LA Does Not Love LA

 

Rolling down Imperial Highway 

Sweet Nasty Redhead on my side

Santa Ana winds blowing hot from the north 

We were born to ride.

I love Randy Newman, and I love his signature song “I Love LA.” When he won the mayor’s race in 2001, James Hahn played that anthem to celebrate his victory. From city attorney to mayor, Hahn worked to ensure some decency and competence in the city.

Fast forward to today, and Los Angeles is a hollowed-out, burned-out, blown-out shell of what it was.

Hollywood is leaving, and last year, Pacific Palisades went up in flames.

There’s no Richard Riordan or Sam Yorty to save the city now.

Two Democrats, a Bolshevik and a Menshevik, will fight for what’s left.

Los Angeles had a chance to build on the county’s election changes in 2024. In an unprecedented reversal, a Republican turned independent, Nathan Hochman, took on George Soros's handpicked District Attorney George Gaston. He received the support of numerous Democrats, and certainly of Republicans and independents, and he wiped out George Gaston. 

Los Angeles County residents were tired of lawlessness. They were tired of seeing the intimate scenes of incarcerated gangbangers raising a toast to a pro-criminal district attorney who was fast-tracking their early release. The same year, California voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 36, which re-criminalized property theft and gave local and state law enforcement more tools to crack down on crime. The work isn't done, since County courts are stuffed with woke judges putting personal preferences and idiotic ideologies ahead of public safety. But Los Angeles County is going in the right direction, and even the city of Los Angeles voted in larger numbers for Hochman. 

Then came January 2025, and the untouchable Palisades went up in flames. Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass was attending the inauguration of the next president of Ghana, and she could not be reached.  The Palisades Inferno was a massive failure on many levels—and preventable if anyone had heeded the warnings. Seven years ago, entire sections of Northern California went up in flames. Families desperate to flee the raging infernos ended up stuck in traffic and consumed by the rushing flames. The California Democratic political class didn't care then. 

 

Surely, the Democrats in Sacramento and Los Angeles would care about the left-leaning Pacific Palisades, wouldn't they? 

Nope.

This year’s primary results clearly indicate that Los Angeles city voters have not listened to their better angels. The demons have come in seven times stronger, too, since they find the place burned up and empty, and since no one's there, they've brought more of their vile hordes. How was it possible that voters across the city would embrace more of the same destructive progressive ideology when it's crystal clear to anyone that these failed policies—plus the arrogant lack of concern--are a direct result of this progressive madness?  Even in San Francisco, a growing cohort of voters has started taking over the county Democratic Party, and they have fought for some restoration of common sense, law & order, and commitment to enforcement in public safety. It's not enough, but there have been some steps, however minute.

In sad contrast, Los Angeles continues to double down on the same stupid. This isn't just foolish; it's absolutely dangerous. Unwise people with no regard for the well-being of the everyday citizen have no problem putting more of them in danger. Trump Derangement Syndrome and allergies to anything Republican truly are a mental malady, which has trapped Angelenos in a perpetual doom loop. 

A few weeks ago, TMZ host Harvey Levin complained about what has happened to Los Angeles during his lifetime. A multi-generational Angelino, Levin has seen the best of the city. Now, he cannot ignore how crappy it has become. The relentless homeless shelters, the skyrocketing crime rates, the overall lack of cleanliness and peace, and the desecration that has overrun a once-getaway destination and a second home for the rich and famous are unavoidable. 

Yet the same Harvey Levin repeatedly castigated, shamed, and openly mocked the one candidate who had a campaign platform, character, and commitment to remedy all these problems. Spencer Pratt may have been a reality TV star. But he was also a father and a homeowner who lost everything in the fires. He was fed up, and he decided that he was going to run. He launched AI commercials slamming opponents Bass and Raman with an impressive media blitz. He did a fantastic job in the debates. He cut an incredible cloth as a truly independent candidate. Not beholden to any political party, he didn't care about Trump or Biden or Kamala Harris. He did care about the incompetence of incumbent mayor Karen Bass and her socialist left-leaning challenger Nithya Rahman. 

He's a common-sense guy, and anyone with sense would have elected him mayor. But common sense is no longer common—or welcome—in the City of Angels. They stopped electing Republican mayors in 2001, and then they stopped electing Democrats with any regard for the well-being of the city after 2013. 

