DA Shows Hand: Gang Injunction Prioritized Over Justice for Victims of Attack
The District Attorney’s Office on April 15, 2010, filed criminal complaints alleging that James and Reese Hopkins were kicked and punched as they lay on the ground, and were attacked with weapons including a knife and a hammer. Additionally, the victims were attacked by a pit bull dog. The complaint also alleges the defendants taunted the victims by announcing that the victims were being beaten by “BRK,” and not to mess with Broderick.
Last week following three lengthy days of preliminary hearings that included testimony from several West Sacramento Police Officers, the victims, and some witnesses, plea agreements were announced.
The most serious was Alexander Valadez, who had been charged with two counts of assault with great bodily injury, conspiracy to commit a crime, intimidation of a witness and threatening to commit a crime. Each one of these charges also had a gang enhancement. He pled to one count of PC 245 (A)(1) Assault with means likely to produce Great Bodily Injury (GBI), which is a “serious felony” under PC 1192.7. And he admitted to one count of gang enhancement. He will received 9 years in prison.
This was to be a planned fight. While the fight started originally between James Hopkins and Abel Morales, it quickly escalated as several carloads of people showed up. Several of the co-defendants had spread the word that a fight had been arranged that day. A number of other people, alleged Norteno Gang Members, thus showed up. What was supposed to be a one-on-one fight quickly turned into a huge attack on the Hopkins brothers, both of whom suffered serious injuries that still plague them to this day.
However, under the plea agreements, only Mr. Valadez, of the five adult defendants on trial, will receive any kind of prison time.
Julia Luckie was in custody and accepted a plea that will give her no prison time but three to five years of felony probation. She had to sign a plea agreement where she admitted gang membership in exchange for probation and no prison.
The other three defendants have not accepted the plea agreement yet, but they have essentially the same deal as Ms. Luckie. They have to admit gang membership in exchange for probation and no prison.
The other three defendants were Ricardo Garza, Sr., his son Ricardo Garza Jr., and Jesus Sanchez. According to West Sacramento Police Officer Labin Wilson, Ricardo Garza Sr., being an older gang member, helped bring others to the fight and encouraged the younger ones to join in.
Officer Wilson also testified that Jesus Sanchez was perhaps the most involved of the three that day because reports have him as participating in the actual beating of the victims.
During this phase there was an interesting challenge by Ava Landers, the defense attorney of Jesus Sanchez, who challenged claims by Officer Wilson that Mr. Sanchez was a gang member. She asked if there was anything other than his tattoo and red belt that would make him a gang member. Deputy DA Ryan Couzens objected, saying that it was an “improper statement of facts” because she’d not stated the “red accents on his shoes.” At this point, co-defendant Mr. Garza, Sr., dropped his head to the table and burst out laughing. The hearing then stopped.
The attack has left lasting physical problems for the victims. Reese Hopkins reportedly still has headaches, sleep problems and loose teeth, which will require extensive dental procedures. He is in considerable pain even now, nearly six months after the attack.
The hearing was a lengthy one with many witnesses and a labyrinth of different claims. However, there would have appeared to be enough to pin assault charges, at least, on Jesus Sanchez.
It is rather appalling, given the attack, that the District Attorney’s office is willing to give no prison time to four of the five adult defendants in this case. They have offered no prison if each of the four individuals admit to gang membership.
It becomes very clear what this is all about. This was not about justice for the victims involved. Rather it was about promoting the District Attorney’s agenda to get the gang injunction passed. Deputy DA Ryan Couzens is one of the co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the gang injunction case, and getting five individuals to admit to gang membership will help that case inordinately. Never mind that people who potentially led an assault on two young men go free.
The priority here is clearly with getting people to accept gang validations and to admit to gang membership. This is actually an interesting pattern that has continued for a number of years. There are numerous cases that we have tracked and looked up, where the defendants have been promised no prison time in exchange for admitting to a gang enhancement. This goes one further, as in this case, they are actually having to admit to gang membership. How much this type of coerced deal will weigh into the gang injunction trial is anyone’s guess.
There is no question that two guys were attacked in this case. How much a fight that got out of hand illustrates evidence of gang nuisance is questionable. Throughout the hearing, evidence of gang membership was presented but it was thin at best. Ideas such as red accents on admittedly otherwise non-gang tattoos, and on shoes, as evidence of gang membership seem spurious at best.
