Note: What follows is a letter that I received from a supporter. I have left his name off as I do not want to subject him to the vindictiveness of the other side. The letter is beautifully written and it contains pearls of wisdom. I will frame this letter and hang it in my office as a reminder of the good, brave and generous people out there who were willing to take a stand for this community and do the right thing by their own families and by people they have never met. I have a campaign volunteer who is married, taking 17 hours at UTEP and has five children. She and her family have been banging in signs and pounding the pavement for me for days. Then there is Clint Huffman (who has written publicly here) who has done the herculean task of walking neighborhhoods and parking lots all over the eastside. There is the tireless work of Mr. Valenzuela and Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Artalejo, Mr. Medina and lawyer, Stuart Leeds, his mother and father Sonia and Malkiel Leeds, James (Jim) Terrell, James (Jim) Adelstein, and lawyers Sam Snoddy, Mickey Milligan, Mike (Miguelito) Pariente, James Lucas, Felipe Millan, Gary Hill, and Roger Montoya. Then there are Major Mark Bittakis, Lorenza, Arlene, Hortencia and her daughter, Irma and Rudy, UTEP students, EPISD and SISD teachers, the Hollebeke family and retired deputy police chief George DeAngelis, and many others who have helped me. Then there are those whose names are on my contributor list. Not least, there is my dear mother, Dorothy McGill who paid to educate me and made me the lawyer that I am and who is my volunteer coordinator (566-0229) and my biggest contributor. There are my intelligent, strong and beautiful sisters who are all accomplished lawyers, Jennifer, Deborah and Elizabeth and my brother who is a dedicated intra-city teacher, Raymond (Papo) who have pounded the doors for me and given to me. Then there are the many whose names I do not mention whom I have met at their doors and on the street who are passing my message around. This campaign has brought me in touch with the most incredible people. These are the people of El Paso and those who care about El Paso.

February 7, 2008

Teresa Caballero
Democratic District Attorney Candidate
300 East Main Street, Suite 1136
El Paso TX 79901

Dear Teresa,

Enclosed you will find a check as my contribution to your campaign. Although the amount is not huge, please know that it comes from the heart, nevertheless.

At the same time I want you to know that you are the only candidate that I am supporting in your race. At times people have a tendency to contribute the same amount to all the candidates in order to cover their bets, this way when whoever wins that person can say "I supported you". This is not the case with me...

Additionally, I want to offer my support on the day of election, March 4th to pass out campaign materials at the…It is my precinct and I would be honored to cover it for you the majority of the day. From 6:30 am to 7:00pm. But I will break for breakfast and then again for lunch.

Finally, I must ask a favor of you: at night when you are laying there in your bed trying to take in the day’s events…don’t forget why you ran for office. Remember those who were with you and those who threw $50.00 your way just to cover their bases but then asked you not to say they were with you. But most of all…remember the promises you made to yourself.

And in the unlikely event that for some reason you do not win…know that it was my pleasure-but more importantly-my privilege-to stand with you and that I was honored to give you not only a contribution but more importantly-my vote.

Sincerely,

Un Abrazo!

Esparza's people have literally been out stealing my signs for a few weeks now. At six this morning, a man in a white Blazer was seen taking down my $130 banner at El Paso Tile on Montana Ave. There is a man who lives on the premises at El Paso Tile and when he came out of his trailer to see what was going on, the thief jumped in his white Trail blazer and headed east. We will make a police report. The man who lives there has been provided with a camera. A new banner will be put up today. There has been systematic stealing and destroying of my signs by Esparza's people.

What does this tell you about him and his followers? Desperate and unethical and so brazen.

Mrs. Leeds, Stuart Leeds' mother, had her sign stolen within two days of it being put up. She made a police report. Several signs were stolen from Pipo's barber shop. My sign at Doris Sipes' law office was stolen. These signs are located on busy streets. Another supporter found her sign torn to shreds in her front yard.They don't care who sees them stealing. Who is going to prosecute them?

One of my campaign workers two weeks ago actually caught red handed two guys taking out one of my signs at a location on Montana. They said they worked for Jaime Esparza.

These signs were purchased with your money. Behold the thieves. Take pictures get plate numbers and I will expose them here on my website. As for the thief this morning, we have a description of him and his car.

Here are some facts regarding my opponent's platform. Back in September 2005, Esparza was subpoenaed to testify in the Nancy Hollebeke Federal Civil rights Trial. Esparza was to come explain to the jury why he had Nancy Hollebeke thrown in jail when she reported that El Paso Police Officers Albert Machorro, Jr. (whose father works for Esparza) and Jose/Joe Garcia had raped her. The Hollebeke case had been set for September 2005 since June 2005. The judge was adamant that the trial was going on the given September date.

