Mar 312021

Penal Code 422 PC is considered a serious crime that can expose a convicted defendant to the provisions of the California’s three-strikes law and result in a significant state prison sentence.

AS to Penal Code 646:

(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

(b) Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(c) (1) Every person who, after having been convicted of a felony under Section 273.5, 273.6, or 422, commits a violation of subdivision (a) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five years.

So – it appears that the erstwhile governor candidate either got busted a second time for stalking Deanna Lorraine OR there is a new victim. Omar Navarro was arrested for 11 felonies and pled guilty to two. 422 is criminal threats and 646(b) is violating a restraining order. Nice job Omar.

Omar should write George Gascon a thank you letter as he appears to have only gotten 90 days in jail for this, yet he will serve about 15 of them. The LA County website says his projected release date is 4-4-2021 and he was sentenced on 3-17-2021.

Please note: The URL is changing to soon. will still point here for a while longer.

Mar 312021

Please note: The URL is changing to soon. will still point here for a while longer.

I like Robert Ming. He is a good dude. But – he had all the endorsements in Orange County and Lost his race for supervisor in 2014 to the incumbent Lisa Bartlett. It looks like Diane Harkey, running for the exact same seat (Lisa Bartlett hammered Ming and is at the end of her two terms) is doing the exact same thing:

Harkey has a fraction of this list (I could have posted a second screenshot for those of Ming), but here we are. Also note, several of these endorsements lived outside of the Supervisorial district and could not vote for Mr. Ming anyway.

I should also note that Bartlett (who threw her fellow victims of Bill Brough under the bus by endorsing Moorlach), had Darrell Issa’s endorsement and not much else.

LISA BARTLETT 67,416 54.6%

ROBERT MING 56,164 45.4%

It makes you wonder about Darrell Issa’s Endorsement. It may be one of the few that actually moves the needle. However, he is one of Diane Harkey’s many straw men.

Now there is another dynamic in Orange County – the world-famous dual endorsement. Mrs. Harkey should look out for those as well. I’ve seen a lot of it in Orange County politics. Once Right on Daily is done with our expose, our guess is that several of her crew are going to be reconsidering and as well others may not endorse her in the first place.

It is the opinion of this blogger that Harkey is attempting to roll out endorsements to compensate for things she lacks as a candidate. This is not unique to her, it is actually quite common. Your intrepid blogger is simply stating the obvious – endorsements don’t mean much, they are fleeting and they tend to dry up when the winds of trouble blow.

To be continued…


Mar 302021

Today – I was graced with Diane Harkey’s latest installment of her 1990’s era consultant endorsement drill. In the 1980’s and 1990’s – candidates would announce one endorsement at a time in an attempt to muscle opponents out of the race against them. Along came the internet and an much more organized opposition and now endorsements don’t matter anywhere near what they did. Witness the number of “outsider” and anti-establishment candidates that are winning races.

In Harkey’s case – she announced the endorsement of former CA45 Congressman Mimi Walters who was blown out of office by Katie Porter. Side Note: Walters and her crew also aided in defeating Greg Raths the CA45 GOP nominee in 2020.

My Favorite part of the email:

Diane Harkey served from 2015-2019 as Orange County’s elected Taxpayer Advocate on the State Board of Equalization; from 2008-2014 as the South County’s State Assembly Representative; and from 2006-2007 as Mayor of Dana Point. In each of these positions, Diane capitalized on her business and public service experience. She fought for the rights and interests of Orange County taxpayers, families, employers and local communities. She always put the people first.

You have to love the hubris in all of the above statements, especially the two emboldened sentences. We have been and will continue impaling her with her own record of capitalizing on her life experience. (BTW – she was forced to step down as mayor of Dana Point due to a legitimate recall attempt against her)

That said, if she had properly capitalized on her life experience – she’d know that a sitting Congressman like Darrell Issa would be an endorsement worth having. Just sayin’

Oh well. Maybe on the next campaign for office #7 in 2024 after losing again in 2022 she can get that one right.

Mar 292021

Please note: The URL is changing to soon. will still point here for a while longer.

