Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Guest Commentary: Elections and constitutional law attorney offers reasons behind Texas’ redistricting vs. California’s Prop 50

By 1 Comment

2021 Houston, Texas area Congressional District maps that the state was sued over by the Biden Administration DOJ. Source: Mark Meuser on X

“To put Proposition 50 on the ballot for the voters of California to decide, the California legislature had to violate the California Constitution multiple times.”

By Mark Meuser, Attorney

I am tired of hearing that California is redistricting to combat President Trump and Texas redistricting efforts. Texas was forced to redistrict because the Biden DOJ sued Galveston County and lost which changed the law thus making four Texas Congressional Districts unconstitutional.

When Texas drew its congressional districts in 2021, they created four congressional districts where they combined two minority communities to create a minority-majority district (Coalition minority districts).

On March 24, 2022, the Biden DOJ sued Galveston County Commissioners because Galveston did not draw a coalition minority district for the Black and Latino population.

On October 13, 2023, a Federal Judge agreed with Biden’s DOJ and found that Galveston County was required to draw a Commissioner seat by combining two minority communities.

On November 10, 2023, a three Judge panel of the 5th Circuit found that combining two minority groups to create a minority-majority district was unconstitutional and thus asked for an en banc panel to review the issue to overturn prior precedents.

On Aug. 1, 2024, the en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit concluded “that coalition claims do not comport with Section 2’s statutory language or with Supreme Court cases interpreting Section 2.” The Fifth Circuit ruled coalition minority districts are unconstitutional.

On July 7, 2025, President Trump’s DOJ sent a letter to Texas highlighting the 5th Circuit Order, pointing out that there are four coalition minority congressional districts that are now unconstitutional and that Texas needed to fix the problem.

Texas Houston area Congressional District maps 2021 (left) and 2025 (right). Source: State of Texas

Texas made a prudent choice to redraw the congressional districts so as to save their taxpayers the expense of litigating the losing case of defending minority coalition districts.

Texas did not have to redraw four minority coalitions districts because of President Trump. Texas had to redraw the lines because Biden sued Galveston County and the law was clarified that coalition minority districts were unconstitutional.
It is important to understand that the 2021 lines drawn by the California Independent Redistricting Commission have never been challenged in Court as unconstitutional because districts were drawn to create coalition minority districts.
Since Texas law requires that the Texas legislature draw the congressional districts, the Texas legislature followed the law.

However, the California Constitution prohibits the California legislature from drawing congressional districts and instead places that responsibility on the Independent Redistricting Commission.

To put Proposition 50 on the ballot for the voters of California to decide, the California legislature had to violate the California Constitution multiple times.

The California legislature is asking the voters of California to forgive them for violating the California Constitution when they should have asked the voters for permission to draw the maps.

I was a part of two lawsuits filed before the California Supreme Court asking the Court to stop Proposition 50 before it went to the voters because the California legislature violated the California Constitution. Unfortunately, the California Supreme Court refused to require the California legislature to defend their unconstitutional acts and simply dismissed the Writ without even deciding the merits of the matter

While I am preparing the next lawsuit that will be filed, it is important that the voters of California stand up against the unconstitutional actions of Gavin Newsom and the California legislature by voting No on November 4th to Proposition 50.

The next time someone tells you that Newsom had to Gavinmander the State of California, remind them that the reason Texas had to redraw Congressional Districts is because Biden sued and lost which resulted in Texas having to redraw its lines.

Meuser practices election and constitutional law at the Dhillon Law Group.

 

Former Antioch Police Officer found guilty of civil rights violations

By 1 Comment

Former Antioch Police Officer Devon Wenger was found guilty by a jury on September 18, 2025. Herald file photo

Devon Wenger could face 10 years in prison

Previously convicted on steroid, obstruction charges, claims innocence, is a whistleblower being framed, suing APD

One of 10 Antioch, Pittsburg cops investigated by DA, FBI

By U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California

OAKLAND – A federal jury, on Thursday, September 18, 2025, convicted former Antioch police officer Devon Wenger of one count of conspiracy against rights.  The jury’s verdict follows a seven-day trial before Senior U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White.

Wenger, 33, was previously employed as a police officer with the Antioch Police Department.  According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Wenger conspired with other Antioch Police Department officers to use unreasonable force to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate residents of Antioch, California.

“Public trust must be at the forefront of the duty to protect.  By using unnecessary and unreasonable force under the guise of law enforcement, Wenger betrayed the community he was entrusted to protect.  Officers who hold themselves above the law and dishonor their oath of office will be held to account.  The people of Antioch deserve no less,” said United States Attorney Craig H. Missakian.

“Today’s conviction makes clear that when an officer violates the civil rights of those he was sworn to protect, it will not be overlooked or excused. This marks the second time a jury has held Devon Wenger accountable, and it reflects the FBI’s commitment to pursuing justice in every instance where authority is abused. We will continue working with our partners to ensure that those who betray the public’s trust face consequences,” said FBI Acting Special Agent in Charge Agustin Lopez.

According to the evidence at trial, Wenger and two other Antioch Police Department officers, Morteza Amiri and Eric Rombough, communicated with each other and others about using and intending to use excessive force against individuals in and around Antioch.  The uses of excessive force included deployment of a K9, deployment of a 40mm “less lethal” launcher, and other unnecessary violence.  The evidence showed that Wenger and others deployed uses of force as punishment to subjects beyond any punishment appropriately imposed by the criminal justice system.  Wenger also withheld details about uses of excessive force from police reports and other official documents.

