A judge this week raised doubts about whether anyone’s civil
rights have been violated by the Los Valientes lawsuit and
questioned the $1 million in damages the District Attorney is
seeking from the anonymous group, but gave the prosecution more
time to find a legal basis for the damages.
Hollister – A judge this week raised doubts about whether anyone’s civil rights have been violated by the Los Valientes lawsuit and questioned the $1 million in damages the District Attorney is seeking from the anonymous group, but gave the prosecution more time to find a legal basis for the damages.
“If my reading is correct, this should have never been brought to court if nobody’s civil rights have been violated,” Superior Court Judge Harry Tobias told Special Deputy District Attorney Nancy Battel during the hour-long hearing on Wednesday. “These declaration don’t prove up your case – my concern is that you can’t prove their rights have been violated.”
The lawsuit, brought by District Attorney John Sarsfield against the anonymous group and their attorney Mike Pekin, centers on whether the Los Valientes violated the civil rights of eight local elected officials and well-known business owners by filing lawsuits against them without rigorous investigation.
But in questioning the alleged civil rights violations, Tobias pointed specifically to the declaration of alleged victim Mandy Rose, head of the Integrated Waste Management Department in San Benito County, as an example. In her declaration, Rose stated her civil rights were infringed on when a private investigator working for the Los Valientes accessed her personal banking records. Tobias said that accessing banking records was not a civil rights violation, but rather a possible property or privacy rights violation.
“Nowhere does it allege that someone’s civil rights have been violated by restraint,” Tobias told Battel, referring to Rose’s declaration and the declarations of the other seven alleged victims. Under the civil rights statute cited in the prosecution’s lawsuit, Battel must prove that the victim’s were restrained or physically prevented from exercising their constitutional rights.
Tobias also asked Battel to find a legal basis for asking for attorney’s fees from other cases, specifically the Monteon v. Scagliotti lawsuit, which is the latest version of the original Los Valientes suit.
“Reasonable attorney’s fees are usually those involved in the current case,” he said.
The District Attorney’s office has asked the court for $930,000 in damages from the Los Valientes for the alleged civil rights violations and unfair business practices. The damages include nearly $300,000 to reimburse the county for money it spent on defending itself against the Los Valientes and the subsequent Monteon v. Scagliotti suit, and $25,000 for each of the Los Valientes’ eight alleged victims, among other things.
Sarsfield is suing the group for filing lawsuits against governmental entities without proper investigation, and filing false suits against public officials and private citizens with the intent of profiting financially. The victims named in the suit include former Pinnacle Publisher Tracie Cone, former Supervisor Richard Scagliotti, San Benito Tire owner Bob Cain, former Planning Department Director Rob Mendiola, Supervisor Pat Loe and former Supervisors Ruth Kesler and Bob Cruz. Each has been singled out for alleged wrongdoing in the Los Valientes lawsuit.
The Los Valientes is group of anonymous citizens who have sued the county alleging corruption. In 2003, Pekin and the Los Valientes filed a suit against Scagliotti claiming that Scagliotti used his position on the Board of Supervisors to profit financially. Among the allegations, the suit says that the Churchill Nut plant was hastily rezoned from agricultural to manufacturing land, helping Scagliotti make a $1.2 million profit. Los Valientes later dropped out of the suit and county resident Juan Monteon took the role of plaintiff.
While Tobias questioned the alleged victims’ declarations that their civil rights had been violated, Sarsfield is confident that his office will be able to prove that such violations occurred at the next hearing in the case on Feb. 1.
“We’ll come back with the answers the judge requested in two weeks,” he said. “The fact that we’re at this stage is very good – the next step is getting the monetary award and collecting it.”
Sarsfield said he was on solid legal ground requesting the damages for civil rights violations.
“Civil rights are read expansively in the law – not narrowly,” he said. “So we think we’re in good standing.”
Pekin, however, believes Tobias’ line of questioning could indicate that the Battel has been unsuccessful in her effort to prove that the Los Valientes violated the civil rights of the eight alleged victims.
“Even assuming the declarations are true, they don’t prove a violation of civil rights,” he said. “The people who were running around taking about a half million dollars in damages are crazy – this is a $75,000 case based on how the judge read the statute yesterday.”
The civil rights statute, sometimes referred to as the Bane Act, protects individuals from threats, intimidation or coercion, that interferes with their ability to exercise rights guaranteed by the Constitution and other federal laws.
Brett Rowland covers public safety for the Free Lance. He can be reached at 831-637-5566 ext. 330 or [email protected].
