ZumaDogg
6:26pm
via
HootSuite
"Best of L.A. City Hall Politics 2012 - "Best of L.A. City Hall Politics 2012 (Aka: "Worst of L.A. City Hall Politic... ow.ly/2tSPUY
OH NO...THIS looks kinda inside: About Andrea Alarcon, which is LOW on my radar, not really a political issue, but parenting issue; BUT -- this email makes it noteworthy for this political blog, because the email says it was NOT Mayor Villaraigosa's staffer with Andrea, but Mayor Villaraigosa, himself. (And again, I haven't been following this, but a link to LA Weekly article is included; and this person raises some interesting questions -- and the MAIN reason I am posting this -- is because of WHO sent this info -- based on what has been sent in the past. And when THIS PERSON starts asking these types of questions...RADAR TIME!!!:
Re: Andrea Alarcon
Dear Zuma,
I do hope all is well with you. I am sure you are finding the Andrea Alarcon story amusing. Here are a couple of questions for you and you might even be able to get the answers with a FOIA and California Records Act request. Anything is possible. If you have read all the stories then somethings we do know make no sense. You want to make sure you read this article
http://www.laweekly.com/2012-
Lets start with some basic facts. The daughter had her mothers City issued phone with her when Ms. Alarcon left the party at 10:30. Now, all reports that she was seen with a man and a woman who is an assistant to the Mayor. Okay, aren't there any surveillance cameras around City Hall? Well heck, wouldn't General Services and the LAPD have access to those tapes? The article also says, as do they all, that she didn't pick up her child until 2:00 a.m. Now, here is another question, when the security found her daughter, wouldn't they immediately check her phone or have her call mom? Why child was the child left with the phone if she did not know how to contact her mother?
Now, a story I heard was that the man was in fact the Mayor. The other thing I was told was that security immediately called Ms. Alarcon at 10:30. The phone records would show if that was true or not. It is a City phone after all and their are phone bills. What if those bills showed that a call was made around 10:30 and was received and lasted more than a second. What would you do with 3 1/2 hours? Wouldn't you pick up your child? Instead, after an hour the child was turned over to the police. Why did the security wait an hour? When the child was turned over to the police, wouldn't you expect them to also try calling on the phone immediately? We know that later they did? Cops don't wait three and a half hours to call about an 11 year old and they absolutely would have known who the mother was.
One of the reports says that the staff of the hotel were "sworn to secrecy". How do you do that when everyone wants to know who the man was? How does it make sense that Child Protective Services did not ask the employees what they saw? We are now being told that Ms. Alarcon is not being prosecuted because it did not rise to the level of felony. Just some questions.
OH NO...THIS looks kinda inside: About Andrea Alarcon, which is LOW on my radar, not really a political issue, but parenting issue; BUT -- this email makes it noteworthy for this political blog, because the email says it was NOT Mayor Villaraigosa's staffer with Andrea, but Mayor Villaraigosa, himself. (And again, I haven't been following this, but a link to LA Weekly article is included; and this person raises some interesting questions -- and the MAIN reason I am posting this -- is because of WHO sent this info -- based on what has been sent in the past. And when THIS PERSON starts asking these types of questions...RADAR TIME!!!:
Re: Andrea Alarcon
I do hope all is well with you. I am sure you are finding the Andrea Alarcon story amusing. Here are a couple of questions for you and you might even be able to get the answers with a FOIA and California Records Act request. Anything is possible. If you have read all the stories then somethings we do know make no sense. You want to make sure you read this article
http://www.laweekly.com/2012-
Lets start with some basic facts. The daughter had her mothers City issued phone with her when Ms. Alarcon left the party at 10:30. Now, all reports that she was seen with a man and a woman who is an assistant to the Mayor. Okay, aren't there any surveillance cameras around City Hall? Well heck, wouldn't General Services and the LAPD have access to those tapes? The article also says, as do they all, that she didn't pick up her child until 2:00 a.m. Now, here is another question, when the security found her daughter, wouldn't they immediately check her phone or have her call mom? Why child was the child left with the phone if she did not know how to contact her mother?
Now, a story I heard was that the man was in fact the Mayor. The other thing I was told was that security immediately called Ms. Alarcon at 10:30. The phone records would show if that was true or not. It is a City phone after all and their are phone bills. What if those bills showed that a call was made around 10:30 and was received and lasted more than a second. What would you do with 3 1/2 hours? Wouldn't you pick up your child? Instead, after an hour the child was turned over to the police. Why did the security wait an hour? When the child was turned over to the police, wouldn't you expect them to also try calling on the phone immediately? We know that later they did? Cops don't wait three and a half hours to call about an 11 year old and they absolutely would have known who the mother was.
One of the reports says that the staff of the hotel were "sworn to secrecy". How do you do that when everyone wants to know who the man was? How does it make sense that Child Protective Services did not ask the employees what they saw? We are now being told that Ms. Alarcon is not being prosecuted because it did not rise to the level of felony. Just some questions.
Posts
