Grindle files complaint against Van Tran
June 2nd, 2008, 7:07 am · 13 Comments · posted by PEGGY LOWE
OC’s campaign finance watchdog Shirley Grindle has filed a formal complaint with the DA and the state attorney general’s office claiming that Assemblyman Van Tran’s campaign donation to Dina Nguyen was, in fact, an in-kind contribution and not an independent expenditure, as he reported.
Grindle studied two mailers from the First District campaign and says they share many similarities, “namely identical photographs, identical letterheads for “Vietnam Business Association” and “Vietnam Business Alliance” and similar language…”
Read Grindle’s complaint by clicking below.
FORMAL COMPLAINT 30 May 2008
Orange County DA Tony Rackauckas
401 Civic Center Drive West
P.O.B ox 808
Santa Ana, California 92702
Gary W. Schons
Sr. Asst. Attorney General
110 West A Street, Suite 1500
San Diego, Ca. 92101
Re: Violation of Orange County Campaign Reform Ordinance, Sections 1-6-5(a) and 1-6-9(a)
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed you will find copies of two separate mailers that have been issued in opposition to the candidacy of Janet Nguyen (incumbent Orange County Supervisor). The first mailer (Exhibit A) was paid for and distributed by “Dina Nguyen for Supervisor” – Dina Nguyen is running against Janet Nguyenin the June 2008 election. The second mailer (Exhibit B) was paid for and distributed by “Van Tran for Assembly 2008”. Assemblyman Van Tran is known to be a political supporter of Dina Nguyen.
The two mailers share many similarities; namely identical photographs, identical letterheads for “Vietnam Business Association” and “Vietnam Business Alliance” and similar language asserting Janet Nguyen’s alleged “communist leanings”. These similarities would indicate this is not an independent expenditure by the Van Tran for Assembly 2008 committee, but a coordinated in-kind contribution for the benefit of Dina Nguyen. Furthermore, the Van Tran for Assembly 2008 committee is subject to State law (the Political Reform Act – Section 85501) which states “A controlled committee of a candidate may not make independent expenditures and may not contribute funds to another committee for the purpose of making independent expenditures to support or oppose other candidates.” It is presumed that the mailer paid for by the Van Tran for Assembly 2008 committee is therefore an in-kind contribution to Dina Nguyen. If it is an independent expenditure, Van Tran and his controlled committee are in violation of Section 85501 of the Political Reform Act. This complaint assumes the mailer to be an in-kind contribution.
The contribution limit for Orange County Supervisors is $1600 per person per Election Cycle. It is believed the enclosed campaign literature (Exhibit B) was mass mailed to Vietnamese voters in the First Supervisorial District and without a doubt far exceeds the $1600 contribution limit.
It is therefore alleged the following entities are in violation of Section 1-6-5(a): “Van Tran for Assembly 2008” committee and Van Tran AND “Dina Nguyen for Supervisor” and Dina Nguyen. Section 1-6-5(a) prohibits any person from making a contribution that exceeds $1600 per person per Election Cycle and prohibits a candidate or his/her controlled committee from accepting a contribution that exceeds the contribution limit.
It is further alleged that candidate Dina Nguyen and the “Dina Nguyen for Supervisor” committee is in violation of Section 1-6-9(a) which prohibits a County candidate or their controlled committee from accepting a contribution from any other campaign committee controlled by another federal, state or local candidate or officeholder. Alleged Violator: Assemblyman Van Tran and Van Tran for Assembly 2008 Committee (ID unknown) – Section 1-6-5(a) Candidate Dina Nguyen and Dina Nguyen for Supervisor Committee (ID 1304596) – Sections 1-6-5(a) and 1-6-9(a) Sections of Orange County Campaign Reform Ordinance Violated:
Section 1-6-5(a) and l-6-9(a)
Contact Persons:
Janet Nguyen, Cell Phone: xxx xxx-xxxx
Dina Nguyen 714 657-2425 or xxx xxx-xxxx
(Treasurer Lysa Ray – xxx xxx-xxxx) Assemblyman Van Tran – xxx xxx-xxxx I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Shirley L. Grindle
xxxx x xxxx xxxxx
Orange, California xxxxx
xxx xxx-xxxx
e-mail: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Enclosures: Exhibit A – Dina Nguyen Mailer
Exhibit B – Van Tran for Assembly 2008 Mailer
Cc: OC Register, Peggy Lowe
LA Times, Gil Reza
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 am
Sadly, Shirley has lost the ability to be objective sometime ago and she lets her personal bias determine who she goes after.
Does anybody remember it taking Janet Nguyen 53 days to come clean and disclose illegal contributions to her “Legal Defense Fund” last November? She was later fined a pretty good chunk for breaking the law in that one. ….BUT WHERE WAS SHIRLEY GRINDLE??? WHY DIDN’T SHE FILE A COMPLAINT WITH BLATANTLY OBVIOUS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY FROM JANET NGUYEN??? Shirley gave a wink and a nod and with a pat on the head, told her little darling Janet to be more careful.
