Remember this post? It’s repeatedly referenced in a request for an investigation into charges of election/voter fraud filed by Tustin council member Jerry Amante’s pal Doug Davert.  You can read about the entire complaint by going to Internet Truth Squad’s website and despite it’s claim they’ve been outing corruption since 2004, the Choi complaint is the only item you can read about.
So much for Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment that “Thou Shall Not Speak Ill of Fellow Republicans.”Â
According to the complaint letter, Davert and his firm simply took our initial investigation and ran with it. Our position all along is we don’t have a problem with Dr. Choi’s carpetbagging because he’s running to represent in the Assembly the vast majority of voters he already represents as an Irvine city council member. The notion that Dr. Choi is somehow very popular is actually a tribute to the Korean-American community in Irvine that comes out in force for both Mayor Kang and Dr. Choi when they are on the ballot, despite their opposing political views. As far as fundraising goes, when it comes to money not directly from a candidate’s bank account, Choi is a distant third in this race. Each Republican candidate comes with significant baggage that will be tough come November.
We do know Dr. Choi sought advice from former council candidate and Irvine police lieutenent Pat Rodgers over concerns we violated his privacy. Nope. Taking photos from a public street and sidewalk are not violations of anyone’s privacy. We never set foot on Choi’s property and from the ongoing investigation, Choi apparently seldom sets foot inside his new Woodbridge “home.” Owning property in the district is simply not enough in this case; establishing residency certain does.
Unlike Harry Sidhu and Lori Galloway, who have moved into homes in their Fourth District for their Supervisor’s race, Choi still appears to enjoy the comforts of his very nice Woodbury home. Sidhu was recetnly exonerated by the OC DA’s office citing a lack of evidence that he had done anything wrong — not that this news is going to change any minds on the FFFF blog who are backing a candidate who’s self-admitted biggest accomplishment was wining three pee-wee football games and ditches emergency city council meetings to attend personal fundraisers hosted by a Fullerton developer’s wife).
What this entire investigation does is show how good Jerry Amante is at getting other people to do his dirty work for him. I have to wonder if Choi’s people are looking into claims that Amante’s running some sort of kennel out of his garage. But the bigger fish to fry are the Tustin development deals that have soured under Amante’s “leadership.”
From the letter:
candidacy papers by claiming a residence where he is not domiciled. Moreover, the conduct of the Choi family is further problematic as follows: (1) The entire Choi family may have already requested absentee ballots and will be casting votes in a district where they are not domiciled or have their legal voting residence; (2) Steven S. Choi will appear on the ballot as a candidate in the 70th residency is a requirement for the office, and (3) the entire Choi family has engaged in an apparent concerted effort to violate the law.
The Liberal OC story, coupled with a steady stream of other “information†from within Orange County political circles charging that The Apartment is not really the residence of Steven or his family members named herein, led the undersigned to embark on an independent investigation. Multiple observations of both The Choi Estate and The Apartment indicate to this Complainant that Steven S. Choi, Janie O. Choi, Daniel Choi, and Michelle Choi maintain their domicile and residence at The Choi Estate despite the statements made under penalty of perjury in their voter registration forms that they reside at the Apartment.
“We do know Dr. Choi sought advice from former council candidate and Irvine police lieutenent Pat Rodgers over concerns we violated his privacy. Nope. Taking photos from a public street and sidewalk are not violations of anyone’s privacy. We never set foot on Choi’s property”
This is an incorrect statement. One can be in violation of someone’s *constructive* privacy right, thus you can still be liable even without ever setting foot on his private property. Though the photos look small embedded in the post, clicking on the photos enlarge the size to the point where it is dangerously close to using technology to enhance your ability to invade his privacy, especially with the blinds open.
Beyond this, is there any other substantive proof that Choi is still living at his old house, besides his car parked in the driveway? While these posts may be enough to raise a reasonable suspicion, it certainly isn’t enough to file a criminal claim without raising eyebrows for frivolous law suits for the sake of mudslinging. A waste of the District Attorney’s time! Amante should be ashamed of himself for depriving CA citizens of needed legal services for silly political lawsuits.
“Choi apparently seldom sets foot inside his new Woodbridge “home.†Owning property in the district is simply not enough in this case; establishing residency certain does.”
You forget to mention that owning property OUTSIDE the district is simply not enough to warrant a criminal suit filed against him either. And that establishing residency is not equivalent to having one’s car parked outside a piece of property you own.
Well, neither Amante nor Choi are angels here. But I think our initial investigatin and the follow up investigations pretty much prove Choi isn’t living at the address he is registered to vote in. It looks like more of a campaign office with the card table and chairs. And even without the camera, that was visible through the open blinds from the sidewalk. Kind of tought to claim privacy when you’re alledgedly defrauding voters.