“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 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.

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 been 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:

Case Name and Number	Statute(s)	Defendant(Bold: multiple case numbers)	Status
Fraud23-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
Obstruction23-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 Distribution23-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 Rights23-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 Distribution24-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 fraud24-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.

Months after investigation completed; Council pays out $190K to Steve Ford who sought more than $500K to settle complaint over email sent by estranged-wife 15 months after he left department and released by then-Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe

Ford saw leak as political retaliation for endorsing Bernal for mayor and costing him permanent chief position

“The main thing for me was to clear my name. None of this was true.” – Steve Ford

By Allen D. Payton

During their meeting on August 12, 2025, the Antioch City Council voted unanimously in closed session, to settle a complaint by former Police Chief Steve Ford over leaked information from his estranged wife alleging misconduct with a City staffer. It includes $190,000 and a public apology through the local media that reported on the matter last year, including the East Bay Times, which broke the story, and the Antioch Herald.

According to the Dec. 5, 2024, report by the Herald, “An email from Ford’s estranged wife, Julia, who is pursuing a divorce, was sent to District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker about the allegations, who in turn informed City Manager Bessie Scott who then began an investigative process. It was confirmed…that the email…was sent by Scott only to Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe after he asked her to put in writing details about the matter.”

The investigation was regarding “possible misconduct by…Ford with a subordinate city employee during his brief tenure in the position. Ford was hired as interim police chief in April 2022 and was appointed to the permanent position that October. He retired from the position effective August 11, 2023.”

According to the settlement, on Feb. 18, 2025, “the City issued a private memorandum to Ford confirming the investigation had concluded and that the allegations were unfounded.” But the City did not inform the media clearing Ford’s name until after he filed a complaint in April and it was settled in late August.

Complaint

According to the complaint, “Mr. Ford was subjected to an internal investigation by the City of Antioch in November 2024, based solely on an unverified accusation from his estranged spouse. On November 27, 2024, City Manager Scott summarized the unsubstantiated allegation in a confidential email sent only to then-Mayor Thorpe. That email was leaked to the press, causing widespread public damage to Mr. Ford’s reputation. The City’s negligent or intentional failure to secure confidential personnel information, as required by Penal Code § 832.7, directly caused the unauthorized disclosure, and its refusal to publicly retract the allegations amplified the reputational damage. This breach of the City’s statutory duty to safeguard personnel records directly enabled the harmful disclosure.

“At no time prior to the media leak did the City of Antioch notify Mr. Ford that he was under investigation or that such allegations had been made. He was not provided an opportunity to respond or to participate in the process. Indeed, Mr. Ford first learned of the allegations—and the City’s internal investigation—only after they had been disclosed through the media.

“Further, Mr. Ford was not provided with a copy of the investigation findings until after the undersigned attorney contacted the City to address the publication of false and defamatory information. Only then, on February 18, 2025, did the City issue a written memorandum confirming that its internal investigation had concluded and that the allegations against Mr. Ford were unfounded. However, this communication was preceded by inconsistent representations by the City. On February 12, 2025, the undersigned attorney contacted the interim City Attorney, seeking confirmation that no internal investigation was pending, noting that Mr. Ford had received no notice, was never interviewed, and had been separated from the City for over one year. After receiving no response, a follow-up message was sent on February 19. On February 24, the interim City Attorney replied that an investigation was ‘open and pending,’ documentation of which is available upon request. Mr. Ford did not receive the February 18 letter, which confirmed the investigation was closed with a finding of ‘Unfounded,’ until February 27, 2025. The City’s inconsistent communications, including falsely stating on February 24, 2025, that the investigation was ‘open and pending’ after it had concluded, demonstrate bad faith and aggravated harm to Mr. Ford. This bad faith and the City’s negligent or intentional disclosure of confidential information form a pattern of misconduct that aggravated Mr. Ford’s injuries.

“Despite privately acknowledging the allegations were unfounded, the City’s failure to publicly retract the accusations perpetuated the damage to Mr. Ford’s professional standing.

