What Does Vivian “Kitty” Jaramillo Know About the Election Fraud that benefits Her?

FFFF has published very convincing evidence about the candidacy of Scott Markowitz in Fullerton’s 4th District election.

I’m doing it for the greater good…

The addition of a non-Latino candidate, and one whose clumsy ballot statement reads like it came out of MAGA central, is aimed directly at Linda Whitaker, a conservative Republican, and not coincidentally, a non-Latina.

Unindicted co-conspirator.

And who is the beneficiary? Why, none other than the one who got the one and only endorsement interview from the OC Dem Party – Vivian “Kitty” Jaramillo, a life-long public employee who used to write parking tickets paid for by her would-be constituents. The deal must be big for her. She sued the City so it would have to create a district she might have a chance of winning an election in Fullerton.

Back to Mr. Markowitz. His ballot statement includes nonsense about “America First patriotism” and “real” conservatism. But get this: Markotwitz has been hand-held by Ajay Mohan, a Democrat operative who used to be the Executive Director of the OC Democrat Party. Mohan, Friends will remember, was the guy who created the phony candidacy of Tony Castro in 2022’s 5th District race to draw votes away from Oscar Valadez, who narrowly lost to the non-Latino incumbent, Ahmad Zahra. Zahra and Mohan.

As FFFF discovered, Markowitz had some interesting nominators for his last minute campaign, including Democrats, one of whom, Diane Vena, a Fullerton Observer, had already endorsed Vivian “Kitty” Jaramillo. Hmm, indeed.

I’d sell out my mother for 10 votes, and I have…

The facts are indisputable, and pretty embarrassing unless you have no shame. We are investigating into who the shameless Mohan has been working for. We will find out. It’s not that hard.

In the meantime, let’s consider the target of this scam candidacy and the beneficiary thereof.

There is a phrase in Latin: qui bono? It means who benefits?, an excellent guide to discover who is behind a plan or scheme perpetrated by unsavory means. And of course that is Jaramillo. And so I ask (demanding would be fruitless) for Jaramillo and her campaign to come clean with what Jaramillo and her pals really know about the fraudulent candidacy of Scott Markowitz.

65 Replies to “What Does Vivian “Kitty” Jaramillo Know About the Election Fraud that benefits Her?”

  1. If you don’t get caught, is it illegal? Election fraud is not a sexy story for District Attorney Todd Spitzer. Can he stop being weird long enough to investigate this shmegegge?

  2. I would love to find out who is paying this Mohan asshole.

    BTW, who is Jaramillo’s campaign consultant? I bet she has one.

      1. Arda Campaigns? The address is a UPS store on Euclid in Anaheim.

        She gave them four grand? Just guess what she’d do to waste OUR money?

  3. I bet all the registered Democrats in the 4th District would greatly appreciate a direct mail piece (or 3) asking why Jaramillo and her allies helped get a MAGA supporting America Firster on the ballot for city council. Force her to try to explain that in a way that doesn’t incriminate herself.

  4. “Election fraud?” What would the statute violated be?

    If it was illegal to make trumpites look stupid they’d all be in prison.

    1. So it’s only fraudulent if it violates a statute?

      Real ethical, asshole. Mom must be proud.

        1. Well since it’s totally okay, I think I’ll run for City Council against Shana Charles next year.

          My ballot statement will include a reference to Bernie Sanders and AOC and the importance of Democratic Socialism as well as my pronouns (they/them). However, I will leave the actual drafting of the ballot statement to OCGOP Chair Fred Whitaker, who will also collect my signatures and turn them in for me, as well as recruit and fund a better financed GOP opponent. Since there isn’t anything wrong with doing that.

        1. And yet you’re not outraged at the ethical implication. You’re outraged for lack of a citation to the election code.

          That makes you a true asshat. Mom is proud.

          1. I don’t like it. I wouldn’t do it. But no, I’m not outraged. It’s on the order of shady political dirty tricks and shenanigans. Something I wouldn’t do as a candidate as an ethical matter, but something I know happens, can politically damage anyone involved as well as targeted.

            My question was genuine, is it unlawful. I don’t think it is but I don’t actually know. It seems like once again you all wish to put out an implication of illegality without actually showing it. A proper, responsible analysis would directly approach the legality question by not creating an implication of illegality if you don’t believe it is.

            Ethical behavior, right? You’re expecting it of others, but not yourselves.

            If true, it is going to be very embarrassing for those involved. Particularly since the attempt to cover their tracks was amateurish.

              1. Semantics and context matter. “Election fraud” implies illegality. Which I believe FFFF intended to imply, even though they cannot/will not back it up.

                “Cheating” would be an acceptable term that would not have the same implication of illegality. But then it wouldn’t have created the same level of outrage, which is what you outrage junkies feed on.

                I see exactly why you are doing it, I don’t like it, so I respond directly to those doing it when they do it.

                1. You of all people don’t get to define what is “implied.” You’re always bitching when you claim somebody else does it.

                  Idiot.

          2. Johnny has been and will always be a pompous, insufferable twat. He is an embarrASSment to our family. He is a legitimate asshat.

              1. Look up the term “election fraud” yourself. Every definition I can find says it covers only intentional, illegal actions.

                So the author doesn’t know what the term means. Or they think the behavior is illegal. Or they are lying.

                1. Literally posted the definition of the word fraud and you’re still arguing that it means something it doesn’t mean.

                  You’re worse than useless.

                2. “Literally posted the definition of the word fraud”

                  Uh huh.

                  Now post the definition of the term “election fraud.”