Monday, the first day of trial, Esparza's attorney, the county attorney's office, showed up in federal court asking the court to release Esparza from his subpoena. Esparza wanted to fly to Corpus Christi to attend a banquet to pick up an award. The Court said Esparza could go to the banquet. (Some special treatment there. Don't try this yourselves at home. You won't like the results and it won't matter that you had bought your tickets a year ago for your 50th wedding anniversay and your spouse was dying.) On top of it all, it was hurricane weather in Corpus Christi that week. Rather than answer for his conduct in Ms. Hollebeke's case, Esparza arranged for his friends in a private non-governmental group of prosecutors to give him a party and an award the very week of the Hollebeke trial way across the entire state of Texas. He couldn't have gotten further away. Ever since, Esparza has spent quite a bit of time announcing to the public that the "State Bar of Texas" had named him the "Prosecutor of the Year." He even has a banner to prove it which he has hung over the mezannine on the second floor of the court house. Jurors coming into the court house see it when they walk in and look up.

During the KVIA televised debate last week and at forums around town, Esparza regularly refers to his "prosecutor of the year award." He says he is very proud of it. He cannot answer to the voter as to why he hasn't noticed the rampant public corruption and investigated or prosecuted it. He can't answer why he has taken money and given money to the main targets of the FBI public corruption probe. He cannot answer why he had Nancy Hollebeke and former Deputy Police Chief George DeAngelis thrown in jail for whistle-blowing on corruption. But what he does do is pull out the "Prosecutor of the Year award." He thinks he can change the subject with it and that it makes him look honorable and legitimate. He wants the public to think that the State Bar of Texas, a revered governmental entity charged with, amongst other things licensing attorneys and monitoring their conduct, selected him for the award. He has told people that the State Bar chose him above all others for the award. It is a center piece in his stump speech. He clings to this award.

Unfortunately it is not true. Attached to the bottom of this blog is a letter/Open Records Request from Stuart Leeds to the State Bar of Texas asking them about the award. Also attached is a response letter from the State Bar saying that it had nothing to do with this award except to pay for half its cost. The State Bar letter said: "The Criminal Justice Section of the State Bar's only involvement in the process is to provide payment for half the cost of the award." The State Bar letter says that the "Texas County and District Attorney's Association" determined who got the award. What is the Texas County and District Attorney's Association? It is a private organization of which Esparza is a member and past office holder. It is not governmental, despite its official sounding name. In fact, when we contacted them about getting information behind the award, Mr. Robert Kepple, its drector told us they were a private group, not governmental and therefore not subject to the Open Records Act and Texas Freedom of Information Act and did not have to give us any of the requested information.

Stuart Leeds had asked for a copy of the nomination form nominating Esparza, who else was in the running for it, who voted, what was the vote count, what were the criteria for the award and for any documentation received from the El Paso County District Attorney's Office and any El Pasoans in support of Esparza for this award. The State Bar responded it knew nothing about the award or its process when it wrote, "after a review of its records the State Bar has determined that it has no additional information responsive to your request."

After 16 years, Esparza is left with retrying the biggest case of his career, the David Renteria case which he personally botched the first time, a reputation for trampeling on the United States Constitution, being a lawsuit magnet, a court of inquiry to probe corruption in his own office and one bogus award he drags around town hoping that the people will be fooled.

As I have said many times, be very careful of District Attorneys who lie about things big and small, even awards. Please see for yourselves and look at the attachment below.

Dear readers, as I have told you, one of the realities regarding my bid for the office of District Attorney is that I would have to spend time and money battling misinformation generated about me by the El Paso Times run by Dionicio Flores. It is simply a fact of life. Many of the Times' writers, not all, but many, write on subjects that they know nothing about or know very little about. As a result, they misinform their readers through their ignorance. Some of the writers are just downright dishonest and print lies or leave out information that leaves the reader with a false impression. These kinds of lies are called lies of omission. The Times is very good at that.

One of my main campaign platforms is to apply the law equally to all. Applying the law equally to all should be a given, but sadly that has not been the case in El Paso for many years under Esparza's regime.

I have outlined over the months several cases that illustrate how Esparza plays favorites with those in power (see blogs on Crowder, Joe Wardy, Ocegueda, Albert Machorro Jr.,...). I used the example of El PasoTimes reporter David Crowder's 2006 arrest for DWI. In that case, Esparza refused to prosecute David Crowder even though the police had determined that he exhibited signs of intoxication. Even though the police had placed Crowder in custody for DWI and had transported him to a police station, Esparza ordered Crowder's release. As a result, Crowder never saw the inside of the jail nor did Esparza prosecute him. On top of it all Crowder had already stepped in the jello before as this was his SECOND arrest for DWI. The average El Pasoan in circumstances similar to Crowder's would have been booked in jail and faced prosecution for DWI. How do I know this? I am a lawyer and as a former prosecutor and as a defense attorney, I have handled hundreds of DWI cases over the years. I also researched the facts behind Crowder's case.

