March 1, 2010 – Daily Brief

The Signal should spend as much time resarching http://www.answerla.org and Roger Gittelson as they did SOS and Frank Jorge / Roger Gitlin. The coverage was not balanced at all. http://www.answerla.org is a radical leftist organization that uses and supports disruption of public assemblies. Their web site is calling upon UC Irvine to not punish the students who shouted down the Ambassador to Israel at a recent event. The real story is the disparite treatment of the sheriff’s office between SOS and http://www.answerla.org . Frank Jorge paid for a permit and liability insurance in advance of the meeting- Roger Gittelson and his group did not. The the counter demonstrators acted in a provocative manner towards SOS marching into their midst and shouting insults and slogans. When preacher Yancy attempted to start the SOS rally he was shouted down with a megaphone by the counter demonstrators. Police crowd control was criminally pathetic. The protagonists should have been separated by a police line. Just another outrage and insult towards the law abiding citizens affirming their rights under our Constitution.

Hmmmmm, I wonder why CLWA is promising water when there is none…

Gee, I wonder who the Sig was speaking of in their political mailer expose. We know it’s not an incumbent. We pretty much know by FPPC filings that none of the challengers have any money save 1 or possibly 2. Anyone have a guess?

Correction- the Israli Ambassador to the United States invited to speak on the campus of UC Irvine, a public university. The protagonists are collectively known as the Irvine 11

What the heck is up with the Signal painting ALL of the challengers with a broad brush with their editorial, and giving the incumbents a pass? And here’s another thing I take exception to: Although the Signal says the two additional murders in the City were “statistically insignificant”, I’m sure it’s not insignificant to the people murdered, or the family and friends who knew them. Murders, rapes, assault, robberies, and the like are up and only grand theft auto is down in the City of Santa Clarita. Yet the City gives a happy face editorial on behalf of the incumbents… There’s a big problem with the journalistic process at The Signal 1) Why don’t they wait for an event to happen before they report on it? 2) The Signal obviously has the mailer in hand, so why doesn’t it name the name of the candidate involved? If they have proof they should come out with it. If they don’t, maybe they are just being used by the incumbents’ campaign. What kind of game is the Signal playing? This is politics at its worst! To think that TMS thinks of itself as the paper of record for our area! They should be ashamed of this exhibition of yellow journalism. John Q has questions…. and so should you

I was going to ask the same question as everyone else… Who is the signal talking about? As far as I know the only candidate talking about crimes is Harrison Katz who has talked a lot about gangs.

Navigator, Your musings illustrate why every conscientious citizen should call up the Signal and demand that its Editorial Board validate Sunday’s vicious and misleading editorial which made damaging accusations against no one specific (while implying guilt on the part of every challenger). I suspect there may not even be such a mailer — at least make the Signal prove it. I suspect they are covering up for an article that ran Tuesday, Feb. 23, with the headline “Crime on the rise in SCV.” I’m sure the Signal got complaints from its mentors in City Hall and now must make amends by creating a fictional smokescreen targeting challengers.

John Q says: March 1, 2010 at 10:06 amWhat the heck is up with the Signal painting ALL of the challengers with a broad brush with their editorial, and giving the incumbents a pass? Simple – the signal is going to endorse the incumbent garbage, so the signal will be joining the incumbent garbage by engaging in smear tactics and dirty politics against the challengers. I’d like to know why the signal is not raging about all the disgusting threats from Frank Ferry. Frank PUBLICLY threatened David Gauny, Frank has made it clear he and others (Frank said “we” when threatening Gauny) that there will be hit mailers going out on Gauny from Frank and others, AND THE SIGNAL IS FINE WITH THIS? Our local rag is nothing but a tool for incumbent garbage. Why is the signal so hot because a candidate is discussing his views about crime stats? Where was the signal’s outrage when Scott Wilk sent out those stupid misleading open space mailers claiming this valley’s crime will rise significantly if we don’t pass the open space measure? Remember the mailer, from lobbyist scum Scott Wilk, the mailer he sent out with the outline of a dead body, a grim threat for us if we didn’t vote yes for the open space measure? But the signal waits until now to feel the outrage because the crime stats are now being used by a challenger. Where is the signal’s outrage when the voters are unable to get to the truth about who funded the open space measure? Scott Wilk sure as hell knows, how about some outrage about Wilk’s refusal to come clean about who paid him? Pretty down and dirty of you, signal, to ONLY feel outrage about election challengers. And where is the signal’s outrage about Scott Wilk using the COC board to his own political advantage by using the Cemex issue, several years beyond what would even count as significant? No outrage from the signal for Scott Wilk, no matter what this lobbyist scum does. All those lobbyist-paid lunches with Lilah and publishers really pay off for Wilk. Come on, signal, get some ethics and some guts. This city deserves better than this. “Vigilant” my arse! Let’s hear some outrage from the signal about the threats from Frank Ferry, threats that should tell ANYONE, especially a newspaper, that FRANK FERRY IS UNFIT TO BE A CITY COUNCILMAN, and certainly unfit for a newspaper to protect and endorse. Let’s hear some outrage about Marsha’s recent e-mail to voters full of lies about David Gauny. Let’s hear some truth from the signal about incumbent abuses of power. signal, stop all the nit-picking of challengers when there are real abuses of power going on from imcumbents and lobbyist scum!

just a hunch, maybe the mailer uses the Signal’s name and headline to substantiate the claim and Signal is trying the shame them out of running it, since it would bring more attention to their misleading headline.

