Will Michele Martinez be a Material Witness Against Carlos Bustamante?

New Santa Ana published a post on July 4th and then pulled the post today in which blogger Art Pedorza wrote that Santa Ana City Council member Michele Martinez told Pedroza that Council member Carlos Bustamante had “hit on her.”  Pedroza has since pulled his post entitled, “Martinez is Wrong. Bustamante should resign — after all he hit on her.” The post featured Martinez standing in front of Bustamante in semi-formal attire and the photo above was published from that post.

Since Bustamante has been instructed to stay away from women identified as victims in this case, just what does this mean regarding interactions with Martinez should he try to resume city business as a member of the city council?  Will the D.A.’s office question Martinez as a material witness?  How will the two be able to work together in light of this revelation if Bustamante doesn’t resign?   And why did Pedroza, known for not being the most accurate of bloggers, pull his post?

Since the arrest of Bustamante, many political observers have been waiting to see if the case would spill over into the Santa Ana City Council chambers in some way.  Bustamante, a Republican, did endorse Martinez’s run for office for AD-69 in which she finished fourth in a five candidate race – losing every ward in Santa Ana in the process. garnering under 20 percent of the vote.

In light of Pedroza’s post, Martinez may be called on by the DA to make a statement about any alleged romantic advances made by her City Council colleague. As the cat’s out of the bag via Pedroza’s post, Martinez should issue a statement either verifying what Pedroza posted or calling him a liar.

  14 comments for “Will Michele Martinez be a Material Witness Against Carlos Bustamante?

  1. junior
    July 5, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    In an odd sort of way, this whole sorry sad situation, is a sort of vindication of my support for Art Pedroza in his 2008 run for council against Busty. The lesser of two evils you might say.

  2. July 5, 2012 at 10:48 pm

    It’s true that that would not likely have ended up in a sex scandal.

    Dan, in the absence of a supervisory relationship, my rule of thumb is that anyone (gay and straight and anything else) gets to make one pass at anyone else without making that person a victim of sexual harassment, subject to the conditions below.

    Of course, that pass could itself constitute sexual harassment if it involved groping, derogatory language, language and descriptions inappropriate for the workplace etc.; I’m talking merely about an otherwise inoffensive expression of romantic (or “romantic”) interest. (“Would you like to go out sometime?” would be an example.) People have to be prepared to endure that.

    After that, if you’ve gotten the signals that a reasonable person would interpret as being grounds to stop it, one should stop it until and unless circumstances change.

    So, without knowing more like that he grabbed her in some private area, asked him if he could expose himself to her, or something like that, then no I would not expect her to have to become a material witness. She’s not identified as a “victim” unless she self-identifies as one and he does not have to keep away from her.

    I don’t think she has any responsibility to say diddley.

  3. junior
    July 6, 2012 at 6:01 am

    I would not expect that Michele would waht to get anywhere near this sordid episode. And she is probably very pissed off at Pedroza for dragging her name into it. Baboso Pedroza.

  4. mrgrc41
    July 6, 2012 at 8:53 am

    This has to be a joke. Councilwoman Martinez who has a reputation of affairs with married men, is going to claim sexual harrassment by Carlos Bustamonte? This has to be a joke. Her morals are questionable and she has no business involving herself in this . Oh wait, she needs the attention.

    • July 6, 2012 at 9:11 am

      There is no indication that Michele has any intention of “claiming sexual harassment” by Busta. This was a stupid story by Pedroza unfortunately amplified by this story. She doesn’t need this particular attention, let along your assessment of her morals.

      • junior
        July 6, 2012 at 9:58 am

        “This was a stupid story by Pedroza unfortunately amplified by this story.”

        yeah …. “unfortunately” ha – ha … must have been an oversight or accident or unintentional … or something like that.

      • July 6, 2012 at 2:20 pm

        Yeah, we can make up our own minds on her morals. Her life is not exactly a closed book.

    • Pedroza for City Council
      July 7, 2012 at 2:07 pm

      Ask Al Amezcua about his parking episode with Michele.

  5. July 6, 2012 at 9:19 am

    Forgot to mention, Dan, that you might want to look up the term “material witness.”


    While a material witness is a kind of witness, the implication of the term is very different. You’re in essence asking whether Michele can be arrested under the provisions of the Federal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 3144, due to the unlikelihood of her responding to a subpoena, and held until her testimony can be obtained. You might better simply ask if she will be a “witness” against Busta.

    Again, the answer to the question you asked is “no.”

    (And furthermore, though unrelated, my “let along” in the comment above should be “let alone”. I wish you guys (and I wish we guys) had comment preview.)

  6. July 6, 2012 at 9:48 am

    fine Greg. would character witness work for you?

    • junior
      July 6, 2012 at 10:01 am

      Michele .. a character witness for Busty …. ha! – that’s rich!!

    • July 6, 2012 at 10:28 am

      A character witness would be called by the defense. If Busta wants to call her, that’s OK with me. I don’t think that it would be an especially smart move.

      • July 6, 2012 at 2:23 pm

        Somehow, in this sordid mess, I see how that could happen.

        In any case, Greg, are you Michele’s official spokesperson? You keep saying she won’t do this or that, how do you know? Did she tell you personally?

        • Pedroza for City Council
          July 7, 2012 at 2:10 pm

          Greg isn’t. Sean H. Mill is and be careful what you say about our great city council. Santa Ana is great because of great people like Sean. How dare you even question Michele’s greatness.

Comments are closed.