When you cut through all of the emotions, allegations and the
individual agendas that are a disservice to everyone in the
district attorney’s civil case against Los Valientes, you are left
with this question: Where is the smoking gun?
When you cut through all of the emotions, allegations and the individual agendas that are a disservice to everyone in the district attorney’s civil case against Los Valientes, you are left with this question: Where is the smoking gun?
In his leave-no-pebble-unturned crusade against the anonymous group, District Attorney John Sarsfield has finally run a few names up the flagpole that he thinks are “associated with Los Valientes.” They include: Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz, Assembly candidate Ignacio Velazquez, former supervisor and current candidate for supervisor Richard Place, former Planning Commissioner Dennis Madigan, businessmen David Grimsley and Vince Pryor as well as Mike Pekin, the attorney for Los Valientes.
The Los Valientes lawsuit, which has been dragging on in one form or another for years, makes widespread claims of corruption in county government, particularly against former Supervisor Richard Scagliotti. The Los Valientes, fearing they will be retaliated against, have remained anonymous throughout.
Without direct evidence or documentation, Sarsfield broadcast his list of names last week in an amended brief in his civil case seeking nearly $1 million from Los Valientes for violating the civil rights of several public officials and local business owners. In the same brief, Sarsfield classifies the members of Los Valientes as a criminal street gang and is seeking to prosecute them as such. In naming names, Sarsfield relies on two interviews and a 171-page deposition – though the district attorney filed with the court a version that left out dozens of pages of important testimony – of Dave Henderson, the private investigator hired by Pekin to look into the corruption allegations.
But there is no quote attributable to the Henderson deposition that any of those people named by Sarsfield are associates of Los Valientes – unless you consider the local businessmen with concerns about corruption Henderson interviewed in the course of his investigation to be members of the anonymous and now criminal group. In fact, in the full deposition, Henderson says he does not know who Pekin’s clients are.
In obtaining the amended brief and its supporting documents, the Free Lance assumed that it had all the district attorney’s material for the case. But Sarsfield says has more evidence that will prove the link. Until then, however, we are limited to the court documents that are publicly available. Again we ask Sarsfield, where’s the proof?
Why the district attorney is prosecuting this case when the individuals “harmed” aren’t filing suit is a mystery. This is an inappropriate political fight, not a pressing criminal prosecution. But if Sarsfield insists on pursuing a civil case here’s how it should happen: The criteria for the prosecution of anyone hidden behind the veil of Los Valientes should be whether they made financial contributions to Pekin – directly or indirectly – that were used to pursue allegations of corruption.
For the district attorney to identify people who merely questioned their elected officials – even to the extent of claiming that they are corrupt – as criminals is an abuse of his power and appears to be driven by a continuing vendetta rather than the pursuit of justice. The fundamental rights of our democracy will be undermined if people can’t air their opinions about those who run our government without fear of prosecution or retaliation.
We will say again, however, that the members of Los Valientes should reveal themselves. If you finance a lawsuit that costs taxpayer dollars to defend, then you should be held accountable. And in this case, accountability means stepping forward and identifying yourself. On the other hand, if he continues this civil case, Sarsfield must disclose whatever conclusive proof he has about those who funded Pekin.
Until then, personal character assassination through innuendo without proof needs to end.
