Former OC supervisorial candidate Hoa Van Tran‘s financial disclosures sill have not figured out that there’s a problem with all the money and noncash contributions they get from VHN-TV.

Let’s go through this one slowly.

VHN-TV is also known as Viet Hai Ngoai TV. (“Hai Ngoai” means abroad, and there’s also a “Viet Abroad TV” but that’s not the same one.)

In Hoa’s reports for the period March 18 to May 17 — both the original and the amended — VHN is shown to have contributed a total of $2,600:

On page 5 (of the amended report here), there’s a monetary contribution of $1,000, received on May 7, 2008, from “Viet Hai Ngoai-Television, Corp.” (May 3 was the fundraiser for Hoa targeting Vietnamese, co-sponsored by Bruce Tran, the CEO of VHN-TV)

On page 19, there’s a non-monetary contribution of $1,600, received on March 31, 2008, from “VHN-TV.”

So, that’s a total of $2,600, a thousand above the legal limit.

In the latest disclosure here, covering the period from May 18 to June 30, VHN contributed again.

On page 9, there’s a non-monetary contribution from “Viet Hai Ngoai-Television, Corp” of $600, received on May 18, 2008.

So now the total is $3,200.

Everybody knows that calling the same entity by two different names doesn’t change the facts, right?

Return that money.

Don’t violate campaign finance laws.

Back in March, when Hoa filed his initial financial disclosure, signed by his treasurer Phu Do Nguyen, it lists only three items of expenditure, one of which was a $750 payment to “BC Communication” and marked as OFC (“Office Expenses”). See PDF here, page 11.

In the amended disclosure, PDF here pages 12-16, there’s no listing of that payment.

So, assuming the amended disclosure is correct, how did the payment to BC Communication make it to the first one?

Really, you list only 3 payments and you manage to include some payment you didn’t make? In other words: 33% of the payments you listed are payments you didn’t make?

To err is human, to grossly err is still human, but also weird.

The two, Jorge Luis Valle (pictured, on the left) and Cesar “Youngster” Valle (on the right), are currently held at the notorious Theo Lacy jail. Jorge in his booking form filled out under occupation: “President.” See it here. What the hell?

Jorge faces chages of attempted murder, discharge of firearm at a dwelling, and street terrorism. Cesar is accused of being an accessory after the fact. They both face enhancement for being gang members.

The arrest happened on April 9, just a few hours after the two came back from a Hoa Van Tran fundraiser at the Original Mike’s in Santa Ana. The picture above was taken at that fundraiser. Apparently Jorge was arguing with someone and then shortly after shot at their car.

The only Democrat in the field of three candidates, all Vietnamese, running for the OC Board of Supervisors, Hoa has been dogged with negative news for several weeks now, and except for this one all of which was his own doing and very much avoidable.

The same day the news came out about his campaign workers’ arrest, Hoa fixed another of his problems (maybe) by filing an amended financial report, PDF here.

Something significant about the Register story:

Hoa is still not allowed to speak for himself. The Register couldn’t get anywhere close to the candidate; Edgardo Reynoso, the campaign consultant and the person who recruited the two alleged gang members/attempted murderers, did all the talking on his behalf.

The Bolsavik once got to interview Hoa directly, here. That was when Misha Houser (quoted in the Register story) was still working there. At a later scheduled interview here, Reynoso ran interference and would not let Hoa speak. Literally waving off Hoa every time he started to say something.

For weeks, bloggers have been circulating this photo (and others too) of Hoa’s campaign workers flashing gang signs:

Second from left is a worker cited in the Register story: “Dopey.” Houser quoted him as saying he always packs a 22.

UPDATE: Just got information that “Youngster” is Jorge, not Cesar. You can verify that on the court’s web site, here.

Grindle’s complaint with the AG was sent Thursday, the same day that Red County/OC Blog’s Jubal sent a complaint to the Orange County District Attorney. Now both law enforcement agencies are in on the Hoa Van Tran issue.

In addition to unreported expenditures uncovered and reported by TheLiberalOC.com’s Chris Prevatt here, Grindle also cites unreported in-kind contributions to the Hoa Van Tran campaign. Among others, Grindle cites ad discounts given by SBTN-TV, free hotel stay for campaign manager/consultant Edgardo Reynoso. She alleges that the free hotel stay was requested by then-treasurer Phu Do Nguyen.

In talking with TheLiberalOC.com here, Grindle said “that this is more a violation of State disclosure laws and less a violation of Tin-Cup.” TIN CUP is the county’s campaign finance laws, which Grindle authored.

You can read Grindle’s complaint here. And over here, you can read more about Shirley Grindle, and also get an idea why she went to the AG and not the DA.

In a revealing investigative post yesterday morning here, TheLiberalOC.com’s Chris Prevatt uncovered a host of payments made by the Hoa Van Tran campaign but it failed to report in its financial disclosure covering the period January 1 through March 17, 2008.

That same afternoon, Jubal faxed and emailed a formal complaint. Read it here. The complaint alleges numerous instances of unreported expenses, as well as at least one instance of expenses incurred but not yet paid that should have been, but was not, reported as Unpaid Bills.

While almost all media outlets have rules of conduct that would prohibit a traditional journalist from inserting him- or herself in the midst of a controversy, bloggers, a new breed combining various aspects of activism and journalism, suffer from no such limitations. Especially not if the blogger is open about his political affiliation and activities.

The Bolsavik is just not too sure whether that is good for the development of blogs as a form of citizen-journalism, though. In the long run, will pro-active measures such as the complaint by Jubal increase or decrease the credibility of news blogs in the eyes of the readers? A reasonable argument can go either way…

Expenses uncovered by Prevatt include some obvious items as well as some items revealed by insiders to Prevatt, in his self-styled “TheLiberalOC.com Bulldog Investigation.”

