The Pinnacle article
”
Sara Jones lawsuit expands,
”
DA John Sarsfield comments on a letter written by his brother,
Matt Sarsfield, addressed and sent to the Free Lance and signed by
Matt Sarsfield as
”
Sara M. Jones.
”
Dear Editor,
The Pinnacle article “Sara Jones lawsuit expands,” DA John Sarsfield comments on a letter written by his brother, Matt Sarsfield, addressed and sent to the Free Lance and signed by Matt Sarsfield as “Sara M. Jones.” The quotation is as follows:
“What my brother did was silly, said D.A. John Sarsfield. “Writing under an assumed name is not a crime, as long as you don’t impersonate a real person. Are we going to start suing everyone over bullsh** letters to the editor? Because if we are, I’d have half of the town in court.'”
I guess our district attorney, is unaware of the provisions of Section 538a of the California Penal code which provides as follows:
“Every person who signs any letter addressed to a newspaper with a name of a person other than himself and sends such letter to the newspaper, or causes it to be sent to such newspaper, with intent to lead the newspaper to believe that such letter was written by the person whose name is signed thereto, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
The District Attorney’s brother, Matt Sarsfield, is currently employed as a sergeant with the Livermore Policy Department. The article states that both the Livermore and Tracy police departments conducted internal independent criminal investigation and concluded that the district attorney’s brother “had done nothing wrong.”
Apparently, the police departments also are not familiar with this criminal statute.
The following questions need answers:
n Is our District Attorney, John Sarsfield, familiar with criminal statutes which he is charged with enforcing?
n Is it possible that being related to the district attorney exempts one from complying with the criminal laws of the State of California?
n Are the criminal statues of this state being selectively enforced based on who or what your are?
n Did the paper misquote the district attorney?
No matter what the answers, something is wrong.
John H. O’Brien, Hollister
Poor hillside vote
Dear Editor,
I attended the public supervisors’ meeting on Tuesday and it left me very disappointed. This public hearing was about an ordinance to ban houses from the hillside and ridges.
The way I saw it, three supervisors didn’t need public input to make their decision. The majority of the people attending opposed the ordinance. Why have a public meeting when you have already made a decision? Ever since someone came out with this idea, this ordinance has been brought up at many meetings. In all the ones I attended, the majority opposed it by a landslide. Our planning commission denied this ordinance for lack of support.
In my opinion, this ordinance was part of Measure G. The three Supervisors who voted for this ordinance were the same ones in favor of Measure G and never could accept defeat. They worked hard to pass this before leaving office. I feel they abused their power. To me, this was a slap in the face to the majority of the people who attended these meetings to show their opposition.
I hope these three supervisors never run for public office again. They proved to me that the majority opinion doesn’t mean anything to them except for their own elections. Supervisor Kesler said “goodbye” in a sarcastic way and said she would miss us as much as we would miss her. I am sure the majority of the people will not miss her, especially after she has shown the majority opinion means nothing to her.
I would like to commend Supervisor Monaco for his ‘no’ vote on this ordinance on the basis that this ordinance needs further study. He showed respect for the majority. He is very straight and tough. He is a good leader and good American. Thank you Reb, this county needs you to help straighten the mess.
Amadeu Lima, Hollister
