Most people who take the time to read my blog are those who are informed, sick to death of the status quo, curious, want honest law enforcement, good government and meaningful citizen participation in politics. Based on my logs, according to my webmaster, my readers come from a motley amalgam of citizens from the home internet providers as well as county government, federal government, state government, people from across the country checking up on Chief Wiles, local tv stations and yes, even the loathesome El Paso Times. My readers are either insider government people or they are the average citizen who has been baptized by fire by a corrupt district attorney's office and a rogue police department with indifferent city council overseers. My readers come here to verify what they know in their hearts but what they can't get in the press and, more importantly, they come here to congregate. YOU are not greenhorns.

One question posed over and over and over again is WHY are things the way they are? How come the egregious condition we find ourselves in is not being bellowed about from the highest mountain top? Where is our watchdog, the press? How did things get so bad?

My answer has and will always be these words, A Sell Out Press. For those of you who pine for better and who long for justice, consider the following. Remember when you read articles by the printed press, the name Ms. Jordan Smith and the Austin Chronicle.

In April when it was reported that EPPD Chief Richard Wiles was seeking the position of police chief in Austin, TX, I did several things. Firstly, I wrote a blog on chief Wiles documenting the scandals that have plagued his police department. I wrote about things that have either been the subject of news reports or court proceedings. In fact, I furnished to my readers an actual video of Chief Wiles testifying before El Paso City Council where he tells you in his own words what he thinks of the role of judges. It is on the front page of my website if you care to see. I also contacted the "Austin American Statesman" and offered the documentation but they never called back. The "Austin Chronicle" was also contacted on more than three occasions regarding this. They too never called back. On April 9, 2007, 4 days after my first blog on the subject, Ms. Jordan Smith wrote an article published in the Austin Chronicle. Here is what she had to say with an accompanying analysis. You should also know that I called Smith today and left her a message saying that I was going to write an article on her and if she wanted to weigh in she could call me back. This was a courtesy she never afforded me. I have yet to hear from her.

Smith's title for her ariticle was "Smack Talking About the Police Chief Finalists." Why did she use the pejorative "smack" in her article? What is smack?

Get a load of Smith's very first line, "The news that Austin has announced a list of nine finalists for the chief of police job has traveled pretty quickly to the burgs from where the nine chiefettes hail." What, pray tell, is a "chiefette?" Is this a female chief? A feminine, male Chief? Or a physically diminuitive chief? Or did Smith mean a chief from a smaller community? I don't believe that El Paso is smaller than Austin. What does she mean by chiefette? I guess we're supposed to think that she is witty and cute.

Smith's next line is "Case in point: It took less than 24 hours for the news that El Paso Chief Richard Wiles had made the Austin cut to travel all the way out West-..." How fast or how slowly does Smith think we should get the news "all the way out West?" Does Smith realize that the internet works in real time? Why is Smith so mad that we are so well in informed in El Paso and with such rapidity? Or are we not worthy as a community to know the news? Is information only for her and her friends in central Texas? Does she know that El Paso is in the same state as Austin and that we do know how to read the English written word "all the way out West?"

The next phrase she pens is "and if he were to get the job here, good riddance, says Theresa Caballero, a Democratic contender for El Paso district attorney. Caballero is the estranged daughter of the city's former Mayor Raymond Caballero, and reportedly, she's long been a real thorn in the side of the El Paso City Council." Question: Where did Smith get this information? Who is she quoting? Who or what is her source? If she had a source why not name it? Or did she make it up? Question: If a man has five children in a family unit and he has no contact with any of these five children, who is the estranged one? And if this former mayor is a "former mayor" because after only one, two year term, he was rejected in his bid for reelection in a Landslide by El Paso voters and then he high tailed it out of the city with the parting shot to El Paso saying that we were a "half a loaf town," who indeed is the estranged one? Where is Smith getting her information? Could it be from the estranged father/estranged mayor or members of the newspaper here who are currently being sued for defamation, i.e. El Paso Times reporter David Crowder and Times editor Dionicio Flores? And why is Smith so personal? I have never met her. Why the vitriol? One can hear her screaming from the written word. What is her agenda?

