Last night the North East Civic Association headed by activist Jack Bradford held its candidate forum at the North East Regional Command Center. Numerous candidates for the different races attended. The format was each candidate got to make his/her stump speech and then the audience could ask questions at the end. Mr. Bradford invited me to speak first. My speech was divided into two parts. I spoke about my qualifications and credentials and then I spoke about all the reasons why I was seeking the position of DA. I talked abut the corruption coming from Esparza's office and I specifically mentioned examples of that corruption, i.e. the Hollebeke and George DeAngelis cases as well as the latest federal investigation into Esparza submitting $Six Million worth of bills to the Feds which they have now concluded Esparza should not have submitted. I told the members of the audience that they should ask Esparza about that investigation. Esparza spoke next. He spent some time enumerating his programs. And then he spent some time telling some bald faced lies.
In front of a room full of people, without batting an eyelash, knowing I was standing right there and that I would clobber him with this, Esparza said that the federal judges in the DIMS lawsuits had "found DIMS to be Constitutional." Watching a pathological liar in action can knock the breath out of you, it is so stunning. And when Esparza made that false statement, you could actually hear a few gasps go out from the audience. Then Esparza said he was not going to respond to everything his opponent had said. He talked about being the 2005 prosecutor of the year, finished up his speech and then bolted for the door, not staying for questions or to hear the speeches of the other candidates who were polite enough to endure his. The public noted Esparza's poor manners as well.
Esparza should have stayed and defended his policies. He is always saying he will go any place, any time to defend DIMS. He missed his big chance because the audience asked some very good questions about DIMS and I got to answer them. There was a lively free form exhange between two of the candidates for Sheriff, Ed Hernandez candidate for Judge, the audience and me about DIMS. It was clear that no one likes DIMS. Do you think that is why Esparza headed for the door? I also told the audience the truth and cleaned up Esparza's lie which is that the Federal Judges did NOT rule that DIMS was constitutional. They ruled that they were NOT going to rule on the consitutionality of DIMS. The Judges wrote in their opinions that the question of the constitutionality of DIMS had not been properly put before the court and that they were therefore not going to answer the ultimate question. I also told the audience that there had been two news reports on the very issue of Esparza lying to the public about the judge's rulings.
On a side note, I called the Sito Negron radio show yesterday. Sito was uspet with my earlier blog (reporters have such thin skin) on him and his seven year tardy article on the office of the District Attorney. Sito also did not see what was wrong with the cartoon his paper ran depicting me in a school girl outfit and Jaime Esparza as a lawyer. I had to point out the obvious to Sito on the radio which was that kind of cartoon is sexist and demeaning to women. (I received two calls from men from the general public who had heard the show and they said Sito made a fool of himself on that point). For all of his pretensions of being a "liberal", Sito is what he is, a sexist sporting a pony tail. Besides that, he is also an apologist for Esparza and the $6 Million that the Feds say Esparza should not have billed out on, which Sito has yet to write about and the news is weeks old. Sito said on the radio that "Jaime didn't pocket the money," so there.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a new low bar in El Paso. It never occured to me that Jaime would steal $6 million, but now that Sito has raised the question with his Johnny on the spot defense of Esparza, it leads one to wonder, where is the money. I guess we should ask Sito.
We wonder why the innocent are being thrown in jail, in prison, why DIMS, the local version of the Patriot Act, has survived disenfranchising thousands of people, bilking us the tax payers resulting in hundreds of families every year losing their homes to pick up the tab. Don't wonder. Note the apologists for the establishment and corruption who are sexists to boot, observe Sito Negron.
In front of a room full of people, without batting an eyelash, knowing I was standing right there and that I would clobber him with this, Esparza said that the federal judges in the DIMS lawsuits had "found DIMS to be Constitutional." Watching a pathological liar in action can knock the breath out of you, it is so stunning. And when Esparza made that false statement, you could actually hear a few gasps go out from the audience. Then Esparza said he was not going to respond to everything his opponent had said. He talked about being the 2005 prosecutor of the year, finished up his speech and then bolted for the door, not staying for questions or to hear the speeches of the other candidates who were polite enough to endure his. The public noted Esparza's poor manners as well.
Esparza should have stayed and defended his policies. He is always saying he will go any place, any time to defend DIMS. He missed his big chance because the audience asked some very good questions about DIMS and I got to answer them. There was a lively free form exhange between two of the candidates for Sheriff, Ed Hernandez candidate for Judge, the audience and me about DIMS. It was clear that no one likes DIMS. Do you think that is why Esparza headed for the door? I also told the audience the truth and cleaned up Esparza's lie which is that the Federal Judges did NOT rule that DIMS was constitutional. They ruled that they were NOT going to rule on the consitutionality of DIMS. The Judges wrote in their opinions that the question of the constitutionality of DIMS had not been properly put before the court and that they were therefore not going to answer the ultimate question. I also told the audience that there had been two news reports on the very issue of Esparza lying to the public about the judge's rulings.
On a side note, I called the Sito Negron radio show yesterday. Sito was uspet with my earlier blog (reporters have such thin skin) on him and his seven year tardy article on the office of the District Attorney. Sito also did not see what was wrong with the cartoon his paper ran depicting me in a school girl outfit and Jaime Esparza as a lawyer. I had to point out the obvious to Sito on the radio which was that kind of cartoon is sexist and demeaning to women. (I received two calls from men from the general public who had heard the show and they said Sito made a fool of himself on that point). For all of his pretensions of being a "liberal", Sito is what he is, a sexist sporting a pony tail. Besides that, he is also an apologist for Esparza and the $6 Million that the Feds say Esparza should not have billed out on, which Sito has yet to write about and the news is weeks old. Sito said on the radio that "Jaime didn't pocket the money," so there.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a new low bar in El Paso. It never occured to me that Jaime would steal $6 million, but now that Sito has raised the question with his Johnny on the spot defense of Esparza, it leads one to wonder, where is the money. I guess we should ask Sito.
We wonder why the innocent are being thrown in jail, in prison, why DIMS, the local version of the Patriot Act, has survived disenfranchising thousands of people, bilking us the tax payers resulting in hundreds of families every year losing their homes to pick up the tab. Don't wonder. Note the apologists for the establishment and corruption who are sexists to boot, observe Sito Negron.
on October 26, 2007, 9:33 am
Maybe a few people have read all five DIMS federal rulings, to me they seem to say most the DIMS issues belonged in state court not Fed court, therefor while a few DIMS issues presented properly could get before the Feds, for the most part the rulings said NOT that the DIMS issues were not properly presented but that DIMS is a state issue, a matter for the state courts because of Comity and Younger etc Abstain.
Reply to this comment