Author: Mr. Peabody

It’s really not very hard to submit the necessary campaign finance and statement of economic interest forms required of candidates and elected representatives. But apparently it is for Shana Charles, who has evidently been busy with other stuff over her summer break, social justice warrioring, for one. Even with a kindly nudge from the Fullerton City Clerk.

Form 460s (campaign financial activity) for the first half of 2025 were due by July 31, 2025.

It’s now five weeks later and per the City Clerk’s webpage, Shana Charles still hasn’t submitted the required form, her last submittal being for the second half of last year.

Even more interesting is the fact that the CC’s site shows no annual Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interest) from Charles since February, 2024. She’s over six months late.

To be fair, Dunlap and Jung show being one and two months behind in their annual 700, but Zahra is a whopping seven months late, so there’s something not right in the City Clerk’s office, either in the enforcement or the recording of this stuff.

The irony here is that Charles’s (and Zahra’s) followers are always nattering about transparency this, and transparency that. But the application of the concept is selective, as shown by the Fullerton Observer Sisters and their new Jimmy Olsen, the impressionable, young Elijah Mannasero.

Way back on July 31, a member of the public made a PRA request. This individual got a receipt for the effort, too, with a reference number and everything. I got ahold of this receipt through a third party but I don’t know anything about the whys or the wherefores.

The trouble is, this request was never included in the City Clerk’s PRA request log. I’ve searched by date and reference number. Nada. So what happened? Is this omission an error, or is it deliberate? Who knows?

The request deals with communications between Shana Charles and the the city manager, the mayor, the police chief and staff. Staff likes to protect councilmembers so maybe that has something to do with the absence of the request on the log. Were there controversial or incriminatory communications?

All we know is that somebody wants to find out what Charles was writing to the people listed in the request. The reason for the request is a mystery as it would be if it were included in the log; but there is something going on here the public not only doesn’t know about: we don’t know what the response is, we wouldn’t even know a request was made without the receipt – defeating the purpose of a log altogether.

When this sort of thing happens people start getting curious.

A while back the Fullerton Observer ran an article about supporting businesses and addressing the damned unfairness of rents on City-owned property. The restaurant Les Amis was cited as a particular case. The older Kennedy Sister – Sharon – opined in one of her frequent comments on her younger sister’s posts:

“…I love Les Amis – I thought the Montechristo’s (sic) message at the July 15 council meeting was heartbreaking.” 

Maybe Les Amis should be renamed The House of Blues.

But wait a minute. Before we all start singing boohoo hosannas about how unfairly Les Amis is treated, let’s consider their 15 year record of scofflawry, trespass, and ignoring rent payments. The rap sheet is long and demonstrates bad faith at every turn. Naturally, neither Siskya or Sharon Kennedy bothered to find out if Les Amis has ever been an honest tenant of the taxpayers.

But we’ll take trip down memory lane, courtesy of a Public Records Act request about Les Amis:

Feb 2011         Jinan Montecristo d.b.a. Les Amis Restaurant & Lounge (Jinan) applied for an outdoor dining encroachment agreement.

Aug 2011         After several reviews of the site plan, staff provided a draft encroachment agreement to Jinan for consideration

Sept 2011        Jinan issued a letter to staff challenging the lease rates.  Les Amis installed fencing and started operating within the public right-of-way without executed agreement (south patio).

Dec 2011         Staff send revised encroachment agreement for consideration

June 2012       Jinan was issued an Administrative Restaurant Use Permit (ARUP), which included an ancillary outdoor patio.  Among other things, the conditions of the ARUP required a valid encroachment agreement pursuant to the Outdoor Dining Guidelines established by the City Council. 

July 2012         Staff send revised encroachment agreement for consideration

Dec 2015         Jinan submitted building permit to expand into the north portion of the building.

Feb 2016         Staff inform Jinan that she owed $28,659.60 for use of the public right-of-way of private benefit (9/2011 – 2/2016). 

May 2016        Modification of an Amended ARUP was approved, expanding existing restaurant into adjacent tenant space.  Jinan executed an encroachment agreement for outdoor dining (south patio only; $510/month; $6,120 annually).  The agreement also required payment for 12-month prior occupancy ($6,120; negotiated down from $28,659.60).

Aug 2016         Jinan issues a letter to staff indicated they are “unable to fulfill financial obligations” due to “hardship”.

April 2017        Jinan was issued a letter from the City attorney to pay outstanding balance on account.

May 2017        Encroachment Agreement expired.