Language such as Mr. Valadez shouting, “This is Broderick, bro,” may indicate gang ties or may simply indicate the name of the neighborhood.
Even Officer Labin Wilson, the gang expert in this case, said that prior to the March 19 incident the three defendants out of custody, the two Garzas and Mr. Sanchez, would have only been classified as “associates” had they been put through the West Sacramento Police Department validation system. An associate is basically someone who is not a gang member, but may hang out with gang members. But an associate does not act in furtherance or in promotion of the gang.
It thus seems plausible, even likely, that a jury would have convicted the individuals for the assaults but not for gang enhancements. That possibility seems to have driven the DA Office’s decision to make a deal that no defendant in this case could reasonably refuse, which is take a deal for no prison time in exchange for admitting gang membership.
How much of this is simply driven by economic necessity? The DA’s office is facing a cash crunch, but they get a large amount of money from gang grants. In the Vanguard’s March 2010 article on the cash-for-convictions program, we described the requirements for getting the grant from the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, specifically the Law Enforcement and Victim Services Division entitled “Gang Violence Suppression Multi-Component Program.”
According to the grant requirements, “As a result of the specialized GVS unit, the agency must be able to increase the number of individuals identified as gang members and the number arrested for violent, gang-related crimes.”
The agency that receives this grant thus must be able to increase the number of identified gang members, and also the number arrested for violent, gang-related crimes. Does a case like this one bear that in mind, getting five defendants to admit to gang membership? It must be a bonanza for the DA’s office.
How much is getting the gang injunction implemented permanently, with the need to secure future grant money, playing into the decision not to seek prison time for serious assaults in exchange for admissions of gang membership, by people that may not have been convicted of gang enhancements had the case gone to trial? We may never know the answer. However, in our view, the political agenda of the DA’s office has once again trumped its duty to protect Yolo County residents from serious crimes.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This is incredible. We have seen so many cases where the DA puts people into jail for lengthly sentences for minor crimes.
–Cheese man gets 7 years for $3.99 worth of cheese
–Check writer gets 9 years for writing two bad checks for groceries that together equal $215.
–Man breaks windows at an abandoned home and the DA asks for a life sentence.
Now you have people that beat up minors in a park, and they get offered no jail time in exchange for admitting to being a gang member.
David, this article truly demonstrates the priorities of this DA. Making the punishment fit the crime is not his priority. Making his crime stats fit the criteria of some grant so he can get more grant money is high on his priority list. Getting the gang injunction to be permanent is also high on his priority list.
Excellent article. In the conclusion David states that the DA got 5 identified (or validated) gang members. Don’t forget they also got the conviction that one man pleaded to with a gang enhancement. That means the DA’s office got all they needed for the grant fulfillment.
dmg: “This was to be a planned fight. While the fight started originally between James Hopkins and Abel Morales, it quickly escalated as several carloads of people showed up. Several of the co-defendants had spread the word that a fight had been arranged that day. A number of other people, alleged Norteno Gang Members, thus showed up. What was supposed to be a one-on-one fight quickly turned into a huge attack on the Hopkins brothers, both of whom suffered serious injuries that still plague them to this day.”
dmg:”There is no question that two guys were attacked in this case. How much a fight that got out of hand illustrates evidence of gang nuisance is questionable.”
To you maybe…
dmg: “It thus seems plausible, even likely, that a jury would have convicted the individuals for the assaults but not for gang enhancements. That possibility seems to have driven the DA Office’s decision to make a deal that no defendant in this case could reasonably refuse, which is take a deal for no prison time in exchange for admitting gang membership.”
The DA offers pleas deals all the time. When the DA seems to throw the book at defendants is when they refuse to accept the plea deal…
ERM: So you think this is a typical plea bargain? No jail time for a admitting to gang membership.
How is this plea bargain helping?
This plea bargain makes no sense. It is obvious that the DA is only trying to build up his gang membership numbers.
The plea deal argument that I keep hearing espoused is a cop out so that the real issues don’t have to be addressed. The issue is not the plea deal – the issue is that the DA is nonsensical in how he pursues cases for prosecution. So what is the reason? I believe this article is trying to make sense of that.
