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.

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

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

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

Know Your Immigration Rights and Protections Under the Law 

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

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

Protect Yourself from Immigration Scams

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

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

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

Access Free and Low-Cost Legal Assistance 

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

File a Complaint  

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

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

Including hiring search firm for police chief recruitment, giving authority to Planning Commission to approve tentative maps, commission appointments

Also, Climate Action and Resilience Plan, lawsuit by Antioch Police Officers Association

By Allen D. Payton

Just two weeks before a new council majority is seated, with Antioch’s new mayor and two members to be sworn in, defeated Mayor Lamar Hernández-Thorpe has placed a variety of major issues on the agenda for the current council to decide during their “lame duck” meeting on Tuesday, Nov. 26, 2024. A lame duck government meeting occurs whenever an elected board meets after its successors are elected.

Prior to the regular session at 7:00 p.m., the council will hold a Closed Session beginning at 6:00 p.m. to discuss a significant exposure to anticipated litigation and two lawsuits, one by the mother of a man who died following interactions with police and one by the Antioch Police Officers Association.

The one issue that is the responsibility of the current council is their response to the scathing report from the Civil Grand Jury, from earlier this year. But the other major issues the current mayor has placed on the agenda include hiring a search firm for recruiting a permanent police chief, giving authority to the Planning Commission to approve tentative maps, appointments of two members to the Planning Commission, one to the Parks and Recreation Commission and two to the Police Oversight Commission, all of which could be left to the new mayor and council majority to decide.

The council will also consider giving a city-owned parcel on E. 18th Street to Con Fire for a new station, directing city staff to discuss with the county the use of a 4.7-acre city-owned lot on Delta Fair Blvd. for homeless shelter, and adopting a Climate Action and Resilience Plan.

The council will also consider under item #15 potential upgrades to the Antioch Amtrak Station to help keep it from being closed or decommissioned in the next two to three years as is the current approved plan of the San Joaquins Joint Powers Authority which oversees the Amtrak service in and through Antioch. Finally, under item #15, the council will consider allocating $60,000 for a Chinese Commemoration Public Art Project in the area of Rivertown which was the City’s Chinatown in the 1800’s.

Response to Grand Jury Report

Under agenda item #1, carried over twice from previous meetings, the council will consider, “Approving an addendum to specific Findings and Recommendations identified in the Grand Jury Noncompliance letters dated October 3, 2024 in response to the Findings and Recommendations resulting from the 2023-2024 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury report of June 12, 2024 entitled: “Challenges Facing the City of Antioch” Addendum; and 2) Authorizing the Mayor to sign and submit it to the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury.”

Hiring Search Firm for Police Chief Recruitment

Under the Consent Calendar item #6L, the council will consider hiring executive search firm Bob Hall & Associates to recruit a permanent police chief. According to the city staff report, in September, the City issued a Request for Qualifications to attract qualified recruitment firms capable of conducting a nationwide search. The Human Resources Department contacted 29 firms and of those contacted, seven firms submitted applications.

On Oct. 31st, City staff and a representative from the Antioch Police Oversight Commission evaluated and ranked the applications based on the firms’ experience, proposed recruitment strategies, cost effectiveness, commitment to diversity and ability to meet the City’s timeline and goals. Two firms were identified as the closest matches to the criteria and were interviewed, during which they outlined “their strategies and processes for engaging the community and fostering trust between the Police Department and community members.” Bob Hall & Associates was ranked the highest and selected.

The Huntington Beach-based firm’s most recent police chief recruitment effort was in the City of Vallejo. According to the company’s LinkedIn profile, it’s founder and namesake, Bob Hall, passed away “on July 12, 2024, after a 5-month battle with cancer.”

UPDATE: Interim Chief Brian Addington said he was part of the decision-making process in selecting the firm and that it was Commission Chairperson Porsche Taylor as the member who participated, as well. He said he feels very confident in the search firm and that both finalists had the needed experience.

In addition, Rachel Hall, the firm’s Recruitment Manager, shared, “Bob Hall & Associates was founded in 2019 and we will be dedicating a specialized team to the Antioch Police Chief recruitment.”

Allowing Planning Commission Approval of Tentative Maps

According to the city staff report for agenda item #7, “In order to streamline Antioch’s development review process and make it more consistent with neighboring jurisdictions and the goals of the Housing Element, this proposed ordinance (“Ordinance”) amends AMC (Antioch Municipal Code) Title 9, Chapter 4, Articles 1 and 3 to assign the Planning Commission the sole authority to approve Tentative Maps as the Advisory Agency in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, while designating the City Council to act as the Appeals Board for Tentative Map decisions and to continue approving Final Maps.”

Meeting Information

The regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown. The meeting can also be seen via livestream on the City’s website or viewed on either Comcast local cable channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99. See the complete agenda packet.

