Category: About Us

Why do the Kennedy Sisters feel compelled to create their own news and froth themselves and their handful of followers into self-righteous fury over some made up crisis? The answer isn’t good. It’s political grandstanding and journalistic incompetence.

The latest is their Fullerton Observer article demanding that the Fullerton City Council hold a public hearing on the matter of whether or not Fullerton should join a lawsuit against the the Immigration and Customs Enforcement for their “illegal” activities. The alternative, they suggest is an effort to decide this matter in the Council’s “Closed Session” since it pertains to legal activity and is thus exempted under the Brown Act.

The only trouble is that nobody has proposed discussing this matter behind closed doors. The agenda for the next meeting hasn’t even been created and won’t be published until a week from today. Whether or not the matter will even be on the agenda at all for the August 19th meeting is guesswork. Gee, I wonder who sold them this story.

But that’s not a deterrent to the enterprising sisters who once again are trying to whip up the usual suspects into attacking the council majority. They even created another dopey petition making their speculation about a Closed Session decision look like a real effort that they have somehow uncovered. No sources are described, of course, following the Fullerton Observer’s usual trajectory of absent journalistic integrity.

Naturally, this whole thing is another attempt to go after Mayor Fred Jung in particular who is singled out:

“Event organizers invited Mayor Jung – but he failed to attend.”

Bad Jung. Bad, bad Jung! Looks like no effort was made to talk to Jung, or if it did, it was omitted from the screed.

The result of this will be another conga line of the usual speakers that we already know. And maybe some new faces drawn from the ranks of Fullerton’s liberal churches. This is probably why the ever-pious and election fraudster, Diane Vena, sent an email about this subject to the Servite friar, Dennis Kriz.

FFFF received this social media snippet today and I thought it was worth sharing.

It’s hard to read, but the gist of it is that Fullerton has made a list of 47 safest suburbs in California. Mr. Alex Yu, a realtor, doesn’t name the source of his wonderful news, but refers to a “national safety report.”

Mr. Yu declares that Fullerton is named the the safest city in Orange County, and in fact, all of Southern California!

This is an OPPORTUNITY for someone, presumably Mr. Yu.

In July, former La Habra councilman Tim Shaw announced he was running for the OC 4th District Supervisor job. Again.

Way back in 2018, Shaw ran for this seat and lost in a close election to the miserable, corrupt, and now ostensibly senile octogenarian, Doug “Bud” Chaffee. Chafee is termed out in 2026.

But 2026 is not 2018. North Orange County is more demonstrably Democrat, and other than getting into, and losing a General Election to a Democrat, I can’t see much hope for Shaw. In the past he has run for things as an allegedly moderate Republican, but even that seems like a lost cause. This is particularly true since he resigned his La Habra gig so he could stay on the OC Board of Education that has recently become the playground of Trumpy lunatics. That association and his voting record there might help fundraising from a far-right corner – such as $2000 he already got from Howard Ahmanson, but it’s going to make his candidacy a tough sell to the general public.

Right now Fullerton’s Fred Jung and Connor Traut have a lot of cash on hand, where as Shaw has comparatively – under $20,000, but it’s still very early with the primary almost a year away.

I think Shaw’s candidacy is bad news for Fred Jung who, as a pragmatic centrist, needs conservative support. Traut is running as the inevitable leftist Democrat with all the usual institutional support. But that means very little, to which Vivian Jaramillo can attest.

Tomorrow’s Fullerton City Council meeting has been cancelled. How come? I don’t know why.

I do know that the first meeting in July was cancelled, and the first meeting in September, the day after Labor Day holiday, is often cancelled in that circumstance.

Even if the agenda were light it seems like a better strategy to have meetings so as to reduce the length of other meetings, which can be excruciatingly long.

At least some of Fullerton Boohoo isn’t happy about the cancellation. One of them emailed to alert Fr. Dennis Kriz, who seems to have forwarded her message to the City Council. This was intercepted by the Boys in the White van and is faithfully reported below.

Aha. Our old friend Diane Vena. The woman who nominated phony MAGA candidate Scott Markowitz in last year’s 4th District election. She did this while still endorsing Vivian Jaramillo on the latter’s website. Why Vena contacted his holiness is unknown but she seems to be upset. Somebody rattled her cage about the ICE lawsuit issue. That must have been “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra and/or Shana Charles.

Somebody told Vena that “the council” didn’t cancel the meeting, but that “someone” cancelled it to attend something called the National Night Out, whatever that is. Council meetings are often cancelled without the whole council deciding. In fact a special meeting would have to be called to do that, so that’s just dumb.

What’s really interesting is how Vena got her information, and who gave it to her.

Damn City Hall is leaking like a sieve.

There is something entertaining when a professional know-it-all runs into somebody who isn’t going to accept her bullshit.

And so we have the hilarious spectacle of Shana Charles – cloistered, third-rate academic – confronting and over-talking George Bushala, Jr. because she doesn’t like his answers about how come he hasn’t built a restaurant on the Bushala Brothers, Inc., portion of the Santa Fe Depot loading dock. Enjoy the video:

Somehow Shana, who has never ventured a nickle into anything, thinks BBI should have built a fancy restaurant (like Trevor’s at the Tracks!) despite the stonewalling of staff, and the animosity of Jennifer Fitzgerald, Jan Flory, and Ahmad Zahra. Then there’s the little problem of economic recessions in the early 2000s and 2008-2012, the real estate crash in 2007, and the COVID disaster in 2020-2002.

It has also escaped poor Shana’s feeble intellectual grasp that the City’s portion of the loading dock – east of the centerline of Pomona Avenue, is structurally connected to the Bushala leasehold, an awkward situation that is obviously an impediment to development. It’s going to take a million bucks to build out – something no one would do under the present situation.

