.
.
.
This may not be a current photo of Smart — but Cunningham used an unflattering one on her piece, which may actually push me to vote for her. But I still need your help deciding!
There’s always one race that gets in the way of my sending in my ballot. Usually, it’s a judge or a proposition, but I’m OK on those this year (even though I’m not allowed to divulge how I’m voting on Prop 71.) This year, it’s the obscure Auditor-Controller’s race between incumbent Eric Woolery and his challenger and former subordinate Toni Smart.
I know that “shots have been fired” in this race — by which I mean a employment lawsuit filed by Smart against her former boss. What I don’t know is: how meritorious is the suit? And, regardless of that, is there any other basis to choose between them?
I met Woolery at an event at the Voice of OC office last year (or it could have been 2016) and he seemed sharp and to be doing a decent job — a view confirmed by one or two people associated with the VOC, which I trust on everything except their commenting policies.
And yet, the VOC also published this story:
Lawsuit Claims Auditor-Controller Had County Staff … – Voice of OC
Lawsuit alleges Orange County’s fiscal watchdog had his staff drive …
snippet: Feb 6, 2018 – 29 lawsuit filed by lawyers for Tonette Smart is that Auditor-Controller Eric Wooleryroutinely asked county staff members who worked for him to …
And Matt Cunningham’s “Gilliard Blog” even makes a cogent contribution to the discussion — not coincidentally, one not authored by Matt himself — that seems to smash Smart’s competence over an FPCC complaint (although who knows what one can trust from there?) It’s here: State Ethics Commission Rules Auditor-Controller Challenger Toni Smart Violated CA Political Reform Act. That makes me want root for her — but I’m disturbed by the “blind pig finds a truffle” possibility that the story is true — even though it seems at least as likely that Woolery has hired execrable Dave Gilliard as a client and Matt is simply trashing his patron’s client because that’s seems to be what he does as his part of their business arrangement.
So I’m legitimately perplexed here — and I’m not about to read the lawsuit and any counter-filings on my own, because life is too short for that. Vern has already gone with Smart, and I suspect that that is because he is a rebel with a soft spot for the underdog. But I want to get this one right — although I know that I can get it half-right simply by not voting in this race, although my spirit rebels at the very notion.
Can anyone out there, ideally one who has read those three linked stories above AND the court filings and FPCC decision — help me out? (Hey, I’ve done it for you before!)
This is your Weekend Open Thread: talk about that, or whatever else you’d like, within reasonable bounds of decency and decorum.
Its simple. Just do the opposite of what Matt Cunningham does. Vote Smart. I did.
I need to see who Woolery has spent money on. If it’s Gilliard or Cunningham, that would probably be decisive. If they’re just shooting out their mouths, then not necessarily so.
Googling around, it looks like the OC Political guys are Woolery’s consultants: https://ocpolitical.com/2014/03/31/auditor-controller-race-frank-davies-loses-deputy-auditor-controller-ballot-designation-will-use-property-tax-director-instead/
Do you see evidence of Dave Gilliard or his CA Homeowners Association anywhere? That would nail it down for me.
The Hill has picked up on the N.Y. TIMES story, and what we, here have known: the potential DEM DISASTER in OC.
Already people are placing “blame” stakes.
And we’ve been reporting on it for a long time, too.
You need a fair broker to be able to mediate these matters with respect. We don’t have one — the Democratic Party infrastructure from recent Presidents on down have made damn sure of that. Here, enjoy this article about former President Clinton’s narcissistic vengeance against the Left.
I place blame SQUARELY on county party members who were in a position to know this could/would happen.
We can’t be led by committee. Tough unpopular choices need to be made. They just didn’t do it.
#missedopportunity
*Claude Parrish….and Steve Poizner are the Republican Choices…of course! The rest
should do just fine….
The New York Times on it’s Sunday edition front page looks in depth at three races in Orange County as National and State Democratic Party officials become more worried by the day that they will not have a candidate on the November ballot in three congressional districts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/26/us/politics/california-primary-house.html
I notice CA-39 and 45 are not mentioned as inspiring angst.
I also notice something missing in the report on CA-49 – no mention of Mike Levin! Polls I’ve seen, as well, show him to no longer be a threat … but it still doesn’t stop him and his supporters from slandering Applegate.
The Democrats will have candidates who qualify for the general election in all of those districts, and the Democrats will be elected in November in ALL of those districts.
