Orange County Fair Morass Gets Morassier; And Ackerman Questions Linger

Last week a judge stepped in to slow down the sale of the OC Fairgounds to a private developer as reported by the Voice of OC(EA). Seems hizzoner wants some time to look into all the allegations of hanky-panky that have been swirling around for the past year.

I have no evidence that that guy over there lied to me, and I don't intend to look for any.

More allegations of monkey business at the fair that creates a pattern of obfuscation, disingenuousness, and misfeasance that goes back well over a year.

But wait, hasn’t Tony Rackaukas already blessed the doings with his benediction? Yep, but despite our do-nothing DA’s whitewash of the entire 2009 Summer of Fair Love, lots of people have lingering questions about the role of some of OCs leading repuglicans in this whole mess.

Those doubts are fueled by a guy named David Padilla, a Fair trustee who apparently didn’t go along with his colleagues who were busted trying to create their own entity to acquire the property. As reported in the Daily Pilot, here, and the Voice, here, Padilla, who was recently removed from the Board by outgoing Governor Schwarzenegger, still has lots of unanswered questions himself. And even a few assertions.

One of the most intriguing parts of the story was this:

Among the things the board does not know are details of the activities of the law firm of Nossaman LLP through former State Sen. Dick Ackerman as well as the activities of the county’s lobbyist, Platinum Advisors, which has close ties to county GOP Chairman Scott Baugh.

Padilla was the only board member to respond to public inquiries and records requests for information on the role of both individuals. Padilla said earlier this year that he was told Ackerman was only paid $19,000 for his work.

“I have recently determined, after months of inquiry, they were paid over $150,000 for services I have not been able to get answers for,” Padilla said. “It was my intention to continue to press for the details on both these issues.”

A repuglican warrior does battle on the steps of the Capitol...

We know that the DA has found nothing untoward in Ackerman’s behavior, despite Ackerman’s own morphing tale, but $150,000 grand would pay for a helluva lot of schmoozing with the Guv, and it’s about time the public found out exactly what Dickie Boy was up to in Sacramento during those long hot summer days of 2009, including billings, invoices, and diaries.

23 Replies to “Orange County Fair Morass Gets Morassier; And Ackerman Questions Linger”

  1. Did you see how FASt he jumped on this Child Rapist last week?

    This comes after doing NOTHING about it for months and then he goes on the whiner channel (KFI) and cry’s that the state won’t call him back.

    What a pussy. This guy can’t even do his job. You have to wonder, seriously is he cleaning Schorders sticky fingers or vice versa. He comes across as an old man out of touch. Perhaps he is smart in the ways of legalease, but you would’nt know it from listening to him.

    What a hack! But he gets to taste the PASTRY!

  2. This article is horribly flawed in that it creates a false equivalency. The DA’s investigation and the lawsuit address completely different questions. The claims in the lawsuit do in no way correlate to the veracity of the concerns in the investigation.

    The DA’s investigation was about whether the board had violated any laws. The lawsuit is addressing legislative and procedural decisions.

    Simply put, the investigation was about the board and the lawsuit is about DGS. To pretend otherwise is ethically lacking.

    This is the worst kind of journalism.

    1. This isn’t journalism, it’s a blog. And the point of the post is that funny business has been going on at the Fair for well over a year.

      The nexus is Padilla who has been around for the whole time – including the time Dick Ackerman was working for the rogue Board. Well, he was until last week, anyway.

      And if you don’t like our “journalism” go buy a newspaper.

  3. You trying to be funny, DRH? I’m talking to Padilla himself, to fill in more of the hanky-panky we know went on with the Board. Always filling in more, more, building a clearer picture …

    It’s true that Mr. Peabody’s short article somewhat conflates the DGS shenanigans with Board malfeasance, but it’s not much of a stretch; as they’ve seemed to be working toward the same goal, and with the same lack of respect for openness and ethical process, plus they all just happen to be Schwarzenegger cronies who want the Fairgrounds sold. Gee, why would Mr. Peabody put them in the same article?

    (Except for that confusing, still-to-be-explained episode in September where the Board briefly claimed ownership of the property themselves … I think they quickly got what they wanted out of that threat.)

      1. Nice work, Peab. And speaking of our as-good-as-no-DA, boy am I looking forward to the coming fireworks between his cabal and Spitzer. We’re going to need popcorn for the next two years!

        Put me down on Spitzer’s side if you hadn’t noticed (although I’m still holding out for a DA who would oppose the Drug War and Three Strikes.)

  4. Vern, I would suggest you don’t rely too heavily on Padilla as a credible source. He was part of the ticket fiasco and voted with the rest of the board to endorse the Gov.’s plan to sell the property.

    And, Mr. Peabody, it is a shame that you abdicate all ethical authority by stating that you are a blogger and not a journalist, and thus abdicating any credibility.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but by your statement, are you stating that you are not obliged to adhere to any ethical or professional standards? How, then, can you stand in judgment of anyone else including the fair board?

    1. Regarding your Padilla comments. I find that if I restrict my interests, friendships, and conditional trust, to people who’ve never done anything wrong, I spend very lonely days and nights, and also have no sources.

      1. I agree, Vern, I’m just saying that I imagine a lot of what Padilla is spouting about is more sour grapes than anything else.

        And, as Mr. Peabody has illustrated above, he never lets the truth get in the way of a good story. After all, he is just a blogger and thus has no ethical standards to adhere to.

    2. Abdicate all ethical authority? Jesus H, I’m not your priest.

      And I am not in the “credibility” business.

      “Professional standards?” Ha! Are you out of you mind?

      Nothing wrong with my ethics.

      1. It takes a brave man to admit he has no credibility. It is nice to see that you don’t take what you write here seriously and I hope your readers understand that nothing you write should be taken seriously.

        You are just another loon standing on a street corner waving a sign that is better left ignored.

        See you in the funny papers.

  5. Of course there wasn’t.

    But really I’m not a journalist, and I’m not a professional. I don’t pretend to be and really find those labels offensive.

    I have no interest in “credibility” – if by that one means proper decorum, obsequious flattery, and spineless toadyism. This issue comes up on this blog all the time, especially with Tony and Sipowicz.

    The tools who throw around the word credibility the most are inevitably the sorts of lackeys who are secretly promoting their own pecuniary interest, or even worse, promoting some lame-brain shibboleth about which they really know nothing.

    And yet these same pathetic souls keep coming back – to the Best Blog in OC!

  6. I have seen enough “professional journalism” from the conventional media to know that it’s anything but credible.

    Now I read blogs and decide what’s true and what’s not all by myself. It takes a little more time but at least I don’t have to trust anyone or anything but my own brain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *