Note: On Sunday, November 11, 2007, I wrote the first part of my blog on my client Rachel Quintana. I encourage you to read that blog as it forms the foundation for this one.

Rachel Quintana was such a successful campaigner that despite all pre-race prognostications, she found herself in a runoff with the El Paso Times favorite Jimmy Suerken. Keep in mind that retiring representative Presi Ortega and all of his allies, city reprentatives Steve Ortega and Susie Byrd, were also fervently backing Suerken. Also note that never once did the Times dare to mention that their golden boy’s chief cheerleader, Presi Oretga, had acquired the status of not just tax deadbeat, but serious tax deadbeat as evidenced by the $350,000 tax lien the IRS had levied against him. Wouldn’t want to tarnish an image of an ally by reference to a fairly salient fact, now would they? Don Flores at the Times beat the drum weekly for Suerken against Quintana. It became deafening. Paul Strelzin, another known tax deadbeat (in 2001 he supported his politician friend’s 11.89% tax increase on all of us while it turned out that he himself hadn’t paid his own property taxes in four years) used his bully pulpit at Univision 1650 AM to push and then push harder for Suerken. If that weren’t enough, average citizens, people just like you who dared to support Quintana were publicly savaged.

For example: Jery and Marvin Rosenbaum who had been quietly minding their own business, literally, for years, providing a service and creating jobs for El Pasoans, suddenly discovered to no one’s greater surprise than their own, that their businesses (at least one flea market and the El Paso-Los Angeles Limousine Service) were now located in a zone slated for takeover by City Manager Joyce Wilson. Why? So Miss Wilson could turn around and give the property she coveted to her friends at the private land hungry organization she aslo represents, the Paso del Norte Group. Note once more: the PDN are not only Joyce Wilson’s friends but she is actually their spokesperson. The Rosenbaums did not sit idly or silently by. They actually had the audacity to fight for their property rights and our property rights and their businesses and their livelihoods and those of their employees. They made their message very clear. Their parents had owned a store in Nazi Germany which the Nazis seized from them. The Rosenbaums said that they were not going to let that happen again.

They hooked themselves up and got information from the national movement formed by Americans fighting the Joyce Wilsons in other parts of the country, fighting the taking of land by cities to give to their friends in private industry. And one of the best things and most effective things the Rosenbaums did was support and donate to several candidates running for El Paso city council, especially those who opposed the use of eminent domain to take over private property to give to other private owners like the PDN. They were fighting for their life’s work, their employees’ jobs, their own private property rights, and by extension, the private property rights all of us cherish. Of course they supported Rachel Quintana.

Dionicio Flores’ onslaught continued. He ran all kinds of ink attacking the Rosenbaums’ lawyer. He ran all kinds of ink insinuating the Rosenbaums themselves were a special interest group ignoring in fact what they really were: hardworking, quiet, private citizens and property owners, now fighting for their rights against Joyce Wilson and her powerful minions. 2001 tax deadbeat Paul Strelzin resumed his venomous on-air attack, unleashing slanderous callers on the Rosenbaums on his talk radio propaganda-for-his-friends show. Jery and Marvin Rosenbaum did not understand this media cabal yet. They did not understand that it is a one-two knock out. Don Flores at the paper (witness today’s editorial) lays the foundation for the public lynching that is about to occur and Paul Strelzin uses the radio to allow mobs to savage their enemy du jour. The Rosenbaums naively went on the Strelzin show as guests. Did Strelzin let them state their position? Nope. Then why invite them on? To allow caller after caller to repeat over the air nothing but unsubstantiated rumors that had nothing to do with the matter of Joyce Wilson wanting to appropriate private citizens’ land and hand it over to her PDN group. The real issue becomes obfuscated and the coffins of any unwitting, purported adversary are nailed shut with bone-chilling deliberation. The press does not flinch. The press does not protest. The press actually aids and abets.

One woman called in named “Sue” (no last names required for those known to the bouncer). She claimed to be a member of the synagogue. She claimed she knew about the Rosenbaums, as though being a member of the same religion and congregation endowed her with x-ray knowledge about their businesses. “Sue” somehow knew that the Rosenbaums conducted business “under the table” and they weren’t paying their taxes. The modus operandi of tax deadbeat Strelzin is to allow his microphone to be used to spew lies and gossip and once it is out there, how does the besmeared victim fix it? Refute it? Where? How? Not on his show and certainly not in the Times. Strelzin allows people to call in and identify themselves anonymously, utter the most horrible things about you, and then deny you a response. You’re not just put on the defensive. You’re on the chopping block. The axe has fallen before you realize it. The Rosenbaums were being schooled on what happens when you oppose big money like Bill Sanders at the PDN and his politician son-in-law Robert O’Rourke and Joyce Wilson carefully placed at the City with powers of eminent domain. And “Sue”? Mission accomplished. I don’t believe we’ve heard from her again. But you can be sure we will. Her or another anonymous would-be confidential informant. You don’t need to be dancing-with-the-stars qualified when the sleazy bouncer admits you past the slimy velvet rope. Just a tight dress, exposed cleavage, and a willingness to say whatever he wants to hear.