If you are actually worried about an all-Republican general election runoff, then you clearly are behind the times, and are entirely discounting the effect that multiple high-level indictments (perhaps including Trump being indicted himself) is going to have on the Nov. general election.
There will be far too many pro-impeachment voters showing up to vote in Nov. for any of these laughably lame racist Repulitarded candidates to survive an overwhelming blue tidal wave .
You are very optimistic, RRR. But I remember having been optimistic way too many times…
Way, way, way too many times….
“The Democrats will have candidates who qualify for the general election in all of those districts, and the Democrats will be elected in November in ALL of those districts.”
It could happen. I see large enough ‘uncommitted’ blocks to change outcomes in ways that could deviate dramatically from projections. I see counter-evidence, suggesting the expectation for a blue wave in 2018 is less probable than one in 2016. The simple fact two Dems polled near the top tells me nothing about what will actually happen with the vote, esp. since historically, Dems stayed home during primaries, particularly in off-election years, while Reps did not.
2018 is what we make it. I hope you’re doing your part to make it what you hope for. The only assumption worth making is that unless we do our part, we will not receive outcomes we wish for.
We’ll have one in CA-45. Probably not in CA-48. CA-39 and 49 could go either way. (Any of three ways, in fact.)
Are you unaware of the anvil about to be dropped on Trump Cult members’ heads? You are of course aware of the story of the Sword of Damocles, and the fact that the Justice Department’s special counsel investigation is holding that sword (legally speaking) over Trump’s orange empty head. That sword will fall on the Trump regime before the end of this summer, which will henceforth be known as “The Summer of Mueller”.
I’m aware of that *possibility*. But I’ve learned not to count my chickens. Certain people out there will remember the term “Fitzmas” — the expected devastating late autumn ending to Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation of wrongdoing during the Bush 43 investigation — and also remember that, except for Scooter Libby, Fitzmas never came at all.
Roseanne: In 2016, the ‘Sword of Pussygrabber’ failed to land a blow, your adoptive namesake endorsed Trump (contrary to anything one would have expected of the character she played). A Blue Wave promised to sweep the Dems into a majority in the Senate (with a much lower possibility in the House) – only to collapse, with Trump + Rep majorities in both houses, and securely ensconced in the Sup. Ct.
Royce beat Murdock 55/45; Issa beat Applegate by an inch, and Hillary won both districts convincingly. Waters won 58% of the vote. And all that happened in a presidential election year – when Dems vote far more often than in off-election years.
Mueller can produce a thousand indictments – no one will ever impeach Trump while the Reps hold the majority. Trump actually can go out and shoot someone in the street, it will make no difference. The Reps may whine about him a little, but only to pretend to be ‘independent’ – they’ll still vote his way 90-110% of the time.
All of which is to say: we must act. It’s no longer good enough to detest Trump. Emotions without action are futile, and merely reinforce the powerbrokers in the status quo. We cannot laugh at them. We cannot shrug them aside. They will hurt California unless we vote them out of office.
Congrats Lenore, on your NEW charges of MORAL TURPITUDE http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/16-O-12958-2.pdf
COUNT FIVE
Case No. 16-0-1295 8
Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1)
[Failure to Release File]
6. Respondent wilfully violated Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-700(D)(1), by failing to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property, as follows: On February 11, 2016, and on July 1, 2017, respondent’s client, Nira Schwartz-Woods, instructed respondent to release her file materials and documentation to her. To date, respondent has not released to Schwartz—Woods her papers and property.
7. By not releasing Schwartz-Woods’s papers and property to her at SchwartzWoods’s request, respondent failed to release promptly, upon termination of employment, to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property.
COUNT SIX
Case No. 16-0-12958
Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d)
[Seeking to Mislead a Judge]
8. Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(d), by seeking to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law, as follows: on or about November 4, 2016, respondent attached as “Exhibit E” to her “Motion to Quash Subpoena for Non—Trust Fund Banking Records” which she filed with the State Bar Court in State Bar Case No. 16-O-12958, a document which she falsely declared under the penalty of perjury to be a “true and correct copy of my retainer with Nira Woods for $20,000.00” which she knew to be a false document at the time she made the declaration and provided it to the State Bar Court.
