Cecilia Iglesias Handicapping Her Campaign?

Most of us know that parking in a spot designated for handicapped individuals when you are not handicapped is against the law. It is against the law, even if you have a valid parking placard. If you are not disabled, you are not authorized to use the placard even if you have one.

Cecilia Iglesias parked in handicapped space on Friday, September 10, 2010

Cecilia Iglesias seems to not really care about such things. The benefit of parking her SUV with her campaign sign in the truck bed in front of the Walmart store in Santa Ana, far outweighs the need for a person with an actual disability to have a place to park. This photo was taken on Friday evening outside the Walmart on Harbor Blvd. in Santa Ana.

Cecilia Iglesias

This of course is not the first example of Iglesias flaunting the law in her bid for Congress. I reported back in July about how Iglesias violated the HATCH Act (federal law) for more than 8 months by working in a federally funded position as a contracts manager at the Social Services Agency before she was forced to resign. While she was campaigning to gather signatures, she sent Facebook friend requests to employees supervised by her sister who is also a Social Services Agency manager. Her sister also kept campaign materials in her office in full view of her subordinates. These were not only violations of federal law, but violations of county policy as well.

Social Services Agency managers were fully aware of the Congressional campaign of Ms. Iglesias and that federal law was being violated. They simply ignored that fact as long as they could. The Social Services Agency has refused to disclose when they knew of the Hatch Act violation, why it took so long to be corrected, or if Ms. Iglesias was forced to resign as required by the Hatch Act. They cite the confidentiality of personnel records and privileged documentation.

Cecilia Iglesias with Ed Royce

We have reported that given the close association that Ms. Iglesias has had with Republican elected officials including Congressman Ed Royce (the picture with Royce has since been scrubbed from her website), that her campaign is nothing more than an effort to dilute support for Congresswoman Sanchez by placing a Latina on the ballot. Ms. Iglesias spent approximately $30,000 on fundraising events for her campaign in 2010. Her total contributions received for the effort were $18,580. Not really any evidence here of a real fundraising base of support for her campaign.

While I know that administrative managers make a decent living, her ability to loan her campaign more than $30,000 and also give up her job to run for Congress causes me to suspect that there is a hidden source of funding for her campaign. Her finance reports show no indication of any funding for signature gathering other than expenses for administrative support paid to several individuals. Given that Ms. Iglesias also has no current visible means of personal financial support, I have to wonder who is paying her bills.

I have learned that as Van Tran’s campaign identifies voters that will not support him, mysteriously, those voters are targeted for canvassing by Iglesias within a couple days.

At any rate, it is clear that Cecilia Iglesias and her campaign are handicapped by a clear lack of visible support from direct campaign contributions, and has mysterious and hidden resources funding her campaign effort and personal financial needs. Unfortunately, that is not a handicap that permits her to park her SUV equipped with a campaign sign, in handicapped parking.

  49 comments for “Cecilia Iglesias Handicapping Her Campaign?

  1. Naomi
    September 11, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    Before publishing this post, did it ever occur to you that Cecilia has handicap family and friends and that they very well could have been the ones that were inside the Walmart shopping center. To hold a handicap sticker, a person does not need to be the driver of the car; that individual could be the passenger and Cecilia could have been simply waiting for them as a good citizen. I suggest for you to do your research in the future.

    Cecilia, you have my vote and you have done nothing wrong, but to be a good samaritan!

    • September 11, 2010 at 7:10 pm

      Sorry Naomi,

      If that were the case, Ceci could have dropped off the passenger and drove around until her “friend” was ready rather than taking a parking spot away from a legitimatly disabled individual.

    • September 11, 2010 at 7:15 pm

      From the DMV website:

      Parking placard abuse

      People who are not entitled to the privileges often abuse disabled person parking spaces. Local law enforcement has the primary authority to enforce parking placard or disabled person license plate misuse.

      Placard abuse can result in the cancellation and revocation of the placard and loss of the privileges it provides, and is punishable by a minimum fine of $250 up to $3,500 or imprisonment up to six months or both.