I still can’t get over the cheese man case. As a tax payer I would rather have paid for a years worth of cheese than the 7 years of prison at $50K+. And why are we wasting tax dollars on pursuing the Glaven case for the third time, when that was clearly police brutality? Only in Yolo. It is evident that the lens this DA is looking through is clouded.
lyah: “The plea deal argument that I keep hearing espoused is a cop out so that the real issues don’t have to be addressed. The issue is not the plea deal – the issue is that the DA is nonsensical in how he pursues cases for prosecution. So what is the reason? I believe this article is trying to make sense of that. I still can’t get over the cheese man case.”
Is the DA offering plea deals to get defendants to admit to gang activity to gain grant money to fight gangs; or is the DA offering deals to defendants – and those that take the deals get much lighter sentences but those that don’t get the book thrown at them? Or a little bit of both?
Great Article, to bad the DA has his press machine with the local papers so controlled that they would never report something like this in fear they would be cut off.
For those that don’t understand this, the DA dose his press releases, put what he wants in them, leaves any negative things out of them, makes sure they promote his agenda and then he faxes these propaganda pieces to his favorite newspapers. He does not send his press releases to everyone, only those on his good side, so papers know if you cross the DA, he will take you off his list and you will not get anymore pre made articles to reprint in your paper. So the news which should be the watch dog of the people is really a lap dog for the DA.
By the way, I am pretty sure, Mr. Greenwald does not get any press releases from the DA. To me that gives Mr. Greenwald credibility for watching out for the people and falling for Mr. Reisig’s threats and intimidation if you play his game.
This article exposes the truth about the DA, his agenda, his win at any cost policy and shows he will go to any lengths to get his injunction passed. Justice with Mr. Reisig is something you get only if you pay to play, there is no justice for the normal citizens in Yolo. Very sad for us and definitely not the American way.
ERM: “Is the DA offering plea deals to get defendants to admit to gang activity to gain grant money to fight gangs”
YES!!!!!!! to grant money.
Not so sure about the “to fight gangs” part. That concept is being questioned in the courts right now with the grant injunction case.
The 2010 Central Valley of California has a justice system relatively equal to that of Meridian Mississippi in 1954. (Those of you who remember the civil right struggle will know what I mean) I am from the East Coast and there are certainly problems there, but what happens in Central Valley counties such as Yolo, Sacramento, Placer and Kern boggles the mind. The US dept of Justice needs to get into this region with a bulldozer and clean out the rot.
[quote]“It becomes very clear what this is all about.”
“The priority here is clearly with getting people to accept gang validations and to admit to gang membership.”
“It thus seems plausible, even likely, that a jury would have convicted the individuals for the assaults but not for gang enhancements.”
“…there would have appeared to be enough to pin assault charges, at least, on Jesus Sanchez.”[/quote] You may be correct in your speculations. Or not.
[quote]” She had to sign a plea agreement where she admitted gang membership….”
[/quote] None of these folks [u]has[/u] to admit [u]anything[/u].
[quote]“They have offered no prison if each of the four individuals admit to gang membership.”
[/quote] It sounds like you’ve concluded they’re guilty. Maybe they are guilty of participating and of being gang members. Maybe copping pleas is in their best interests, and maybe their attorneys agree. Maybe the case isn’t as airtight as you think it is, and the DA figures a plea would be better strategy. Maybe nine years in prison is a good starter for the worst of these people. Maybe there’s more the others have to agree to than just gang admissions. How long is the probation term? What accountability and conditions are exacted for admitted gang members?
Maybe the DA figures the taxpayers gain if we avoid the cost of trials for these people. Maybe this whole episode has very little to do with the other money and political issues about which you’re concerned. As you say: [quote]“We may never know the answer.”[/quote]
Just Saying: “Maybe the DA figures the taxpayers gain if we avoid the cost of trials for these people. Maybe this whole episode has very little to do with the other money and political issues about which you’re concerned.”
I think the DA’s record speaks for itself that saving costs on trials is not what we have witnessed. (Cheese man, check writer, and broken windows, Galvan brothers…..) So this argument makes no sense.
“I think the DA’s record speaks for itself that saving costs on trials is not what we have witnessed. (Cheese man, check writer, and broken windows, Galvan brothers…..) So this argument makes no sense. “
Besides that –
Has anyone heard the Yolo DA ever say he is interested on saving costs of trials, in any forum? DA’s in other counties have offered such options during budget discussions. I doubt cost savings have ever been considered by the Yolo DA.
Additionally, the defendants in this case would have all been tried together – the cost would have been one trial.