The jury convicted Wenger of one count of conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241.  The court dismissed a second count that charged Wenger with deprivation of rights under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.

Previously, Wenger claimed one incident of excessive use of force in which a 40mm less lethal round was deployed was under direct order of his superior officer.

Previously Convicted on Steroid, Obstruction Charges, Claims Innocence, is a Whistleblower Being Framed, Suing APD

As  previously reported, Wenger was convicted in May of conspiracy to distribute steroids and obstruction of justice following a jury trial in April 2025. However, following that conviction the former Antioch officer said, “Despite what the government is falsely boasting nationwide about me I never have had anything to do with steroids. Never took them, never possessed them, and sure as heck never conspired to distribute them. I took PEPTIDES, gonadorelin to be specific. It’s legal and NOT a steroid. I took the peptides to recover from COVID, COVID almost killed me and had me in a hospital bed and left my body in shambles. I still feel the effects of it to this day and will never fully recover. The FBI even seized gonadorelin and numerous other peptides failed to disclose that.”

He also provided further explanation of the steroid charges.

Regarding the obstruction of justice charge, Wenger said, “Additionally, the government falsely claimed I deleted contacts and Venmo contacts from my phone, yet that is not true. These contacts and Venmo contacts remain in my phone to this day. They never left. Now, my phone was backed up to iCloud the night before the phone seizure and the government could have searched my iCloud and seen that I never deleted anything from my phone, yet they did not even though they seized everybody else’s iCloud. This is because they are pushing a false narrative.”

Further, he claimed earlier this year he’s a whistleblower being framed.

“I am innocent. I am a whistleblower facing a whistleblower retaliation prosecution to silence me. I am being framed on fabricated and tampered evidence. Yes, the FBI and the US Attorneys on this case have fabricated and tampered with evidence, in addition to misrepresenting evidence and even lying to the court, and the public. They have gone so far as to manipulate and suppress the documents that prove this (including exculpatory evidence) in the metadata data of their own discovery documents in order to push their false narrative. The truth will surface. That’s all I can say.”

“In addition to this we have filed a civil lawsuit against APD which outlines everything they put me through which led to these bogus charges against me,” Wenger added.

He shared copies of both his Motion of Acquittal and for a New Trial, and lawsuit against the Antioch Police Department and former Antioch Police Lieutenant Powell Meads, who was Wenger’s superior officer. The complaint claims retaliation, discrimination, hostile workplace harassment, failure to prevent harassment, discrimination or retaliation and requests damages and a trial.

In addition, in a November 2024 interview, Wenger and his then-attorney Nicole Castronovo  argued evidence used against Wenger was unlawfully obtained, undermining his right to a fair trial. Castronovo further alleged prosecutors improperly withheld key exculpatory information from the defense.

They further claimed, in testimony given on October 25, 2024, Larry J. Wallace, Senior Inspector with the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office, admitted he illegally mishandled sensitive data and failed to seal private information during his involvement in the FBI investigation of the Antioch Police Department in 2021. The mishandling of that evidence resulted in the unauthorized use of Wenger’s personal communications and violated his legal right to privacy. It also violated the stringent rules of CalECPA (California Electronic Communications Privacy Act).

Remanded to Custody Awaiting Dec. 2 Sentencing

The Court ordered Wenger remanded to custody pending sentencing, which is scheduled for Dec. 2, 2025.  He faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.  Any sentence will be imposed by the Court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

The case is being prosecuted by the National Security & Special Prosecutions Section and the Oakland Branch of the United States Attorney’s Office.  This prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI and the Office of the Contra Costa County District Attorney.

One of 10 Antioch, Pittsburg Cops Prosecuted, Convicted Part of DA, FBI Investigations

These civil rights charges against Wenger were brought as part of an investigation into the Antioch and Pittsburg police departments that resulted in multiple charges against 10 current and former officers and employees of these two police departments for various crimes ranging from the use of excessive force to fraud.  The status of these cases, all of which are before Senior U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White, is below:

below:

Case Name and Number Statute(s) Defendant

(Bold: multiple case numbers)

 Status
Fraud

23-cr-00264

 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349 (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud; 1343 (Wire Fraud) Patrick Berhan Sentenced to 30 months custody, 2 years supervised release concurrent with 24-cr-157 on 9/5/24
Morteza Amiri Sentenced to 84 months custody, 3 years supervised release concurrent with 23-cr-269 on 6/24/25
Amanda Theodosy a/k/a Nash Sentenced to 3 months custody, 3 years supervised release 11/15/24
Samantha Peterson Sentenced to time served, 3 years supervised release 4/24/24
Ernesto Mejia-Orozco Sentenced to 3 months custody, 3 years supervised release on 9/19/24
Brauli Jalapa Rodriguez Sentenced to 3 months custody, 3 years supervised release on 10/25/24
Obstruction

23-cr-00267

 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 (Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations); 1512(c)(2) (Obstruction of Official Proceedings); 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) Timothy Manly Williams Pleaded guilty 11/28/23, status conference 10/7/25
Steroid Distribution

23-cr-00268

 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 (Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Anabolic Steroids), 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(E)(i) (Possession with Intent to Distribute Anabolic Steroids) Daniel Harris Pleaded guilty 9/17/24, status conference 10/7/25
21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(E)(i) (Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Anabolic Steroids);

