“Stroud”ing The Issues

Glen Stroud, patriarch of Santa Ana’s angry couple, has sent a letter to Mayor Miguel Pulido and members of the Santa Ana City Council demanding my removal from the city’s Planning Commission. The centerpiece of Stroud’s demand is my January 16th post here on the Liberal OC in regards to the $1.5 million gentrification plan being put forth by French Park resident Debbie McEwen. McEwen’s plan calls for taxpayers to purchase the property at the corner of 10th and French in order to rid her neighborhood of “a property full of Mexicans who sit on the porch and drink beer”.

According to Stroud the post demonstrates a concerted effort by myself and Councilman Sal Tinajero to divide Santa Ana residents along racial lines. Nothing could be more absurd. Councilmember Tinajero and myself both want to see a Santa Ana where all residents are treated equally and have an equal say in what happens in our community. For far too long a small handful of residents have been ceded power in the city’s policy making decisions. Stroud and his wife were among those residents.

The fact that Stroud is behind an effort to have me removed from the Planning Commission should come as no surprise to anyone. He along with his wife Julie, Debbie McEwen, convicted felon Tim Rush and some of their friends lobbied hard to keep me from being appointed in the first place and have continued to lobby for my removal ever since. They are angry that someone who is willing to openly challenge “their vision” for “their community” is allowed to sit on a decision making body such as the Planning Commission.

Stroud did not bother letting facts get in his way while composing the letter. According to Stroud my January 16th post personally attacked not only McEwen, but he and his wife, former Councilwoman Patricia McGuigan, her son Steve McGuigan, Tish Leon, Oscar Garza and Thomas Gordon, just to name a few. As you can see in my post, other than McEwen, none of those folks were even mentioned.

I spoke to Ms. McGuigan yesterday and informed her of the allegations being put forth by Stroud. She was shocked that her name was being dragged into Stroud’s vengeful efforts and stated that she has never known me to attack her on this blog, the Orange Juice or in any other arena. Though I once ran against her for city council, she and I have always had a cordial relationship which also included her appointing me to the Santa Ana Parks and Recreation Commission. It is simply shameful for Stroud to try and use her name as part of his attack upon Councilman Tinajero and myself.

As I previously stated, Stroud claims that Tinajero and myself are attempting to divide this city among racial lines. He states my comments are “attacks” aimed at those who are simply trying to “improve the community”. Let me remind everyone that Stroud and his wife Julie were instrumental in keeping the Tiger Woods Learning Center out of Santa Ana because they did not like the type of children that it might attract to “their” neighborhood. I don’t know about you, but I think the Tiger Woods Learning Center would have helped improve our community.

However it doesn’t stop at the Tiger Woods Learning Center, they view improvement as the un-Constitutional closing of streets, ridding the city of vendor trucks and gentrification. I find these attempts at “improvement” to be apalling and divisive. Stroud calling Tinajero and myself devisive is a clear cut case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Stroud saying that I am the one using “race” to divide the community is equally as laughable. He must have forgotten Rush’s diatribes againt Latino’s, McEwen’s statements such the one she made at Lou Correa’s office in which she referred to a large segment of our community as “undesirables”, Thomas Gordon’s support of the Minuteman Project, or his wife Julie’s many comments, including posts on the Yahoo Santa Ana Citizens site in which she made anti-Vietnamese remarks.

The timing of this new attack is not a surprise either. The angry couple is now alligned with Councilwoman Michele Martinez and others in the “No on D” cabal who have routinely attacked Tinajero and myself. This could likely be just the latest salvo fired in retaliation to Tinajero’s removal of Gordon from E.P.I.C.

I will not allow these type of attacks to intimidate me. Stroud wants to turn back the clock here in Santa Ana and return it to the days where he and his friends were the shot callers in the community. They believe my removal will be the first example of their return to power. Don’t allow this to happen. Don’t allow the “old guard” to turn back the clock.

  29 comments for ““Stroud”ing The Issues

  1. Gustavo Arellano
    January 27, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    Stay strong.

  2. January 28, 2008 at 8:27 am


    I have never known Thomas to be a supporter of the Minuteman movement. He doesn’t have time for that as he is busy on local issues, such as helping me to defeat the loathsome Measure D.