Aug 2017         Les Amis expanded into the north patio area without a permit/agreement for outdoor dining.

Nov 2018         Jinan was issued a letter from the City attorney, indicating they are in violation of their ARUP, failed to pay the lease outlined in the executed agreement, and are required to remove encroachments (north and south patio) by Dec. 14, 2018. Jinan subsequently expressed interest in continued use of both patios.  Outstanding balance was $24,643.70 at the time.

Dec 2018         Jinan signed resolution of breach of outdoor dining encroachment agreement and FMC. Resolution waived outstanding balance on Patio 2 (north patio; $5,263.70), resulting in $19,380 of remaining account balance.

Jan 2019         Staff sent two encroachment agreement(s) for consideration.  Jinan expressed interest in removing Patio 1 (south patio) and expanding Patio 2 (north patio)

March 2019     Jinan executed Encroachment Agreement for new north patio only.  New Agreement was for $913.75/month ($510 for north patio; $403.75 for prior occupancy fee ($19,300 amortized over 48 months))

Permit was issued for removal of fencing around south patio and installation for north patio expansion per executed agreement. 

May 2020        City Council paused collecting lease revenue from all outdoor dining encroachments due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Outstanding balance for all outdoor dining agreements was also waived.  Les Amis waived balance was approximately $13,647.50.

June 2022       Council approved new lease rates for outdoor dining on public property. 

Aug 2022         Les Amis reinstalled south patio without permits and/or an agreement.

Sept 2022        Jinan submitted application to reinstall south patio.

Aug 2023         Staff reinitiated collecting lease from all existing agreements.

Oct 2024         Jinan defaulted on payments from August 2023 to October 2024, accumulating a dept of $13,468.71. Jinan signed an agreement for a 12-month payment plan to pay the outstanding debt of $13,468.71. 

NOTE: this did not include prior occupancy for the reinstalled south patio.

Nov 2024         Jinan executed two superseding encroachment agreements for outdoor dining with the new lease areas and rates. 

April 2025        Jinan defaulted on payments, accumulating an outstanding balance of $26,650.96.  Staff terminated the agreements, cancelled the payment plan, issued several notices of violations, and required removal of all encroachments. Jinan expressed financial hardship and requested the City revisit the lease rate.  Jinan also paid $1,200 toward the payment plan and expressed interest in purchasing the property.  The city paused removal to explore options. 

July 2025         Jinan was once again requested to remove all unpermitted encroachments.  Jinan paid $3,900 toward the payment plan.  City Manager agree to extend the time for compliance or a change in the Outdoor Dining policy for 60 days.  To date, Jinan has an outstanding balance of $31,185.10 ($5,494.06 payment plan; $25,691.04 encroachment agreements)

Okay, so what’s the deal? At one point Les Amis went five years ignoring their rent obligation to the City. Remember these were mostly the years that Mayor-for-Hire Jennifer Fitzgerald, who ran cover for almost every misbehaving restaurant and bar owner in Downtown Fullerton. Work without permits? Expansion without approval? City employees dismissing massive amounts of money due to the people of Fullerton? Check.

And these people have the damn nerve to get up in public and harangue the City Council about fairness?

The other day I shared the City Attorney’s response to unfounded allegations and threats the tender, green bud, Elijah Manassero, made about the Santa Fe Depot lease. His mission is to connect Mayor Fred Jung to bad decisions, even when they are not bad decisions. He’s been working hard at it with his friends “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra and the Kennedy Sisterhood Coven.

Some cynical folks are saying sweet Elijah is working on behalf of the Buena Park carpertbagger, Connor Traut, seen above with his close personal mentor, Jordan Brandman.

Therefore it is no surprise that sweet young Elijah refuses to be educated in the ways of municipal legal thinking and submitted a response to the response. In his response he stubbornly refuses to understand that a breech isn’t a default; and something nobody cared about hardly merits his conniption. Moreover, if the City thinks historic plaster restoration is within its purview, it has the latitude to do so.

Dear Mr. Bettenhausen,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your office’s willingness to engage on this matter.

That said, your reply raises serious concerns that warrant clarification.

Your letter states that “notice and cure” must occur before a default is recognized. However, Section 6(e) of the lease amendment plainly states that “If Tenant is in default (beyond applicable notice and cure periods), the Third Extension Term… shall not commence.” The City was made aware, before approving the amendment, that:

• Mr. Bushala admitted to a sublease on the record,
• Staff publicly acknowledged having no record of any authorized sublease, and
• The City had already incurred costs repairing the tenant’s plaster, repairs that are the tenant’s contractual obligation under both the original lease and the 2025 amendment.