18 U.S.C.§ 1519 (Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations)

 Devon Wenger Convicted at trial 4/30/25, sentencing pending
Civil Rights

23-cr-00269

 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights), 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law); § 1519 (Destruction, Alteration, and Falsification of Records in Federal Investigations) Morteza Amiri Sentenced to 84 months custody, 3 years supervised release concurrent with 23-cr-264 on 6/24/25
18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights), 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) Eric Rombough Pleaded guilty 1/14/25, status conference 10/7/25
18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights), 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law) Devon Wenger Convicted at trial 9/18/25, sentencing 12/2/25
Steroid Distribution

24-cr-00157

 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(E)(i) (Possession with Intent to Distribute Anabolic Steroids) Patrick Berhan Sentenced to 30 months custody, 2 years supervised release concurrent with 23-cr-264 on 9/5/24
Bank fraud

24-cr-00502

 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), (2) (Bank fraud) Daniel Harris Pleaded guilty 9/17/24, status conference 10/7/25
Updated September 18, 2025
Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

Martinez Animal Hospital to pay $20,000 to settle EEOC retaliation charge

By Leave a Comment

Hospital conciliates allegations that it fired employee for objecting to religious concepts in mandatory training

Commission staff refuse to share the religious content included

By Office of Communications & Legislative Affairs, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

MARTINEZ, Calif. – Martinez Animal Hospital has agreed to provide $20,000 to a former employee following an investigation by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced on Tuesday, August 5, 2025.

According to the EEOC’s investigation, the hospital subjected an employee to mandatory training which he objected to because it incorporated religious content contrary to his beliefs; he also requested to be excused from any future trainings with similar content. The EEOC investigation concluded he was terminated within days.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits retaliation by an employer because a worker engaged in protected activity, such as making a request for a religious accommodation.

“I expressed my concerns to management over training I was required to attend and was soon fired,” said the worker. “I’m very glad the EEOC defended my right to speak up and ask for a religious accommodation, such as an exemption from religious-based content that made me uncomfortable.”

“We commend Martinez Animal Hospital for their commitment to preventing any future retaliation,” said Carlos Rocha, federal investigator and director of the EEOC’s Oakland Local Office. “This case should serve as a reminder for employers to train supervisors and representatives to recognize what may constitute protected activity under federal EEO laws and how to respond in a way that does not interfere with workers’ rights.”

Following the investigation, the parties engaged in the EEOC’s pre-litigation conciliation process, resulting in a settlement requiring the hospital to provide back pay and compensatory damages; revise its non-discrimination policies and procedures; conduct training for all employees, managers and human resources personnel; post a notice concerning equal employment opportunity rights in English and Spanish; track all accommodation requests; and report to the agency for two years.

For more information on retaliation generally, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/retaliation, and for guidance on retaliation in the context of religious accommodation, please see section 12–V, part B., in EEOC’s Guidance on Religious Discrimination.

The EEOC’s San Francisco District has jurisdiction over Northern Nevada, Northern California, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, Idaho and Montana.

The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division; the EEOC is responsible for investigating charges against state and local government employers before referring them to DOJ for potential litigation. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government’s employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.

Multiple efforts to reach Rocha and District Director Christopher Green asking what was the religious content in the training and for any documents from the investigation that can be shared were unsuccessful prior to publication time.

8/11/24 UPDATE: Later, an EEOC spokesperson responded, “We have no comment beyond the release.”

A federal Freedom of Information Act request was then submitted for any and all documents related to the case and the religious content included in the training.

Please check back later for any additional updates.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

EXCLUSIVE: 44-year-old federal race-based hiring mandate named for Antioch resident ends

By Leave a Comment

Angel G. Luévano. Photo by Luis Nuno Briones. Source: Todos Unidos

Luévano Consent Decree determined in 1981 written civil service test unfair to Black and Hispanic applicants

“Today, the Justice Department removed that barrier and reopened federal employment opportunities based on merit—not race.” – U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon on Aug. 1, 2025.

“The Decree has had its usefulness and a tremendous effect on the country. Millions of minorities and women hold jobs because of that class action lawsuit. It wasn’t DEI. It didn’t just benefit minorities and women. The Outstanding Scholar Program…was actually used 70% by whites.” – Angel Luévano

By Allen D. Payton

On Friday, August 1, 2025, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon announced that the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) had ended a 44-year-old decree mandating race-based government hiring. It’s named for Antioch resident Angel G. Luévano, who, with a group of attorneys in 1979, brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of African Americans and Hispanics over the Professional and Administrative Career Examination (PACE). They claimed disparate impact against them based on their test results violated Title VII’s equal employment opportunity provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dhillon claimed the decree “imposed draconian test review and implementation procedures” on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

The 1979 Luévano v. Campbell lawsuit, against the then and first Director of the Officer of Personnel Management, Alan Campbell, resulted in a settlement during the final days of President Jimmy Carter’s Administration, just prior to President Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, eliminating use of the PACE test. According to court documents filed in March 2025 by the USDOJ, “on January 9, 1981, after two years of litigation, Plaintiffs and OPM jointly moved for ‘an order granting preliminary approval to a Consent Decree.’ Luevano, 93 F.R.D. at 72. The parties signed the Decree eleven days prior to the change in administration, and the Court accepted the Decree on February 26, 1981.”

