Pushing back against Newsom's leaked memo warText and photos by Sarah Phelan
Remember how Mayor Gavin Newsom leaked a confidential City Attorney memo about the implications of Sup. David Campos’ proposal to extend due process to undocumented youth?
And how Newsom made everyone else wait two weeks before deigning to release said memo, even though he told the Guardian that he had every right to waive his attorney-client privilege and distribute the Campos memo to whomsoever he pleased?
Well, this week a number of folks are preparing to file complaints with the Sunshine Taskforce a) about the Mayor’s Office’s selective release of this memo and b) his office’s subsequent refusal to release any other communications related to the leak.
And today, a group of civil rights organizations released a legal brief that responds to City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s leaked memo on the city’s immigrant youth policy. (You can read the brief in full here.)
Also today, Sup. David Campos participated in a tele-press conference in which legal experts and professors explained why Campos’ proposed amendment, which has an Oct. 5 hearing before the Board of Supervisors’ Public Safety Committee, is legally tenable and defensible.
And along the way, Campos and these experts, who included Angie Junck of the Immigrant Legal Resources Center, Robert Rubin of the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights, Julia Mass of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California, Professor Bill Ong Hing of UC Davis Law School and Angela Chan of the Asian Law Caucus, succeeded in debunking a number of myths about the Campos amendment.
As the brief explains, the Campos’ proposal, "will allow immigrant youth to have their day in court and be heard by an impartial judge, ensuring due process is upheld for all of San Frnacisco’s youth,” “ensure that families are not torn apart because a youth is mistakenly referred for deportation,” “encourage cooperation between law enforcement and immigrant communities by reestablishing a relationship based on trust and therefore increasing public safety,” “lessen the risk that the city will be liable for racial profiling, unlawful detention and mistaken referrals of U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants for deportation,” and “bring the city’s juvenile probation practices into compliance with state confidentiality laws for youth.”
And as today's brief further explains, the Campos proposal won’t prevent referral to ICE of youth who have sustained felony charges and won’t put the sanctuary ordinance at risk.
“The sanctuary ordinance has stood strong for twenty years, and the proposed amendment strengthens the ordinance by taking steps to bring the city’s practices more into compliance with state juvenile justice law,” states the civil rights brief, which was prepared by the Asian Law Caucus, Legal Services for Children, Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, San Francisco Immigrant Legal & Education Network, and the San Francisco Immigrant Rights Defense Committee.
“In short, the legislation is a measured step in the right direction that will help restore accountability and fairness in the City’s treatment of immigrant youth.”
And as Campos told reporters today, his proposed amendment, “ is something we drafted very carefully in close consultation with the City Attorney’s office.”
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (3)
Jason Grant Garza here ... oh, great officials get together to discuss sanctuary, sunshine, and the LAW. Mind you sanctuary ... a place to come to be safe, ha,ha,ha. The article states someone filing ANOTHER Sunshine request/complaint (just like the Mayor's failure on his calendar request, ha, ha, ha ... see SF Bay Guardian article ... http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2009/08/esto_es_ridiculo.html ) and that this needs to be looked into ... wow. Great speech ... what does it mean?
Let me tell you a story ... let's suppose someone is in EMERGENCY and goes to SFGH (2001) and is denied services and arrested. What can a poor person do ... go to the Sunshine Commission request correct complete and accurate records to defend ... he then receives a "RN RATCHED" response (read about it in SF Bay Guardian) and then goes to court by himself since JUSTICE is for the rich;however, at his deposition (prior to court is 5150'ed ... interestly released 4 hours later since it was NOT valid)- some might consider Witness Intimdidation ... then our VICTIM has his case thrown out by the city claiming it had complied with the law. The VICTIM was not allowed to testify however his paperwork states the word playing duplicitous misrepresentations ... anyway, he continues ... goes to Washington gets a settlement where the city admits fault and liability ... NOW WHAT? Will the court, the city or any government offical investigate the failures ... what about the VICTIM? Why will NO ONE BE ACCOUNTABLE even now when the VICTIM has a signed confession ... HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN unless it is all an illusion ... type my name into a google search engine ... read an article entitled "CRAZY" in regard to getting legally mandated services.
Ethics, sunshine, rule of law ... ha,ha, ha ... how can this be claimed when THOSE IN THE CITY WON'T COME CLEAN OR BE ACCOUNTABLE; unless of coarse the ethics of a continued illusion of (sunshine, laws, and morality) outweigh the civil unrest they would create if the SHEEP woke up. "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell
P.S.