El Paso Times on line editor Jay Koester wrote a blog regarding David Crowder's second arrest for DWI and my letters to the voters regarding this arrest. In reading Koester's blog it is apparent that Koester is upset with me. I don't know Mr. Koester. I don't believe we have ever met. I don't care if he is upset with me, but I do care if he misinforms his readers about me and the law. Koester, in his blog, made some incorrect assertions in defense of his colleague Crowder. Koester submits that if you drink and drive and get stopped by the police and exhibit signs of intoxication by failing field tests, and then get taken to the station because of your performance on the tests but then blow UNDER .08 down at the station, you will NOT be charged with DWI. If you believe Mr. Koester's information, and you do what David Crowder did, you are in for a world of hurt and legal trouble. In the end, it will cost you your license to drive, and maybe your job, thousands of dollars in legal fees and the public humiliation of having a mug shot of you on file in the system and having to go to court month after month to battle the charges. After all is said and done, chances are you will end up on probation with a conviction for DWI.

Here is what the El Paso Times reported on Crowder's DWI:

"Sambrano [police spokesman] said Crowder was taken to a police command center after peforming a field sobriety test. Sambrano said Crowder was released after passing a breath test. In Texas, a person is considered drunk when the blood alcohol level is .08 or higher."

Koester said in his blog that: "Crowder passed the BREATH TEST! There was no case for Esparza to prosecute. Esparza never had a chance to "release" Crowder. It never went that far."

Koester is saying that I have "slandered" Crowder and that I have not properly informed my readers.
Consider the following:

-Police stopped Crowder on suspicion of DWI.
-They had him perform field sobriety tests.
-When a suspect fails a field sobriety test the person is placed under arrest, cuffed and taken to a police station.
-When the Times reports that "Crowder was taken to a police command center" this means he was placed in cuffs, in the patrol car and taken to the station.
-At the station, an arrestee is given the opportunity to take a breath test. A person may consent and give a specimen or a person may refuse and not give a breath specimen.
-If a person does not give a breath specimen, he certainly is not released because there is no specimen. The case lives on because the police have already determined that he is DWI by virtue of his failing the field sobriety tests.
-Using Koester's premise, if there is no breath test to prove that you are .08 or above, then there is no proof of DWI and therefore a person is released. That of course is not the law.
-If a person takes the breath test and passes, the person is still under arrest because he failed the field tests.
-If the person takes the breath test and fails, then the police have one more piece of evidence that the person is guilty of DWI.
-There are people who refuse to take either test. The police can still arrest if there are other signs of intoxication like slurred speech, strong smell of alcohol, blood shot eyes, dangerous driving, etc.

When the Times writes that a person in Texas is drunk if he blows .08 or higher, that is correct. Except that is not the whole truth. The Times didn't tell you that there are TWO definitions of DWI in Texas. Texas Penal Code Sec. 49.01(2)(A) states, "intoxicated means: not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol into the body or (B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more." Definition (A) is usually proved by failed field tests. It can also be proved by other reasons cited above. There are several tests: Walk a straight line, count backwards and forwards, hold one leg up, the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test (where the eyeball jerks at a certain angle), etc. Definition (B) is usually proved by a breath or blood sample. Why didn't the Times tell you about definition A, the more widely used one in DWI cases?

If a person fails the field tests but blows for example .04 he is charged and PROSECUTED only under definition A and not the .08 definiton. This happens every day of the week.

The State of Texas has these two definitions because there are people who simply cannot hold their liquor; they become intoxicated after having only had a little bit of alcohol. If they blow, they could very well pass the breath test but are completely unfit to drive. On the other hand, there are people who can really drink a lot and still walk a straight line but fail the breath test because they are loaded. These people should also not be behind the wheel. The law provides for both kinds of drunks on the road.

Koester writes that there was "no DWI to prosecute because Crowder passed the breath test." That is false because Crowder had failed the field tests and that is why the police put him in custody and took him to the station. If Crowder had passed the field tests then the police would not have taken him to the station in the first place.

Koster writes that "Crowder passed the BREATH TEST! There was no case for Esparza to prosecute. Esparza never had a chance to "release" Crowder. It never went that far." This is also false. This assertion of Koester's also shows his ignorance of the arrest process under the DIMS program. Under DIMS, when an officer makes an arrest he calls the DA's office prior to booking the defendant into the jail and asks the DA if he will accept the case for prosecution. Under DIMS, Esparza has made himself the gatekeeper of the jail. If he says no, then the person goes free. (A magistrate should be making that determination.) In Esparza's own press release reported by various media including the NewspaperTree Esparza himself wrote:

"When a defendant is detained by an officer, an on-duty prosecutor instantly receives a report allowing him/her to decide, based on the merits of the case, whether or not it will be accepted for prosecution. If the prosecutor decides not to file charges, the individual is immediately released."

