City attorney claims that caused him to “believe that the investigation of the complaint by Tamisha Torres-Walker has been compromised”

Only three emails released, city won’t release others or give Brooks opportunity to respond, defend himself against accusations

Reveal possible internal power struggle between Brooks, Smith

Only two council members, city clerk deny releasing emails; Barbanica wants investigation into leaks, disciplinary action; city attorney won’t say consequences for releasing them

By Allen D. Payton

As of Thursday, Feb. 24, portions of email conversations between former Antioch Police Chief Tammany Brooks and outside investigator Vida Thomas, on which City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith was copied, and from Smith to the city council, regarding the investigation on the claim by District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker against the police officers involved in the incident with her sons in December 2020, were made public. The incident, as previously reported, involved her 13-year-old and adult sons illegally riding an offroad dirt bike and quad on city streets, and the councilwoman’s interaction with the officers who pursued both and stopped her younger son, after her adult son fled the scene, went home and returned with his mother. (See related article)

The email exchange is about the draft report by Ms. Thomas, an attorney with Oppenheimer Investigations Group (OIG), hired to provide an independent investigation of the incident, and claims by Torres-Walker that Officer Calvin Prieto “behaved in an ‘uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner” towards Ms. Walker, in violation of APD Policy 1001.3.4(a).” Emails TLSmith VThomas, TBrooks 09-21

Her use of the term “uncivil” was based on the dictionary definition, not that used by the Antioch Police Department.

Antioch resident Frank Sterling said he obtained the emails in his capacity as a reporter for KPFA radio but wouldn’t say how or from whom. Asked if he had received any additional emails between Brooks, Smith and Thomas, Sterling responded, “that’s it.”

As previously reported last October, Torres-Walker claimed city attorney Smith told all council members Brooks interfered with the investigation. (See related article)

Incomplete Email Record

The emails are incomplete as they don’t show all the communications between Brooks, Smith and Ms. Thomas about the investigation. Only three emails were released, and the city refuses to release the others or give Brooks the opportunity to respond and defend the accusations against him.

Reveal Possible Power Struggle Between Brooks, Smith

According to the email from Ms. Thomas, she claimed “persistent disagreements” between Brooks and Smith over who Oppenheimer’s client was, the police chief or city attorney, that “created some tension between the two”.

However, Brooks responded to her, “It is my understanding that OIG’s client was neither myself nor the city attorney, but instead was ‘the City of Antioch’” and “which should make…who is OIG’s client irrelevant to your findings

Questions for City Attorney, Torres-Walker, Other Council Members, City Staff

The following questions were sent Thursday afternoon, Feb. 24, 2022, to Smith, Torres-Walker, and copying Interim City Manager Con Johnson, Interim Police Chief Tony Morefield, the other four council members and Brooks asking, “what date was your email sent to the council, please, Thomas?

How did providing the correct definition of a term used by both the APD and outside investigator to ensure its proper application cause Brooks to compromise the investigation? Did he tell Ms. Thomas to change her investigation report or merely ask her questions about her draft?

Thomas, did you see the previous email communications between Brooks and Vida Thomas? Or did you just not read them and discovered the final report was different from the draft report which caught you by surprise? Did you challenge Brooks and/or Ms. Thomas after reading their previous communications which, according to her email, you both were copied on? Also, for Thomas and Tamisha, did you two have any communication about the draft report prior to the final report being issued? If so, please provide any and all email, handwritten or typed, or details of verbal communications about the draft and/or final reports.

Is it wrong for the police chief to question anything in any report about the conduct of his officers, whether it’s internally developed or from an outside investigator, especially if it’s merely challenging the use of the definition of a term and how it’s applied by the department?

Now that these emails are public, will you, the interim city manager and interim police chief release the rest of the emails between you, Brooks and Ms. Thomas regarding the outside investigation the councilwoman requested, so that our former police chief is free to defend the accusations against him? Also, so the public can see the other issue upon which Thomas Smith’s belief that the investigation was compromised?”

City Attorney Smith was also asked, “how does the issue mentioned in these emails rise to the level of Brooks compromising the investigation? Or is it the other issue that’s not included in these emails that caused you to have that belief? If so or if not, what is that other issue, please?

Who would it possibly harm if the other related emails are released? If you claim it’s the two officers involved in the incident who are now suing the City and Councilwoman Torres-Walker, let’s ask them if they mind the emails being released.”

