OC Political

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

  • Custom Campaigns

    Custom Campaigns
  • DMI

  • Lindholm for County Board of Education

  • Pollitt for County Board of Education

  • Glasky for IUSD

  • Rackauckas for District Attorney

  • Woolery for Auditor-Controller

  • Iglesias for 69th Assembly District

  • Ming for Supervisor

  • Contact Us to Purchase an Ad

  • Lincoln Club of Orange County

Author Archive

Followup on The Anna Bryson Loss in Court

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on April 1, 2014

As I reported last week, 73rd Assembly candidate Anna Bryson was found by a Superior Court Judge in Sacramento to have made a false and misleading statement in her ballot statement.  Here is my post about that: Sacramento Judge Rules.

Today Katy Grimes (a Flash Report Senior Correspondent) did a through post over at the Flashreport about this situation including the various press releases from the Bryson campaign in which Ms. Bryson tries to spin a loss into a win.  Ms. Grimes’ article (which includes some quotes by this blogger) is at AD73: Bryson Campaign Tries…  and it is obvious Ms. Grimes put in a lot of time researching this article including speaking with various members of the Bryson campaign including Anna Bryson herself.  Katy also includes a copy of the Court’s order which clearly states the Judge found Ms. Bryson’s original statement to be false, misleading and inconsistent with the Elections Code by clear and convincing evidence.

I highly recommend you read Ms. Grimes article and her insights into the Bryson’s campaign’s attempts to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

Again, for full disclosure I am supporting Dana Point City Councilman Bill Brough who is running to be my next Assemblyperson from the 73rd Assembly District.  I recommend you check out Bill Brough and contact him through his web site at:  http://billbrough.org/  Bill’s next event will be on at 5:30 p.m. on April 22nd at Paradise Automotive in San Juan Capistrano.  For more information contact gina@zariconsulting.com or 714-388-6515.  If you met Bill and talk with him about the issues and his background, I believe you will come away supporting him as I am.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District, Capistrano Unified School District, Dana Point | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Breaking News – Sacramento Judge Rules A Portion of Anna Bryson’s Ballot Statement is False and Misleading

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on March 28, 2014

Today Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang ruled that 73rd Assembly candidate Anna Byrson made a false and misleading statement in her campaign statement.  The judge ruled that the statement “On the school board, I returned $59 million to taxpayers” was false and misleading and ordered the statement stricken and re-written.  In this type of ballot challenge the burden of proof the person challenging the statement is “clear and convincing” not the easier to prove “preponderance of evidence” standard.  The petitioner, Mission Viejo resident Dale Tyler, via his attorney Chad Morgan, was successful in submitting clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Bryson’s statement was both false and misleading to voters.

Ms. Bryson, as part of her opposition, submitted a declaration by her fellow CUSD Trustee John Alpay wherein he stated (among other things) that Ms. Bryson was “instrumental” in returning $59 million to taxpayers.  Yet the Court still found the statement false and misleading!  I represented Greg Powers in his challenge to Mr. Alpay’s ballot statement when he challenged former Trustee Mike Winston in the recall election of 2010.  The Court at that time struck two statements contained in Mr. Alpay’s ballot statement as being false and misleading.  So it is no surprise to me that Judge Chang found Mr. Alpay’s declaration in support of Ms. Bryson to not be convincing either.

Full disclosure: I am supporting 73rd Assembly candidate Bill Brough  (who currently serves on the Dana Point City Council).  I was a supporter of Ms. Bryson in the past, but not any longer due to her voting record: Why to the Teachers Unions Love Anna Bryson?   Check out Bill’s web site at Bill Brough for Assembly.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District, Capistrano Unified School District, Dana Point | Tagged: , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

How Low Will They Go!

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on March 13, 2014

I have known Matt McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) for many years now. Matt is a wonderful man and a great attorney for the conservative cause.  When Matt lost his sight a few years ago, I never heard of him complaining about it once.  Instead Matt focused on applying his excellent attorney skills for the benefit of PJI’s clients as an attorney who happens to be blind instead of playing the victim.  I also give kudos to the Pacific Justice Institute and its President Brad Dacus for working with Matt to help him continue to be an effective attorney for PJI’s clients.

