points? Say why they make him your candidate for Loretta Sanchez’s seat?

C’mon, Dan. Defy expectations.

[Later added:]

And, Dan, your “Sources” (unnamed, of course)- Jordan? His Campaign people? Why the mystery?
Of course. Jordan.

Paranoia will destroy ya. . .

OJB will continue monitoring the situation. If you missed the link to the attorney’s report noted in the VOC piece (and on LibOC as well), and you want to check it out for yourself, here it is.