See separate article about the City’s Climate Action and Resilience Plan. An effort to reach Mike Rains, the attorney for the Antioch Police Officers Association for more details about their lawsuit was also unsuccessful prior to publication time.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Dear Editor: 

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

This compares badly with other superior courts throughout the state.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Edward Teyssier, esq.

National City

Attorney says agencies “utterly failed in their duties” to protect 18-month-old girl abused by parents also named in suit

Antioch childcare facility, Pittsburg pediatrician also named

CONTENT WARNING: Information included may be disturbing to some individuals

San Francisco, August 20, 2024 — A federal civil rights lawsuit was filed in the beating death of an 18-month-old child in Antioch, alleging that a litany of individuals and agencies charged with protecting the tiny girl utterly failed in their duties and led directly to her death as the result of trauma inflicted by her biological parents.

The case, filed last week in Federal District Court on behalf of the two older siblings of the toddler, names the following defendants as negligently responsible for her horrific death: the City of Antioch, Antioch Police Department, Contra Costa Child Protective Services, Contra Costa County Regional Health Foundation, and a childcare facility, The Learning Center (actually named, The Learning Experience – see below), as well as the toddler’s biological parents, Jessika Fulcher and Worren Young, Sr.

The child was removed from her parent’s custody within weeks of her birth in February 2021 because she was in danger of neglect and abuse. Yet, over the next 16 months, the very people and institutions who were supposed to protect the toddler and her siblings failed to report obvious signs of abuse and/or failed to take action to prevent further trauma to the girl.

The child died August 26, 2022, from trauma so severe that it severed her pancreas and caused bleeding in her brain, according to doctors and the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages, including punitive damages against the agencies and individuals named as responsible in the legal action.

“This child–who was still learning to walk–was brutally tortured and died a horrific death, all because the entire system that was supposed to protect her failed this innocent 18-month-old child,” said Brett Schreiber, attorney for the plaintiffs and partner at Singleton Schreiber law firm. “While her parents committed the physical abuse that killed her, their abuse was entirely enabled and abetted by social workers, police, hospitals and day care centers who should have stopped them.”

A juvenile court judge removed the toddler from the custody of her parents in March 2021, shortly after her birth.  When the child was born, both she and her mother had methamphetamines in their systems. In addition, both parents had outstanding warrants in Georgia. The children were placed in foster care.

Within weeks of the judge’s decision, however, Contra Costa County Child Protective Services (CPS) began a process intended to lead to reuniting the children with the parents, beginning with a “case plan” requiring close supervision of the parents. The case plan required the parents to submit to regular drug testing. The suit alleges that they missed half these mandated tests and failed many that they took.

A doctor at Pittsburg Health Center further noted injuries on the toddler, but neither the doctor nor the hospital notified CPS, and CPS never requested the hospital’s records.

Nonetheless, CPS soon allowed overnight visitations for the children with the parents, and by September 2021 enabled the parents to regain custody by concealing these and other facts from the judge.

The toddler returned to a household in turmoil, with Antioch police visiting the home at least three times in 2022. Yet the children remained in the home and no referral to CPS was made, even though the father was finally arrested for domestic violence and battery. The child’s daycare center, The Learning Center in Antioch, also alerted the mother regarding significant bruising on the toddler yet failed to make a mandated referral to CPS.

On August 25, 2022, Antioch Police Department officers and paramedics were called to the child’s home by her mother who reported that the girl was having trouble breathing. The girl was rushed to the hospital where doctors discovered she was the victim of severe, intentional injuries.

Her parents left the hospital during the night saying they were going out to smoke, but never returned. The girl died the following morning; a juvenile court hearing in April 2023 concluded that one or both parents were responsible for the fatal injuries.

“This was a complete dereliction of duty that resulted in the death of one young child and the lifelong loss and trauma for two others,” Schreiber said. “On behalf of those siblings, we are asking the court not only to compensate them for the life-long emotional scarring they will suffer, but also to punish those who failed to prevent this horrible tragedy so that it never happens again.”

Antioch City Attorney Thomas L. Smith and Interim Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington were asked on Tuesday afternoon if they had any comment about the lawsuit. Addington was also asked if lawsuits naming the police department are received by the chief or if they are handled by the city attorney’s office. Neither responded by publication time Wednesday evening.

Asked if the County had any comment on the lawsuit, Tish Gallegos, Community Relations and Media for the Contra Costa County Employment & Human Services Department responded, “The County has not been served with the lawsuit, therefore has no comment at this time.”

Asked whom at the County was served with the lawsuit, Sam Singer, of Singer Associates Public Relations representing Singleton Schreiber said, “I know the lawsuit was filed but it may not have been served, yet.”

The press release shows the case is O.Y., W.Y., and A.Y. v. County of Contra Costa, City of Antioch, Jessika Fulcher, Worren Young, Sr., Colleen Sullivan, Flynne Lewis, Contra Costa Regional Health Foundation, The Learning Center, Raji Ponnaluri, and Does 1 through 50, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Correction, Details Provided on Named Parties

However, the name of the business is actually, The Learning Experience.