Don’t everyone laugh at the same time I was told by LL at the Signal this was a preventive piece to hopefully stop any hit mailers. After you get up off of the floor, please call Lila and let her know this does not sound like preventive anything, it just plain stinks!

Great points Charlie. How long can the Signal ignore his tirades? I keep thinking as the Signal has traded editors, and staff that we would see some improvement, but nothing has changed as long as I have lived here. Status quo. (BTW–I believe the latest curse word is Sassafras as this seems to be the only real legislation that our leaders can muster)

Annette, that is too much. On the heals of the recent plagerism issues at the Signal, I guess they are pulling a “Toyota” (that’s right I said it).

Annette–priceless.

Annette, that is incredible! Apparently The Signal has abandoned all pretext of journalistic ethics and has become a newsletter for the incumbents. Shame Shame SHAME LILA LITTLEJOHN, editor of the now puny signal. Call Lila at 259-1234. Tell her what you think.

Annette – We can’t help it. We’re all still laughing. What a crock.

Also ask Lila why her rag has never reacted this strongly about Frank Ferry’s illegal expenditure for Laurie Ender’s campaign. Even when the signal reported on it, they litterally handed the article over to Frank so the article would be weakened. With the deck stacked so high in favor of incumbents for elections, I see no reason for the signal to try so hard to discourage people from running against them. It is obvious from the signal’s knee-jerk reaction jumping in to protect the incumbents that the signal considers all challengers to incumbent seats to be evil-doers. Get a grip, signal, the incumbents have every advantage, and I see no reason for our local rag to be unfairly intimidating challengers, especially since the incumbents have all used vicious tactics during their previous campaigns, with the help of Scott Wilk. Marsha recently sent out a hit piece about David Gauny, via e-mail, to a huge number of people, including McKeon. So far, signal, dirty politics and vile threats have been used in abundance by your precious incumbents making the signal’s one-sided biased reporting favoring these incumbant pigs all the more disgusting. Stop the unfair attacks against the challengers, signal, especially since the incumbents will be sending out plenty of hit pieces smearing these good people.

where’s the text of Marsha’s email?

Ask Marsha for it. If she isn’t ashamed of the way she is campaigning, she should be proud to have the opportunity to have her e-mail published here. But apparently, she has a problem with anyone who campaigns against her, even if those people are not doing anything illegal or dishonest. She didn’t even have the smarts to hide the e-mails of the people she sent that out to. Here is the contact information from Marsha’s e-mail: I would be happy to answer any questions – please go to http://www.reelectmarshamclean.com or call me at 661 255-1259 Marsha

Next, priceless piece of information that was mentiond was, the Signal did not want anyone using their headline, “Crime on the Rise in SCV”. Oh yeah, there is not hit mailer but the editorial say you WILL open your mailbox and there screaming at you… Can anyone say, SAT scores do not count in editorials and horseshoes?

Tell Marsha to include David Gauny’s reply to her e-mail.

My apologies the above post should be corrected to read 1.mentioned, 2. not a, 3.says. My bad typing at work again

No time for games. If you think it’s worthwhile, post it here.

Who’s playing games? Don’t be so surly. I got this from someone who received it and was super ticked that his name was on it for all the world to see. This is the part of Marsha’s e-mail implying that David Gauny cheated to get the vote from the CRA: Hi ****, Many of Mr. Gauny’s supporters joined the CRA last night so they could vote for him – people are eligible to vote the same night they join…… David Gauny’s reply: Marsha, I have been very delicate with you in these debates. I happen to think you are one of the more honest and hard working council members running in this election. However, I strongly caution you against being deceptive in your remarks to our public. Here is exactly how the membership was affected last night: There were 13 checks received for CRA membership at the meeting 4 of those were membership renewals 3 of the remaining were from people who have attended regularly and joined last night The final six were people that showed up last night and joined, some of whom were also encouraged to join by incumbent candidates My vote count in the 1st round was 34. Even if you remove all 6 of the new members, I still made the required 28 votes in the first round. Please do not insinuate that I somehow cheated or “stacked” this vote. Along with derogatory comments and smirks while I am speaking to our public, this is very inappropriate behavior for any candidate in any campaign. If you care to debate me on any of the issues or wish to compare facts in front of any group, I would welcome this opportunity. Please let me know. I am a decent human being who has worked very hard to research the issues and deliver ideas that I think are worthy. The fact that these ideas are resonating with our public should not be cause for you or anyone else to demean my character. I do not treat you this way would appreciate it if you would do likewise. Thank you, David Gauny

That wasn’t very nice, Marsha. I don’t see anything wrong with the way David Gauny and Tim-Ben are campaigning. They are going up against incumbents who are not not playing fair. Just because Tim-Ben and David are smart enough to hold their own in this election, they should not be criticized only because they are running against incumbents.

