OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

  • Custom Campaigns

    Custom Campaigns
  • DMI

  • No On Yorba Linda Recall

  • Allen for Assembly

  • Ming for Supervisor

  • Ramos for Costa Mesa

  • Bennett for Fullerton

  • Sachs for Mission Viejo

  • Grangoff for Orange

  • Alexander for CUSD

  • Glasky for IUSD

  • Contact Us to Purchase an Ad

  • Lincoln Club of Orange County

Brutal Mailer Drops In San Juan Capistrano

Posted by Lassie on January 14, 2014

I will let you form your own opinions:

SJC-CircusMailer-1

 

SJC-CircusMailer-2

45 Responses to “Brutal Mailer Drops In San Juan Capistrano”

  1. Allen Wilson said

    Ouch!

  2. I smell Dave Ellis. Am I wrong?

    • Megatron said

      Yes, you’re wrong. But what else is new?

    • Greg Diamond said

      I don’t know much of the target of the recall, but while at first glance these accusations seem mostly spurious I also don’t really see much of anyone to root for here.

    • Sunshine said

      You have a good nose, Vern!!!!

    • Sunshine said

      San Juan Cares has admitted to hiring political consultant David Ellis of Delta Partners, LLC. You can see San Juan Cares’ name on this classless flyer. Obviously big money is behind Sam Allevato to keep him in power. This is the third or fourth glossy mailer his “team” has mailed to every resident in San Juan Capistrano while the recall is only in the petition phase. How important is it to the developers et al to keep Sam on the city council and retain a majority? Something is really fishy down here in San Juan.

      • SJC Resident said

        Quit lying Sunshine. It’s the second flier.People are fighting to keep the wingnuts from taking over.

        • Sunshine said

          Excuse me, it was ONLY the second of the nasty, tasteless, classless, desperate fliers. The other four were from Sam’s other “friends”. Unbelievable that the anti recall “friends” or puppeteers have spent close to $100,000 to fight back during the petition stage. I can’t imagine what the developers, etc. will spend to keep their puppet from being recalled when it’s finally on the ballot. Something smells pretty fishy in a small town city council battle.

  3. OCInsider#33 said

    I think the point, and it is done in a pretty humorous way, is to show San Juan Capistrano that those pushing the recall don’t really have the best interests of the residents and mostly certainly the taxpayers at heart. And their backgrounds and history prove that. Just look at that motley crew. Anyone know they story on why Beer Belly Worthington has a gal clinging to his side?? It has to be a good one….

    • MarkofSJC said

      REALLY? You think putting a quadriplegic council member backwards on a horse is acceptable fun? You must have taken that headline “Clint Worthington celebrates the recall” caption hook-line-and sinker, then! That was the most staged farce I’ve ever seen…and you’d think Clint was the only one behind the recall. You must also think that Alleveto is being “bullied” as well, as he keeps stating. But he’s confusing “bullying” with being held accountable for his actions.

      Clearly that’s not the case and many people were walking right past Sam, John and Larry (and their “Posse”) last Saturday at Von’s to sign the recall petition.

      • SJC Resident said

        John Perry told Patch only three people signed the petition that day, MarkofSJC. Did he lie? Or are you?

        • Sunshine said

          John was sitting at a table almost surrounded by Sam’s posse (I prefer to call them outlaws). Mark was at the other door where he was not being intimidated as much by all the cowboy hats. So, John is not lying and neither is Mark.

  4. Greg Diamond said

    “I think the point, and it is done in a pretty humorous way, is to …”

    This is often a way of saying: “I’m the consultant who wrote it in order to …”

    Of course I wouldn’t accuse the anonymous commenter of that. That might be defamatory. But I’m sure that there’s a story behind that phrasing — and it has to be a good one….

