Jan Flory, Victim

Sometimes you think you couldn’t make something up that is so ludicrous as to seem impossible.

And so it is with the case of Jan Flory vs. Fred Jung’s ballot statement that was determined on March 27th.

Not the outcome, per se, in which Jung had to change his designation from “Fullerton Mayor/Business owner” to “Fullerton Businessman;” and had to remove from his statement the silly claim of opening 9 new parks and balancing a budget left unbalanced by predecessors.

No, Friends, the crazy, and unintentionally hilarious part was the last minute filing by Ms. Flory’s attorney meant to dodge a stay on the original writ of mandate. In this latest filing, Mr. Brett Murdock (who could not have possibly have composed it with a straight face) demanded immediate relief because Jung’s statement would cause poor Flory “irreparable harm.”

It’s pretty funny reading, all based on the premise that government is a business, and that business is hers:

“Petitioner Jan Flory is engaged in the business of government and politics“

The supposedly “practically libelous in nature” part is due to the implication that Flory – whose name does not even appear in Jung’s ballot statement – didn’t balance the budget during her third laborious stagger around the Fullerton City Council track. This supposed assertion of her incompetence is said to impugn her professional political reputation; this so, so funny because every Friend is aware of Flory’s dismal record of incompetence and deceit on the City Council – from the years of Water Fund fraud, refusal to reform a culture of corruption at the FPD, Redevelopment disasters, and of course deficit spending, just to mention a few issues.

And then there’s the specious and even more hilarious Murdock argument that if Jung were to win based on his ballot statement, it would deprive Flory of opportunities to possibly serve on one of the many County commissions and boards, some of which might offer remuneration:

“If published in the official election material, Jung is more likely to win the election. As a political opponent, Petitioner is unlikely to be appointed by the Supervisor to any of the County’s 85, (sic) boards, commissions and committees; whereas as a highly-qualified and prominent supporter of Traut, she may well earn an appointment.

Membership on a board or commission not only comes with political advantages, but pecuniary advantages as the County “pays certain board and commission members stipends for attending meetings.”

Other benefits—for which “it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount”—could accrue to prominent supporters of a winning candidate, including opportunities to be hired as staff counsel or prestige in the community as a lawyer or lobbyist.”

I can’t imagine which “community” would consider Flory as a lawyer – she quit her lawyering, good or bad, years and years ago. Flory the octogenarian lobbyist if Traut gets elected? Who’s kidding who? Her victimhood is based on not being able to be a political hack?

All of this adds up to very little, really, except to spread a little unintended humor to the good people of Fullerton.