Bruzzone: Watching the Ed Jew pile-on unfold

Supervisor Ed Jew has faced recent scrutiny, but columnist Arthur Bruzzone suggests public opinion may be convicting him too soon.

Arthur Bruzzone, The Examiner 2007-07-11 15:52:00.0 Current rank: # 19 of 7,004

Earlier this year, an overzealous North Carolina prosecutor with selective evidence, coupled with the media and re-election politics, converged to indict three Duke University students on charges of rape. Three months later, the students were exonerated, the North Carolina prosecutor, Mike Nifong, was disbarred, and those who piled on through the media — notably Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton — were silenced.

San Francisco has its own version of the pile-on. The city attorney and the district attorney, who is running for re-election, have competed to initiate legal proceedings against Supervisor Ed Jew. The Board of Supervisors, the media, bloggers, and commentators have already convicted Jew of the civil and criminal charges leveled at him. But basic questions remain. Like the Duke lacrosse case, when the questions are answered, it may be the accusers and not the accused, who suffer.

Who instigated the FBI sting? Why wasn’t Jew arrested immediately after the sting? Why has evidence confirming Jew’s residency been ignored? Why weren’t the residencies of former supervisors questioned? Why did the district attorney rush to indict Jew, effectively disrupting the city attorney’s legal actions? Who has the most to gain from ending Jew’s political career?

The FBI initiated a case-book sting operation — neatly marked $100 bills, wires and a late night meeting. If a sting is effective and a crime committed, arrest is almost immediate. The alleged representatives of a drink-store chain initiated the meeting. Jew recognized only one of the participants. Since the business was a chain, Jew had recommended they hire a facilitator to obtain needed conditional use permits. The designated consultant had called to say he couldn’t make the meeting because of family obligations. During the meeting, Jew recommended they sign a contract for the consultant’s services. Jew says they declined. He says he offered them a receipt and they also declined. Could Jew’s account of the meeting, taped by the FBI, indicate that the sting had gone bust? So long as Jew reported the transaction within 30 days to the San Francisco Ethics Commission — which he has — no crime had been committed. Ed Jew had assisted other commercial landlords in obtaining conditional use permits in his district without questions.

The chain of events following the FBI raid at Jew’s home seems to indicate the sting failed. During the following weekend, Jew’s water bills were conveniently forwarded to the City Attorney’s Office and the press. Now came the attempt to pressure Jew to resign quickly. (Jew had been especially tough during hearings on the agency overseeing water billing.) The water bills anchored the city attorney’s case against Jew’s residency compliance. But keep in mind that no water charges are levied if a customer uses less than 748 gallons a month, meaning that the charges that Ed Jew used no water wasn’t proved. Furthermore, several individuals had come forward and indicated they either saw or visited Jew at his Sunset district residence. Their accounts were ignored, missed or deliberately omitted by the city attorney’s investigation. Instead, the city attorney submitted the accounts of individuals who also failed to note that tenants occupied the building for almost a year prior to Jew’s occupancy.

Questions about official residency had been raised about two former supervisors — state Sens. Carol Migden and Leland Yee. Some have said that Migden really lives and spends most of her time in the East Bay with her longtime companion, a criminal defense attorney with an office in downtown Berkeley. Migden is listed on the deed of a Berkeley home, according to online writer Michael Petrelis, who obtained a copy of the deed. Yet, 48 hours after the FBI raid, the city attorney questions Jew’s official residency.

The district attorney outmaneuvered the city attorney and initiated her own criminal charges against Jew based on his residency. The same district attorney had recently lost a high-profile case of extortion against an employee of the Building Inspection Department, who was acquitted of all charges. She’s running for re-election this year, possibly against the popular Matt Gonzales.

Prior to May, Jew was a rising political star and polling well, better than the majority of his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors. The City’s top political consultant had even raised with Jew a possible run for mayor. Jew was featured extensively in the Asian press. He’s brash, independent and unpredictable. He has made enemies. It appears his enemies have reacted.

But Jew has tenacity and smarts. He hired Steve Gruel as his attorney. A former federal prosecutor, Gruel has a distinguished career prosecuting gangs and white-collar criminals. He also knows and has worked with the FBI. He also hired one of The City’s top campaign attorneys, Jim Sutton, an expert on residency requirements. And finally, he hired Bill Fazio, a former assistant district attorney.

Several months from now, when the key questions are answered, Ed Jew could be stronger, and his enemies may suffer the same embarrassment as the North Carolina prosecutor who tried and failed to convict three Duke University students.

Arthur Bruzzone is an Examiner contributor. He hosts and produces Comcast’s weekly “San Francisco/unscripted.”

Examiner