Smith next writes, "As such, maybe it isn't surprising that Caballero on April 5 posted a lengthy missive on her blog ranting about what a shoddy chief Wiles has been." Strong word "rant." What was a rant in my blog? Could well documented facts now be termed "rants" by the "printed press?" Why didn't Smith call me? Why didn't Smith interview me? Why didn't Smith include my own written words? Why dismiss facts as "rants?" I am available. What is Smith afraid of?

Smith then says, "Among her various accusations are that Wiles has some fairly serious ethical problems and that he has done little to curb his officers' fondness for excessive force." It is very telling about Smith's character and professionalism that she cavalierly dismisses documented case after documented case of rape and murder and aggravated perjury and maimings in a euphamisim as "fondness for excessive force." What would the DSM IV have to say about her and this line?

Smith's next phrase is a doozey and says a lot about her journalistic ethics and the standards at the Austin Chronicle. She actually wrote, "While at this point we have no idea whether there is any real substance to any of Caballero's rather hysterical accusations,..."--Why doesn't Smith know what I say is true? We don't expect her to read Spanish so forget her picking up the El Diario of El Paso where what I have documented is reported on a weekly basis, she can just get on that internet and go to the El Paso Times and read about the police shootings and deaths, one as recently as the week she wrote her article. Does Smith not investigate, and if not, why not?

But Ms. Smith saves her best words for last which show her contempt for public comment and public curiousity and the public having the power of information not coming from her limp pen and that is "...we're pretty sure it won't take long for the hysterical among us to pick up her thread and run with it--more likely, straight to the dais during citizens communication."

Could this be a new low for the printed press. Analyze how Smith really wasn't interested in the issues. See how she would rather launch a personal attack against me than address the information about Chief Wiles as a police chief. By her own admission she failed to substantiate the number of human beings killed by El Paso Police under Chief Wiles' leadership. Or do these human beings not count because they were from "all the way out West?"

For an Austin newspaper to employ someone like Jordan Smith who obviously lacks wordly experience and can't fathom that 600 miles away in the same state is not half away around the world, is very telling. The Austin Chronicle may want to send Ms. Smith to take a geography lesson and journalistic ethics at the University of Texas which even we in the hinterland know is right around the corner from her.

But in the end Austin didn't hire Chief Wiles. Perhaps Austinites are more discerning than Ms. Smith thought and could not understand her for her hysteria.

This week we saw the State Bar of North Carolina strip a sitting district attorney, Mike Nifong, of his right to practice law. North Carolina cited and proved to its satisfaction that Nifong, in the Duke Lacrosse players case, had abused his authority by lying to the tribunal, not disclosing evidence favorable to the defendants and making prejudicial statements to the press regarding the accused. If half of this is true, and it surely appears that it is, the State Bar of North Carolina should be proud of itself for properly policing its profession as it is mandated to do. There is nothing more dangerous than a dishonest, unscrupulous prosecutor.