Also remember that, although “Sue” and her friends and Strelzin were so concerned about the unsubstantiated rumor that the Rosenbaums did not pay their taxes, a rumor she herself created that day on the Strelzin show, Sue et. al. made no mention of Presi Ortega’s established $350,000 tax debt to the federal government (i.e. you the taxpayer). Why were “Sue” and Strelzin not interested or concerned about Presi Oretga’s huge and not rumored but factual tax debt? Honor among prospective thieves? Hmmm. And note the final irony in this game of smoke and mirrors and deception and insinuation. Presi Ortega said that the land downtown needed to be taken over because it didn’t generate enough taxes. Taxes he himself, interestingly, had failed to pay.

The Rosenbaums plodded on trying to shield themselves from these unprovoked, vicious attacks. They continued to believe that right would prevail. Enter Rachel Quintana, whose message was clear and simple. She stood for no new higher taxes, and no use of eminent domain to take land from private owners and give it to other private groups. In other words, Rachel Quintana was fighting Joyce Wilson, Bill Sanders, Robert O’Rourke, the PDN and Don Flores at the Times. That’s a tall order for a young woman, mother of a five year old and a FedEx employee.

Despite Don Flores’ harping and pounding in the paper and despite Strelzin’s similar efforts on his propaganda show, a miracle happened. The voters of Rachel Quintana’s district were able to hear her message of no higher taxes and no eminent domain. They not only could hear her over Don Flores’ and Strelzin’s screaming, trying to shout her down, but they voted for her and elected her as their city council representative.

But remember. Rachel was never supposed to have won that election. City Rep. Steve Ortega, supporter of Suerken and Joyce Wilson and the PDN was on the Strelzin show before Quintana had even been sworn in. Before she had voted on a single item. He was smearing her almost before the election results had been confirmed, casting aspersions on her and insinuating she was corrupt. Democracy had prevailed against entrenched special interests. But damn democracy. The special interests were going to get rid of Rachel one way or the other, come hell or high water.

Welcome to hell ladies and gentlemen. Do you feel how hot it’s getting around here?

To be continued.

It is difficult to tell you the story and convey how wrong all of this is. To the lay person who has no experience with the courts or to the reporter with limited experience, it would be hard to discern what is normal procedure and what isn’t, who is lying and who isn’t. But I will try and tell you what happened to my client City Representative Rachel Quintana as best as I can. This is a story about liars, cowards, crooks and hysterical lynch mobs. It is a story that illustrates why I am running and how rampant the corruption in this town is. It is a story about a bad District Attorney, Jaime Esparza, a bad City Manager, Joyce Wilson, and a bad Chief of Police, Richard Wiles. It is also a story about a community that either watches bad things happen to other people or actually joins in the feeding frenzy and most say nothing. It is a story about two El Pasos. It is a story about what happens to the haves and the have nots and the haves who seem to never have enough.

First I want to explain something that has been a discussion in the press, on the radio and in classrooms. I am an attorney in private practice. While I do a variety of work, the lion’s share of my practice is devoted to criminal defense work. I represent and defend people who have been accused of a crime. It is something I enjoy doing and I am proud to do it. As we all learned in fifth grade social studies, everyone in this country is entitled to a defense and everyone is innocent UNLESS proven, not until proven, but UNLESS proven guilty.

Some people have made the comment that I am against corruption but now I am defending a “corrupt politician.” The inference is that because I am defending someone accused of “corruption” (which by the way is not the accusation against my client) that I am actually for corruption. Now try to follow this flawed argument. I am against murder and rape but I defend people accused of murder and rape. By this contorted logic, if I say I am against murder and rape and then I take a case defending someone who has been accused of murder and rape I am now supposedly for murder and rape. This makes no sense. Just two months ago I represented someone Esparza wrongfully accused of murder. After I proved in court that Esparza had wrongfully accused my client of murder, he was forced to dismiss the case. -- I have also represented people who were guilty of their charges. They too need a zealous defense. The sixth amendment of the US Constitution says, "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense." The Constitution also guarantees trial by Jury to determine guilt, not trial by Joyce Wilson and a corrupt newspaper that will act as judge, jury and prosecutor. This is our system. Today is Veteran’s day. Soldiers have given their lives to uphold this system. We commemorate the sacrifices our soldiers have made on Veteran's Day but based on some of the comments I have heard this week we seem to have forgotten as a society what our soldiers died for and what our system is about. This is not about defending a "corrupt politician." This is about upholding and standing strong for our basic values even in the face of angry, ignorant mobs stirred up by El Paso Times editor Dionicio Flores, Chief of Police Richard Wiles, Joyce Wilson and their henchmen.