Shana actually believes there is a “structure” suitable for a restaurant – instead of an unenclosed, unsound, ramshackle frame on a concrete bulkhead with no utilities.

When you know what you’re talking about, the whole cooked-up lease “controversy” is ridiculous.

Shana has the ignorant audacity to mention people who ran COVID businesses out of their kitchen, a comment so fucking stupid that it doesn’t even need repudiation.

The final sentence from Bushala is classic: “that’s why you don’t do what I do.”

What Dr. Charles does is talk self-important ideological blather to vacant-faced students looking for an easy elective, and whose multiple choice tests are graded by a computer.

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?

And not in a way a future employer might find appealing.

A fellow named Doug Bowen has become an internet star for aggressive, vulgar and abusive behavior toward a couple playing fetch with their dogs, as well as a Fullerton College security guy just trying to do his job.

Mr. Bowen was highly offended because the people were using the green strip adjacent to the south college parking lot, next to Bowen’s house. The activity caused Bowen’s own dogs to bark on his side of a fence. This was on July 29th,

Abraham Cano and his girlfriend captured the incident on video that has gone viral on social media as such confrontations often do.

The kicker? This enflamed hemorrhoid was a member of the Police Chief’s Advisory Council. Not anymore. It seems that even the FPD has limits, even though Bowen believed he was in tight with cops as demonstrated in his attitude. But Bowen was arrested hauled off to the Fullerton clink and booked, charged with threatening bodily harm. Good for the FPD. The case has been sent to the DA.

Now Bowen could have just gone down as another obnoxious asshole Karen – abusive, entitled, and making up shit to defend his privilege, but no. At one point he mutters that he was going to call ICE, adding a layer of racism to his résumé. Well done fella.’

The story took another weird turn today. A Friend decided to contact Mr. Bowen via the telephone. The respondent was an FPD cop named David Alarid. What? Why are Fullerton police answering this miscreant’s phone? Is he in protective custody of some kind?

This afternoon our boys in the White Van saw four cop cars at Bowen’s house. So what gives? Are Fullerton taxpayers footing the bill to provide security for this donkey? I sure hope somebody presents this blowhard with a bill for police protection.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMshHfUxD6W/?igsh=Mzc3ZTVlOWMwZA%3D%3D

This guy was riding his bike westbound in the 100 block of West Orangethorpe a week or so ago, when blammo, a man driving the wrong way in the northernmost lane wipes him out. The injured man was hospitalized with unknown injuries and later released. The driver who sped off (somehow still in the wrong lane?) was later apprehended by the cops. His name is Christian Diaz and lives in West Covina.

Mr. Diaz has been charged with attempted murder.

The cause and the duration of Diaz’s wrong way journey remains a mystery, but boy is he in Big Trouble.

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 few weeks ago my friend Joe Sipowicz wrote a post about people who seem to think they have the answers to your problems. Their academic grasp of reality is sketchy and mostly based on fealty to abstractions and a dedication to idea that the government is sacrosanct.

There is a related tribe of individuals as well. These folk are sort of a feeble fifth column for manipulative politicians and bureaucracies; they tend to spout the same nonsense as the Know-it-Alls. If you have ever watched a Fullerton City Council meeting you’ve seen them and you’ve seen their common thread: they speak for “the community.” They also speak with a degree of certitude that is astounding.

These people see themselves as bodhisatvas, the beings in Buddhism who postpone their own trip to Nirvana to remain and help the less enlightened here on Earth.

It would be charitable to suggest that these people are known outside the council chamber. But they are ever-present to admonish the City Council, a council that represents 150,000 people, that “the community,” “the people,” must be followed, seeming to forget that elected people are elected to lead, not follow.

Egleth Nunncio purports to represent all sort of communities, but really only has a handful of followers willing to show up and babble at the council about arbols and cielos azules. Sometimes it actually works, but she really represents almost nobody.

Then there’s this angry little person named Anjali who nonchalantly throws her hare-brained ideological blanket across the broad spectrum of “the people.” She is still bitching about the defunct Walk on Wilshire that “everybody” wanted. I want it so they must want it – if they know what’s good for them.

We are already well-familiar with Diane Vena who nominated the perjurious candidacy of Scott Markowitz last year. This behavior hasn’t stopped her self-righteous pontification. See, she speaks for you.

Then there’s this ever-indignant individual, Karen Lloreda, who was recalled from the Dana Point City Council a while back and has brought her special brand of liberal populism to Fullerton.

A new member of the squad is our fresh young friend Elijah Manassero who is another one of the “the people want this this” squad. His motives are nakedly political but he speaks with the same self-assurance of the self-righteous. Tender Elijah knows what “the people” want. Not coincidentally, it’s what he wants.

The Fullerton Observer just loves to cite these people in their opinion pieces that weakly masquerade as news. The Kennedy Sisters too, flatter themselves that they represent “the community.”

Across the Observer banner is the unintentionally comedic slogan: News for the people, by the people, a rather breathtaking leap away from reality into the void of self-delusion, but certainly a comforting concept to the self-righteous liberal. There is almost no real Fullerton news in the Observer, of course and it is of no interest to the vast majority of Fullerton’s populace.

Hey, how about something like “some people wanted the Walk on Wilshire, but most people didn’t know a damn thing about, and would have signed an honest petition calling for the street to be reopened.

Like it or not, we live in a representative democracy and people get elected to actually represent everybody. The community. The people. Most electeds will bring their own understanding to issues and hopefully this aligns with the candidate they once were, and will be again. If not, you can get rid of them.