How could Koester be so ignorant of what DIMS is and what my opponent has said himself what the process is? Koester's own newspaper received the above quoted press release. Did Koester not know about defendants, including Crowder, being immediately released when the DA says no to a case or is he deliberately misrepresenting the facts regarding the DIMS arrest procedures here in El Paso? Indeed it was the DA who had Crowder released as per his own DIMS system.

In Crowder's case, the police followed DIMS procedures and contacted the DA and he said no, he would not accept the case. He used the excuse that Crowder had blown under the legal limit and ignored the fact that the police had determined that Crowder had failed the field tests. Crowder was then immediately released. No doubt this was to the chagrin of the officers who felt they had a solid DWI.

Any other citizen similary situated would have been booked and prosecuted. It was by sheer coincadence that I happened to have a DWI case with the same facts at the same time Crowder's case came out. I was appointed by a county court judge to represent an indigent man who had been arrested for DWI. He was in custody when I got the case and had been in jail for over a week. Like Crowder, my client had blown under the legal limit. He had blown a .06. Unlike Crowder's case, the DA had accepted my client's case for prosecution and they were going full force ahead. I went to the DA supervisor and I said that "I want the same treatment for my client that David Crowder had gotten. I wanted an outright dismissal because my client had blown under." Of course in the legal world having a client who has blown under but who has failed the field tests means nothing. But I looked the supervisor straight in the eye and said I was not kidding and that if they didn't dismiss it right then and there I would haul into court David Crowder and Jaime Esparza so they could explain to the jury what the difference between the two cases were." The supervisor knew I would do what I said I was going to do. He knew it would get rough and he knew that they could not explain to a jury how they were prosecuting one man who had blown under and let another man go who had blown under and both had failed the field tests. Both had been under the same DA's DIMS process and each had been treated differently. The poor man went to jail and the newspaper reporter went home. The DA supervisor recognized this hypocrisy and my willingness to expose it and immediately dismissed my client's case. However, the dismissal did not erase the fact that my client had actually been booked and printed and had his mug shot taken, now had a record, and had spent a week of his life in jail. Crowder went through none of that.

Koester goes on to say that I had not exposed the Crowder case on my website but rather the El Paso Times had exposed Crowder's arrest. What I exposed on my website was the special treament Crowder received by the DA's office.

I encourage Mr. Koester to research DWI law in Texas and the DIMS arrest process before he writes any more blogs on DWIs and the arrest procedure used here in El Paso. He can find much information on DIMS on my website but not in his own newspaper which may account for his profound ignorance on the subject. It is telling about Koester that he does not understand DIMS, which happens to be one of the burning issues in my race and that of the Sheriff's. Koester really should inform himself even if it is just so that he can cast his own vote in my race and the Sheriff's race in a responsible manner. Doing the proper research might also equate into his properly informing his readers on these matters so that they too can cast an intelligent and good vote in March and make El Paso a better place. That is the job of a good journalist who reveres the constitution and the rule of law. I invite Mr. Koester back to my website and am glad that he comes to see what I have written.

Note: This is my third mailout which was taken to the post office yesterday. I got such a great response from the second mailout that I am sending that mailout with ADDED information. Please read about Esparza's campaign report, and his secretary's brother Alberto Ocegueda not being prosecuted for child molestation allegations. Ocegueda is a teacher in the Socorro school district.

January 28, 2008

Dear fellow El Pasoans,

This is the second letter I have sent to dedicated voters. My name is Theresa Caballero and I am seeking the office of District Attorney for the 34th Judicial District in the March 4, 2008 democratic primary. I introduced myself to you in my first mailing on January 4, 2008 where you read about my credentials and some of the issues involved in this race. If you did not receive that letter, please visit my website, TC4DA.COM, where you will find it posted on January 4, 2008 in its entirety.

In that letter, I told you that I would explain why Dionicio Flores, editor of the El Paso Times, the only English Language daily newspaper in El Paso would use his monopolistic power to run a smear campaign against me and thereby try and influence you not to vote for me. Keep in mind that Dionicio Flores actually told you he was going to do this when he wrote in a November 2007 editorial that my campaign would be “grist” for future editorials. Since print media can wield tremendous influence, especially when it remains unchallenged, I take Mr. Flores at his word. It is for this reason that I write you this letter. I will not take the Times’ onslaught lying down, anymore than I would defer to any powerful interest as your District Attorney.

So now I pose a simple question to you: why would Mr. Flores be so rattled by me, a person he has never met and a person whose work in the courtroom as a lawyer he has never seen? What does he actually know of me? That I have fought against unwarranted higher taxes, I have fought for the rights of the taxpayer, I have fought against corrupt government and I have an impeccable record as a trial attorney. Why then would Mr. Flores be so emotional and vitriolic regarding a private citizen who has never previously run for or held public office? What have I done to engender such hostility? My honesty is regarded so highly that I was asked to help author the ethics code for the County of El Paso. I am an attorney honorable enough to appear in Federal Court, State Court and Military Courts-Martial. How then to make sense of Mr. Flores’ animosity? I write you this letter to explain. Just as they say never judge a book by its cover, as you will see, never judge the Times by what you read and mistake it for news. It is only spin, plain and simple; spin intended to further personal agendas rather than what it should rightfully be: unbiased reporting intended to inform.

