When someone is found to be at the airport security with a handgun in a bag or on their person, the El Paso Police detain and then arrest the individual, whether it was a mistake or not. State law does not make allowances for mistakes. When the police detain an individual, under my opponent's DIMS program (the District Attorney's Information Management System) the police call the DA's office, run the facts by them and see if they believe the case is meritorious of prosecution. The standard of review is probable cause, a very low threshold. What happened with Mr. Wardy was a little different. The police detained him, believed there was probable cause, and called the District Attorney who then did not accept the case under his DIMS system. Because if he had told them he would accept the case, Mr. Wardy would have been arrested right then and taken downtown. In this case, the next thing we know, the police called the FBI. Why? Who told the police to pawn the case off on the FBI who made no arrests?
Why didn't my opponent treat Mr. Wardy they way he treats all the other defendants similarly situated, in fact, the way he treated Mr. Mathew Neessen in 2004? On August 4, 2004, at the El Paso International Airport, Mr. Neessen was arrested for carrying a firearm into airport security. Mr. Esparza charged Mr. Neessen with a felony and the indictment (the charging instrument) read as follows:
"Mathew Neessen...on or about the 4th day of August, 2004...did then and there recklessly possess or go with a firearm, in or into a secured area of an airport, to wit: the El Paso International Airport, El Paso, El Paso County, Texas, by failing to account for said firearm or by failing to check the contents of his baggage prior to entering the secured area of the airport or by failing to remove the firearm from said baggage prior to entering the secured area of the airport, against the Peace and Dignity of the State."
Based on this indictment, which tracks Texas state law, it is clear that there is no room for mistakes under the State law, the law Mr. Esparza is sworn to uphold and apply equally to everyone. Based on what Mr. Neessen eventually pled to, it appears that he, like Mr. Wardy, had made a mistake; the D.A.'s office reduced the original felony charge to a Class A misdemeanor. According to the County System, Mr. Neessen pleaded guilty under cause number, 20040D04609-384th, on 10-21-2004 to misdemeanor charge Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon; 12 months deferred probation and 50 hours of community service. Had it NOT been a mistake on Mr. Neessen's part, the DA surely would have pursued the full felony charges for trying to carry a firearm onto a plane.
Now what is the difference between Mr. Neessen and Mr. Wardy? Well Mr. Neessen was never the Mayor and therefore never had the opportunity to give Mr. Esparza more than $700,000 of our tax dollars for his DIMS program. Even under intense pressure to not fund the program and even after seeing how many lawsuits had been filed against the city for its involvement with Esparza's program, including getting his own cops sued, Mr. Wardy came through for his friend the DA and graciously handed over to Mr. Esparza city money because he asked for it. (See contracts with signatures which will be posted here.) Is Mr. Esparza now coming through for his friend Joe?
The citizens of this community are intelligent. Every single non-lawyer I have spoken to between yesterday and today has said the same thing, "If it had been me, I would have been arrested." The FBI saying these cases are not usually prosecuted, Mayor Wardy did not get special treatment and Police spokesperson Chris Mears stating that Mayor Wardy had inadvertently left the gun in his bag, all doth protest too much. We GET IT.
Mr. Eparza, thank you for providing me every single day with glaring examples that I can point out to the public, of your unwillingness to do your job right and the special favors system you have put into place and that I pledge to put an end to. Supporting documents will be posted here to include:
Mr. Neessen's indictment; his disposition information sheet;
the October 28, 2003 DIMS contract that Mayor wardy signed;
The April 12, 2005 DIMS contract that Mayor Wardy signed.;
(Click on the name of each document to read it)