Years before he ever ran for elective office, suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi was a dedicated progressive community activist and a staunch supporter and ally of the San Francisco LGBT community. I first met Mirkarimi in 1999, when we worked together in drafting and then campaigning for Proposition G, the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance amendment. He impressed me at the time, and still does, as smart, hardworking, independent, and someone drawn to politics for all the right reasons. Like former Sheriff Mike Hennessey, Mirkarimi's roots are in the community, not in law enforcement or the political establishment.
The weakness of Mayor Ed Lee's case against Mirkarimi is illustrated by a guest column written in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 20, which the mayor cited as a basis for suspending Mirkarimi. The column was written by Abraham Mertens, husband of Ivory Madison. It was Madison's call to police on January 4, against the express wishes of Mirkarimi's wife, Eliana Lopez, that triggered the domestic violence charges that led to the suspension.
In the Chronicle column, Mertens wrote: "I recognized what I thought was Ross's voice in the background as Eliana pressured me to destroy evidence and lie to the police." Mertens is an attorney. Why is he using weasel words to level such a serious charge against Mirkarimi? He does not say he actually recognized Mirkarimi's voice, or whether the voice was speaking to Lopez at all, much less encouraging her to pressure anyone to destroy evidence. (Mirkarimi and Lopez have both said Mirkarimi was not there.)
A reasonable high school principal would not issue a detention on such a charge. Yet, not only did the Chronicle print it, they cited it in a further column attacking Mirkarimi. The mayor cited this allegation in the formal charges outlining Mirkarimi's alleged official misconduct.
The mayor's entire case against Mirkarimi is like that. The couple had a 15-minute very emotional argument in a minivan, and Mirkarimi grabbed Lopez's arm, unintentionally causing a bruise. Nothing more. Lopez has said, repeatedly, there was nothing more. There is no credible evidence of anything more. The plea agreement of misdemeanor false imprisonment under California Penal Code section 236 is consistent with nothing more. (Yes, it is in fact misdemeanor false imprisonment to turn the car around against a passenger's wishes and drive eight blocks back home.)
Mertens's Chronicle piece concluded with an attack on Lopez: "If everyone behaved as Ross and Eliana did, can you imagine what would happen to our justice system and society?" The Chronicle echoed that attack. Lee cited Lopez's actions as one basis for Mirkarimi's suspension.
Lopez is the victim of her alleged protectors, not of Mirkarimi. When self-appointed protectors turn so completely on the victim, it is a giveaway that something is rotten. Lopez told the police the day they came to Madison's house and the next that there was no domestic violence and that she had never felt afraid of her husband. She told Judge Susan Breall on January 19, "This idea that I am this poor little immigrant is insulting, it's a little racist." She is under a court order, that she has repeatedly asked to be lifted, forbidding her from calling her husband on the telephone, even from Venezuela, since January 13.
This is how victims in politically motivated prosecutions are treated. When they won't follow the script assigned to them, they are ignored, they are attacked, they are punished, and the threat of their own prosecution is kept over their heads. Lopez's attorney offered full cooperation to District Attorney George Gasc�"n in exchange for prosecution immunity. Gasc�"n refused. Why would the victim need immunity and why would Gasc�"n refuse? Well, you see, if Lopez told her side of the story and said that she was not a victim, the prosecutor could claim the couple was jointly responsible for the argument and Lopez could also be charged with child endangerment. By not granting her immunity, Gasc�"n ensured that Lopez's testimony would not contradict the story he wanted to tell.
Gasc�"n's decision to prosecute Mirkarimi was not about protecting Lopez. Lopez has repeatedly, and credibly, insisted she does not need or want to be protected from her husband. Lee's suspension of Mirkarimi without pay for official misconduct, for alleged acts all prior to Mirkarimi actually being sheriff, certainly only hurts Lopez. This prosecution and suspension is about scoring political points against Mirkarimi at the expense of Lopez, her family, the voters who elected Mirkarimi sheriff, and the taxpayers of San Francisco who will pay huge sums to fund this farce.
No San Franciscan should be subjected to prosecution by the media as Mirkarimi has been, and no San Francisco family, of any sexual orientation, should be ripped apart based on allegations and hearsay, while the couple themselves staunchly insist that their family has value. Mirkarimi is a true progressive and has been a steadfast supporter of the LGBT community throughout his activist and political career. He deserves our support in this manifestly ridiculous attack.
If Gasc�"n and Lee are successful in removing an independently elected official on this flimsy pretext, the lesson will not soon be forgotten. I don't believe there is a conspiracy to get Mirkarimi �" this is simply an opportunistic political hatchet job. Both Gasc�"n and Lee were appointees to their offices. (Each went on to win a four-year term in last November's election.) Mirkarimi was elected supervisor twice, and then sheriff, without the benefit of being politically appointed first.
Mirkarimi has always been independent, and smart, and hard working, and a true progressive community activist. Some members of the law enforcement and the too-cozy wing of the San Francisco political establishment saw an opportunity to be rid of him, and they took it. Lee suspended Mirkarimi because there was political capital for the mayor in doing so, and because he thinks he can get away with it.
It remains to be seen whether at least three of the 11 supervisors will have the courage to vote against letting this political bullying succeed. If they do not, this whole process will be repeated the next time an opportunity arises to silence an independent voice that managed to force itself into the comfortable club that mostly runs this city.
Stephen LeBlanc is an attorney and a former member of ACT UP/Golden Gate. He previously worked for the Fenway Community Health Center in Boston as victim advocate for LGBT victims of hate crimes and domestic violence.