Keep in mind that once upon a time, years before I announced my own race for District Attorney, Mr. Flores used his pages to comment on the different scandals my opponent Jaime Esparza created. Mr. Flores now apparently hopes his readers would think so little of what he once published that they have long forgotten. I had provided these articles in their entirety on my website, TC4DA.COM. The El Paso Times received full credit and attribution. Nevertheless, within mere days the lawyer for the El Paso Times demanded that I remove them. Mr. Flores, whose paper suffers from embarrassingly low circulation, for some reason did not want anyone to see what he had once written about my opponent. Why would a news outlet which purports to be proud of its publications not want greater exposure? What kind of newspaper editor first tells his readers that the current District Attorney Esparza abused his power, trampled on the first amendment, and wrongfully prosecuted the innocent, and now seeks to praise this same DA? Why would Mr. Flores try to destroy my candidacy when I represent positive change for El Paso? Why would he intend to sabotage my campaign when I only seek to expose exactly the kinds of transgressions he and the Times itself published about my opponent? Transgressions the likes of which persist to this very day? Let’s take a walk down memory lane. Let’s listen to Mr. Flores in his own newspaper’s words:

8-22-00, El Paso Times editorial sub-titled Police, DA Must be Held Accountable
“El Paso’s police and District Attorney want to abridge your first amendment rights by muzzling the media and by silencing and intimidating sourcesWhat the police and DA are doing is a blatant attempt to muzzle the media to protect themselves at the expense of freedom of information, and with the very real danger of not investigating what needs to be investigated.”

8-24-00, El Paso Times editorial titled Justice Delayed
“This week it was revealed that the investigation of media leaks in the police department is not a search for the truth but a district attorney witch hunt fraught with spite, vengeance and senseless foot-draggingWhat a pathetic display of law enforcement or lack thereofEsparza’s intransigence is reprehensible.”

9-20-00, El Paso Times editorial sub-titled Esparza should turn his zeal toward real crime
“Picture District Attorney Jaime Esparza dressed as Don Quixote, a death grip on his prosecutorial lance, charging furiously at a windmill whose paddles are labeled George DeAngelis, Cerjio Martinez, El Paso Times, Channel 7, Larry Francis.

That’s the clownish level to which Esparza has sunk in his unhealthily obsessive pursuit of who leaked internal police documents to the Times and Channel 7-KVIA in June. Esparza and the DA’s office have been fixated with this crusade for an incredible 13 weeks. What an unnecessary waste of time and money for both taxpayers and those targeted by the investigation.

But it’s not nearly over. Now, desperately flailing about in his all-consuming attempt to trample the First Amendment underfoot, Esparza is ...

An attorney called Francis [former mayor, Larry Francis] in the spring about two police officers-one of them DeAngelis -- who were concerned about alleged improprieties in the police department and wanted advice about what to do.

It’s significant that they didn’t feel comfortable going to the department’s Internal Affairs Division, or to Esparza...

...and it deserves a thorough investigation, possibly by a special prosecutor, certainly not a local rubber-stamper.

Now the question is, who’s next on Esparza’s hit list?...

Imagine how El Paso would benefit if Esparza, rather than spending his time and effort trying to subvert freedom of speech...turned that zeal toward the prosecution of real crime.”

9-24-00, El Paso Times editorial titled Intimidation intensifies and subtitled Esparza is making whistleblowers think twice
“One of the most frightening aspects of the El Paso district attorney’s investigation of leaks of public information to the media is the chilling effect it already is having on whistle-blowers.

Whistle-blowers are employees who report fraud or misconduct by officials and companies, public and private. We need whistle-blowers...

But you’d never know that from the way District Attorney Jaime Esparza and a grand jury have targeted people who were simply trying to do the right thing: report problems in the police department so that they could be corrected...

The bad news is that, because Esparza is focusing more on punishing whistle-blowers than on uncovering misconduct or mismanagement in the police department, it may be a long time before anyone speaks up again. What a shame...

That’s a disservice to the Police Department, it’s a damaging blow to the spirit of public service, and it’s an insult to every El Pasoan.”