In addition, according to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearing House Case Summary, in the Decree the “federal government in part agreed to…establish two special hiring programs, Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural.”

The lawsuit title was later changed to Luevano v. Ezell, named for Charles Ezell, the current Acting OPM Director. This year’s court filing reads, “Federal law requires many federal jobs be filled based on merit alone. Beginning in 1974, OPM employed a test to do just that. The Professional and Administrative Career Examination (‘PACE’) was a challenging, written examination that measured cognitive and other skills. It quickly proved an effective way of predicting future job performance, thereby increasing the efficiency and capability of the federal workforce. But it did not last long.”

In a Aug. 1 post on Dhillon’s official X (formerly Twitter) account she wrote, “Another federal government DEI program bites the dust! Today, the @CivilRights Division ended a 44-year-old decree that bound the federal government to use DEI in its hiring practices” and shared the news release from the USDOJ announcing the end to the decree:

“Today, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division ended a court-imposed decree initiated by the Carter administration, which limited the hiring practices of the federal government based on flawed and outdated theories of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In Luevano v. Ezell, the Court dismissed a consent decree based on a lawsuit initially brought by interest groups representing federal employees in 1979. The decree entered in 1981 imposed draconian test review and implementation procedures on the Office of Personnel Management—and consequently all other federal agencies—requiring them to receive permission prior to using any tests for potential federal employees, in an attempt to require equal testing outcomes among all races of test-takers.

“For over four decades, this decree has hampered the federal government from hiring the top talent of our nation,” said Dhillon. “Today, the Justice Department removed that barrier and reopened federal employment opportunities based on merit—not race.”

“It’s simple, competence and merit are the standards by which we should all be judged; nothing more and nothing less,” said U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro for the District of Columbia. “It’s about time people are judged, not by their identity, but instead ‘by the content of their character.’”

Luévano Responds

In response to the decree’s dismissal, Luévano said, “I agreed to vacate the Decree through the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) because I don’t want to make bad law. There are two interveners on the other side that wanted to broaden the attack.”

Asked when he agreed to it, he said, “Last week. Attorneys for both sides met with the judge last Thursday to resolve the matter.”

“The Decree has had its usefulness and a tremendous effect on the country,” Luévano continued. “Millions of minorities and women hold jobs because of that class action lawsuit. The Decree affected 118 job classifications in federal hiring nationwide.”

“I’m extremely proud of the effect that it has had on federal hires and getting minorities and women into federal jobs,” he stated. “It affected my decision to join, it was the key for me to join federal civil rights compliance in the Labor Department.”

Asked why he was the lead plaintiff he said, “I took the PACE exam because I wanted to get into a federal job. I achieved an 80 on the test – a passing grade, even though it’s been reported I flunked the exam. That’s not true. The result was I did not get referred to federal openings. They were only referring people with a 100 on their tests to jobs.”

“I learned about the case through the Legal Aid Society which had brought many cases in the construction industry. Our unit was successful in getting the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to be effective. I went to them and said, ‘that happened to me’ in the Office of Personnel Management. That’s the lead HR department in the federal government. They’re the gatekeepers to federal employment.”

“I asked them, is there something we can do about this. They said, ‘funny you should ask. We are looking for someone to do something about this’ and we began working on the lawsuit,” he shared.

“One of the things I was able to achieve was alternatives to merit selection in federal employment, the Outstanding Scholar and Bilingual/Bicultural programs that each agency implemented,” Luévano stated.

“I gave up back pay and also the class, to get them to agree to the decree,” he continued. “When you win a case, you usually get a settlement. But I was the one who gave up back pay for myself and for the class to get those two remedies. That was really big. That is huge. Who gets alternatives to merit-based hiring at the national level? They used it to bring in minorities and women.”

“It wasn’t DEI. It didn’t just benefit minorities and women. The Outstanding Scholar Program as an alternative to discriminatory merit-based hiring was actually used 70% by whites,” he stated. “But that’s OK. I wanted to crack the discriminatory employment barriers to federal hiring.”

“When I was in D.C. I met with the second in command at the OPM, while we were in Puerto Rico. He said, ‘Angel, you know it’s not what you know. It’s who you know. I said to him, ‘I know you!’ He replied, ‘But I don’t have any power.’ I’ve learned that every where I’ve gone. As you go up the ladder it gets narrower and narrower and harder and harder.”

“We used the impact theory to prove there was discrimination. There are only two theories, that one and disparate treatment,” Luevano explained.

“I negotiated through my lawyers,” he continued. “We had a lot of attorneys. They included the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights out of D.C., MALDEF, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, NOW, and the Legal Aid Society of Alameda County where I worked out of Oakland as a senior law clerk in the impact litigation unit.”

He started as a summer management intern with the General Services Administration as a GS-5 employee in 1972 while in law school. Then he went to work for the Department of Defense compliance division in Burlingame.

They merged all the compliance divisions under the Labor Department.

“They leaped me from a GS-9 to a 12,” he stated. “So, I skipped 10 and 11. I met all of the qualifications.”

He ultimately rose to the level of a GS-15 as Deputy Director of Program Operations for the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

“I was number four in the agency nationwide and retired after 30 years in government,” Luevano shared. “That happened to a guy who wouldn’t have even gotten into a federal job because of PACE. Yet, I was qualified, I earned it and I moved up.”