“Shortly thereafter, Mr. Ford was informed that he had not been selected as Antioch Police Chief, despite reaching the final interview stage. Mr. Ford had publicly supported then-candidate Ron Bernal, who defeated Mayor Thorpe in the November 2024 election, raising serious concerns that the City’s conduct and failure to repair the public damage were motivated, at least in part, by political retaliation. Discovery will clarify whether former Mayor Thorpe or other officials were aware of Mr. Ford’s endorsement and acted with retaliatory intent.”

Ford alleged the following legal violations:

• Defamation (Libel per se)
• False Light.
• Invasion of Privacy (Public Disclosure of Private Facts).
• Breach of Confidentiality (Penal Code § 832.7). This breach of the City’s statutory duty to safeguard personnel records directly enabled the harmful disclosure.
• Violation of Peace Officer Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) (Gov. Code §§ 3300 et seq.). The City violated Gov. Code §§ 3304 and 3305 by failing to notify Mr. Ford of the investigation, denying him an opportunity to respond, and improperly disclosing personnel information. These POBRA protections apply to Mr. Ford, to the extent applicable, as a former officer, given the investigation’s impact on his personnel record and reputation.
• Political Retaliation (California Constitution, Art. I §§ 2, 3).
• Violation of California Labor Code §§1101 & 1102.
• Failure to Hire in Retaliation.
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED).
• Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.

He also claimed the following injury and damages:

• Severe reputational harm in the law enforcement and broader community
• Loss of past and future employment opportunities
• Emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish
• Economic damages, including lost wages, future income, and attorneys’ fees
• Continuing harm to career prospects, public image, and professional standing

Specifically, the complaint alleged, “The amount of damages is currently unliquidated but exceeds $500,000. This includes general and special damages, such as lost wages from the Antioch Police Chief position, emotional distress damages from public humiliation, attorneys’ fees, and statutory penalties where permitted, subject to proof at trial.”

The complaint also included copies of the articles published by the Times and Antioch Herald as supporting documentation.

Ford Sought Relief in Four Ways:

• Monetary damages (economic and non-economic);
• A public retraction and apology, published in the Antioch Herald, Times Herald, and East Bay Times and on the City’s official website, acknowledging that the allegations were unfounded and that Mr. Ford committed no misconduct;
• Injunctive relief prohibiting future disclosures of protected personnel records; and
• Attorneys’ fees and civil penalties.

See Complaint.

Pre-Litigation Settlement

About the complaint and settlement Cole wrote in a Memorandum to the City Council included in the agenda for their meeting on September 9, 2025, “On April 28, Ford filed a complaint against the City through his attorney…This Memorandum supplements the City Council’s report-out from the above item considered at its regular meeting on August 12, 2025. The matter then identified as an anticipated litigation item-significant exposure to litigation related to a government claim filed by former Police Chief Steven Ford. Following the report out on that evening, the City—acting under direction the City Council provided during the closed session—executed a settlement with former Chief Ford. The written settlement agreement is now available as a public record.

“The settlement was approved by motion made during the August 12, 2025, closed session. The motion was: to resolve the government claim filed by former Police Chief Steven Ford, subject to the preparation and execution of a written settlement agreement prepared and approved by the Interim City Attorney. Motion by Councilmember Freitas, second by Councilmember Torrres-Walker, with unanimous approval (all 5 members present voted ‘Yes’).”

However, on Aug 12, Interim City Attorney Derek Cole, while reporting out from the Council’s Closed Session, merely said, “the council provided direction to counsel. No reportable action was taken.”

Asked why the council’s vote wasn’t reportable Cole explained, “The action taken in closed session on August 12 was not then reportable because the other side had not yet accepted the settlement.  At the time of that closed session, we did not know if Chief Ford would agree on the same terms as the Council had authorized. He later did accept on those terms and his counsel and I reduced those to the written settlement agreement you now have.  Once that was executed,  there was no further executory action on either side’s part, so we made the updated report-out at the last meeting.”

The settlement was signed by representatives of both parties on August 25 and 26.

