By Allen Payton

This year’s Independence Day, today, July 4, 2020 marks the 244th birthday of our nation. It was on this date in 1776 that our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence sending a message to England that we would no longer be ruled by their king, that we would be a sovereign nation and each of our citizens sovereign people, as well.

In Antioch, we also celebrate the 169th anniversary of the naming of our city, today. It was on this date in 1851, 75 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, that the townspeople gathered together with co-founder Rev. William Wiggins Smith to rename the town from Smith’s Landing to Antioch, after the city in Syria where the followers of Christ were first called Christians. They did that out of respect to Smith’s twin brother, Rev. Joseph Horton Smith who had died the previous year. In 1849, after traveling from Boston, the Smith brothers each purchased 160 acres from Dr. John Marsh along the Antioch waterfront, where the city’s historic, downtown Rivertown District is located, today.

According to the book entitled, Looking Back – Tales of Old Antioch and Other Places by Earl Hohlmayer, “On the fourth of July, 1851 a basket picnic was held at the residence of W.W. Smith, then standing on the high ground…The all-absorbing topic of the day was ‘What shall we name our town?’ Between thirty and forty men, women and children gathered together from far and near… W.W. Smith proposed that, inasmuch as the first settlers were disciples of Christ, and one of them had died and was buried on the land, that it be given a Bible name in his honor, and suggested ‘Antioch’, (a Syria town where two important rivers meet and where the followers of Christ were first called Christians), and by united acclamation it was so christened.”

A historic mural was commissioned by the Antioch City Council in the late 1990’s which includes a scene from the July 4, 1851 picnic which can be seen above. It’s located on the wall of the 505 Building next to the parking lot at F and W. Second Streets in Antioch’s historic downtown Rivertown.

Although our community, state and nation currently face health, economic and other challenges, the future looks bright and we can celebrate our freedoms, enumerated in the Bill of Rights, although somewhat restricted, lately. Enjoy celebrating and remember to thank God for the freedoms we get to exercise and experience each day in our country.

Happy Independence Day and may God continue to bless the United States of America. Freedom!

“Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.” Psalm 94:8

“Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’” Acts 5:29

By Allen Payton

As part of his new statewide health orders issued on Wednesday, July 1, California Governor Gavin Newsom included a new requirement that “*Places of worship must therefore discontinue singing and chanting activities” during worship services. (Note: The asterisk does not refer to anything else in the document) See https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship.pdf

Under the section entitled Considerations for Places of Worship it reads, “Discontinue singing (in rehearsals, services, etc.), chanting, and other practices and performances where there is increased likelihood for transmission from contaminated exhaled droplets.

The state’s document, entitled COVID-19 INDUSTRY GUIDANCE: Places of Worship and Providers of Religious Services and Cultural Ceremonies refers to the practice of one’s faith as “personal” as if it’s not supposed to be done in public, like other activities such as protesting.

“Even with adherence to physical distancing, convening in a congregational setting of multiple different households to practice a personal faith carries a relatively higher risk for widespread transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and may result in increased rates of infection, hospitalization, and death, especially among more vulnerable populations. In particular, activities such as singing and chanting negate the risk reduction achieved through six feet of physical distancing,” the document reads.

However, in response after contacting county officials, leaders of Golden Hills Community Church, one of the larger churches in Eastern Contra Costa County with campuses in Brentwood and Antioch which will hold their first in-person service in 17 weeks on Sunday, July 5, shared with their members that singing while wearing masks will be allowed.

In an email on Friday, June 3 Senior Pastor Phil Ward wrote, “This week both the state and the county announced a ban on ‘singing and chanting’ in houses of worship. Since we now have the ability to gather for in-person worship, and since singing is an essential aspect of Christian worship (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), we found this prohibition unreasonable because it dictates what is permissible in worship. As a result, we reached out to the governing authorities to express our concern. In response, we were told that singing is permitted so long as masks are being worn—something we already planned to do.”

Although the sanctuary at their Brentwood campus has a capacity of 1,700 people and could easily accommodate 350 people while social distancing, the church will be following the limits of only 100 people per service. They will also utilize their former sanctuary, now used as a multipurpose room, which can also meet the state and county’s limitations of 100 people maximum or 25% of room capacity whichever is less. Finally, the church will be offering four services this Sunday and adding a fifth service, beginning next Saturday night, July 11.

