Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • Berkeley Antifa pg 1-502

Berkeley Antifa pg 1-502

Berkeley Antifa pg 1-502

Page 1: Berkeley Antifa pg 1-502

Category:

Number of Pages:502

Date Created:September 25, 2017

Date Uploaded to the Library:September 25, 2017

Tags:Antifa Documents, Antifa, Berkeley


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Center for American Progress Center for American Progress Action Fund
(202) 481-8145
pdolan@americanprogress.org
prevent the deletion any electronic information, the destruction any other records which
are may responsive any manner this request.
Pursuant the state open records law Cal. Govt Code Secs. 6250 6277, write request access all writings with the following criteria:
From the dates March 28-April 2017, and April 19-22, 2017, and April 25-May 2017
For the persons Brandi Campbell, Chief Staff the Mayor, Jacquelyn McCormick, Senior
Advisor the Mayor
That use the keywords Ann Coulter, Coulter use any code name pronoun for Ann
Coulter; uses the keywords BridgeUSA; uses the keyword Antifas Anti-fas; uses
the term College Republicans, regardless capitalization for any the above defined terms. your agency does not maintain these public records, please let know who does and include
the proper custodians name and address.
Please note that complete search potentially responsive documents will search the inbox, and
the sent folder.
Additionally, complete search would not only search the deleted folder the email software
interface, but would also search the trash can deleted files folder for the office computer
those named the request details.
Finally, request that there are potentially responsive emails which have been deleted from the
email software interface, but might still remain remnant data either the computer/email
servers used leased the City Berkeley, data that might remain remnant data the
hard drive the office computer for any those listed this request, that the remnant data
considered responsive record. Therefore, remnant data exists potentially responsive
records, please contact discuss how the data can located and reconstructed. agree pay any reasonable copying and postage fees not more than $30.00. the cost would greater than this amount, please notify me.
Please provide receipt indicating the charges for each document. provided the open records law, Sec. 6253(c), will expect your response within ten (10)
business days. you choose deny this request, please provide written explanation for the denial including
reference the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely. Also, please provide all
segregable portions otherwise exempt material.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Todd Shepherd
Reporter, Washington Examiner
1152 15th St. NW, Suite 200
Washington, 20005
405-274-2800 (cell)
-Todd Shepherd
Reporter, Washington Examiner
@toddashepherd
(202)-459-4970 ofc
(405)-274-2800 cell
For the persons Brandi Campbell, Chief Staff the Mayor, Jacquelyn McCormick, Senior
Advisor the Mayor
That use the keywords Ann Coulter, Coulter use any code name pronoun for Ann
Coulter; uses the keywords BridgeUSA; uses the keyword Antifas Anti-fas; uses
the term College Republicans, regardless capitalization for any the above defined terms. your agency does not maintain these public records, please let know who does and include
the proper custodians name and address.
Please note that complete search potentially responsive documents will search the inbox, and
the sent folder.
Additionally, complete search would not only search the deleted folder the email software
interface, but would also search the trash can deleted files folder for the office computer
those named the request details.
Finally, request that there are potentially responsive emails which have been deleted from the
email software interface, but might still remain remnant data either the computer/email
servers used leased the City Berkeley, data that might remain remnant data the
hard drive the office computer for any those listed this request, that the remnant data
considered responsive record. Therefore, remnant data exists potentially responsive
records, please contact discuss how the data can located and reconstructed. agree pay any reasonable copying and postage fees not more than $30.00. the cost would greater than this amount, please notify me.
Please provide receipt indicating the charges for each document. provided the open records law, Sec. 6253(c), will expect your response within ten (10)
business days. you choose deny this request, please provide written explanation for the denial including
reference the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely. Also, please provide all
segregable portions otherwise exempt material.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Todd Shepherd
Reporter, Washington Examiner
1152 15th St. NW, Suite 200
Washington, 20005
405-274-2800 (cell)
-Todd Shepherd
Reporter, Washington Examiner
@toddashepherd
(202)-459-4970 ofc
(405)-274-2800 cell
FAQ: USC 1373 Federal Funding Threats Sanctuary Jurisdictions
Read This Learn: What USC 1373 and sanctuary policies violate it?
https://www.ilrc.org/fact sheet sanctuary policies and federal funding
PODCAST: Professor Bill Ong Hing, University San Francisco and ILRC Staff Attorney Lena Graber
Chat About Federal Funding Threats
https://www.ilrc.org/interview professor bill hing threats federal funding sanctuary cities
LETTER: Nearly 300 law professors sent letter the administration arguing the Executive Order
Sanctuary Jurisdictions unconstitutional
https://www.ilrc.org/letter law profs 1373 hope these resources are helpful your work, and feel free reach out directly you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Lena Graber,
Staff Attorney
www.ilrc.org
(T) 415 255 9499 (F) 415 255 9792
The Immigrant Legal Resource Center State Bar California approved MCLE provider.
The Immigrant Legal Resource Center State Bar California Department Legal Specialization approved provider.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message subscriber the list:
bayareadaca@lists.ilrc.org removed from the list, send any message to:
bayareadaca-unsubscribe@lists.ilrc.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.ilrc.org/lists/info/bayareadaca
www.supervisorcortese.org
Like Dave Facebook
Follow Dave Twitter
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM ORRICK, JUDGE
CITY AND COUNTY SAN
FRANCISCO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DONALD TRUMP, President
the United States, al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________)
CITY AND COUNTY
SANTA CLARA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DONALD TRUMP, President
the United States, al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________)
NO. 17-0485 WHO
NO. 17-0574 WHO
San Francisco, California
Friday, April 14, 2017
TRANSCRIPT PROCEEDINGS
APPEARANCES:
(Appearances continued next page)
Reported By:
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR #5812, RPR, CRR
Official Reporter U.S. District Court
APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
For Plaintiff City and County San Francisco:
Dennis Herrera
City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234 Dr. Carlton Goodlett Place
San Francisco, California 94102-460
By: Mollie Lee
Ronald Flynn
Sara Eisenberg
Yvonne Mer
Deputy City Attorneys
For Plaintiff County Santa Clara:
Office the County Counsel
County Santa Clara West Hedding Street
East Wing, Ninth Floor
San Jose, California 95110-1770
By: James William, County Counsel
Greta Hansen, Chief Assistant
County Counsel
By:
For Defendants:
By:
By:
Keker Van Nest Peters LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, California 94111
John Keker, Esquire
Cody Harris, Esquire
United States Department Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
Post Office Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Chad Readler, Acting Assistant A.G. Scott Simpson, Senior Trial Counsel
United States Department Justice
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3401
Sara Winslow, Chief
Friday April 14, 2017
9:00 a.m.
---000---
THE CLERK: are here cases 17-485, City and
County San Francisco versus Donald Trump, al., and
Case Number 17-574, County Santa Clara versus
Donald Trump, al.
Counsel, please come forward and state your appearance for
the record.
MR. KEKER:
Good morning, Your Honor.
For the County Santa Clara, John Keker Keker Van Nest Peters.
With counsel table, from firm, Cody Harris.
And our co-counsel James Williams, County Counsel with Santa
Clara.
MR. WILLIAMS:
James Williams, County Counsel for the
Santa Clara.
Hansen, and also the other attorneys the papers from
office.
With Chief Assistant County Counsel, Greta
THE COURT:
Welcome, all.
MR. KEKER:
Thank you.
MS. LEE:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Mollie Lee for
the City and County San Francisco.
MS. EISENBERG:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Sara
Eisenberg, also from the City and County San Francisco.
MR. FLYNN:
Good morning.
Ron Flynn from the City and
County San Francisco.
MS. MERE:
And Yvonne Mere good morning, Your
Honor with the City and County San Francisco.
THE COURT:
Welcome.
MS. MERE:
Thank you.
MS. WINSLOW:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Sara Winslow
from the U.S. Attorneys Office.
