The Attorney General’s Office and the FBI have not received
anything from District Attorney John Sarsfield about extortion
charges or allegations of election fraud in the District 5
supervisor’s race.
The Attorney General’s Office and the FBI have not received anything from District Attorney John Sarsfield about extortion charges or allegations of election fraud in the District 5 supervisor’s race.
The prosecutor two weeks ago said he approached both agencies and referred a controversial grand jury probe into the election to the state and a claim lawyer Mike Pekin extorted him to the FBI.
The investigative report Sarsfield planned to send the Attorney General’s Office alleged Supervisor-elect Jaime De La Cruz and his campaign adviser Ignacio Velazquez broke election laws. Attorney General press spokesman Nathan Barankin confirmed the office hadn’t received anything on the matter, though he said it could be in the mail or in the process of being sorted.
And the San Francisco division of the FBI had no knowledge of the extortion issue, didn’t receive a complaint and had no plans for an investigation as of Thursday, according to Special Agent Mike Gimbell. The division covers areas from Salinas to Eureka, according to an office spokesman.
“If there was something going on, we would definitely be alerted to it,” Gimbell said.
Sarsfield didn’t return phone calls placed to his office and cell phone Thursday. He also didn’t reply to a fax with questions regarding the matter.
County lawyer Nancy Miller, who has been a liaison between Sarsfield and Pekin, on Thursday said she wasn’t involved in any communication with the two agencies. Sarsfield handled it himself, she said.
The Attorney General’s Office previously had declined to confirm or deny communication with Sarsfield. But Barankin conceded Thursday the office had not received a letter or any documents about the District 5 supervisor’s race.
“If the DA has sent a letter, it has not landed in the hands of people that would be able to do something with it yet,” Barankin said.
Sarsfield had planned to oversee a grand jury June 1-3 to consider the elections charges. But that was before Pekin – De la Cruz and Velazquez’s lawyer – said May 20 he would file a court motion embarrassing the district attorney unless he dropped the probe.
The motion sought to disqualify Sarsfield claiming he was having an affair with his office manager that compromised his objectivity. The alleged mistress is the niece of Mickie Luna, a leader of LULAC, an organization that spurred the allegations about the election.
Sarsfield fumed about the motion, calling Pekin’s actions extortion. After two reversals on whether he could still oversee the grand jury, Sarsfield canceled it, vowed to immediately pursue an FBI probe of Pekin and said he would refer the election investigation to the attorney general.
“I’m reluctant to go into too many details because I’ve turned the whole thing over to the FBI,” Sarsfield said in a May 21 interview.
Both Pekin and Velazquez this week said they weren’t surprised neither agency had received formal complaints on the matter. They confirmed neither agency had approached them.
Pekin believes Sarsfield hasn’t referred the matter to the FBI because the bureau would examine the validity of the affair allegation.
“The FBI would immediately confront Sarsfield with whether or not it’s true that he developed this conflict in his own office,” Pekin said.
Pekin said he believes Sarsfield is not being honest with the public.
De La Cruz declined to comment on the matter. And Supervisor Bob Cruz, the incumbent who lost to De La Cruz by 10 votes, also declined to comment Thursday.
The Board of Supervisors launched the investigation into the election in mid-March after speculation arose of the allegations of election fraud against De La Cruz and Velazquez. It turned up recommendations for felony charges against the two for alleged elections violations, such as improperly handling ballots and coercing a voter.
Among other supervisors, Pat Loe declined to comment, Ruth Kesler didn’t immediately return a phone call and Richard Scagliotti hung up his cell phone when reached.
Supervisor Reb Monaco, however, acknowledged he’s concerned because election issues carry a high level of urgency.
“I would be concerned that it needs to be handled expediently,” Monaco said, though he said he didn’t want to blame anyone for the apparent delay.
After initially canceling the grand jury on May 20, Sarsfield said he consulted with the Attorney General’s Office and decided to continue the lead role. The office press spokesman said he couldn’t confirm or deny whether those discussions occurred.
After Pekin filed the embarrassing motion, Sarsfield finally dropped the grand jury saying the highly personal court document prejudiced him against Velazquez and De la Cruz.
On many occasions between May 20 and May 24, Sarsfield alluded to sending the matters to the two agencies.
The first was a letter May 20, on Sarsfield’s behalf, from Miller to Pekin. It was Sarsfield’s first agreement to cancel the grand jury before Pekin filed the recusal motion, and it noted the matter “has been referred” to the state office and the FBI.
When questioned by the Free Lance May 21 about the affair allegation, Sarsfield repeatedly emphasized the FBI’s involvement.
And the court stipulation agreed upon by both parties’ lawyers May 24 – to cancel the grand jury and seal the embarrassing file – states the election probe “has been referred to the California Attorney General’s Office.”
Kollin Kosmicki can be reached at 637-5566, ext. 331 or at