It's a tragedy to see the once-heavenly Los Angeles turn into a hellscape. It's a tragedy that so many voters don't love LA, that their hatred of Trump, their disdain for Republicans, and their insistence on all of the shallow, shameful progressive issues are far more important than the necessities to make sure that their city can function. 

I never thought it would come to this, but Angelenos simply haven't hurt enough. How many more homes have to go up in flames? How many more families have to be torn apart by the death of a mother or a father because of crime or natural disaster? How many more businesses have to be destroyed, desecrated, forced to shut down because City Hall refuses to use its power to do what is best for the rest? 

These problems festered two years earlier. Before anti-American immigrant socialist City Councilwoman Nithya Raman Challenger made it into the runoff against Karen Bass, she had won re-election to City Council outright in 2024! For weeks during the March 2024 primary, business owners and homeowners repeatedly complained about the homeless and the crime in the streets. And yet for all their complaining then, and a recent protest test of makeshift homeless encampments outside of Rahman's home this year, voters still sent the elitist socialist to city hall.

Los Angeles, be afraid.

The Democratic Socialists of America have aggressively targeted you. Four of the city council members are DSA all the way. They are vying for a city council majority and the mayor's seat. Registered Republicans can’t help you now: they have given up on voting or moved out of the city altogether. 

What will it take? I am astounded at the destruction and degradation. New York City was one thing. President Trump had pretty much solved the migrant crisis and allowed some degree of enforcement, so New Yorkers got complacent, perhaps? But Los Angeles witnessed the unprecedented disaster that destroyed homes. We all saw the unconscionable incompetence of Los Angeles's political class. 

Yet even with that, LA voters voted for more of the same. 

I love LA, but clearly LA no longer loves LA.

Fryin' Ted: Rep. Lieu Confronted, Triggered Over Charlie Kirk Resolution Vote

Fryin' Ted Gets Triggered

 

Well, this is something you don't see every day.

The Left in Los Angeles are aggressive in their tactics. They will attack Democratic politicians every chance they get because they are not sufficiently left-wing.

The abusive, violent Left celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk. But Congressmen in Washington have to present some level of decorum. It's bad politics to vote against a resolution commemorating Charlie Kirk and condemning his assassination.

House Resolution 719 praised Charlie Kirk and his tireless defense of Christ, America, and freedom of speech.

The Resolution issued condolences to the family of Charlie Kirk, praised law enforcement for their efforts in apprehending the assassin who murdered Kirk, and condemned all political violence.

The insane, evil Left cannot stand any emotions or show of love, support, grace, or care to anyone on the Right or anyone who is conservative.

Yet Democrats were in a tough spot:

1. If they voted against the Resolution, they would be viewed as heartless miscreants who endorse political violence, thus damaging their already tattered political brand.

2. If they voted for the Resolution, they would invite the fury of their left-wing base and progressive voters and donors.

Rep. Ted Lieu voted for the Resolution.

William of "Film the Police LA" confronted Lieu at the Mann Chinese Theater during a political press conference yesterday:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Film The Police LA (@filmthepolicela)

Congresswoman Judy Chu took the questions in stride, pointing out that she voted for the resolution because she condemns political violence.

Congressman Ted Lieu became violent himself when he was confronted about this vote.

William of "Film The Polic LA" refused to let up. He blasted Lieu for supporting "racist" Charlie Kirk, because of his supposed criticism of Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Act. Those conversations are much more complex and nuanced than Mr. Film the Police would like to admit, but seeing him make Rep. Lieu uncomfortable is quite entertaining!

And why is Lyin' Ted turning into Fryin' Ted under the pressure?

The Left understands this fundamental rule about politics: you hit your own team harder, demanding that they step up and follow through on every promise and plank in the political platform. Congressional District 36 is very left-leaning, so Lieu has little to fear from Republicans or conservatives. However, if the liberal voters think that Rep. Lieu is selling out his supposed progressive principles and giving into Republicans, they will not only eat him alive, but support a more leftist primary challenger to remove him from office! Many California Democratic Congressmen are facing stiff AOC-style primary challenges for Election 2026, and the last thing they want is to appear as though they are caving to Trump and the Republicans, not fighting aggressively enough against the MAGA agenda.