Assistant Attorney General Chad Readler, who will presenting
the federal governments argument today, and also Scott
And have with Acting
Simpson, who attorney from the Department Justice.
THE COURT: recognize Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Readler, pleasure have you here.
And
hope you will both convey regards former colleagues
Main Justice.
MR. READLER:
predecessor the Department.
THE COURT: privilege appear before
Great.
Thank you.
All right. the plaintiffs seek enjoin Section Executive
Order 13768, titled Enhancing Public Safety the Interior
the United States, because its unconstitutional. want the arguments focus today.
Thats what
The Plaintiff San Francisco also argues that U.S. Code
Section 1373 unconstitutional.
argument that later day consider independently
from the Executive Order.
And going defer
The briefing, particularly the federal governments,
intermingled the arguments with the merits the Executive
Order.
more comprehensive and isolated record.
And consideration this issue would benefit from going hold case management 1:30 p.m.
April 25th, discuss whats necessary.
participate phone thats what you wish do. Ive read the papers.
briefs.
The government can
Ive also reviewed the amicus received them, representing variety city
and counties California and other states, public school
districts, teachers, the Superintendent Instruction
California, the State California, sheriffs and police chiefs
from states, the SEIU, variety nonprofits, academics,
and the Southern Poverty Law Center. not allowing the amici speak today all whom
support the plaintiffs but appreciated reading their
perspectives.
There are number facts that arent dispute, that
dont need further explication, think.
First, the federal funding that the counties contend
jeopardy because the Executive Order.
With respect Santa Clara, the 2015-2016 fiscal year, received $1.7 billion federal federally-dependent
funds.
used for variety safety-net programs.
Thats percent the Countys total revenues.
Its
The Valley Medical Center, the only public safety-net
healthcare provider the county, gets billion federal
funds, which percent its expenses.
The County Social Services Agency, which provides child
welfare and protection, aid needy families, support for
disabled children, and the like, receives 300 million, which percent its budget.
Public Health Department and Office Emergency Services
also receives significant federal funds.
For San Francisco, received $1.2 billion its budget,
plus 800 million multiyear grants which are primarily for
public infrastructure.
The funds are used for core social services such
medical care, meals vulnerable citizens, 100 percent
Medicare, percent the Department Emergency Management, percent Human Services Agency, and percent the
Department Public Health. thats with respect federal funding.
And then there dispute concerning the existence policies that the
counties contend put them the crosshairs the Executive
Order. for the County Santa Clara, the ordinance theres ordinance that prohibits employees from providing ICE with
information collected while providing critical services
benefits, from initiating inquiry enforcement action based immigration status.
since ICE does not agree reimburse costs.
And doesnt honor detainer requests
For San Francisco, theres ordinance that prohibits the
use funds resources assist enforcing federal
immigration law and prohibits law enforcement from detaining
individual solely because detainer request.
provide advance notice ICE about release unless certain
conditions are met. those facts are not dispute.
That does not dont need argument those.
But like start with Santa Claras argument, and
really ask you focus the two central arguments that the
government making.
change the law because the Attorney General and Secretary
the Department Homeland Security are directed enforce
existing law.
injuries are not sufficiently concrete imminent because the
government hasnt designated either county sanctuary
jurisdiction.
First, that the Executive Order doesnt
And their second argument, that the plaintiffs Ill start with Santa Clara, and then have
San Francisco, and then have the governments response.
MR. KEKER:
Thank you, Your Honor.
John Keker for the County Santa Clara.
Ill addressing legal issues.
And will there are further
factual issues that come up, Mr. Williams going address
those.
THE COURT:
Excellent.
MR. KEKER:
But think what you asked about falls
right into what was planning talk about.
And this is, far were concerned, extraordinary
case the sense that the government not seriously
contesting whether they waive whatever, but theyre not
contesting the constitutional arguments likelihood success the merits except the area justiciability.
Rather, they are arguing that there should
injunction because this savings clause that you mentioned,
where everything that they going according law.
Our position, made very clear the brief, that
thats thats just boilerplate and means nothing.
This unconstitutional order cannot enforced, cannot
applied, cannot exist consistent with law.
doesnt have the power it.
it.
The President
The Tenth Amendment forbids
The Fifth Amendment forbids it.
This claim that existing all theyre doing following
existing law ignores the plain text the statute. Section talked about 9(a) talks about ensuring
the jurisdictions that willfully refuse comply with U.S.C.
1373 are not eligible receive federal funds.
Section
That cant squared with something that consistent
with law because the President has power that.
The what call the enforcement clause 9(a), where talks about the Attorney General taking appropriate action
either enforce 1373 take appropriate action against any
jurisdiction that has practice policy, that, quote,
hinders federal law enforcement further indication that that
cant force according federal law.
The people who wrote it, least the people who
promulgated it, the President and now the Attorney General,
have made absolutely plain what this order about.
And
what and what they plain that its weapon deprive
jurisdictions the money they need operate. cancel all funding sanctuary cities.
recently.
Its weapon
They said
Mr. Sessions, the Attorney General, who tried this Congress and failed, and now Attorney General has said
that going claw back this this Executive Order
allows him claw back any funds awarded jurisdiction
that willfully violates 1373.
And going around asking jurisdictions and
this case, California, rethink their policies and change
their local policies and on.
Weve seen it.
about Lansing, Michigan.
Florida, our brief.
here, people are having deal with this right now. the Chronicle today there was story cited the the events Miami, all around the country, including
And going get irreparable harm minute.
But
this notion that doesnt change existing law simply cannot squared with the language the the Executive Order. puts all federal funds risk.
ties 1373 compliance detainers 9(b).
Thats Article 2(c). gives the Attorney General the power, without any
notice due process anything, designate sanctuary
jurisdictions. take appropriate actions anybody that thinks hinders gives the the powers Ive just mentioned
federal law enforcement.
And then orders, 9(c), the Office Management and
Budget, Mr. Mulvaney, gather information about all
grants not some grants all grants that sanctuary
jurisdiction, designated, getting from the government.
Mr. Mulvaney Ive got mention, too, Mr. Mulvaney, pointed out our supplemental submissions, going
Congress urging them what this Executive Order purports do, which think further admissions that the President
cant it. something happens, has Congress. this idea that this can read consistent with law,
think, wrong. have had some discussions, both this morning and last
night, with the government about what think youre going
hear new interpretation this order, that its limited this limited that. have few things say about that.
they should have said their brief.
said declaration.
This not TRO.
First all,
And they should have
And they shouldnt just say here.
There was plenty opportunity put
forth, they wanted reinterpret the statute excuse
me, the Executive Order, they could have done it.
And then, second, its just its not binding
anybody.
were worried about the Attorney General.
The what were worried about the President,
What with all
deference, what Justice Department lawyer down the food chain
says, without declaration, without affidavit, without any
binding effect, not something that you should consider,
believe. they want withdraw this Executive Order and craft
new one according what they say this one should
interpreted as, they can certainly that.
THE COURT: get the standing issue for Santa
Clara, because the lets assume for the moment that the
Executive Order riddled with unconstitutionality.
MR. KEKER:
Okay.
THE COURT:
But tell about the harm that Santa
Clara going face result the order, which does not
define what sanctuary jurisdiction is.
that youre the crosshairs?
MR. KEKER: how you know couldnt more clear that were
the crosshairs because the way the President has described
the purpose the order, the way the Attorney General has
described the purpose the order, and the way these DDORs,
which are coming out, are identifying.
The most recent one identified Santa Clara one
the one the counties that had the most detainers.
Section and Section identified Santa Clara county
that had policies that were inconsistent with federal law,
exactly what the Attorney General supposed after.
But the irreparable harm exists now, before the Attorney
General acts, because this overhang, this coercive overhang Federal Executive Order, that has the force law,
threatening and coercing local governments all over the
country, but particularly Santa Claras case with percent its budget.
What are you going do?
Youre either going
something that believe unconstitutional, knuckle under
what the Executive Order says you should do, youre going something that violates County policy and that that the
County believes unconstitutional.
For example, start keeping people honoring detainers
that have basis, American citizens being held with basis
except that ICE wants them held.
that happened Miami.
Thats exactly the conundrum
And that coercion, that Hobsons choice, gun your
head.
exists right now Santa Clara and San Francisco, think
all around all around the country. mean, theres million metaphors for it.
Weve argued four things for irreparable harm.
But
The first
one that constitutional violation per irreparable
harm.
And weve cited cases.
The one that the Ninth Circuit seems most point,
that gets away from structural, personal, all that, this
American Trucking case; that that Hobsons choice per
between doing something thats unconstitutional not
per irreparable harm.
Weve cited the Texas cases for the coercion, and the
District Court cases that youre aware of.
And this this lot worse than the Texas cases. the Texas cases, the amount money that was involved was
much less.
The stream funding was much less.
Here, the Hobsons choice of, the one hand, acquiescing unconstitutional order and, the other hand, violating
detainees Fourth Amendment rights, fairly drastic.
And, youve pointed out reciting the undisputed
facts, what the Hobsons choice involved cuts the
most financially vulnerable citizens.
some small amount money.
Its not like its just
And, guess, thats thats our point. cant
emphasized enough that theres way comply with this order
without creating constitutional injury.
whats happened other parts the country.
President and the Attorney General say theyre trying do.
Thats thats
Thats what the
The the Executive Orders failure provide notice and opportunity heard means that months from now the
County can find that its been designated sanctuary city; the
money that theyre spending now being clawed back.
are those are decisions that the Board Supervisors has
deal with right now, and its current harm.
Those
This notion that its not self-executing completely
ignores the declarations, which obviously youve read, nine
county officials. short, dont have wait.
Attorney General
Sessions has made plain his willingness use the Executive
Order pressure California cities and counties. the chief justice, and hes done way that never
could legislator.
Hes done thats thats fundamentally the argument about
irreparable harm.
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. KEKER:
And with irreparable harm, believe
standing and ripeness take care themselves.
THE COURT:
All right. agree with that argument,
its borne out. you have anything else that you wanted add?
Or, Mr. Williams, was there anything that you wanted
add?
MR. WILLIAMS:
So, Your Honor, just wanted add
one point, emphasizing the reimbursement nature these funds.
Every single day the County has expend general fund
money the tune average $4- million per day
the expectation subsequent reimbursements.
And the threat clawback and, Mr. Keker noted,
the Attorney General specifically referenced clawback his
statements March 27.
threat not receiving those reimbursements, very real,
very serious, and occurring each and every day right now
the County.
THE COURT:
The threat clawback, but also the saw that. with respect the
reimbursements, true that every day you are owed millions dollars the government for services that you have already
provided?
MR. WILLIAMS:
THE COURT:
MR. WILLIAMS:
THE COURT:
MR. WILLIAMS:
MR. KEKER:
Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
MS. LEE:
Yes.
Every day?
Yes, every day.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Lets hear from San Francisco.
Good morning, Your Honor.
Mollie Lee for
the City and County San Francisco.
Happy address the Courts questions, but want
first tell the Court that did have conversations with
counsel for the Department Justice last night.
And those conversations said that would not
object the Department Justice wanted speak about some the issues that they raised, order better inform the
Courts conversation today.
THE COURT:
MS. LEE:
THE COURT:
All right.
With that, were happy proceed. you think its better for the
government raise those now, before you argue?
want argue?
MS. LEE:
THE COURT:
MS. LEE: you
Were happy argue -Go ahead. and then can continue our argument
after the government speaks.
THE COURT:
MS. LEE:
Right.
Just wanted raise that for the Court. will addressing the merits our argument.
colleague, Ms. Eisenberg, will addressing questions about
ripeness and irreparable harm.
THE COURT:
MS. LEE:
Okay.
So, heard the Courts questions, you
have two questions for right now.
The first whether the
Executive Order changes existing law. yes, does.
And the answer that
San Francisco agrees with the points that counsel for
Santa Clara made. want focus one specific thing. dont want repeat those points, but
And that that requiring cities and counties comply
with detainer requests does change existing law, and changes way that violates the constitution. using the Executive Order and 1373 try force
The Administration
jurisdictions comply with detainer requests. see that the plain text the Executive Order where
Section 9(a) directs withholding funds from sanctuary
jurisdictions, and Section 9(b) equates sanctuary jurisdictions
with those that dont comply with detainers. statements the Attorney General. also see that
And, you noted, San Francisco does not comply with
detainer requests. policy determination that when local government officials
enforce federal immigration law, undermines the trust that
residents have.
will call the police.
will take their children get vaccinated.
likely that parents will feel safe taking their children
school.
And that because San Francisco has made makes less likely the victims crime makes less likely that parents
And makes less
This policy decision that San Francisco has made and
that the Administration disagrees with.
Administration, this Executive Order, seeking
unconstitutionally coerce San Francisco into changing its
policies.
And the
There question that the Administration views
San Francisco sanctuary jurisdiction.
repeated statements Attorney General Sessions, most recently published the San Francisco Chronicle week
ago. see that has specifically identified San Francisco
sanctuary city, and has also specifically equated sanctuary
city policies with policies that dont require compliance with
detainer requests. stand here today, have Executive Order that
threatens withhold all federal funds from sanctuary
jurisdictions, and have administration that has
determined that San Francisco sanctuary jurisdiction.
Were seeking order that removes that unconstitutional
threat from San Francisco and from the hundreds
jurisdictions around the country that have similar laws.
THE COURT:
Ms. Eisenberg.
All right.
MS. EISENBERG:
Thank you.
Good morning, Your Honor. wanted
talk little bit about some the San Francisco-specific
facts about why San Francisco believes that too has target its back.
And, addition the Declined Detainer Outcome Reports
that were referenced Mr. Keker, also have the comments
from Attorney General Sessions March 27th.
his remarks sanctuary jurisdictions.
And those were
And those comments specifically singled out
San Francisco and referenced San Franciscos, quote, sanctuary
policies.
again specifically referred San Francisco quote,
And his that was filed April 7th,
sanctuary city. think the idea that San Francisco not targeted strains credulity.
And under the case law, dont have wait for the
arrow hit that target come into court and show that
have harm and standing. prosecution, which believe can certainly show with the
express statements the Attorney General. just have show credible threat guess the only other point that would like flesh
out little bit more the idea that, addition, also
have current injury because are being pressured change
our local laws.
Jurisdictions and states under Supreme Court case law
and this the Alfred Snapp Son case that cite our
brief have sovereign power create and enforce their own
laws.
And have standing come into court and challenge
federal laws that seek hinder our ability this.
And thats the Texas vs. United States case out the
Fifth Circuit, and several other cases that they cite there,
including out the Fourth Circuit and the Tenth Circuit.
So, addition the fact that believe they are
coming for San Franciscos funds, there this pressure and
coercion that San Francisco facing change its laws.
that, and itself, harm that gives Article III
justiciability.
THE COURT:
MS. EISENBERG:
THE COURT:
And
All right.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you.
Mr. Readler.
You have new interpretation the Executive Order?
MR. READLER:
Thank you, Your Honor.
May please
the Court.
No, thats not correct.
But want walk through the
terms Section because think, when plainly read, they
disarm many the arguments that weve seen the other side.
And just like start noting that, consistent with
his constitutional duty take care our current laws and faithfully executed, the President issued this Executive
Order which reflects the policy directives the United States
with respect the enforcement priorities existing
immigration law.
And couple key points the outset.
The Order does
not rewrite the law.
not instruct the Department Justice Department
Homeland Security engage unconstitutional activity. does not invoke new powers, and does
The Court very familiar with the interpretive rule that
laws are read narrowly, typically, try avoid
constitutional problems. friends the other side have read the order
absolutely broadly possible and have followed that with lots constitutional arguments, which, the order actually
extended that far, may well raise constitutional issues. think can pretty quickly walk through Section
and explain its application just its plain terms, not taking word for it, but just looking the plain terms Section
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
All right.
