Jaime Esparza Refuses to Answer for His Conduct and Policies

In the Friday, April 20, 2007, edition of the Border Observer, www.borderobserver.com, in the article entitled "Restore Rule of Law" which reads like an article that I have written but which is really the product of a Q&A that took place at a recent speaking engagement I had, is a scathing indictment of what is going on in this town and most especially with my opponent and how everything is tied in together. I highly recommend that you read it. There is an editor's note from the Border Observer that states, "District Attorney Jaime Esparza Was Invited To Also Submit His Views And Has Chosen To Do So At A Later Date." -Don't put any of your hard earned money on that and I'll tell you why.- You should know that I have never seen my opponent submit himself to questioning on his conduct and his policies. He has never answered despite his very public proclomations in Commissioner's Court and at City Council that he will "...answer questions on the DIMS program anytime, anywhere and in any court room."

First of all why didn't Esparza answer to the Border Observer this week on his DIMS? Why couldn't he subject himself to questioning? I did.

During the Nancy Hollebeke Civil rights trial, Esparza literally fled to the other side of the state where they were having a hurricane to not be available for questioning. Let me tell you what he did. The trial was set for September 2005 and had so been set since the beginning of the summer. Since Esparza had directed the botched investigation of Ms. Hollebeke's rape allegations against EPPD officers Albert Machorro, Jr. and Jose Garcia and since Albert Machorro's father was an employee of Esparza's at the time Esparza preferred charges on Ms. Hollebeke which resulted in her incarceration, an act which gave birth to the whole civil rights lawsuit, he knew he was going to be a witness, a STAR witness, at the trial. In fact I subpoenaed him and he was properly served to appear in court along with many other witnesses. All of the other witnesses showed up, police officers, lawyers, lay people, etc., except for Esparza. ESPARZA IS THE ONLY WITNESS WHO DIDN'T COME. He sent his lawyer to court the first day of trial to ask the judge (federal Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth) if he could get out of his subpoena because his buddies in the Texas County and District Attorney's Association were going to give him an award, which probably consisted of a plaque and a balloon, for his stellar service and he needed to go to Corpus Christi to pick them up and BE GONE THE ENTIRE WEEK, the week of trial. What a coincidence! The balloon was more important than the civil rights trial that he had caused. I objected to Esparza being released and said that he should be treated like any other witness and stay and wait until I was ready to call him but the judge thought otherwise (this is the same judge who was recently quoted in the Austin American Statesmen who said that he did not think it was unethical for him to receive free football tickets from the University of Texas and then preside over cases where the University was a party). Esparza had to literally travel 800 miles away to avoid answering what he knew was coming. The main question was how in the world did you order the arrest of my client for reporting that she had been raped by two cops, one of whose father is your employee?

I have subponaed Esparza to court on numerous occasions to answer for his DIMS program and to explain why my clients ended up in jail without seeing a magistrate and with a bond given to them by the DA's office instead of by the magistrate. It is the same scene every time. Esparza sends his attorney from the County Attorney's Office (yup, you get to pay for this) who argues to the judge the flavor of the day, "Mr. Esparza has to leave town. Mr. Esparza just received the subpoena. Mr. Esparza is too busy. Mr. Esparza has to go the airport to pick his wife up. Mr. Esparza has no knowledge of the case..." With the exception of one judge, the other judges, one of whom is just a plain old coward, say "Oh yes Mr. Esparza, of course you are released and do not have to testify."

So where is Esparza going to "answer for his conduct and his policies." The El Paso Times is not going to ask him any hard questions because for one they don't understand the issues and for two they don't care. The tv stations have to work with sound bites and this is not a sound bite story. The judges aren't going to make him answer because he is special and he doesn't have to aswer to subpoenas like the rest of us.

Why doesn't Esparza answer for his record? Is it too much to ask the incumbent to answer for his record? Does Esparza avoid answering because he doesn't feel he has to answer to the voter anymore because after all he has been the DA for 14 years and at the end of this term it will be 16 years and he doesn't have to answer to anyone, ever, for anything? Or is it because he is too much of a coward to answer? Or is it a combination of both? When will it be the right time and place for Esparza to answer for his conduct? What indeed is his problem with answering? Don't fall for his tricks and subterfuges of "I'll answer next time." Learn this lesson now, there is never a next time. He is the incumbent, make him answer to you now.