Debate Over Following All Government Laws & Orders

International evangelist and San Francisco native Mario Murillo wrote this week in response to the governor’s order that Christians should not follow such laws or orders because they are evil and go against what God teaches His followers.

“I can’t think of a worse idea than to stop praise and worship because Gavin Newsom told you to,” he wrote. “It’s time to wake up to the sad truth that California has declared war on the church. Doesn’t the Bible tell us to obey them no matter what? Absolutely not. And it is shocking how many believers do not know their Bible or have been given false teaching. There is no verse in the Bible that tells you to obey evil government or laws.”

Many believers often quote a section in the book of Romans, chapter 13, verses 1-7 to support following the government’s orders: “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore, you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”

However, Murillo quotes other Bible verses that offer the opposite perspective, that believers are only to follow rulers who aren’t evil and laws that aren’t evil.

“It seems to say that we are to honor government in every form, right? Wrong,” he wrote. “Lost in all the quoting of this verse on submission to government is the most important part: The description of the ruling authority.”

Murillo shares that description writing, “they are not a terror to good works” and “they praise good works.”

He also shared what Jesus said of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:3, “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, but do not do.”

“Do what they say, but don’t partake of their hypocrisy,” Murillo explains. “Watch them for that moment when they cross the line and come between you and your God.  Just as our conscience should drive us to obey the law, we should also know when our conscience tells us not to obey an evil law.”

“Here’s when Peter reached that tipping point, speaking to those very same Pharisees,” he continues, quoting Acts 4:18-20, “So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.’”

Murillo then quoted Acts 5:29 writing, “Peter and the other apostles answered and said: ‘We ought to obey God rather than men.’”

Newsom’s Order is an Evil Law That Must Not Be Followed

“God not only does not endorse evil government: He will have no part in it,” Murillo continues. He then quotes Psalm 94:20 writing, “Can a corrupt throne be allied with you—a throne that brings on misery by its decrees? The wicked band together against the righteous and condemn the innocent to death.”

“There is your answer. A corrupt throne (government) cannot be allied with God,” he wrote. “In fact, evil laws are the worst form of sin. They provide legitimacy to evil.”

Murillo concludes by quoting German pastor, theologian, anti-Nazi dissident and Christian martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

Wearing a Mask While Singing or Chanting Works

So, ordering followers, of at least Christianity and Judaism, to discontinue singing violates what God wants practiced during worship. As it is written in Psalms 98:4, “Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.” Therefore Governor Newsom’s order is an evil law that must not be followed. But, for safety’s sake the spirit of the order can be met by wearing masks while singing or chanting in church.

Network of six online public schools joined together for a virtual commencement ceremony on June 17 of over 800 students in the Class of 2020 

San Juan Capistrano, CA – California Connections Academy, a tuition-free network of online public schools serving students in grades TK-12 across 32 counties in California since 2004, celebrated more than 800 graduating seniors on June 17. While graduates were unable to walk across the stage to receive their diploma as tradition holds, school administrators and teachers honored the graduates with proper pomp and circumstance during the virtual graduation ceremony.

Students gathered with family members, friends, teachers and administrators in an online setting to commemorate this milestone and celebrate the many accomplishments of the Class of 2020. Fortunately, due to the school’s full-time virtual curriculum, seniors at California Connections Academy were able to finish their semester and complete all courses despite the public health crisis.

The following students are California Connections Academy graduates from East County:

• Isabella Macayan, Antioch
• Olivia Gregory, Antioch
• Alden-Christopher Quintanilla-Sanchez, Bay Point
• Rowyn De Witt, Oakley

Unfortunately, the list is incomplete as the school can only share the names of students who have consented to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

“California Connections Academy prepared me well for graduation,” said Isabella Macayan of Antioch. “The teachers are always ready to help if you call and they make time to connect with students. My family feels like we made the right choice when deciding which school to attend.”

Another graduate who lives in East County shared his thoughts.

“California Connections Academy provided me with a flexible schedule and the classes I needed to graduate high school ahead of schedule. Moving from a private school to an online school was a big change but it gave m insight into time-management and self-motivation,” said Alden Christopher Quintanilla-Sanchez of Bay Point. “The school gave me the resources I needed and all I had to do was make good use of them.”

