In his continuing campaign to defame and destroy newly re-elected City Councilman Paul Diaz, the brother of recently recalled South Tucson Mayor Ildefanso Green is accusing officials with Pasedera of bribery. Raul Green claims the healthcare company’s staff made illegal payments to Diaz and former City Manager Luis Gonzales in order to obtain a favorable zoning change in 2014.
According to a recent piece in the Arizona Daily Star, Raul Green enlisted the assistance of former City Manager Sixto Molina in order to elevate claim from a rumor to a criminal complaint filed against Pasedera, Diaz, and Gonzales.
In the Star piece, the CEO of Pasadera denied that the company ever tried to bribe anyone at any time. Diaz and Gonzales have both vehemently denied the allegation as well.
According to law enforcement sources, a complaint was filed, but quickly dismissed as baseless.
That did not stop the Star from publishing the regurgitation of rumors along with enough selected “facts” to cast Pasadera, Diaz, and Gonzales in a bad light.
According to a piece in the Arizona Daily Star, “Since 2014, a rumor has circulated in South Tucson, first privately, then publicly, about alleged bribery of local officials.”
That rumor, pushed by the Greens, involves the claim that Diaz and Gonzales paid off their homes on the same date in 2014 with bribes from Pasedera officials.
The only problem with the rumor is that Diaz did not pay off his mortgage. Documents readily provided to the Arizona Daily Independent show that Diaz refinanced his father’s home. He currently owes $73,000.00 on that property. He also holds a mortgage on the home in which he lives and a rental property.
Diaz, who has worked decades for a telecommunications company, and his wife Patty have lived a simple life in South Tucson. Their lives have been dedicated to the people of South Tucson, and much of their money has been spent on improving the lives of South Tucson residents.
It is that dedication that makes the soft-spoken Diaz so dismayed by the effects of Green’s rumor mill. The fact that the Arizona Daily Star used the rumor as grist for their mill, and covered what the writer described as Green’s “longstanding suspicion,” has been devastating for the couple.
Gonzales bought his house in 1998 and had a 30 year mortgage. He refinanced it in 2002 and secured a $116,000 15 year mortgage. Due to the shorter term, from 2002 to 2014, Gonzales paid approximately $300 more a month than he paid under the terms of the original mortgage, and he also paid more than the minimum mortgage amount due every month. On the date he paid off his mortgage, he submitted a final payment of approximately $100.
According to the Star piece, “Last month, city officials finally passed the allegations to an outside investigative agency — an agency that outgoing City Manager Sixto Molina told me this week “neither confirms nor denies investigations.” By that, I take it the case is in the FBI’s hands, though, predictably, the bureau would not confirm that’s the case.”
For their part, both Diaz and Gonzales welcome an investigation if it will bring an end to defamation campaign once and for all.
The Star piece notes that “a document was recorded by Wells Fargo Bank saying that then-Mayor Paul Diaz and his wife had paid off their home, a house that just a few weeks before still was encumbered with a debt of $107,100, according to a document filed May 9.”
There is no indication that the writer asked for the exculpatory documents from Diaz before penning his piece. Had he, Diaz would have been able to show, as noted above, that he refinanced the home in question for that same amount.
According to the Star piece, Gonzales said that the “gentleman who is making these allegations, is going to find himself, when this is all over, in a lot of hot water legally. I plan to use whatever legal means are available to clear whatever damage has been to my integrity.”
Now the question becomes, what will it cost the Star for such reckless reporting. The Star’s writer was careful to impugn Diaz’s character by relying on political enemies. Thus the writer might claim that he did not show a reckless disregard for the truth, and as such the hit piece will probably only cost the paper the loss of subscriptions by disgusted readers.