District attorney needs to go

119

In his recent commentary in the Free Lance, (Feb. 26-28), Paul
Grannis labels Jaime De La Cruz as someone with a

criminal history,

and as one who has a

pattern of criminal behavior.

Editor,

In his recent commentary in the Free Lance, (Feb. 26-28), Paul Grannis labels Jaime De La Cruz as someone with a “criminal history,” and as one who has a “pattern of criminal behavior.” Grannis should be careful when using such strong accusations to characterize an individual. Is he afraid of a Hispanic male being in a position of power? It seems than whenever Grannis gets his comments in the paper, they involve bad mouthing De La Cruz, bringing up an old domestic violence incident and sobbing over John Sarsfield’s poisoned dog.

First of all, the domestic violence issue is not anyone’s business. It was over eight years ago and irrelevant to the issues today. Just ask Mrs. Angela De La Cruz. Secondly, no one has ever been charged and there are no suspects. Most likely it was an accident, but Sarsfield used it to thwart a recall against him and gain public sympathy.

In regards to De La Cruz “criminal history,” Sarsfield dropped all the felony charges against him because he was told that there was no case. The misdemeanor charge of intimidating an officer was the only thing he could manage to charge De La Cruz with. The supposedly independent investigator at the time, Aaron Tripp, was questioning De la Cruz and he made a comment about knowing where Tripp lived. Tripp used this comment as base for the intimidating charge.

This information is not secret, and is available in the public domain. Tripp is a resident of District 1, where former supervisor Richard Scagliotti resided. The conversation was even recorded and Mr. De La Cruz’s comments were in no way intimidating. Sarsfield and his cronies were fishing for anything and this was the best they could come up with.

All of De La Cruz’s legal advisors said to not accept the deal. Medical advisors, on the other hand, told De La Cruz to reduce the stress in his life or his extremely high blood pressure would kill him.

The Elections Office made errors which resulted in one or more felony accounts being made against De La Cruz by John Sarsfield. It was a vindictive charge and an example of intimidating behavior used by Sarsfield.

Sarsfield recently got a vote of “no confidence” by his peers, but continues to deny any wrongdoing. He cost the county thousands of dollars because of his sexual harassment issues, yet he’ll whine about how much a recall would cost. He continues to play the “victim card,” yet he was the one doing the harassing and intimidation. He is not accountable for his actions and seems to justify any questionable behavior.

Grannis also implies that Sarsfield has been “scarred and chastised” since he got into his elected office. At the beginning of the district attorney’s term, many of the people involved in the current recall were huge supporters of Sarsfield. Ignacio Velazquez even made monetary contributions during his election campaign. These same citizens are fed up with Sarsfield’s arrogant and above the law behavior.

If anyone needs to resign, it is the district attorney. He is not respected by his peers, continues to misuse the authority of his office and does not have the best interest of our community in mind. Leave Hodges and De La Cruz alone.

Sarsfield is vindictive and hateful and needs to go. Support the recall. People who want to sign the petition can do so at the office on Fifth and San Benito streets. Remember that it is confidential.

Unfortunately, I have witnessed first hand, citizens who agree with the recall but do not sign because they are afraid of Sarsfield’s power.

This is ridiculous and no one should be allowed to hold this spell of fear over people. Sarsfield needs to go!

Rebecca Jones, Hollister

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here