  5. OCInsider#33 said

    Nope, not the consultant. Just someone who has a passing knowledge of some
    the players portrayed in the mailer. And it hits pretty close to home. I also have a dim view of the use of a costly recall in the name of “saving the taxpayers money”. And it sounds like you might know the story behind the gal clinging in the picture?

  6. Paul Lucas said

    Since when can you file for bankruptcy and have your student loans discharged that way? Also, maybe you guys should think about candidates who are NOT Republicans to vote for instead of these clowns?

  7. Sunshine said

    It is disappointing, but not unexpected, that our Mayor and his coulrophobic supporters have spent so much money on a mailing piece that does not address even one issue involving the recall. In fact, there is no mention of a recall at all in their colorful mailer. It is just a personal attack on their fellow San Juan Citizens who disagree with them. So what are we to make of this mailer? The fact that it contained not one word of argument on the issues suggests that it is an example of the fact that when someone has no good arguments, they attack those who oppose them. I would have thought that, having spent this much money on the mailer, there would be at least one paragraph (even a sentence) on the issues. My conclusion: they have none. I am glad those promoting the recall are taking the high road and sticking to the issues.

  8. Jim S. said

    This mailer is an indication of how low and how desperate the people are who are opposing the recall. I know some of the people on the mailer. They are residents who are calling Allevato out on his poor decisions that have cost SJC taxpayers millions (no exaggeration).

    Allevato is not a popular councilman. He only won by around 300 votes, despite being a 9-yr incumbent.

  9. MarkofSJC said

    I think this just proves “If you don’t have the facts to prove your in the right ~ go for a really good smear campaign” Notice there’s no mention of how the recall isn’t warranted. And since when is the consequence of having to pay for the winning side’s attorney’s fees anything but typical. They’re desperately trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but feel fine about putting a fellow city council member who’s a quadriplegic on a horse…backwards (horses ass?). Wow! Thanks, but we don’t need “Sam the two year old” representing my interests.

  10. MarkofSJC said

    Maybe we should “Send in the clowns” so we can “Vote out the Fools” Rather than all this subterfuge, why can’t there be a public debate? I like Sam as a person, but from all public information I’ve been able to access, his leadership and the “voting majority’s” decisions have been consistently 1) Pro Rancho Mission Viejo/Anti SJC, 2) Economically wasteful 3) Twice proven to be illegal (Water rates/recycled water & banning of all newspapers).

    I find it enormously entertaining that he’s touting how the Ground Water Recovery Plant has put the city in the perfect place during the drought. How short sighted! When the water table drops and those pumps can’t pull water in is bad enough, but then the sea water infiltration will destroy the water supply for our city and the entire south basin! Great leadership, Sam!

    • SJC Resident said

      Mark, no worries about one of the fiscal conservatives declaring bankruptcy once, then getting sued last year for defaulting on a credit card? You want that guy to have his hands on city purse strings? Sounds like selective morals.

    • Sunshine said

      KenCoop: Give me a break, Ken. As you well know, Sam is not the most popular incumbent in SJC. He was just re-elected by a mere 300 votes and is not up for reelection in November, hence the recall now. The recall will cost the residents a one time $5. That is so worth it when Sam has wasted millions of tax payer money and continues to do so.
      Some group (if you follow the money do you get to the developers maybe?) really wants Sam to stay on the city council because they have already spent way over $50,000 on anti recall flyers and websites. Either this rich group needs Sam to continue voting for their projects or there is something no one wants revealed.

  11. Allan Bartlett said

    Don’t forget that Sam Allevato was one of Larry Agran’s right hand hand men here in Irvine during the last ten years. We finally have the proof that they wasted $200 million in taxpayer funds.

    • OCInsider#33 said

      Really???? Was there anything in the flier that was not true. This recall is a waste of the taxpayers dollar. San Juan has always been such a nice town. When did being anti-business become a conservative value.

  12. KenCoop said

    What’s wrong with waiting for the election in November?

    Isn’t that why we have elections?