So, first, Section directed two
agencies.
directed the Department Homeland Security.
Its directed the Department Justice and
Those are the only two agencies Section 9(a) excuse Section 9(a) that are directed anything.
theres direction happy give the Court moment.
THE COURT:
No, no, no. quite familiar with this. was just going the policy section Section that
says that its the policy the executive branch ensure
that jurisdictions that fail comply with applicable federal
law not receive federal funds except mandated law.
MR. READLER:
Correct, which pretty vanilla
statement about the fact that people have comply with the
law.
THE COURT:
Its broad statement, Mr. Readler, but ahead.
MR. READLER:
Its certainly broad policy statement.
And, certainly, executives and all political leaders use the
bully pulpit encourage compliance with policy directives
that they think are important. think the real operative terms here are Section
which, again, dont create new law.
Section this not 9(a).
Treasury any other agency.
agencies.
But with respect
Its not direction HHS
Its direction two
The Attorney General doesnt control Medicare dollars.
doesnt control infrastructure dollars.
are controlled other agencies that are not invoked here
Section 9(a).
And those dollars
And even more narrowly, Section 9(a), the first sentence addressed specifically federal grants.
impact the financial impact Section 9(a) with respect federal grants issued the Department Homeland Security
and the Department Justice. now the
That the absolute plain
reading that section.
And that, again, dramatically not sure there are
any grant dollars.
small grants, with less than million dollars, that
receives from the Department Justice, that might
issue.
Santa Clara may have one one two
Otherwise, not sure any other grant that the
dollars that the friends the other side would point
that would impacted those the requirements there
Section 9(a).
And, again, the 9(a) and, think, least eight
nine other parts throughout the Executive Order require
compliance with law.
THE COURT:
DOJ -So you would agree that there was
clearly unconstitutional order, just dropping the language
the extent provided consistent with law wouldnt save
that unconstitutional policy, would it?
MR. READLER:
Well, assuming there was ripe dispute there was actually going enforcement steps taken under
the law, then that might fair question.
have were not even that point here.
THE COURT:
And dont even
But so, for example, there Executive Order that prohibited the sale excess federal
property African Americans the extent consistent with
law, that would unconstitutional order, wouldnt it?
MR. READLER:
That would hard defend, Your
Honor, correct.
And thats why think its important walk through,
again, what Section 9(a) does. federal grants where its made clear the grantee that
they must require 1373.
acknowledge that their briefs.
And, also, 9(a), again, applies
And friends the other side
The San Francisco brief, Exhibit attaches one the
documents that was issued, actually, last year the prior
administration with respect these issues, the Inspector
General and the Office Justice Programs.
put their radar last year.
These issues were 2016, OIG identified number jurisdictions that
potentially could violating 1373.
Office Justice Programs issued memo any grantee
recipients that, going forward, they would required with
respect three specific DOJ grants, they would required
comply with 1373.
And following that, the
Thats acknowledged footnote the Santa Clara
complaint.
acknowledge these new requirements.
And footnote their complaint, they theres mystery friends the other side
about the fact which grants are issue and the fact that
there will express requirements, part those grants,
that you have comply with 1373 eligible.
THE COURT:
Are you arguing that the Executive Order targeting three grants that were conditioned year ago?
that the argument?
MR. READLER:
Well, the Executive Order directed
only grants issued DHS and DOJ.
expressly grants.
notification the grantee that they have require 1373. many ways thats correct.
And its and its would have grants where there
There are there are some grants from the past year
again, starting fiscal year 2016, after the OIG and OJP reports
came out, there were some grants that were expressly
conditioned where the grantees had comply with that
language.
Going forward, think its certainly natural expect
that there will DOJ and, potentially, DHS grants that have
express requirements.
There ambiguity about that.
dollars that Section 9(a) speaking to.
THE COURT:
Those will known the parties.
But thats the range
Then what would the purpose this
Executive Order then?
MR. READLER:
The purpose the Executive Order
highlight the country and, again, perfectly permissible
use the bully pulpit.
highlight issues they care about.
Executives this all the time
This obviously one the Administration has highlighted,
and they have instructed their agencies carry out the law.
This priority, certainly, the Administration terms law enforcement, and thats what this accomplishes.
And think you can see that then the next
sentence weve now explained the first sentence applies only limited range grants and applies only dollars where
the recipient notice.
The second sentence directive the Secretary -separate from the first sentence, the Secretary DHS
identify sanctuary jurisdictions.
consequences attached that declaration.
Secretary does not even determine what its view, how
will carry this out what jurisdictions might comply.
There are direct legal
First all, the think the other important point, terms todays
purposes, theres direct legal consequences associated
with that section.
The first part 9(a) talks about federal grants, and the
last part talks about potential preemption enforcement actions theres dispute.
But that middle sentence, again, authorization
request that the DHS carry out this determination.
dont know what the criteria are.
And theres direct loss dollars associated with that
declaration.
THE COURT:
But ones been designated.
Theres process all here; right?
MR. READLER:
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
Well, there certainly the order.
Well, the order just directs the
Secretary look into the issue and make the designation. dont know how the Secretary going that. theres certainly ripe dispute terms theres
been declaration even any explanation how the
Secretary going reach the sanctuary jurisdiction
designation, all.
And, again and, again, the consequences that, the
order does not state any direct monetary other, you know,
injury that might flow from that.
And, fact, friends the other side essentially
both acknowledge themselves sanctuary jurisdictions.
mean, this term multiple interpretations.
have embraced that that term.
And they say DHS makes that declaration that thats
injury any kind, awfully difficult say this point
for number reasons.
THE COURT:
Well, dont you think that the Attorney
General has also embraced that definition?
respect the City and County San Francisco.
MR. READLER:
Particularly with
Well, certainly, again, with the use
the bully pulpit, theres lot discussion about sanctuary
jurisdictions, encouraging communities governments this
all the time.
states, comply with certain laws and engage certain
policy perspectives.
They want encourage different communities,
With respect actual consequences, discussed those
and let back General Sessions from March 27th,
because that was mentioned this morning.
General Sessions then said exactly what saying now. said:
Today urging all states and local jurisdictions comply with all federal laws, including Section 1973.
Moreover, the Department Justice will require
jurisdictions seeking applying for department grants
certify compliance with Section 1373 condition for
receiving those awards. goes say:
This policy entirely consistent with OJPs
guidance issued last July under the previous
administration.
jurisdictions comply and certify compliance with
Section 1373 order eligible for OJP grants.
also made clear that failure remedy violations could
result withholding grants, termination grants,
and disbarment ineligibility for future grants.
Thats exactly what saying today.
9(a), the first sentence, being interpreted.
The guidance requires state and local
Thats how Section
Its wholly
consistent with the plain terms. would also like to, then, talk about the last sentence Section 9(a), because that that important
sentence well. currently exists, where states communities are
violation Section 1373.
But targets enforcing the law,
Now, doesnt direct specific action any agency
or, excuse any locality, and there havent been
any theres pending enforcement action against any
locality.
But this would your standard preemption suit that the
federal government brings all the time.
United States one example where thought that local
state was
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
Arizona vs. remember that case. know you do. was violation with federal law.
And think theres two important things about that case.
One, course, that that was natural assertion federal
preemption power.
But, too, theres actually one aspect that where,
youll recall, the Supreme Court didnt enjoin it, and said
needed further development because wasnt clear how the law
was going interpreted with respect the request for
immigration status for people who were detained.
Thats very much like this case, where have dont
know yet how exactly policy going applied.
have some examples, but dont dont know exactly
whether there will any enforcement actions, and, so, what
theyll look like.
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
THE COURT:
And related that -Yes. and think this what youre
saying theres definition the Order what means willfully refuse comply what means hinder
prevent the enforcement federal law, which assume its
just and theres actual definition whether the federal
law just 1373 something else.