The following questions were sent to Attorney Smith both Thursday and Friday, Feb. 24 and 25, 2022 and Interim Chief Tony Morefield on Friday: “Has another outside investigator been hired for the investigation into the police incident with Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s sons riding their dirt bikes on city streets? If so, when did that occur and is that investigation completed? If not, is that currently ongoing? If not, do you still plan to hire another outside investigator in the matter?” (See related article)

The questions were resent at 12:03 PM, Thursday, March 3 and included City Clerk Ellie Householder and Public Information Officer Rolando Bonilla providing information from previous reports by the Herald and with the additional question asking, “Which one of you released/provided/emailed a copy of the attached emails to either Frank Sterling, Lacey Brown/Ferguson or another member of the public? Lacey mentioned it in an Oct. 5, 2021, Facebook post that I reported on in an article published on Oct. 8, 2021 – Antioch councilwoman claims city attorney told all council members former police chief interfered with investigation of December incident with her sons | Antioch Herald

She claims it was from a Public Records Act request. But I find that doubtful.

However, if that’s true, then why wasn’t it shared with the Herald, as I made the PRA last fall for the emails between APD, the City and Oppenheimer and was denied my request. – Antioch city staff won’t respond to questions on councilwoman’s claims of interference by former police chief in investigation of her sons’ and her 2020 incident with police | Antioch Herald

As asked last fall but not responded to, is it a violation of state law? What are the consequences for doing so? Since Councilwoman Torres-Walker publicly mentioned the email between City Attorney Smith and the council, was that a violation of attorney client privilege? Was it a violation of state law?

If so, what are the potential repercussions against her? Does it require former Chief Brooks to sue her and the city for violating his rights? Also, has the second investigation begun and if so, who was hired to do that? If there was one, has it been completed and are the results different than the draft or final reports in the first investigation?”

Barbanica, Ogorchock, Householder Say They Didn’t Release the Emails, Barbanica Wants Person Who Did Disciplined

In response Barbanica called and asked where the Herald obtained the copy of the emails. He later said, “I reached out to the city attorney, and I encouraged the city staff to go into the server and see if they could determine where those came from based on everybody that had them. And if, in fact they could determine where they came from to take appropriate disciplinary action.”

“This is an ongoing litigation and releasing anything from it is improper,” Barbanica continued. “I can’t release anything. I won’t release anything. I have encouraged the city attorney to investigate this and try to determine where they came from and to take appropriate disciplinary action against that person.

Ogorchock also responded by asking for the Herald’s source for the emails. She later denied releasing them saying, “no. I honored the attorney client privilege and the Brown Act, and closed session rules. I wouldn’t violate those. I’m pretty sure who did.”

Asked who she thought that was, Ogorchock wouldn’t say.

Householder responded, “the City Clerk’s Office did not receive (and thus, did not process) a request for those records. This does not mean they were not released by another office or individual, since the public can request records directly from departments.”

“Since there are employees who no longer work for the City of Antioch, I will forward your records request to the Information Services Department to specifically check those closed email accounts to see if they received and/or processed a request for that email,” she added.

No other responses were received as of Friday morning, March 4, 2022. A formal Public Records Act request was made for any and all emails from the council members’ and city clerk’s official email accounts to and from their personal email accounts and/or to members of the public between Sept. 10 and Oct. 5, 2021, which include any city documents or emails from City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith. The city has up to 10 days to respond.

Emails from City Attorney to Council Members, Between Brooks and Investigator

Following are the three emails including one from City Attorney Smith to the city council members which included two emails between Brooks and outside investigator Vida Thomas. No date was provided for the first one:

“Mayor Thorpe, Mayor Pro Tem Wilson and City Council Members,

I believe that the investigation of the complaint by Tamisha Torres-Walker has been compromised. Please see the email discussion below.

Thomas Lloyd Smith

City Attorney

————–

From: Vida Thomas <email address redacted by the Herald>

Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 11:02 AM

To: Brooks, Tammany <tbrooks@antiochca.gov>; Smith, Thomas Lloyd

<TLSmith@antiochca.gov>

Subject: Concern about report finding

Hello, Chief Brooks and Mr. Smith.

It has come to my attention that there are concerns about one of the findings in my final report. Specifically, the finding concerning whether Officer Prieto behaved in an “uncivil, disorderly or unprofessional manner” towards Ms. Walker, in violation of APD Policy 1001.3.4(a). Because the finding in my draft report was different from the finding in my final report, I want to clarify the sequence of events leading up to my final finding.