I have previously questioned where DA Jaime Esparza has been regarding the current, rampant public corruption that has unfolded on his watch. You have just read the El Paso Times commentaries regarding Esparza’s treatment of corruption charges on an earlier occasion. His past proves to be an indicator of his present, and our potentially dangerous future. When two high ranking police officers, one the deputy police chief, second in command only to the chief, came forward to blow the whistle on a possible drug cartel infiltration at our police department, Esparza did not pursue an investigation. Instead, he relentlessly hunted down the two officers who made the complaint and actually had them arrested and indicted. No wonder the FBI has had to investigate local corruption. Esparza made clear long ago that he will not. Worse. Woe to citizens, even police officers, who dare to speak out – the taxpayer had to pay George DeAngelis $250,000 in the end for the wrong done to him.

And woe to our pocketbooks. Amazingly, it’s not just tolerance of corruption but possible malfeasance of monumental proportions that also afflicts Esparza’s office. As recently as October 13, 2007 in an article entitled Feds say they paid county too much, the Times reported:

“The Department of Justice has asked El Paso County officials [Jaime Esparza] to explain, document or justify claiming $3.9 million extra in reimbursements from the government for prosecuting federally referred criminal cases...

A September audit report by the Department’s Office of Inspector General, ...states the district [Jaime Esparza] and county attorney’s offices repeatedly sought and received too much reimbursement from the federal program...

The audit contends the county should have been paid $11.8 million since 2002, not the $13.5 million that was paid...”


This short, convoluted article written by David Crowder—the same David Crowder who Esparza not so coincidentally released on a DWI charge last year--tells us that the Justice Department believes Esparza has over-billed the federal government to the tune of millions of dollars and is now investigating Esparza’s office. In a city where the press performs its job and watches over all public officials, this would be front page, large font, headline news. The DA has a job to do and a budget within which to do it. Our sitting DA not only doesn’t do his job; he even charges extra for not doing it. And the El Paso Times? It merely whispers about it and lets it drop. The Times has yet to write one follow-up on this latest scandal. You can be sure that when the Feds want their money back from Jaime Esparza who they say possibly over-billed them, you, the El Paso taxpayer, will pay and go on paying for the millions overspent and owed. And you can be sure that Flores at the Times won’t mention that either.

All this is happening against the backdrop of a nationally reported public corruption investigation into local El Paso politicians by the FBI. Esparza cannot answer for his failure to investigate let alone prosecute these corrupt officials who now admit they were selling their votes at our expense. He cannot answer why he didn’t notice rampant corruption even when some of it was occurring just one floor above him at the courthouse. He cannot answer why he, as the chief prosecutor for the state of Texas in El Paso, didn’t notice stealing at high levels when the average El Pasoan has known about it for years. The FBI investigation and the federal prosecutions of these corrupt elected officials are a stinging indictment of Esparza’s refusal to prosecute the corrupt. Had Esparza done his job, the Feds wouldn’t have to do it for us.

As you have read from the Times itself, before I ever entered the scene, Mr. Flores had accused Esparza of not upholding his oath to protect the Constitution, specifically the right to free speech; for prosecuting whistle-blowers; for misusing taxpayer money; for having a hit list; for using the grand jury as a weapon. But now the Times has changed with the times. Now Mr. Flores does not mention Esparza’s failure to act on our behalf and now he gives scant coverage to an investigation into Esparza’s multi-million dollar possible over billing. Things don’t get much worse for an incumbent. And yet Mr. Flores still writes that I, the candidate seeking genuine reform and the restoration of honesty to the DA’s office, am “grist” for future editorials. Again: why? Consider the following:

In May 2005, I appeared before City Council, as a private citizen, taxpayer and homeowner, to complain about property valuations by the Central Appraisal District. I explained to City Council that El Pasoans needed an investigation into CAD for its selective and uneven appraisals. Some people have high appraisals while others do not. I used the example of Dionicio Flores’ home. I explained before council, the public, public access TV and other media including the Times and El Diario of El Paso that Mr. Flores had purchased his home in the early 1990’s in the upscale neighborhood The Willows and that since then his evaluations had hardly moved while the rest of us had been hit hard. I implored council on behalf of the abused taxpayer to look into the CAD because obviously the El Paso Times would not. Not unless Mr. Flores its editor wished to publicly reveal his own valuations.

Only the Diario reporter was interested in the story. On May 23, 2005, the Diario ran a front page article that featured the gross inequities of CAD, highlighting Mr. Flores’ appraisals vis-à-vis his neighbors’ to illustrate the point. The Diario published that in 1993, CAD listed Flores’ home at $230,400. In 2004, CAD listed the same home, still owned by Flores, at $225,418. According to the Diario figures, Flores’ home valuation had DECREASED by 2.2%. According to the Diario article, the average home value in El Paso during the same time period had INCREASED by 47%. When the Diario called Flores for comment on what criteria the CAD uses to increase property valuations by 47% in the last 11 years while in exclusive sectors of the city, valuations went down, Flores was quoted as saying, “I don’t knowI don’t know about that” When asked about his own home he said, “I don’t know how much it costs (the house) or how much it cost in 1993.” Flores’ frustrated response, “I don’t know why you are calling me, nor do I know with whom I am speaking and I don’t have to talk about this with you” was also published in the Diario article. To this day, to my knowledge, there has yet to be an article in the El Paso Times regarding the vast disparities of property valuations coming from CAD. And in the interim? The Diario recently reported that 400 El Paso families each month lose their homes and are living in them up to the day they are evicted. High property taxes no doubt play a factor for those living paycheck to paycheck. Also in the interim, just a short two years since my presentation before council on Flores’ property and the subsequent Diario article, Mr. Flores’ home evaluation shot up to $319,152. Did I cost Mr. Flores some money? Is that why he says I will be “grist” for future editorials?