9. By filing with the State Bar Court a document which she knew to be false, and by falsely declaring under the penalty of perjury that it was a “true and correct copy of my retainer with Nira Woods for $20,000.00,” respondent sought to mislead the judge or judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
COUNT SEVEN
Case No. 16-0-12958
Business and Professions Code, section 6106
[Moral Turpitude: Misrepresentation to State Bar]
10. Respondent intentionally violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, by committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, as follows: on or about November 4, 2016, respondent attached as “Exhibit E” to her “Motion to Quash Subpoena for Non-Trust Fund Banking Records” which she filed with the State Bar Court in State Bar Case No. 16-O-12958, a document which she falsely declared under the penalty of perjury to be a “true and correct copy of my retainer with Nira Woods for $20,000.00” which she knew to be a false document at the time she made the declaration and provided it to the State Bar Court.
11. By providing to the State Bar Court a document falsely purporting to be “true and correct,” which respondent knew to be false at the time she made the declaration and provided it to the State Bar Court, respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.
12. A violation of section 6106 may result from intentional conduct or grossly negligent conduct. Respondent is charged with committing intentional misrepresentation. However, should the evidence at trial demonstrate that respondent committed misrepresentation as a result of gross negligence, respondent must still be found culpable of violating section 6106 because misrepresentation through gross negligence is a lesser included offense of intentional misrepresentation.
COUNT EIGHT
Case No. 16-O-10548
Business and Professions Code, section 6103
[Failure to Obey a Court Order]
13. Respondent disobeyed or violated an order of the court requiring respondent to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of respondent’s profession which respondent ought in good faith to do or forbear by failing to comply with the court’s minute order dated February 10, 2015 , which required that respondent pay a sanction of $875 in the case entitled Bonnie L. Kent and Teri Sue Kent Love in their capacity as Joint Trustees of the James Kyle Kent, Jr. “Spousal Trust” et al. v. Fin City Foods, Inc., et al., Orange County Superior Court case number 30-2014—O0713792—CU-MC—CJ C within 30 days of service of notice of ruling, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6103.
DATED: May 14, 2018 By:
NOTICE — INACTIVE ENROLLMENT!
YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT IF THE STATE BAR COURT FINDS, PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6007(c), THAT YOUR CONDUCT POSES A SUBSTANTIAL THREAT OF HARM TO THE INTERESTS OF YOUR CLIENTS OR TO THE PUBLIC, YOU MAY BE INVOLUNTARILY ENROLLED AS AN INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR. YOUR INACTIVE ENROLLMENT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANY DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED BY THE COURT.
NOTICE – COST ASSESSMENT!
IN THE EVENT THESE PROCEDURES RESULT IN PUBLIC DISCIPLINE, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE STATE BAR IN THE INVESTIGATION, HEARING AND REVIEW OF THIS MATTER PURSUANT TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6086.10.
*****************
You smell DA material? Me either.
But this IS the choice of Dan Chmielewski, the Liberal OC, and “OC DEM” … only because this blog opposes her. Thanks for helping re-elect Rackauckas, jerkoffs.
Hi Greg. I decided to run for office because of the waste and abuse going on in the Auditor-Controller’s office under Eric Woolery. I prepared 2 videos that briefly overview the issues. You can find them on my website tonismart.us or on my Facebook.
The article regarding the FPPC filing was an attempt by Eric Woolery and his team fluff to discredit me. My lawsuit is a whistleblower suit as I was wrongfully terminated when I became a threat that I would not look the other way on the shenanigans going on. I am running to Restore integrity in this important office responsible for billions of taxpayer dollars.
I met some of your people at the Bernie Sanders rally yesterday. They were real nice and enthusiastic.
I already Voted Smart.
I had already decided to vote for you prior to reading this. Some of Woolery’s political ties bother me intensely.
As to who’s right in your suit (which falls into the area of law in which I’ve practiced most): I don’t know enough about the facts to venture an opinion on it, and I’m not inclined to do so. Sorry — I’ve seen enough persuasive claims and defenses that I later came to believe were untrue to let yours be the basis for my vote. If you’re right — and I hope that you are, given than I am voting for you — then I hope you win your case. Either way, I hope that you win the election.
OC Daily noted that Smart re-registered from Republican to the far-right American Indepedence Party, so that’s a hard nope from me.
She’s not “hard right.” She meant to register as an NPP. She was tricked by the name “American Independent.” It happens to a lot of people.