Public Apology by City

The City issued the following “Statement…Regarding Settlement of Government Claim Filed by Former Police Chief Steven Ford

August 27, 2025

“In November 2024, the City of Antioch initiated an internal investigation involving former Police Chief Steven Ford. The City received an email alleging Chief Ford, while employed with the City, had an inappropriate relationship with an unnamed subordinate. The investigation, which concluded in February 2025, determined this allegation was unfounded.

“The City acknowledges that shortly after the investigation began, the investigation’s existence and the subject of investigation were inappropriately revealed to the Press – before Chief Ford was made aware. This breach of confidentiality resulted in damaging media coverage about Chief Ford beginning on or about December 3, 2024

“The City acknowledges the investigation’s existence should not have been revealed to the Press. Chief Ford had a right to expect any unverified allegation about him would be investigated confidentially. Under California law, investigations regarding peace officers may only be revealed publicly when allegations are sustained. In this matter, the allegation against Chief Ford was found not true.

“The City expresses its appreciation for his previous service as Antioch Police Chief. It wishes Chief Ford the best for his future law enforcement career.”

See Settlement.

Ford Responds

When reached for comment about his complaint and settlement with the City, Ford said, “The main thing for me was to clear my name. That was important to me. The monetary compensation, I’m appreciative of. Because my name was tarnished by a lie forwarded in an email. It was my estranged wife who sent the email with some information that has been proven categorically untrue.”

“I was wondering why my ex would do that 16 months after I had left the Antioch Police Department,” he continued. “The City of Antioch acknowledged it was untrue. So, after 34 years building what I believe is a strong reputation there had never been anything like this. None of this was true.”

Asked why he didn’t sue Hernandez-Thorpe for sending it out to the media, Ford said, “That’s certainly an option. But my main goal was to clear my name.”

Asked why the City didn’t make the results of the investigation public in February he said, “They did not make that known in a timely fashion. I didn’t know an investigation had begun. I found out on December 3 there was an investigation, in the paper like everyone else.”

“That’s the ultimate violation of my Constitutional rights to due process,” the former police chief stated.

“This was for a divorce she filed for,” Ford explained. “It would be one thing if I had filed. But the slander campaign was outrageous by my estranged wife and Lamar.”

Asked why didn’t he or his attorney didn’t release the findings in February, Ford said, “I had no knowledge of my name being cleared as of Feb. 18th. They didn’t inform me of any disposition. I learned of that after the fact. That’s when I prompted my attorney to find out the disposition. Then we determined if I wanted to file the complaint which we did, in April.”

Asked for a copy of the investigation report, he said, “I was informed that’s something that has to be worked out between Cole and my attorney.”

City Attorney Cole was asked why the results of the investigation weren’t provided to the media when it was completed to clear Ford’s name at that point rather than wait for him to file and the City to settle his complaint and for a copy of the report. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

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 (alternative) 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.

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.

Convicted April 30, Devon Wenger claims innocence, calls them “bogus charges against me,” awaits sentencing, suing APD for retaliation, discrimination, hostile workplace harassment

Also faces trial in July for deprivation of rights under color of law

All part of FBI investigation of multiple Antioch, Pittsburg police officers

OAKLAND – A federal jury on April 30, 2025, convicted former Antioch police officer Devon Wenger of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute anabolic steroids and one count of obstruction of justice. The jury’s verdict follows a three-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 Daniel Harris, who was at the time also a police officer with the Antioch Police Department, to distribute anabolic steroids to a third individual, and then deleted evidence of this conspiracy from his cellular phone.

“Instead of upholding the law, as he swore an oath to do, Devon Wenger conspired with a fellow officer to sell illegal anabolic steroids.  When the FBI arrived at his home to investigate him, he then doubled down by destroying evidence of his crime. Crimes like these by a police officer have a corrosive effect on the public’s trust in law enforcement.  Thanks to today’s jury conviction, Mr. Wenger will now face sentencing for his violations of law,” said Acting United States Attorney Patrick D. Robbins.