“I had a great career. I helped write the regulations on how to detect employment system discrimination and I trained the trainers nationwide,” he continued. “That was because of my law background. I went to Hastings for four years. Even though I don’t have the degree, I have the equivalent of a Master’s in Law.”

About the timing for the lawsuit settlement Luévano shared, “Our lawyers showed up. Their lawyers showed up, the attorneys for the outgoing Carter Administration. The attorneys for the Reagan Administration showed up and wanted to put a stop to the resolution of the Consent Decree. The judge said, ‘No, you’re not in power, yet.’”

“We were all happy, we signed the Decree and made history,” he stated. “I’m humbled by this tremendous achievement.”

Luévano was recognized for his efforts at one of the conferences of LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens, in which he later rose to the level of California State Director and V.P for the Far West. Image de California gave him an award during one of their conferences at which he spoke about the Consent Decree.

“If we hadn’t accomplished that we’d still be back in the dark ages of discrimination,” Luévano stated.

“I’m actually writing a book, a memoir about it,” he added. “I’m working with Harvard on that.”

Luévano even has his own Wikipedia page.

He and his wife Argentina have been involved in the Antioch community with the Kiwanis Club of the Delta-Antioch, where he was president last year and Argentina is currently secretary. They both also served as Lt. Governors for the organization in Division 26, Area 9 in Northern California. Then Angel was elected as Trustee for the entire Division which includes California, Nevada and Hawaii.

In addition, since May 2004, Angel has also served as Executive Director for Todos Unidos, an Antioch-based non-profit organization established to raise the educational, economic, health and social outcomes of underserved communities along the Suisun Bay and the greater San Joaquin Delta area.

Rep. DeSaulnier to host Virtual Town Hall with special guest CA Attorney General Rob Bonta Aug. 5

By Leave a Comment

Will talk about state’s 30 lawsuits against Trump Administration

Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D, CA-10) announced he will host a virtual town hall with special guest California Attorney General Rob Bonta on defending constitutional rights and protecting Californians from the Trump Administration’s harmful policies on Tuesday, August 5th at 5:45 p.m. PT.

According to DeSaulnier, “Amid the Trump Administration’s attacks on immigrant and LGBTQ+ communities, federal funding, environmental protections, and more, A.G. Rob Bonta has been a staunch defender of the rule of law on behalf of us here in CA-10 (California’s 10th Congressional District) and across California. He’s joining us for a virtual town hall.”

Since President Trump was inaugurated in January, Attorney General Bonta has filed more than 30 lawsuits on behalf of Californians against what he claims are the Administration’s illegal and unconstitutional policies. DeSaulnier and Bonta will discuss recent successes in the courts and in Congress and the path ahead to check what are believed to be the President’s abuses of power. They will also take audience questions live.

Virtual Town Hall

Tuesday, August 5th

5:45 – 6:45 p.m. PT

Hosted on Zoom

Streamed to YouTube

To reserve your spot and receive a Zoom link or to request special accommodations, visit https://desaulnier.house.gov/town-hall-rsvp or call (925) 933-2660.

This will be Congressman DeSaulnier’s 240th town hall and mobile district office hour since coming to Congress in January 2015.

Contra Costa judge orders changes to deceptive Acalanes high school district tax measure ballot materials

By Leave a Comment

Said Measure T would raise district parcel taxes from $112 to $130, but will actually increase from $301 to $431, plus annual inflation increases

By Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

The Honorable Edward G. Weil of Contra Costa County Superior Court ordered Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD) and the Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters to alter the ballot question, ballot measure title, and impartial analysis of Measure T, a new parcel tax for the Acalanes Union High School District (AUHD) being placed before voters in a May 6th special election. Judge Weil issued the order in response to a complaint filed by attorney Jason Bezis whose lead plaintiff was Marc Joffe, President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association (CoCoTax).

“As written, the ballot materials were highly deceptive,” said Joffe. “The impartial analysis gave the false impression that Measure T would raise district parcel taxes from $112 to $130, when, in fact, they will increase from a current total of $301 to $431, followed by annual inflation increases. The ballot question tried to confuse voters by calling these inflationary increases ‘adjustments’.”

CoCoTax has taken a “NO” position on the measure, and Joffe has written opposition ballot arguments which voters will see next month. CoCoTax is especially concerned with AUHSD’s decision to call a costly special election to decide the tax measure.

The County Registrar of Voters will charge the district between $11 and $14 per registered voter to conduct the election, and with 95,000 registered voters in AUHSD, the total cost will exceed $1 million. This is close to a quarter of the amount the parcel tax is expected to raise in its first year, if enacted.

“The District could’ve saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by combining this with a regular election,” Joffe said.

Aside from ordering the insertion of the word inflation into the ballot question and removing deceptive information about the current level of parcel taxes, Judge Weil’s ruling will also require AUHSD to change the name of the measure from the “Sustaining Educational Excellence Act” to the “Sustaining Educational Funding Act.” Joffe said: “That is an improvement because the new title at least gives some idea of what the measure will do. Ideally, the District would call this measure what it is: a parcel tax increase.”

Judge Weil denied several of the plaintiffs’ requests, including a move to strike the descriptor “independent” from the oversight board that would report on spending of parcel tax revenue. Because the school board-appointed committee is not required to include a taxpayer advocate and because the district superintendent will serve as an ex officio member, plaintiffs did not see it as truly independent.

