As the repercussions from the $8,000-$10,000 theft from the child-support office by an employee of Cameron County District Clerk Aurora De la Garza and the step daughter of Assistant District Attorney Peter Gilman ripple across the county political landscape, more questions are being raised than are given answers.
First, broadcast reports on Channel 4 News indicate that that a "warrant existed before July 27," the day that Melinda Gilman Gonzalez is said to gave resigned from her position at the county collection office for child support payments.
But that is only the tip of the iceberg.
In order to amass a $8,000 to $10,000 heist over time, it is only logical to assume that the indications of the pilfering were evident to her superiors, including De la Garza, way before the resignation occurred.
Or was it discovered and then allowed to go on while suitable "arrangement" was found ?
These questions are circulating around the county and many are wondering whether Melinda G. Gonzalez's boss – after she had discovered the extent of the theft – herself attempted to sweep the scandal under the rug to save the Gilmans, the DA's office, and her own reputation, the embarrassment of airing the issue to the public.
If Gonzalez resigned on July 27, reported to the sheriff on the 30th and then was booked before Magistrate Luis Saenz on August 6, what happened in the meantime? It was almost two weeks between the time that she resigned after being confronted with the evidence of the theft and before she was finally booked.
Sheriff Omar Lucio told the media that he followed the process without favoritism. Yet, the lag in the timeline between the discovery of the theft and the booking does seem somewhat lengthy in this case.
There is still the matter of the DA's office issuing the formal charges against her. Meanwhile, she is free on two $7,500 attorney surety bonds approved by Saenz for Gilman's daughter guaranteeing she will present herself to face the charges. One charge is felony theft and the other is tampering with a government record to cover up the crime.
This, of course, raises the suspicions that De la Garza might have been trying to pacify the prosecutorial and judicial waters to smooth the way out for her employee to leave without any of the sound and the fury associated with a criminal charge and the unpleasant consequences that were sure to follow.
And in doing that, might have the precocious District Clerk twisted a few arms or cajoled a few recalcitrant county (District Clerk and DA employees) to aid and abet in a potential cover up of the embarrassing disclosures?
As it is, Aurorita's future – despite the almost $3,000 raise she was given by would-be county judge commissioner Dan Sanchez – is not bright by any means. She is still to answer for the apparent collusion in the Abel Limas racketeering case where the potentially cash-rich lawsuits that attracted the suspicions of federal prosecutors magically made their way to his court. That includes the case of her son Joey whose embezzlement of more than $85,000 from a hospice in Olmito was taken care of in one sunny afternoon in Limas' court and he never had to spend a night in jail.
People now ask: Was that what De la Garza was in the process of doing before the case exploded in headlines and the jig was discovered?
0 comments:
Post a Comment