“When Devon Wenger broke the law and then tried to cover his tracks, he didn’t just commit a crime — he betrayed the trust of the community he was sworn to serve. After learning the FBI was outside his home with a search warrant, he chose to delete evidence rather than come clean. That kind of misconduct corrodes public confidence in law enforcement,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Sanjay Virmani. “Today’s guilty verdict makes clear that the FBI will hold accountable anyone who abuses the authority and responsibility of public service.”

According to the evidence presented at trial, in February 2022, Wenger set up the sale of anabolic steroids, a Schedule III controlled substance, between Harris and a third individual. Harris was also charged in this case and pleaded guilty to his role in the conspiracy on Sept. 17, 2024. Law enforcement officials seized the package of anabolic steroids destined for Harris before they arrived, although Wenger continued to communicate with Harris about supplying the third individual with anabolic steroids, including offering to give this individual some of Wenger’s own while they waited for the delayed package.

On March 23, 2022, at 8:03 a.m., the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began calling and sending text messages to Wenger telling him that they were outside of his residence with a warrant. It was not until 9:00 a.m. that Wenger appeared for the FBI to seize Wenger’s cellular phone. Later forensic examination of that device showed that specific entries related to the anabolic steroid distribution conspiracy had been deleted: specifically, all text messages between Wenger and Harris, all text messages between Wenger and the third individual he was trying to supply with steroids, the contacts for both Harris and the third individual, and recent call log entries for Wenger’s most recent phone calls with the third individual.

The jury convicted Wenger of all counts charged in this case: one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute anabolic steroids in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(E)(i) and one count of destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations (obstruction of justice) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519.

Wenger is scheduled to appear on May 6, 2025, for a hearing on whether to remand him to custody pending sentencing. He faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison on the conspiracy to distribute anabolic steroids count and 20 years in prison on the obstruction of justice count. 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.

Faces Trial for Separate Charges of Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Separately, Wenger appeared before Senior U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 6, 2025, for a status conference in United States v. Wenger, 23-cr-00269, which charges Wenger with one count of conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and one count of deprivation of rights under color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. The United States v. Wenger, 23-cr-00269 case is set for trial on July 21, 2025.

Wenger Claims Innocence, Suing APD

When asked for a response, Wenger wrote, “Unfortunately I cannot give a full statement. This is all I can say, 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 been 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. 

“If you have any further questions, please contact my mom. She has all of the proof and evidence to validate my claims. 

“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.”

He shared copies of both his Motion of Acquittal and for a New Trial, and lawsuit filed filed Feb. 28, 2025, 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.

UPDATE: Wenger Offers Additional Comments, Claims He’s “Being Framed”

After reading the above information from the DOJ’s press release, Wenger offered additional comments. He replied that the article, “got a lot of it wrong in regards to the ‘crimes’ but that’s to be expected as the government is saying things that are flat out not true.

Christ is my lamp guiding me through this valley of shadows. The truth will surface and you will see it.”

“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.

“The case was built on a package that belonged to Daniel Harris which was intercepted and tampered with by the FBI as outlined in the motion I sent you. This package contained peptides and the FBI added steroids when they tampered with it confirmed by the weight difference when the package was originally shipped up to just prior to the seizure by the FBI and when the FBI listed different box measurements and a different weight in their report when they searched the package days after they intercepted it. Again, this is covered in the motion I sent you.

“Daniel and the ‘third party’ Brendon Mahoney were contacting each other directly, I had no knowledge what they were talking about. I assumed Brendon was purchasing the same peptide I purchased from Dan. However, I was never involved with any agreement nor any exchange of money or anything at all. I offered to pick up mahoney’s peptides since we all lived in different states and Mahoney and I would see each other at national guard drill, that’s it. The government is misrepresenting vague text messages to try and falsely claim I had steroids when I never did. I was not aware of Dan’s nor Mahoney’s conduct nor conversations. The government was aware of all of this, as I told them what I took was legal and they still misrepresented this to the court, the jury, and the people.

“My phone was illegally seized by the FBI and DAI Wallace / DAI Holcomb. It was never a ‘joint’ investigation, it was federal the whole time confirmed by internal FBI communications that they tried to hide from my lawyers and I. DAI Wallace and Holcomb were assigned to the federal agency acting as de facto federal agents, t put it simply they were acting as federal agents not, state ones. Wallace also fabricated the ‘anonymous letters’ the Pittsburg Police Department received and fabricated evidence to back legally seizing my phone.

