Phil Jennerjahn was the 2012 Republican Nominee for U.S. Congress in Californias 28th District.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Most Important Woman In America (this week)
Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell has become The Most Important Woman in America.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Mike Gatto's large payday questioned


CHARIOT RESEARCH RELEASES SPECIAL REPORT: [FULL REPORT IN ATTACHMENT]
MIKE GATTO RECEIVED $14755 PAYDAY ONLY DAYS AFTER SIGNING PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH LA COUNCIL OFFICE OF NICK PACHECO
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 29, 2010
CONTACT: James Fisfis, jfisfis@chariotresearch.com
Documents released by the City of Los Angeles raise questions about a Los Angeles personal services contract awarded in 2002 by Councilman Nick Pacheco to Mike Gatto, a California Assemblyman now running for re-election as a taxpayer watchdog cracking down on abuses in municipal government.
According to the documents [ORIGINALS IN .PDF APPENDIX: EXHIBITS 1 & 2]:
- On September 19, 2002, Los Angeles City Councilman Nick Pacheco awarded Mike Gatto a six month, $15,000, labor-intensive “personal services contract.” During this time, FEC records show that Gatto was still serving as a campaign staffer in the thick of Brad Sherman’s re-election campaign – a position he began in April of that year.
- On October 9, 2002 - just 19 days later - Mike Gatto submitted an invoice claiming he had performed 227 hours of work under the contract at a rate of $65 per hour. The invoice amount: $14,755.00. [SEE EXHIBIT 1]
“These documents would raise questions in the minds of reasonable people as to whether Mike Gatto ever performed the work required under the contract. 227 hours is a lot of work to do in 19 days, especially while you are simultaneously immersed in a Congressional re-election campaign. These are only questions, and no allegations of wrongdoing are being made. We believe that Mike Gatto should have an opportunity to set the record straight.” – James Fisfis, President, Chariot LLC.
More questions arise from the documents released by the City of Los Angeles regarding Mike Gatto’s personal services contract.
- According to the contract language [SEE EXHIBIT 2], the in-depth analysis of constituent services required under the contract was to be performed by Gatto from September 15, 2002 through March 15, 2003. The contract required the submission of “monthly reports” by Gatto, and detailed “monthly invoices” pursuant to a work schedule. Yet, according to records released by the City Controller, Gatto submitted his $14,775.50 invoice on October 9, 2002 – not even one month into the contract.
- According to Los Angeles city records, Gatto’s personal services contract with Nick Pacheco was first presented to the Los Angeles City council on September 27, 2002 – eight days after it had already been signed.
- According to Los Angeles city records, Gatto’s personal services contract with Nick Pacheco was not approved until October 2, 2002, almost two weeks after it had been signed and just seven days before Gatto invoiced the city for nearly the full contract.
- According to FEC records, during the contract period September 15-November 15, 2002, Mike Gatto was a full-time campaign staffer. According to Congressional data, during the contract period after November 15, 2002 through March 15, 2002, Mike Gatto working full-time for the Congressional office of Brad Sherman.
Chariot LLC frequently releases reports raising questions as to officeholder and candidate actions.
***This research was not paid for by any candidate, committee, or party entity.***
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Democrats misogyny will cost them Congress
Barnett to Cooley: Investigate Gatto
October 20, 2010
Mr. Steve Cooley
District Attorney
Los Angeles County
210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210
Dear Mr. Cooley:
My name is Jane Barnett, and I am a resident of Los Angeles County. I am writing to you with regard to my concern about the residency and voting history of California State Assemblyman Mike Gatto.
Assemblyman Gatto lives at 2611 Armstrong Avenue in Los Angeles, a residence he shares with his mother. That residence is within the 43rd Assembly District, which he currently represents. According to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, Mr. Gatto has been registered to vote (and has voted) at that address since 2004 - up to and including our most recent election on June 8 of this year.
However, according to readily available public documents – including campaign contribution records filed with the Federal Election Commission and his designation as agent for service of process for a company (JPJ Lending, Inc.) registered with the California Secretary of State, Mr. Gatto’s residence was declared by him to be at 2573 Canyon Lane in Los Angeles during the same period at which he was apparently registered to vote and participating in elections at 2611 Armstrong Avenue (an address also in another district).
I am aware that one who votes in an election must swear that they are a resident at the address at which they are registered, and since Mr. Gatto was apparently registered and voting at one location but living at another, I am concerned that there may be potential voting irregularities.
Ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and requiring that our public officials follow the very rules they are sworn to uphold is imperative in a nation of laws. As Mr. Gatto is currently seeking to be reinvested with the public trust, I respectfully request that your office investigate this matter with all necessary diligence.
Respectfully yours,
Jane Barnett
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Michele Bachmann for Congress!!
CD 4 Voter Alert! Tomas O'Grady sings love songs to Obama!
Here is some interesting video of my potential rival in the March 2011 City Council Election.
Irishman Tomas O'Grady sings his little love songs to Obama.
This is rich in comedy material for me. I can't wait to bring this up at the CD 4 forums.
The guy can actually play guitar and sing very well. But his servile/supplicant behavior towards another political figure raises the question of his mental fitness for the job. If he is this much of a fanboy for the Manchurian President, how can he be trusted to make the correct decisions on complicated, divisive City political issues?