The Class of 2020 is comprised of graduates from six California schools – California Connections Academy Central, California Connections Academy Central Coast, California Connections Academy Monterey Bay, California Connections Academy North Bay, California Connections Academy Ripon and California Connections Academy Southern California – residing in 32 counties throughout the state. Among the graduating class, 65% plan to attend two- or four-year colleges or universities, 11% plan to enter the work force and 8% plan to attend vocational or technical school or join the military. Collectively, the graduating class earned more than $856,000 in scholarship funds and students have been accepted to notable in-state and out-of-state universities including UCLA, UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, Boston University, Columbia University, Carnegie Mellon, and NYU, among many others.

Among the graduates is California Connections Academy Ripon valedictorian Nthenya Maithya, who came to California Connections Academy in 2018 seeking a flexible schedule that would allow her to excel academically at her own pace. Maithya will attend Villanova University in the fall to study mechanical engineering.

“While attending California Connections Academy, I felt that I had the power to take my education into my own hands and learn about myself along the way,” shared Maithya. She added that she never thought she would be valedictorian. “I always push myself to be the best I can and set high standards for myself. At Connections Academy, I could see that paying off.”

“I am continually inspired by our 2020 graduating class,” said Dr. Richard Savage, California Connections Academy Executive Director. “These students have worked incredibly hard to finish the school year strong and I am so proud of all of their achievements. I have no doubt these students will be the next generation of successful and thoughtful leaders.”

California Connections Academy accommodates the needs of a variety of learners through unique curriculum opportunities, close-knit collaboration with fellow students and staff, supportive teachers and the flexibility to learn from anywhere with an internet connection.

Currently providing more than 7,600 students across six schools with a high-quality, personalized online education, the schools combine California-credentialed teachers with structured LiveLesson(R) online classroom sessions, and a curriculum that meets rigorous state education standards. Through advanced technology tools, teachers work closely with students to nurture their strengths and provide additional support for areas of difficulty, while parents can consistently monitor how their child is performing and progressing. The safe learning environment enables a dynamic student schedule and offers a solution to families with a variety of needs.

For additional information about online education and enrollment, the school is hosting free events for families to learn more. To learn more about California Connections Academy and begin the enrollment process, visit the school’s website.

About California Connections Academy

California Connections Academy is a network of tuition-free, high-quality, highly accountable online public school serving students in grades TK-12 throughout 32 counties via six school sites in California. All six schools are fully accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Schools of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). California Connections Academy provides students a safe, supportive learning environment with the flexibility to learn from anywhere with an internet connection with an innovative curriculum that meets rigorous state education standards. The combination of state-credentialed teachers, an award-winning curriculum, personalized teacher support, unique electives and community experiences creates a supportive and successful online learning opportunity for families who want an individualized approach to education. For more information, call 1-800-221-2720 or visit the school’s website.

County health officials evaluating local data to determine any further business reopening

By Allen Payton

As of Friday night, according to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) COVID-19 website, Contra Costa County is no longer on the state’s Watch List for monitoring cases.

The state monitors three criteria, which includes elevated disease transmission with a case rate of more than 100 or a case rate of greater than 25 and positivity of more than 8%; increasing hospitalization of more than 10%, and limited hospital capacity with less than 20% of ICU beds available or less than 25% of ventilators available.

Contra Costa has fallen below the criteria which flags counties for inclusion on the watch list.

Asked if there had been an announcement about this new information since our county was included in the list as of Governor Newsom’s announcement on Wednesday, July 1, Contra Costa Health Services spokesman Karl Fischer responded, “No. Counties go on and off the watch list with some regularity, including ours.”

Asked if those businesses that were supposed to reopen on Wednesday would now be allowed to reopen on Monday, Fischer responded, “No determination has been made about changing the reopening timeline. We are evaluating the local data.”

A description of the data being monitored can be found in the Understanding the Data Being Monitored section. The data chart is updated and posted daily.

City hires outside attorneys, sends case to federal court; 90-day repayment period per month of late rent still in place

“Freedom isn’t free. Sometimes you have to stand up,” – Mark Jordan

By Allen Payton

In efforts to fight for his rights, and those of other Antioch and Contra Costa County residents and property owners, local real estate broker, Mark Jordan has been suing the City of Antioch over its rent and eviction moratorium. Specifically, Jordan is fighting the “City Urgency Ordinance and the rental repayment infringement,” and challenging both the city and county over the curfews, in June.