    I also did not know that anyone was calling for your ouster from Planning. But I am not surprised by that. You cannot please everyone. However, isn’t your sponsor, Sal Tinajero, hooked up with Pulido and his cabal? Wouldn’t they support you? I would be shocked if they did not.

    I still maintain that tossing Thomas from EPIC was ill-advised and mean-spirited. His ouster DID divide our city along racial lines to a certain extent, however Thomas has friends all over the city, from all walks of life.

    I would not pay much heed to effforts to remove you. Just do your job and ignore them. You have the Minter deal coming up tonight and the Renaissance Plan coming up at some point. Folks will know where you stand when you vote on those important issues.

    One more thought. The people you ripped in this post are all allies of Pulido. Even though Sal is allied with him, could your words bring about your downfall, should Pulido turn on you? I know he can count on the Space Commander and Benapuppet. All Pulido would need is one more vote, no?

  3. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 8:55 am

    Sean, please clarify the following:

    1. Where did Debbie McEwen refer to the property in French Park as “a property full of Mexicans who sit on the porch and drink beer”? I did not see a reference to a documented instance where this comment was made.

    2. Where did the Strouds state that they did not want the Tiger Woods Learning Center in Santa Ana “because they did not like the type of children that it might attract to ”their” neighborhood”? I also did not see a reference to a documented instance where this comment was made.

    3. You, or any of the other Santa Ana Planning Commissioners, were not at the community meeting at Lou Correa’s office that you are referring to in which you believe McEwen “referred to a large segment of our community as “undesirables””. This would be a case of repeating something that you can not confirm.

    4. Other than a hint of paranoia regarding “the beginning of the Vietnamese influence on our local government”, Julie Stroud stated events that happened in her post at the Santa Ana Citizens Yahoo! Group.

    5. Where did Thomas Gordon state his support for the Minuteman Project? I have not seen Thomas Gordon claim his support for the Minuteman Project anywhere else.

    Unless you can site documented proof to your claims, you are guilty of libel, defamation by written or printed words.

  4. January 28, 2008 at 9:12 am


    1. She told this to Thomas Gordon, among others, who passed this along to me and others. (Gordon will most likely deny this now)

    2. The Stroud’s actively opposed this project and neighbors in their community shared this with me.

    3. Albert Castillo a member of the Santa Ana Human Relations Commission was there and he said that Ms. McEwen uttered this. I have no reason not to believe Mr. Castillo considering McEwen’s track record.

    4. The paranoia was not unlike that of the Nazi’s when referring to the Jewish “influence” over the government and society.

    5. Thomas Gordon has personally stated to me that he supports the efforts of Jim Gilchrist and the Minuteman Project.

    If any of these folks want to bring a libel case against me I welcome it. Deposing them under oath would be quite enjoyable.

  5. January 28, 2008 at 9:16 am


    Now you know that this simply is not true. On many occasions you have shared with me that you believe that the one thing that bonds Thomas Gordon to the “Usual Suspects” is their mutual disdain for the immigrant community.

    Don’t try and spin this now in an effort to distort the truth because he and those in the immigrant bashing crowd are now part of the No on D cabal.

    You stated, “The people you ripped in this post are all allies of Pulido.”  Who exactly did I “rip” in this post?  Or do you consider telling the truth ripping people?

    Your claim that I am “ripping” people sounds an awful lot like the mindset Stroud is using.  He claimed that I “attacked” people that I have never ever mentioned on any blog.  Are you now following suit?

  6. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 9:25 am

    Sean, are you saying that everybody who is working towards the defeat of Measure D are immigrant bashers?

  7. January 28, 2008 at 9:31 am


    You know very well that I am not saying that and yet you want to spin it as if I am. There are those amongst that group that make no secret of their disdain for the immigrant community. To claim otherwise would be quite disingenuous.

    But I have come to expect disingenuous claims from that crowd. Just look at Thomas Gordon’s post in which he insinuated that Sal Tinajero was at a dinner at Antonello’s on Friday night when it was clearly pointed out to him that Tinajero was at La Chiquita Restaurant with Sam Romero and others.

    Lies and twisting of the truth have become the trademark of these angry folks.

  8. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 9:37 am

    Many good people, who are not immigrant bashers, support the defeat of Measure D! It’s a shame that Sal Tinajero would support extending his own term limits before standing strong on imposing term limits on the Mayor.

