Author: The Fullerton Harpoon

At the June 3rd Fullerton City Council meeting, George Bushala directly asked Shana Charles something I raised a few weeks back when I discovered that her husband, Andre Charles was paid $4000 by the marijuana workers union that was invested big time in the ill-fated council campaign of Vivian Jaramillo.

Obviously, the issue raises questions about Ms. Charles relationship with the legalized dope lobby.

Her response to Mr. Bushala was pathetic. You’ll have to ask my husband about that, she said cavalierly through her idiot grin.

Hey, wait a minute “Doctor” Charles. California is a community property state, meaning that you benefited from that four grand just as much as your loquacious hubby. Your husband is not a public figure making policy decisions for the people of Fullerton. You are. And why should anybody have to chase down Mr. Charles on his daily rounds?

By the way, will you be showing that $4K on your Form 460, presuming to ever get around to filling it out? Will you declare yourself ineligible to discuss cannabis related issues, as your followers demanded (unnecessarily, it turns out) that Councilwoman Valencia do with regard to campaign donors? If not why not?

As an aside, my favorite bit of the exchange came when “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra identified the union in question as a grocery store workers organization, as well as a cannabis workers crew. And this outfit isn’t a lobbyist, he proclaimed.

Hmm. Of course we remember that Zahra appointed the OFCW political lobbyist, Derek Smith to the ad hoc Fiscal Sustainability Committee so we know he’s lying about the lobbyist thing; but we also knew he was lying because his lips were moving and noise was coming out.

Why would grocery store workers union give a rat’s ass about a city council election in Fullerton that has almost zero control over their interests? And other than recruiting a few dozen potential union members from dope store workers why would the national union HQ flood $60,000 to Jaramillo’s election? Smart money places the donation of that kind of loot right back to the cannabis lobby itself, bankrolling the effort to elect pro-dope Jaramillo.

Zahra also made a point that it was bad to vilify unions, something nobody had done.

Andre Charles is some sort of political consultant for Democrat politicians and causes. That’s what he tells us on his rather uninformative website. What he does between elections is not mentioned. He is also the President of the North Orange County Democrats, and his name has surfaced in connection with the phony and perjurious Scott Markowitz candidacy in Fullerton last fall.

My current interest with Mr. Charles has to do with his activities in the same election. Why? Because he was paid $4000 by a political action committee sponsored by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 324 – a union for grocery store employees. You may remember the name of this group: Working Families for Kitty Jaramillo.

“Working Families” worked hard for Jaramillo, funneling $60,000 through the national HQ in Washington to fund their support for Jaramillo. Charles got some of that gravy:

Well, there’s nothing wrong, so far. At least on the surface. He’s a Dem working for Dems and that’s his job, part time or otherwise. It probably seems a little strange that a grocery store worker’s union would be involved in a local, small-time election.

But of course that’s not the whole story. See, Working Families not only represents the guy trimming lettuce in the produce section of your supermarket; they also represent workers trimming another green growing thing, namely cannabis.

The real money motive in marijuana dispensaries comes from the legalized dope cartel itself, not the promise of the union dues of a few dozen workers; even the least cynical person must wonder a little exactly who ponied up that $60,000, laundered through the national HQ.

Anyway, I digress. The real issue here is not the disheveled Charles’s job, day or moonlight. It’s the fact that his better half is none other than Shana Charles, the bloviating and sanctimonious councilmember for District 3.

Let me synopsize: Mr. Charles is the financial beneficiary of four grand in marijuana lobby money to do something to prop up the campaign of Vivian Jaramillo, a vocal cannabis dispensary advocate. And his fellow beneficiary, Mrs. Charles, is in a position to agendize reopening the issue of legalized MJ in Fullerton and using it as a remedy for Fullerton’s budgetary woes. And she would also be able to influence the zoning regulations that make winners and losers in this business, to wit: the dispensary store owners and their immediate residential neighbors.

A few months ago the Kennedy Sisters – who scratch and peck out the Fullerton Observer – made sure to review the fall campaign financial activity of their enemies, Jung, Valencia, and Dunlap. They omitted investigation of the same for their failed darling, Jaramillo.