Temporary Evictions, Rent Moratorium Lawsuit Served

In April, Jordan sent a “Cease and Desist Demand” to the members of the Antioch City Council on Friday, April 3 in response to their vote on March 31 to place a moratorium on evictions for both residential and commercial properties. The council’s actions give renters up to 90 days to repay for each month of rent they are unable to pay during the coronavirus pandemic. (See related article) ACC2020.03.31 – URGENCY ORDINANCE – Moratorium on Evictions       Temp Evictions Complaint.Jordan.v.COA

No action was taken by the city council in response to Jordan’s demand, so on June 2, he served the City of Antioch with a lawsuit challenging the council’s decision.

“I gave the City every opportunity to back up on this issue,” Jordan wrote. “They did not.”

On June 18 Jordan wrote the Herald regarding an agenda item on the June 23 City Council meeting agenda, that the “City is looking to walk back the Ordinance, but is not addressing the core issue of the suit which is the illegal 90-day per month grace period for missed rent.”

Semi-Victory as Council Expires Moratorium

For the Antioch Council meeting on Tuesday, June 23, 2020 Jordan submitted the following comments for the agenda item dealing with the expiration of the city’s moratorium on rent increases and evictions. However, they were not read into the record.

City Clerk Arne Simonsen said Jordan’s comments were sent to his personal email account. But Jordan said he emailed his comments to Simonsen and all five city council members.

“Mayor and Council,

For the citizens of the City of Antioch, let me bring you up to speed.

I am a Plaintiff in a lawsuit against the City of Antioch concerning the Urgency Ordinance passed on March 31, 2020 No: 2182-C-S. The case number of my suit at the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa is MSC20-00976.

Why am I suing the City of Antioch? Because when they passed the Ordinance they violated the

Constitution of the United States and also the Constitution of the State of California. They violated your rights.

I noticed them that in passing the Ordinance they were making a mistake but they pressed forward. I demanded they rescind the Ordinance. They did nothing. The Courts opened and I filed.

Just so you know when an elected official violates the Constitution they are violating their oath of office and are therefore in a position where they may be held criminally liable and where qualified immunity may not protect them. Not a good place to be Mr. Mayor, Council Members.

It is not that tenants did not need protection initially because of the pandemic. They did, but when the City created a 90 day repayment period for each month a tenant was not paying rent, that was too far.

Miss a year’s rent, get 1080 days to catch up. That is almost three years. Nonsense.

This is governmental interference in private contracts and there is case law all the way back to the beginning of the Republic. You do not pass the general legal three point test to validate your action.

So, why did the City Council do this? Because; the City Attorney, Mr. Smith is providing very poor council (sic). And, although Mr. Smith has an excellent legal education he has little time in the practice of law.

Advice to Counsel Smith, wisdom comes with age. You are over your head.

The City now is attempting to sunset the Ordinance stating tenants have other protectors. True, but the real reason is that the City Attorney is trying to create a situation in which he can file a response and claim the matter is moot (over). It is not. Constitutional violations remain past a sunset. And, I will press the matter.

Antioch, also know this. I called the City Attorney last Friday after reviewing Agenda item 9. There has been NO return call. I talked with Mayor Wright yesterday stating I had reviewed the information and was prepared to sit and work out a settlement and informed him that there has been no response from Mr. Smith.

Since that discussion there has been NO response to my offer from the City of Antioch, Mayor, Manager or Counsel Smith. When any citizen cannot get a return phone call, government is failing. You are failing City Council.

Therefore; Antioch be informed that your City government, our City government, my City government is prepared to spend our money on a matter they will not win and should be anxious to conclude.

Did Mr. Smith miss the class at Harvard on settlement? What exactly are you trying to achieve City Council?

This is not my first run in with the City of Antioch. The first was about Religious Freedom and I had to bring in legal counsel to explain the U.S. Constitution. I prevailed. A church was able to obtain their sanctuary.

The second was a suit in which the City violated the California Constitution, Prop 218 over a number of years and agreed to return nearly a million dollars to Antioch Enterprise Funds. Police don’t patrol or protect sewer lines.

City Council, you really want to go to court? Really?

If you do, know I’m all in. I will press my rights and the rights of every other property owner in Antioch.

Not to the detriment of tenants but to the equality of the law, due process and our, everyone’s Constitutional rights.

My phone works just fine. You have to dial the seven digits. It’s a local call.”