You can access the PDF of Hoa’s financial report here. The reporting period was for January 1, 2008 through March 17, 2008. That means any contribution, loan and expenditures incurred during that period (including unpaid bills) must be reported on that form.

Now go to page 11 of that report. That section is “Schedule E – Payments Made.” The report only shows 3 payments made through March 17: $308.16 to AT&T, $750 to BC Telecommunication, both for office expenses, and $808.13 to Le’s Printing for campaign literature.

There are some payments that we just know the campaign made before March 17 but were not reported. First and most obvious of all are the filing fees. The deadline for filing was March 7, and Hoa Van Tran did file, so obviously the campaign did pay the filing fees. Whether they were drawn on the campaign’s checking account or drawn on someone else’s account, they must be disclosed.

They weren’t. And Prevatt duly noted that: Candidate Filing Fee, $1,430.42; Candidate Statement Fee, $5,965.

Prevatt also uncovered other expenses paid from the campaign bank account at First Vietnamese American Bank, but were not reported: “salary payment to one campaign staffer, $500; reimbursement to a campaign staffer for purchase of office supplies, $51.70.” The number on these checks, minus the reported payments, indicate that there were ten other payments on the same checking account that were not reported.

Prevatt also related an account by a Hoa Van Tran campaign insider how Hoa went to Costco on or about March 12 (that is, during the reporting period) to buy $5,000 worth of computers, couldn’t pay by campaign check, so went back to arrange for another check, credit card, or money order to pay Costco.

And then there were staff wages and salaries, including those of campaign manager Edgardo Reynoso who began work on March 1. And gas reimbursement for the candidate and staff, paid in cash. And lots of other stuff uncovered by Prevatt.

Read full details here.

Reynoso addressed specifically the conversation related by Chris Prevatt on TheLiberalOC.com. According to Prevatt here, the Tran campaign used Santa Ana Councilman Sal Tinajero‘s photo in its mailer without asking Sal first, and only sought permission the night before the mailers were to go out. Sal Tinajero, it should be noted, has not endorsed Hoa’s candidacy.

But Reynoso rejected that version. “That’s hearsay. You can’t base a story on hearsay.” According to Reynoso, “We told Sal the day the picture was taken.”

“You told Sal you’d use the picture in a mailer?”

“Yes. We did.”

“On the day the picture was taken?”

“Yes.”

The interview took place on the balcony outside of Hoa Van Tran’s second-story campaign office. The Bolsavik had made an appointment with Hoa, to come by and ask a few questions.

The minute the Bolsavik got there, however, Reynoso (pictured left) started playing blocker. First, the conversation moved outside, away from the campaign staff. Then, Reynoso wouldn’t let Hoa answer any questions. Phu Do Nguyen was there, and Reynoso attempted to stop Phu as well, but Phu answered anyway.

So the Bolsavik began with, “Let me ask some questions.” Then he said, “I have some questions about the financial disclosures.” Before the Bolsavik could go on, Reynoso cut him off, saying “That’s not a question. That’s a statement.” Pretty much the entire interview went like that, and there was no answers from Hoa at all.

Much later, just when the Bolsavik was getting ready to leave, he found out the reason for the blockade. Apparently, Reynoso didn’t know there was an appointment. He had thought the Bolsavik was there to ambush the candidate. So he put himself out to protect the candidate and for “message control” (his words). Because “every campaign needs message control,” he said.

“I’m sorry I didn’t know you had an appointment,” Reynoso said. That’s cool. Apology accepted.

Anyway, back to the questions.

On the financial disclosures for the period ending March 17, Reynoso said, “We’re having our treasurer go through everything. If,” and he emphasized if, “if there was any mistake, there would be an amended report.”

“There was nothing illegal, wrong or inappropriate,” Reynoso said.

What about payments for the printing costs? “There was nothing illegal, wrong or inappropriate,” Reynoso repeated. “If there was anything that required an amended statement, we’ll file an amended statement.”

At first, Reynoso mentioned that any amendment would be filed at about the same time as the next statement, due May 22. However, when the Bolsavik came back to that issue, Reynoso refused to confirm whether the campaign had given the treasurer any deadline on reviewing the transactions before March 17. “There was nothing illegal, wrong or inappropriate,” Reynoso said again.

Then there was the question about the contributions by Phu Do Nguyen, Esq. and by the law firm of Do Phu & Anh Tuan. Phu is Hoa’s boss at the law firm; he was also the person signing Hoa’s initial financial disclosure, that contains the two contributions in question. See it here. Both Phu and the firm donated $1,600 each, the maximum amount. California’s election finance laws (“TIN CUP”), however, require that if an individual either owns a majority share in an entity, or makes the decision on who the entity donates to, then the individual and the entity are considered one and their combined contribution cannot exceed $1,600.

Phu, however, didn’t think he and his firm should be aggregated. He doesn’t own the majority of the firm, and “a committee in the partnership decides on who to donate to,” he said. However, Phu refuses to disclose the membership of that committee. “That’s internal information for the law firm,” Phu said.

Both Phu Do Nguyen and Edgardo Reynoso asserted that the attacks on the campaign was “a sign that we’re viable,” said Reynoso while Hoa nodded. That was before the whole thing with the appointment/no appointment came to light and when Hoa was still not allowed to answer the Bolsavik.

When the confusion cleared up, Hoa was asked, “You heard all the answers, was there anything you’d like to add?” He said, “No, no. Everything’s good. If you have other questions, I can answer them.”