A letter sent to Supervisor-elect Jaime De La Cruz’s lawyer
warning that San Benito County may sue him and his clients did not
gain Board of Supervisors approval, and District Attorney John
Sarsfield is the only official confirming he knew about it.
A letter sent to Supervisor-elect Jaime De La Cruz’s lawyer warning that San Benito County may sue him and his clients did not gain Board of Supervisors approval, and District Attorney John Sarsfield is the only official confirming he knew about it.
No laws were broken, but sending a letter with such statements and demands should have been approved by supervisors, according to Jim Ewert, staff attorney for the California Newspaper Publishers Association.
And if Sarsfield requested the letter?
“It sounds to me like the DA may have gotten a little out in front of himself and in front of his board,” Ewert said from his Sacramento office.
Redwood City lawyer John Picone sent the letter Monday saying the county was contemplating litigation against De La Cruz, lawyer Mike Pekin and his clients. The letter also says all documents related to Pekin’s recent local court action should be preserved.
That was the same day De La Cruz’s campaign adviser, Ignacio Velazquez, filed a court motion that led to the cancellation of a grand jury to investigate the two for alleged elections violations.
Velazquez’s motion included a claim that Sarsfield – who was set to oversee the probe – was having an alleged affair with his office manager that compromised his objectivity. Both sides agreed to drop the motion, seal the file and refer the case to the Attorney General’s Office, according to a court stipulation signed by both parties’ lawyers.
The letter from Picone said the county was considering a suit relating to Pekin’s involvement in the election probe and a civil suit against Supervisor Richard Scagliotti.
Sarsfield called Pekin’s attempt to cancel the grand jury extortion and referred it to the FBI; Pekin on May 20 had said he would otherwise file the embarrassing motion. Sarsfield didn’t return a phone call Thursday, but he previously confirmed knowing of the letter.
Picone, previously Sarsfield’s lawyer on other matters, said he didn’t know whether the board authorized the warning of a contemplated suit.
Supervisors Reb Monaco and Ruth Kesler said they weren’t told about it. And County Counsel Karen Forcum said she had no knowledge of the letter. When asked who approached him to write the letter, Picone said, “I can’t say.”
“Again, the letter is just in and of itself to make sure they don’t destroy anything,” Picone said, adding Pekin and his clients now have a legal obligation to maintain related documentation.
Velazquez showed up to the board meeting Tuesday to voice his displeasure about the warning letter.
He insists that the board was behind it. And he claims supervisors continually violate the Brown Act, which stipulates that board decisions cannot be made outside of an organized meeting. The Board has not been found in violation of the open meetings law.
“Of course the supervisors were involved in it,” Velazquez said. “Who else would allow them to write a letter? The attorney didn’t just do it himself.”
Monaco said he’s “not really” comfortable with such a warning letter without previous knowledge of it – unless it came from district attorney, he said.
“I don’t have a problem if it’s coming from Sarsfield’s office,” Monaco said.
Pekin wants to know who authorized the warning letter.
“If Sarsfield is sending a letter representing that the county is about to get involved in civil litigation, then the county better get moving on defining the scope of Sarsfield’s authority.”