My draft report contained a finding sustaining the allegation that Officer Prieto had behaved in an “uncivil” manner. As my draft report indicated, I reached this finding by applying the Oxford dictionary definition of “uncivil.” After reading my draft finding, Chief Brooks informed me of the APD’s interpretation of Policy 1001.3.4, which uses a higher standard than expressed by the dictionary definition of “uncivil.” I determined that Officer Prieto’s behavior did not violate this higher standard as articulated by the Chief.

Although I explained this reasoning in the final report, I did not explain that I believed that Officer Prieto’s behavior met the dictionary definition of “uncivil.” I would be happy to provide an addendum to the final report that includes this clarification.

This investigation was unique because there were persistent disagreements about who OIG’s client was: the Police Chief (with whom OIG executed the investigation contract) or the City Attorney (whose budget funded the investigation). As you both know, this created some tension between the two of you, which made it advisable that I include you both in all of my communications. I did not do that regarding this amended finding,

which I regret. However, at all times, I endeavored to conduct an impartial investigation, balance the apparently conflicting interests of the police department and the city attorney’s office, and reach findings that were driven by the evidence and nothing else. I believe I did that.

If either of you would like me to prepare and attach an addendum as described above to the final report, please let me know in writing, and I will be happy to provide it.

——————

From: Brooks, Tammany <tbrooks@antiochca.gov>

Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 10:04 AM

To: ‘Vida Thomas’ <email address redacted by the Herald>; Smith, Thomas Lloyd

<TLSmith@antiochca.gov>

Subject: RE: Concern about report finding

Good morning Vida,

It is my understanding that OIG’s client was neither myself nor the city attorney, but instead was “the City of Antioch.” Additionally, the service requested was “to conduct an impartial investigation” into the matter, which should make the question as to who is OIG’s client irrelevant to your findings. I trust that your final work product is reflective of your contracted obligations, and as such do not need an addendum.

Thank you,”

Will match $200,000 in employee and physician donations raised in just two days

Calls on other health care organizations to join the effort

By Antonia Ehlers, PR and Media Relations, Kaiser Permanente Northern California

Kaiser Permanente has launched an employee and physician giving campaign to help with the urgent Ukrainian refugee crisis for physicians and employees who wish to personally support organizations helping with the relief effort, providing refugees with food, shelter, warm clothing, medical care, and supplies. Employees and physicians can choose to support these efforts by donating to any of 3 organizations selected by Kaiser Permanente, and the nonprofit integrated health care organization will match individual donations dollar for dollar, up to a total of $200,000.

The program was announced March 1, and in less than two days employees and physicians donated more than $200,000 in relief funds, ensuring the organization will contribute at least $400,000 for Ukraine relief. Donations continue to come in to support the three nonprofit relief organizations included in this matching effort, who are all providing direct aid: Direct Relief, Global Empowerment Mission, and World Central Kitchen. They were chosen based on a successful track record in disaster situations, and all three are on the ground in the region working to assist the refugees.

“Kaiser Permanente’s mission compels us to take action in response to the events unfolding in Eastern Europe. We are deeply saddened for the people in Ukraine, and for the loss of lives, destruction of communities, and displacement of families,” said Greg A. Adams, chair and chief executive officer, Kaiser Permanente. “This worsening humanitarian crisis merits our immediate response. We ask that you join us with your donations and solidarity for the people in Ukraine. This is a moment and cause that connects us regardless of our background or ethnicity. This is a time for unity, and for us to stand together as an industry and as a nation.”

The war in Ukraine already has caused more than 1 million refugees to leave the country and stream into neighboring nations. The United Nations estimates a total of 4 million people will eventually leave the country in the coming weeks. The scale of the humanitarian crisis is expanding significantly, and disaster relief agencies are struggling to meet the needs. While neighboring countries are welcoming the refugees, they are overwhelmed by their numbers.

The damage caused by this conflict continues to change every day. Kaiser Permanente will continue to closely monitor the situation as it continues to develop.

Kaiser Permanente has physicians and employees who have ties to Ukraine, Russia, and other countries in the region. Many of the people in the communities we serve also have connections to those affected by the war. This diversity is a source of strength and provides an opportunity to seek mutual understanding, offer support, and work together for a better future.

About Kaiser Permanente

Kaiser Permanente is committed to helping shape the future of health care. We are recognized as one of America’s leading health care providers and nonprofit health plans. Founded in 1945, Kaiser Permanente has a mission to provide high-quality, affordable health care services and to improve the health of our members and the communities we serve. We currently serve 12.5 million members in 8 states and the District of Columbia. Care for members and patients is focused on their total health and guided by their personal Permanente Medical Group physicians, specialists, and team of caregivers. Our expert and caring medical teams are empowered and supported by industry-leading technology advances and tools for health promotion, disease prevention, state-of-the-art care delivery and world-class chronic disease management. Kaiser Permanente is dedicated to care innovations, clinical research, health education, and the support of community health. For more information, go to about.kp.org.