“Additionally, FBI N-DEx (National Data Exchange) agents seized and searched my phone without any federal warrant and manipulated my phone settings and deleted many things off of my phone including signal messages since they were set to auto delete prior to my phone being forensically imaged. The federal prosecutors intentionally misrepresented this to the jury, claiming it was me and thus, they charged and convicted me with destruction of evidence. Additionally, they served the warrant at the wrong house. I had to drive to them to surrender my phone. I was complaint the whole time and even gave them an interview where I told them what I took was legal.

“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.

“I encourage you to read the motion I sent you, for those who also want to read it, it’s on PACER. I forgive the prosecution, the FBI, APD, the DA’s office, and everybody involved in this. I wish them nothing but prosperity and long blessed lives with their families. I have no hate, only love. However, the truth will surface. God has a way of doing that. I encourage all involved to repent and seek Christ. Glory be to Christ as the only way to Salvation be through him. I am innocent, I am in fact being framed, and I am a whistleblower facing horrific whistleblower retaliation, but it is Christ who will carry me through this difficult time and reveal the truth.

“This isn’t even everything. The FBI and federal prosecutors manipulated the evidence in discovery as confirmation via the metadata of the discovery documents. They also are hiding exculpatory evidence under layers and layers of code so that my legal team and I are unable to access it. When they do provide evidence, it’s often under a protective order or heavily redacted so that I am unable to view it. What is happening here should shock and concern every single American. This should not be allowed, and the White House needs to be aware of what is occurring here.”

Charges Are Part of Larger FBI Investigation of Antioch, Pittsburg Police Officers

The 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:

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	Convicted at trial 8/8/24, remanded to custody pending sentencing, which is set for 6/3/25
		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 8/19/25
Anabolic 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 8/19/25
	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	Convicted at trial 3/14/25 on counts 2 and 5, remanded to custody pending sentencing, which is set for 6/3/25
	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 8/19/25
	18 U.S.C. §§ 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights), 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law)	Devon Wenger	Trial 7/21/25
Anabolic 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 8/19/25

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

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.

Discusses, provides direction on new city manager’s goals; provides direction to city attorney on 4 lawsuits about the previous council majority’s shutdown of the natural gas pipeline through the city, 58 claims

By Allen D. Payton

During a special Closed Session meeting on Thursday, Dec. 19, 2024, the Antioch Council met with City Manager Bessie Scott and Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger to discuss a list of 28 of 36 current and 58 possible lawsuits against the City. It’s the second special meeting called by Mayor Ron Bernal in which the council and staff reviewed and discussed them. The first special, Closed Session, held on Dec. 11th, took over three hours to discuss eight other lawsuits. Some are about alleged violations of police use of force, while five are about the previous council majority’s vote to not renew the franchise agreement for the natural gas pipeline running through the city. (See related articles here and here) The lawsuit by the Antioch Police Officers Association (APOA) is to obtain phone records of former Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe according to the APOA’s attorney, Mike Rains.

After the meeting, Mayor Pro Tem and District 2 Councilman Louie Rocha said, “We’re getting educated on the lawsuits to understand what each are about. We’ve reviewed about half of them, so far.”

The first item on the Closed Session agenda was listed as “Public Employee Performance Evaluation: City Manager” but it was actually the opportunity for the new council to offer direction to Scott and provide her the goals that they want her to work on over the next four months. They will be the basis for her six-month evaluation in compliance with Scott’s contract.

The meeting began at 6:00 p.m., the council adjourned to Closed Session at 6:10 p.m. and almost four hours later, they returned to open session at 9:52 p.m. Although it’s not a requirement for special meeting agendas, Bernal included a Public Comments section prior to the council adjourning to Closed Session during which only two residents spoke. The first was former Councilman Ralph Hernandez who complained that there was “no packet at all…at the library”. (This news organization also did not receive an email about the meeting as usually occurs, and this reporter learned about the meeting the following day).