During their meeting, the Antioch City Council approved an urgency ordinance expiring the city’s rent increase and eviction moratorium, giving Jordan a partial victory. However, that action was only taken because the county’s moratorium, approved by the Board of Supervisors and runs through July 15, applies to cities as well as unincorporated areas of the county. According to the ordinance the City Council finds that “residences and businesses… will continue to have protections from eviction and adequate ‘grace periods’ to repay unpaid rent…from the Governor’s Executive Orders, Judicial Council Emergency Rule, and the County’s Urgency Ordinance.” Urgency Ordinance expiring Eviction & Rent Increase Moratorium ACC062320

Another Lawsuit by Others Against State

In addition to Jordan’s lawsuit, another lawsuit was filed against the state on June 15 by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) on behalf of two rental property owners challenging California courts’ refusal to hear eviction proceedings. (Christiansen & Martin vs. California Judicial Council).

In that case, PLF argues “the California Judicial Council decided to take matters into its own hands and effectively banned all evictions by forbidding courts from issuing summons or entering default judgments.

Their measure, Emergency Rule 1, means that landlords like Peggy Christensen, a retiree who depends on her rental income, cannot take legal action against tenants who damage the property, harass other tenants, or refuse to pay rent. It also means that landlords like Peggy are forced to turn away considerate renters in need of housing. In making this rule, the Judicial Council has seized policymaking power from the legislature and governor to block landlords’ access to the courts. Peggy and Peter Martin, another landlord, are fighting back with a state lawsuit to rein in the Judicial Council’s illegal overreach, restore the rule of law, and protect the entire state’s critical rental housing industry.”

According to PLF the “government cannot deprive landlords of their right to evict tenants who are able to pay rent yet refuse to do so, crippling their businesses and handicapping their ability to help tenants who face financial hardship.” Furthermore, the PLF claims “the California Constitution’s separation of powers prevents government agencies like the California Judicial Council from overriding the legislature and governor to take the law into its own hands and make social policy.”

Jordan’s Not Backing Down on 90-Day Repayment Period

In spite of the Antioch Council’s action on Tuesday night, June 23, Jordan refuses to back down.

“The fact that they’ve sunseted the ordinance doesn’t mean their violation of constitutional rights goes away,” Jordan said. “There are still remedies. So, this is not over.”

“Smith just wants to file a motion to dismiss because the whole matter is moot, since they sunseted the original ordinance,” Jordan stated. “I told the mayor I was more than willing to sit down and have a conversation with the city attorney. But there have been no phone calls.”

City Settles Previous Lawsuit by Jordan Over Misuse of Tax Dollars

“When I sued the city over their misuse of enterprise funds for police, theirs and my attorneys sat down and met with me, and we worked out a settlement agreement,” he explained. “Then it was taken to the council for approval. Since I have no attorney representing me, it’s incumbent upon Smith to meet with me and to try and settle the matter and take that to the council.”

“I’m actually saving the city money. The last time I sued them they had to pay my attorney $75,000,” Jordan added. (See related article)

City Settles Previous Lawsuit by Jordan Over Misuse of Tax Dollars

The legal counsel for the California Association of Realtors has been given a copy of Jordan’s lawsuit.

“They are actively watching all of these suits,” he said.

“We have a court date for a temporary injunction. That would enjoin the city from implementing the entire ordinance. If in fact they have sunseted the ordinance, that hearing would probably be unnecessary and all that remains are the constitutional violations. I’m not looking for any money, personally,” Jordan shared. “When you settle a lawsuit, people don’t normally admit any culpability. What they’re prepared to offer to settle the suit I don’t know because I can’t get a returned phone call.”

“I told the mayor if you think you’re going to just file an order to dismiss when you’ve violated my and others’ constitutional rights, that won’t settle the matter.

The court date was set for the August 24th.

He pointed out that the urgency ordinance adopted by the city council on June 23 had the incorrect number for the original urgency ordinance on the rent and evictions moratorium. The number used nine times in the document was 2181 instead of the correct Urgency Ordinance 2182-C-S.

“It is the wrong ordinance that they sunseted, as it has the wrong number on it. I know I’m being picky and technical about it, but that’s the law,” Jordan stated. “So, if they didn’t change the number, they didn’t sunset it.”

City’s Contract Attorney Responds

As of Friday, June 26 City Attorney Smith had yet to respond to Jordan’s lawsuit. Instead, that night at about 6:00 p.m., according to Jordan, attorney David Mehretu of Meyers Nave in Oakland, who was hired by the City to represent them, contacted Jordan about his case.