Provided with that information and asked how Sullivan, Lewis and Ponnaluri are related to the lawsuit, Singer shared details from the lawsuit, including: “over the next year, from March 2021 to April 2022, during the pendency of the dependency action, CPS workers—Defendants in this action— abysmally failed to protect O.Y. and W.Y. Defendants Colleen Sullivan and Does 1-10, CPS employees, repeatedly misled and deceived the juvenile court. They represented that Defendant Parents were complying with the court’s orders documented in a ‘case plan,’ when, in fact, Defendant Parents were violating the terms of the case plan.”

Singer also shared, “defendant Flynne Lewis was a pediatrician practicing medicine at the Pittsburg Health Center who was responsible for the health, safety, and welfare of Decedent O.Y. and Plaintiff W.Y. Defendant Lewis and staff working at the Pittsburg Health Center noted and documented signs of abuse and neglect of O.Y., but failed to report such information to CPS or any law enforcement agency.”

Finally, Singer provided details about the correct name for the business and its owner which reads, “At all relevant times, Defendant The Learning Experience was a daycare center located at 4831 Lone Tree Way, Antioch, CA 94531 which was owned and operated by Defendant Raji Ponnaluri.”

Singleton Schreiberis a client-centered law firm, specializing in mass torts/multi-district litigation, fire litigation, personal injury/wrongful death, civil rights, environmental law, and sexual abuse/trafficking. Over the last decade, the firm has recovered more than $2.5 billion for clients who have been harmed and sought justice. The firm also has the largest fire litigation practice in the country, having represented over 26,000 victims of wildfire, most notably serving plaintiffs in litigation related to the 2023 Maui wildfires, the Colorado Marshall wildfire, the Washington Gray wildfire, and others.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Company agrees to conditions resolving competitive impacts related to changes in ownership involving retail pharmacy outlets

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a settlement with Rite Aid Corporation (Rite Aid) operating as an injunction to enable him to review changes of ownership involving their retail pharmacy outlets statewide. Additionally, the settlement includes injunctive conditions that resolve competition-related concerns to ensure remaining Rite Aid pharmacies provide necessary medication and healthcare services to Californians, specifically those who may rely on Medi-Cal and Medicare, and protect workers at stores that are sold or closed. Today’s settlement reflects the Attorney General’s efforts to prevent the continued growth of pharmacy deserts, which disproportionately impact low-income individuals, the elderly, and people of color, all of whom are also patients of Rite Aid. The settlement was reached under Assembly Bill (AB) 853.

“Pharmacies are often the most accessible healthcare providers, offering vital services for the well-being of individuals and families. Without them in our communities, Californians could face significant barriers in managing chronic conditions, receiving timely medications, and accessing preventative care,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today, with AB 853 and conditions set by my office, Californians who rely on Rite Aid pharmacies can continue accessing their medications and essential healthcare services they need to live healthy and fulfilling lives.”

Rite Aid filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and began closing nearly 550 stores nationwide since October 2023. California experienced the closure of more than 100 stores statewide; however, approximately 71% of all stores in California have remained open throughout the bankruptcy and with one exception in San Diego, there were two or more competitive alternatives close by for the closed stores. This June, Rite Aid’s bankruptcy restructuring plan was approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, which turns over control of the company to a group of its lenders.

Under the settlement and AB 853, Rite Aid agrees to the following conditions for the next five years:

• Use commercially reasonable efforts to maintain the remaining Rite Aid stores, as well as all required licenses.
• Provide 90-day notice of sale or closure of remaining Rite Aid stores.
• Continue participation in Medi-Cal and Medicare if commercially reasonable.
• Provide financial assistance to patients if commercially reasonable to do so.
• Continue free delivery services to patients who were receiving these services from a closed store in San Diego.
• Ensure compliance with state staffing levels.
• Maintain hiring list for all employees from stores that close going forward for preferential hiring at other Rite-Aid stores.
• Use commercially reasonable efforts to pay retirement contributions if collective bargaining agreements require such payments.
• Use commercially reasonable efforts to abstain from contesting unemployment for individuals who are laid off as a result of the sale or closure of Rite Aid stores if no nearby Rite Aid store offers employment.
• Comply with nondiscrimination rules in the provision of healthcare services and to commercially reasonable efforts to provide financial assistance to patients.

The California Department of Justice’s Healthcare Rights and Access Section (HRA) works proactively to increase and protect the affordability, accessibility, and quality of healthcare in California. HRA’s attorneys monitor and contribute to various areas of the Attorney General’s healthcare work, including nonprofit healthcare transactions; consumer rights; anticompetitive consolidation in the healthcare market; anticompetitive drug pricing; privacy issues; civil rights, such as reproductive rights and LGBTQ healthcare-related rights; and public health work on tobacco, e-cigarettes, and other products.

A copy of the settlement can be found here.