Matt and PJI have been heavily involved in the effort to place on the ballot a referendum about AB1266 the “Bathroom Bill.”  The effort came close to qualifying for the ballot but is just under 17,000 short of the number needed and PJI, many other attorneys and activists are going over the disqualified signatures and finding many, many instances of institutional bias by some Registrar of Voters offices and the Secretary of State’s office.

Now Matt has discovered that even his own signature was disqualified!  I commend Matt’s article over at the Flashreport (Disenfranchising the Disabled) to you.  This is a new low for the various Registrars of Voters and the Secretary of State’s office involved.  Of course I hope my friends fighting against AB1266 are successful not only because of the specific issue involved, but for the sake of our Initiative process and election integrity in California.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Tea Party, Conservatism and the Constitution – a Thought Provoking Article by Professor Charles Kesler

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on March 7, 2014

Conservative Hillsdale College (Hillsdale) publishes a monthly newsletter called Imprimis. In this newsletter Hillsdale publishes speeches by visiting professors and other dignitaries. Most of the speeches are worth the time to read them but every now and then one is exceptional in its thought provoking and timely commentary.  The January 2014 version is such an article / speech.  It is by Professor Charles Kesler who is an editor of the Claremont Review and an editor of the Signet Classic edition of The Federalist Papers.

Professor Kesler’s article is entitled The Tea Party, Conservatism, and the Constitution.  In the article the Professor gives a timely commentary on the current state of the Tea Party and its relationship with the Republican Party with a call for both of them to work together for the good of the country.  The Professor also notes several areas in which Obamacare is an affront to the Constitution that calls out for us all to fight together against this usurpation in general and specifically the People’s right to legislate via Congress as provided under the Constitution (Hint: there is a very specific and troubling example near the end of the Professor’s article) .  You may not agree with everything the Professor states in his article (some of his conclusions seem to be generalities and in my opinion some establishment Republicans are as much of the problem as Democrats), but you will find it very worth your while to do read it.  Here is a link to the article: The Tea Party, Conservatism, and the Constitution.  The link is to the Hillsdale site and downloads the article as a PDF.  You will need Acrobat Reader to open and read the PDF.

Of course the article is the copyrighted property of Hillsdale College.  Hillsdale allows the articles to be reprinted with credit to Hillsdale but since the article is long and there is a link to obtain it as a PDF for your reading pleasure, I have not reprinted it here.

I highly recommend the article to you and that you pass it along to your friends.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Petrilla Makes Statement to CRA About 2001 Arrest – Double Wow!

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on March 4, 2014

As Chris Nguyen accurately reported over the weekend (Live From the CRA Endorsing Convention), Jesse Petrilla made a statement to the delegates at the California Republican Assembly’s Orange County endorsing convention about his past criminal problems.  He did it via a spokesperson who explained that he was away at National Guard training last weekend.  Part of that statement was his defense from those “attacking him” regarding his 2001 felony convictions.  Part of his statement was that he beat the charges.  I was there and serving as the Parliamentarian for the group so I was right next to the podium when the statement was read. Since he told a different story to the Orange County Register the day prior to the convention (See: Does a conviction matter?) – either Mr. Petrilla isn’t keeping his stories straight or his spokesperson did not read the correct statement to the delegates.  Either way this does not bode well for him.

Assuming the statement that was read to us at CRA was the one Mr. Petrilla wished us to hear, the statement is shocking.  I am an attorney although I do not practice criminal law. However, I do know and understand that when you plead no contest and the judge explains to you that such a plea is the same as a guilty plea (and you state you understand that as Petrilla did) – that is not “beating the charges” but admitting to the crime.  That is why I was so shocked by his prior statement of only a few weeks ago in my post about this: Petrilla Statement – Wow!  The Rancho Santa Margarita Patch also carried a story about his prior statement of a few weeks ago which includes copies of the actual court documents from his criminal case confirming his plea bargain and sentence (Did Petrilla Lie?)

Now at the CRA convention he apparently doubles down by having a statement read to us in which he claims to have “beat the charges!”  I guess Jesse Petrilla and some of his supporters don’t understand something extremely important – that Mr. Petrilla’s statements about this incident in which he essentially denies that he plead no contest (i.e. guilty) to two felony charges were only four weeks ago and last Saturday!!!  It is his truthfulness now that concerns me more than what happened in 2001.