That's why Lieu's goose is getting cooked--and it's fun to see!

I can't wait to see how else left-wing activists began harassing and confronting these horrid politicians. It's time for them to get a taste of their own abusive medicine for once. 

Maxine Waters Tries to CYA Over Wildfires

 These people are shameless!

For Immediate Release:  January 10, 2025 ca43.press@mail.house.gov  Congresswoman Waters’ Statement on the Los Angeles Wildfires  Today, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-43), the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, issued the following statement following the wildfires ravaging Los Angeles County.  “My prayers go out to everyone who has been affected by the wildfires in Los Angeles County, especially the families who’ve lost loved ones. The Palisades, Eaton, Hurst, and Soledad Canyon fires have burned approximately 25,000 acres and destroyed over 1,000 structures. Due to mandatory evacuations, over 110,000 residents have been displaced. My team and I spoke with the White House, the Governor’s office, and local officials to assess the impact of the fires and help chart a path for recovery. I want to extend my deepest gratitude to the brave firefighters and first responders working tirelessly to contain the fires, save the lives of tens of thousands of families, and protect communities from further devastation. I urge residents in affected areas to heed orders to evacuate immediately. For the most up-to-date information on the fires and the evolving emergency plans, residents can sign up to the City of Los Angeles’ Emergency Manage Department for emergency text alerts to receive critical updates at https://emergency.lacity.gov/. All Los Angeles Unified schools and offices will be closed again today, January 10, 2025. Available resources include the following: Meal Distribution: From 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on January 9th, Los Angeles Unified will open eight sites (two per region) to provide meals for students. District families may stop by and walk into any of these locations to receive two meals per student. This will only be available to Los Angeles Unified students. North: Mulholland Middle School and Sepulveda Middle School East: Hollenbeck Middle School and South Gate High School South: Fremont High School and Harry Bridges Span School West: Marina Del Rey Middle School and Sonia Sotomayor Arts and Sciences Magnet School Additionally, those impacted may be entitled to reimbursement related to evacuation costs. Please contact the Department of Insurance for additional information at 800-927-4357 or insurance.ca.gov.  My team and I continue to receive regular updates and are working with local officials to keep communities safe.”   ###

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (CA-43)

MassResistance Helps CA Candidate Get Elected to Norwalk-La Mirada School Board!

 

MassResistance helps elect parent – and bring conservative majority – to School Board in deep blue liberal Southern California.

Latest victory after removal of toxic “wellbeing center” from the high school.

Ready to move forward to change the culture in the schools!

She was definitely not the local political establishment’s favorite.

November 18, 2024

 In Aug. 2023, Becky rebuked the School Board for ignoring the "wellbeing center" agreement regarding informed consent, no Planned Parenthood involvement, and other outrages. Now she can take action!

Becky Langenwalter is a long-time conservative activist in Southern California. She has worked on a number of issues, including school choice and recall initiatives to get rid of Soros-like left-wing politicians. She has also been an articulate activist for pro-family causes. Her recent election to the Norwalk-La Mirada School Board tips the scales and will have a huge impact.

Norwalk and La Mirada are adjoining suburbs of Los Angeles. The Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District (NLMUSD) serves largely minority families. Unfortunately, the school board has long been overwhelmingly leftist. And the minority citizens especially, who tend to be more conservative, have felt shut out and helpless.

Shutting down the toxic “wellbeing center” at the high school

In particular, the parents were very upset over the “wellbeing center” at the local high school. It was staffed by people trained by Planned Parenthood. Students were given access to a range of birth control methods (by so-called “trusted adults”), and were referred to abortion providers and transgender sex-change clinics. There was “mental health” counseling by people with questionable credentials – including by students who were recruited and paid to “counsel” other students. Parental consent was not required for any of that.

In May 2023, a local parent reached out to MassResistance for help. We organized a large group of minority parents there to fight back. They came to every school board meeting with strong testimony, and also canvassed the town with information. It was a nasty struggle. The school board members were arrogant in their support for the center. And the school officials were dishonest about what was really happening there.

But in June 2024, the School Board basically surrendered and did not renew the contract to keep the center going. It was shut down. The parents had won!

 Parents and grandparents filled the room at the August 24 School Board meeting.