      You are the only person who can use the parking placard for parking or service station privileges. It is illegal to:

      •Lend your placard to another.
      •Forge a licensed medical professional’s signature.
      •Use someone else’s placard.
      •Possess or display a counterfeit placard.
      •Provide false information to obtain a placard.
      •Alter a placard or placard identification card.

      California Vehicle Code (CVC) §§1825, 4461, 4463, 21458, 22511.5, 22511.6, 22511.7, 22511.55, and 22511.59. Business and Professions Code §13660.

    • Elizabeth Rivas
      September 18, 2010 at 4:32 pm

      TheliberalOC is receiving money to run ads for Loretta on this site and they are obviously biased.

      Almost all cameras these days have a movie feature to shoot video. Why didn’t whoever took the picture, videotape her pulling in and using the handicapped space in an illegal manner? That would have been way better. I think they did video it but don’t want to show the video, because that would go against their propaganda, and show legitimate use.

      • September 18, 2010 at 7:59 pm


        Yes, TheLiberalOC does have an advertisement placed by Loretta Sanchez, and several other candidates. Advertising however does not bias what we write. We also exclusively support Democrats in partisan elections. That is our bias.

        This picture, as the picture taken of Cecilia Iglesias with Meg Whitman on Thursday paints a picture of Ceci that she doesn’t want people to know. Sorry about that. The truth hurts sometimes.

        • Elizabeth Rivas
          September 19, 2010 at 12:46 am

          You mean the “truth” about not following through on a story so you can report what you want? You mean the “truth” about TheliberalOC writing that Ronald Reagan said,”Facts are ‘stupid’ things” instead of “Facts are stubborn things” like he really said? You are right Chris…Your “truth” hurts sometimes.

          • Elizabeth Rivas
            September 19, 2010 at 1:14 am

            Actually, after reading this story and the comments provided by TheliberalOC, “Facts are stupid things” sounds like the perfect slogan for this website. They don’t want to call Ceci Iglesias to get her side of the story because”Facts are stupid things.” They don’t want to answer about Loretta Sanchez lying on video about getting a pay raise in 2009 because,”Facts are stupid things.” Watch this video:

          • September 19, 2010 at 2:00 am


            Feel free to visit Republican sites if you like. I’m sure they are more in line with your thinking, as well as Ceci’s. Dan may have misquoted Reagan. He must of been thinking about former President George W. Bush, he’s the one who thought facts were stupid things.

  2. Naomi
    September 11, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    What are you talking about? You make no sence……..

    I guess you are interpretting the regulations to your own convenience….

    It is perfectly okay for the “person” holding the handicap plate to get a ride and be the passenger…and “yes”, it is perfectly legal for the driver of that handicap person to park in a handicap parking space…

    I personally checked with a police officer and I was told that as long as the individual holding the parking plate is in the car, is a passenger…the handicap parking plate can be utilized.

    I once held a temporary parking plate and my friends and family would drive me around! It was convenient for me not to be searching all over the parking lot when I returned; therefore, they would wait and park the car in a handicap space. This is why the law requires handicap parking spaces..to make it convenient for the person who is handicap!

    Cecilia could have simply made it convenient for her friend/family member to go to the handicap parking space and not to be looking all over the place!!!

    Get your facts correct!!!!

  3. friend of the blog
    September 11, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    Naomi, you are partly correct. Let’s say I am handicapped and my brother is driving me. We can go somewhere together and park in a handicapped spot. However, if he drops me off he cannot legally go park in a handicapped spot.

    In the photo above it appears (I might be wrong) that Ceci is alone in the car. If that’s the case and if she’s parked in a handicapped space, she’s breaking the law. The fact that she might have had a handicapped person in her car earlier is not relevant.

    As you said, “I was told that as long as the individual holding the parking plate is in the car, is a passenger…the handicap parking plate can be utilized.” But once that person is out of the car, the driver can no longer take advantage of the handicapped parking permit.

    • Naomi
      September 11, 2010 at 9:35 pm

      So you mean to tell me, that the driver should park in the handicap parking space while they assist the person who is handicap, move the car to a regular parking lot space…wait for the person who is handicap in a far away spot……..then when the person who is handicap comes out, park the car again in a handicap parking spot? It makes no sence…..