    Pauly was the target of a recall right after she won the first time. That was just as ridiculous as this one.

    • Sunshine said

      KenCoop: Give me a break, Ken. As you well know, Sam is not the most popular incumbent in SJC. He was just re-elected by a mere 300 votes and is not up for reelection in November, hence the recall now. The recall will cost the residents a one time $5. That is so worth it when Sam has wasted millions of tax payer money and continues to do so.
      Some group (if you follow the money do you get to the developers maybe?) really wants Sam to stay on the city council because they have already spent way over $50,000 on anti recall flyers and websites. Either this rich group needs Sam to continue voting for their projects or there is something no one wants revealed.

      • KenCoop said

        Sunshine, what difference does the margin of victory have to do with the discussion? He won. He hasn’t done anything illegal (that’s been proven). There is no allegation of abuse of power, of violation of law, of conflict of interest, sexual or moral misconduct. This is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the electoral process. You claim Sam has wasted millions of dollars. According to you. I’m betting there are other residents that would disagree with you.

        There’s an election in November (three months after the recall election would likely occur). You have an opportunity to either have the recall election at that time, or change the makeup of the council.

        Given your passion for the democratic process, you should have no problem waiting till then.

        • KenCoop said

          Sunshine, since numbers are your yardstick, Pauly won by a mere 83 vote. Using your logic those wanting to recall her were VERY justified.

          • Sunshine said

            Numbers aren’t my yardstick, KenCoop, if you read all my posts. Illegal actions are. And I beg to differ with you. Allevato has done illegal actions according to TWO judges. But you obviously don’t mind having a Mayor who sends you ILLEGAL water bills, votes behind closed doors to ban a newspaper he doesn’t like, violating the First Amendment (a BIGGY) and has wasted millions of SJC residents’ tax payer dollars. Castro bans newspapers. And so does Mayor Sam Allevato. He needs to be gone sooner than later.

            • KenCoop said

              Not true. You stated that he was “re-elected by a mere 300 votes.” If numbers aren’t important you would not have made that statement.

              As to your “claims” of illegality. We in America enjoy a right called “due process.” It makes the assumption that one is innocent until proven guilty. Until that happens your claims of illegality are nonsensical and inaccurate.

              You are the equivalent of what we in the Navy would call a sea lawyer.

              Once again, there is nothing wrong with waiting till the November election to make your case. A recall effort is nothing more than an attempt by a group of whiners to get their way when they know they lack the support a majority of the voters.

              • MarkofSJC said

                Ken,

                I just want to double check…isn’t “due process” the process of getting the courts to rule in a timely manner on a legal issue?

                (From my Business Law Book) Due Process of Law
                A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one’s life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious

                Yes, until a ruling, the defendant is considered innocent. But that ship has sailed and the city LOST ~ twice!. At that point, they’re no longer “innocent.” It’s their legal right to appeal the water rates, but there was no lack of “due process” involved at all that I can see.

                That brings me to your last sentence “A recall effort is nothing more than an attempt by a group of whiners to get their way when they know they lack the support a majority of the voters.” Now you know that Sam’s term doesn’t expire in November, and the recall process requires both a minimum number of signatures to even go to the voters ~ and then a majority must vote for it to it to become effective. So, what’s your beef? If people think Sam is doing an outstanding job…they won’t sign, the recall attempt will fail and the Posse will continue. What is so threatening about the recall effort if you believe we’re in the wrong, and the majority of SJC voters think as you do?

                • KenCoop said

                  You specifically cite Allevato for committing illegal acts. Until he has been charged, tried in a court of law (not public opinion) where evidence has been heard and rebutted, and convicted he is innocent.

                  If you attended a law school that taught you all that claim was all there was to “due process” I would consider getting a refund.

                  Once again, since the recall election will be roughly three months before a scheduled election, what is the harm in waiting unless you of an undesirable outcome?