In July 2006, El Paso Times reporter David Crowder (the same reporter who was in council chambers the day I exposed the CAD and Mr. Flores’ property evaluations) was arrested by the El Paso Police for DWI. Yet when Crowder was taken into custody and his DWI case presented for prosecution, Esparza refused to prosecute the case. Despite police evidence, and the fact that this was Crowder’s SECOND arrest for DWI, Crowder, who Dionicio Flores considers his star reporter, was immediately released by Esparza. Flores well knows that Esparza’s decision to dismiss this case benefitted Crowder and therefore the Times. In this chummy agreement between press and public official, one can wonder that a favor on one side naturally incurs a debt on the other.

I exposed the Crowder episode on my website months ago since it shows so transparently how Esparza’s regime fails to apply the law equally when it comes to those in power. Crowder’s case is but one of many that exemplifies how Dionicio Flores and my opponent have created two El Pasos. One set of rules for the privileged and powerful and connected, another for the rest of us.

Recently, Flores has published several flattering articles lauding Esparza’s new DWI program to get drunken drivers off the streets. To call this shameless would be an understatement. Mr. Esparza’s record on the Crowder case alone speaks for itself. The rest of us still find ourselves sharing the road with drunk drivers who happen to have friends in high places. Can anyone believe the new DWI programs will ever apply to them?

Do you want a handful of wealthy Republicans determining who your DA should be? Ask yourself why Mr. Flores has not told you that Esparza’s campaign contribution list is a veritable “who’s who” of wealthy Republican donors. Over one-third of Esparza’s contributors come from the west side of El Paso, including the president of the Coronado Country Club. The list includes Woody Hunt, Paul Foster, Robert Brown, Gerry Rubin, Rick Francis, Douglas and Scott Schwartz, J.O. Stewart and Steve Fox. This wealthy group has given hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years to various Republicans and the Republican Party. They have been huge supporters of George W. Bush and have given massive sums of money to Republicans Rick Perry and Tom Craddick. Why do these Republicans care so much about the DA’s race and why are they getting behind a supposed Democratic candidate like my opponent? Could it be because my opponent panders to the elite monied-class for campaign funds? These funds afford Esparza $320 meals in Mexico City at the Maria Isabela Sheraton. He writes these meals off as campaign expenditures. Why is Esparza campaigning in Mexico City, or is he? We see that my opponent’s friends and allies are rewarded. One example of this favoritism is when the police caught former Mayor Joe Wardy at the airport with a loaded gun about to board a flight. The police called Esparza for instructions and Esparza informed them that he would not prosecute Wardy. The police immediately released Wardy. Carrying a gun in the secured area of an airport is a felony offense under Texas law. Esparza prosecutes citizens for this very same offense year after year. If you carried a loaded gun into security at the airport, do you think Esparza would let you go? Ask yourself why Mr. Flores kept publishing in his paper through the pen of David Crowder that Wardy’s case was a federal offense when in fact it is a State offense. Texas Penal Code Sec. 46.03 states, “A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm...into a secured area of an airport.” Why did Flores remain silent about Esparza refusing to prosecute Wardy for a crime he has prosecuted other El Pasoans for? I exposed the Wardy case on my website. I also exposed Flores’ failure to inform his readers that Wardy’s case was a State offense and Esparza let him go.

Why did Flores not tell you that Esparza refused to prosecute local Socorro school district coach Alberto Ocegueda on child molestation allegations? In 2006, a judge ordered the arrest of Mr. Ocegueda for allegedly molesting a six year old girl at Lujan Chavez Elementary. (See links below for a copy of the complaint affidavit signed by the judge). Esparza refused to prosecute Ocegueda. Ocegueda happens to be the brother of Esparza’s personal secretary, Amy Ocegueda Lujan. Amy Ocegueda Lujan is the same secretary whom Esparza pays a salary of over $80,000 a year to. She earns more than many lawyers do in the DA’s office. Amy Ocegueda Lujan also travels to Mexico City on the taxpayer dime. What legitimate business could a secretary be doing on behalf of the residents of El Paso County in Mexico City? All of this is paid for by your tax money. This fall, more than 30 parents of children at Alberto Ocegueda’s new school held a demonstration. The angry and concerned parents gathered outside the school and protested against Ocegueda and Esparza. Mr. Flores did not write one article about the demonstration. Nor was there an article about the connection between Esparza and Ocegueda. I exposed on my website the Ocegueda case as well as Mr. Flores’ failure to inform you of its true facts. Ocegueda is a free man and still teaches in the Socorro school district.