In short, Council knowingly proceeded with lease approval while credible evidence of an uncured default was in plain view. That is a failure of due diligence and, arguably, of the lease itself. Whether or not the lease term technically commences until 2027 is beside the point, the City has bound itself to a long-term extension with a tenant under active investigation for breach. That defeats the purpose of the default clause entirely and undermines the City’s leverage.

I also note that between the prior version of the lease and the final version adopted, Section 8(g) was materially altered. The earlier version allowed the City to terminate the entire lease if the tenant failed to construct agreed improvements within five years. The final version, however, softens that enforcement mechanism, allowing only for loss of the 13-year extension, not lease termination.

The modification to Section 8(g), which weakens the City’s enforcement authority and softens default penalties, represents a material change in the terms of the lease, if not the price. As such, it triggers public disclosure and review requirements under Government Code §54956.8, which applies to leases of public property involving ‘price and terms of payment.’ To my knowledge, this change was not discussed by Council in open session or disclosed to the public prior to final adoption.

You argue the City may fund ADA improvements on its own property. While I agree in principle, the repairs at issue, including the plaster restoration inside the leased premises, are explicitly listed as tenant responsibilities under both the 1992 lease and the 2025 amendment. Public funds should not be used to subsidize private tenant obligations, especially under a lease that explicitly absolves the City of those duties. If the City chooses to assume those costs anyway, it is:

• Waiving a breach of lease without formal Council action or public justification, and
• Potentially engaging in a gift of public funds under Article XVI, Section 6 of the California Constitution.

I had hoped the City would proactively enforce its rights under the lease. Instead, your office appears to be shielding the Council’s actions under the narrowest possible reading of the agreement, despite clear signs of default, fiscal exposure, and procedural irregularity. I intend to proceed with a formal Brown Act “Cure and Correct” demand based on the post-continuance modification of lease terms and other irregularities cited above.

If your office or the City has documentation or a timeline that explains how the Section 8(g) change was reviewed or approved by Council in open session, I welcome it.

Sincerely,
Elijah Manassero
Fullerton Resident

Well there you have it. Like a small, angry child with a drum, delicate Elijah intends to keep banging out the same noise until somebody responds and gives him a cookie. However, there is no default. There is no fiscal exposure. Any irregularities were de minimis, have already been cured, and have nothing to do with a lease extension that won’t occur for another two years.

None of this boy’s accusations mean anything. The City’s own lawyer has said so. Repeating the same thing isn’t going to help. Of course tender Elijah doesn’t care that his buzzing about is actually costing the public he pretends to care so much about. We have to pay Jones and Meyer to deal with fresh Elijah. Think about that for a second.

I hope Jones and Mayer are told by the Council to drop this correspondence with the delicate sprout. He doesn’t deserve a response, not even to tell him to shove it.

.

A lot has been made by fresh young Elijah Manaserro, his mentor Ahmad Zahra and the Kennedy Coven about the issue of Albert Bushala’s lawsuit against his brothers and its potential impact on the Santa Fe Depot lease.

We here at FFFF have continually reminded folks that it doesn’t have any bearing at all. It’s a fake issue. The City’s lease is with the corporation Bushala Brothers, Inc., and BBI still exists as a corporate entity with officers and everything. It pays its rent to the City of Fullerton. If they fail to do so, it would be adios.

Yet Zahra and his minions, including the lively and tender young Elijah continue to peddle the non-issue.

So we decided to consult a lawyer with a lot of experience in public property leases. He is Jonathan Goldblatt, Esq. and has dealt with lots of these contracts for his clients over the years. Here is what Mr. Goldblatt had to say:

You requested a legal opinion regarding the impact of Al Bushala’s involvement in the original lease agreement in light of his lawsuit against the Bushala family and specifically the Bushala Brothers, Inc. (the “Tenant”).   There should be no impact.   The City’s agreement is with the Tenant entity.  Two family members, in their capacity as officers of the Tenant entity signed the recently approved amendment and represented in writing that they had authority to so sign on behalf of the Tenant. That is sufficient to legally bind the Tenant and allow the City to enforce the lease.  After reviewing the current complaint in that case, there is no cause of action would would invalidate the lease or the amendment. 

So the lease is safe – enforceable, and the City’s interests protected.

That’s pretty damn clear, unless some political or personal vendetta is driving your allegations; or your desire to play politics in a deeper end of the pool than you’re used to swimming in. That means Zahra and fresh young Elijah.