                  (crickets)

                3. That’s two words you condescending moron.

                  Seriously. Call Mom. You owe her an explanation for your total idiocy.

                4. John–

                  There is no definition of “election fraud” in the great state of California.

                  As other commenters are clearly pointing out to you, you’re being a pedantic moron. Please stop.

                  Sincerely,
                  A fellow liberal who finds your behavior repugnant

                  P.S.– This fake candidate thing is a real embarrassment to my party. I won’t donate another dollar to OCDEMS until they rebuke and fire everyone involved.

                5. “There is no definition of “election fraud” in the great state of California.”

                  It’s an accepted bit of terminology everywhere English is spoken, distinct from “fraud”. Look it up.

                  I don’t care what you think, since you are clearly refusing to follow my argument, and in so doing, being dishonest yourself.

                  I don’t agree with the Fiends misrepresenting facts. I also made it perfectly clear when asked that I don’t support electioneering shenanigans and dirty tricks.

                  Lying is repugnant regardless of who is doing it.

                  I raised the issue here because it just seems to have happened here.

                6. You demanded a citation, when that went south you flipped to “accepted bit of terminology”, which is of course false, and then moved on to “I don’t care what you think”.

                  You clearly clear what everyone thinks. That’s why you post your inane bullshittery on every post.

                  In the end, you’re on record shifting the goalposts each and every time you lose to protect your fragile ego, probably permanently damaged by your mom during your childhood.

                  Call mom. Tell her you can’t use a dictionary and you live a sad lonely life. She’ll appreciate it.

                7. “Aw, honey”

                  Capitulation accepted. You don’t think it’s illegal.

                  “You demanded a citation”

                  Crickets, got it. Capitulation accepted.

                8. Darling you really need to stop pretending you care about your friends’ malfeasance. Don’t you have some embroidery to do?

                9. Capitulation accepted?

                  You weren’t hit in the nuts enough as a kid.

                  Call your mom. She misses you.

                10. “Capitulation accepted?”

                  Yes, you got red flagged for losing the thread. “Election fraud” is the term from the headline of the article, and it is what I took issue with from the beginning. You looked up a different term, “fraud’ to counter, which was an error. You compounded your error by accusing me of “moving the goal posts” when I was in fact being consistent.

                  And PB got red flagged for shrinking away with trolling and insults.

                  When the other party in an argument dishonestly refuses to admit their own error but instead spouting whinging poo flinging nonsense, I take it as their being intellectually exhausted and their claim forfeit:

                  Short form: capitulation accepted.

                11. Bro,

                  You seriously need a mirror.

                  You’re embarrassing yourself, John. Please stop.

                12. “You’re embarrassing yourself, John.”

                  Thank you so much for your heartfelt advice.

                  Filed under “Concern Troll – Anonymous”

        2. And you tried to pretend the whole thing is about making fun of Trumpies. And that makes you a liar – just like the other Dems who set up the slimy Scott Markowitz.

          1. I didn’t lie. If Trumpites fell for it… and that’s the only way such a scam could work … they’d indeed be shown to be the fools they are. As they show themselves every time they show up for the 34x convicted felon.

            1. But of course the point is not to show them for what they are, but to take votes away from Linda Whitaker for the benefit of the Democrat. And you’re really okay with that. The first words out of you mouth: it’s not illegal.

              1. Well there you go. You mistake the “first words” out of my fingers for my thoughts and feelings in priority order. Does not follow. You made an obvious error in reasoning.

                Perhaps they are in priority order in the context of my interaction with Fiends For Fullerton’s Failure. But that’s about the extent of it.

                You could always try taking people’s words at face value. I asked a question, and got no direct answer. I wonder why.

                1. You made an obvious reason in erroring. FFFF caught your liberal colleagues demonstrating a complete lack of ethics and you, of course tried to change the subject.

                  You’d better get used to “Jaramillo/Election Fraud.” You’ll be seeing a lot of it.

  5. Hey, did y’all know Kitty was specifically recruited by Josh Newman and co to be a plaintiff in the district election lawsuit?

    How much did Kitty get paid in that settlement?

    Parking tickets, sues Fullerton, conspires in election fraud, all enabled by her party affiliation. Sounds like a real winner.

  6. Hoogie said to the Tiger, “The grass is blue.”

    The Tiger replied, “No, the grass is green.”

    The discussion heated up and the two decided to go before the Lion, the King of the jungle.

    Hoogie began to shout, “Your highness, is it true that the grass is blue?”

    The Lion replied, “If you believe that it’s true, then the grass is blue.”

    Hoogie continued, “The Tiger disagrees with me, contradicts and annoys me. Please punish him.”

    The King declared, “The Tiger will be punished with five years of silence.”

    Hoogie jumped cheerfully and went on his way.

    The Tiger accepted his punishment, but before he left he asked the Lion, “Why have you punished me? After all, the grass is green.”

    The Lion replied, “In fact, the grass is green.”

    The Tiger asked, “So, why are you punishing me?”

    The Lion replied, “That has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the grass is blue or green. The punishment is because it is not logical for an intelligent creature like you to waste time arguing with Hoogie. And on top of that, come and bother me with a question like that.

    Moral of the Story: The worst waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who does not care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions.

    1. I’m just going to take that as a long winded way of admitting you cannot counter anything I said and have nothing to add.

      HAND.

  7. Markowitz would have to be a real slimeball to do this. Which is to say, he must be a well-indoctrinated ideologue of the Democratic Party and close friends with Newman, Quirk-Silva and Jabbamillo.

Leave a Reply

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