And they never once addressed the activities of Working Families during or after the election. The silence was deafening. Even if they had they would have glossed over the relationship of marijuana money and the spouse of a councilmember they hold dear.

When the defunct disaster known as Walk on Wilshire was in its oxygen tent, the Observer, Ahmad Zahra, and a few of their running dogs tried real hard to make a legal issue of campaign donors affecting council decisions. Hopefully the same solicitude for public probity will be applied, when appropriate, to Mrs. Charles, who was the direct beneficiary of a big monied interest that poured tens of thousands into a Fullerton political campaign.

A few weeks ago a guy named Matthew Ali wrote a post for the Fullerton Observer about the issue of the prohibition of non-government materials from City property. I wrote about it, here.

Okay, so the Kennedy Sisters found somebody to pitch their usual brand of editorial drivel masquerading as of news – fodder for the sheep that consider the Observer indispensable reading, and nothing new.

But the story doesn’t end there. Let’s let Matthew Ali tell it in his own words, in an email sent to people he talked to in developing his article:

Hello, this is Matthew Ali

If you are receiving this email, it is because you were interviewed for my article that appeared in the early May issue of the Fullerton Observer. First and foremost, I need to apologize for what was published under my byline. The words printed with my name attached were not the same as what I wrote. Multiple things were changed, and those changes were made without my knowledge or consent. Some things were taken out of context and changed into an attack on some of the people I interviewed.

In my estimation, the article as printed is not journalism. Nor is the published version something I can stand by. As of Monday, I have removed myself from the publication and will no longer be contributing to the Observer. This is entirely because of the liberties that were taken with my article. If what was printed read as an attack, that was never my intention.

Attached you will find an earlier draft that more closely aligns with what the article was supposed to be. It’s a bit rough and lacks the benefit of editing. But I am sending this to you without changes so my actual intent and what I wrote can be seen and the difference can be understood.

Again, I apologize for what was published under my name. If any of you have questions or would like to chat about the article, please do not hesitate to reach out.

With warm regards,

Matthew Ali

Who to believe? Pretty easy. Sankia Kennedy has no credibility and has been known to modify submissions to suit her editorial preferences. And this email suggests irresponsible editorial license.

I don’t think we’ll be reading anymore articles or blog posts by Matthew Ali for the Fullerton Observer. Let’s chalk this up to yet another excellent reason why the Fullerton Observer doesn’t belong on City property.

Part 2 of an essay sent in to FFFF.

Caught in a culture war
When self determination and neighborhood
trust are at stake

The End of Single Family Housing Zoning
Shortly after the Eaton Fires, I saw posts on forums where people anticipated rebuilding, “anything but single family housing.” Even though R 1 zoning has been the California dream, it has been phased out, first with the introduction of Accessory Dwelling Units in 2016, then later, Jr-ADUs. ADUs offer a quick way to add housing and gain property taxes, potentially doubling a neighborhood population. However, the utility infrastructure stays the same, while a greater demand is foisted onto first responders. Cities are left to assume the expenses and resource demands of more people. R1 zoning is deemed by the YIMBYs as wasteful and selfish, and limits availability of housing choices. NIMBYs point to a harmonious life of space, predictability and security. But the YIMBY’s weren’t done dismantling R1 zoning, so they introduced a new tactic: SB 9.

The Problematical SB 9

To add more firepower to the ridding of R 1 zoning, YIMBYs backed SB 9 in 2021 to allow lot “splitting” but only in R 1 neighborhoods. Lots must be a minimum of 2400sq ft. They can be divided 60/40 or 50/50 with up to two units on each new lot that meet the setback and height requirements. According to the City of Fullerton, the structures may not be more than 800 sq. ft. For lot splits, one unit must be owner occupied for three years. For two unit projects, all units can be rented. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant for the last 3 years, may not be torn down. The reality is 2-4 units are not going to make a fast enough difference in reaching 13,206 units. Since no requirements in the bill specify affordable housing, there are no public funds available for these projects. Because of the high per-unit cost of building and a lower ROI, in the first two years only 75 lot splits were approved across California, as opposed the approval of 8800 ADUs. Confusing? Attempting just to describe it is fodder for mistakes. But ideological wars are both heated and have many twists and turns. This is an attempt to solve a housing shortage with a culture war pushing it from behind.