City’s 90-Day Per Month Repayment Period Still In Place

In addition, the City asked Mehretu to answer the questions the Herald sent to City Attorney Smith about the incorrect ordinance number in the new urgency ordinance and the impacts of the council’s sunsetting of the urgency ordinance.

Mehretu explained that the incorrect number in the new urgency ordinance which sunseted the original urgency ordinance was merely a clerical error and could be corrected by city staff. The intent of the city council is clear and the language in the new ordinance clearly refers to the original urgency ordinance. So, no additional vote of the council is necessary.

Regarding the 90-day repayment period for each month a renter is unable to pay, Mehretu said, “the sunset or termination of the urgency ordinance did not eliminate the 90-day per month in arrears protection for renters in Antioch.”

The months covered are “from the date of the original ordinance” which was adopted by the city council during a special meeting held on March 31, 2020. So, the city’s ordinance covers rent for the months of April, May and June and gives renters in Antioch nine months from the end of the shelter-in-place, which is currently scheduled to expire on July 15, to repay their back rent.

Rent for July is covered under the county’s ordinance which gives renters 120 days to repay all back rent. Assuming the current shelter-in-place order is lifted on July 15, renters anywhere in the county who have been unable to pay their rent would have until November 15 to repay rent for July.

That’s what Jordan is fighting, claims is unfair and violates his constitutional rights.

Settlement Effort Breaks Down, New Meeting Set

Jordan attempted unsuccessfully to settle the case with the city out of court.

“We were close, but settlement failed,” he shared on Tuesday, June 30. “The City will respond to the lawsuit and we will move on.”

However, Jordan added, “We have a tentative agreement to have a discussion on settlement, next week.”

City’s Contract Attorneys Submit “Answer to Complaint”

The contract attorneys for the City, which now includes Deborah Fox, also of Meyers Nave, sent Jordan a response to his lawsuit, yesterday, Thursday, July 2nd. Jordan-Antioch-Answer

In their “Answer to Complaint” they offer eight Affirmative Defenses claiming Jordan’s lawsuit “fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,” that he “lacks standing because Plaintiff (Jordan) has not suffered an injury in fact,” and “as a private party, Plaintiff lacks standing to enforce criminal laws.”

In addition, the City’s attorneys argue Jordan should have first filed a claim against the City, “pursuant to Government Code section 911.2 et seq.” The attorney’s Fifth Affirmative Defense is that the City “is not liable to Plaintiff because the acts complained of in the Complaint constituted one or more discretionary acts.”

The city’s attorneys are, of course, asking that the court dismiss the case and for Jordan to pay the City for costs and attorneys’ fees.

Case Moved to Federal Court – No Date Set, Yet

On Friday, July 3, Jordan shared, “City moves case from California Court to Federal court because there are US Constitutional claims of violation by the City.” Jordan-Antioch-STATE   ECF 1 Jordan-Antioch

In the filing, the first attorney listed for the city is Thomas Smith. So, both he and the attorney they hired are representing the city.

The case will no longer be heard on August 24th and there is no hearing date for a temporary injunction.

“I would have to write a new motion for federal court requesting a temporary injunction,” Jordan said. “The entire jurisdiction moves to federal court and whether they will set a new date we don’t know, yet.”

He reached out to the Pacific Legal Foundation, following advice of the California Association of Realtors, for possible pro bono representation.

Antioch Curfew Challenge

On Monday, June 1, 2020, the City of Antioch ordered a curfew for that night and later extended it through the following night. The Antioch Police Department stated in a Facebook post, that day that the “decision was made after we were made aware of credible threats of subjects coming into our community for the purpose of causing damage and committing criminal acts.” (See related article)

On June 2, Jordan wrote Mayor Sean Wright and councilmembers challenging both the curfew and the way it was announced: “I have read…that the City Manager has enacted a curfew. Is this correct? 1.  No posting exists on the City web site and therefore Notice does not exist for the public.  Or, where did you post such a notice and when for the public? 2.  By what right does the Manager have the right to enact a curfew?  Did you relegate your responsibility?  Why did the council not act? 3.  What emergency was declared?  Please see Emergency Services Act for approved list of emergencies. 4.  Where did you post the notice of emergency? 5.  What section of the Penal Code of the State of California are you using? Please answer the above questions or have the City Attorney respond to the questions.  Please provide a copy of the Notice if it exists.”

Jordan later wrote the Herald, “News is not a posting by the City. And, you must have an emergency declared.  Based on my reading. New report states Manager declared. Government does not have the right to take away civil rights based on a whim.”

