Skip to comments.GunGrabbing Orange County sheriff, Sandra Hutchens' long history of financial irresponsibility.
Posted on 04/02/2010 8:37:54 PM PDT by The Hollywood Conservative
OCCCWS has learned that Sandra Hutchens and her former husband were sued for more than $800,000 after defaulting on a rental property in 1992. The complaint obtained by OCCCWS (see below for attached documents) alleges that Sandra Anderson, as she was then known, and her then husband continued to collect rents from the sixteen unit apartment complex even after they stopped making required mortgage payments, leading Fidelity Federal Bank to seek the appointment of a receiver by the court to manage the property until it could be sold at foreclosure.
To quote documents filed by the plaintiff: The defendants have apparently diverted and kept for their own personal use the Banks collateral (rental income) for the last two months totaling approximately $13,696.34 in the aggregate. The court subsequently appointed a receiver to take over the property. A year after filing suit, the Bank requested the action be dismissed without prejudice since it had foreclosed on the property and taken possession itself.
This property is the same one on which more than $36,000 in tax liens were filed against Sandra Hutchens and her former husband, a story that OCCCWS recently reported, making it the property that Sheriff Hutchens campaign consultant, Dave Gilliard, said had been disposed of. Apparently failing to make required payments and having your property taken by foreclosure counts as disposed of in Sandra Hutchens world. Interestingly, Sandra Hutchens claimed she had no knowledge of the liens, but was a named party in the lawsuit. Documents also show that, despite repeated attempts to be served a summons, she did not appear in court to respond to the complaint.
This new information only adds to the already troubling questions regarding Sandra Hutchens fitness to lead the Orange County Sheriffs Department and her ability to manage an $800 million budget. That she walked away from financial obligations which she willingly accepted, and has not informed the voters she asks to elect her of the same, raises legitimate questions about her integrity, as well as the process used by the Board of Supervisors to select her.
Is she running? Who is running against her?
Bill Hunt. See his website: www.billhuntforsherrif2010.com
I went to a gun show at the Orange Couty Fair Grounds at
Costa Mesa, CA last weekend. I saw alot of T-Shirts stating
“Bill Hunt for Sherrif”.
She is running against 2 PRO 2nd amendment, PRO CCW candidates, Anaheim Deputy Chief Craig Hunter and former Orange County Sheriff Lt. Bill Hunt.
It is a non-partison runoff election. If NONE of them get 50%+1 of the vote on June 8, the top two vote getters will face each other in November.
Too bad the lender didn’t sue her and her spouse for the rents, to which the lender was entitled, under the terms of the mortgage.
They would have won easily, and then could enter a judgement against her. She pays up, or they attach her assets.
Obviously to me, she is lacking the moral character for the job, and should be voted OUT.
She is a white collar criminal. Civil crime, but crime nonetheless.
So says this OC real estate broker, for over 20 years.
Ok That name is easy to remember.
Bill Hunt’s Remarkable Rise]
Why is the local press giving her a pass on this? Any other elected official who hid this sort of thing, much less a cop who’s supposed to disclose everything, would be getting hammered by the press. Her status as a Demo-Rino clearly is a benefit here. Reporters are just looking the other way.
She is also a deisel dyke lesbian who has no use for males, family, or anything conservative. She uses her office to bully others. In my mind she belongs in prison.
Well, I still stand by my "deisel dyke lesbian" comment based on her photo alone!
Its a fairly well known secret that shortly after taking office, Hutchens went to the Orange County Register and asked them to stop covering her in a negative light....And they acquiesced.
“He did have a hot story he was following: That of newly appointed Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens stand-off with the Board of Supervisors. Santanas stories about Hutchens aired the concerns of gun owners who had had their concealed-weapons permits taken away and pointed out instances in which Hutchens misspoke during hearings before the board.
Earlier this year, he heard that Hutchens and Orange County Sheriffs Department spokesman John McDonald were going to sit down with Register staffers. They were unhappy with the way they were being covered.
Stay calm, Santana recalls one editor telling him.
He knew something similar had happened a few years earlier with Mike Carona, the disgraced ex-sheriff. Reporter Aldrin Brown had shed light on the sheriffs departments prisoner abuse, excessive use of helicopters for personal business and misplaced crime reports. Carona complained in 2004 and was granted a meeting with the papers editorsBrown wasnt invitedand, Brown says, the Register ended up running a clarification of one of his articles. Brown, now at the San Bernardino County Sun, told the Weekly he thinks the paper treated Carona, who faced federal corruption charges and was convicted of felony witness tampering earlier this year, with kid gloves.
Santana says he was happy to meet with Hutchens about his articles. But the sit-down was scheduled for the same week Santana was set to go on furlough (mandatory, unpaid vacation). While on furlough, Register staffers were told they werent allowed to check e-mails, listen to voice mail, or do anything work-related from home. They were, for that week, not staffers.
Santana asked if they could please move the meeting with the sheriff. He says his request went unanswered. When his furlough week came, he went Jeep-riding with his wife and son in the high desert. But Santana says that while he was away, Hutchens and McDonald had lunch with Register editor Ken Brusic, Knap and at least one other reporter. Neither McDonald nor Knap would discuss that meeting. But, Knap says, public figures regularly complain about coverage. I always defend the reporter, Knap says. I always tell the public figure that if they want better PR, they need to return the reporters phone calls.
In an e-mail to the Weekly, Brusic says that the idea for a sit-down came up while he was having coffee with the sheriff. He asked if she thought the paper had been fair; she said that some of her staffers had concerns. The meeting was a general clearing of the airan attempt to keep communication open, he wrote. They had some concerns; so did we.
According to Brusic, Santanas reporting was not the focus of the wide-ranging discussion, though coverage of the concealed-weapons issue did come up. Santana says he was told that former Register reporter McDonald had called his articles too aggressive and unfair without offering any concrete examples. When he returned from furlough, Santana says, he was told to be fair when covering the sheriff.
Im not sure what Chris Knap told Norberto after the meeting, but an editor reminding a reporter to make sure all sides get fair treatment in our stories is pretty common advice around here, Brusic says.
But Santana bristled. To him, be fair was code for back off.
Im sitting there, looking at an editor, going, Have we ever not been fair? Santana recalls. That, to me, was a death knell to my time at the Register. They have every right to run that paper however they see fit. But then I have to decide whether I want to work there.”
So she is dictating what is reported about her? Nice. How very Chavez of her.