By Gustavo Arellano
By R. Scott Moxley
By Alfonso Delgado
By Courtney Hamilton
By Joel Beers
By Peter Maguire
By Charles Lam
By Charles Lam
Contact us via e-mail (firstname.lastname@example.org), regular mail (Letters to the Editor, OC Weekly, P.O. Box 10788, Costa Mesa, CA 92627) or fax (714-708-8410). Letters will be edited for clarity and length. By submission of a letter, you agree that we can publish and/or license the publication of it in print and electronically. All correspondence must include your home city and a daytime phone number.
ALLEN'S WRENCHEditor's note: This week, the unprecedented. We turn over the entire Letters section to just one letter: Jo Ellen Allen's response to last week's cover story. She asked that we not edit her letter, which explains any spelling or grammatical errors. See R. Scott Moxley's point-by-point response (indicated in brackets).
In the October 5-7 edition of the OC Weeklymy husband and I were maliciously and intentionally vilified by Scott Moxley in an article characterized by lies, innuendos, misinformation and vicious accusations (Moxley's "God Bless America! How a Newport Beach power couple used right-wing politics to build an empire worth absolutely nothing"). Since this is standard fare for the Weekly, I can only conclude that the serious personal anguish, embarrasment and pain this has caused is of no concern to the Weekly. In fact, I am quite sure they are rejoicing in their effort to malign yet another conservative Republican .
Unfortunately, neither truth nor accuracy are of concern to the Weekly. While it is true I did not respond to the e-mails sent to me by Mr. Moxley (since I was neither a party nor a witness in my husband's bankruptcy case), my husband and his attorney left several messages with both Mr. Moxley and Will Swaim, the Weekly's editor, indicating when he would be available to talk to the Weekly. Not surprisingly, the Weekly published its attack without speaking with Eddie.
I am not, and never have been, in any way involved in my husband's business, to which all of his employees will agree . During the early 1990's, for a variety of reasons, including fraud committed against Eddie by businesses in Hawaii, Eddie has had financial and business difficulties, including being unable to pay back some of the loans made to his business. Finally, several years ago, he and his business were forced into bankruptcy. Plaintiffs in the case alleged he lied to them about his background in the military and in business. Recently, a judge ruled in their favor. Eddie is appealing the judgment.
Although the judge stated in his decision that Eddie does not have the rank of colonel in the Air Force, both the United States Air Force and Marine Corps list Eddie as a full colonel and continue to issue military documents and my own spousal identification card every four years with that designation ! The judge would not admit into the record such documentation from official military sources. Moreover, the only military records in evidence in Eddie's court case were those obtained from normal retired military personnel records housed in St. Louis, Missouri. The judge did not permit Eddie to submit for the record notorized statements from the Air Force that a portion of Eddie's military and medical records are in Washington D.C., under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of government where classified records are held. This notorized document also indicates Eddie's rank as colonel.
During the trial, a CIA official testified that there had been no recent inquiries made regarding Eddie, as Eddie had testified, and that such inquiries would be known to him. When proof was submitted that a congressional inquiry had been made on Eddie's behalf, the CIA official was dumbfounded and could not explain why he did not know of the inquiries. In addition, the official testifies that the CIA had run searches regarding Eddie both in 1964, within one month of Eddie's mission in Southeast Asia, and again in 1967, after a second mission. The official could not explain why the searches had been conducted. There is much more to this complicated case, which is why it is on appeal.
However, the Weekly chose, deliberately and maliciously, to use my husband's business difficulties to smear me and further damage Eddie's reputation. The Weekly contends that "money moved between Jo Ellen's political organizations, Eddie's office staff and the couple's personal accounts," deliberating creating a completely false impression of impropriety and possibly illegal behaviour . The fact is, one room of the suite of offices in Eddie's company was donated to a non-profit organization which I headed. On occasion, when I used a conference room or another vacant office for special projects, the non-profit organization paid for the use of those rooms. The non-profit also occasionally paid for the use of the copier or copy paper. These payments were not only perfectly appropriate, but involved very small sums of money.
Eddie's company also made loans to my 1992 Assembly campaign. Those loans were legal, reported according to law, and substantially but not completely repaid. There is absolutely no impropriety whatsover.
The Weekly not only maligns me, but also falsely accuses reputable newspapers of not covering this "story" because, according to the Weekly, the Orange County Register's "editors and management often share the Allens' politics and circulate in the same social and political circles" and the Los Angeles Times'Jean Pasco is "a longtime friend of Jo Ellen's." The supposedly shared political views of The Registerand me certainly did not inhibit The Registerfrom fully covering the ugly 1992 Assembly campaign in which I was involved. Moreover, Jean Pasco and I are not, and have never been, friends and have no relationship whatsover.