Jordan received a copy of the Curfew Order from the city on the afternoon of June 2.

In response, Jordan emailed City Manager Ron Bernal writing, “Mr. Bernal, Please define exactly what events occurred in Antioch that you reference and which would constitute an emergency under the Emergency Services Act.  See Curfew Order, City of Antioch, 4th bullet point, dated June 1, 2020. You cannot act upon a belief or thought that an emergency may require this action.  There MUST be an actual emergency. This order without reference may constitute an attempt to silence free speech, the right of assembly and the right to present grievance against the government.  Please refer to the US Constitution and the State of California Constitution. Please define what, when and where caused this order within and for the City of Antioch.”

Having received no response, Jordan sent another email message to Bernal the next day, June 3: “Mr. Bernal, This is my 2nd request for exactly what events occurred within the City of Antioch that require this City curfew.  I will deal with the County separately. As with other matters I wish to give you and the City of Antioch every opportunity to comply with the requirements of the Emergency Services Act and to properly Notice the community as to what events occurred. A belief that an event might occur is insufficient to meet the requirements of the Act.  It is clear to the public now you know how to amend your Orders.

If you fail to respond, and fail to state to the public of Antioch exactly what events you reference and publish that clarification, well, then it is likely I will move to reverse you attempt to create a police state within the City.  Fair warning, don’t press me.  I take my civil rights, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights seriously.  And, I’m willing to fight to guard them.
I suggest you obtain legal advice outside of the City Attorney; perhaps someone well versed in the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.  I would direct your attention to Article 1. Your response and information is anticipated by the entire public of the City.”

Having still received no response from the City, Jordan wrote the Herald, “These documents and the Order of Curfew do not meet the requirement of the Act.  There is NO response from the City.”

Then on June 4, Jordan wrote the Herald, “no one from the City ever responded to my request for information. I posted the emails for the Mayor’s community forum 6/3/2020 but have no response from the Mayor. There was never a statement of what event(s) occurred which would justify such an order.  And, to be clear, ‘credible evidence’ that something might happen, is not sufficient to implement a curfew based on the Act. I’m not sure anyone at the City understands Constitutional Rights.”

County Curfew Challenge

That same day, June 4, Jordan emailed members of the County Board of Supervisors about his concern over the county’s curfew.

“Board of Supervisors, It is my belief that you do not have the right or authority based on the Emergency Services Act to issue an unlimited curfew. Your order appears in violation of both the United States Constitution, Article 1 and the State of California Constitution.

Understood that there exists activity that most likely violates the California Penal Code. And, that any alleged criminal behavior should be addressed and directed to the District of Attorney. That said this order is a massive overreach bordering on the creation of a police state affecting all of the citizens of the County who have nothing to do with or who are effected by any of the minor civil unrest.

Therefore, I demand that you amend the order immediately to include a date certain termination or rescind the order in total. Should you do either by June 9, 2020 I will consider this matter closed. Your correction and attention to this matter is appreciated. If your counsel wishes to speak to me have him call.”

Supervisor Karen Mitchoff’s Chief of Staff, Anne O. responded to Jordan via email later that day writing, “The County Administrator has rescinded the curfew, effective 1pm today.”

He also received a copy of the county’s curfew termination order, which ended that issue.

“Freedom isn’t free. Sometimes you have to stand up,” Jordan added.

 

“all fireworks are illegal in Antioch as well as all of Contra Costa County. In addition to the possible $1,000 criminal fine, fireworks pose an extreme fire danger and can cause traumatic injuries.” – Antioch Police Chief T Brooks

Illegal Fireworks Use Poses Extreme Risk of Grievous Bodily Harm and Catastrophic Wildfires During; Current Period of Critically High Fire Danger

Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Con Fire) and local law enforcement agencies across the county, this week warned citizens about the extreme dangers of illegal fireworks during the days leading up to the Independence Day holiday.

Fire and law enforcement leaders reminded residents and visitors that all fireworks, regardless of type or labeling, are illegal everywhere in the county. There are no “Safe & Sane” fireworks, regardless of labeling. Additionally, the potential for grievous bodily harm posed by these illegal devices and the risk of causing catastrophic wildfires during this time of extremely high fire danger is great.

With prolonged warm, dry and windy weather leading up to the Independence Day holiday, fire danger is unusually high making fireworks an even greater threat to our communities than in recent wetter and cooler years. Because of these conditions, in the month of June alone, communities across the District have experienced a nearly fourfold increase in grass and vegetation fires. More than a dozen of these were started by illegal fireworks; many have threatened homes and businesses.