 

607-acre, 1,650-home development next to planned Thurgood Marshall Regional Park

SMD leader says motion for new trial “should be denied”

By Allen D. Payton

Last Friday, Feb. 25, 2022, attorneys representing Discovery Builders and their Faria new home development requested a new trial for the lawsuit by Save Mount Diablo, following a judge’s decision in favor of the environmental group to stop the project. As previously reported, on March 30, 2021, Save Mount Diablo filed a lawsuit challenging the City of Pittsburg’s approval of the 1,650-unit Faria project, on the ridgeline between Pittsburg and Concord. According to the agenda item documents, the master plan overlay district encompasses approximately 607 acres of land. (See related article)

The motion for a new trial was filed “on the basis that the Court’s decision is not supported by the evidence and controlling legal authorities. Specifically…that there were several portions of this Court’s February 10, 2022 Statement of Decision that may not have fully considered evidence in the administrative record.” In addition, the motion asks that the “Court vacate its Statement of Decision and enter a new decision denying SMD’s motion” and “conduct a new hearing”.  Faria project Motion for New Trial    Parsons Dec. ISO Mot for New Trial    Raskin Dec. ISO Mot for New Trial    Faria project new trial Proof of Service

A hearing date on the motion for a new trial has been set for April 14, 2022.

On the day of the decision, Save Mount Diablo issued the following press release about their legal victory:

“On February 10, 2022, the Contra Costa County Superior Court handed Save Mount Diablo a major victory in its legal challenge to the City of Pittsburg’s approval of the 1,650-unit Faria/Southwest Hills Project.

According to the ruling, the city’s environmental review was inadequate in numerous ways. Faria was proposed by Seeno companies/Discovery Builders, Inc./Faria Investors LLC on the spectacular and highly visible major ridgeline between Pittsburg and Concord and could include grading and houses visible across the ridge.

As a result, the City of Pittsburg is required to overturn approvals for the project and correct environmental review. The city and Seeno/Discovery Builders will also be required to pay Save Mount Diablo’s legal fees.

It remains to be seen whether the developers, Discovery Builders, Inc. and Faria Land Investors, LLC, or the City of Pittsburg will appeal the decision.

The Pittsburg City Council—then-Mayor Merl Craft; then–Vice Mayor Holland Barrett White; and Councilmembers Shanelle Scales-Preston, Juan Antonio Banales, and Jelani Killings—all voted to approve the proposal in February 2021. (The mayor and vice-mayor designations rotate among the councilmembers.) They ignored hundreds of letters and public comments that opposed the project. Save Mount Diablo filed a lawsuit challenging the project’s approval in March 2021.

If the project had moved forward, it would have meant the development of a major, new residential subdivision on 606 acres of ridgeline and hillside grazing land in what is currently unincorporated Contra Costa County, immediately south of the City of Pittsburg.

The biologically rich site supports sensitive wildlife species and rare plants and is in one of the most visible and most environmentally constrained areas of the county. The Faria project would have fragmented open space and damaged wildlife corridors.

The proposed housing development would have changed the beautiful green hills forever by annexing the property to the City of Pittsburg and locating 1,650 new residences far from jobs, transit, and services.

The Faria project would have also impacted the new East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Thurgood Marshall Regional Park – Home of the Port Chicago 50 at the Faria site’s southwestern edge, formerly part of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Save Mount Diablo and its partners advocated for the creation of this new park over many years. The Faria project would have been located directly above the new park on a ridgeline, degrading views from surrounding areas.

The Contra Costa Superior Court ruled that the City of Pittsburg’s environmental review of the project was inadequate in four major ways:

1. It failed to analyze any impacts that would results from the 150 accessory dwelling units that were added by the City of Pittsburg at the last minute. This is important because the number of units affects every part of environmental review from traffic to water supply to schools, etc. and will make correcting the environmental review complicated;
2. It failed to include a baseline description of biological resources that could be impacted by the project, specifically special-status plant species;
3. It failed to consider the water supply impacts of adding 1,650 new housing units in the area, which is especially important given years of drought and increasing fire danger; and
4. It failed to adequately disclose or mitigate the project’s air quality impacts, including greenhouse gas impacts, without which development will continue to make the climate crisis much worse.

“The court’s decision says to developers: ‘You don’t get to kick the can down the road. You have to do a thorough analysis of your project’s impacts before you lock in project approvals,’” said Winter King, Save Mount Diablo’s attorney from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger. “The court got it right.”

