More of John Williams' fascinating campaign documents

     Yesterday, we viewed some of OC Public Administrator/Guardian (and SOCCCD trustee) John Williams' 460 forms re his reelection bid (as Public Administrator). We found some curious names among his contributors, including "LFC Corporate Services," which appears to be board colleague Tom Fuentes' firm. LFC contributed $500 on March 29, 2010.
     Today, I looked at a subsequent 460, and it seems to indicate that, some time between May 23 and June 18, LFC returned the $500. (Click on the graphic above.) Williams gives the code "RFD," which means "returned contributions" (see the key on the form).
     Does this mean that LFC provided a loan? Does it mean something else? Please note that Williams' campaign involved some seriously big money (including a loan, from himself I believe, of $88,000). Why this curious pattern over a measly $500?

During that same period (and on the same day), Williams received $250 from "Mendoza Insurance Brokers Inc." and $100 from "Hans Vogel." Vogel was a key trustee back in the late sixties/early seventies when Williams was a student at "Saddleback Junior College." (As I recall, Vogel spoke German and distinguished himself during the war; afterward, he pursued a career in coaching. As trustee, he spearheaded the effort to build the Utt library as a windowless fortress against protesting students.) 

For Mendoza, Williams checks the box for "political party." Huh?

You know me: I'm not good with financial records. But this seems to indicate that, back in 2002 (when Williams first ran for this office), he lent himself $88,000, and, by this point (i.e., early 2010), the amount he owes himself had reached $125,000.

Gosh, I wonder how Bailiff Boy managed to scrape up $88,000--back when he was a house husband on disability?

This form, from the same period, indicates that Williams paid $500 for "Cops Voter Guide," $2,000 for "Continuing the Republican Revolution," and $500 for "Democratic Voter's Choice." He indicates in each case that he was paying for campaign literature. Guess so.

He paid $500 for campaign literature/mailings re "Citizens for Good Government." He paid nearly $24K (!) for campaign filing/ballot fees (to the OC Registrar of Voters). He paid $1,000 to pollster/consultant Adam Probolsky (who, you'll recall, aided Tom Fuentes in the "campaign" to have him selected as Frogue's replacement back in 2000.)

This one is from the latter half of 2009. It shows that, during that period, Williams paid ethically-challenged attorney PHIL GREER $10,000 for "legal defense." As you know, when Williams was compelled to defend his curious combined position before the OC Board of Supervisors, he didn't show up, but his lawyer, Phil Greer, did. (At about the same time, the district paid Greer $25,000 to serve as Mathur's representation as the latter negotiated his exit from the SOCCCD.) Gosh, imagine the odds!--Greer has represented 4 of the 5 Supes, too! Despite those two "scathing" Grand Jury reports that pointed to serious hinkyhood at his office, things went Williams' way that day. It was stunning.

But is it proper for Williams reelection campaign to pay for his legal representation in efforts to keep his job? What Greer did that day was not about Williams getting reelected. It was about advocating on behalf of Williams' keeping his goofy job.

Anybody know how this works?

What follows are some further 460s that you might or might not find interesting. Click on them to enlarge them.