“The only safe and sane approach to fireworks in Contra Costa County is to simply not use them,” said Fire Chief Lewis T. Broschard III, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. “They are uncontrollable and dangerous, illegal, and their use poses the very real possibility of causing wildland fires that could easily destroy homes and threaten lives in this time of critically high fire risk.”

“This year, we have seen a tremendous increase in fireworks-related complaints and calls for service compared to previous years,” said Chief Tammany Brooks, Antioch Police Department. “I want to remind everyone that all fireworks are illegal in Antioch as well as all of Contra Costa County. In addition to the possible $1,000 criminal fine, fireworks pose an extreme fire danger and can cause traumatic injuries.”

“Fireworks aren’t just illegal, they’re dangerous. We want you to keep that and your community in mind as we approach the holiday weekend,” said Concord Police Chief Mark Bustillos. “We wish everyone a happy and safe 4th of July!”

“Already several weeks into what promises to be a high-risk fire season, we want to remind residents of the very real dangers involved with illegal fireworks,” said Lafayette Police Chief Ben Alldritt. “We owe it to our friends, families, and neighbors to be safe and avoid fireworks risks this Fourth of July holiday — the City of Lafayette wants everyone to be safe and avoid fireworks-related accidents and fires.”

“While Independence Day is a time for celebrating, and we wish you all the best on this holiday, the Martinez Police Department remains steadfast in our commitment to public safety,” said Chief Manjit Sappal. “As such, we wish to make it clear that fireworks are illegal and unsafe; they can cause injury and devastating fire-related damage. Please commit to the safety of your family, friends, and neighbors by not using any fireworks.”

“The Fourth of July is a great time to spend with family and friends, but illegal fireworks continue to be a problem in our community,” said Chief Brian Addington, Pittsburg Police Department. “We have already had more than 350 calls reporting illegal fireworks. We have a zero-tolerance policy; if you are caught with illegal fireworks, expect a $1000 fine, or a trip to jail.”

“We know how disappointed people are by the cancellation of the traditional fireworks shows due to COVID-19, but using illegal fireworks instead is not a safe solution. They pose serious danger to those using them, and to the surrounding community, as well,” said Pleasant Hill Police Chief Bryan Hill. “This year, we are encouraging everyone to celebrate at their place of residence, and to celebrate safely.”

“The pyrotechnic powder in most fireworks is extremely sensitive to heat, shock and friction, and in certain circumstances can explode even when you don’t want or expect them to,” said acting Lt. Anthony Mangini, Walnut Creek Police Bomb Squad. “The fire and injury danger from illegal fireworks poses extreme risks for civilians, and also for first responders and our hazardous devices technicians who must dispose of them.”

While public fireworks events around the county have been cancelled this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, officials strongly discourage residents from attempting to replace these events with illegal consumer fireworks use. Instead, residents are encouraged to watch a fireworks display on television or online video, use safe and readily available glow-stick products, or many other ways of celebrating.

Fire and law officials urge residents to protect their homes, families and neighborhoods by reporting all use of illegal fireworks immediately to their local law enforcement agency’s non-emergency phone line. In cases where immediate risk to life or property exists, 911 should be called.

In addition to fire danger, there are significant risks of serious injury or death. On July 5th, 2018, an Antioch resident was severely injured handling a supposedly “Safe & Sane” firework discarded at his place of business. Nationwide, thousands are injured annually, more than half are under 15.

Last year, illegal fireworks use in the County sparked preventable vegetation fires threatening lives and structures and straining emergency resources needed for higher priority fire and medical emergencies.

For more on protecting homes and businesses from wildfires, visit www.cccfpd.org/wildfireprep.

About Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Con Fire) — A recognized fire service leader — Con Fire provides fire and emergency medical services to more than a million people across its 304 square-mile District area, and through mutual aid, in and around the 20 cities and unincorporated communities of Contra Costa County, California. With few exceptions, county emergency ambulance transport services are provided by Con Fire through its unique sub-contractor Alliance model. In 2019, the District responded to nearly 78,000 fire and EMS emergencies and dispatched some 95,000 ambulances, providing exert medical care on more than 74,000 ambulance transports. The District, with 26 fire stations and more than 400 employees, is dedicated to preserving life, property and the environment.