Editor,
I would like to respond to Mr. Smith’s inaccurate column
published in your paper on March 19. I didn’t need to
”
look up
”
any of the words used in this response.
Editor,
I would like to respond to Mr. Smith’s inaccurate column published in your paper on March 19. I didn’t need to “look up” any of the words used in this response.
I find it “ironic” that Mr. Smith, who has offered praise for my work on the city council, would compare me and the Web site I published, to the hateful anonymous Web site that falsely accused a former columnist of being a child molester, and that linked the publisher of a local news publication to a lesbian porn site. To find out who published this anonymous site, the publication spent thousands of dollars to obtain court orders to find that an Internet account belonging to Joseph Felice put up the Web site.
Contrary to what your paper has published, your paper was informed that I did put up the Web site. It should be noted that your paper called my home telephone number before contacting the recall phone number listed on the press release. I stated to your reporter that I was not the spokesperson for the recall, and that any questions needed to be directed to the phone number listed in the press release. Your reporter’s questions were answered that day via e-mail. In that e-mail your newspaper was informed that I did put up the Web site and this was before you published any article involving the recall. Further, I used my name to register the site. Anyone wishing to check who has put up a Web site needs only to do a “who is” search on any search engine. You would type in “who is www.recallcriminal.com.” This was not the case with Mr. Felice’s alleged work; he apparently did not wish his identity known, while I have no problem letting people know that I put up the Web site, and that I am a member of a group forming to recall Mr. De La Cruz.
Mr. Smith’s editorial implies that Mr. Sarsfield was the District Attorney involved in the prosecution of the case of the People vs. Brian Conroy, and that I may have received preferential treatment when sentenced. I was prosecuted by the office of District Attorney Harry Damkar, and the sentence I received was in no way any different than what anyone else would receive under similar circumstances.
I made a very serious error in judgment, and I paid the price, like a man. I didn’t run out and whine, I didn’t sue the CHP, the DA, or the courts. I didn’t sue an 85-year-old supervisor for something she did not say, and I did not sue the taxpayers of this county. I did not accuse others of crimes they did not commit in an attempt to deflect attention from what I had done. I didn’t run about town claiming the charges were a “trumped up misdemeanor offense.”
Mr. Smith’s claim that “it was discovered that you were a diabetic and that had something to do with diminishing your responsibility” for the crime I was charged with, is a false statement and had no bearing on the sentence I received.
The only truth in his statement was that I did find out I was diabetic on this day. Some good came out of that day, and it saved my life, without a doubt. My diabetes is now under control. Lesson learned: be responsible for your actions, and learn from your mistakes.
While it seems that Mr. Smith likes to “look up” words, I have a few words that Mike may want to look up: “Innuendo,” “shill,” “uninformed,” “defamation,” “propaganda,” “liar,” “lawsuit,” and here is an important one, “facts.” Also, Mike may want to look up the meaning of the phrase “character assassination.”
I look forward to getting together with Mike soon for a friendly game of Scrabble.
Brian Conroy, Hollister
