Category: About Us

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.

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.

By now we are all familiar with the sudden emergence of the innocent flower Elijah Manassero, who shot up out of nowhere into Fullerton’s political garden. He’s filed numerous false FPPC complaints against Fred Jung and Nick Dunlap; and he’s written pompous, erroneous and baselessly accusatory articles for the Kennedy Sisters. We are to believe, I guess, that young Elijah is just a civic-minded, well-intentioned young boyo whose interest in community betterment is a credit to him. Sharon Kennedy gushes with admiration:

Sharon K

July 25, 2025 at 6:42 am

Matt – I am so impressed by young people, like Elijah, who have a lively vision for our town. 

Lively. That’s a good one. But Lively Elijah is not a happy young camper. He and his pals washed out badly at the Santa Fe Depot lease hearing on the night of July 15th; and Elijah, in a fit of pique, sent a threatening missive to the City Attorney as soon as he got home that night.

Dear Mr. Jones,

I am writing to formally demand immediate enforcement of the lease default provisions applicable to Bushala Brothers, Inc., the tenant of 120–140 E. Santa Fe Avenue.

At the July 15 City Council meeting, George Bushala openly admitted to subleasing the premises; a clear violation of the lease’s subletting provision. This admission came after staff publicly stated they had no record or knowledge of any such sublease. That alone constitutes a default under the lease agreement. In addition, the City’s own expenditures on building repairs and ADA improvements inside the tenant’s leased space, obligations explicitly assigned to the tenant under the lease, further constitute material breaches.

Despite these unresolved and ongoing defaults, Council voted to approve an amended lease that:

• Extends the term through 2060,

• Grants the tenant expanded rights and rent credits,

• Reduces enforcement mechanisms, and

• Softens penalties for failure to build out improvements.

All of this violates Section 6(e) of the lease amendment, which plainly states that:

“If Tenant is in default (beyond applicable notice and cure periods)… the Third Extension Term or Fourth Extension Term shall not commence.”

Your office is well aware of this language. And yet the lease was approved anyway.

This is not a close call. This is not a matter of interpretation. This is blatant cronyism and gross irresponsibility, putting the City of Fullerton in legal and financial jeopardy for the sake of political convenience. The lease should never have been brought forward in this condition, and certainly should not have been approved. If your office advised otherwise, that itself raises serious concerns.

You are now on formal notice that I intend to pursue all available legal remedies:

• I will submit public records requests for all closed session negotiations and communications related to the lease amendment.

• I am evaluating a Brown Act “Cure and Correct” demand under Government Code §54960.1, which may invalidate the Council’s vote.

• I am exploring a taxpayer lawsuit under Code of Civil Procedure §526a for waste and unlawful gifting of public funds, especially in light of the Council’s knowledge of these defaults at the time of approval.

This lease is not just bad policy. It is legally unsound, ethically indefensible, and politically corrosive. If the City’s legal department cannot uphold the basic enforcement provisions of a lease it approved, then perhaps the public should question whether your office is acting in the interest of the people, or in the interest of donors and insiders.

I expect a formal response addressing the City’s intended enforcement action within ten (10) calendar days.

Sincerely,

Elijah Manassero

Fullerton Resident

Uh, oh. Callow young Elijah intends to pursue all legal remedies! He demands! He notifies! He will submit! He will evaluate! He will explore! He expects a response! What a lively young chap is Elijah.

This is funny. Are we to believe that fragile Elijah tricycled home right after the meeting to tap out this nonsense? Of course we don’t. This was written beforehand, and not by Elijah – of that we may be certain. And the whole Manaserro schtick is now coming into focus a deliberate political maneuver to attack Fred Jung in future campaigns by creating phony “controversial” votes. He isn’t acting alone. Here’s the elder member of the Kennedy Sister Coven, once more, with the rest of her comment:

Sharon K

July 25, 2025 at 6:42 am

Matt – I am so impressed by young people, like Elijah, who have a lively vision for our town.

Unfortunately Jung has been a sad disaster for Fullerton but this article is not about that. There was plenty of criticism of the actions of “Mayor” Jung – long before Connor Traut came into the picture. Jung’s own actions are his worse enemy. We do need someone good to fill the 4th district OC Supervisor position – Jung would fit right in with the majority there who just upped their own salary to more than the governor of California makes per year. I am sick of tricky, self serving, arrogant little politicians. I don’t know Connor Traut but will look into him and hope he is a more fit candidate than Jung –
But – getting rid of him in our town by electing him onto the Board of Supervisors is not a good reason to vote for him.

The comment here is complete with the usual Observer misdirection – “criticism existed long before,” etc.; Jung is “little” and he doesn’t deserve the title Mayor without quotation marks. Kennedy will “look into” Connor Traut because she is sick of tricky, self-serving, arrogant little politicians like “Mayor” Jung. Obviously, the Fullerton Observer is already all in for Traut and is providing a vehicle, even if a lame one, to hurt Fred Jung’s politcal aspirations.