In Lieu Of Cows, Create A New Preservation Zone
Because this is politics, there are loopholes, places where SB 9 does not apply: Farms, hazardous waste sites, high fire risk zones, ecological conservation areas, and historic preservation zones. Short of adding cattle or flooding city lots, NIMBYs stepped up to blanket entire neighborhoods as “historic preservation zones.”
 YIMBYs believe that this is an abuse by impassioned locals to “weaponize preservation.” They claim NIMBYs don’t want to preserve as much as they want to keep state-mandated multi-family and affordable housing out under the guise of “homey” and “charming.”

But SB 9 can intentionally be used to get people to side with Preservation zoning, as happened at a community meeting held for the purposes of finding out about this proposal. All anyone had to do was say the word, “Fourplex” without understanding nuances of the bill, along with the many restrictions that make the implementation of this both costly and difficult.

Last night the City Council voted 3-2 to move ahead with a study of a Charter City status for Fullerton. Jung, Dunlap and Valencia voted to look into it. Zahra and Charles voted no.

It was painful to sit through comments, most of which were obviously scripted to attack the motives of Mayor Fred Jung, and were all full of nonsensical misinformation about staggering financial costs, legal entanglements, and of course the old standby cliché: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

These Fullerton Boohoo worthies were obviously coached- and coached sloppily – by Zahra and Charles, and maybe even by reading the opinions of Sanskia Kennedy in the reliable Fullerton Observer – reliable to make stuff up if it helps the narrative. All of the excuses had been debunked, but that doesn’t matter. Commonsense is a not a common commodity among these folks.

Old grievances were aired of course, mostly the money pit Waste on Wilshire, and the Trail to Nowhere© redux in which “the people” have spoken – a few dozen out of a City of 160,000.

My favorite line of attack that was parroted by several speakers was that Fullerton has bigger problems – a fiscal precipice, and horrible roads. The fact that these disasters developed under General Law City status made their “argument” comically ironic. Is it or ain’t it broke?

Joshua Ferguson was on hand to deliver a hard, cold slap to the commentary by pointing out that the citizenry can become more involved in Fullerton affairs in the Charter process, not less. He was interrupted by boos from the faithful.

A Mr. Matt Leslie called in to support a study, and to admonish the speakers who had said (insultingly) that it would be too complicated to figure out and people would just vote yes (because they are so dumb), the typical top-down patronization of ordinary people by liberals. “The people want (fill in the blank)” doesn’t apply to a possible majority regular voters – only the claque of 12 or so who show up to harangue the council majority on a regular basis.

Another zoom caller expressed astonishment that so many adults, especially old ones, were so scared of the monster under the bed.

Which brings me (at last) to the real issue of charter status, expressed without bias. The proverbial devil is in the details. A charter can be as simple or as complex as people want. True the final charter version will be put on the ballot by the City Council, but lots of smart people will be able to scrutinize the text long before an election to approve or reject it. Don’t like it? Mount an anti-charter campaign. Zahra and Charles must have lots of campaign money lying around. Put it to work and get voters to just vote no.

I would be remiss if I failed to point out the noxious presence at the meeting of our old friend, Vivian Jaramillo, still very bitter about losing in last fall’s election, and then being rejected as a planning commissioner. Her “argument” was that a charter would make “Little Dictator” Fred Jung able to give all the City’s construction jobs to the Bushala Brothers, a claim based on her own long standing vendetta with the Bushalas, not any facts in evidence.

An interesting post popped up on the Fullerton Observer blog yesterday. It isn’t interesting because of content. It’s interesting because it was actually advertised as an opinion piece for a change; and it has an named author: Skasia, one half of the intellectually challenged Kennedy Sisters who publish the Observer. Because of this latter fact, the post is chock full of misinformation, weak generalizations, and double talk. Of course it is completely unpersuasive.

The topic? The awfulness of charter cities in California, and a list of supposed reasons to fear and loathe them.

Somebody called “Fran J” responded with a comment methodically dismembering all of Snakia’s talking points. Here’s what Fran J had to say, and please note the final two paragraphs of Fran J’s comment:

Fran J

May 11, 2025 at 12:36 pm

The opposition to Fullerton becoming a charter city isn’t rooted in facts or public interest—it’s rooted in political bias and a reflexive rejection of anything introduced by Mayor Fred Jung. The arguments raised against charter status collapse under scrutiny, and publications like the Fullerton Observer, which should be advocating for local empowerment, have instead chosen to stoke fear and misinformation.

Sacramento is not slowing down. From housing mandates to labor laws, the state continues to erode the power of cities to govern themselves. Charter status is the most effective legal tool we have to protect our autonomy. It doesn’t mean we ignore state law—it means we have the power to decide when and how to apply it in local matters.

Fullerton deserves better than to be handcuffed by outdated state mandates. We are a city of educators, entrepreneurs, artists, and families who care deeply about where we live. We have the intelligence, the creativity, and the civic pride to shape our own future—and the charter is the legal framework that lets us do just that.

Claim: Charter cities reduce accountability and invite corruption.
Reality: Charter cities still operate under California’s transparency laws, including the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, and the Political Reform Act. Nothing about becoming a charter city removes oversight or ethics requirements. In fact, a city charter gives residents the power to implement even stricter ethics rules, term limits, or transparency standards than state law requires. Suggesting otherwise ignores both the law and reality.

Claim: Charter cities concentrate power in the hands of a few elected officials.
Reality: This is a talking point, not a truth. Charter cities are governed by documents written with public input and approved by the voters themselves. That’s democracy—not consolidation. It’s ironic that the people making this argument seem far more concerned with who proposed the idea (Mayor Jung) than with the content of the proposal itself. The fear of power concentration is a distraction from the real issue: whether Fullerton should control its own local affairs or remain bound to Sacramento’s one-size-fits-all mandates.

Claim: Charter cities face more lawsuits and cost taxpayers more money.
Reality: Any city—charter or general law—can face legal challenges. The legal risks are not higher simply because a city adopts a charter; they only rise if a city writes a sloppy or reckless charter, which Fullerton has every opportunity to avoid through proper public process and expert input. More importantly, charter cities have more flexibility to reduce costs in public contracting, land use, and local services, often saving taxpayers money long term.

Claim: It will silence public voices.
Reality: This argument couldn’t be more backwards. Charter adoption requires public engagement, input, hearings, and a vote. If residents don’t support a specific provision, they can vote it down or demand it be changed. The process invites deeper civic participation—far more than passively following distant state mandates.

Claim: Charter cities can raise taxes more easily.
Reality: False. Charter cities are still bound by Prop 13, Prop 218, and Prop 26—meaning no new local taxes can be imposed without voter approval. The only thing charter status allows is greater efficiency in how cities spend public money—not how they raise it.

Claim: It isolates Fullerton from state or county support.
Reality: There is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Charter cities still receive state funding, participate in county programs, and are eligible for grants. Nearly 125 cities in California are charter cities—including Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, and Huntington Beach. None of them have been “cut off” from support. This is fear-based rhetoric, not grounded in fact.

Let’s be honest—the real reason groups like the Fullerton Observer are opposing charter status has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. If this proposal had come from anyone other than Mayor Fred Jung, many of these same critics would likely be praising it as a progressive step toward local empowerment. Instead, they’ve allowed pettiness to dictate their stance, opposing a good idea simply because of who introduced it.

Fullerton deserves better than performative outrage and knee-jerk contrarianism. This isn’t a small town that needs to be told what to do by Sacramento. This is a proud, capable community that can write its own rules, shape its own future, and trust its own residents. Becoming a charter city is a powerful step in that direction—and it’s time to stop letting political grudges get in the way of progress.