Am I glad he served his time and apparently got his two convictions expunged from his record – Yes!  Am I glad he is proudly serving in the U.S. Army – Yes and thank you for your service Mr. Petrilla!  But that does not excuse him from giving out statements like those referenced above to try and make people believe he “beat the charges” or “they were all dismissed” implying he was never convicted of a crime.  As with my prior posts about this issue – don’t take my word for it – go to the Patch post linked above, read the article and the attached pages and make the judgment for yourself.

Perhaps Mr. Petrilla needs to spend a little money and time to consult with a criminal defense attorney about what a “no contest” plea means and what his obligations are under California Penal Code Section 1203.4 in a political campaign (I will leave it to Mr. Petrilla to consult with his attorney about that section of the law).

I am and have been supporting Bill Brough for the 73rd Assembly.  See: Why I Am Supporting Bill Brough for the 73rd Assembly.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District, Rancho Santa Margarita, Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Lisa Bartlett Stripped of Authority to Approve Contracts at TCA

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on February 17, 2014

There are a lot of reasons I am supporting Laguna Niguel City Councilman Robert Ming in his race for Orange County Supervisor, 5th District (Robert Ming for Supervisor) that have nothing to do with his opponents’ shortcomings.  However there are also a lot of reasons I oppose Lisa Bartlett’s (the Mayor of my city Dana Point) bid for that seat too.

She has turned out to be a big / nanny government politician who voted in Dana Point to ban plastic bags, increase hotel taxes, increase staff at the city, etc., etc., etc.  Now it turns out she has approved very questionable contracts over at the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency where she is the current chair of the board.  Apparently the agency in 2008 passed a resolution to allow the chair of the board to approve contracts over $25,000 without the rest of the board’s approval and not in a meeting open to the public if the contracts were for a “legislative purpose.”  According to an article over at the Voice of OC (Toll Road Agency Chair Stripped of Authority) this resolution was continuously carried forward as automatic language in the agency’s budget adoption process.

As the chair, Ms. Bartlett approved contracts with vendors, such as former Governor Gray Davis’ law firm Loeb & Loeb, that were not for a “legislative purpose.”  Setting aside that the Board should not have given the chair that authority in the first place, it is alleged that Ms. Bartlett abused this clause repeatedly.  I will not go through all of the examples or Ms. Bartlett’s excuses for her conduct as the Voice of OC article does a good job of laying that out.  I recommend that the reader follow the link above to the article to obtain the facts about this disappointing situation.

Kudos to Supervisors Todd Spitzer and Shawn Nelson (who sit on this TCA board too) for calling out Ms. Bartlett on this abuse and stripping her of this authority.  These types of contracts should always be presented to the entire board in open session for questions, debate and approval and for the public to have a chance to comment on them.  Kudos to the rest of the board for voting to end this foolishness and bring the contracting process of this agency back into the light of public scrutiny where it always should have been.

Years ago I was a supporter of Ms. Bartlett.  Others warned me of her real leanings.  I regret not listening to those warnings.

She should not be promoted to Orange County Supervisor!

Posted in Dana Point, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Why Neel Kashkari is a Non-Starter for this Fiscal and Social Conservative

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on February 10, 2014

Another entrant into the California Governor’s race, Neel Kashkari, is right out of the play book of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman – a rich businessman who has never held elective office and is socially liberal but claims to be a fiscal conservative. Mr. Kashkari, while likely a very nice gentleman and a great private industry success story, is not a candidate this fiscal and social conservative can support.

When the former Bush administration official entered the California Governor’s race he proclaimed that his emphasis for the Governor’s race is the high poverty rate in California and improving education. The successful Republican businessman has taken a position in favor of abortion and homosexual marriage. One of the chief creators and implementers of the Bush Administration’s Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP), he defends that program because he claims the government was repaid all of the loaned funds plus interest. In my opinion, on TARP, Mr. Kashkari seriously misses the point of fiscal conservatives’ objections to that program, some of which I will cover below.