Diane Harkey is a victim. You can see her stipulate to that effect repeatedly throughout her history in office. We’ve taken some time to eviscerate that canard as it is clear there is siginifcant doubt that her narrative about her personal life is accurate.

She has been so set on proving that narrative that she sued Senator Mark Wyland for libel/slander over his assertions her self-funding of her campaigns was due to her husband’s shady and dishonest businesses. This lawsuit punctuated the ensuing campaign for her next office, BOE in 2014. With evidence that I am not sure Mark Wyland took the time to find, I believe that Mark Wyland was mostly right and could have proven his assertions – far beyond the threshold of libel. Enter the left-leaning but entertaining Orange Juice Blog:

According to Diane Harkey’s complaint, filed Aug. 26 in Orange County Superior Court, Wyland incorrectly portrayed the circumstances of the case by telling members of the Tri-City Tea Party, “Unfortunately there has been a lawsuit brought by a lot of investors of modest means against her and her husband for defrauding them…. There was a decision that those investors were defrauded and there is a judgment.”

Harkey, whose lawsuit was first reported by the political website San Diego Rostra, says Wyland’s statement was incorrect on several fronts. She was, at the time Wyland spoke, no longer a defendant in most of the claims against her husband. She also contested Wyland’s description of the investors as having “modest means”; she stated in her complaint that many of the investors have a net worth greater than $1 million.

So, you got that?  Diane sued Mark for $10 million because he said “a lot of the investors” were “of modest means,” whereas she contends SOME of the victims were actually rich.  WEAK TEA, Diane.  Sure, some of them were rich, but I’ve met a few of them now who are having to live on their social security, who have had to sell their homes, who have had to move in with their children, some have died waiting to see their money returned.  Diane’s other quibbles with Mark’s statement are equally inconsequential.

Just where did the money come from?

Perhaps this is why Wyland beat Harkey so bad in court that she lost an Anti-SLAPP, which is extremely rare. I also believe that if Mark Wyland had the evidence I now have, that the Circuit Court of Appeals would have never tossed the Anti-SLAPP (see that here from late 2015). With the spectre of paying Mark Wyland’s legal bills removed, Harkey dropped her libel/slander lawsuit against Wyland. At the time of that suit, I had seen Diane Harkey’s name on at least 4 cases in the Orange County Superior Court system. It was about the same for Dan Harkey.

There was discussion of the Harkeys’ many luxury cars – a Rolls Royce, a Mercedes, a couple Porsches, a Bentley, a Jaguar – and how a couple with all that could be too bankrupt to pay their elderly victim/creditors.  Mention was also made of the Harkeys’ $15 million jet plane, which is now sold – Diane had claimed to have never flown in it, but subpoenaed flight records showed her using it for frequent flights to Sacramento and back.

Did I use the phrase “knee-deep” earlier?  Diane’s whole career was started and bankrolled by money from her hubby’s crooked dealings, since she came out of the blue onto the Dana Point City Council in 2004. It looks with all the Harkeys’ foot-dragging that many more of the elderly investors are going to be dying before they see any of their money back.  And this morning I get a typical depressed message from Mr. Sipolski, the now-impoverished polio survivor who invested with Point Center:

Once again I face a miserable and meager Christmas because Dan Harkey, (husband of Assemblywoman Diane) even though he was convicted of Financial Elder Abuse and ordered to pay millions in restitution, has declared bankruptcy.

I doubt if I will ever see a cent of the jury award.

Once again I cannot afford anything this Christmas since the Harkeys have all my money.

And you can see, the “bankrupt” Harkeys are once again having their annual extravaganza next Tuesday…

(The blog continues on about a late 2013 fundraiser for Diane Harkey – who was still married to Dan Harkey at the time, much more on that coming soon)

I do find it amazing that Diane Harkey was able to transition from Assembly to the Board of Equalization with the spectre of lawsuits and her husband’s dirty businesses in the background. (Dan Harkey lost a massive lawsuit twice in court, therefore I have made the conclusion his business was dirty) I am also amazed that her political opponents were not able to make the assertions stick that Diane benefitted from Dan’s businesses. In 2018, Mike Levin buried Diane Harkey on this issue with just half a deck.