 The parents made sure that their school officials - and the public - got the message!

Becky Langenwalter also joined the battle

During the battle to stop the wellbeing center, Becky Langenwalter, who lives in La Mirada, came and testified at school board meetings at least twice. She experienced how duplicitous, arrogant, and self-serving these “public servants” were toward the parents.

Her testimony at the Sept. 11, 2024 meeting (though limited to three minutes) was calm but powerful. (See video below.)

Becky made several points about the center and the school board’s dishonesty about it: Most parents didn’t know that it even existed. Those who did had difficulty finding information about it. Even though it was described as an “important resource,” it was virtually impossible to find on the school website. The “survey” the School Board published to show “support” was not a representative sampling. It included a very small number of respondents, and excluded many who were critical of it. The school’s “fact sheet” about the center was confusing, blatantly inaccurate, and outright untrue. And the center had just one source of information for students: Planned Parenthood.

VIDEO: Becky's strong testimony at Sept 2023 School Board meeting (3 min 4 sec)

It’s refreshing to have a school committee member who’s experienced this first-hand!

Getting elected

Becky had run for school board in 2022, and almost made it. That gave her name recognition in the district. But she was actively opposed by the left-leaning local political establishment. And she was running against a Democrat. So it was an uphill battle.

MassResistance volunteers assisted her, and walked the precincts door to door for her. On election night, she pulled off the win!

A new conservative majority

The seven-member Norwalk-La Mirada School Board had been divided 5-2, leftists vs. conservatives. Another conservative parent also won on election day. So Becky’s win tipped the scales for a new 4-3 conservative majority!

This is a big deal in that deep-blue part of California!

Final thoughts

The minority parents and other conservatives throughout the district are hoping that there will be big changes in the current “woke,” pro-LGBT, and aggressively anti-Christian culture in the district schools. California MassResistance will be there to help make that happen. We’ll keep you informed.

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Civic Engagement Taskforce: LA County Superior Court Nominees

Confronting and questioning the judicial nominees was the best part of the taskforce. For years, I have wanted to hear these judicial candidates justify their campaigns, actually explain to voters why we should give them the time of day, let alone allow them to serve six-year terms in the Superior Court.

Judges are important. They don't (or at least they are not supposed to) make laws, but the interpret and apply the law. They also supervise the court procedures for criminal and civil cases. They also mete out the sentences once defendants are found guilty.

In the 1970s and 1980s, many of the judges in Los Angeles County, the Bay Area, and even the California Supreme Court were content to flout the law and allow repeat offenders to be released on their own recognizance, without any regard for the safety, welfare, or well-being of the surrounding community. We have witnessed current liberal judges in the Bay Area let off offenders with very weak sentences, like the college student who raped an unconscious woman, who only got a month in jail!

That judge was recalled.

Another judge, this time in Orange County, was recalled in 2003 because he was caught with kiddie porn, and lots of lawyers lined up to take that creep's place. That guy did not have the common decency to resign from office. Then again, someone who wants to sexually abuse children has no decency to begin with -- and he was removed from the bench.

By and large, though, bad judges don't go away. They just get re-elected over and over, and nothing is done to get rid of them. Most of the voters don't know or don't even care, and they don't make any effort to find out.

This forum gave us all a great opportunity to find out about many of the judicial nominees.

None of them were incumbents, so that was an interesting start.

They all gave opening statements, stressing their prior legal experience as well as their commitment to equity, diversity, fairness, diversion, i.e. all the liberal buzzwords that most LA County voters want to hear.

             

            

           

           

           

            

 George Turner arrived late, so he did not provide an opening statement. He did make the case for his campaign (somewhat) in this video:       

                 

To repeat, many of them talked about diversity. They talked about a balanced approach to justice. It's understandable, because (no doubt) every individual on that dias was a registered Democrat. It's impossible to compete countywide as a Republican right now, although I think that RINO Steve Napolitano is still part of the GOP, and he received a number of endorsements from other liberal Republicans--as well as the Los Angeles Times! George Turner is his opponent, and the general public would get a broader glimpse into his--and everyone else's--judicial philosophy.

 Wokeness is not justice, and it's the last thing that our court system needs.