Perhaps now you can discern why in November 2007, in the middle of my race, Mr. Flores told you that I will be “grist” for future editorials. I exposed the gross disparity between his personal property tax assessment and those of the rest of us. I exposed the special treatment his star reporter Crowder received at the hands of my opponent. I exposed Flores’ double speak regarding the sitting DA and the Ocegueda case. When the Times tries to spin, slam and smear me, remember this. Ask yourself what Flores could honestly say about me as a private citizen. And compare that with what he once honestly did say about Esparza’s misdeeds as DA: trampling on the constitution, misusing the grand jury, prosecuting whistleblowers, maintaining a hit list of enemies. Remember this as you write your check this month for your property taxes while at the same time you read about public officials selling their votes to impose bonds that result in just those higher property taxes. Ask yourself why Mr. Flores has not written about 400 El Paso families losing their homes every month partly due to exorbitant property taxes, clinging to their residences up to the day they’re evicted. Ask yourself why Mr. Flores has not once written of Esparza’s failure to prosecute corrupt officials that are now FBI targets or follow up on Esparza’s “possible over billing to the Feds.” Ask yourself how Flores, in light of all this, writes that I, a homeowner and candidate for DA seeking reform in a cesspool of corruption, am “grist” for future editorials.

As the Times sits down at length to interview my opponent, they will attack me for not doing the same. They may claim, as others have tried to do, that I am not granting fair media access. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would like nothing more than a fighting chance with a fair press. But when blatant bias becomes obvious, an honest candidate interviewing with the Times and its ilk would be like Daniel walking into the lion’s den. But make no mistake. This is no lion’s den. This is a pack of wolves. No. I will not be interviewing with the El Paso Times editorial board run by Dionicio Flores. I only seek endorsements from those qualified to endorse based on their record of impartiality and fairness. That is why I seek only your endorsement. You, the voter, control the final endorsement and it is only your endorsement I seek. Vote for me for DA on March 4 and by doing so tell Dionicio Flores at the Times and Jaime Esparza we’ve had enough of business as usual.

Our Constitution’s First Amendment is the most important and that is why it is first. It grants us as a people the right to free speech and freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. Yet if a citizen does not have the right to speak out, then, logically, he cannot exercise any of the other rights that follow. How can you demand your rights if you cannot even state them? How can you fairly exercise your right to vote if the press does not properly inform you? How can democracy survive if those who exercise control over information mislead the electorate? How can you vote for Theresa Caballero for DA if you don’t even know she is running? How do you know what she believes if the media not only doesn’t tell you but vilifies her? The First Amendment may grant us freedom of speech, but when our voices are muzzled by a press that shirks its duties, when it has long ceased to be honest and fair, when it no longer functions as it should as the people’s watchdog on the government, then the First Amendment itself has been destroyed by the press, the very institution it was designed to protect. I have long believed that Mr. Flores, as the monopolistic manager of El Paso’s only English daily newspaper abdicated his responsibilities as a would-be journalist through his bitter bias that underscores his disdain not just for his opponents, but for the constitution we all revere.

We have suffered greatly because of this. I am not afraid to say so even when I know Mr. Flores will expend barrels of ink to suggest to you that I should not be your next DA. He would have you believe all is well in El Paso. That we live in America’s third safest city. I ask you: does El Paso feel safe to you? Does all seem well while corruption flourishes all around us? No matter what Flores at the Times spews, attacking me and complimenting my opponent, we cannot and need not endure another four corruption-laden years just because Mr. Flores pretends all is well. You now have a choice after sixteen long years of stagnation.

Please, stand up for me so that I can continue to stand up for you. I need your help at the polls on March 4, 2008. I also need your help as I face an inevitable onslaught from this well organized, well funded propaganda machine. I am fighting against entrenched interests whose coffers are bottomless. My own campaign is mostly self-funded. I ask for your vote for a better El Paso. I also ask for your financial help so I can best wage this battle against powerful forces. No amount is too small. Please, contribute whatever you can. You can send a check to the address at the bottom of this letter, or you can contribute on-line at TC4DA.COM. There you can also see for yourself what I truly believe, in my own words, unfiltered by Dionicio Flores. Read my numerous blogs on the many issues and please, provide your comments on this most critical election. Together, we can bring about the change El Paso needs and deserves.

Sincerely,




Theresa Caballero
TC4DA.com
300 East Main Street, Suite 1136
El Paso, Texas 79901
thcaballero@hotmail.com
915-241-8418