As you read this story, ask yourself if you are going to be part of the lynching mob?

People who condemn an individual without due process, people who think someone should admit to a crime, people who think that a defense attorney should parade her client out and join the lynching mob and violate her attorney's oath by judging and condemning her clientl instead of protecting and defending her client are either immensely ignorant of our legal system and the Constitution or they are liars and trying to mislead their listeners/readers. Listen carefully to who is saying what. Remember what you know is the true role of a true attorney. The role of an attorney is to represent her client whether the client is you, Joe Blow, or the state. When I represent and defend Rachel Quintana I am doing what I swore to do as an attorney. When Esparza
1) dismisses the DWI charges against Dick Poe or
2) when he lets his friend, former mayor Joe Wardy go after being found with a loaded gun at the airport, or when
3)he refuses to investigate charges of aggravated sexual child molestation against his secretary's brother, Alberto Ocegueda currently a teacher at an El Paso public grade school (the same secretary, Amy Ocegueda Lujan, whom he gives $45,000 of tax payer money to supplement her $30,000 county salary and whom he takes to Mexico City on "business"), Esparza is not doing his job as an attorney. He is not properly representing the people of the State of Texas. He is subjecting the citizens of El Paso to certain dangers and he is creating two El Pasos.

Who is Rachel Quintana? She is a young woman and the mother of a five year old daughter. She decided to run for city rep in district five when the seat came open. It was Presi Ortega’s District. Presi Ortega however, had other plans for his district. He wanted to hand pick his own successor, so he backed and was campaign manager for Jimmy Suerken, who it was believed would carry on Presi Ortega’s votes on higher taxes, higher fees, and the plan to take private land downtown by force of emminent domain if necessary and turn it over to a private group, the Paso del Norte Group for “development.” One would have thought that Presi Ortega would be ashamed to support higher taxes since he himself owed a whopping $350,000 to the IRS. This was reported only in the Mexican El Diario. How come? Where was Joyce Wilson's indignation for law abidingness on that one?

The Paso del Norte Group, a private land hungry group, had as a member and its head, multi-millionaire Bill Sanders who is coincidentally, the father-in-law of city representative Robert O’Rourke. In Spanish this is called "la Palanca."

Furthermore and most importantly, it was reported in the news that member and SPOKESWOMAN for the Paso del Norte Group (PDN) was none other than our very own city manager Joyce Wilson. In English we call this, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

No one in the press, not one single, solitary person, thought it odd or even worthy of a raising of the eyebrow that Joyce Wilson would be leading the charge in her capacity as city manager to acquire privately owned downtown land by force if need be and also simultaneously represent the PDN group that wanted the land as its spokeswoman poised to benefit from the land grab. Also in English legal/ethical parlance, we call this a conflict of interest.

The only people who really grasped these machinations were those of us who recognize the dangers of the current climate at city council and its hair trigger stance on eminent domain, those of us who value the long standing American principles of strong property rights, and more specifically, the downtown land owners themselves who were shocked to find out that they were the hunted prey and they were about to lose their land. These landowners quickly realized that running to the City for help from the PDN brought them straight into the loving arms of Joyce Wilson. It was worse than a bad nightmare. This was real.

So the land owners organized and tried to fight back. Leading the charge for the property owners were/are the Kimmelmans, who own Starr Western Wear and Union Fashion and the Rosenbaums who own at least one downtown flea market and El Paso-LA Limousine Service downtown. They hired an attorney; they had rallies; and they participated in the election process by donating to candidates who opposed the Joyce Wilson/PDN land grab.

Enters, young mother, concerned citizen and Fed Ex employee, Rachel Quintana, candidate for city council against higher taxes and the PDN.

To be continued.

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.

How one conducts oneself, most especially on the day to day matters, shows how one is, how one is perceived and how one sees oneself in the greater scheme. We already know that by his own written policy, Esparza has exempted himself and his freinds from his own DIMS program. In other words, if you get arrested Esparza wants you to go straight to jail without benefit of a judge. If Esparza gets arrested or one of his friends like former Mayor Joe Wardy, (who was caught at the airport with a loaded gun in the security area and Esparza let him go) they get the full benefit of the law and get to go before a judge. Mr. Esparza thinks he and his friends are more important than thee and me. Esparza has actually placed himself above the law by his own illegal written policy. DIMS would be a BIG example of Esparza's arrogance. What would be a smaller one?

On Saturday night, October 20, 2007, at the 110th Gala of the El Paso Bar Association, there was a very long line at the very crowded cash bar. A lawyer who had patiently waited in line himself to get to the front said an assistant District Attorney showed up at the front and asked a lawyer, "Hey, since you are already up here, can you buy a beer for Jaime?" The "Jaime" turned out to be Jaime Esparza.--Even kindergartners know this is line-cutting.