      Plus, this tactict would have been best for Cecilia to move around for people to see her “Campaign add” don’t you think? Further, this picture could have been taken seconds after the passenger getting out…or the handicap person could be close into coming inside the car…..

      I know for a fact that it was more convenient for me when I held a temporary parking plate for the driver to wait for me in a handicap parking space, than for me to be waiting and searching all over the place.

      I don’t see Cecilia breaking the law…she simply was being a good citizen and a good samaritan!

      • September 12, 2010 at 12:37 am

        Naomi, how is this being a good citizen or samaritan? A good citizen would have dropped their friend off and left the space for a handicapped person to park in. It doesn’t get more simple than that.

      • friend of the blog
        September 13, 2010 at 5:17 pm

        “So you mean to tell me, that the driver should park in the handicap parking space while they assist the person who is handicap, move the car to a regular parking lot space…wait for the person who is handicap in a far away spot……..then when the person who is handicap comes out, park the car again in a handicap parking spot? It makes no sence….”

        It may make no sense, but I’m afraid that’s the law.

        (Yes, I have a handicapped placard and am very familiar with the law.)

  4. Ana
    September 12, 2010 at 2:00 am

    In this photo, I do see a Disabled Person’s placard hanging from her rear view mirror. So do we know if she was transporting a disabled family member or friend? If not, we shouldn’t be too judgmental, now should we. It is obvious this article / blog is one sided and we shouldn’t rush to conclusions without ALL the facts. CECILIA IGLESIAS obviously is doing something right though, like the saying goes….ANY PRESS IS GOOD PRESS. So keep up the Great Work because as of today, I was unaware that District 47 had ANOTHER CANDIDATE (Cecilia Iglesias)running for Congress. It’s nice to know, D47 Voters have an option instead of the two old career politicians that have nothing to show for while they have been in office.I checked her website (www.ceciforcongress2010.com) and last month Cecilia Iglesias made HISTORY by becoming AN OFFICIAL CANDIDATE and will be on the ballot this November 2. Cecilia Iglesias, YOU MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT!!! My family and I will vote for you. I like your banner and will spread the GOOD NEWS! Thanks again, Chris!

  5. Ltpar
    September 12, 2010 at 4:23 am

    There is a lot of supposition in the comments without facts to back them up. We can see is that Ms. Iglesias appears to be alone in the vehicle, we know she is not handicapped and that tells us something. However, if she drove a handicapped person to the store and is waiting for them, then it is a legitimate use of the space. I find it curious that whoever took the photo did not go over and simply ask her, “Why are you parked in a handicapped parking space?” Perhaps, the reason might be the photograph taker was a Democrat, more interested in casting dispersions by just telling half the story? What about the author of the article. Did he bother to contact the Ms. Iglesias to check the facts and get her side of the story? If not, it seems that the article is the only thing handicapped here?

    • September 12, 2010 at 8:25 am

      The picture speaks for itself. Cecilia Iglesias’ record of skirting the law for her campaign is well documented. Ms. Iglesias has refused previous attempts to question her by this publication, therefore we did not attempt to contact her regarding this image.

      And yes, this is a political blog. Pointing out the obvious about Cecilia Iglesias’ campaign for congress as a plant to help Van Tran is part of what we do.

      • Orlando
        September 12, 2010 at 10:57 am


        When did you attempt to contact her? Was it to bring negative publicity or is it to gather and hold a debate amongst the “Three Candidates”

        As a voter in District 47 I would like to see a debate amognst the “Three Candidates” District 47 needs a debate; this way voters will really see who in fact is transparent and will do something for our district. I don’t want to vote for a person who is taking advantage of the Spanish last name and not doing anything for our district or for someone who is a career politician.

        I want to decide for me and would hope that your attempt would be for a benefit not to place negative publicity like you tried for Cecilia.

        Cecilia, I may vote for you, I will follow your post. I did not know you were out there, but, now I will spread the word to my friends and family.