ED Response: Wow Fran J – you seem to know a lot about this subject though not everyone agrees. We do have a lot of problems to pay attention to and spend our limited funding on. This seems – to many – to be something that will not be helpful. I agree with you that a study session presenting all sides would be useful. In the past Fred Jung and the council majority have terminated the contract of an excellent City Manager for no reason at great expense and hired an unemployed friend who was not up to the job, tried to privatize the public library, end the UP Trail, and did end Walk on Wilshire – and more – so are not trusted by many who live here and want those things.

Unfortunately “ED” felt constrained to exercise a nasty, unprofessional habit that still plagues Siskyu. “Wow” she says, sarcastically trying to denigrate the commenter. Of course she may just be that surprised that someone actually bothered to read her tripe. She slips up and says she’s for a “study session” but that’s a lie, of course. Then Sakia trails off into a litany of Fullerton Boohoo grievances against Fred Jung and the council majority for:

1. firing an “excellent” City Manager (ED Note: Ken Domer was an incompetent boob)
2. trying to privatize the library (ED Note: and when did this happen?)
3. end the UP Trail (ED Note: the UP trail has always been an absurd boondoggle, but the majority did approve it.
4. end the Walk on Wilshire (ED Note: yes – an idea so damn stupid, and so bad for Wilshire Avenue businesses only a dunce couldn’t see it)
5. “and more” (ED Note: what’s the matter Sanka, too busy soliciting mortuary ads to spin more mythology?)
6. not trusted by many who want those things (ED Note: many people want many things, and many people can be manipulated into believing falsehoods about things they say they want. That’s just demagoguery, and that’s we have representative democracy.

My own favorite part of the editorial was this hilarious hypocritical line from Saksia:

– Charter cities can impose local taxes with significantly fewer restrictions, placing the financial burden squarely on the community.

Since when have the Kennedy Sisters or any of their tribe given a rat’s ass about the ease of raising taxes, except to make it easier. I wonder if Sanka even pays any taxes at all.

A close second for unintentional hilarity was Skiana’s assertion that a charter city would be more expensive in legal costs, another topic that Fullerton Observers have never shown interest in the past as Dick Jones racked up billing based on his own legal misjudgment. More self-unawareness: Sharon Kennedy actually tried to help the City in its absurd and losing legal harassment of Joshua Ferguson, David Curlee, and FFFF. That lawsuit cost the taxpayers plenty.

And even more, later yesterday. Enjoy.

Fran J

May 11, 2025 at 3:38 pm

Yes, I am very familiar with this subject. As a former municipal attorney, I have experience with local governance and legal frameworks. You’re welcome to disagree, but there is a difference between opinion and fact—I’ve provided the latter for readers to consider.

That said, you’re actually reinforcing my point. Your response appears heavily influenced by personal grievances with the Mayor—many of which are either inaccurate or irrelevant to the issue at hand. It’s important for your readers to understand that, as the editor of this publication, you’re approaching this topic with a strong and evident bias.

Readers deserve transparency, not personal vendettas disguised as civic concern.

ED Response: I have no personal grievance with anyone on our council. I was merely listing some of the reasons many in our town do not trust the current majority to make good decisions on our city’s behalf. For instance at the most recent council meeting the majority allowed a memorial plaque for a historic building in honor of a KKK member and at the same meeting banned our university newspaper Daily Titan and the 46-year-old all local volunteer community newspaper Fullerton Observer from continuing to have a rack in the lobby of city hall. You may have read about that in the OC Register, LA Times, Voice of OC, the LAist, or heard about it on NPR or other news agencies or from various Free Speech agencies. These, and other decisions have made residents suspicious of our council majority.

Saska has no personal grievance with anyone on our council. Now that’s hilarious.

Last night the Fullerton City Council voted down a desperate attempt by “Drs.” Charles and Zahra to rescind a recently approved policy that excludes non-government publications on City premises – except for a spot in the Library.

As FFFF noted the other day the whole thing was a ginned-up reason to force another vote and to mobilize Fullerton Boohoo. The transparent pretext of “new information” fooled nobody, since it was obviously just cover for Shameless Charles to get right with her constituency and at the same time to subject the council majority to another round of uninformed harangues by Zahra’s mindless minions.