A more technical change the judge ordered required a significant change to the ballot question. State law requires ballot summaries to follow the template: “Shall the measure (stating the nature thereof) be adopted?” AUHSD’s language neither began with the phrase “Shall the measure” nor did it end with “be adopted”.

“The purpose of a ballot question is to quickly inform busy voters of what a ballot measure would do if adopted,” Joffe said. “Instead, AUHSD, other Contra Costa agencies, and their counterparts across California treat the ballot question as free advertising for new taxes and bonds. In fact, like many other agencies, AUHSD paid consultants and pollsters to fashion the most marketable ballot question, with little regard for actually informing voters.”

See copies of Judge Weil’s order and the plaintiffs’ amended petition: N25-0353 – Order After Hearing & Amended Petition

Interested parties can see all documents related to this matter by going to the Superior Court’s case management system at https://odyportal.cc-courts.org/Portal/Home/Dashboard/29 and entering case number N25-0353.

Federal judge defends teachers right to say ‘no’ to California’s gender secrecy policy

By Leave a Comment

SACRAMENTO, CA — In a pivotal ruling for parental rights, U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez refused to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against California’s controversial policies requiring educators to keep parents uninformed when their children express gender confusion or request to change their names and pronouns at school. The decision, handed down on January 7, 2025, denies the motions filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Department of Education to throw out the case by arguing that gender secrecy policies were “just a suggestion,” and not mandated on school districts. Now the suit can move forward toward potentially overturning the state’s ban parent notification policies with the passage of AB 1955 last year.

Teachers Not Required to Keep Secrets from Parents
In a powerful statement addressing the rights of educators, Judge Benitez clarified that teachers are under no obligation to follow policies that compel them to deceive or withhold information from parents. Judge Benitez emphasized that “teachers do not completely forfeit their First Amendment rights in exchange for public school employment.” He noted that while teachers may be required to deliver specific curricula, the government cannot force them to act unlawfully or infringe on parental rights. Benitez agreed with the plaintiffs that state policies compel them to act in ways that are “intentionally deceptive and unlawful,” violating the teachers’ First Amendment rights.

Upholding Parents’ Constitutional Rights
Judge Benitez also emphasized long-standing constitutional protections for parents in the upbringing and health decisions of their children. “Parents’ rights to make decisions concerning the care, custody, control, and medical care of their children is one of the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests that Americans enjoy,” he wrote, rebuking the state’s argument that parents have no fundamental right to be informed of their child’s gender identity at school. “However, under California state policy and EUSD policy, if a school student expresses words or actions during class that are visible signs that the child is dealing with gender incongruity or possibly gender dysphoria, teachers are ordered not to inform the parents.”

Ultimately, the judge denied the state’s efforts to dismiss the case, stating, “There are no controlling decisions that would compel this Court to limit or infringe parental rights, notwithstanding the State’s laudable goals of protecting children.”

The ruling directly challenges California’s “Parental Exclusion Policies,” which have allowed schools to hide critical gender identity information from families under the guise of student privacy. Judge Benitez concluded that parents have a constitutional right to know about their child’s gender incongruity, especially when such conditions could lead to significant mental health issues like depression or suicidal ideation.

Broad Implications for State Policy
The lawsuit is now free to move forward, and if successful, it could dismantle policies statewide that currently compel educators to bypass parents on sensitive matters concerning gender identity. This would represent a significant victory for parental rights advocates who argue that these policies infringe on the fundamental rights of families and erode trust between parents and schools.

Legal Counsel Speaks Out
Paul Jonna, Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society, Partner LiMandri & Jonna LLP, and a lead attorney on the case, hailed the decision as a milestone moment for parental rights. “We are incredibly pleased that the Court has denied all attempts to throw out our landmark challenge to California’s parental exclusion and gender secrecy regime,” Jonna said in a press release. “Judge Benitez’s order rightly highlights the sacrosanct importance of parents’ rights in our constitutional order and the First Amendment protections afforded to parents and teachers.”

Jonna emphasized the broader goal of achieving statewide relief for all parents and teachers affected by the secrecy policies, adding, “We look forward to continuing to prosecute this case against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the other defendants, to put this issue to rest once and for all—by obtaining class-wide relief on behalf of all teachers and parents.”

Reaction from California Family Council
Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council, praised the ruling for upholding parental rights. “This decision is a critical step toward restoring the sacred bond between parents and children,” Burt stated. “When government policies force schools to keep secrets from families, they cross a dangerous line. Judge Benitez’s ruling reaffirms that parental rights are not a secondary concern but a cornerstone of our constitutional freedoms.”

A Collision of Rights
Judge Benitez also addressed the tension between a child’s right to privacy and parents’ right to be informed. While acknowledging the competing interests, he concluded, “In a collision of rights as between parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.” This statement sets a clear precedent favoring parental oversight in matters of health and education.

Looking Ahead
As Mirabelli v. Olson proceeds, the case is likely to garner increased attention, setting the stage for a broader examination of how states balance student privacy with parental rights. The outcome could redefine policies across California and potentially influence similar debates nationwide.

About California Family Council
California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.

