Denis Bilodeau’s trial starts tomorrow

chargesstickie.gifThe picture here is a stickie note that’s been on my computer since last December. I wanted to remind myself to keep track of what was happening with Orange Councilman Denis Bilodeau and the charges of him removing a political campaign sign of his opponent in 2006.

There is something that irks me about elected officials knowingly breaking the law.

His trial, which was delayed, will begin tomorrow June 12th in Santa Ana at 8:30 a.m.

I’m kind of curious if the story will receive any ink from the Orange County Register or the Republican run OC Blog. Bilodeau is a Republican. Art Pedroza at the Orange Juice blog says that he’s disappointed by how much attention Janet Nguyen’s late filing got and how little the Bilodeau story has received:

[Janet] Nguyen faces perhaps a fine for her late report. Bilodeau is looking at six months in jail. Why isn’t Red County/OC Blog reporting on his trial? Why did they make such a big deal about Nguyen, comparatively speaking?

It has been 215 days since Rackauckas first put out a press release about the charges against Bilodeau. And we are still waiting for Cunningham to mention this case on his blog.

To get more of the story, go to:

  21 comments for “Denis Bilodeau’s trial starts tomorrow

  1. Pedrozabot
    June 11, 2007 at 8:41 am

    Hey, Mike — maybe you didn’t see how your buddy Pedroza slapped you down as a cynical partisan hack for asking Janet Nguyen to disclose her donors:

    “Funny how Wisckol never stops to contemplate why Liberal OC and Calitics would jump on Wisckol’s bandwagon – oh, that’s right they are Democrats. Of course they were more than happy to heap scorn on Nguyen, who is a Republican.


  2. Pedrozabot
    June 11, 2007 at 8:43 am

    isn’t it nice to know Art thinks you don’t care about open government and disclosure? That’s your pal Art, for you.

  3. Pedrozabot
    June 11, 2007 at 9:28 am

    What? No response?

  4. June 11, 2007 at 9:38 am

    or the Republican run OC Blog.

    Senor Lawson, is “the Democrat run blog”?

  5. June 11, 2007 at 10:07 am


    LiberalOC is what you might call Center-Left, and I would say that OCBlog is Center-right. While niether blog is Republican or Democratic party run, I think we each lean in those opposite directions.

    While I cannot speak for Mike, I think he would have been more accurate if he said Republican leaning blog.

    But the question still is the same Matt; do you intend to cover this story?

  6. June 11, 2007 at 11:21 am


    I don’t think Matt will cover the Bilodeau story. But who knows, perhaps we will shame him into it.

    As for whether or not Red County is a GOP blog or simply GOP-leaning, just look at its name, “Red County.” I think that speaks for itself. I could buy that they merely leaned that way when they were called “OC Blog.” Those days are long gone.

    I thank you and Mike for your coverage of the Bilodeau case.

  7. June 11, 2007 at 11:47 am

    Matt Cunningham (Jubal),

    What I meant to say was that your blog is run by Republicans…not the Republican party. I could have chosen my words more carefully.


    You are right, Art and Matt are both being selective about which Republican lawbreaker they are choosing to call out. Thats on them.

  8. Northcountystorm
    June 11, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    As to Denis—–I can’t believe he is taking this to trial other then to get off on a technicality or if for some unknown reason the D.A.’s office was being hard assed. This was a stupid stunt but one that should have gotten him a fine and a mea culpa. Maybe being put in the stocks in the Circle with a sign saying ” Stupid.” It certainly doesn’t warrant jail time. Former Democratic Supervisor Bob Battin tore down signs and got hit with a citizens arrest. Historically, overeager Republican and Democratic activists would tear down opponents signs—with more fervor it seems during primaries. That doesn’t justify what Denis did at all but this is not a capital crime and there is a certain element of “gotcha” going here(and yes, returning gotcha fire is sometimes necessary and always satisfying)..

    As for Jubal–I believe he admitted that he didn’t cover the situation during the last week of the Bilodeau campaign as it would have benefited opponent Carol “Carpetbagger” Rudat. I also believe he may have said something to the effect that this was a stupid act by Denis. Anyway, It’s his site and he’s entitled to post what he wants but unless he posts about this trial it will get thrown in his face when he sends out his “gotcha bombs” at the Democrats.

  9. Dan Chmielewski
    June 11, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    so sensitive about labels. Yes, this is a Democratic, Liberal and Progressive and Left Leaning. Not an official Democratic Party device though. Red County is “Center right” conservative and Republican. You have described yourself as a partisan Republican.

    We all have politicans we favor. I do. I know you do. So what?

  10. interested party
    June 11, 2007 at 2:11 pm
  11. just.asking
    June 11, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    What happened to Lance McClean in Mission Viejo? He was pictured in the Register waiting for police after being caught removing opponents signs.

  12. June 12, 2007 at 12:35 pm


    Actually, the matter of Janet’s filing was debated quite heavily on my site. While I chose not to join in on Wisckol’s blog lynching, I did debate my readers about the issue quite a bit on several posts.

    I have stated this before and it bears repeating – I did not think that the late filing story was worth bothering with. I think I have been proven right.

    As for the Bilodeau matter, Jubal is reporting today that he got off the hook. Is anyone surprised by that? The GOP machine looks out for its card-carrying members. I should have know better than to think that T-Rack would actually send Bilodeau to jail.