                  • Sunshine said

                    Let’s not go down those rabbit holes, KenCoop. So, I am understanding that you, KenCoop, believe that City Councilmen Allevato and Kramer and Taylor had the perfect right to violate the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and ban a newspaper they didn’t approve of or like the content of as it was revealing their shenanigans? This is obviously acceptable in your world. How do you have a dialog with someone who doesn’t believe in upholding the Constitution?

                  • MarkofSJC said

                    Was he not MAYOR during both of those acts
                    ~ banning CCS from all city property?
                    ~ Refusing repeated warnings over the looming water rate lawsuit AS WELL AS making the motion to appeal the judge’s against the city?

                    You are twisting things suggesting we’re holding Sam personally criminally liable, but we ARE holding him accountable as a public representative for his official actions while in office.

                    Again, Sam isn’t up for re-election in November! His other Posse members are!

                    • KenCoop said

                      I didn’t say that at all. I said he is innocent till proven guilty AFTER due process has taken place.

                      I can always tell when one an individual has lost the argument when their statements dissolve into outrageous syllogisms. Like yours.

                      Have a good weekend.

          • Sunshine said

            Let’s not go down those rabbit holes, KenCoop. So, I am understanding that you, KenCoop, believe that City Councilmen Allevato and Kramer and Taylor had the perfect right to violate the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and ban a newspaper they didn’t approve of or like the content of as it was revealing their shenanigans? This is obviously acceptable in your world. How do you have a dialog with someone who doesn’t believe in upholding the Constitution?

    • MarkofSJC said

      Because we can’t afford his continued bad decisions, which in one month have cost more than the entire cost of the recall!

      Did you notice that the city’s annual financial report painted a very rosy picture…yet ZERO reference was made to the tremendous financial liability if the city loses it’s appeal. Not even a foot mark! Between the rebate and other claims, this will cost millions ~ all completely avoidable. And in that same annual financial report, notice that they prominently call out how much the MWD imported water costs – but completely gloss over a similar figure for what the Ground Water Recovery Plant costs. Bad to worse, not only is the utility $2.8 million dollars upside down, but for a 6th consecutive year the plant has missed making it’s annual production goal. Yet Alleveto still struts around claiming the plant is covering “50% of summer demand and 100% in winter” which the City Manager’s own “weekly” report completely contradicts. But hey, those big, four color glossy flyers must be telling the truth ~ NOT!

      This is the kind of “hide it from the public” leadership we just can’t afford!

      • SJC Resident said

        MarkSJC — take a rest. The utility deficit is $2 million, but that’s down from $9 million a couple of years ago. You can’t stand that it’s getting better. And I suspect the City and the Water Utility are separate enterprises legally, so the city can have a rosy picture no matter what the lawsuit brings. A bunch of unhappy people trying to justify their anger. Look inward, grasshopper.

        • Sunshine said

          SJC Resident, Tell that to the judge that ruled that Sam and his cohorts are illegally billing us for water. You may like to be over charged, but I don’t.

      • KenCoop said

        You certainly have a right to that opinion. Just like those opposing the recall have the right to ask the citizens to not support it.

        • Sunshine said

          KenCoop, you can oppose the recall and support Sam Allevato and his illegal dealings. But I think that here in America, any city council member that would actually vote to ban a watchdog newspaper and had to be told by a Superior Court Judge to put them back because the residents had the right to read and access their local papers, more than deserves to be recalled. Castro bans newspapers. And now so does Mayor Sam Allevato.

  13. MarkofSJC said

    With all the calls over “waste of taxpayer money” and how marginal the recall effort is, why is it that…

    **No less than 5 (maybe it’s now 6) glossy mailers by anti-recall efforts have been mailed to every resident of SJC ($$$$)
    **There’s news that a SECOND phone survey “push poll” was just conducted last night ($$$$)
    **A slick website was set up by a “friend” of Alleveto, who was also appointed to the Open Space Commission (and Irvine Park Committee I believe) who is apparently in bad financial straights personally($$$$)

    A logical person has got to wonder WHERE IS ALL THIS MONEY COMING FROM?!? The above actions alone must cost close to if not more than the $93,000 projected cost of the recall.