Undoubtedly other voices in the Republican Party will soon be lecturing conservatives like myself that social issues are losers for Republicans in California and we need a successful businessperson who is “socially liberal” to lead California and the CRP out of its woes.  With all due respect we have heard this tune before and it has only been a disaster for California and the Republican Party.  This same tune was played to us in 2003 for the recall of Gov. Gray Davis.  We were told Tom McClintock could not win the Governorship so we all must get behind successful showman Arnold Schwarzenegger.  While Arnold’s early years showed promise (repealing the car tax which he later raised again), right after he was re-elected in 2006 he took a hard turn to the left and gave us things like the carbon cap and trade laws that are crippling business in California.

He also joined then Attorney General Jerry Brown by refusing to defend Proposition 8, which resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow homosexual marriage in California not because the people voted for it, or due to the courts actually finding it was proper on the merits, but solely due to the Governor’s (and Attorney General’s) refusal to do their job and defend the law.  This has severely weakened the initiative system in California as it allows the Governor and Attorney General to veto the people’s voice by simply refusing to defend a federal constitutional challenge to an initiative that the people voted yes on.  I lay this partially at Mr. Schwarzenegger’s feet.

The next time we heard this piped piper tune of “we need to run a rich social liberal Republican” was Meg Whitman’s run for Governor against Jerry Brown four years ago. Although Ms. Whitman is a very nice person (I met her a couple of times) and she is a rich and successful Republican, she had never held elective office and she is pro-abortion.  Her views on homosexual marriage seem to be both yes and no.  It is my understanding that she also supported TARP.  Ms. Whitman was rejected by voters who were tired of years of pseudo Republican Arnold as Governor in favor of re-tread Jerry “Governor Moon Beam” Brown.

And here we are again with another candidate right out of the Arnold / Meg mold.  We are being told take our sincerely held beliefs on social issues (and even fiscal issues); ignore them and recent history to support and vote for Mr. Kashkari.

For this conservative activist my answer is No Thank You.  Obviously as you have gathered Mr. Kashkari and I differ on abortion and homosexual marriage.  And while I realize the Courts have instituted homosexual marriage in California by judicial fiat and abortion is regularly made more and more legal and taxpayer supported by the Democratic legislature (and current Governor) that does not equate to any obligation for me to support a candidate that also believes in these policies.  There is no reasonable expectation that a Governor Kashkari would act any differently than the Arnold or Moon Beam.

However Mr. Kashkari’s actions as a Bush Administration Treasury official and his defense of his role in the TARP program, in my opinion, place him in at least a very questionable category on fiscal issues.  The TARP program should be called the Bail Out Wall Street Big Bankers program.  It put the federal government in the corporate boardrooms as an owner – a place it should never be in in a free enterprise economic system.

In addition, the companies the TARP program bailed out were, for the most part, companies that made very bad business decisions and should have been allowed to fail.  Even with TARP bailouts, many, many employees of these companies (who did not make the bad decisions for their employers) lost their jobs anyway.  Finally these big banks now have cash in their coffers but they are generally not lending to small businesses who find capital still very difficult to come by almost six years after the 2008 crisis.  Regular consumers also are still having a harder time obtaining loans, etc.  In short TARP was great for Wall Street but not for Main Street where the rest of us live.  Many on the left also opposed TARP which could hurt Mr. Kashkari’s prospects with voters in June.

This is the bailout program Mr. Kashkari is so proud of and is his only governmental claim to fame.  To me this does not make him qualified for the Governor’s office.

In the June “top two” primary election, we will most likely be given the choice of Governor Jerry Brown, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, Neel Kashkari and now Mayor Andrew Blount of Laguna Hills plus two or three more minor candidates.  Of course a late entry by another more established Republican candidate like Congressman Darrell Issa would up end the race – he has money, a very good track record, good name ID, etc.  But so far neither Mr. Issa nor any other well-known Republican has said they are even interested in entering the race.