To their credit, the nominees talked about the needs of victims and the importance of providing order in the courtroom. Steve Mac was the most disciplined of the candidates, with Renee Rose a close second. The other candidates seemed too casual or too partisan for the job. More commentary to follow.

Two of them were late, which was a little disconcerting. Why bother showing up at all if you don't care to be on time? Of course, I have run across judges in other settings, like at the LA County Registrar-Recorder's office, who display another level of incompetence altogether. One lady was running for a seat on the Superior Court, and she was turning in her paperwork to file.

And she filled out the paperwork incorrectly. She readily admitted as much in front of everyone else at the Registrar-Recorder's office. What is this?!

But back to the Civic Engagement Forum of Judicial nomimees ...

One of the questions posed to the judicial nominees touched on the legal matter of Judgment non obstante veredicto.

That was my question, and I submitted it to the moderator because I wanted to tease out the nominees' general legal competence.

It was pretty disappointing!

            

The moderator struggled with the language of the question, which is understandable. But so did the nominees! They weren't sure of what the question was asking them!

When I shared that I was the one asking the questions, I confirmed that I was asking their views on when is it appropriate to set aside the verdict of a jury. 

And they got it wrong, for the most part.

Here's the legal definition, for anyone is still curious:

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is a rare legal process that allows a trial judge to reverse a jury's verdict. The Latin phrase non obstante veredicto translates to "notwithstanding the verdict".

A judge may grant a JNOV if they believe the jury's verdict: Is not supported by the facts, Contradicts the law, and Should have resulted in a directed verdict

There was a general set of questions about judicial philosophy and temperament in the courtroom, as well as how they would rate their ability to withstand public pressure to make decisions:

               

 In this segment, the judicial nominees talked about their prior legal experience and how it best prepared them for judicial service:

           

In this segment, the nominees explained their judicial philosophy (originalist, textualist, pragmatist?):

           

This was another bewildering demonstration of incompetence.

Most of the nominees had no idea what a textualist or an originalist interpretation even was!

YIKES!

Here are the comments on whether endorsements mar their capacity to be impartial in the courtroom:

           

I give George Turner credit for recognizing that this question was a very good question. Indeed, I think many voters should be concerned that the vast majority of these judicial nominees are begging the leftist LA County Democratic Party to line up behind them and endorse them.

All the candidates justified receiving endorsements from political parties or other interest groups. They also swore--sure--that they would not allow those endorsements to sway their thinking or their rulings or their judicial philosophy in the courtroom.

I do not believe that for one second.

One of the best questions posed to the nominees was "Do All Lives Matter?"

This was a particularly striking question, since most of the judicial nominees were black liberals, and presumably lined up with the whole Black Lives Matter agenda, which does not care about black lives--or anyone's lives, for that matter.

How they responded was actually pretty reassuring.

Here are their responses:

            

George Turner was the only nominee who went out of his way to politicize the question, pointing out that it seems to conflict with the "Black Lives Matter" movement. That was a very disturbing answer, to say the least.

Judges must be impartial, and they should not allow the skin color of a defendant or a victim to come into play with how they rule on motions, cases, or sentencing. We don't need more racism in the courtroom. We don't need more wokeness and moral corruption in the courtroom!

Final Reflection

Because of the relatively intimate nature of the forum setting, the nominees seemed more than happy to speak freely on issues. They showed their true colors, their lack of understanding on certain issues, but also a ready commitment to get to work on Day One, relying on all their prior legal experience.

Whether they were public defenders or prosecutors or county counsel, they all demonstrated a considerable pedigree of experience. This forum afforded the general public an opportunity to question and hold judicial nominees accountable at least once in their political careers.

Spider Karen Still Obsessed with Arthur Schaper (Not "Shopper") -- Why?

Kelly Stuart, aka Sky Spider, really aka Spider Kaern is at it again.

Why is Spider Karen obsessed with me?

Check out what she tweeted just yesterday:

The first time I ever photographed far right individuals in the LA area, they came to my town along with Arthur shopper. That was in 2020. After they harass teenagers, I started following different far right protest. I saw the same people everywhere.

— Sky Spider (@SkySpider_) March 27, 2024

Somehow, she thinks she's special because she takes photos of people. Really?

A large group of patriots and concerned citizens took a stand against Black Lives Matter in El Segundo four years ago.