CA Attorney General Bonta reminds illegal immigrants of their legal rights, protections

By Leave a Comment

Source: Office of CA Attorney General Rob Bonta

Hosts first of a series of regional convenings with immigrant rights groups, elected officials, and others ahead of Inauguration Day 

LOS ANGELES – California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2024, issued two guidances to help California immigrants better understand their rights and protections under the law and avoid immigration scams by those seeking to take advantage of fear and uncertainty resulting from the President-elect’s inhumane threats of mass detention, arrests, and deportation. The guidances build on the Attorney General’s announcement earlier this month of updated model policies and recommendations to help public institutions like schools, hospitals, and courts comply with California law limiting state and local participation in immigration enforcement activities. Over the coming weeks, Attorney General Bonta will continue to help Californians prepare for changes to federal immigration policy in convenings with immigrant rights groups, elected officials, and others in Los Angeles, Sacramento, Salinas, San Francisco, and San Diego, where the Attorney General and California Department of Justice (CADOJ) staff will share resources, hear concerns, and discuss ongoing efforts to protect California’s immigrant communities.

“In California, we know that our immigrants are the backbone of our communities, a driving force behind our economy, and an essential part of our history as a state,” said Bonta. “With the President-elect making clear his intent to move forward an inhumane and destructive immigration agenda once he takes office, CADOJ is releasing new and updated guidance to help immigrants understand their rights under the law. In California, we will ensure that the rights of our immigrant communities are respected and protected. I will be convening a series of discussions in the weeks ahead – the first here today in Los Angeles – focused on this essential mission.”

Know Your Immigration Rights and Protections Under the Law

  • You have the right to apply for and secure housing without sharing your immigration status. California law prohibits housing providers from asking about your immigration status unless you are applying for affordable housing funded by the federal government. Additionally, housing providers cannot harass or intimidate you by threatening or sharing information about your immigration status to ICE, law enforcement, or other government agencies.
  • You have the right to access emergency medical care. Federal laws and regulations ensure the rights of all people to access emergency medical care, including undocumented immigrants.
  • You have the right to an attorney. If you are arrested by police, you have the right to a government-appointed attorney. If you are detained by ICE and/or are facing immigration proceedings, you have the right to seek legal assistance through an attorney.
  • State and local law enforcement cannot ask for your immigration status. California law expressly prohibits law enforcement from inquiring about a person’s immigration status for immigration enforcement purposes.
  • State and local law enforcement cannot share your personal information. This includes sharing your home or work address for immigration purposes, unless that information is available to the public or unless that information involves previous criminal arrest, convictions or similar criminal history.
  • State and local law enforcement cannot assist ICE with immigration enforcement, with very limited exceptions. This means they cannot investigate, cannot interrogate, cannot arrest, and cannot detain you unless it is as part of joint federal task force where the primary purpose is not immigration enforcement.

The full “Know Your Immigration Rights” consumer alert is available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese at oag.ca.gov/immigrant/resources.

Protect Yourself from Immigration Scams

If you need help applying for immigration relief, be careful who you hire. Watch out for immigration scams that can cost you thousands of dollars and/or harm your immigration status! Here are some tips and resources to help:

  • Go to a legitimate legal aid organization for free legal help. Many nonprofit organizations provide free immigration help to low-income individuals, such as those found through the resources below. To find a legal aid organization near you, go to lawhelpca.org.
  • Keep your original documents in a safe place. Don’t give your original documents to anyone unless you see proof that the government requires the original document. If you give someone an original, they may lose it or refuse to return it unless you pay them.
  • Do not hire an immigration consultant or a notary. Only lawyers, accredited representatives, and recognized organizations can give you legal advice or represent you in immigration court. Immigration consultants – who may call themselves immigration experts, notarios, notaries public, or paralegals – cannot do so.
  • Do not give money or personal information to anyone who calls, texts, or emails you claiming that there is a problem with your immigration matter. No federal or state agency, including USCIS, will ever ask for your personal information or payment over the phone, by email, or text.

For more dos and don’ts, see the full “Immigration Services Fraud” consumer alert available in English, Spanish, Chinese (Simplified), Korean, Tagalog, and Vietnamese at oag.ca.gov/immigrant/resources.

Access Free and Low-Cost Legal Assistance 

Visit Law Help CA or Immigration Law Help to find immigration assistance near you.

File a Complaint 

If you believe your rights have been violated, report it to the California Department of Justice at oag.ca.gov/report.

If you believe you were subject to discrimination, harassment or retaliation, report it to the California Civil Rights Department at calcivilrights.ca.gov/complaintprocess/.

Letters: Attorney says Contra Costa Superior Court filing process too slow

By Leave a Comment

Dear Editor: 

It typically takes over a month for the Contra Costa Superior Court to process filings in limited civil cases. In fact, more like 6 weeks.

This compares badly with other superior courts throughout the state.

In San Diego Superior, for example, I’ve had papers processed within hours. In Marin County Superior Court, I’ve had papers processed within 1 or 2 days.

This is a real problem because justice delayed is justice denied.

This is a ridiculously long time when it only takes a few minutes to do the processing.

Yes, I understand that they have a lot of filings to process…but with a lot of filing don’t they also have a lot of taxpayer funding commensurate with the size of the population of the county?

So why is Contra Costa so much slower than other counties?

Sincerely,

Edward Teyssier, esq.

National City

Legal earthquake: Federal jury in SF awards millions to BART workers denied religious accommodations

By Leave a Comment

Fired for not taking COVID-19 vaccine, one employee from San Pablo

San Francisco, CA. –  A federal jury on Wednesday, Oct. 23, 2024, delivered a stunning blow to Bay Area officials who denied every religious accommodation requested by workers to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The eight-person jury deliberated for two days before unanimously awarding six former employees of San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) more than $1 million each, for a total of about $7.8 million. The employees have been represented by Pacific Justice Institute since 2022.