Harkey got lit up by the Cal Watchdog over the lawsuit drama.

Tort reform advocates “disappointed” by litigation

Harkey’s multi-million dollar claim for emotional suffering has “disappointed” advocates for tort reform.

“Assemblymember Diane Harkey has been a strong ally in the fight against lawsuit abuse,” said Tom Scott, executive director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. “We are disappointed that she felt this dispute needed to be settled through litigation, and we hope for a speedy resolution that avoids using scarce resources from our state’s already overburdened courts.”

That statement put CALA on the same side as their mortal foes, the consumer attorneys (often called “trial lawyers”). Brian S. Kabateck, president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, offered a strong rebuke of Harkey’s lawsuit and accused the lawmaker of having a hypocritical stance on legal reform.

“Some people dislike the legal system until they need it,” Kabatech told “Diane Harkey’s recent propulsion from so-called ‘tort reform advocate’ to major litigant, filing a lawsuit some would term facially frivolous, highlights the hypocrisy in her position.”

It appears from my research that Diane Harkey is well-versed in using the legal system to control outcomes and get what she wants. It is also clear that her lawsuit against Mark Wyland earned her a blizzard of criticism.

Messy intra-party feuds

In his long history of Republican political activism, [Steve] Frank can only recall one instance in which a CRP delegate has been rebuked for filing a lawsuit against a fellow party member. The provision was originally drafted to address a feud between rival young Republican clubs.

“It was messy and made the party look bad,” Frank said of the dispute. “The intent [of the provision] was to stop those suits from going public, and instead try to handle disputes internally.”

Already, the consumer attorneys have seized on the lawsuit to impugn the entire tort reform movement. The movement is a favorite talking point for Republican candidates.

“Using her office to routinely slam lawyers who represent truly injured and powerless victims, all the while planning to file her own lawsuit, makes a mockery of the entire tort reform movement,” Kabateck said.

Diane Harkey is also memorialized in the Ripoff Report forever: see it here. Kabateck and others should have checked the Orange County Superior Court’s website, there is a ton of stuff there.

In late 2014, while preparing to enter her next office (the BOE), the humiliation of a wage garnishment hung over her head, we will pick up there as our Diane Harkey Series Continues on our way to the BOE trainwreck of the mid 2010’s.

Mar 252021

Bill Brough, with the mystery beverage on his last day in the Assembly. Hopefully, soon there will be pictures of him in Prison – experiencing the best prison life has to offer

Please note: The URL is changing to soon. will still point here for a while longer.

In 2009 as the Point Center Financial Saga was detonating, Diane Harkey had problems beyond just people asking where the $2.1 Million she contributed to her own runs came from.

The L.A. Times lit her up good over a few peculiar campaign donations. Donations I think should have never been taken and then should have been returned. But, she’s a victim and it wasn’t her fault etc etc etc.

California Assemblywoman Diane Harkey accepted $16,600 in political contributions from real estate developers who had received loans from her husband’s business, now under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The borrowers later failed to repay loans brokered by her husband’s lending company, Point Center Financial Inc. of Aliso Viejo. The firm was accused of fraud last month in an investor lawsuit, and the company’s owner has confirmed that Point Center is under investigation by the SEC.

Harkey (R-Dana Point) said Monday that there was nothing improper with the developers’ contributions and that she had no idea they had loans pending with her husband’s company at the time they donated to her campaign.

Then why did Diane Harkey call them for donations? How would they have crossed her radar screen? Someone had to introduce her to these donors? But note, no offer to return the money or attempt to remedy the bad optics. Patterns, folks… patterns.

In the lawsuit filed last month, the investors contend that Point Center neglected to inform them about the risky nature of its loans and that Harkey, a defendant in the lawsuit, used proceeds from bad loans to donate nearly $1.1 million to her political campaigns.

Harkey said she used her own money — from a prior “six-figure” banking career — to donate to her campaigns for the state Senate and Assembly.

It came from my personal income. I don’t care what the lawsuit says. It’s frivolous. It’s full of lies. And it will all come out in court,” she said.