Instead of just allowing people to have their peace, she wanted to dox people. That is really shameful. On top of that, she wants to demonize and defame anyone and everyone who takes a stand for truth, justice, and the American Way (with apologies to Superman).

What is the matter with this creepy cat (cat--yes, she cares more about cats than people) lady?

Why is she obsessed with me. And why can she not spell my last name right? There is something seriously wrong with this lady, for sure. Maybe she should stop pushing for the systemic abuse of children? Maybe she should stop promoting cultural marxist degradation in Los Angeles County?

And she needs to move out of her mother's basement, for sure!

Judge David Milton for LA County District Attorney

 

          

JUDGE DAVID S. MILTON Candidate for Los Angeles County D.A. “FAIR-MINDED, LAW & ORDER” “ JUSTISE FOR ALL!” www.miltonforda.com Judge David Milton for Los Angeles County D.A. Judge David Milton was born in Pasadena, California. After graduating high school, he was immediately summoned into active duty for the US Army Reserve where he reached the rank of Specialist 5th Class. After active duty, David was employed by Eli Lily and began his college studies at night. He attended Pasadena City College and then California State University where he studied pre-law, business, and psychology and then was admitted into Indiana University's, McKinney School of law. Upon completion of his Jurisprudence Degree, David returned to California to successfully complete the CA Bar Exam, and shortly thereafter, began his career in public service as a Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County in 1978. After 9 years, David was appointed Judge of the Los Angeles Municipal Court. In 1994 he was then appointed Assistant Chief Trial Counsel for the state Bar of California, & in 1995 he was appointed Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court. In that position, Judge Milton handled unlimited criminal and civil cases, involving multiple murders, kidnapping, rape, robbery and the exploitation & attempted selling of children. After 36 years in public service, David entered private practice as a judge, where he handles arbitrations, mediations & complex discovery matters. Judge Milton, if elected, will oversee nearly 1,000 deputy attorneys, 800 clerical workers and nearly 300 DA investigator/officers covering L.A. county's 88 cities.

 

              

Recall Gascon Update: We're Going to Court!

  

Arthur, We’ll see the LA County Registrar in court. On Tuesday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant granted our request for an expedited hearing on issuing a preliminary injunction against the Registrar. An injunction would compel the Registrar to fully cooperate with our team that’s reviewing every one of the 195,783 signatures the Registrar deemed invalid. Already, and with the Registrar placing absurd restrictions on our review process, we’ve identified clear, obvious, and legitimate challenges for about 39% of the invalidated signatures that we’ve reviewed so far. Our fight against George Gascon is not over, far from it.

While our fight moves to the courtroom, Angelenos are fighting for their safety every day. This week, Marissa Young came forward with her chilling story. On July 31, she was brutally beaten and raped at night in a Torrance park, by Darrell Dean Waters, a homeless man who was arrested the prior night for possession of a dagger, but released after just a few hours. “If he had been kept in jail, what happened to me wouldn’t have happened,” said Young. “I could have been murdered.” Last week, a homeless man in North Hollywood stabbed 24-year-old Kyli Watts in the back of her head with a pair of gardening shears. Watts had moved to LA only two weeks earlier. She immediately went into surgery and faces a difficult recovery. And did you see the deeply disturbing video of a 27-year-old criminal abducting a 14-year-old girl? He proceeded to force her into a bathroom and rape her. These stories are a regular occurrence under George Gascon. That’s why we’re fighting so hard to get rid of him, and why we won’t rest until every valid signature is counted.

PAID FOR BY THE COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT THE RECALL OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY GEORGE GASCON Committee Major Funding from: Geoff Palmer Gerald J. Marcil Ioaban LLC and affiliated entities

Copyright © 2022 , All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: 500 W. Colorado, C - 455 Glendale, CA 91204 Committee ID: 1440808

Recall DA George Gascon Update

George Gascon's days may actually be numbered after all.