As far as the Board of Supervisors investigating ... I still await my investigation with a signed confession after having gone to different Supervisors ... I have THAT paperwork too; however, NO ONE will investigate ... where's the ethics behind admitting fault and guilt (for having BROKRN the law) if you don't have to come clean or have an investigation in order to remedy and explain. Remember my case has been ongoing since 2001 ... here's the link www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=3956&catid=4 - read, question and know that it is ALL UNACCOUNTABLE LIES in order to RETIRE an HAVE THE GOOD LIFE ... while leaving someone (THEIR VICTIM) to DIE! Ah, the audacity of FALSE HOPE dispensed by FALSE LEADERS enabled by FALSE AGENCIES. My wasn't there an article in May in the SF Bay Guardian about the ETHICS commission and how 14 times they failed .... the article I believe stated that this was the most important open government issue and asked which Supervisor wanted to take it on? Now there are Supervisors willing ... ha, ha, ha ... what about JUSTICE delayed ... JUSTICE denied ... oh, in order to fix they would have to expose their "risk management, negligent, and unaccountable" ways ... look at my case that exposes all ... where's the ETHICS or Supervisors with my OPEN and SHUT case regarding COMPLIANCE? So if you are still awaiting as I have been for more than eight (8) years you might ask ... if Sunshine were so CRUCIAL as articles have appeared in the Bay Guardian concerning this issue ... with the author of the articles challenging a Supervisor to take this on ... WHY HAVEN'T THEY? Only now they are interested in a leaked memo ... oh, I can't stop laughing at the obvious insincerity and inhumanity ... line up folks ... you're NEXT! Granted they have a much better chance at whitewashing the leaked memo than explaining a SIGNED CONFESSION ... INTEGRITY IS AS INTEGRITY DOES ... so where is it?
Interestingly enough, Campos wants due process yet I can NOT get an investigation with a signed confession from the city regarding breaking the law and admitting fault and guilt. Shall I show you a list of the supervisors and their aides I've gone to ... I was even told by Rick Galbreath (aid to my district supervisor who still has not explained why I can not get a meeting with my supervisor) that the city charter prohibited just such adminstrative interference from Supervisors - an investigation (could his information be incorrect and misleading) ... now they are looking into this, the leaked memo BUT NOT A SIGNED CONFESSION ADMITTING BREAKING THE LAW BY THE CITY? Huh?
The article then talks about the "leaked memo" and yet I can NOT get an investigation into my signed confession ... interesting isn't it? Ask yourself what would it expose to see the city lie in federal court only to sign a confesion later on with NO PLAUSABLE DENIAL since I forewarned the court of the illegalites ... call Donald White at the Office of Inspector General 202-619-0088 who got the confession. Please note all the CONTRITION I've received to date so far ... by the guilty and by the ENABLERS who WON'T INVESTIGATE. You'll find NONE!
The sanctuary ordinance has stood strong for twenty years as the article states ... EMATALA a twenty year old law that SFGH broke and I NOW have a signed confession yet NO INVESTIGATION ... just thought it might be an interesting comparison ...
WHAT A FARCE!
Posted by Jason Grant Garza | September 30, 2009 10:09 PM
Sunshine complaints in San Francisco are the equivalent of "telling it to the hand," with the Ethics Commission abdicating its voter mandated responsibilities because the Ethics Commission executive staff holds open government laws in contempt and refuses to enforce them.
People need to go after Herrera at the State Bar of California to stop this nonsense.
We've got a City Attorney that never met a loaded corporation or individual whom he didn't like much more than people's democratic rights, who is starving the people's branch of government of legal resources while spending lavishly on interesting yet largely unnecessary proactive lawsuits to burnish his image while he is running for reelection unopposed and using those dollars to stage his mayoral run.
-marc
Posted by marcos | October 1, 2009 10:13 AM
... and just a reminder of Herr Herrera's despicable disenfranchisement of 30,000 registered voters back in '06 when, a few days after the Director of Dept of Elections, John Arntz, officially certified that sufficient valid signatures had been submitted to place the Bayview Referndum on the ballot, this co-opted craven clown, in collusion with mini-mayor newsom, arbitrarily declared all the signatures invalid based on an arcane and never enforced requirement that all petitions presented to the public as part of a signature gathering campaign should be accompanied by reams of documentation. When was the last time a signature gatherer presented you with anything more than a clipboard and a pen ? Yet another example of the corruption of this administration and it's total subservience to Lennar and the other corporations that are sucking the life blood out of our city.
RUN JEFF RUN.
Posted by Patrick Monk | October 3, 2009 07:15 AM