Benavides and Bustamante to attack Alvarez at the 9/6 City Council meeting

View Comments

• I should add that Zionists Chase and Co. are pursuing against the council in the spirit of classical Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.(“SLAPP”)

  Therefore, if the council will side with Zionists the Alvarez has prima facie case against both.

  Offense is best defense.

• Stanley Fiala says. “You have to understand cook that counsel must jump some loops and hoops like due process, investigation, evidence and not to rush to judgment so they themselves would not be in the violation of city charter. (jail)”
  ............

  Yes, and that must be done in open council on Tuesday night, as provided by the code, and there is appeal rights to the courts.

  What evidence are you thinking of? The video tape of her comments and testimony of the reporters on her quotes? Is there any other evidence?

  I bet there may not be a closed session Tuesday, so the council meeting may start at 5pm. What do you think?

• Cook,

  WHY ATTACK CLAUDIA ONLY, BASED ON A PERCIEVED ANTI-JEWISH STATEMENT, AND BE SILENT ABOUT CHASE'S ACTUAL ANTI HISPANIC IMMIGRANT BUSINESS PLAN.

  Claudia's statements did not mention Irv's Judaism. Ethnic cleansing is an accurate description of Irv's exclusionary Hispanic immigrant customer business plan based on the dictionary definition.

  Reference to "Hitler" I believe was to describe Irv acting as a tyrant towards a community. If the tyrant reference was Attila the Han or any other historical tyrant the anti semitism argument would of been non existent.

  Hitler was responsible for human crimes on many races, religions, the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped and those not white, blue eyed and blond.

  Hitler was not only anti Jew, so why his name be only associated to Judaism? Hitler was a tyrant destroying many lives including those of soldiers of the Allied Armed Forces.

• cook,

  One of the key element to quash Alvarez immunity under the Cal. Civ. Code § 47(c) is that the council must prove malice.

  The malice is physically non existent because it is a state of Alvarez's mind with which she acted.

  It is virtually impossible from the video tape of her comments and testimony of the reporters on her quotes determine if she acted with malice. (she apologized)

  You need premeditation, any connection to any anti-Semitic groups any background acting as agent for someone else etc. etc. etc.

  In general malice is difficult to prove (especially the actual malice) and they cannot do that in open meeting on Tuesday.

  Same as in court an attorney (city one) must prepare a case and Alvarez must prepare her response and then council can rule in open meeting.

  You are talking 30-60 days min.

  I believe that they are stupid and will step on the mine and if Alvarez is not stupid she can take advantage of it.

  Nothing else is important at this point only the malice.

  After that there are 2 more elements I believe. (Must look it up)

  They can-only do number #5 on the Tuesday because it is not punishment to Alvarez but rather council's dislike of her action.

• Doc Art, the Chase’s are not subject to the Santa Ana municipal code violations by officers of the city.

  I read though the Santa Ana code and have not found any section that gives an officer of the city a free pass if they can show someone else may have done wrong. Even the parts that refer upward to the county, state and federal laws don’t seem to have a free pass clause.

  If the property owners are in violation of laws or breach of contracts, there are courts to handle those issues.

  If the issue of “exclusionary Hispanic immigrant customer business plan” is illegal and discriminatory, then the prior plan of “Mandatory Hispanic immigrant only business plan” that ran for 25 years would be illegal based on the same reasoning. And the courts are the proper venue to settle those questions.

  When you use a council member to try and settle a legal question in council comments instead of the proper court, you get what we have now, charges of unethical behavior.

• cook

  Because it was not applicable to me, I have overlook section 47(a); 47(b); which is more direct than section 47(c);

  47. A privileged publication or broadcast is one made:

  (a) In the proper discharge of an official duty.

  (b) In any (1) legislative proceeding, (2) judicial proceeding, (3) in any other official proceeding authorized by law, or (4) in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law and reviewable pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1084) of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except as follows:

• Stanley Fiala says: “They can-only do number #5 on the Tuesday because it is not punishment to Alvarez but rather council’s dislike of her action.”
  ……………
  Each item may require a separate vote or they can vote once on all items.