        • Ltpar
          September 12, 2010 at 12:47 pm

          Orlando, this is called the OC Liberal Blog for a reason. They write their own brand of “truth” and facts don’t get in the way. Bloggers are not bound by ethical standards as are journalists and are free to write what they want. To be fair, the conservative blogs do the same thing in reverse. So where does one go to get the objective view on a topic? Your guess is as good as mine.

          • September 12, 2010 at 1:10 pm

            Pat — we were awarded “Best Political Blog” by the OC Press Club, I’d like to think for our high standards. Truth and facts were certainly the foundation of the Steven Choi carpetbagging story, were they not? So we photos of Choi with Pelosi as Stalin on his back at the Truman dinner. Reagan said “facts are stupid things,” and for major Republicans, they certainly are

            • Ltpar
              September 13, 2010 at 2:59 pm

              Dan, recalling, perhaps incorrectly, I believe you asked Steven Choi about his position on both of the issues and included that with your opinion. Whether or not I agree with the opinion, it demonstrates integrity.

              The excuse, well we tried to talk to her in the past and she refused smacks of lazy journalism and doesn’t wash me. Had the author said, “We tried to contact Candidate Inglesias and got no response,” due dilligence would have been done and the chips could fall where they may. Frankly, I would like to hear her side of the story, because I detest people who illegally park in handicapped spaces.

            • September 13, 2010 at 3:57 pm

              Pat –the person who took the picture asked her and she said she was waiting for someone in the store. The response from her supporters backs that up, but from our perspective, she had no business, whatever the reason, to park her campaign vehicle in the spot.

            • Kevin
              September 13, 2010 at 4:59 pm

              she had no business, whatever the reason, to park her campaign vehicle in the spot

              Other than, y’know, possibly parking there completely legally while the holder of the placard was shopping in the store. It’s too bad your photographer didn’t hang around a while in an effort to ascertain whether Iglesias was telling the truth.

              Look, I’m for Sanchez all the way, and if you’ve got real proof that Iglesias was using the permit improperly, then nail her to the wall. But Chris clearly doesn’t understand the legally permitted uses of a disabled placard, and his ideas about what a “good citizen” or a “good Samaritan” should do show that he’s never lived with someone who has limited stamina or is mobility-impaired.

              I’m sure that there are all kinds of other fertile avenues of attack for you to go after Iglesias; stick to those instead of spewing misinformation about disabled rights.

            • Elizabeth Rivas
              September 18, 2010 at 4:18 pm

              Reagan didn’t say “Facts are stupid things”, he said, “Facts are stubborn things.” Please get your facts straight, and state that you made a mistake.

              If someone is with a disabled person, it’s perfectly fine to be there. End of story. We with disabled relatives know the truth.

            • September 18, 2010 at 8:01 pm


              Speaking of “relatives,” maybe Ceci was using her sister’s handicapped placard. Since her ankle is all better, she doesn’t need it any more.

          • Ltpar
            September 14, 2010 at 12:56 am

            Dan, if the person in the store was in fact handicapped and the owner of the permit displayed, then the vehicle was legally parked in that spot. I hate to tell you, but Prevatt’s interpretaton of the California Vehicle Code is flat wrong. If the person in the store was not handicapped, then Inglesias was wrong. You guys are using the rationale that the end justifies the means and any way you slice it that is not fair and balanced reporting.

  6. Elizabeth Rivas
    September 12, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Why didn’t the author contact her for her side of the story?

    This site just wants to attack who they want. It’s not a fair site. Why don’t you do a story on Loretta Sanchez and her use of a Prayer Vigil as a campaign stop? To watch the video on youtube, click on the link below. Let’s see a criticism against her for this.


    • September 12, 2010 at 6:03 pm


      There is an old phrase; “Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.”

      Here is how the organizers of the “Prayer Vigil” characterized the event:

      Held in Garden Grove, over 200 community members were present – including 7 clergy and 1 congressional representative. Our message was to reform our health care system and to ensure that health care is affordable for low-income families.

      This was a forum about Health Care Reform. They were praying for Health Care Reform.

      Here is the link to the Youtube video that the organizers put out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwgMDFVcqEs

      The video provides a much more factual context than the one you are promoting.