Would you agree with that?
MR. READLER: couple responses that. mean,
those terms should given their ordinary meaning.
But, also, this facial challenge the law. what
theyre saying theres theoretical instance which this
law which 1373, essentially, could applied
constitutionally. think thats clearly wrong.
Ordinarily, these disputes are resolved specific facts
and specific instances.
challenge the Order, theres prosecution brought the
Court under 1373, then have actual policy the federal
government match against policy the state government, the Court should reject facial
and can weigh whether theres violation 1373.
The other important thing point out is, that first
sentence also uses the word discretion.
Attorney General has, always, discretion whether enforce
this. other words, the
So, again, theres no, all, ripe concrete dispute
before the Court about actual enforcement action.
certainly cant say that theres possible application
this 1373 that would constitutional.
And
Obviously, the
Second Circuit has already resolved that can applied
many instances. also like address the point about immigration
detainer requests.
requests section (a).
with how those work.
Theres mention immigration detainer know Your Honor very familiar
The federal the government has acknowledged repeatedly
that the requests are not mandatory; that theyre voluntary.
Sometimes theyre complied with; sometimes theyre not.
Obviously, the federal government has interest
having many those complied with possible can
carry out its function.
THE COURT:
The Attorney General has equated failure comply with detainer requests with sanctuary jurisdictions,
hasnt he?
MR. READLER:
Well, broad sanctuary
jurisdiction not defined precisely defined term.
used many ways, many instances.
sanctuary jurisdiction could one that doesnt comply.
Its one definition
Now, the question is, there injury that flows
city community from that? section (a), where walk through the different
potential enforcement actions. mention there discussion there the ICE detainer
request.
And the place you look there
And those theres theres
Section (b) request Homeland Security that
identify communities that thinks not complying.
theres other than, sort of, publicly disclosing this
this something governments routinely.
reports and they identify communities that they think are doing
well with something, not doing well with something,
encourage them other things.
there other penalty anything associated with section
(b).
But
And they issue
But there other
So, again, wed have think what are the actual
consequences other than the encouragement comply with
certain policies.
talked about those.
prosecuting people who have violated express term
federal grant, finding exact laws that are violation
Section 1373 and then bringing enforcement action.
Those are listed 9(a).
And think Ive
Those are pretty standard, either
With respect that, Santa Clara not seeking
declaration about 1337, itself, constitutional.
tabled this issue, but San Francisco says its complies with
1373.
candidate for enforcement action. know you neither those would seem especially ripe
And Ill also note that the OIG and OJP reports from
last year, they identified, sort of, Top Ten List
jurisdictions.
jurisdictions that seemed have policies that were resistent
You could call sanctuary jurisdiction 1373.
ten actually, think, had special requirements put into some
grants that they got last year.
And none the plaintiffs were that list.
Again, theres been enforcement action.
Those there would enforcement action, certainly those ten have been
highlighted communities that could potentially subject subject one.
But even that has not yet happened. those those are the points really wanted make
about Section 9(a) to, sort of, run through that. had some other points standing and merits, which
happy discuss briefly answering any other questions.
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
THE COURT:
Okay. have
Sure.
Given this argument, assume that you
would agree that the Attorney General and the Secretary
Homeland Security dont have the authority put new
conditions federal funds that have been appropriated
Congress?
MR. READLER: think thats just generally true.
With respect grant, theres discretion afforded the
agency terms how
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
THE COURT:
MR. READLER: congress has given that discretion then they have it.
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
THE COURT:
Correct.
Correct, correct.
But, otherwise, they dont.
Correct.
You would agree with that?
Yes.
Because that would violate the separation powers; right?
MR. READLER:
THE COURT:
Yes.
Then, also, assume that you would
also agree that Congress, which does have the spending
power, wants condition grants under the spending power, they
can only ways that are reasonably related the
purpose the program.
with that?
MR. READLER:
The nexus requirement. you agree
Thats correct, Your Honor.
And thats why, with respect those issues, Ive
highlighted the fact that the order talks about expressly
federal grants issued these specific agencies.
And then, again, its three its three grants that DOJ
identified.
DHS has not, far know, identified any
grants yet.
But DOJ has identified three that expressly relate criminal justice issues immigration issues:
grant; the JAG grant; and the COPS grant.
three where they put these express conditions, given the
Departments authority so, regarding the compliance with
1373.
The SCAPP
And those are the think that would answer the constitutional questions
that the Court has raised.
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
Okay.
Just let return, then, our
threshold standing and ripeness arguments which were certainly
made the briefs.
But, again, theres been action threatened taken
against the cities.
Certainly, San Francisco says its compliance with
1373.
And Santa Clara not sure what their position and
whether theyre compliance with it.
compliance with 1373.
has been effect for years.
they spoke about this morning thats been effect for
least seven years. think theyre
But, certainly, the law has been 1373
Theyve had ordinance that
And theres been enforcement action
other actions taken suggest that that violation.
THE COURT:
Right.
But now youve got this new
Executive Order that that targets sanctuary
jurisdictions.
has made specifically with respect San Francisco.
think both the President and the Attorney General have said
things about the State California.
You have the comments that the Attorney General
And why dont they have standing bring pre-enforcement
action?
MR. READLER:
Pre-enforcement actions are typically
quite limited.
context when theres actual threat criminal penalties.
Sometimes they occur the First Amendment dont have that here. have have mean,
certainly have lots statements, whether they were during the
campaign otherwise, about focus sanctuary
jurisdiction
THE COURT: not talking about the campaign,
think, separate from whats happened since the President has
taken office.
MR. READLER:
But usually thats when you but
pre-enforcement actions are allowed. direct policy thats contravention with federal
policy.
here all. minimum, there has
And havent even identified whether thats clear
This use the term sanctuary jurisdiction is, again,
broad term.
people.
sentence failure comply with U.S.C. 1373.
And can mean different things different
And, importantly, Section 9(a) its used after the there the reference sanctuary jurisdiction
with respect city that violates 1373.
its being used there.
ways and lots different contexts.
certain things other things. know thats how
But can used lots other
And could include
But, again, have other than this very heated and
joined political dispute about what proper immigration policy
should be, theres actual enforcement action the table
thats even been even been formally threatened the city. think not aware case where where theres lack actual joined dispute about whether local policy
violates violates federal policy, whether there
pre-enforcement action would allowed.
awfully unusual. think would
And, again, usually theyre allowed where there either First Amendment which theres pretty broad chilling
concern, where sometimes allow them, criminal actions
where theres immediate criminal penalty about
imposed.
And neither those facts are existence here.
Ill discuss couple cases ripeness because think
there are number that would speak the issue.
One Texas vs. The United States.
There are number
those cases.
1998.
going impose sanctions against certain school districts
those school districts had acted way that the state
terms performance and other standards the state had put
forward. referring the Supreme Court decision from
That involved Texas new Texas law where they were
The Attorney General asserted that some those actions
would require preclearance the Justice Department under
Section the Voting Rights Act.
Texas disagreed with that
interpretation and filed suit.
And the Supreme Court ultimately held that that case was
not ripe because there had been actual sanctions issued
against the community which would then tee the issue for the
Justice Department whether those were violation Section the Voting Rights Act. not being ripe.
THE COURT:
And the Court dismissed the cases
They couldnt articulate who was who
was going challenged the Texas vs. The United States;
right?
MR. READLER:
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
And think
think, again, have the same issue here. think thats right.
Think its the same -Same issue have here.
Theres been specific identification any actual
sanctuary jurisdiction, youve used that, for example, for
the federal grant for preemption action.
Those actions may well come the future.
those could come the Courts attention right away.
theres potential imminent harm the cities from that, they
could ask for some kind injunctive relief.
deal with those cases.
Certainly
Lots ways
This facial challenge, again, the Executive Order,
which, one, just instructs the current law followed.
second, there are certainly numerous applications where
But,
would say its absolutely constitutional theres
absolutely constitutional application the the law.