The court’s ruling means that the City of Pittsburg’s approval of the project is null and void.

The court also noted that additional impacts—such as geologic hazard impacts resulting from grading and filling, and impacts on streams and agricultural lands—would need to be addressed in more detail.

Save Mount Diablo Executive Director Ted Clement said, “Throughout the East Bay, residents have worked hard to protect our ridges and views, flora and fauna, and to defend our parks. In this case that was just decided in our favor, Save Mount Diablo had to stand up against some very powerful interests to help further the work of protecting these treasured resources, which add so much to our collective quality of life.”

“Although I’ve worked for Save Mount Diablo on this issue, I’m also a Concord resident,” said Juan Pablo Galván Martínez, Save Mount Diablo’s Senior Land Use Manager. “This project infuriated me as an open-space lover, a wildlife enthusiast, and someone who is deeply worried and taking action to stop catastrophic climate change. Since this affects both cities, I want both city councils to work together to protect the hills and ridgeline.”

“This is a major victory for Pittsburg’s hills,” stated Save Mount Diablo Land Conservation Director Seth Adams. “Open space, habitat for wildlife, and the community’s scenic views have won the day, and poorly planned development will not go forward, for now. We are very happy with the court’s decision.”

“On the other hand,” said Adams, “while our victory is costly for the city and Seeno/Discovery Builders in time and money, it does not stop the project forever. After correcting environmental documents, the Pittsburg City Council can approve Seeno’s huge project again if they choose. But now they have a second chance to make it better by protecting the ridgeline and neighboring regional park. We don’t have to argue about protecting ridgelines in other cities. The Pittsburg City Council should do the right thing.”

Save Mount Diablo Says Motion for New Trial “Should Be Denied”

Asked about the motion for a new trial, Save Mount Diablo Executive Director, Ted Clement responded, “Regarding the Seeno companies/Pittsburg request for a new trial, the Court has already rejected their arguments for reasons fully set forth in its decision. Their Motion for New Trial does not question the adequacy of the administrative record on which the Court properly based its decision (and which the City itself prepared) or suggest there was any other irregularity or unfairness in the hearing. Instead, they seek a second bite of the apple.”

“Their Motion reargues issues that were fully briefed and addressed in the Court’s Decision,” he continued. “They also seek to introduce irrelevant and improper extra-record evidence, violating black letter law that CEQA actions must be decided on the record that was before the agency when it made its decision.”

“Because their Motion provides no basis for this Court to order a new trial solely on the issues decided adverse to them, it should be denied,” Clement concluded.

Proceeds from this event will be donated to Community Integrated Support Services, they are a day program for special-needs individuals serving Antioch, Brentwood and Oakley.

Claim gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, defamation and more; “contemptible culture” at APD, “malicious campaign of vengeance” by Torres-Walker

City doesn’t issue response to lawsuit

Councilwoman unsure if she needs outside counsel or if city attorney will represent her, city attorney won’t say

By Allen D. Payton

On Dec. 28, 2021, Antioch Police Officers Andrea Rodriguez and Calvin Prieto filed a lawsuit against the City of Antioch, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker as an individual and unnamed Does 1-10 for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and defamation for how the Antioch Police Department has treated the officers and how the councilwoman treated them both following the Dec. 2020 incident in which they pursued and attempted to pull over two of her sons who were riding dirt bikes illegally on city streets. COMPLAINT-Rodriguez & Prieto v. City of Antioch & Torres-Walker

The officers were able to stop her younger son, who is a minor, but her adult son, Yomani Mapp, who was riding with his younger brother, fled from police, went home and brought the councilwoman back with him to the scene. It was during that exchange and Torres-Walker’s later video rant on her Facebook page that are the basis for the officers’ lawsuit.

As previously reported, he was later charged with evading the police by the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office. Antioch Police submitted a felony charged against Mapp using Vehicle Code (VC) 2800.4, because he drove in the opposite direction while evading police. He could have faced six months to a year in jail or a fine of $1,000 to $10,000, or both. But Contra Costa DA Diana Becton reduced the charge to a misdemeanor using VC 2800.1(a) for just evading police and, if convicted, Mapp could face up to one year in jail. The filing with the court occurred on March 23, the same day Torres-Walker made a $500 contribution to Becton’s re-election committee, according to the DA’s campaign finance report. (See related articles here and here)

Officers Claim “Contemptible Culture” at APD, “Malicious Campaign of Vengeance” by Councilwoman

In their complaint, the officers claim, “Officer Rodriguez and Officer Prieto served their community as dedicated and honorable law enforcement officers for nearly a decade. Over the last two years, Plaintiffs’ (officers’) careers have been railroaded by the collision of two events: a contemptible culture of gender-based discrimination, harassment and retaliation at the Antioch Police Department”.  They also claim, “a malicious campaign of vengeance spearheaded by Defendant Torres-Walker.” The complaint states that her “conduct has been egregious that both Plaintiffs have been placed on stress leave as a result of the emotional distress they have suffered and continue to suffer, jeopardizing their livelihoods, law enforcement careers, and depriving the City of Antioch of two committed officers.”