Wait, what? Just a few weeks later in the Orange County Register – this gem:

I’ve been married for 25 years to my husband,” said the Dana Point Republican. “We have personal income. He has income. I have income. Sometimes it was my income. Sometimes it was his income. Sometimes it’s both of our incomes. And I’ve saved him financially many years. So I’m not going to get into whose, yours, mine, ours. Who knows after 25 years?

It did come out in court, Diane Harkey had to sue her way out of community property (speaking of saving Dan Harkey), Dan Harkey lost a $12.5 Million Judgment and then lost on appeal in 2018. And, not a dime paid to any victims – more on all this in future posts. (BTW – suing your way out of community property is a spouse trying to separate themselves from liability in a lawsuit related to the other spouse.)

Harkey accepted $16,600 in campaign contributions from three developers who borrowed tens of millions of dollars from Point Center, according to campaign finance records.

Two of the loans ended in foreclosure and a third was modified because the developer was unable to meet the original terms.

C. Lynn Burnett, president of Burnett Development Corp., gave $5,000 to Harkey’s failed Senate campaign Dec. 31, 2005, records show. Two months later, Point Center Financial funded a $19.2-million loan to Burnett for a development project at the Palm Springs Country Club.

Burnett’s company defaulted on that loan, and Point Center investors ended up holding title to the property, which is now in such disrepair that the city of Palm Springs sued Point Center and the investors demanding immediate improvements. The property is worth a fraction of the amount Burnett owed when he defaulted. Burnett died in 2007.

Home builder R.W. Hertel & Sons Inc. gave Harkey $5,000 on Dec. 31, 2005, two months before closing on a $16-million real estate development loan with Point Center. Hertel defaulted on that loan and Point Center foreclosed on behalf of investors. Like the Palm Springs project, the Hertel property is worth only a fraction of the loan that investors funded, according to allegations in the lawsuit.

Note the timing of the donations. Were they done to grease the skids of business deals?

“At no time did Point Center Financial ever disclose that she was receiving money from borrowers at the time investors were putting up money for loans,” Charton said. “Had they disclosed it, investors might have said, ‘I’m not going to give you money to lend to somebody you have a special relationship with.’ ”

Charlton was one of the plantiffs that successfully sued Point Center Financial. The rub on Point Center Financial is they would go to ordinary people with an offer of a great real estate deal and get them to put up money that was used to write loans to developers. Such loans are called hard money loans and many of them detonated in the 2008-2010 Real Estate Market, Hard Money loans are extremely difficult instruments to begin with and have high failure rates. The appearance of large checks weeks before the contributors got high-risk unsecured loans they later defaulted on smells to high heaven.

Speaking of poor judgement, it is not just in taking tainted campaign funds. I learned through confidential interviews that Diane Harkey hired none other than the monster William “Bill” Brough.

Here’s the ballgame, Brough served as her Chief of Staff for a short time. His tenure was marred by several allegations (yet no verified complaints or victims forward) of sexual misconduct. Apparently, just a few years before backing in to the Assembly Brough took a test run at his animal house lifestyle in Sacramento.

It is clear to me that Harkey disdains Bill Brough and was helpful when many others in the OCGOP were still drinking the incumbent kool-aid and having group think about how to defend the status quo. However, Diane Harkey is alleged to have hired Bill Brough at the behest of his codenendent spouse. How many women did Brough hurt whilst infesting the Cheif of Staff office for Diane Harkey?

Did Harkey know about the incident in 2011 with Lisa Bartlett and Bill Brough? It happened in Dana Point when both were on the council she once served on? Then, why was Brough able to last as long as he did when I know for a fact (albeit heresay from people there) that Brough was already out of control and they were telling Diane Harkey what he was doing!

Harkey (R-Dana Point) said Monday that there was nothing improper with the developers’ contributions and that she had no idea they had loans pending with her husband’s company at the time they donated to her campaign.

#facepalm. I guess there was nothing improper with hiring Bill Brough either, so there’s that I guess.

As we continue, next up is Harkey’s troubled tenure in the California Board of Equalization. This is another subject with a lot of articles, but little campaign scrutiny. It needs to be looked at for a bit as we continue completing the story about Diane Harkey.