On Friday, Oct. 18, the jury first determined that BART failed to prove an undue hardship in denying any accommodations to the employees. Yesterday, the jury further concluded that all of the employees had met their burden of showing a genuine conflict between their faith and the vaccine requirement, which was implemented in late 2021. The jury then accepted the numbers calculated by the plaintiffs’ economic expert for lost wages and added $1 million to each of those figures.

Brad Dacus, president of PJI, commented, “These verdicts are seismic—a 7.8 San Francisco legal earthquake. This amazing outcome represents so much hard work by our team, perseverance by these clients, and fairness from our judicial system.”

Kevin Snider, PJI’s Chief Counsel who served as lead trial counsel, commented, “The rail employees chose to lose their livelihood rather than deny their faith. That in itself shows the sincerity and depth of their convictions. After nearly three years of struggle, these essential workers feel they were heard and understood by the jury and are overjoyed and relieved by the verdict.”

During the trial, jurors heard compelling testimony from dedicated employees. One of the plaintiffs had worked for more than 30 years for BART, with a stretch of 10 years perfect attendance, before being unceremoniously dismissed. Another had been out on workers comp for months, with no scheduled return date, when she was fired. BART had also argued that several of the employees’ conflicts with taking the vaccine were more secular than religious. The jury disagreed.

PJI’s trial attorneys in this case consisted of Kevin T. Snider, Matthew B. McReynolds, and Milton E. Matchak. PJI was joined at trial by co-counsel Jessica R. Barsotti. Nationwide, PJI continues to represent hundreds of dedicated employees who lost their jobs after they sought and were denied religious accommodations to the COVID-19 vaccines. This week’s verdicts are expected to impact many of those pending cases.

The BART employees’ case number is 3:22-cv-06119-WHA.

California Family Council Comments on Court Victory

In addition, the California Family Council wrote the following on their website (republished with permission):

Victory for Conscience: Fired BART Employees Secure Million-Dollar Settlement Over Vaccine Mandate

In a case that sends a powerful message on the importance of religious liberty, a San Francisco jury awarded more than $7 million to former Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) employees who were terminated for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds. Represented by the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), these employees sacrificed their careers rather than compromise their deeply held convictions—a stand that has now been vindicated in court, both legally and morally.

A Stand for Faith Over Career

This case, centered on BART’s refusal to accommodate employees’ sincere religious objections, highlighted the tensions between public health policies and individual rights to religious freedom. For these former BART workers, faith was not just a private belief but a guiding principle that defined how they lived and worked. In the face of mounting pressures, they made a difficult choice: to lose their jobs rather than violate their consciences. According to Kevin Snider, PJI’s Chief Counsel and lead trial attorney on the case, “The rail employees chose to lose their livelihood rather than deny their faith. That in itself shows the sincerity and depth of their convictions. After nearly three years of struggle, these essential workers feel they were heard and understood by the jury and are overjoyed and relieved by the verdict.”

This lawsuit is part of a broader trend in the courts, where cases involving COVID-19 mandates and religious objections are increasingly ruling in favor of those who held firm to their faith. The jury’s decision represents a milestone in affirming that religious accommodations cannot be set aside, even amid unprecedented health crises. As Reuters noted, similar cases across the country are starting to see victories for individuals who stood by their beliefs rather than comply with mandates they found objectionable on religious grounds.

Pacific Justice Institute Defends Religious Rights in Court

Brad Dacus, President of PJI, emphasized the wider impact of this ruling, saying, “This case sets a legal precedent ensuring that all government agencies honor religious exemptions.” His statement underscores that this case has implications far beyond California and BART; it signals a renewed commitment to protecting religious rights across all sectors, reminding government agencies and private employers alike that religious liberty is a constitutional right, not an optional privilege.

Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council, echoed this sentiment, stating, “Employers have an obligation to respect their employees’ religious beliefs by providing reasonable accommodations whenever possible. Religious freedom is foundational, and this decision underscores the importance of honoring that freedom in all facets of public life.” Burt’s comments resonate in a climate where religious rights are often viewed as secondary to policy mandates, reinforcing the idea that true religious freedom requires active respect from employers and institutions.

Integrity and Conviction in the Face of Institutional Pressure

The jury’s award of over $7 million was not merely a financial victory but a resounding affirmation of the workers’ commitment to their principles. It serves as a powerful testament to the fact that religious liberty extends into the workplace and that individuals should not be coerced into choices that violate their faith. The workers’ triumph speaks to the courage it takes to defend one’s beliefs against institutional pressures. The defendants’ win also addresses a broader legal and societal question: How do we, as a nation, protect the conscience rights of individuals amid public mandates? By securing this verdict, the former BART employees underscore the critical importance of faith-based resilience in a culture that increasingly prioritizes compliance over conviction.

This case does more than validate the BART employees’ religious rights—it represents an undercurrent of resistance where faith and courage fuel social change. Their unwavering stance mirrors that of others in history who’ve faced institutional pressures for their beliefs, reminding us that when one group stands firm, they often pave the way for countless others to reclaim their rights. With this landmark decision, these workers have become symbols of integrity and resilience, showing us all that the call to live authentically—faith and all—can transform society in profound ways.

An effort to contact one of the six plaintiffs who lives in San Pablo was unsuccessful prior to publication time. Please check back later for any udpates to this report.