  13. Kathy Allen
    June 13, 2007 at 11:01 am

    Today’s edition of the Register with Frank Mickadeit comments,
    why does Frank keep his faith in Bilodeau as if he were some kind of saint? 1. Remember Bildoeau did go out in the wee hours of the morning after drinking in a Orange downtown pub and look for a sign or signs to remove that offended him. If there wasn’t any truth in the site why even make the effort to take signs down.
    And of course this needed to be done when everyone else was sleeping.
    Creepy if you ask me. 2. To address Franks bit that voters weren’t swayed by the charges in the voting process. Well, how could they have been wlhen the charges were not publized until election night, once most voters had already been to the polls.
    3. I might point out Bilodeau not getting any sleep since this happen, maybe he ought to speak out finally in his own behalf and at least apologize to the citizens of Orange that he made a stupid mistake.
    My last comment, Bildoeau marches around town talking of his good friend Steve Ambriz and his unfortunate demise by an under the influence driver, but yet Bilodeau drives home from the down town pubs after spending evenings drinking himself. Would you not of thought by Steve’s death maybe Bilodeau would think twice about drnking and drivng? I think Biodeau’s true character showed the night he was out taking down political signs that he didn’t like.

  14. June 13, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    Ms. Allen:

    Your comments about Denis are slanderous. They are patently untrue, and they sound like the lies Carol Rudat was trying to spread last year — and it’s shouldn’t surprise me that your regurgitating them given your close association with Carol Rudat. Sinking to her level is a poor reflection on your character.

    Mike, this is your blog, but Kathy Allen’s allegations about Denis and drinking are malicious fabrications. Free speech is one thing, but Ms. Allen’s remarks are beyond the pale and don’t deserve a place on any responsible blog.

  15. One Who Knows
    June 13, 2007 at 8:05 pm

    Jubal, Ms. Kathy Allen is actually Kay Allen Hillhorn. She spreads these lies from her home at 1247 E. St. James in Orange. Enough is enough Kay, leave Bilodeau and his family alone.

  16. Flowerszzz
    June 13, 2007 at 9:13 pm

    LOL OWK!! We should picket her house! BEtter yet – take all the political signs and put em up in her yard int he wee hours of the morning!

  17. One Who Knows
    June 13, 2007 at 9:17 pm

    My bad, it’s Kay Allen Millorn

  18. One Who Knows
    June 13, 2007 at 9:18 pm

    OMG, it’s MILLHORN, Kay Allen Millhorn

  19. June 13, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    Matt, neither you, Mike or myself, know for certain if the statements made by Kathy Allen are true of false.

    American Heritage defines slanderous as:
    1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person’s reputation.
    2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

    As the comments of Ms. Allen are written, they do not meet the legal definition of slander. I think the word you’re looking for is libel, or libelous. As defined by American Heritage, libel is:
    1.a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person’s reputation.
    1.b. The act of presenting such material to the public.

    Mr. Bilodeau is free to accuse Ms. Allen of libel if he can prove that she has made her statements knowing them to be false and therefore presented maliciously.

    Blogs act as community forums for dialogue. We at the Liberal OC do not generally engage in making such determinations by deleting posts. We prefer to allow the free opportunity for other commenters, like yourself, to rebut any claims they believe to be false.

  20. June 14, 2007 at 5:49 am


    I do know they are false. And maybe Ms. Millhorn’s comment does not meet the legal definition of libel.

    But that is a weak defense of them. You want Denis to prove he wasn’t drunk?

    It’s not my blog, so you guys can let the comment remain up. But try putting yourself in Denis’ shoes — or anyone else being so maligned — and think how you would like it if someone posted comments making salacious accusations about you or Mike.

    If someone commented on my blog, “Chris Prevatt is addicted to prescription painkillers and it badly affects his behavior,” it wouldn’t remain on the blog — even though I don’t know for certain if that is true or false. Dialogue ought to be civil, and ensuring civility isn’t censorship.

  21. June 14, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    I do understand your perspective Matt. However, individuals who are public figures (elected and appointed to represent the people) as well as people who comment in political settings like you and I, are fair game for baseless allegations. Quite simply it comes with the territory. The beauty of the forum of a blog is that there are a limited number of people who see accusations made on our pages and those who feel harmed are usually afforded the same opportunity to dispute the credibility of statements made against them.

    Matt, a while back I stated my belief on your blog that Chuck DeVore was a racist. rather than challenge my opinion, you simply deleted my post. I more recently stated on your blog in response to a religiously and racially biased post about the UCI Muslim Student Union. To paraphrase my remarks I said that if the Christian zealots at UCI were to achieve their goal of terminating the Islamic faith from this world, they would turn on the Jews they are using for cover now. Again, you deleted the post from your site, but used it to attack my positions on this blog.

    Matt, it seems to me that you are very quick to remove liberal posts, but not so quick to remove conservative posts meeting the same standard. I know that your blog has permitted posts calling me a racist to remain.

    Matt, a double standard is simply no standard at all. Rather it is used as a means to provide a “reason” to delete a post you disagree with.

    Given your application of a “standard,” I find allowing posts to remain, and challenging them when I find them offensive, to be a better policy.

    The only time I choose to delete a post is when it is so unrelated to the conversation thread that it bcomes spam.

Comments are closed.