The other case want just point out briefly the
Ninth Circuits banc decision.
papers.
Rights Commission.
Commission, banc Ninth Circuit 2000.
Its from 2000. dont think this our
Its Thomas vs. Anchorage Equity
Sorry, Thomas vs. Anchorage Equity Rights
And that involved fair housing law, think Alaska and
Anchorage had both passed, that barred discrimination
marital status housing.
organization that sued because they wanted rent out housing,
and they wanted give preference married couples
opposed those that were unmarried.
And there was, think, Christian
And that case made its way the Ninth Circuit.
And the
Ninth Circuit banc held that that action was not ripe
because there was not actually identif- there had not
been actual action taken potential landlord that then had
been penalized under the state law.
ripe action there. there was actual think that reasoning, that case, applies perfectly
the one before you.
THE COURT:
Usually when somebody has
interpretation that they want make, with respect the
challenged Executive Order cases that they want bring
the Courts attention, they that their briefing.
MR. READLER:
Well, yes, Your Honor. couple
responses that.
First first all, there were number threshold
ripeness issues that really flow from lot the same
arguments that wanted identify.
But, also, certainly, this Executive Order, which
encouraged, again, the Department Justice and Homeland
Security look these issues, they needed time that.
They needed time themselves interpret how what these
provisions mean.
The Department Justice big place.
And can
say that have consulted with members the Department
Justice make sure that they read this statute the same way today.
And they do. think that was just result of, one, there were some
very strong primary threshold arguments; and, two, make sure
that everyone the Department Justice reading the
Executive Order the way am. think, again, this the proper reading very
fair reading these terms.
federal funds.
DHS, and Attorney General,
And friends the other side have taken
dramatically the broadest possible reading you could take
this and identified constitutional concerns.
the standard interpretive practice that courts usually use.
And would encourage this court, again, read this
narrowly and avoid reading constitutional problems into the
Order where possible.
But thats not
Now, certainly, again, theres enforcement action where
theres live dispute and have certain application 1373, preemption action, then those issues would ripe for the
Courts resolution, and would know exactly the record that
were were speaking of.
And Ill just briefly, just couple couple the
constitutional issues.
brief did did cite the City New York case, where
the Second Circuit upheld 1373 number number years
ago.
for the statute.
And would note, the San Francisco theres certainly support for the constitutionality couple points.
First, the spending clause issues.
This not anything like NFIB vs. Sebelius, where percent the states total budget was issue those those
Medicaid rules were allowed forward.
Again, this Section 9(a) applies very narrow range,
very narrow range funding.
dollars are even issue here.
million dollars for Santa Clara.
probably help clarify that. not sure any San Francisco
There may less than not sure.
They can
But its very, very small money. were not even one, have unambiguous
requirement these grants that you have comply with 1373;
and, two, the dollar value extremely low when compared
the amounts where spending clause or, really, Tenth
Amendment problem might might arise. the Tenth Amendment issue, the courts, New York,
Printz, those kinds cases, those are cases where, course,
the local government commandeered and had been forced
carry out federal law.
Thats not whats issue here.
The most that state
locality would asked not bar the sharing
citizenship immigration status.
heart 1373.
enlisting and compulsion state officials carry out
federal regulatory regime that was issue Printz and
the state New York.
Thats, course, the
Thats far different than the the actual
And then, again, guess would just return to, finally,
the City New York case where 1373 was upheld
constitutional.
cities have been operating under it.
comply with it.
again, law thats been the books for least seven years,
thats not been challenged.
Again, thats been law for years.
The
San Francisco says they
Santa Clara complies with it.
They have, theres really not ripe dispute over 1373 today, but
theres also ample authority for being constitutional.
THE COURT:
All right.
So, guess, the bottom line your argument that the $1.7 billion federal funds that
Santa Clara has completely safe under the governments
interpretation the Executive Order, the 1.2 billion
for San Francisco, plus the 800 million multiyear grants?
Thats what youve just been telling me?
MR. READLER:
Yes, Your Honor. Ive been
interpreting Section 9(a) the way very fair extremely fair
reading those terms complies.
its terms, apply anywhere these these broader
financial concerns.
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. KEKER:
May respond briefly, Your Honor?
THE COURT:
Yes, course.
MR. KEKER:
With all due respect, the governments doesnt doesnt,
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Readler.
argument boils down the hope that President Trump and
Attorney General Sessions wont what they say they are doing
with this Executive Order, which to, quote, ensure that
jurisdictions that fail comply with applicable federal law not receive federal funds.
2(c), the Court pointed out.
Mr. Readler just read you Mr. Sessions March 27th press
conference. will claw back all federal funds.
And stopped right before the sentence that says
The reading that they are giving something sure
that some very wise lawyers who know the Constitution the
Department Justice Civil Division say, Heres something
that maybe could defend somebody ever did it.
But
not this Executive Order.
think can agree this, are dealing with this Executive
Order.
And what were dealing with
The text talks about all funds.
The the the
section that were talking about, Section talks about
sanctuary jurisdictions, and then works through powers that
the Attorney General going have.
explicitly says anybody that doesnt deal with detainers, and
just above sentence that says anybody that hinders and
on.
And (b) very
And then section (c), you need icing the cake, tells
Mr. Mulvaney, OMB, gather all not DHS, not Department Justice all federal funding and provide information only
under this rubric sanctuary jurisdictions.
going around finding out what all jurisdictions are getting.
They are finding out what sanctuary cities are getting.
Theyre not believe, the Court pointed out, said before,
the Justice Department had obligation, the briefing
schedule here, tell what they thought about this
Executive Order. further interpretation.
They did not what theyve come with wont wash.
Washington vs. Trump had the same problem the Ninth
Circuit.
something that the White House counsel has said writing,
because they dont really bind the people that care about.
And the Ninth Circuit said, were not going accept
Theres case the Eleventh Circuit called Hunter,
101 F.3d 1565, 1996 case that talks about, there, concessions Department Justice lawyer made court, statements
that made court, but couldnt say that the Solicitor
General Attorney General agreed with him.
just ignore him.
THE COURT:
And they chose
Well, just heard Mr. Readler say that
has taken this through the Department.
thats been that box has been checked off. believe that
And hes arguing just that the Order itself hes taking interpretation the Order, but hes not putting new
conditions it.
the Order says.
Hes saying this what the Department says
And whether agree with that interpretation not,
dont think its quite the same situation as, say,
Washington Trump.
MR. KEKER: Hunter.
The well, didnt hear him say that. didnt hear
that Attorney General Sessions had signed off this new
interpretation.
Order, the President, has signed off this new
interpretation. didnt hear that the author the Executive
And, any event, the interpretation what said was
DHS grants, Department Homeland Security grants the
future may have conditions that will that will have
conditions imposed.
dont want litigate Executive Order thats not before us.
But its not them, the Court pointed out, make
That would unconstitutional.
these conditions. mean,
power belongs there, not there. the job Congress.
The spending
And this interpretation were limited what they said their papers, which only Department Justice grants
that are specifically conditioned Congress enforcement
1373, why have this Executive Order? sense.
Order that talks about all funds, sanctuary cities and on,
would make sense. think, can take. makes absolutely
And the verbiage, the language the Executive its not interpretation the Court, have have talked about the harm. back over that, the harm thats happening now. not going
Mr. Williams talked about the millions dollars day
that are being spent right now and that the Board
Supervisors, dont get preliminary injunction, are
going have decide what about.
This business about standing, citing cases that werent
the brief, the case that matters the most recent
pronouncement standing the U.S. Supreme Court, 2014,
Susan Anthony List, which they have never responded
mentioned, and which stands for the proposition that actual
and well-founded fear that the law will enforced enough
for pre-enforcement action.
And, certainly, Susan Anthony stands for that.
The Texas cases stand for that.
Unless the Court has questions?
THE COURT:
Thats great.
MR. KEKER:
Thank you very much.