  9. cook
    January 28, 2008 at 9:47 am

    Good reading with my morning coffee.

    A local power struggle. I find these a lot more interesting than who is running for president.

    A president hasn’t any say so over a slum lords decrepit property in French Park SA or how wealthy out of town land owners run junk yard business in the middle of housing tracks (Lacy and Logan SA).

    It good to know that the “7” of Santa Ana disagree and have heated discussions about projects and direction.

    And it is good to hear that the members of boards and commissions are not just mindless followers and also disagree openly.

  10. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 9:49 am

    Speaking of Sal being a hypocrite, Sal supports Measure D in which the argument in favor of Measure D states:

    Measure D is the most effective way to make sure that City government is
    more honest, effective and accountable to the voters.

    The Yes on Measure D campaign received $20,000 from developer Robert Bisno and Sal Tinajero received $249 from Mr. Bisno.

    Will Sal do the right thing and give back the $249 contribution to Mr. Bisno?

    The Yes on Measure D argument does make a point, DON’T BE FOOLED BY THE DEVELOPERS!

  11. January 28, 2008 at 9:50 am

    “Tinajero was at La Chiquita Restaurant with Sam Romero and others”

    Who might those others be???

  12. January 28, 2008 at 9:51 am


    Is it not true that both times the issue of mayoral term limits was raised Sal Tinajero voted in favor of the proposal?

    Michele Martinez opposed them after initially supporting them and David Benevides opposed them twice when the issue was raised.

    Both Sal and Claudia Alvarez supported mayoral term limits on every occasion that the issue was brought to a vote by the council.

    Again this is another attempt to spin and distort the facts.

    People are beginning to recognize this as the trademark of the angry folks.

  13. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 10:02 am

    Sal would look a lot less like a hypocrite if he returned the Bisno contribution.

  14. January 28, 2008 at 10:18 am



    The trademark continues!!!

  15. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 10:21 am

    It is very disappointing to see city council members like Tinajero and Alvarez rely on the support of the same people that they claim are dishonest.

    January 28, 2008 at 10:38 am

    who cares what this waste of skin has to say, most of it lies and outright slander.
    if I was one those he slandered, i would sue those who run this blog.
    and does this sean guy have a job, or does he sit at home blogging all day?
    I advise everyone to quit responding as this loser just likes the attention.

  17. January 28, 2008 at 10:49 am

    It is very disappointing to see people continue to repeat lies even though they know they are lies.

    For example:

    “Sal opposed term limits on the mayor”
    “Sal attended a dinner at Antonello’s on Friday wasting the taxpayers money.”


    The trademark of the angry people.

  18. January 28, 2008 at 10:59 am

    slan·der [ slándər ]

    noun (plural slan·ders)


    1. saying of something false and damaging: the act or offense of saying something false or malicious that damages somebody’s reputation

    2. false and damaging statement: a false and malicious statement that damages somebody’s reputation

    I doubt anything that I could say would damage any of these folks reputations. Most in the community are already quite aware of who these folks really and what they stand for.

    As I previously said, I welcome a lawsuit from any of these characters if they feel that they have a case. I would love to see them deposed under oath.

    When you lie under oath it is called perjury. When you lie on a blog it is called the “Orange Juice”.

  19. January 28, 2008 at 12:43 pm


    Ouch! Low blow. At any rate, I know Thomas has some concerns about immigration…but saying he is a Minuteman supporter is a bit of a stretch. I honestly have never heard him say that.

    If anyone is lying it is Sal, as a signer of the Yes on D argument. That argument says developers are the problem…but the major funder of the Yes on D campaign is in fact a developer. It is hard to believe that Sal and the other Council conspirators behind Measure D can be so disingenuous. Did they really think we would not look at the campaign finance reports? Unbelievable.

  20. January 28, 2008 at 12:53 pm


    How is Sal a liar?

    He has not been raising funds for the “yes” campaign. How can he be held responsible for who gives money?

    On the other hand, Thomas Gordon posted on your blog that Sal was at Antonello’s Friday night living it up on the taxpayers dime. He knows this not to be the case and yet he never corrects the post. Why is that?

    Phil Bacerra contacted Thomas on Friday night and told him that Sal was not at the Antonello’s function. Thomas can’t claim that he was unaware of this, unless he wants to call Phil a liar.