The officers are requesting a jury trial for their case and for “general, special and compensatory damages; punitive and exemplary damages; civil penalties; pre-judgment interest; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

A case management conference is scheduled for May 17, 2022, at 8:30 AM in Department 21.

City Council Discussed Case in January

The case was discussed by the city council during a closed session meeting on Jan. 25, 2022. – Closed Session Agenda item 4. reads, “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION – pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.9: Andrea Rodriguez and Calvin Prieto v. City of Antioch et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case Number C21-02687.”  But no reportable action was taken during the meeting.

Officers Represented by Civil Rights Attorneys

The officers are represented by three attorneys from the Dhillon Law Firm in San Francisco, including nationally known civil rights attorney Harmeet Dhillon, founder of the Center for American Liberty.

When reached for comment, one of the attorneys for the officers, Jesse Franklin-Murdock, wrote, “Officers Rodriguez and Prieto are hardworking and community-minded public servants. They served the City of Antioch with integrity and professionalism. Officer Rodriguez suffered gender-based discrimination and a hostile work environment at the Antioch Police Department, and both officers suffered retaliation after they opposed illegal, discriminatory practices at APD.”

“Councilmember Torres-Walker further defamed Officer Prieto by telling vicious lies about him in a profane video, and then sought professional retribution against him because her anti-police animus,” Franklin-Murdock continued. “Our office looks forward to seeking justice for both officers and sending a message to the City of Antioch that a culture of discrimination and retaliation cannot continue.”

“The action is indeed in the Martinez division,” the attorney shared. “The Case Management Conference is open to the public and members of the media. It is generally a routine scheduling conference where the court will set case deadlines.”

City Attorney Doesn’t Respond to Questions About Lawsuit

On Friday, Feb. 25, 2022, questions were emailed to City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith and Torres-Walker, copying the other four council members and former Antioch Police Chief Tammany Brooks asking, “does the city attorney represent a council member if they’re being sued as an individual? Or would they need to get their own counsel? Also, do you have any comments about the lawsuit and what do you expect to result from the Case Management Conference scheduled for May 17, 2022?”

None of them had responded to the email as of Wednesday, March 2, 2022, at noon.

Torres-Walker Doesn’t Know, Yet if City Attorney Will Represent Her or She Needs Outside Counsel

When asked directly if she had to obtain her own legal counsel or if the city attorney is representing her, Torres-Walker responded, “That’s still not clear but I have reached out for consultations.” Asked for clarification, if she had reached out to City Attorney Smith or an outside attorney she responded, “Outside.”

City Doesn’t Respond to Lawsuit

When asked for a copy of the City’s response to the officers’ lawsuit, Rakia Grant-Smith, Executive Legal Assistant for City Attorney Smith wrote, “The City of Antioch received your request for a “copy of a response to the lawsuit on behalf of the City” in regards to the Prieto-Rodriguez complaint. It has been determined that the record sought does not exist.”

In response, they were asked, “isn’t it common practice to respond to a lawsuit within 30 days?”

In addition, Franklin-Murdock was informed of the city attorney’s office claim and asked, Is that true? If not, do you have what the City provided? If it is true, isn’t that unusual for a party to not respond to a lawsuit?”

As of Wednesday, March 2 at noon, neither the city attorney’s office, nor Franklin-Murdock had responded.

City Attorney, Interim Police Chief Won’t Say if New Investigator Hired

Last fall, City Attorney Smith and then-City Manager Ron Bernal said they would hire another outside investigator.

Questions were sent Friday afternoon, Feb. 25 to Smith and Interim Police Chief Tony Morefield asking, “has another outside investigator been hired for the investigation into the police incident with Councilwoman Torres-Walker’s sons riding their dirt bikes on city streets? If so, when did that occur and is that investigation completed? If not, is that currently ongoing? If not, do you still plan to hire another outside investigator in the matter, please?”

As of Wednesday, March 2 at noon, they had not yet responded.