Somehow a content neutral policy of excluding news outlets from the City Hall lobby was construed as an all-out assault on the free press and freedom of speech, yadda yadda. The Fullerton Observers were outraged, of course.

At the end, the inevitable wind-up speeches were completely predictable. Charles went into a long and winding circumlocution meant to separate her from her previous voice in support of the policy.

Zahra, as usual, outdid himself in his insufferable, twattish way, nattering about freedom and admonishing staff and the City Attorney that they are paid by all Fullerton, not just the council majority, and that being legal doesn’t make something right. The irony of this bullshit was lost on Fullerton Boohoo, but not on me. This is the same little miscreant who voted time and time again to pursue a lawsuit by the City against FFFF, Joshua Ferguson, and David Curlee. Zahra’s lawsuit against FFFF was an attempt to punish people expressing a First Amendment protected right. The City lost that lawsuit, costing the people of Fullerton, the folks Zahra pretends to care so much about, upwards of a million dollars. That’s a lot of asphalt repair for your district, “Dr.” Zahra.

Zahra blamed FFFF for being behind an intricate plot to get the Observer out of City Hall, a compliment really, although whether deserved remains to be seen. The new paper FFFF publication, the Fullerton Tribune (I’ve seen the gallery proof), can’t be dispensed there, either.

The vote to rescind the policy failed 2-3 with Valencia, Jung, and Dunlap voting no.

At the end of the interminable yakking, Jung moved to “table” the issue, a parliamentary tactic of using a positive majority vote that makes it impossible for Charles and Zahra to resurrect the thing through some fabricated “new information” in two weeks or beyond. Hopefully, on future votes Jung will remember to do this the first time around, or better yet, make it clear that 2 council people can only agendize new items, not something they lost.

The motion to table passed 3-2, Charles and Zahra dissenting, evidence that still want to bring it up again.

In the Kennedy Sisters’ early May print edition the failing Fullerton Observer, there appeared another story about a City ban on non-government publications in City facilities. The article was supposedly written by somebody calling him/herself Matthew Ali.

The tale included a new explanation for Shana Charles flip-flop on the issue, to wit, the City Attorney previously asserted that the City of Irvine had banned this sort of stuff from their City Hall, when in fact they hadn’t. Ms. Charles and her apologists seem to feel okay hanging their hat on this flimsiest of hat racks.

In reality, Charles was pressured by Ahmad Zahra, Fullerton Boohoo, the Kennedy Sisters, and her pals at the Daily Titan to change her mind. And because Fullerton’s nonsensical “2 councilmembers can re-agendize anything they already lost” policy, it will get another hearing. And presumably another, and another, and another as “Drs.” Zahra and Charles discover ever “new” information that was denied them at the most recent hearing.

Anyhow, back to Matthew Ali, the typically incompetent Observer scribe. In the article he/she includes this completely and demonstrably false statement:

“The issue was instigated by a blog that sent a letter to the City of Fullerton threatening legal action if rack for a (currently non-existent) newspaper it said it was planning to publish was not made available for public display.”

FFFF’s attorney Kelly Aviles did send a letter to the City Manger requesting an opportunity to display a publication on City premises, and asking for guidelines, placement procedures, etc. But the correspondence requested a response only. There was no threat of legal action at all. That is a deliberate lie cooked up in the feeble and febrile noggins of “Matthew Ali” and the Kennedy Sisters.

I also add that Matthew Ali has absolutely no idea whether a publication exists or not.

Anyway, here is the actual language of the letter sent by Kelly Aviles to the City of Fullerton:

Dear Mr. Levitt:

I hope this finds you well. I am writing to you on behalf of my client, Fullerton’s Future, who’s in the process of launching a new newspaper publication to serve the residents of Fullerton. As part of the marketing and distribution efforts, my client seeks to place a newspaper rack in the lobby of City Hall, similar to the arrangements that have been made with other local newspapers.

We respectfully request the City Council grant approval for my Client to install a newspaper rack in the lobby of City Hall. My Client has secured a financial commitment from a local businessman for a significant amount of private financing to launch this new business endeavor committed to contributing to the local community by providing important local news, restaurant reviews, business advertisements, and information that reflects the diverse interests of our city’s residents and their needs for alternative news sources. In addition, an application to form a new 501-c4 will soon be filed with the IRS for this venture. 