Where you might ask is the State Bar of Texas, specifically its lawyer employee Mr. George Smith regarding what is going on out here in El Paso in our District Attorney's office? Does Mr. Smith not read the newspapers? Is he not aware that Brandon Moon spent 17 years in prison for a rape he did not commit and 8 years of that time was after the DA Jaime Esparza had become aware that there were issues with the DNA? Has Mr. Smith not read Mr. Moon's petition/federal lawsuit wherein he outlines that Asst. DA John Davis submitted a document to the court stating that if there is a mix up with the DNA chain of evidence it is the fault of the defendant? How is that being truthful to the tribunal? Has Mr. Smith interviewed Mr. Moon and his attorneys regarding this and other allegations? Mr. Moon's lawsuit has garnered much publicity and sits in a US District Court, where? Why in San Antonio, TX right where Mr. Smith's office is. Is Mr. Smith aware that Jaime Esparza had Nancy Hollebeke thrown in jail for reporting a rape? The stated reason being, "complaining witness' testimony not credible." Esparza then turns around and subpoenas Ms. Hollebeke to the grand jury to testify, without an attorney present, to the very same allegations he is prosecuting her for and that he says are not credible? Could Mr. Smith and his cohorts possibly think THAT is ethical? This action has been made public in the news and in court documents. Where is Smith? How about Jaime Esparza setting bonds on defendants and authorizing their incarceration before being taken before a judge and on top of it all receiving funds for all of this? Does Mr. Smith think this ethical? Or how about Esparza stating under oath that he is not setting the bonds when all documentation and understanding of the process is otherwise? Is that ethical? Is that being truthful to the tribunal? Or does Mr.Smith not know about this even though it has been the subject of much public dicussion here and in Austin, TX? What are Mr. Smith's credentials? Has he ever practiced criminal law? Does he understand probable cause and grand juries? Are we correct to rely on him and people like him to safeguard the public's trust in the legal profession? Oustide of the typical case where the defense attorney has stolen money from a client, what is Mr. Smith capable of recognizing as being unethical behavior especially on the part of a sitting DA? Is Mr. Smith willing to contact the ethics departments of law schools and go on the record saying that law students should be taught that the above behavior is ethical? If not, why not? And if not what is he doing about what is going on in El Paso, TX. Consider this. In the North Carolina case no one even had to go to prison for the bar there to make short shrift of that DA and in no time at all. Here, we have people going to prison and to jail, tens of thousands incarcerated without the overview of a judge, year after year and the lives that lay in ruin...Texas has had scores of cases overturned, two recently in this jurisdiction, because it has come to light through DNA evidence that the wrong person was convicted and sitting in prison. One of these individuals, Brandon Moon, has alleged that the DNA evidence was not properly turned over to him by Jaime Esparza's office. This case and other Texas cases have become scandals publicized on a worldwide level. WHERE-IS-MR. SMITH-INDEED?

Methinks that the next person who is found to have been wrongfully prosecuted in El Paso or anywhere in Texas has a wonderful, beautiful, ripe lawsuit against the mighty State Bar of Texas and its righteous employees. The question to the grievance committee and its lawyers then becomes what did they know and when did they know it? And with the new DA in Dallas opening up old cases of people currently sitting in prison to DNA retesting you know there's gonna be just such a case. Does the grievance committee really think it is immune from lawsuits from just such wrongfully prosecuted individuals when it is its very mandate to protect society from rapacious attorneys including bad district attorneys who send innocent people to prison?

Considering that nothing, not one thing has happened here to cause us to believe that there is proper oversight of the DA's office coming from Austin, the lesson is to not rely on Austin or Mr. Smith and company whose background and credentials we know nothing about and would serve us well to question. We must sigh at our bad luck to not have a State Bar like North Carolina. We must just take matters into our own hands.

Go to the polls! Vote for me. No one is going to save us but ourselves. The cavalry is not coming and if they did they'd probably just mow us down because they too are either crooked or too stupid to do the right thing. Vote for someone who will not engage in the above conduct and will get rid of unethical attorneys by the very least not employing them. Vote for Theresa Caballero.

I will continue with the Nancy Hollebeke case in future blogs. There is much more to tell on that story. It is very long and must be divided into segments. However today I feel the need to address the ongoing FBI investigation into the offices of the County Judge and County Commissioners and the District Clerk, etc. This week we read in the El Diario of El Paso that the FBI conducted interviews of some employees of the District Clerk's office, interviews that were conducted in a space provided by County Attorney Jose Rodriguez who is, like my opponent, a prosecutor. Jose Rodriguez has stated publicly that he will be conducting his own investigation. This is food for thought on many different levels but let's just look at a couple today.