Hernandez also said “there’s a lot of litigation. I see a part of the problem that the City has. You’re supposed to have an administrative…inquiry and on many of those you have not had that.” He encouraged the council ensure that’s done so they’ll know what the complaints are against City employees.

The other speaker was Melissa Case asking that the council be fair and work collaboratively with the city manager in setting “realistic and attainable” goals for her. “I’m concerned she has a lack of staff, no assistant and there’s a lot to do in Antioch.”

“I think it’s crucial we set her up for success,” she continued. “Because her success is Antioch’s success.”

Case later said she meant an assistant city manager as Scott does have an executive assistant.

Slight Procedural Controversy

The only controversial matter occurred prior to adjourning to Closed Session when District 3 Councilman Don Freitas interrupted Kundinger, as he began to read the list of lawsuits, asking why he was doing so. The assistant city attorney responded, “It is considered, that is the position to make sure the record is clear.”

Freitas then said, “It’s a public record. It’s a public document. To me, this is just a waste of time.”

Kundinger responded, “If the council would like to make a motion to abbreviate the reading of that, I believe that would be amenable.”

“I think under Robert’s Rules the mayor has that power,” Freitas stated.

“To make a motion?” Bernal asked.

“No. To say it’s a public document and that’s it,” the newly-elected councilman and former mayor responded. “You don’t need a motion.”

Bernal than said, “I would like the assistant city attorney to go ahead and continue reading down the list, please. Please abbreviate it.”

But before the mayor finished speaking and after letting out a sigh, Freitas said, “Then I would like,” as he struck his forefinger on the dais, “Point of order I would like the city attorney also to look at Robert’s Rules and advise us on that matter, in writing.”

“Very well,” Bernal responded and to Kundinger he said, “If you could please proceed” which he did and finished reading the list of lawsuits taking another two minutes.

During Thursday’s meeting, the council also discussed the goals for the new city manager, which was required to be done during her first 30 days on the job which Scott began on Oct. 7th. As previously reported, Freitas pointed that out during his remarks following the oath of office ceremony at the Dec. 10th council meeting.

Municipal Pooling Authority of Northern California (MPA) is the City’s insurance provider. According to the organization’s website, MPA is a Joint Powers Authority provides and administers lines of coverage for liability, workers’ compensation and property for 13 member cities in Contra Costa County, including Antioch. If a council votes to settle a case or a plaintiff wins in court, the City must pay a deductible. That has usually been $25,000 per case.

Under Item 2, the 28 of the 36 current lawsuits listed on the meeting agenda included the following:

Agenda Item

2-1) Trent Allen, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 3:23-cv-01895-TSH). The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by attorneys for Allen, Shagoofa Khan and four other plaintiffs, names six Antioch cops, three police chiefs and the City and seeks monetary damages, department practice and policy changes, court monitoring and labels officers’ actions a “conspiracy”. Allen is one of four suspects convicted in May 2024 for murder and attempted murder during a drive-by shooting in Antioch on March 9, 2021. (See related articles here, here and here)

2-2) Claudjanae Young v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No.3:23-cv-02691-SI). Filed May 31, 2023, the lawsuit lists former Officer Devon Wenger, current Officer Erik Nilsen and the City. According to an NBC Bay Area new report, Young claims during an October 2019 incident she was “not only falsely arrested, but Wenger broke her arm in the process.” He “claims Young matched the description of a group of individuals accused of shoplifting at a nearby Spirit Halloween Store…Wenger’s partner on the scene, Officer Erik Nilsen, who is also being sued in the lawsuit, told Young she was being detained and not free to walk away. When Young tried to run inside the home, Wenger grabbed Young to arrest her. He claims she resisted, and confirmed her arm did break during the incident.”

2-3) Joel Tolbert III v. Antioch Police Department, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No.3:22-cv-02026-JSC).

2-4) Antioch Police Officers Association v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N23-1629).

2-5) King David Levon Donahue v. Antich Police Department, et al., United States District Court, Northern District, Case No. C23-05564 AGT.