      Bottom line, Loretta Sanchez was not campaigning at a prayer vigil as you claim. She was speaking on health care reform as requested by the organizers of the event.

      See more about OCCCO at http://www.occcopico.org.
      Join the fight for just reform at http://www.coverallfamilies.org.

      • Elizabeth Rivas
        September 13, 2010 at 10:26 am

        The Title of the video you yourself link to says “Prayer Vigil” in it. How does their video, which happens to leave out all the outrageous statements she made, “much more factual” than the one you claim I’m “promoting”?
        Sorry Chris, but people(organizers and Sanchez herself) lied to people there for prayer. We weren’t told this was a campaign appearance. It was to be “an atmosphere of reverence” but she attacked opponents promoted herself and lied about her raise. The organizers put out their video that didn’t show 1 second of her campaigning and what really went on. The video I referenced shows what really happened.

        See what really happened at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIXU9HyIQFY

  7. Elizabeth Rivas
    September 12, 2010 at 8:02 am

    An additional note to my previous post:

    What about the separation of Church and State? Why don’t you do an article on that ,after watching the Youtube video.

    Loretta Sanchez lied about her receiving a pay raise in the video. We have a lot of unemployed people right now and she has the arrogance to tell us that she didn’t receive a raise(she makes $174,000 a year) when she actually did. She lied.

    • September 12, 2010 at 8:17 am

      Elizabeth, Elected officials campaign at churches and prayer vigils all the time. Seperation of Church and state applies to whether the state sponsors a religious point of view or law as a matter of civil law. The constitution does not prohibit candidates from speaking at churches or prayer vigils. Try grasping at another straw.

    • September 12, 2010 at 6:12 pm

      Rep. Loretta Sanchez votes to block Congressional pay raise
      April 28, 2010
      By Chris Prevatt
      Continues Fight to Restore Fiscal Discipline and Accountability in Washington

      WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (CA-47) Tuesday voted for H.R. 5146, a bipartisan bill to stop automatic pay increases for Members of Congress in fiscal year 2011. This is yet another step Rep. Sanchez has taken to restore fiscal discipline in government and build a strong foundation for Orange County’s economy.


      • Elizabeth Rivas
        September 13, 2010 at 10:04 am

        Sorry Chris,

        This is after the fact of her getting a raise and then lying about it 7 months later. Check your facts. What about her Global Warming trip with other Congress members that included: stops in Hawaii, snorkeling in the Great Barrier Reef etc…at a cost to taxpayers of more than $500,000? Don’t tell me they had to go. They could have called experts on the telephone if they needed answers. You said something about steps she has taken to restore fiscal discipline?
        Chris, please answer me about her lying on videotape about her pay raise. Was that ethical?

      • Elizabeth Rivas
        September 18, 2010 at 4:23 pm

        Loretta Sanchez got a pay raise in 2009,7 months before she lied to the people:

        She may have voted against a pay raise in 2010, but it doesn’t change the FACT that in 2009, she did get a raise and lied about it. Can you answer that specific question? Why did she lie to us? Don’t post a story on 2010 pay raises;answer about her lying in 2009.

  8. New Voice
    September 12, 2010 at 11:20 am

    Loretta is OUT THE DOOR!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Cecilia Iglesias, I looked you up and I like what you have to offer. For all the readers out there, her web is:


    Spread the word!!!!!!!!!

    • Ltpar
      September 12, 2010 at 12:54 pm

      New Voice, I like your attitude, but you have the set on the wrong channel here. You are not going to convice any of these Liberals to vote for a conservative candidate, that is unless you are a miracle worker. In case you are a miracle worker, please contact me off line, as we need a number of miracles performed in Irvine politics.

  9. September 12, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    actually Pat, no we don’t. Conservative candidates and elected leaders at the IPSF Gala were very outnumbered. Dozens of people wanted to know why John Campbell had bothered to show up given his support for education not just as a Congressman but as a State Legislator…voters in Irvine know which party and which candidates support education.

    I will say I did meet Jeff Lalloway and we had a very pleasant exchange. I don’t see him beating Agran and Shiva had lots of love in the room. Could be 4-1 by this November…..

