Arriola is an apparent victim too!

The AG’s Office prosecuting local Attorney Joey Arriola claims that the victim isn’t the esquire, but the young lady. Nice try! Now, let us take a glimpse at this issue a bit more closely.

If such is the premise, then the AG’s Office has neglected its fiduciary duty to ensure that the alleged victim is given a speedy trial. Or did I hear this in Civic Class 30 years ago?

This issue, in my view, is riddled with venomous overflow of bruised ego when Arriola, a relatively young attorney among experienced legal eagles, singlehandedly won a case against a platoon of lawyers from the AG’s Office. Is it his fault that the legal issue struck down by the court now places adjudicated cases in the sea of uncertainty?

I’m afraid that bruised ego aside, disoriented legal eagles (supposedly the most focused group) just can’t stand the notion that a new and young local attorney had them running for cover when the judge ruled that the chief executive can’t appoint an “acting” AG in that such appointment is the purview of a legally situated AG.

The litigation of cases under the acting AG syndrome should have been obvious to legal eagles who are “educated” and far more poised to ensure that prosecution of any and all cases is headed by a legally situated AG. This oversight isn’t Mr. Arriola’s fault. It was a point of constitutional law that went unnoticed rather conveniently for over two years.

It seems too convenient to justify via the media that this case transcends issues than meets the eye. I’m definitely sure that legal eagles are nervously quizzing damage control when the skeleton in its well guarded closet rattles to life. Mind you, someone will eventually insist that the matter be pursued forthwith in the name of justice for all and not just the politically connected.

This well guarded secret is sufficient a suspicion to derail the ability of the AG’s Office in the delivery of justice for all. The nervous and vacuous justification in the recent letter only confirms that Arriola is the victim of selective and malicious prosecution. Please tell the general public that such isn’t what I make it to be.

While at it, it is rumored too that there many cases involving serious crimes, including unconfirmed reports of criminal violations of one of the AG’s staff; but the “acting” AG arbitrarily decided to forego prosecution. Now, do you really expect the general public to trust an office that refuses to prosecute one of its own staff? Is justice for the select few privileged?

****

I also support protection of young girls from sexual abuses. If such is the premise, would prosecution be actively pursued had Mr. Arriola married the alleged victim? And if such is the position of the AG, then it stands to reason that it goes as far back as the Spanish era to prosecute husbands of young girls ages 12-15 who were allowed to marry at such tender age.

This doesn’t include male teachers who clandestinely raised their minor female students into eventual spouses. If there’s such a thing as retroactive prosecution, then this is the appropriate time to right historical abuses of young island girls some of whom boasted their privileged, well, “Teacher’s Pet”. It’s too close for comfort and I certainly expect what has been thrown under the rug in a hidden case to someday decompose with such heavy stench it’s impossible to keep it from hitting ceiling fans.

At best, the AG ought to reassess how far it wishes to take this case. Its credibility is suspect or shot or both. The neglected secret is too good to overlook and it shall someday turn into an implosion for practicing selective and malicious prosecution of perceived enemies. Finally, self-appointed acting Justice John S.
DelRosario, Jr. hereby issues a “Gag Order” on this case effective immediately.