Interim Police Chief Offered Opportunity to Respond to Accusations Against Department

On Wednesday afternoon, March 2, 2022, Interim Police Chief was also sent a copy of the lawsuit and given the opportunity to respond on behalf of the department.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Ends in crash with another car injuring Sacramento man, female suspect

By Strategic Communications Officer Darryl Saffold, Antioch Police Investigations Bureau

On March 1, 2022, at approximately 12:23 AM, Antioch Police Officers located a vehicle at the Shell gas station at 4198 Lone Tree Way that was related to an armed robbery and carjacking that occurred in the city of Cupertino.

Antioch Police Officers conducted a high-risk traffic stop on the vehicle where the driver, 22-year-old Anthony Valdez, Jr. of Antioch, was initially compliant and yielded to officers. During the high-risk traffic stop, Valdez, Jr. fled the scene at a high rate of speed, leading officers on a vehicle pursuit.

Antioch Police Officers pursued the suspect vehicle for a short distance through city streets. The suspect vehicle entered the intersection of Hillcrest Avenue and Laurel Road and collided with a civilian vehicle in the intersection, disabling both vehicles. The victim motorist, a 58-year-old male from Sacramento, was transported to an area hospital for minor injuries.

Valdez Jr sustained non-life-threatening major injuries and was attended to by medical personnel at the scene before being transported to an area hospital. Additionally, the passenger in the suspect vehicle, 22-year-old Kiara Vasquez, also of Antioch sustained minor injuries and was also transported to an area hospital.

The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office was notified and responded to continue their portion of the investigation. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is investigating the vehicle collision which is standard protocol when a vehicle collision is involved with a law enforcement vehicle pursuit.

This is an ongoing and active investigation; no further information will be released at this time.

Will feature Sue Foley and her new album Pinky’s Blues, nominated for three 43rd BLUES MUSIC AWARDS (2022): Album of the Year, Traditional Blues Album and Traditional Blues Female Artist; co-headlining with Chris Cain who also has four nominations from the BMA awards. His album, Raisin’ Cain was just listed as the second most played album on Living Blues Radio Charts for 2021.

Before you get the wrong idea, Sue Foley’s new album, Pinky’s Blues, was not titled such due to her strawberry hair. Nor because of that fabulous pink leather jacket or those amazing boots. Nope. It’s her beloved pink paisley, Fender Telecaster electric guitar for which the new album is the namesake. Pinky has been with Sue for decades and continues to be an almost living extension of who Sue is, as evidenced by it’s strong contribution to the album as well as appearing live with Sue while on tour, guiding her through the rambunctiously deep renditions of everything Sue performs.

And the Blues part of the album title? It just might have something to do with Sue’s sizzlingly smooth voice and her chicly raw, resolute, bad-*ss style of playing, performing and songwriting. Well, check it out for yourself on the below link of one of the new songs on Pinky’s Blues:

SUE FOLEY is “Hurricane Girl” Official Music Video with live footage.

SUE FOLEY Live Interview about the new album, Pinky’s Blues on November 9, 2021.

“I’ve been on the road,” says Sue in trying to explain Pinky’s Blues. “I’ve made dozens of albums of my own. I’ve raised a child. I’ve bought and sold homes. I’ve had great successes and great failures. And all of this just makes my life richer and more colorful.”

And these are the blues Sue Foley brings to life while performing in her own way: compelling, sensual, seamlessly rich, tasty, yet with an undertone of saltiness and challenge.

“It’s a great trip and I never get tired of playing a slow blues. That’s the ultimate.” Today, in 2022, Sue Foley is surely one of the ultimate.

With Pinky right by her side.

Ya gotta come and check it out!

Doors/Show: 6:00pm/7:00pm

Tickets: $15.00 (youth) – $30.00 (Adults) plus fees

https://us.patronbase.com/_ElCampanilTheatre/Productions/R009/Performances

602 West 2nd Street in Antioch in historic, downtown Rivertown.

 

Claim they’re best friends, have each other’s back, threaten those who “mess with” them, speak of ice fishing, prostitution and refer to them as “funny”

They, three council members, city staff refuse to answer questions on appropriateness, if they rented the chambers, who has access to and proper use of chambers

“I personally believe the chambers should be used for their intended purpose, which is for official city business” – Councilman Barbanica

“The Council Chambers usage is controlled by the City Clerk!” – former City Clerk Arne Simonsen

By Allen D. Payton

Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe and City Clerk Ellie Householder have made and posted to his TikTok account, on Feb. 16, three videos in which they can be seen mouthing the words of others about ice fishing, prostitution, and how they have each other’s back and that those who “mess with” them “better pray and run”, taken inside the City Council Chambers in February.