    • Ltpar
      September 13, 2010 at 3:15 pm

      Dan, can’t speak for the “car salesman” but I was sorry that the Tea Party people didn’t run a candidate against him in the primary. Seems like the more I look at the Republicans, the more Independent I become. Campbell does get my vote however, for voting against most of the stuff Congress has done in the last two years that is bankrupting the country. I also liked his no “earmark” position. If it isn’t in the budget, it shouldn’t be spent.

      I am not surprised you got along with Lalloway, since he may well be a Democrat in drag. I will not be voting for him. While I would like to see the Agranista Machine overthrown, 2010 will not be the year. I believe you are correct in your 4-1 prediction. Guess Irvine is no longer the place for a small town conservative boy from Texas. Arizona is looking better every day, but it gets too hot there.

  10. Elizabeth Rivas
    September 12, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Chris, Can you back up your claim that politicians campaign at Prayer Vigils all the time? Can you reference when another politician showed up at a Prayer Vigil to campaign. Prayer Vigils are Prayer Vigils. You show up to pray, not with your 3′ by 8′ large political banner. She was given a name tag but she couldn’t handle it being so small.

    Chris, what about her lying to the people there about herself receiving a raise? Can you address that as well in your article, if you have the impartiality to write it?

  11. Kevin
    September 12, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Having the giant sign in the back of her truck does indeed make things seem more suspicious, but you’ve touched a real nerve for me here.

    Are you SURE that Iglesias herself isn’t the holder of the disabled placard? You don’t have to be in a wheelchair, use crutches, walk with a limp, or be otherwise obviously impaired to hold a disabled placard. My wife has a serious heart condition that almost put her on the transplant list and for years left her without the stamina to walk long distances. Yet to look at her, she seems perfectly ‘normal’. We’d catch dirty looks all the time from people who just knew that we were two perfectly-abled people who were just using the placard to park right in front of the store, or to be able to park on the street without having to feed a meter. (This happened all the time to members of my wife’s transplant support group — at least we were one of the lucky ones who didn’t have someone chase us in the parking lot to cuss us out for ‘stealing’ a handicapped space.)

    As for your “well, a good Samaritan would drop off their disabled rider and park somewhere else” rationalization: sorry, but that’s complete BS. If the disabled person who holds that placard rode to the store with Iglesias, left Iglesias’ truck, went into the store to do their shopping, and walked back to the truck, that’s a completely legal use of the placard. Disabled people don’t have to be accompanied when they do their shopping, nor should they be forced to stand in front of the store to wait for their ride to show up (especially if they have limited stamina and just spent most of it on their shopping trip).

    If Iglesias just drove up to Wal-Mart and sat in her truck, alone, for a couple of hours and then drove away, that’s one thing. If you’ve got proof she was unaccompanied and using a placard that’s not hers, then sure, string ‘er up. But unless you’ve got information that you’re not sharing with us, you’re hanging a lot on what is — whether you like it or not — a presumptively legal act.

    • September 12, 2010 at 2:24 pm

      Kevin, Ms. Iglesias is not a disabled individual and she does not have a disabled placard of her own.

      From the DMV website.

      You are the only person who can use the parking placard for parking or service station privileges. It is illegal to:

      •Lend your placard to another.

      A disabled placard if for a disabled person to use when they are driving a vehicle. Not for use by another individual, even if that individual is driving them somewhere.

      • Kevin
        September 12, 2010 at 5:20 pm

        Ms. Iglesias is not a disabled individual and she does not have a disabled placard of her own

        Do you know she’s not disabled, or do you ‘just know’, based on the presumption that she looks able-bodied? Again, not all disabilities that qualify for the use of a placard are obvious, and not all people enjoy discussing their disabilities in public (particularly with random people in parking lots).

        A disabled placard if for a disabled person to use when they are driving a vehicle. Not for use by another individual, even if that individual is driving them somewhere.

        That’s an interesting interpretation, but it’s also completely wrong. Note a key sentence further up that DMV webpage you’ve been quoting:

        NOTE: You do not have to own or drive the vehicle to use your placard.