Once again lively young Elijah Manaserro strikes out.

It’s become abundantly clear that tender, delicate Elijah’s job is to harass Fullerton’s Mayor, Fred Jung with annoying challenges and allegations that can be used against him in next year’s election for County Supervisor against Connor Traut, the carpetbagger of Buena Park..

The lively Elijah’s latest whiff is another complaint to the California Fair Political Practices Commission. I don’t have the complaint, but I do have the response:

Oops. Shooting blanks, again.

A brief and definitive response by the FPPC as to why Jung doesn’t need to disclose his own house as a real property interest. So what is this nonsense? Does sweet, puerile Elijah believe the FPPC doesn’t have enough to do without dealing with his purely political attacks on Jung, Dunlap, and the Bushala family?

So far his complaints and his legal threats have amounted to nothing except wasting employed people’s time, something young Elijah has plenty of, evidently.

It’s too bad the tender lad can’t expend his time on some productive activity, but I suppose Fullerton will continue to be bothered so long as the new sprout seeks his main political chance.

The other day Mr. Harpoon shared a petulant email written (allegedly) by our new friend, fresh young Elijah Manassero, the young newcomer to Fullerton politics, in which he demands and asserts this, that, and the other thing – just like a spoiled four year old..

The basic thrust of his communication was that the Santa Fe Depot lease amendment was somehow invalid because the tenant, Bushala Brothers, Inc., is in default.

His challenges, were answered by Baron Bettenhausen acting as City Attorney.

Mr. Bettenhausen had let no legal grass grow under his feet in responding. I’m not sure what the hurry was, but respond he did. Here’s what he had to say to the green sprout Elijah:

Yes, sweet sprout Elijah misstated or misunderstood his own Big Issues.

Ouch. Fragile, rootless Elijah might have been whisked away for good by the breeze of this legal rebuke, except that he’s obviously on board as a political operative to make Mayor Jung look bad, and will try to keep doing so until there’s no oxygen left in the room.

But back to the City Attorney.

First, Bettenhausen says, potential breech of leases by tenants involves notification and time to cure the given issue. It’s standard contract language, of course, but Elijah and his legal advisor don’t know this basic fact. And if there’s an issue, it’s probably already been cured by BBI and the City.

The second issue Bettenhausen addresses is the business about the Bushala’s being paid to do restoration and ADA work at the depot, activity that the City clearly accepted as its responsibility as the building owner, a distinction existing between this sort of work and regular maintenance of the property. And there’s nothing in the lease prohibiting the City from doing so.

Sad, misguided Elijah’s other assertions are simply dismissed outright as baseless allegations or policy opinions. The Brown Act violation (unspecified) is dispatched with alacrity. Bettenhausen is unaware of any Brown Act violation in the process. It’s easy to get up in public and make unsubstantiated claims. it’s a lot harder to get any competent adults to agree with your untutored legal opinions.

Last night the Fullerton City Council voted 3-2 to amend the lease at the historic train station between the City and Bushala Brother, Inc. (BBI). Jung, Dunlap, and Valencia voted yes. Charles and Zahra no. The later tried to obfuscate and stall, but to no avail.

The Fullerton Observer and its brand new “writers” – political flacks Sweet Young Elijah Manassero and Steve Sherry tried their gosh darndest to mobilize a wave Observer troops to oppose the deal. In the end only a small ripple washed up on the sand to repeat the bullshit talking points they had been fed by Zahra and the Kennedy Sisters.

Comically, some of the self-appointed experts on commercial real estate were the near-homeless council regulars.

Mayor Jung did a good job upfront of clarifying some of the misinformation being peddled, to Zahra’s obvious annoyance.

Staff did an okay good job defending their negotiations against the disingenuous questioning of Ahmad Zahra who kept trying to compare the depot with completely different agreements on completely different properties. Zahra had been challenged for his (in)ability to be impartial and then showed to everybody that he was not impartial at all.

Sheena Charles wanted to talk to the Bushalas about the fact that no restaurant had ever appeared on the loading dock; she made the mistake of engaging George Bushala, Jr. in a conversation that ended in a comical overtalk exchange that left this viewer gasping for air.

According to Bushala, City staff had been causing problems for decades and had been using delaying tactics for years; and of course there was the obvious problem of the piece of loading dock not in the original lease is physically connected to the Bushala portion of the dock – a deterrent to development.