Can Mr. Kashkari best Mr. Donnelly and now Andrew Blount in June to be one of the “top two” for the run off in November?  Yes he may do so.  But it is not “inevitable.”  First – voters in the “top two” primary vote for one of all the candidates – not for which Republican or Democrat they like.  Voters who like Jerry Brown over Tim Donnelly are going to vote for Jerry Brown not Mr. Kashkari.  That leaves voters who do not like Mr. Brown which will include most Republicans and many decline to state voters.  I will not predict how all Republicans will vote.  But I will predict that many fiscal and social conservative Republicans like me will choose Mr. Donnelly as more in line with their beliefs on public policy than Mr. Kashkari plus Mr. Donnelly’s experience at holding elected office.  I do not yet know enough about Mr. Blount (who describes himself as a Libertarian) to give any opinions about what voters will be attracted to him.  A lot will depend on how Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Kashkari and Mr. Blount conduct themselves on the campaign trial.

As for Decline to State voters – many are former Republicans who left the party for one reason or another.  For those who felt the party was too conservative – Mr. Kashkari might be their cup of tea.  But for those who felt the CRP was not consistent in presenting candidates and elected officials whose positions and decisions adhere to the Party’s own platform – it is illogical to think they would vote for Mr. Kashkari.   Some will vote for Tim Donnelly, some may vote for Andrew Blount and some may just skip that part of the ballot.

So I would say it is a toss up as to whether or not Mr. Kashkari will face Governor Brown in November.   But my vote in June will not be for Mr. Kashkari – that tune I have heard before and is not a dance I chose to join in.

Am I supporting Assemblyman Donnelly?  I have not given him any money or endorsed him  (or any other candidate at this point).  That may change, as we get closer to June.  Also, I am a practicing attorney and a Republican activist for limited and constitutional government.  I am not on any candidates’ payroll and I do not earn a living as a political consultant.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Ming For Supervisor Yard Signs Are Ready For Your Yard!!!

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on February 8, 2014

2014-02-08 16_17_03

Ming for Supervisor yard signs are ready for your yard! Want to increase the value of your home? Want to add class to your neighborhood? Be the first on your block to have a Ming for Supervisor yard sign in your front yard. And they are free! You just have to promise to display it in your front yard or your business (which must be in the Orange County 5th Supervisorial District for it to increase your property values).

There are two ways to obtain one for your yard.  One way is to log into Facebook and go to the Robert Ming for Supervisor Facebook page, “Like” the page (if you have not done so already), send a message to Robert that you would like a yard sign (make sure to give him your contact information) and Share this post with your friends on Facebook!

The other way is to go to the Robert Ming for Supervisor web page then send a message to Robert via the “Join The Team” page.

Thank you and God Bless!!!

Posted in 5th Supervisorial District | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Why I Am Supporting Bill Brough for the 73rd State Assembly

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on February 5, 2014

I am supporting Dana Point City Councilman Bill Brough (Bill Brough) for the 73rd Assembly seat being vacated by Diane Harkey (due to term limits). There are many reasons why I support Bill as the best candidate for this seat. Bill, a veteran of the United States Army, is currently a member of the City of Dana Point City Council, the city where I reside. Therefore I have seen first hand his work at the city council level to know Bill Brough is a man who stands by his principles and works to get positive things done in my city. As an example: Bill has been a leader in getting the long planned but stalled Town Center Project (the re-vitalization of our downtown area) going again. All without any taking of private property and selling it to some other private entity (crony capitalism) or having the city go into debt via bonds or some other means. Bill has advocated for years for lowering taxes and fees for the citizens of Dana Point and to encourage development of commercially zoned properties such as the Town Center area.

Being someone who believes in freedom, Bill Brough was the sole vote on the city council against Dana Point’s foolish plastic bag ban (current City Councilman Carlos Olvera was not on the council when the plastic bag ban vote was taken).  See Dana Point City Council votes for Plastic Bag Ban.  Bill is still against the plastic bag ban partially due to there being no proof that the ban has lowered the cost of keeping the city cleaner. This is in stark contrast to Dana Point’s Mayor Lisa Bartlett who voted with the majority of the council in favor of the ban (I am also supporting Laguna Niguel City Councilman Robert Ming in his race for Orange County Supervisor for the 5th District (Robert Ming for Supervisor) for many positive pro Robert Ming reasons but Ms. Bartlett’s vote for the plastic bag ban and her votes to increase tolls on the 241 toll roads are another reason I am supporting Robert Ming and opposing Ms. Bartlett’s bid for that seat.  I have a lot of company in that belief – Ming Outraises All His Opponents Combined).

