I know who I am and my record speaks for itself.
I know that many of my readers are expecting me to answer publicly the insults of Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian to me by calling me a racist, but — and I know many will be disappointed with my decision — I am not going to bring myself down to her standard and I am not going to respond to her insults and baseless name-calling. I will leave that to my friends of many races, nationalities, sex preferences and political party affiliations.
I know that politics, especially in election year, makes strange bedfellows; but how is it that a tight family with political roots can be endorsing and working hard for two different candidates at the same time is beyond my imagination.
There are more important things to be concerned about than the silly opinion of an old lady who likes to attack me when she has many things she could do to better the community or to better her reputation as an elected official.
There are unjustifiable cases of innocent people doing time in prison for no other reason than to close a case, protect the real culprit or to win a case as with the case of the evidentiary hearing of Kirstin Lobato that is now in process in the courtroom of the Honorable Stefany A. Miley.
The only thing the Las Vegas Tribune has written about Kirstin Lobato’s case outside of what is in the court documents is that we want to have someone tell us why they are so reluctant to allow the DNA test that will prove the truth: that the government is right or that Kirstin Lobato is right. That is all we want to know. Why are they so reluctant to show who is right and who is wrong? We at the Las Vegas Tribune have been asking that question for as long as this case has been in the system, and all we hear is that there is no need for a DNA test, or that the trial is over and that it would be extra work and court time that we cannot afford — but would they ever mention that maybe “keeping her guilty” would mean more revenue coming in for the Nevada department of correction?
It is my humble opinion that “the trial is over and it is extra work and court time that we do not have,” is not a good excuse to deny anyone a fair trial.
The Sixth Amendment (Amendment VI) clearly explains this right: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
And it is also my humble opinion that in the case of State vs. Lobato the accuser did not have that right “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,” because some of the witnesses were not allowed to testify, even these who were able to prove that the accused, Kirstin Lobato, was not in Las Vegas the night the crime was committed.
Why was the presiding judge in the trial, Valorie Vega (now retired), so emphatically opposed to let the jury learn of that very important detail that Lobato was miles away in a different county the night of the crime?
And one important little detail in this case is why it is so important for the two police officers investigating the case to railroad her and make sure that Kirstin Lobato is found guilty and will serve a long sentence for a crime that she did not commit.
As I understand, police investigators pass their report/affidavits on to the District Attorney and it is the District Attorney who decides if the charges are valid and fair as described in their sworn testimony.
It is common knowledge that a cozy relationship exists between the cops and the prosecutors who have the tendency to do what the cops order them to do; as well as with many of the judges who try to please the prosecutors by allowing them to win every case.
Most judges are afraid to rule fairly and honestly because they know that if they do, the prosecutors will find another judge to run against them and win, because prosecutors have to win at any cost.
How do prosecutors assure a winning candidate at any cost, you may ask, and I will tell you how easy that is: police control the prosecutors, prosecutors control the judges by supporting the judges that they do control, and can assure a “100 percent conviction record” when the black robe fever breaks into their little head and they need the support of fellow prosecutors, the police union, and the behind-the-scenes blessing of judges.
But regardless of all these “conspiracy mentality” issues I’ve just described, don’t panic, fellow Americans! There is nothing wrong with our voting system and there is nothing wrong with our fair and balanced democracy.
All we need to do is to keep our mouth shut, our eyes closed and our ears plugged and no one in the government will see you as an undesirable, undeniable, and an anti-government trouble-maker.
My name is Rolando Larraz, and as always, I approved this column.
Rolando Larraz is Editor in Chief of the Las Vegas Tribune. His column appears weekly in this newspaper. To contact Rolando Larraz, email him at: Rlarraz@lasvegastribune.com or at 702-272-4634.