THE COURT:
Ms. Lee.
MS. LEE:
Thank you, Mr. Keker.
Thank you, Your Honor.
This not the first time that weve seen the DOJ make
some statements court and seen the Attorney General make
different statements. saw that March 27th, where court, the
Commonwealth vs. Lunn case, the DOJ said that detainer requests
are voluntary.
said public remarks, about sanctuary jurisdictions, that
detainer requests are not voluntary and the failure comply
with them violates federal law. that same day, Attorney General Sessions cannot rely today the representations that DOJ
counsel making here.
And the remarks the Attorney General are not just
bully pulpit.
interpreting the Executive Order.
consequences.
These are remarks about named defendant
And those remarks have real
Thats their intent and that their result. saw this the case Miami.
The Executive Order
issued.
honoring detainer requests even though the federal government
Miami understood mean that had start
doesnt reimburse for that, and changed its policies.
There question that that exactly what was
intended this Executive Order and that has already
happened. would like make few smaller points
THE COURT:
MS. LEE:
Okay. response counsels argument.
First, theres still clarity for San Francisco about
precisely which funds are stake. heard counsel say that, far knows,
San Francisco funds are implicated.
understanding even just based counsels representations
about the pocket funds that are implicated today.
impossible for respond that argument when dont
have clarity about the precise funds stake.
Thats not
Its
Further, the Executive Order does, fact, mention
detainer requests.
the counsel for DOJ state that the failure comply with
detainer requests not going the basis for withholding
federal funds.
And also havent heard with precision
That clarity that San Francisco and other jurisdictions
around the country need order able make informed
decision about how they will proceed.
that clarity coming into court.
stand here now.
THE COURT: lacked
And still lack
Thank you.
Ms. Eisenberg, was there something else you wanted add?
All right. lack it.
MS. EISENBERG:
Just very briefly, Your Honor. think nothing this new interpretation the
Executive Order changes the ripeness inquiry.
that there money stake result this Executive
Order.
The fact remains colleague just said, San Francisco actually does
receive some the money.
Director Whitehouse declaration that receive some that
money.
And thats the Mayors Budget
Theres money stake for San Francisco and for
jurisdictions around the country.
List, which Mr. Keker cited, dont have wait for them
come and get that money can articulate credible threat,
which uniquely can these circumstances given the comments
And under Susan Anthony
made, the official comments made the very people that the
Department Justice says are the ones that are directed
take action under this Executive Order. dont think anything this new interpretation
changes our ripeness arguments all.
THE COURT:
Thank you.
All right.
All right.
Mr. Simpson.
MR. READLER:
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
THE COURT:
May have rebuttal? you have something brief say.
Thank you.
Mr. Readler, please come up. looking forward hearing from old colleague
Mr. Simpson.
MR. READLER: may have something better say.
will preempt him just for for minute. would like back the March 27th statement.
And,
again, were not today offering new interpretation.
think that Your Honor understood that offering plain
reading what this means, and the other side offering
dramatic interpretation.
THE COURT:
Not particularly plain.
What was plain
reading, would have been argued earlier the papers.
But appreciate that you got this reading from the -from the Order.
And thats what going looking
when leave the bench.
MR. READLER:
Thank you, Your Honor.
With respect the March 27th statement, what the what
General Sessions said that some cities have adopted policies frustrate the enforcement immigration laws.
referred detainer requests.
speech.
And
That was one part the think could certainly fairly said that the federal
government would prefer that the cities comply with the
detainer requests, and that not doing would frustrate the
objectives the federal government because the federal
government has objective policing this area.
But that that had nothing with whether something sanctuary jurisdiction under Section 9(a) the order,
which goes specifically federal grants and the requirements,
and then preemption suits that could brought against local
jurisdiction for violations 1373.
That quote there says nothing about 1373. read you the
longer quote from from General Sessions, that went right
the 1373 issue that were talking about.
confusion about that.
There should
And appreciate friend, Mr. Keker, reading the last
sentence there, which said the Department Justice will take
lawful steps claw back any funds awarded jurisdiction
that willfully violates 1373.
First all, that was tied
directly the prior statements that read with respect
enforcement 1373 federal grants. this only clawback funds that would have been
made under federal grant the Department Justice the
Department Homeland Security and identified for the Court
that the only was just last year when the
Department first started including express requirements about
complying with 1373. only that limited range funds. thats the the clawback reference
And Santa Clara has not identified any funds that would
subject that.
thats thats little bit bit strawman thats been
put for the Court.
Neither has San Francisco. think
Just very briefly, one, with respect OMB, its
certainly OMBs job collect information and collect reports.
OMB not the one who would enforce federal immigration law.
They dont enforce federal grants that are administered DOJ
and DHS.
THE COURT:
That does, then, beg the question
whether this Executive Order was really designed, says
Section reach all federal funds whether
narrow youve interpreted Section 9(a).
MR. READLER:
Well, Section says that and
doesnt even tie this immigration.
statement that, Jurisdictions that fail comply with
Just says the general
applicable federal law not receive federal funds except
mandated law. first says were finding out jurisdictions arent
complying with the law.
jurisdictions comply with the law.
wont receive funds except mandated law.
out there are whole bunch laws that mandate funding. think everyone should want
And, two, says they
And turns this this very broad policy directive that not specific new enforcement action the President.
This doesnt seek invoke new powers. think Your Honor correctly identified Section being
the one that could potentially have ramifications.
talked length about that section, wont talk about
anymore.
And Ive
Ill just talk briefly about the pre-enforcement cases.
And the Driehaus case case where the Ohio Elections
Commission had previously taken
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
Are you bringing up, now, new cases? bringing the case that they
brought up, that they said that that didnt talk about
enough.
friends the other side talked about it.
The Driehaus only talking about because
THE COURT:
MR. READLER: ahead, Mr. Readler.
The Susan Anthony List case.
And that was pre-enforcement action where the election
commission had history taking certain kinds actions.
And there was potential threatened action against political
candidate there.
brought affirmative suit, recall.
And stop that enforcement, the candidate
THE COURT:
MR. READLER:
Yeah. think thats different
circumstance.
Ill turn over Mr. Simpson.
Thank you very much for
your time.
THE COURT:
MR. SIMPSON:
appear before the Court today.
Okay.
THE COURT:
MR. SIMPSON:
Thank you, Mr. Readler.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Its good
Pleasure see you.
Just very quick scheduling issue,
could, Your Honor.
The Court entered case management conference orders,
these two cases and the Richmond case, that set case
management conference for May 2nd.
misunderstood.
Court say earlier.
And might have not sure thats the date that heard the
THE COURT: still May 2nd? that date will still May 2nd.
But
want speak with you specifically, whoever from the
government, and the City about the 1373 challenge and how best tee that theres complete record before me.
thats what want whatever date gave you.
MR. SIMPSON:
THE COURT:
April 25th.
MR. SIMPSON:
April 25th.
And you can that
telephone. see.
Okay.
Thank you, Your Honor.
And that actually leads what had planned bringing
up.
And Ive talked counsel for the plaintiffs about this.
The case management conference thats currently scheduled
for May 2nd creates couple issues.
argument Richmonds preliminary injunction motion have the oral
May 2nd. the Court could have could give permission
participate the May 2nd conference phone, well, that
would pretty much take care the issues.
One the issues our response the complaint the
Santa Clara case due May 1st.
the May 2nd conference person, then would conflict
with actually filing that response the complaint the
Santa Clara case May 1st.
THE COURT:
Okay. happy have you need stay Washington finish your work, thats fine.
MR. SIMPSON:
THE COURT:
MR. SIMPSON: need come
All right.
Thank you, Your Honor. thats what youre saying.
The alternative, course, would
delay the May 2nd well, either delay the May 2nd conference perhaps even move the case management conferences
May 2nd, coincide with the Richmond argument.
THE COURT:
scheduling those things.
the bench.
Okay.