Please let me know if there are any specific procedures or requirements that need to be followed to facilitate this request or if the Council has any preferences regarding the placement of such a news rack at City Hall. We are eager to comply with any guidelines you may have.

Thank you for your time and consideration and we look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Kelly Aviles

Well, it looks like another letter from our other attorney may be in order to make the Kennedy Sisters correct more of their deliberate misinformation.

An alert Friend directed my attention to the online version of the Fullerton Observer in which Sanskia, the younger Kennedy sister, is informing people that they will have a second chance to weight in on the City Council’s April 1st decision to severely restrict where non-governmental publications can be disseminated on City property.

A second chance? How come? Let’s let Skasia tell us in her own words:

“During a council meeting on April 15, Mayor Protem (sic) Dr. Shana Charles and Councilmember Dr. Ahmad Zahra expressed their discontent with the decision, asserting that the council had not been presented with all necessary information before making such a significant ruling. Both officials indicated their intention to rescind the policy at the upcoming meeting scheduled for May 6.“

Hmm. The implication here is that these two have decided to re-agendize the matter on May 6th. A person with a little bit of common sense might well wonder how a council minority could resurrect an issue previously decided by a majority of the council. Well, of course they shouldn’t be able to; the policy of permitting two members to agendize an issue presupposes that it is a new item, not one previously decided by the City Council. Otherwise a minority could keep dredging up decided issues, ad infintum. A baboon could grasp this.

But no. You see “necessary information” of some sort has popped up, according to Zahra and Charles, not previously presented by the staff or the City Attorney. This alleged insufficiency is their pretext for stirring the whole thing up again.

Why does this seem familiar?

Because Zahra and Charles pulled the same horseshit on the Trail to Nowhere at the end of 2023 when they claimed that new revelations by the State required more public hearings. The City Manager, Eric Levitt, with the blessing of City Attorney Dick Jones permitted the issue to be put on the agenda. At the end of 2024 Charles trotted out the “new information” schtick to keep the Wank on Wilshire on life support until Vivian Jaramillo (hopefully) could get on the council and keep it going.

The main point seems to be about about giving Charles an excuse to change her vote. She will have to try to explain what “new information” has caused her to change her vote, and that might be unintentionally funny. But that wouldn’t be the only outcome.

If the issue is agendized for the meeting on May 6th by Levitt, the Council majority will be subjected to the usual hours long harangues from Fullerton Boohoo and the Kennedy Sisters. They, finally, may even be caused to wonder about the future of CM Eric Levitt and Dick Jones of the “I Can’t Believe It’s a Law Firm.”

But probably not, Fullerton being Fullerton.

Anyhow, we’ll know for sure May 1st when the May 6th meeting agenda is published,

Oscar Valadez ran against “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra for Fullerton’s 5th District council job in 2022. He came within a few hundred votes of winning, thanks to the suspicious candidacy of “Tony Castro” whose job was to siphon Latino votes from Valadez. Zahra also spent over $100,000 to keep his little $1000 a month job. What a rotten investment.

Well, Valadez is running again for the same seat in 2026 and his chances look pretty good to me. He’s not letting the proverbial grass grow under his feet, and is holding a kickoff party Thursday evening at The Charleston place on Commonwealth Avenue. Here’s the notice:

It seems pretty early to be doing this sort of thing, but we may be sure that his likely opponent Zahra is already busy shaking down contributions like he did last time, especially from his friends in the legalized dope lobby.

2026 won’t be a repeat of 2022, no matter how many fake candidates Zahra and the Dem Party Central vomit up. In 2022 voters hadn’t yet found out that Zahra, the immigrant gay man had orchestrated a fraudulent and illegal marriage of convenience in the 90s to an American to stay in the USA and pursue some sort of movie-making career. We can be sure they will be informed all about it, along with Zahra’s other myriad misdeeds.

Valadez will also be running with the title “Fullerton Planning Commission,” an impressive sounding job.