    And all for a job that pays less than $400 per month?

    And exactly where, at this moment, has a DIME of taxpayer money been wasted? If the residents of SJC feel that Alleveto is doing a great job and should continue reigning over his self described “posse” ~ DON’T SIGN THE PETITION! If the recall fails to get enough signatures ZERO DOLLARS WILL BE SPENT, AS THERE WILL BE NO ELECTION!

    But Sam’s posse saw first hand last Saturday that many residents will step right past him to eagerly sign the petition….and it’s got him and the big, dirty-money machine going into warp drive. If Aleveto was confident of his leadership record and his base of supporters, why would his anti-recall campaign ramped up so fanatically? And yet, the points he tries to make as “fact” in the flyer he personally was handing out defy logic. The very first “Fact” listed (verbatim) in the flyer was

    “To protect the taxpayers of San Juan Capistrano, Sam supported filing an appeal as the plaintiffs demanded approximately $500,000 in legal fees for a ruling that defied all prior decisions on the issue.”

    Just think about that sentence for a moment.
    – In what world would anyone be “protecting” taxpayers by FORCING THEM TO PAY HIGHER WATER RATES?
    – Amazing how the actual legal fees jumped from $420,000 to suddenly “rounded” up to $500,000 (So much for “FACTS”)
    – If the city has WON the case, is Sam saying HE WOULDN’T HAVE DEMANDED THE CITY’S OWN LEGAL FEES BE REIMBURSED? So why is that an issue when the city lost it’s case?
    – As a former police officer, does Sam really not understand case law that was cited extensively in the ruling?
    – During the case, the city OPENLY ADMITTED ARBITRARILY SETTING RATES TO PUNISH USERS, which is specifically prohibited by law.

    The appeal effort is the REAL WASTE OF MONEY. Sam should be trying to change the law, not bend it to his will. And that decision will rack up more legal fees, and open the city up to even higher liability WHICH WASN’T EVEN FOOTNOTED ON TUESDAY’S ANNUAL FINANCIAL REVIEW..

    And that’s just ONE of the five “FACTS” Sam cites. Each of the others has the same pretzel logic to it.

    But please, don’t take my word for it. We hope that every resident in SJC will conduct their own fact-finding research, then make an informed decision. This is the deepest fear of the anti-recall claim, because when striped of the shrill innuendos, insulting caricatures and statements made without factual basis…the truth becomes very clear. So let’s start arguing the REAL FACTS, folks!

  14. Sunshine said

    Another recent and on going major waste of tax payer money in San Juan Capistrano is the banning of a newspaper by Councilmen Sam Allevato, John Taylor, and Larry Kramer. They went BEHIND closed doors and actually voted to ban a watchdog newspaper called Community Common Sense (distributed in San Juan Capistrano and Mission Viejo) from community property. This because the newspaper was critical of their leadership, exposing their costly, questionable and illegal actions.
    To protect their First Amendment Rights, the newspaper had to take the city to court to allow them to return the publication to city property next to other papers that had been there for over 10 years. But despite an OC Superior Court Judge’s ruling temporarily restoring newspapers back to city property, and despite his warning the city attorney that “the people WILL have the right to read and access newspapers on public property”, Sam et al still refuse to settle this and they are forcing this issue back to court February 27th, wasting more tax dollars fighting against the First Amendment rights.
    Their egregious actions trampled on, violated, and defied the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Americans have sacrificed their lives to protect that freedom they so arrogantly dismiss and defile. This is extremely serious and to me is grounds to recall Allevato AND Kramer AND Taylor. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF DEMOCRACY IN ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
    And River City thought they had problems.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 989 other followers