The Problem of Bad Legal Advice
There really shouldn’t be any surprise that bad legal advice always comes with a price tag. Sometimes that cost is monetary. Sometimes it’s misleading and even abusing the public and its trust.
And so it has been over the decades for Fullerton and its egregiously awful lawyer, Dick Jones, of the I Can’t Believe It’s a Law Firm. The latest example is a real boner, even for a guy whose firm specializes in boners in dirty book stores and misbehaving topless bars.
It seems that last fall City Attorney Jones and Mayer may very well have passed advice to newly elected councilwoman Jamie Valencia that some of the donations to her campaign could be problematic, including those from Tony Bushala and the guy who owns the cigar place on Wilshire Avenue. Any official activities effecting these gentlemen might fall under the Section 84308 of the Government Code, the so-called “pay-to-play” statute.
The statute says that politicians can’t vote on licenses, contract awards, entitlements, permits or agreements with entities that give them over $250 in campaign cash. Valencia was supposedly given two options: recuse herself on such issues for at least a year; or, alternatively, give the money back. In November, she chose the latter.
Nothing more was said of this until the idiot Walk on Wilshire was up for a vote. At this point The issue of the pay-to-play statute came up again in the bone-headed precincts of Fullerton BooHooville, prompted by who knows who. The reason? Bushala and Mr. Cigar Guy both opposed the continued closure of Wilshire Avenue.
For some reason the City Manager Eric Levitt (according to the Kennedy Sisters of the Fullerton Observer) told them he believed the Valencia contribution return was in process, when it had been accomplished 6-8 weeks before. The fact that he even responded at all gave the boohoos confidence in their brand-new, trumped up “issue.”
And guess what? None of it even mattered!
That’s right. The vote on Walk on Wilshire had nothing to do with the pay-to-play law. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Zero. A layman could (and FFFF did) see that. No one was getting a license, a permit or a contract award; no one was getting an agreement or an entitlement. Citizens with opinions were simply giving them about a City directed action – not their own. It was so obvious. But not to Dick Jones, for some inexplicable reason. Was it ineptitude, laziness, or was there an ulterior motive? Who knows?
Meantime, Fullerton BooHoo and the Fullerton Observer got into high dudgeon over the non-issue, and also whether the money had been given back to the contributors. They tried hard to craft a corruption scandal. “Questions were being asked,” the Kennedy Sisters huffed and puffed, their erectile hairs stiffened. Their nincompoop followers raised the issue at the council meeting in question. But in the end it was irrelevant gums flapping.
Now for the fun part. Guess what? The identical issue had already been raised last fall by City of Palo Alto Councilmember Patrick Burt. About what? The issue was a controversial, City-created street closure vote! What are the odds? Mr. Burt inquired of the FPPC whether such a vote fell under the purview of the pay-to-play law.
Here’s the FPPC decision letter in the Palo Alto case.
If you don’t want to read the whole letter, here’s the conclusion:
CONCLUSION
No, decisions by the Palo Alto City Council to permanently close the specified downtown
areas to car traffic are not entitlement for use proceedings subject to Section 84308. The City
Council initiated the actions to close these areas permanently to car traffic. The facts indicate that
the interests impacted by the closures will be many and diverse. Furthermore, the closures were not
applied for, nor have entitlements for use been formally or informally requested by any party to
date, and the decisions do not involve a contract between the City and any party.
As you can see, the reply was succinct, and the answer was no, just like FFFF had said. Why didn’t Dick Jones know this? Why, indeed. This was a very important finding for those in the political arena – like Jones himself.
Poor Ms. Valencia was caused to publicly explain herself and her return of the campaign cash when she didn’t have to. That alone would cause me to cut loose the useless dumpster fire known as Jones and Mayer for their blatant incompetence.
This was about control of Valencia and maybe of Jung and Dunlap, too.
And at the back of it the desperate need to keep WoW alive – somehow- as a going staff concern.,
“Mr. Palmer has developed unique expertise in prosecuting sexually-oriented businesses,”
No, I don’t to know anything about the Kennedy sisters’ erectile hairs.
The only business that put out any real money and took advantage of the closure of Wilshire was Mulberry Street with their parklet I never saw more than a few people use.
Mulberry advertises in The Observer.
Care to guess how many times they mentioned this conflict of interest in their ramblings?
I wonder how many contributors to Zahra expressed an opinion or signed the stupid Wow petition.
But none of them have two Pesos to rub together. All his big dollar donaor were from out of town or exempt political committees run by the OC Democratic Party ass-lickers.
Jones & Meyer’s legal advice to the City is all about lining their own pockets. It’s a blatant conflict of interest that even a child could see. Yet somehow, our “brilliant” council members can’t. They’re too busy throwing taxpayer money into Jones & Meyer’s endless pit of legal settlements. Bravo, folks! Great job managing our resources!
How can this boob still be the City Attorney after all these expensive fuck-ups.
You are right. The City Councils are to blame for this. They used to be old and stupid. Then with FitzFlory they were (more) crooked. But for the past four years there has been no excuse for Jones continued employment.
I always figured Whitaker was protecting Jones but maybe it was Dunlap.
Now a whole new councilmember has to learn how awful Jones is.
I figured it was Nick Dunlap. He’s afraid to offend people. And in Fullerton getting rid of someone, no matter how useless is an offense.
Every new Fullerton city council member learns quickly how incredibly shitty this law firm is and in particular, Dickhead Jones. Yet every one of these council members do nothing about it. Why is that?
Kickbacks
We seek to promote a sense of community that is inclusive and representative of the diverse values our country is blessed with. We believe that diversity is not just a value but a strength that enriches our community and our reporting.
Only if you agree with their blind loyalty to boohooism.
Fullerton City Councilmembers who read this Blog, I am writing to express my serious concern about the ongoing incompetence demonstrated by the law firm of Jones and Mayer, which has been hired to represent our city. Their lack of knowledge and failure to meet the expectations required of such an important role is truly alarming. It’s clear that their actions (or lack thereof) are causing significant harm to the city, city councilmembers, and undermining the progress we should be making.
This City Council must open its eyes to this critical issue before it’s too late. We cannot afford to continue down this path where important matters are mishandled, leading to potential legal and financial consequences. The people of this city deserve better representation, and it is your responsibility to ensure that we are not subject to a law firm that is failing in its duties.
I urge this Council to take immediate action—whether that means reconsidering your relationship with Jones and Mayer, seeking alternative legal counsel, or holding them accountable for their shortcomings. We are at a tipping point, and if we don’t act now, the consequences could be far-reaching.
Please, do what’s best for the city and take the necessary steps to address this issue before it escalates any further.
Haha. Fullerton being Fullerton. Jonesy ain’t goin nowhere.
I’m pretty sure they all read this Blog.