David,
“According to the grant requirements, ‘As a result of the specialized GVS unit, the agency must be able to increase the number of individuals identified as gang members and the number arrested for violent, gang-related crimes.’”
The agency that receives this grant thus must be able to increase the number of identified gang members, and also the number arrested for violent, gang-related crimes. Does a case like this one bear that in mind, getting five defendants to admit to gang membership? It must be a bonanza for the DA’s office.”
David, sorry, don’t know how the above happened.
“According to the grant requirements, ‘As a result of the specialized GVS unit, the agency must be able to increase the number of individuals identified as gang members and the number arrested for violent, gang-related crimes.’”
The agency that receives this grant thus must be able to increase the number of identified gang members, and also the number arrested for violent, gang-related crimes. Does a case like this one bear that in mind, getting five defendants to admit to gang membership? It must be a bonanza for the DA’s office.”
The DA’s office no longer formally operates and oversees the Yolo County Gang Task Force (YCGTF). Therefor, they do not receive grant monies to that effect, right? When they handed over the YCGTF to the Yolo County SO, the grant too was handed over, so to speak.
They may receive some funding for programs like the vertical prosecution of gang crimes, but I don’t think the other grant info you bring up is applicable anymore.
Superfluous Man: Who oversees the Yolo County Gang Task Force? Reisig started the gang force.
Reisig’s office is the one trying to enforce the gang injunction. How do you know where grant funding is going?
Alphonso and Fight:
I know you’ll remember all the whining we’ve done here in the past year about the DA wasting money taking too many cases to trial. Maybe he’s been reading our suggestions, that’s all. Seriously, though, how many cases has the office settled with plea deals? You provide four cases as proof of Reisig’s record of over-trying and doubt that he’s ever considered cost-savings, even though he’s been bragging about his efficiency for years. I’m wondering if he’s so offended some people following this blog that no matter what he does he’ll be criticized.
FAI,
“Superfluous Man: Who oversees the Yolo County Gang Task Force? Reisig started the gang force.”
The YCGTF is overseen by the Yolo County Sheriff’s Department, which is headed by elected Sheriff Ed Prieto. You are correct in that the YCGTF was a creation of DA Reisig, but in early 2009 he handed over authority of the gang task force to the Sheriff’s Department. Along with the transfer of that task force would have been the transfer of whatever gang grants that were used to fund it. Why would the DA’s office continue to get grant money for a gang violence unit when they no longer have one?
The grant would no longer be something the DA’s office relied on or benefited from (obtain additional funds), as those Gang Violence Unit grant monies would be going to the agency overseeing the unit.
“Reisig’s office is the one trying to enforce the gang injunction. How do you know where grant funding is going?”
I’m not suggesting that there aren’t other grant monies associated with the prosecution of gang crimes and that’s not what the quoted portion of David’s article I responded to is addressing.
I only cited a few cases before (the cheese man, the bad check writer, and the broken window, but here are some more for you:
1. Santiago Ochoa- found innocent. The Yolo DA followed this boy to Colusa County and paid to try him there.
2. Galvan Brothers–The DA is going to try them for a third time to see if he can get a conviction on two brothers that were beaten by the police to the point that one brother was in a coma for three months.
3. Anthony Roman–The DA increased his charge to a felony when the police just came at the family’s request to drop him off at a mental hospital. The police disagree with the DA’s take on this.
4. Mostafa Noori, Omar Atebar, Selaiman Noori all found innocent of charges of rape.
5. Haleyma Buzayan who was charged for a hit and run when she had already made arrangements to pay for damages.
6. David Serena found innocent of charges. The DA tried him for adding people to his medical insurance.
7. Khalid Berney was charged and threatened with 60 years in prison for goat trespassing. Berney filed a suit against the DA so he dropped the charges.
All these articles are right here in the Vanguard. Just search the names. Believe it or not, there are more. T
As much as I want to believe that this DA has had a change of heart, I have yet to see some real evidence of this.
Yeah, if there was enough evidence to convict, I don’t think they should have offered the plea, but instead gone after convictions. But presumably, there may not have been enough evidence to assure convictions? Often in melees like this, it is hard to obtain good evidence for just exactly who did just exactly what; and who were just bystanders watching the action (or maybe even trying to stop the fight from getting out of hand).
In any case, hopefully the gang member plea-bargain will help to keep these guys on the straight and narrow–if they are caught involved in other crimes, presumably they could be subject to gang enhancement penalties–they’ve been given a 2nd chance; next time they’re picked up may they be pursued by pit-bull prosecutors and the fist of justice be more iron-like than velvet-like!