        Lending means that you give the placard to someone else to use while you’re not present, just like you would lend someone a book: “Here, why don’t you drive to the store while I stay here — and take my handicapped permit, because it’s always so hard to find parking!”

        Your reading would mean that the family that drives a van with a wheelchair lift to transport their six-year-old son with spina bifida would never qualify for a disabled placard, because the kid can’t drive. Tough luck, folks! (Also, note that one of the conditions that allows you to get a Disabled Veteran plate is permanent blindness — in that case, driving would indeed be a neat trick.)

  12. Naomi
    September 12, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    Is is obvious that “OC Liberal” is a Loretta supporter and nothing blogged or stated against Loretta will change their mind as they are already biased. On a second note, I agree with Kevin, one does not have to look disabled to hold a disabled card. As said before, I was once given a temporary disabled card and trully understand through the “Eyes of a disabled person”; because I have already been there.

    Perhaps the publisher needs to be more intune with “Humanity and be sensitive to Disabled People” One will really understand the meaning of disability if impacted directly (close friend, relative or self). Kevin everything that you blogged, you are 100% correct…but, go figure?….”Don’t hold your breath to try to convince the publisher. I agree with “LTPAR” when commented, “It seems that the article is the only thing handicapped here!!!

    • Elizabeth Rivas
      September 13, 2010 at 9:56 am

      The Liberal OC is receiving advertising money from the Loretta Sanchez campaign ads, so they will not criticize her at all. In fact, they are promoting her and attacking her opponents, like Cecilia Iglesias. This is why our politicians are so bad; a site like this turns a blind eye for monetary gain and lets Loretta Sanchez get away with major offenses.
      How long would it take to call Cecilia Iglesias for her explanation? Five minutes? The Liberal OC has no intention of actual reporting and instead all answers are”matter of fact” with no possibility of error on their part. They are “Perfect”…no need to get the other side of the story.

      • October 25, 2010 at 3:56 pm

        I asked Ceci several questions at the event; her answers were curt. When he met her last Febraruy, we invited her to sit down and talk with us and she has yet to accept. The invitation is still open. We have lots of questions about her lack of campaign finance reporting.

  13. macdoodle
    September 14, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    The disabled person not in the car makes it NOT Ok
    and she seems to have a history of violating –
    Social Services Agency managers were fully aware of the Congressional campaign of Ms. Iglesias and that federal law was being violated. They simply ignored that fact as long as they could. The Social Services Agency has refused to disclose when they knew of the Hatch Act violation, why it took so long to be corrected, or if Ms. Iglesias was forced to resign as required by the Hatch Act.


    • Elizabeth Rivas
      September 19, 2010 at 1:04 am


      If a disabled person had to be in the car all the time, a handicapped placard would be unnecessary,as they couldn’t use it to park and go to a store, etc…
      Ceci Iglesias had a placard and parked in the Handicapped Parking but that’s what those placards are for; to give to someone so that they can transport the disabled individual temporarily. Otherwise the DMV would not need temporary placards and would just issue Handicapped license plates only. A good reporter would have stuck around to see if she took someone with her when she left.

      • October 25, 2010 at 3:54 pm

        Elizabeth —
        I did stick around and watched the Iglesias entourage leave the event. No one was limping, using a cane or otherwise having any problem walking. Ceci left in a different vehicle. I don’t know who was driving the truck but nobody had any visible means to show why the handicapped placard was required other than to secure primo parking slots for their movable advertisement.

  14. Frank
    October 25, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Cris for your information Cecilia’s Dad was handicapped and just passed away four days ago. May this soul R.I.P. This info is only so you are realy informed and not makeing thing up. Your blog just like loretta sanchez have NO CLUE. Nice try!

  15. October 25, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    Frank —
    It’s Monday, so if her father died on Friday, what is she doing at a candidate’s forum with her mom in tow? And what day specifically did her dad die? Friday or Thursday? Because if it was before Friday, she legallty cannot use the Handicapped placard again. And please do explain why she hasn’t filed the appropriate paperwork….

Comments are closed.