What does this tell us? What self-respecting lawyer would go fetch a beer for his lawyer boss when not in the course of getting one for himself? What lawyer boss is too good to wait in line himself and get his own beer? What lawyer boss would ask his employee to go wait in the long line to get him a beer? What lawyer boss would ask his employee to cut in line to get him a beer? What lawyer boss has no qualms about by-passing other people who are abiding by the rules set down by society and are waiting in line, and pushes himself to the front in order to get what he wants?

Could it be the same lawyer boss who exempts himself and all of his emplyees from DIMS, a system he imposes on the rest of us? Could it be the same lawyer boss who let his friend Joe Wardy go free on a gun charge and then lied about it but prosecutes you and your sons and daughters for the same violation? Could it be the same lawyer boss who takes campaign contributions for the purpose of campaigning and then spends $350.00 of the funds in a foreign country, at one of the fanciest restaurants in Mexico City, the Sheraton Maria Isabela, and calls it a campaign expense? And the list goes on and on...

Jaime Esparza has long conducted himself in matters both big and small as though the social and legal rules did not apply to him. Elect someone who will not conduct herself in this fashion. Remember me, Theresa Caballero, in the Democratic primary March 2008.

On Thursday, October 11, 2007, Jaime Esparza dismissed Dick Poe's DWI charge citing that there was not enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Dick Poe's family owns Dick Poe's car dealership, one of the largest car dealerships in El Paso, TX.

Dick Poe, who is 38, was arrested on October 1, 2005 for DWI. It was 3:08 in the morning. The bars close at two a.m. The police affidavit states that Poe was "travelling at a high rate of speed northbound on Mesa Street in the middle lane. The Defendant was also driving partially in the right traffic lane of north Mesa...Sgt. Cardenas also noticed that the license plate of the Defendant's vehicle was not illuminated...Sgt. Cardenas noticed a strong odor of an unknown alcoholic beverage from the Defendant's breath. Defendant's speech was slow and slurred, and his eyes appeared glossy." The report goes on to say that Poe failed the field sobriety tests and then refused to submit to a breath test.

The case, as described, is a classic DWI case and is a beautiful case for the State. The case was so strong that the prosecutor on duty the night of Poe's arrest accepted it on the spot for prosecution. Also remember that Esparza has stated publicly that his office is so efficient that he only accepts cases that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. So how is it that Poe's case became so weak? For TWO years that case sat on the court's docket. The case had multiple hearings and no one, during those two years said, "this case is weak and should never have been accepted and I am going to dismiss it." In fact, the case had several trial settings; knowing how the courts work, one can presume citizens were asked to leave their work and families, people like you and me, to come down to the court house and serve on juries and hear Poe's case. Still, no one dismissed it. Then two years later, five months before the election and while Esparza is hitting up the car dealers for campaign contributions, all of a sudden, Poe's case is weak and Esparza needs to dismiss it. What happened?

Mr. Esparza's actions of accepting a case that he later says is weak, drags someone needlessly through the legal system, and then takes two years to dismiss it, could well subject the county to lawsuits.

I try DWI cases and any other defendant with the facts of this case who doesn't own a large car dealership would NEVER get a dismissal. He would have to plead guilty or take his chances before a jury. Several lawyers at the court house on Friday came to me complaining about the OBVIOUS favoritism displayed by Esparza on this case. One lawyer said that he has never, ever had a DWI case dismissed with those facts. But we all know that.

What would I have done if I had been the prosecutor? I would have properly screened the case. If the evidence had not been sufficient, I would have declined to prosecute Mr. Poe and he would have been spared a lot of embarrassment and legal fees. If the case were strong, as it appears to be, I would have treated Mr. Poe the same as any other defendant and prosecuted him to the fullest extent of the law for driving DWI and endangering the public.

To add insult to injury, Esparza does not even have the courage to answer to the press for his decision on Poe's case. He sends a taxpayer paid PR person (Renee Riley) to answer for him. And we pay for these shennanigans.

End Esparza's two El Pasos. He runs this town like an ignorant, puffed up, petty Banana Republic dictator imposing his backwards, dangerous, third world, power mongering mentality by suspending the law and giving the rich and the connected privileges and benefits while he strings up the rest of us citing the very laws he refuses to apply to his friends. (Don't forget he let his friend, former Mayor Joe Wardy, break STATE law when Esparza let Wardy walk after police found him with a loaded gun at the airport.) Esparza's attitude is so what and what are you going to do about it. And if he is called to answer, he'll just lie because he believes the public is too stupid to get it. Well, let's show Esparza what we are going to do about it at the polls. Let's show Esparza what we think of prosecutors who lie and endanger the public to curry political favor. Remember me, Theresa Caballero, in the Democratic primary in March 2008.