Just Saying:
“None of these folks has to admit anything. “
In this case, yes she did have to admit something, all four of these folks had to sign a declaration that they were indeed gang members in order get the agreement. So yes, that is an admission. They are not pleading no contest to a criminal charge, they are actually having to sign an admission form.
“It sounds like you’ve concluded they’re guilty.”
I think based on three days of preliminary hearing, listening to testimony by witnesses and the police that they had enough to convict at the very least on a 245, assault with means likely to produce GBI. I think it is much less likely based on what they heard that they can prove that they committed these crimes in furtherance of a criminal street gang.
“Maybe the case isn’t as airtight as you think it is, and the DA figures a plea would be better strategy.”
It may be, but I think they could have gotten to them to accept an assault charge with prison time.
“Maybe nine years in prison is a good starter for the worst of these people. “
I’m relatively fine with the prison sentence for Valadez.
Superfluous: I believe they get at least one prosecutor out of the deal in the vertical prosecution arrangement (sorry arrangement is not the right word, but I couldn’t think of another).
For the record here, I have no problem with the DA pursuing plea agreements. The problem I have here is that they have sought them on the enhancements rather than the predicate charges. So they are essentially giving them probation instead of prison time in exchange for an admission that they are gang members. To me, that shows the DA’s hand here in that the DA wishes to increase the gang membership numbers. I think they could have at least gotten the defendants to plea to assault with small prison terms. It’s not clear to for instance that Valadez did things substantially worse than Sanchez.
DMG, Negotiated pleas are bargained for and apparently under the advice of counsel. ALL defendants have every right to refuse, reject, counter, bargain, and the like. When an agreement is reached we have a legitimate contract. Why is that problematic in our justice system?
Primoris: “DMG, Negotiated pleas are bargained for and apparently under the advice of counsel. ALL defendants have every right to refuse, reject, counter, bargain, and the like. When an agreement is reached we have a legitimate contract. Why is that problematic in our justice system?”
Because the contract is laced with implicit coercion – if you accept the plea deal you will get off with a light sentence, if you don’t accept the plea deal the book will be thrown at you…
However, the plea deal system keeps our prosecution numbers at manageable levels, and cuts down on the cost of trials. It is a double edged sword.
As has been pointed out, we really don’t know why any of these defendants pled guilty – whether bc innocent but not willing to take the chance of a long prison term or guilty and relieved to be able to get off lightly.
[quote]Me: “None of these folks has to admit anything.”
You: “In this case, yes she did have to admit something, all four of these folks had to sign a declaration that they were indeed gang members in order get the agreement.”
What I Meant to Say: “None of these folks [u]has[/u] to admit anything.”[/quote] Each of these people is [u]choosing[/u] to confess to the crimes which end up in their plea deal. I’d guess people who are guilty are much more likely to agree that they are guilty than people who are innocent of the charges. Granted that the state has given itself a stronger negotiating hand, but those charged have the right to a fair trial rather than to lie to a judge that they’ve committed a crime or run with a gang.
You’ve been attending the proceedings, and I certainly accept your reporting and applaud your dedication to the cause of better justice. I just keep wondering why you’re so critical of DA actions when the real culprits are the people who make the laws that drive the process.
Would you have the DA not prosecute or not plea bargain or not pursue gang crime or not apply for federal/state money to supplement county funds or what?
David,
“I believe they get at least one prosecutor out of the deal in the vertical prosecution arrangement (sorry arrangement is not the right word, but I couldn’t think of another).”
So it is your belief that the grant monies used to fund the YCGTF and DDA who vertically prosecutes gang crimes come from the same grant? Therefore, obtaining admissions of gang membership through plea deals equates to keeping the grant and/or receiving increased funding, which the Yolo County DA’s office utilizes or needs to fund (partially or in whole?) the vertical prosecution of gang cases. That’s the case, even though the agency in charge of the gang task force (and I assume the grant) is the YCSD? Is there anyway of confirming that? I’m not suggesting you’re wrong, but I have my doubts.
What is the gang grant status anyway and how much of the YCGTF/DDA (if you’re correct about that) budget is covered by the monies allotted by said grant? Didn’t the BOS put the YCGTF on the chopping block a few months ago? Were the funds not there or not sufficient to cover the costs of operation and enforcement?