Getting back to Bill Brough, until about this time last year, Bill was Diane Harkey’s Chief of Staff so Bill knows not only Sacramento but the 73rd Assembly seat in particular – Bill Brough will not need to play “catch up” to begin to be effective as our representative in the Assembly.

There are a lot of reasons I do not support some of Bill’s opponents for this seat (see my prior posts about Jesse Petrilla (Patch Post & Petrilla Statement) and the latest post over at the Rancho Santa Margarita Patch (Did Petrilla Lie…)  – now the court documents about the 2001 criminal case are posted there and about Anna Bryson – Why does the Teachers Union Love Anna Bryson).  But most importantly Bill Brough is a great candidate even without the problems his competitors have. I highly recommend you go to Bill Brough’s web site (www.billbrough.org), check him out and contact him via the web site. I believe you will like what you find out about Bill – especially if you contact him via his web page.

For anyone interested in who I am, I am a practicing attorney who lives and works in Dana Point and a volunteer activist for limited and constitutional government.  I am not on any candidate’s payroll and I do not work as a political consultant.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District, Dana Point | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Petrilla Releases Statement About 2001 Arrest – Wow!

Posted by Craig P. Alexander on January 28, 2014

Last night I observed a report over at the Rancho Santa Margarita Patch about 73rd Assembly candidate Jesse Petrilla being arrested in 2001 and his pleading guilty to two felony counts: one count for assault with a firearm and another with a “firearm enhancement” (Petrilla’s Past).  I was surprised that he had nothing to say to the Patch reporter when he was contacted about it.  Apparently today he did give out a statement – not to the Patch but to some of his friends which Patch reporter Martin Henderson obtained a copy of.  It is here: (Petrilla’s statement).  Basically in his statement he admits to being arrested but tries to make the situation sound like he was arrested for self defense with all the charges simply being dismissed.

Yet Councilman Petrilla glosses over: 1. that he plead guilty to two felonies and 2. that these two charges were dismissed only after he served all or part of his probation that a judge sentenced him to and the two charges he plead guilty to being reduced to misdemeanors.   Mr. Petrilla does not express any remorse for his actions or that he has learned any lessons from this situation.  He justifies this conduct by claiming the people he was firing the rifle at were drug dealers who were threatening him.  In my opinion if that were true, the police or sheriff’s department and the District Attorney would likely have dismissed the charges – all of them – as self defense.  No need to plead guilty in a plea bargain, no probation to serve and no need to have the two convictions reduced to misdemeanors and then dismissed (which I understand is common procedure for expungement of criminal convictions from your record).

According to the Patch reporter – the facts were double checked via Court records and found to be accurate.

Since 2001 has Mr. Petrilla joined the military and served honorably?  Yes he has!  Plus he and his wife have every right to be happy at the birth of his new son!  But if he wants to represent people like myself in the legislature, he should be able to admit the truth about what happened in this past, admit to past mistakes and not try to parse words in a statement to try and wiggle out of admitting the truth of what happened.  While I understand people make mistakes in the past – I also believe you need to be open about them (felony convictions are public record and are serious matters) and hopefully to have learned from them – not try to avoid the truth via well crafted statements.

I am no one’s “opposition researcher” and I am not on any candidate’s payroll.  I am a voter in the 73rd Assembly District, a believer in the 2nd Amendment (including the right of self defense), a volunteer activist and an attorney by profession.  My response to Mr. Petrilla’s “statement” is “WOW” not because I am impressed with his explanation, but because I am shocked that he would issue a statement that glosses over these important facts and try to act like his own plea bargained confession to two felony convictions simply did not happen.  He would be better off if he had just stayed silent and not issued this parsed statement that avoids the obvious truth of what happened.  In my opinion, Mr. Petrilla’s statement alone renders him unqualified to serve as my representative in the State Assembly.

I will be voting for a different candidate for this office.

Note: it was brought to my attention that I used the term “parole” instead of “probation” to describe part of the sentence the judge gave to Mr. Petrilla.  That was my error and I stand corrected.  I have changed the description to the correct sentence of probation.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District, Rancho Santa Margarita | Tagged: | 8 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 885 other followers