Dr. Sheena went to great lengths to act out her pretend astonishment. She bemoaned the lack of a “Trevor’s at the Tracks” like they have in San Juan Capistrano (I was immediately reminded of the idiot lefties who periodically demand the City bring a Trader Joe’s into town). She also wanted to know why the wealthy Bushalas (she is just a poor renter, she reminded everybody) wouldn’t give back a piece of gross sales as a sort of philanthropic gesture, I guess.

Mr. Bushala casually suggested her ignorance and confusion demonstrated: “that’s why you do what you do, and I do what I do.”

In the end Zahra pulled his usual “I have questions” that are nothing other than self-righteous speechifying – even interrupting Jung as the latter made a motion to approve the item. After a substitute motion by Sheena and Zahra to keep yakking it up failed, the original motion was approved and the deal was done.

There’s something sad about an old woman who is slow-witted, vulgar, and mad.

Of course I’m talking about Vivian “Cannabis Kitty” Jaramillo, the woman who lost the election in Fullerton’s 4th District last year to Jamie Valencia, who happens to be smart, classy and good natured.

Jaramillo posted her take on the idiot Trail to Nowhere© that had a “groundbreaking” party last week.

Naturally, the bad sport has to take a shot at the “majority” that wanted to “obliterate” the ridiculous waste of money and it’s too bad they didn’t, like they should have. After all, the price tag to the City for this boondoggle exploded by 250% since the original grant application. Naturally, the ever-cultured Jaramillo made reference to them having a “hair up their butt,” giving us yet one more reason to be grateful that this uncouth harridan and her dope lobby supporters lost.

Well, according to Jaramillo, Egleth Nunnci led a charge, creating an unforgettable mental image.

But the most entertaining part of the the Jaramillo post was this picture of Ahmad Zahra, speechifying about the wonders of his pet project, a project that will die an orphan when it is shut down after a murder or two.

Zahra is a Noser, alright, as indicated by the graffiti behind him. Of the several definitions, the one that is preceded by the word “brown” seems really appropriate. And so for that, at least, we thank you Cannabis Kitty. Of course the irony of the rampant defacement of property along the railroad right-of-way escaped the attention of Jaramillo.

These things never seem to go well in Fullerton.

Apparently the Union Pacific Trail disaster-in-the-making has lost another month – groundbreaking on July 2nd, as reported by Sanka Kennedy of the Fullerton Observer Kennedy Sisters. She fails to remind her followers that the project completion, including plant establishment is the end of October per the agreement with the bankrollers of the project, the incurious and somnolent State Natural Resources Agency. This bureaucracy is much better at handing out free money than they are securing its efficacious expenditure.

Congratulations all around.

In another Union Pacific story, Siaska tells about a workshop of some sort to gin up ideas for renovating Union Pacific park, the dismal space purchased by the City in 2000 without benefit of environmental testing. The first park was a drug addled, gang infested disaster and closed even after soils remediation and a cost of $3,000,000. Since nothing has changed there is no reason to suspect a new park will succeed any better than the old. But pickleball courts are in high demand in the barrio!

Skasia misinforms readers that the remediation issue took place in 2014, probably so as to cushion the shock of the real truth: the park was built, closed because of contamination, remediated in the 2000s and not opened again because nobody wanted it reopened – especially the people who wasted all that money in the first place.

Sankia reminds us that a committee was formed to review this park four years ago, but not that it dissolved into nothingness as these committees always do. Start over, says the City, the land is your canvas,and toy hardhats for everybody, and whatever happens, don’t look in the rear-view mirror. Here’s my favorite line:

“The initiative, which seeks to reinvigorate the family-oriented neighborhood, has been in the works since discussions about the park’s redesign began in 2019.”

A family oriented neighborhood? As opposed to what? The truth is that discussion of reopening the park came from Fred Jung who was disgusted by the whole disaster of the “Poison Park.”

Digging back to 2023 Kennedy found the ever quotable “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra to lend HIS vast knowledge of his district:

District 5 representative, Council Member Dr. Ahmad Zahra expressed his support at the City Council Meeting in October 2023, highlighting the project’s importance: “Many residents in that area have seen an entire generation of children grow up without access to a park.”

What a load of utter bullshit. The residents of “that area” have free and unfettered access to Independence Park, Richman Park and Lemon Park. If you believed Zahra you’d have to conclude the kids in the ‘hood were living in plywood crates in a Tijuana slum.

Naturally, Skaisa omits reference to Zahra’s 2021 vote to turn the park space into a private event center, a bone-headed and illegal move. But, again, Fullertonions, we don’t dwell on the past here. Forward to the Future.