BTW, with all your coverage of the West Sacramento Gang Injunction and various cases that are in some way related to criminal street gangs and/or admitted and alleged gang members, I have not read one piece that mentions the involvement or expertise of the YCGTF. Any thoughts on that?
Also, WPD has a Gang Violence Suppression Unit, which I believe receives grant funding as well. Does your research find similar efforts by them or do they use more “discretion?”
I think they could have at least gotten the defendants to plea to assault with small prison terms.
Maybe they simply thought their cases against those defendants who took the plea were weak and bluffed them into taking it and, thus, admitting to gang membership (the only single criterion that can result in one being officially validated, whereas otherwise at least two must be met)?
With that said, I don’t fully understand the motivation behind these plea deals. Maybe having admitted to being a gang member will make it easier for the prosecution to convince a jury to convict on gang enhancement charges in the future, if these defendants find themselves in the system down the road???
[quote]DMG, Negotiated pleas are bargained for and apparently under the advice of counsel. ALL defendants have every right to refuse, reject, counter, bargain, and the like. When an agreement is reached we have a legitimate contract. Why is that problematic in our justice system? [/quote]
I actually think Elaine nailed this one. There is an element of coercion here. In this case, I think no one is that well served by it. The people who are coerced have little choice but to agree to the terms. The DA is trading a conviction here for something they apparently want more even if it against the interest of the public. Meanwhile the defendants are admitting to something that they really aren’t a party to because they face an inordinate amount of time in prison otherwise, but they will still pay in unforeseen ways later on. So I see no one’s interest served here, not the defendants and not the public’s.
[quote]You’ve been attending the proceedings, and I certainly accept your reporting and applaud your dedication to the cause of better justice. I just keep wondering why you’re so critical of DA actions when the real culprits are the people who make the laws that drive the process.
Would you have the DA not prosecute or not plea bargain or not pursue gang crime or not apply for federal/state money to supplement county funds or what?[/quote]
I think that part of the real culprits are the people who make the laws.
But, I think the DA is using laws intended really for a very different class of crimes and jamming it into a one-sized-fits-all approach.
Also, nothing in the way the laws were written forces the DA to make the plea offer in this case. I view it as a cynical manipulation of the system and that probably the DA would prefer the gang admission to prison time when forced to choose between the two.
[quote]BTW, with all your coverage of the West Sacramento Gang Injunction and various cases that are in some way related to criminal street gangs and/or admitted and alleged gang members, I have not read one piece that mentions the involvement or expertise of the YCGTF. Any thoughts on that?[/quote]
Actually we’re covering one now in Rosenberg’s court, it’s going to the jury today. The officers testifying you might be familiar with, Dale Johnson, Hernan Oviedo, and Bautista.
It seems to me that if the DA’s method of prosecution, whether it be plea bargains or otherwise, is motivated by satisfying grant criteria for funding, cases relating to gangs would not be the only target. There are other cases mentioned in this discussion. Do they relate to other types of grants? And, how do cases like the cheese man fit into the grant funding? I would especially like to hear from Roger Rabbit as he (preumably a he) seems to know a great deal of how the DA’s office works.
So, ERM, since when are contracts under duress or coercion are valid?
dmg: “So, ERM, since when are contracts under duress or coercion are valid?”
When neither party objects.
[quote]dmg: “So, ERM, since when are contracts under duress or coercion are valid?”
When neither party objects. [/quote]
That was Primoris asking the question, not me.
dgm: “That was Primoris asking the question, not me.”
Oops! Sorry about that. My answer is still the same however, no matter who asked the question!
the illegal immigrants are taking over.
go ahead and stand up for their rights while they pollute your water, burden your social services, dilutey our education systems and take advantage of your freedoms.
go ahead and give away american jobs to illegal immigrants mr. right wing republican farmer because you want to save money.
go ahead and demand rights for illegals over americans mr. left wing liberal, because you want to prove that you’re not racist..
go head…give away it alll.
idiots.
Alexander Valadez IS MY BROTHER HE IS NOT A “GANG MEMBER” AS THEY MADE HIM OUT TO BE , THE REAL GANG MEMBERS IN THE CASE ARE OUT WALKING AROUND A PLEA AGREEMENT TO NO PRISON TIME? HMM MY BROTHER GOT 9 YEARS OVER SOMETHING THAT WASNT HIS FAULT