The Journal covered the story when my complaints were filed in federal court. I use the term "cover" loosely. Journal editors Kent Walz and Charlie Moore knowingly permitted or negligently allowed reporter Hailey Heinz to pen one sided coverage amounting to journalistic malpractice, link.
In her "investigation and report"; she quoted School Board President Marty Esquivel profusely.
She didn't even bother to contact me, much less quote me.
About him she wrote;
Esquivel, an attorney specializing in First Amendment issues, said he is confident the board has not unfairly limited MacQuigg’s free speech rights. (emphasis added)Quoting him she wrote;
“I’m very sensitive to how the law should work in terms of people having a right to express themselves, and I have absolutely no reservations about doing what we did as it pertains to Mr. MacQuigg.”Heinz added;
Esquivel wrote an initial letter to MacQuigg in November 2009, outlining problems with his behavior.Well it turns out that all the "problems' were videotaped. APS has produced those videotapes, link, link, as evidence against me.
We of course, point to those tapes as constitutionally protected behavior; could not have said it better ourselves.
Heinz argued on Esquivel's behalf;
Board member Martin Esquivel said he imposed the ban on MacQuigg two years ago when he was school board president because of MacQuigg’s conduct, not the content of his speech.The obvious problem, obvious to anyone who actually watches the record, is not my conduct. My conduct is well within the limits of the constitutionally protected human to petition one's government.
Also obvious to anyone who actually watches the record, Esquivel's professed confidence that (he) has not acted unfairly is patently unwarranted.
And as obvious to anyone who actually watches the record, Esquivel's "sensitivity" to how the law should work in terms of people having a right to express themselves, is woefully inadequate. The first amendment specialist is practicing beyond his expertise.
Any lawyer with any sense would have "reservations" in the face of over whelming evidence of his blatant violations of my civil rights.But not Marty Esquivel.
The problem, obvious to anyone who actually watches the record, is the content of my speech; a relentless effort to hold them honestly accountable for their conduct and competence. The problem is my standing up at public forums and calling public attention to issues to which they would rather attention not be paid;
- the coverup of corruption in the leadership of their police force,
- the denial of due process to hundreds of whistleblowers,
- the ethics and accountability scandal in the leadership of the APS, and
- their abdication as role models of the student standards of conduct.
Who are you going to believe, Marty Esquivel or your lyin eyes?
photo Mark Bralley
2 comments:
I find it very interesting that so many reporters accept public information officer positions with local government. They make contacts, report, and then sell out. I expect Hailey will be next Monica Armenta because the Journal isn't paying her much.
As for Marty, my only question is: Why is a public elected official fighting this so much? If you were unstable, then he needs to prove you are a threat. He is afraid of you but the question remains "why?" If he is afraid to serve his community, of which you belong, he needs to do something else and get off the Board. The school board is for community leaders not haters or power hungry political players.
No doubt we will see Marty seeking political office now that his office-mate Sam Bregman is the Democratic Party Chair. Of course, he won't be able to parade his wife by his side but that's another story.
At one point Marty Esquivel wanted to be the Attorney General.
With regard to his personal life, I have no more legitimate interest in his private life than he has in mine.
Post a Comment