First of all Jose Rodriguez represents the county and its officials in civil matters. He advises Commissioner's Court, reviews and enters into and signs contracts on behalf of the county and represents county entities as well as individuals when they are sued. For example, when Jaime Esparza is sued (which is often) it is Jose Rodriguez' attorneys (usually attorney Anabelle Perez) who represent Esparza in the suits. Jose Rodriguez is also a prosecutor on criminal matters. He prosecutes juvenile cases and all of the hot check cases and deceptive trade practices and illegal dumping cases. Rodriguez is now donning his prosecutor's hat in all of this FBI business and saying that he is going to investigate as well. Investigate what, I am not sure. Is he going to investigate himself? Is he going to investigate his own clients, i.e. County Judge Anthony Cobos, Commissioners Teran and Sarinana, District Clerk Gilbert Sanchez, or contracts that he himself reviewed and entered into on behalf of the county? If these contracts were illegal then why did Rodriguez sign them? One of Mr. Rodriguez' primary responsibilties and duties as an attorney is to advise Commissioner's Court in advance, prior to, that is, whether a contract is legal or not. Naturally that includes reading it, understanding it, the process to award it and conducting his own investigation into it prior to signing it. So if the contracts later on turn out to be illegal, who is at fault? What do we think of attorney's who later say, "I didn't know?" Should Rodriguez be conducting his own investigation since he did sign them? Should Rodriguez be involved at all since the FBI investigation supposedly regards Luther Jones who supported and backed the only opponent Rodriguez has ever had, Rick Porras, and to whom Rodriguez nearly lost. Is this reasonable behavior on the part of Rodriguez?

If Rodriguez is doing this criminal investigation as a prosecutor with all of these conflicts of interest then the question is begged, where is the other Prosecutor in the County Court House, Jaime Esparza? Where has Esparza been? We know that physically he sits one floor below Commissioners' Court and one floor above the District Clerk's office. There has been innuendo that there was illegal maneuvering on the assignment of Betti Flores' case to a particular court. What is remarkable, according to the Diario, is that Esparza's top henchman Marcos Lizarraga was photographed at the Clerk's office where he was present for the actual court assignment. So aren't Esparza and his friend Marcos Lizarraga witnesses? So where is Mr. Texas lawman Esparza on all of this? Is there just nothing to investigate? Or is there and Esparza has turned a blind eye to it? Why the silence on Esparza's part either way?

What kind of maneuvering is going on? Why is no one asking these questions? Is Esparza once again going to be allowed by the press to slither off quietly toward the horizon leaving nothing but a slight single track in the sand in his wake? His silence is deafening.

This is the third installment in a series on the Nancy Hollebeke case. What follows is what happened to Nancy after she was released from the hospital where she had her medical examination. It is about what EPPD Detective Brigitte Ballou, and District Attorney Jaime Esparza's employees Karen Larose and Penny Hamilton did to Nancy Hollebeke when they "interviewed" her.

-Nancy was NOT taken to a police station to give a statement as is the norm for adult rape victims.
-Instead DA employees, Karen Larose and Penny Hamilton directed Nancy to the Children's Advocacy Center where she arrived around noon. They took Nancy there directly from the hospital and arrived still wearing a sheet around her.
-Assistant District Attorney Penny Hamilton who was and is head of the rape and child abuse unit along with Assistant District Attorney Karen Larose who is one of Esparza's top managment and chief of the trial teams met Nancy there.
-They placed Nancy in an interview room that consisted of a small couch and chair with cartoon characters painted on the wall (keep in mind that this facility is for children and now also for adults who accuse cops of crimes).
-Nancy sat on the couch which was directly in view of a hidden one way window.
-Karen Larose and Penny Hamilton hid from Nancy behind the one way window. (Interviews of adult victims of rape are NOT conducted in this fashion.)
-The interview was recorded. The three women involved in Nancy's interview did not inform her that two of them (Larose and Hamilton) would be observing from behind a one way mirror or that they were taping and recording her. Nancy sat on the couch in a sheet.
-In the beginning of the interview, EPPD Detective Ballou asked Nancy standard non-cross examination style questions about the facts. Nancy answered.
-Nancy explained the series of events outlined in the last blog.
-Nancy spoke clearly, logically, and consistently. Her demeanor was appropriate.
-This portion of the interview went on for approximately an hour and a half.
-Detective Ballou then took a break and left the room.
-Nancy was left in the room covered by the sheet and was still being recorded.

