Prove-up hearing slated for Tuesday; Pekin says his rights were
violated
Details of the federal lawsuit filed by Michael Pekin and his
attorney against San Benito County were released this week, days
before the
”
prove-up
”
hearing in the county’s civil suit against the anonymous Los
Valientes.
Pekin’s lawsuit alleges that the county was seeking retaliation
for his exercise of First Amendment rights. Meanwhile, the prove-up
hearing against Los Valientes scheduled for Tuesday at 1:30 in the
San Benito Courthouse in Hollister could result in a judge ordering
the group to pay restitution. The county has incurred some $500,000
in legal costs. Los Valientes are a group of unnamed litigants
represented by Pekin. They have alleged corruption on the part of
local officials.
Prove-up hearing slated for Tuesday; Pekin says his rights were violated
Details of the federal lawsuit filed by Michael Pekin and his attorney against San Benito County were released this week, days before the “prove-up” hearing in the county’s civil suit against the anonymous Los Valientes.
Pekin’s lawsuit alleges that the county was seeking retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights. Meanwhile, the prove-up hearing against Los Valientes scheduled for Tuesday at 1:30 in the San Benito Courthouse in Hollister could result in a judge ordering the group to pay restitution. The county has incurred some $500,000 in legal costs. Los Valientes are a group of unnamed litigants represented by Pekin. They have alleged corruption on the part of local officials.
Los Valientes lost a civil lawsuit waged against them by D.A. John Sarsfield earlier this year because they failed to show up in court. The judge ordered a “default” against them, which means they lost.
The Pinnacle is still waiting for answers from a California Public Records Act request placed with interim County Counsel, Claude Biddle, to obtain the exact cost of the county’s legal fees in the Pekin saga.
Back in December of 2003 Salinas attorney Pekin filed suit against the county and then-supervisor Richard Scagliotti on behalf of an anonymous group, self-named “Los Valientes.” Pekin dropped his suit and refiled it later using a straw plaintiff, Hollister resident Juan Monteon. The lawsuit alleged that both Scagliotti and other county officials engaged in corruption. This lawsuit is still pending, though half of the accusations in the suit have been dropped or dismissed so far.
In response, District Attorney John Sarsfield launched a criminal Grand Jury hearing against Pekin and his law offices, which determined last spring that Pekin had manufactured evidence, committed perjury and misled the court. Though a visiting judge dismissed the indictments, that didn’t stop Sarsfield from carrying on with a civil lawsuit against Pekin and his office for unfair business practices against the civil liberties of the people of San Benito.
Sarsfield says that the civil suit against Pekin is coming to a head. Many players have been deposed, and now Pekin is resisting depositions and the revealing of the identity of his real clients – Los Valientes.
So Pekin has filed his own civil federal lawsuit against the county, and alleges that subsequent to the Monteon suit, several county officials began a campaign to retaliate against him and his assistant, Amanda Hernandez, for their participation in the Monteon litigation.
Pekin and his attorney, Bill Marder of Hollister, allege that the contract county attorney in the Monteon litigation, Nancy Miller, sent documents to D.A. Sarsfield to criminally prosecute and civilly sue Pekin and Hernandez. The allegation goes on to report that Miller sent those documents on her own initiative, without them being requested by Sarsfield.
Sarsfield then filed criminal charges against Pekin in February of 2005. The charges included five felonies of conspiracy to falsely move or maintain any suit, action or proceedings; two counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, two counts of preparing false documentary evidence and a single misdemeanor of attempting to deceive the court or another party to a lawsuit.
All the charges are alleged to have arisen from Pekin’s participation in the Monteon litigation. Pekin says all the charges against him were dismissed by the court on Sept. 1, 2005. Sarsfield said he is appealing the case.
On Dec. 17, 2004, Sarsfield instituted a civil suit against Pekin, Hernandez and Pekin’s son, Patrick, also an attorney. The suit alleged civil rights violations and unfair business practices by Pekin and Hernandez. That lawsuit is ongoing.
Now, Pekin and Hernandez are alleging that the county violated their First Amendment rights to access the courts and petition the government for redress of grievances, and exercise freedom of speech.
Because of those actions, Hernandez and Pekin allege that they have been harmed, incurred attorney fees, and suffered humiliation, mental anguish, emotional and physical distress. Because of violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and consequent harm, the plaintiffs suffered damages, the suit alleges.
Sarsfield says that his take on the lawsuit is that alleged harassment is completely baseless and will likely suffer the same fate as that handed down in the De La Cruz/Velasquez v. Kesler lawsuit. In that case, the county had to hire outside attorneys to defend against a $5 million nuisance suit brought against the board and former Supervisor Ruth Kesler by new Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz and his campaign advisor Ignacio Velasquez, who claimed Kesler made a racial epithet against De La Cruz in public. The suit alleged Kesler had called De La Cruz “boy” shortly after he was elected at a public meeting. County meeting tapes revealed that she had uttered the word “buddy.” The two dropped the complaint last year. County Counsel Claude Biddle said the suit cost “over $50,000” to defend.
“I think this case will be thrown out of court just as fast as that one was,” said the D.A. “It’s no coincidence it was brought forth by the same attorney [Marder]. This is just another example of a frivolous lawsuit that will cost the taxpayers, which is why the D.A.’s office is offering to defend the case, should the supervisors be interested. We’ve made an offer to the county that would save taxpayers money since we know the facts and know the players.”