I cannot believe what I am reading in the Signal! Annette, are you saying that Lila, the editor of the Signal, told you this morning that there is NO HIT PIECE MAILER being sent out by some (unnamed) election challenger that contains ‘lies’ about the City? Do you mean that the Signal made it all up? And then the Signal wrote a lead editorial against the election challengers while extolling the virtues of the City, the government, and the incumbents? Are you F’ing kidding me???? Is this the Soviet Union???? Is the Signal now called Pravda???? WTF is going on?? Has anyone over there even taken Journalism 101?? Or is the fix in at the Signal?

All of the incumbents were known entities at the California Republican Assembly meeting. They have been around a long time. I suspect that Marsha was eliminated at the end of the first round with a tiny nine votes because many of her own ‘public’ supporters will no longer vote for her. Yes, they might say to her face they will, but let’s face it, sometimes you lose more than a few steps on the competition, and it becomes apparent to the people that it is time to move on and let new blood and new energy take the platform. Frank Ferry is also a known person to these Republicans. He brought the loud, arrogant and boastful Frank to the meeting, and he received only 10 votes. This crowd knew him, and it was apparent that they didn’t like him. He didn’t pick up any votes in round two of voting. People know the incumbents. No votes for incumbents.

Rocky; Q1. Yes! that is what I am saying! Q2. Lila told me that they, the Signal wrote that to hopefully stop the abuse of mailers on the candidates. Q3. Yes Q4. No Q5. Dunno Q6. Dunno Q7. Dunno Q8. Dunno Q9. My guess, Yes

Is this the Soviet Union???? Is the Signal now called Pravda???? That is exactly what it feels like, and it is the incumbents and our newspaper we have to thank. These incumbents think no one has a right to run for a seat on City Council and our newspaper supports these tyrants. The incumbents behave like a bunch of bullies and get nothing but support and praise from The Signal. Yet if David Gauny and Tim-Ben Boydston do anything that looks like smart campaigning, they get their hands slapped by The Signal. Yes, the incumbents do have so many advantages. They are capable of campaigning at many different levels, and they get their faces in the paper all the time. Gail Ortiz writes fluffy little articles for them, they sign their names, and it’s in The Signal. The city paid for that idiotic Mayor Dude – Mayor DUD is right! – campaign to be put on bus benches, and Frank was able to campaign with city money, OUR tax dollars. Where was The Signal commenting on the unfairness of that? Shouldn’t even be allowed. This is why we need term limits, because these are advantages that other candidates can’t compete with. And now we even have The Signal attacking candidates for no reason while City Council candidates can do anything they want, even threaten other candidates, even slander other candidates, without any notice from The Signal. So term limits for City Council must be implemented soon for fairer elections. These incumbents have forgotten this is America, and they have forgotten they are there to serve us. They only serve their own selfish, corrupt interests now because they have all been there too long. Shame on you, Lila Littlejohn. I will not be attending the Newsmkaker awards dinner now, and the people of this city should boycott the Newsmaker event. The Signal does not deserve support from us for anything now. Congratulations, David Gauny. You won support from the CRA fair and square and Marsha should be ashamed of herself for that whiny e-mail.

The Signal publishing an Editorial “misleading junk mail” which was not based in fact is very disturbing. I always find it intriguing how easily the public dialog is diverted away from an actual issue. To frame this discussion, please remember what Benjamin Disraeli once said. “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Now let’s get to it. Is crime down in the City of Santa Clarita? The data posted on the Sherriff’s website says that the overall crime rate in the city of Santa Clarita is down by 1.1%. That statistic is based on the summation of selected crime categories and the premise that all crime categories are equal. Do you believe that Murder and Automobile Theft represent the same degree of lawlessness? No? Well, neither does our justice system. Otherwise, first degree Automobile Theft would also be punishable as a capital offense (death). So I ask you, which makes you feel more uneasy? That your chance of being murdered just went up by 100% or that your chance of having your car stolen has gone down by 29%? Taking another look at the statistics might lead to a different perception. In the City of Santa Clarita, 7 out of 8 crime categories showed an increase in crime. Said another way, 88% of the City of Santa Clarita’s crime statistics are headed in the wrong direction. Yet in the county, only 5 out of 8 or 63% are going in that same negative way. So, should we be cowering in fear that something terrible is going to happen to us? Of course not, but we should not be lulled in to a false sense of security by it either. What we should do is discuss the Sherriff’s crime data to determine what can be done to improve our situation.

This is indeed an outrage by the Signal. It is pretty clear that they will be comming down on the side of the incumbents and are trying to influence the vote with this made up news. The answer is clear everyone. One vote for Boydston, one vote for Gauny, no votes for the incumbents. It’s the only way we are going to see change in this city.