If you haven’t noticed, I’ve been a touch quiet of late with my writing, but things are now resolved. By that I mean the robocall lawsuits stemming from the dirty politics of 2012 have been settled and put to rest. And while we may never know who was really behind that cowardly act, I can state that those most vocal in their hurrah’s over their First Amendment right to be politically dirty and cowardly have been XXXX, XXXXXX and XXXXXX [Editor: Sorry Mitch, too risky!].
And in my humble opinion, those same individuals were the ones responsible for the robocall. It may have taken two years and nearly $180,000 to reach that conclusion, but if nothing else, we can all say that the First Amendment works both ways and it is not defamatory to state one’s opinion.
Just my opinion, of course.
As for the $180,000 figure? That may be “a touch more” than the number the robo apologists are touting with their fake check in Barbra Williamson’s most recent dirty mailing, but then again, I don’t work for free either.
So as to Babs’ mailer. She claims Becerra “double dipped” for taking the pay and benefits that he earned as a Council member. But didn’t Babs take the pay and benefits that she earned as a Council member for 20 years? Was Babs double dipping too? Or did Babs just make that story up to flesh out her flyer?
Babs claims Becerra payed $100,000 as a result of the lawsuit. I should know, the real check was drawn from my attorney client trust account. On this I can clearly and unequivocally state that Babs is out right lying.
Babs claims Becerra was “struck down” by the Superior Court for “obstruction of free speech” of Simi Valley residents. So, so wrong. First, those in Simi Valley responsible for the robocall (see my humble opinion above as to who I think played a role [Editor: Sorry again Mitch!]) never had the courage to step forward and claim their role in this dirty cowardly act. The defendants were a Torrance based political consultant and his business, even though the Torrance defendants did get an assist in their defense from local criminal defense attorney Cindy Pandolfi, wife of robocall court watcher Louis Pandolfi. The Superior Court ruled plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their claims of an illegal robocall, that only the state or federal Attorney General could bring those claims. A technicality. And, the Superior Court did not rule that the robocall wasn’t illegal, either.
Then again, the robocall was yesterdays news.
Today’s news remains the upcoming election and the dirty road to Tuesday, November 4, 2014.
There seems to be much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands today about an advertisement the POA (Simi Valley Police Officers Association) put up about Simi Valley schools in the October 31, 2014 Simi Valley Acorn.
The ad asks the question, “Do Simi Schools Suck?” The ad then goes on to mention two school board candidates, Bill Daniels and Scott Blough. Fair enough. The impression is that the POA likes both school board candidates. And there is another full page ad in the Acorn, this one in color, again praising Bill Daniels and Scott Blough.
But what I find confusing is the strong denial of association with the ad by supporters of Scott Blough. There are many today who come out in defense of Scott, but crickets from Scott. Does Scott think Simi Schools Suck? Does Scott agree with the POA’s position? For that matter, what does Scott think, if at all? Or does Scott play both sides here, waiting to see which way the wind blows and then adopting the safe position?
I must say, I am not a big supporter of Scott. During the robocall case Scott came to my team to announce that he had received the robocall on his cell phone, which is strictly prohibited. The Friday night the week before plaintiff’s opposition was due to be filed against the motion to strike the class action complaint, Scott called me and we had a 12 to 14 minute conversation while I paced my garage. Scott told me how much he supported the plaintiff’s case against the robocallers, how he had received the robocall on his cell phone while he was sitting in his office at the bank, how he could deliver to me two other people who received the robocall on their cell phone, and how he would bend over backwards to make sure I had his declaration regarding receipt of the robocall on cell phones.
Excellent! I then proceeded to draft an outstanding opposition, putting in some 40 hours of work over three days, only to have Scott then incredulously proclaim to me three days later that I was trying to get him to perjure himself by signing the declaration that he had come forward to offer.
Imagine Lucy pulling the football from Charlie Brown at the last second.
And then I had mutual friends report back to me that Scott Blough was spreading the word that that I tried to get him to commit perjury. All over a story he either made up to begin with (i.e., receiving the robocall on his cell phone) or perhaps he just got cold feet. Or perhaps he was warned off. Who really knows?
If that was my only experience, I would say ok, Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be). But it is not.
In early August of 2014, I and two associates met with Scott at Friday’s on a Saturday afternoon. The meeting was to hear out Scott and decide if he was someone we wanted to support in the school board election. After some time I left my two associates and they were invited over to Scott’s house because Scott wanted to show them “something.” When there, Scott produced two highly confidential documents about another candidate and gave those documents to my associates. I am not sure why Scott gave away those documents, but it is clear the documents were of a nature that he should never have had possession.
Without going into specifics, the documents pertained to one candidate, and were of a nature that if released into the wild, may give the false impression yet another school board candidate had surreptitiously “back doored” the documents from his employer. The associates didn’t take the bait, didn’t release the documents into the wild and didn’t have anything to do with this heinous attempted smear. Rather, the associates contacted the appropriate authorities and the matter was, so to speak, “handled.”
My concern is whether Scott was Machiavellian enough to see the “two-fer” to be gained in smearing two candidates, perhaps at the last minute, which no amount of damage control could correct prior to the election. And then sitting back claiming that he had nuthen to do with nuthen and letting his apologists come forward to make excuses for him.
And yes, I did see the documents prior to them being turned over to the appropriate authorities and yup, Scott should never have been in possession of such confidential material.
So, once again, Scott’s involvement may have just been an innocent, easily explainable situation qualifying as “no harm, no foul.” Right?
And then comes the frosting to the story.
The one candidate subject to the confidential material had their attorney (no, not me) write a cease and desist letter to Mr. Blough having him refrain from further dissemination of the material he had no right to possess in the first place.
And as is his right, Mr. Blough had his attorney write back to the first attorney, claiming Mr. Blough was, in essence, a victim of dirty politics rather than a proponent of dirty tricks.
And the letter was signed, “Cynthia Pandolfi, Attorney for Scott Blough.”
As in, an attorney for the robocall defense team, now just coincidentally representing “Lucy.”
Your conclusions may vary.
Enjoy your weekend.
PS: Wendy and I voted for Elaine Litster and Josie Hirsch.