So now we discover that potentially the same mailhouse put together and distributed two mailers for Dina Nguyen which look similar but come from different proponents…the horror of it all (insert sarcastic tone here). Is it too far a stretch for the ethically challenged Grindle to believe that the most of the Vietnamese Officials use the same places for their mail? So what? That’s neither illegal or impropper.
This one’s a yawner as is most anything that comes from Grindle lately against anyone challenging her little Janet.
I can’t wait for this to go to a run-off and then see Dina win outright in November. It’s exactly what this County and this District needs to disrupt the incumbancy protection mentality of a few.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 am
Looks like Truong Diep is posting on Total Buzz now to shill for Dina. It’s a shame she missed the KTLA interview they’d been trying to schedule for days and all the public saw was Dina behind locked bars.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am
Word on the street is that Van sent his letter outside of his district. Isn’t this illegal? Van is finally getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar and all his stooges are trying to throw up smoke screens. Looks like Loretta will be sleeping easier in the future.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Is Shirley Grindle going blind? Shirley can’t speak nor read Vietnames language.
There was no law broken here when responding letter was sent out for Assemblyman’s own defense against the false accusations from Janet ! Janet has been attacking him in Vietnames newspapers, radios and megazines for many weeks now. By the way, all these informations are accessible by the public!
Shirley’s name has been greatly tarnished with her obsurd attack against highly respected OC republican leader today.
Shirly Grindle needs to come to her senses. No law was broken here!
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
The mailer was totally legal and I’m sure Tran checked with legal council before he sent it. Janet opened herself up to this when she sent out mail attacking Assemblyman Tran in Vietnamese. At that point election law says that Tran is able to send out mail defending himself from the attack to voters likely to have received the first mailer.
As far as Shirley Grindle is concerned, she has no credibility after she failed to lodge any complaint against Janet during her 54 day illegal legal defense fund fiasco. The photographs, identical letterheads for “Vietnam Business Association” and “Vietnam Business Alliance” and similar language asserting Janet Nguyen’s alleged “communist leanings” all come from Hung Phuong Nguyen’s organization, the Coalition Against Resolution 36 who have been putting this all over the Vietnamese news for weeks now.
Shirley Grindle has no idea what she is talking about. This will result in the same thing that her complaint against Trung Nguyen did - NOTHING. She should stop wasting taxpayer resources and stop smearing our hardworking Republican Assemblyman.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
The mailer was sent out of the district. The back of the mailer attacks Janet. That is why he broke the law
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Can someone send a Deputy to taze us? We can’t take Shirley any more.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Dave, Everret I assume, shouldn’t you be working, hopefully you’re not using a state computer for this. And by the way, hope you don’t have as many papercuts from the flyers you passed out yesterday as you did at the Central Committee meeting passing out Paul Lucas’ letters.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Shooter,
Defense mailers can also be sent to the same people who received the attack piece in the first place. No laws are broken. Defense mailers attacking the credibility of your attacker is legal.
Get a grip Janet people. You don’t know what you are getting into. This complaint is a loser from the start. Only if Grindle fully understands what she’s getting into, or at least the people (looks like Janet Nguyen) who manipulated her into filing this complaint should divulge fully before she shoots off … in the wrong direction.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Janet didn’t send mailers attacking Van get your facts straight
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Shooter,
Right. And Janet’s also a girl scout who volunteers at the hospital every weekend. Who are you kidding?
Not only did she send repeated negative mailers out before hand, but also got her henchmen to go on Vietnamese radio every night to attack Van Tran and his supporters. Oh, how can you forget that she also ran nasty, negative ads attacking Van Tran and his group ……way befrore Tran ding her for who she really is — a lost and naive girl who associates herself with people who have Viet Communist ties. The evidence is overwhelming.
It’s just dumb. I can’t figure out her political strategy other than the fact that Janet is vicious and vindictive.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 am
What strikes me is the desperation of these charges. It seems J. Nguyen’s team is resorting to the tactic of throwing any and all accusations in the chance that something might stick. I cannot think of ONE instance that J. Nguyen has attacked her opponents on the merits of POLICY. While these baseless tactics smear the character of family members and insinuate illegality, where does she lie on issues held by the candidates themselves such as union contributions, pork barrel spending, education? Oh yeah after enjoying the largess of unions for the past eight years she has told them to talk to her after the election. Pork barrel spending? Just look at the OC Supervisor minutes and you’ll see a pattern of cronyism. Education? She’s only 30 years old for heaven’s sake!!!! What does she know? She was an LSAT instructor? Whip dee do. How about going to law school or having kids in school? At least the other candidates have life experience outside of politics unlike Janet “I Can’t Get A Job Outside Of Politics” Nguyen.