    Telling the truth doesn’t fit the “Sal bashing” agenda you guys have put forth.

    As I have said spin….lies….distortions

    Trademarks of the angry people.

  21. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    Sean, the post that you are referring to was up on Orange Juice during the day on Friday. The first comment was posted at 1:07 PM by Orange City Councilman Jon Dimitru where he stated that he had no interest in attending the dinner and did not want to have to abstain from votes due to a dinner.

    The post also says, “What do Kathryn L. Barr, Denis Bilodeau, Roger Yoh, Philip L. Anthony, Stephen R. Sheldon, Wes Bannister, Jan Debay, Claudia Alvarez, Irv Pickler, Shawn Nelson, Harry Sidhu, Roy Moore, Patsy Marshall, Phil Luebben, Larry Crandall, Don Bankhead, Bill Dalton, Don Hansen, Christina Shea, Rose Espinoza, Mark Waldman, Ken Parker, Don Webb, Jon Dumitru, Constance Underhill, Sal Tinajero, Charles Antos, David Shawver, Doug Davert, Rich Freschi, Jim Winder, James M. Ferryman, Joy L. Neugebauer, Darryl Miller and Chris Norby have in common?

    They could all be part of a giant waste of your tax dollars, $ 8000 to be exact, while partying tonight at Antonello Ristorante down at 3800 South Plaza Drive Santa Ana, Ca 92704 tonight from 5:00 to 7:00 PM”

    “Could all be part of” does not mean that Thomas Gordon claimed that Sal Tinajero was actually at the dinner.

  22. January 28, 2008 at 3:17 pm


    Thomas Gordon now knows good and well that Sal Tinajero was not at that dinner and yet he still feels it necessary to insinuate that he was. There were comments made on the post that insinuated that Tinajero was there and wasting taxpayers money. Gordon could have responded to those comments clarifying the fact that Tinajero was not in attendance. He did not.

    It is abundantly clear that Gordon wants people to believe that Tinajero was there partying on the taxpayers dime. It comes as no surprise that this is the route taken because distortions and innuendos are the norm for those folks.

    I guess their anger distorts their vision to see the truth.

  23. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Jon Dimitru was a part of that list and he went on to Orange Juice and clarified that he was not going to go to the dinner.

    Next excuse please…

  24. January 28, 2008 at 3:27 pm


    Are you implying that it is Sal’s responsibility to say that he was not at the Antonello’s?

    Are you now implying that everytime a lie is told on the Orange Juice the victim of the lie has to clear their own name?

    That is ridiculous. Speaking of excuses, stop making excuses for Thomas Gordon and his baseless claims.

    Sal does not even read the garbage on the OJ. He is always surprised by the wild accusations made by the alleged “writers” on that site.

  25. Anonymous
    January 28, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    Who is making excuses for Thomas Gordon? It sounds like people are just reading the post clearly.

    Speaking of excuses, your posts were more interesting when you were not making excuses for Sal and anybody that Sal supports and the attacks you make on those who disagree with Sal and his supporters.

    The kind of attacks that you are dishing out here on the Liberal OC make you no better than those you are attacking from the Orange Juice.

  26. January 28, 2008 at 3:59 pm


    Exactly who am I attacking?

    I was merely responding to an attack from the patriarch of Santa Ana’s angry couple.

    The fact that you refuse to admit Gordon should clarify his post in regards to Tinajero not being at Antonello’s shows that you are driven by an agenda that wants to continue the attacks on Tinajero.

    The fact that you don’t put your name behind your words tells us all we need to know. You like your angry friends at the Juice like to snipe from the bushes rather than being out in the open.

  27. January 29, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    Judy Ware has ponied up $ 10,000 to the Yes on Measure D campaign led by Mayor Miguel Pulido and Sal Tinajero.

    Madison Material, also owned by Judy Ware, has ponied up 10K more.

    If it was not clear before, it is now.


  28. Dizzy from Sean's Spin
    January 29, 2008 at 10:17 pm

    I’m sure that Sean will say that Sal did not ask for any assistance from these questionable characters in supporting Measure D.

  29. January 30, 2008 at 10:30 am

    I wonder why Sean has not condemned the LARGE cash donations from Ware and Mike Harrah yet?

Comments are closed.