  On a majority vote (4) the council can:

  Ask for her to resign, but she doesn’t have to resign.

  On a majority vote (4) the council can:

  Do each and every item 2, 3, 4, and 5.

  Because it is within their right to do so. And just like all the other board and commission members the council majority have fired before. All they need to say is: “Its not for cause or punishment, we just felt it was time for a change.

  If it is voted “all or nothing” the GOP would fund a recall of the entire council (my opinion)

  (1) because it is cheaper than a regular election (all recalled for less than 50k)

  (2) the signatures required is so few. (15% of voters in the ward, 3,125 for ward #5)

  (3) it would wipe out campaign war chests for elections and other races of council members.

  (4) Santa Ana would likely lose its control of the assembly seat.

  (5) the domino effect of the lost of Santa Ana as a democratic party stronghold could effect the congressional seat and the state senate seat too.

  Stanley Fiala says: “One of the key element to quash Alvarez immunity under the Cal. Civ. Code § 47(c) is that the council must prove malice. “
  …………….
  No need to prove “Malice”, because items 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all allowed choices a council majority can pursue in the normal course of their positions. (full circle, what goes around, comes around)

• Cook,

  "Doc Art, the Chase’s are not subject to the Santa Ana municipal code violations by officers of the city."

  Where is the violation. Claudia was criticizing the perceived leader of the PBID. The criticism was about Irv's actions within the PBID and his plan of forcing his tenants to exclude a community group from Irv's tenants businesses.

  It is the council's responsibility to manage the PBID and hold Downtown board member's actions accountable.If council members see irresponsible actions from the Board they need to correct them. The only way to do this is by taking critical actions against perceived offenders.Council also has the right to make critical comments of businesses that may be discriminatory.

  The matter of anti-semitism in this case is a question of interpretation.

  My point is that there is no violation by Claudia, just a public opinion issue. Just like Irv and his ethnic cleansing plan. Irv's behavior is disgusting but all attention is on Claudia's perceived anti-semitism comment.Why?

  "When you use a council member to try and settle a legal question in council comments instead of the proper court, you get what we have now, charges of unethical behavior."

  What you refer to here is a development agreement between the city and Irv's development group. The council then has the right to look into this issue during council meetings to get facts for possible litigation by the city.

• "My point is that there is no violation by Claudia .."

  There is no doubt that Alvarez has violated the Santa Ana Code of Ethics and Conduct.

  • Actually there is plenty of doubt about that - and ultimately the B Boys will need four votes - which they don't have.

    If Alvarez steps down as MPT, it will be her decision - and I can assure you 100% that neither of the B Boys will get to be MPT.

    All the B Boys have done is assured that NO ONE on the Council will every help them with anything ever again. Nice going pendejos!

• "No need to prove “Malice”, because items 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all allowed choices a council majority can pursue in the normal course of their positions"...... Hmmmm

  WRONG!

  Although you may be correct, they can't do that during the item 85A as is written because it is connected to a violation of ethics where such violation is impassible during privileged speech as provided by Cal. Civil Code sec. 47.

  Absent of malice, Alvarez's and for that matter anyone speaking during the comment section before the council is immune from any liability and ethical violation.

  It appears that the entire action against Alvarez may be criminally laced as an extortion by the council while the council itself is extorted by Zionists to violate section 47.

  Lot of people can go to jail and Alvarez my be new owner of 4th St. buildings.

  text:
  85A CONSIDER POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THE SANTA ANA CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT BY COUNCILMEMBER AND TAKE REMEDIAL
  ACTIONS RELATED THERETO (COUNCILMEMBERS BENAVIDES AND
  BUSTAMANTE)
  The following actions may be considered on the floor and include:
  1. Ask for resignation from the City Council.
  2. Remove from the Mayor Pro Tem position.
  3. Remove from the Public Safety Committee.
  4. Remove from the Orange County Water Board.
  5. Condemnation of comment made by Councilmember.