Initiators of a civil lawsuit filed Tuesday against the Board of
Supervisors have requested District Attorney John Sarsfield and his
entire office be disqualified from involvement because they claim
his closeness to Supervisor Richard Scagliotti creates a conflict
of interest.
But Sarsfield responded by calling it a bizarre motion. He said
his office, regardless of a recusal, would not maintain
jurisdiction over such a case. In civil court, the office primarily
handles cases regarding environmental protection and consumer
protection, he said.
Initiators of a civil lawsuit filed Tuesday against the Board of Supervisors have requested District Attorney John Sarsfield and his entire office be disqualified from involvement because they claim his closeness to Supervisor Richard Scagliotti creates a conflict of interest.
But Sarsfield responded by calling it a bizarre motion. He said his office, regardless of a recusal, would not maintain jurisdiction over such a case. In civil court, the office primarily handles cases regarding environmental protection and consumer protection, he said.
“That’s why this recusal is so bizarre,” Sarsfield said.
The motion was supported by Michael Pekin, the lawyer for plaintiff Juan Monteon, and Dave Henderson, the private investigator whose findings were cited in the suit.
When he filed the suit late Tuesday afternoon, Pekin included declarations from himself and Henderson in support of a Sarsfield recusal from prosecuting the matter.
The suit filed by Monteon, a county resident, alleges several counts of corruption by supervisors – three of them specifically name Supervisor Richard Scagliotti as the defendant. As part of the retribution, the suit requests that profits gained from the alleged acts of profiteering be paid to the county.
“When you now see that Scagliotti has stolen $137,000 from the county,” said Pekin, referring to one of the suit’s allegations, “and (Sheriff) Hill and Sarsfield should have known about it all along, should Sarsfield be responsible for the lawsuit to gain the money?”
Four of the five allegations are cited in Henderson’s 480-page report, the first result of an ongoing investigation. A “Part 2” report of the probe is under way, Pekin says, which has also been confirmed by a source close to the investigation.
“Part 1” was taken to Sarsfield in August, and the district attorney replied, eight weeks later, that he would not criminally prosecute any of its six allegations.
Pekin in mid-November then requested Sarsfield’s office prosecute the allegations in civil court, according to Pekin and confirmed by the district attorney. Sarsfield on Tuesday said the request is “still under review.” But Sarsfield also believes, he said, “they don’t have standing.”
“This is weird,” Sarsfield said. “This is very, very strange.”
Pekin said they no longer trust Sarsfield, though. And a recusal – or a letter of rejection on the November request – would allow them to move forward, he said. A hearing on the recusal only is set for Dec. 23. A case management conference on the suit as a whole is scheduled for Feb. 26.
“The recusal’s the ‘in your face,'” Pekin said. “The recusal’s the one that says, ‘Sarsfield, I’ll see you in a week and a half.'”