So many irregularities in the removal of signatures, and so many signatures that should have been added but were not, have all come up in the audit of the signatures that were rejected.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, October 10th, 2022   Initial Review Reveals Substantial Number of Improperly Invalidated Signatures, Recall Committee to File for Injunctive Relief Against Registrar of Voters    (Los Angeles, CA) – “The initial review of invalidated signatures demonstrates the Registrar’s counting process was seriously flawed, resulting in substantial errors, the wrongful invalidation of many valid signatures, and the disenfranchisement of thousands of Los Angeles County Voters. These extremely disturbing findings necessitate a complete and timely review of all invalidated signatures. This review is currently being obstructed by the Registrar’s office.  The Recall DA George Gascon Committee will be filing for injunctive relief imminently and is also exploring other significant issues, such as the inaccurate and inflated number of signatures required to qualify the recall due to bloated voter rolls.” – The Recall DA George Gascon Committee   Substantial number of improperly invalidated signatures found in initial review Since September 6, 2022, volunteer attorneys for the Recall DA George Gascon Committee have been conducting a review of invalidated signatures. Clear, obvious, and legitimate challenges have been identified for 39% of the invalidated signatures reviewed to date. Examples of improper invalidation and disenfranchisement include: Signatures incorrectly invalidated as “printed” even when the voter’s signature on file was itself printed. Signatures incorrectly invalidated as “non-matching” despite showing substantial similarities to the signatures on file.  In addition, many of the decisions to invalidate for this reason appear not to have been signed off on by multiple reviewers, as required by law. Signatures incorrectly invalidated as “not registered” when in fact, the person was a registered voter who could easily be identified in the voter database. Signatures incorrectly invalidated as “duplicates” without the Registrar counting at least one of the alleged duplicates as required by law.  Some of these invalidations are particularly troubling because it required a deliberate act by an examiner to go back into the system and modify a previously validated signature, changing it from “Valid” to “Max # of Times Signed”.  The committee has also observed many incomplete entries that were crossed out by the petition signer due to error, and then filled in correctly in the next entry below, only to have examiners wrongfully reject both as duplicates. Signatures incorrectly invalidated as “different address” because the voters entered their “residence address” as directed by the Petition, and according to the form and wording required by the Registrar, instead of their “addressas registered.”  There is also substantial concern that the Registrar may have failed to properly notify voters of involuntary changes to their registered address, potentially leading to signatures being improperly invalidated.   Recall Committee to file for injunctive relief against Registrar of Voters imminently The Registrar has placed arbitrary and capricious limitations on the review process that substantially limit review hours, workstations, number of reviewers, access to information necessary to determine the legitimacy of a signature invalidation, and more. Under the current restrictions imposed by the Registrar, it will take more than a year to review the invalidated signatures. The Recall DA George Gascon Committee is preparing to file for injunctive relief (as early as next week) to seek the expanded access and additional information necessary to conduct a meaningful review. Given the troubling findings from the initial review of invalidated signatures, it is imperative that a complete and timely review of all invalidated signatures be permitted to take place. For additional information on the current limitations put in place by the Registrar, and the expanded access requested by attorneys representing the Recall DA George Gascon Committee, please refer to this letter sent to Dean Logan on September 21, 2022.   Inaccurate and inflated number of required signatures for qualification of the recall due to bloated voter rolls According to estimates from independent and non-partisan data analysts, Los Angeles County active voter rolls were artificially inflated by at least 208,000, and as much as 515,000, when the number of signatures required for qualification of the recall was originally set. Those estimates do not account for those who died out of state but are still registered in LA County. This problem has been persistent.  In 2019, LA County was sued and agreed to remove 1.5 million inactive voters from its voter rolls because LA County had failed to maintain and clean up its voter rolls for years, and had more voters on its voter rolls than actual citizens. Federal law requires such removal. The Registrar also agreed to ensure the accuracy of its active voter rolls moving forward. Unlike the qualification thresholds for other recalls (which are typically based on a percentage of voter turnout from previous elections) LA County requires signatures from 10% of ALL Los Angeles County registered voters on its active voter rolls. Thus, the failure to maintain accurate voter rolls creates an inherently inaccurate and inflated signature requirement to qualify. The original requirement of 566,857 signatures to qualify (based on bloated voter rolls showing 5,668,569 active voters at the time) should have been set anywhere from 515,357 to 546,357. This issue alone could substantially affect the outcome of the recall given that the Registrar has already identified what it deems to be 520,050 valid signatures.  This does not even account for the signatures that were clearly wrongfully invalidated.  ###

So, there may be some hope, after all.