2-6) Ramello Randle v. Antioch Police Department, et al., United States District Court, Northern District, Case No. 3:23-cv-05800-JSC.

2-7) Lamar Young v. Sgt. Stenger, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 21-cv-08131-DMR).

2-8) Ashika Kanji v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-00795).

2-9) Mary Reed v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-01367).

2-10) Jordan Davis v. County of Contra Costa, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No.4:21-cv-04651).

2-11) O.Y. a Decedent, et al., v. Contra Costa County, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 3:24-cv-05154-PHK).

2-12) Nicholas Shipilov v. City of Antioch, Kwame Reed, Ana Cortez, et. al, Contra Costa County, Case No. N24-1095.

2-13) Christopher Martinez v. City of Antioch, Antioch Police Department, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. C24-03123.

2-14) Javier Elias Aguilar v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C23-00410).

2-15) Jessie Wilson and Dajon Smith v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 4:24-cv-02758-JSW).

2-16) Reagan DeGuzman v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C23-00666).

2-17) Nicholas Roark v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C23-00410).

2-18) Jason Allard; Jamie Tellez v. City of Antioch; Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. MSC21-00171).

2-19) Nicholas Warner v. County of Contra Costa, City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C23-02689).

2-20) Susan Shintaku v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, Case No. C24-00356.

2-21) Nirivana Allen v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C22-02401).

2-22) Pat Stack, et al., v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-01065).

2-23) Jayson Robinson v. Antioch Unified School District, Antioch Water Park, City of Antioch, Contra Costa Superior Court, (Case No.C20-02420).

2-24) Annette Bullock, et al. v. City of Antioch, Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No.C19-01331

2-25) California Resources Production Corporation v. City of Antioch, Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, A.23-07-008.

2-26) California Resources Production Corporation v. City of Antioch, Antioch City Council, Court of Appeal, State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, A168517, A168558.

2-27) Delta Gas Gathering, Inc., et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., Contra Costa County, Superior Court Case No. MSN21-2355.

2-28) Enerfin Resources Northwest Limited Partnership v. City of Antioch, et al., Contra Costa County Superior, Court Case No. MSN21-2356.

In addition, the agenda included a Conference with Legal Counsel of Anticipated Litigation for the discussion of 58 claims against the City, later referred to as Item 3.

Reports from Closed Session

After returning from Closed Session with District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker absent, Assistant City Attorney Kundinger reported out saying under Item 1, “direction was given to the city manager” and “for Items 2-25 through 2-28 direction was given to the city attorney. For all other items underneath Item 2 there was no reportable action and for…Item 3 direction was given to the city attorney’s office.”

Eight Additional Lawsuits Discussed During Dec. 11th Special Meeting Agenda

Previously, on the Dec. 11th special Closed Session meeting agenda, eight other lawsuits were included:

Jayson Robinson v. Antioch Unified School District, Antioch Water Park, City of Antioch, Contra Costa Superior Court, (Case No.C20-02420).

Kathryn Wade v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 4:23-cv-01130-DMR).

Juan Laspada, et al., v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No.4:23-cv-01955-KAW).

Terry Robinson v. City of Antioch, Matthew Nutt, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case 4:24-cv-03974-KAW.

Javier Elias Aguilar v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C23-00410).

Jarrod Garner v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C23-01669).

Breanna Butson v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C22-00161).

Edward Burkhalter v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C22-02663).

California Resources Production Corporation v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N23-0843).

According to the annotated agenda for that meeting which began at 8:16 p.m. and adjourned to Closed Session at 8:21 p.m., District 4 Councilwoman Monica Wilson left at 9:45 p.m. during the Closed Session and Torres-Walker left at 10:38 p.m. after it was finished, but before the council returned to open session at 10:41 p.m. City Attorney Thomas L. Smith announced there was no reportable action.

Before deciding to settle any of the cases against the police department, the council and staff have the opportunity to review body cam video footage of the related incidents.

To watch the council meeting video, click, here: www.antiochca.gov/government/city-council-meetings/12-19-24/. To read the Special Meeting agenda click, here: 121924.pdf.