SECOND PART OF INTERVIEW:

-Ballou returned to the interview room and scope of the video camera.
-This time she had a set of head phones on.
-She told Nancy that she had additional questions and that she needed to clear some things up.
-At this time one could hear a voice coming in over the head phones to Ballou. Ballou paused and listened to the instructions and then asked the questions.
-The questions then became cross-examine style questions, the kind a defense attorney would ask a victim on the stand in trial to trip her up.
-Nancy of course remained unaware of what was going on. She also had no idea of that Ballou and Larose and Hamilton were not following normal procedure.
-The voice (of Penny Hamilton) continued to come in over the headset and Ballou constantly paused her questioning to listen to the next set of instructions coming from Hamilton and Larose.
-Ballou's/Hamilton's questioning became more and more antagonistic, i.e. how did they pull your pants down? Which cop did it with which hand? Well what do you mean you didn't see, etc., etc.
-Nancy did her best to again explain what she saw and what the conditions were like out there in the desert and how it was dark and how she was struggling and how thecops had pinned her down.
-The voice over the head phone came in more strongly and Ballou on marching orders from the cowards behind the one way mirror became more and more aggressive with the detailed repititious questioning. (Keep in mind that Ballou questioned Nancy about allegations Nancy was making against two of Ballou's colleagues. The two trained attorneys watching saw no problem with this set up nor did they identify a conflict of interest with their directing the questioning/investigation while simultaneously being the prosecutors. In fact, they happily participateed. It is interesting the things you can do to a young girl when there is no defense attorney or judge around).
-When Nancy explained that there were some things she could recount and some she could not, as is normal in any rape case or any other case for that matter, Ballou threatened her and told her how it is a crime to lie, insinuating she was lying.
-The three of them, Ballou, Hamilton and Larose TRIED to tear Nancy down. (I have defended many rape cases and it is the dream of any defense attorney to have the prosecutor attempt to destroy the victim. How the three of them treated Nancy is unheard of).
-This conscience shocking and degrading spectacle went on for almost half an hour.
-Even Nancy, who was only 18 years old, realized that this could not be normal and ultimately stood up and called an end to the interview by saying "you're not on my side and I want my mother."
-Nancy left the room still wearing the sheet around her.

What should have happened instead of what did happen?

-Nancy should have been taken to an outside agency like the sheriff's office to give her statement. -The police should not be investigating their own for crimes.
-Detective Ballou should not have been anywhere around the case. An honest, intelligent and independent detective should have been assigned to the case.
-Nancy should have been taken to a station and seated before a computer to dictate her statement like every other adult rape victim.
-Nancy should have been wearing clothing and not covered by a sheet. This is degrading.
-Once the statement was typed, she should have been provided with a draft of it for her review and approval. If something were incorrect she could have made changes before signing it and adopting it as her own.
-Nancy should have been treated the way any other rape victim is treated.
-She should never had to have undergone a viscious cross-examination directed by two experienced assistant district attorneys secreting themselves behind a one way mirror, an action not seen before or since seen in this jurisdiction. What is also remarkable is that Esparza and his henchwomen were stupid enough to tape what they did to Nancy.

You should also know that anyone with an ounce of decency who has seen this video tape has left with his mouth hanging open watching what Hamilton, Larose and Ballou TRIED to do to Nancy.

Ralph Blumenthal, reporter for the New York Times, spent several days in El Paso in 2004 doing a story on this case and how it was handled by Esparza and the police. In my presence, Blumenthal watched the entire video. Would he have written the story if the video had been other than has been described? Interestingly, he asked Esparza if Nancy had been informed that she was being taped and recorded. Esparza told him that she had been. The recording shows no such advisory to Nancy and Blumenthal pointed that out in his article of June 4, 2004 which made the front page of the national section with huge photos of Nancy.

Why all the dissembling on Esparza's part? If what he did to Nancy is ok, why isn't he proud of his handiwork documented on that video? Why not just say, "Ms. Hollebeke wasn't advised that there were two of my employees with 35 years of experience between them hiding behind the one way mirror to cross-examine her and we didn't tell her about this or the fact she was being taped and recorded?" Why did they deviate from their normal practices? Why didn't the Sheriff handle the investigation? Why were all the assistant district attorneys and Esparza himself present on the scene on a Saturday morning?

Why wasn't the process properly followed?

Read more on the cover-up. Read about attorney Roger Montoya's affidavit which says that he spoke to Hamilton before the interrogation and she told him the case was going nowhere.