The words on the first video made in the council chambers, read “When the Mayor and City Clerk have each other’s back.” In it, Thorpe and Householder are seen standing next to each other behind the council dais, while he points to her and himself, mouths the words of a speaker saying “she’s my best friend. You mess with her, you mess with me, you mess with me, you mess with her. You mess with us, you better pray and run.”

The hashtags include #antiochmayor, #sfbayarea, #eastbay, #politics, #mayor, #cityclerk, #fyp, #trending, #politics, #blacktictok, #gotmyback, #friends, #antioch.

In a second video with the hashtags #duetwithme, #fypシ, #fyp (meaning For You Page), #trending, #funny, #bait, #hudsonspringspark, #hudsonohio, #citycouncil, #mayor, #iceshanty, and #icefishing, Thorpe is seen sitting in his mayor’s chair at the council dais and mouthing the words of someone else speaking of ice fishing and ice shanties leading to prostitution. Householder mouths the words “what kind of bait are you using?”

In the third TikTok video with the hashtags #fypシ, fyp, #mayor, #cityclerk, #funny, #citycouncil, #dontdothat, #dontdothatchallenge, #duetwithme, the words on the front read, “When the City Clerk doesn’t let Mayor end the meeting early”. Householder mouths the words of a speaker, “don’t do that” while pointing her finger at Thorpe, who is, again seen seated in his chair at the council dais. He responds mouthing the words, “I’m not doing anything”

In some of his other TikTok posts, Thorpe refers to himself as #dopeblackmayor. According to Dictionary.com, “a dope can be a fool, a slang term for ‘excellent’, or refer to drugs like marijuana.”

Questions for Thorpe, Householder, Council Members, City Staff Go Unanswered

Questions were sent on Sunday evening, Feb. 27, 2022, to Thorpe, Householder, copying the other four council members, Interim City Manager Con Johnson and City Attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith asking, “what day and time were those videos filmed, there?

How long did you spend filming inside the chambers with the lights on?

Did you rent the use of the chambers and pay the city to do so?

Was anyone else from city staff there with you?

In the first video, you two claim to be best friends and that if anyone “messes with” you, they “better pray and run”. Could that be considered a threat to your political opponents, specifically those leading and supporting the recalls against each of you? If not, what do you mean by “mess with” you? Why would people who do, need to “pray and run”?

Also, do you believe prostitution is a humorous matter?

For all of you, is it appropriate for anyone to be using the council chambers, including sitting in the mayor’s chair, for such activities?

Who has keys and access to the council chambers when they aren’t being used for official city business?

Is there a city ordinance or policy on the use of the council chambers for non-official city business activities?

Can any of you point to a time in the past when the council chambers were ever used for such an activity?

Does the city ever rent out the use of the council chambers?

The last five questions were also sent to former Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen Tuesday morning, March 1.

Ogorchock, Barbanica Respond

Only District 3 Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock responded as of Tuesday morning, March 1 writing, “Good luck on getting a response. It doesn’t look good for Ellie to say she has his back!!”

When pressed further asking, again on Monday morning, “is it appropriate?”, Ogorchock did not respond.

UPDATE 1: When reached for comment, District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica said, “My belief is that it’s an honor to be able to sit in the chambers and preside over the city’s business. It degrades what it stands for. That room and those seats is for the purpose of conducting the business of the people of Antioch and believe it should be treated very serious. I personally believe the chambers should be used for their intended purpose, which is for official city business. People have plenty of other places to shoot videos.”

Asked who has keys to the council chambers he responded, “We all have keys. Our door cards work on the door to the Chambers. So, we have access to the Chambers, but I have never considered using them for anything other than official business for the people of Antioch.”

Simonsen Responds

UPDATE 2: Former City Clerk Simonsen responded to the questions as follows:

Is it appropriate for anyone to be using the council chambers, including sitting in the mayor’s chair, for such activities? “No.”

Who has keys and access to the council chambers when they aren’t being used for official city business? The Council Chambers usage is controlled by the City Clerk!!!”

Is there a city ordinance or policy on the use of the council chambers for non-official city business activities? “Yes, there is a policy. I don’t have it, however.”

Can any of you point to a time in the past when the council chambers were ever used for such an activity? “No.”

Does the city ever rent out the use of the council chambers? “Yes. The Council Chambers can be rented out. The Master Fee Schedule has the costs and security deposit.”

Please check back later for any other updates to this report.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.