MR. SIMPSON:
THE COURT:
MR. SIMPSON:
THE COURT: havent looked the will look when get off
Okay.
And then well set something out.
All right.
All right.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you, everybody, for your
arguments.
Mr. Readler, thank you for coming out here and making the
argument for the government.
And will try get order out soon can.
MS. FINEMAN:
Your Honor, Nancy Fineman, from
Cotchett, Pitre McCarthy, for the City Richmond.
preliminary hearing the preliminary injunction May 10th.
Mr. Simpson mentioned the 2nd.
THE COURT:
Okay.
And our going look all the
scheduling with respect these various cases when get off
the bench.
Thank you, Ms. Fineman.
And Ill just say this for the lawyers:
Anybody who
intends have press conference should either use the
media room down the first floor outside, but dont the hallway here.
All right.
(Counsel thank the Court.)
(At 10:09 a.m. the proceedings were adjourned.)
Thank you very much.
CERTIFICATE REPORTER certify that the foregoing correct transcript
from the record proceedings the above-entitled matter.
DATE: Friday, April 14, 2017
______________________________________________
Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR #5812, RMR, CRR
U.S. Court Reporter
Associated Press http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics government/national
politics/article144613944.html
Chicago Tribune Chicago http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct trump sanctuary city order
20170414 story.html
KADL Minnesota http://kdal610.com/news/articles/2017/apr/14/california judge questions trumps sanctuary
city order/
TruNews Florida http://www.trunews.com/article/cities filing lawsuits against trumps sanctuary cities
NBC Madison Wisconsin http://www.nbc15.com/content/news/Hearing 419461084.html you weren able join the teleconference call, our office will also coordinate minute debrief
teleconference call within the next week so. interested, please let know directly via email
mario.lopez@bos.sccgov.org.
Sincerely,
Mario Lopez
Policy Aide Office Supervisor Dave Cortese
Third District County Santa Clara Hedding Street, 10th Floor
San Jose, 95110 (408) 299-5030 (408) 298-6637
Mario.lopez@bos.sccgov.org
www.supervisorcortese.org
Like Dave Facebook
Follow Dave Twitter
Hello Jenn, just spoke with Judy and have VIP parking spot for Mayor Arreguin 725 Potter Street, right past the
main event (located under the Siemens building). Can you pass that information onto his team?
Warmest Wishes,
Janiene Langford
Program Manager
Institute for STEM Education
510-885-7654
iMessage/Signal/WhatsApp-friendly
PGP public key: FD66 7EF3 F879 9FA0 B8BC 7377 BC6E 2AB6 0A2D DB6A
Twitter: @joshharkinson ing Stefan Elgstrand, the Mayor scheduler. Unfortunately meeting until 9:30am that may not
able get out of. very interested joining you all though. Stefan will follow with the Mayor and you and
make something work.
Best,
Brandi
Brandi Campbell
Chief Staff
Office Mayor Jesse Arreguin
City Berkeley
2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor
Berkeley, 94704
(510) 981 7104 phone
(510) 981 7199 fax
Bcampbell@ci.berkeley.ca.us
www.jessearreguin.com
Lets keep touch! Sign for the Mayor newsletterhere.
From: Matt Meyer [mailto:mattmeyer@berkeley.net]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:22
To: Campbell, Brandi 
Cc: Cathy Campbell 
Subject: Fwd: Invitation Speak BFT May 1st Action Berkeley High School
Hey Brandi, wanted forward you this invitation for the Mayor speak Berkeley High teachers and students
briefly 9:15 Monday morning (May 1st) across the street from the high school. Could you let
know either way whether this possible? Wed love have him speak about the great ways Berkeley
supporting immigrants our community.
Thanks very much,
Matt Meyer
Berkeley Federation Teachers Organizer
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Matt Meyer 
Date: Mon, Apr 24, 2017 5:38
Subject: Invitation Speak BFT May 1st Action Berkeley High School
To: mayor@cityofberkeley.info
Cc: Cathy Campbell , John Becker 
Dear Mayor Arreguin, met few weeks ago when you spoke Berkeley High. organizer with the Berkeley Federation
Teachers and teacher Berkeley High. are putting together short rally May 1st that will conclude
with walk in. Part our action letter writing campaign happening before the rally counter the Trump
agenda. plan write letters you well thanking you for your support immigrant students and
families Berkeley. would love you would interested coming speak the assembled crowd teachers, classified
staff, students and parents.
The rally will occur around 9:15 across the street from Berkeley High and end 9:40 time for the
school day begin.
Thanks for letting know this might work for you.
Thanks,
Matt Meyer
BIHS Economics Teacher
Co-Lead Berkeley High Redesign
Berkeley Federation Teachers Organizer
-Sent from Gmail Mobile
Local Progress
All Member Strategy Call
12/15/2016
Welcome Introduction
Reflections from our Cities
Supervisor John Avalos
San Francisco,
Local Progress Board Chair
Councilmember Elizabeth Glidden, Minneapolis,
Councilmember Valerie Cartright, Town Brookhaven,
Community College Board Trustee Zeph Capo, Houston,
Councilmember Robin Kniech, Denver,
Resisting, Fighting Back Protecting Communities
Councilmember Helen Gym
Philadelphia,
Protecting Immigrant Communities
Carlos Menchaca
New York City,
Building the Movement Resist Trump
Dorcey Applyrs
Albany,
Fighting for Equity Accountability
(Infrastructure Bill)
Cities, towns and counties Places Progress
Councilmember Brad Lander
New York City,
Building the Progressive Bench
Councilmember Bill Henry
Baltimore,
QA
Sarah Johnson
Local Progress Co-Director
11/14/16
PRIVILEGED CONFIDENTIAL
Pardoning Immigrants Last Chance Help Remedy the Broken Immigration System
Legal Authority2
President Obama has recognized that the broken immigration system has failed immigrants and
failed America. result, announced two landmark deferred action programs (Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals DACA Deferred Action for Parental Accountability DAPA )). Unfortunately, one the programs was blocked litigation and the other will
almost certainly undone the new administration. Nevertheless, there way the President
can still make good his promise provide immigrant communities with measure stability
and justice. categorical immigration pardon could provide permanent protection broad
swath immigrants. Supreme Court precedent, opinions from the Office Legal Counsel
(OLC), historical practice and the plain text the Constitution all suppor conclusion that the
President could issue such pardon, which would protect broad egory migrants from the
penalties imposed for various civil violations the nation immigration laws. Plain Language the Constitution Indicates that Pardon Power Reaches All Offenses
Against the United States, Including Civil Offenses: Constitution grants the President the
Power grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences inst the United States[.] U.S.
CONST., art II, The use the term offenses rather crimes, which used
many other places the Constitution, U.S. CONST. art art. amend
amend VI; amend XIII; amend XIV ndica
hat the Framers did not intend limit the
power pardon solely criminal offense SCOTUS has Held that the Pardon Power Not Limited the Criminal Context: the only
instance which the Sup
Court was squ rely presented with the question whether the
President can pardon non-crim offenses, Parte Grossman, the Court indicated could,
upholding pardon sued for contempt findi (which not crime) and holding that the
term offense the
don clause more comprehensive than are the terms
crimes and criminal ecutions. U.S. 87, 117-18 (1925). OLC has
lly Sugge that the President May Able Pardon Civil Immigration
Violations: The clearly pressed its judgment that the pardon power can reach civil
off ses, see Power Pres dent Remit Fines, Op. Atty. Gen. 458 (1845), and has
even pecifically sugg ted that the President could directly pardon least some civil
immigr offenses, fect Presidential Pardon Aliens Who Left the Country Avoid
Military vice, Off. Legal Counsel 34, n.10 (1977). SCOTUS Has Held that the Pardon Power Includes that Power Issue Broad Pre- PostProsecution Amnesties, and that Congress May Not Limit the Pardon Power: Armstrong
United States, the Supreme Court held that was within the President Lincoln pardon power grant categorical amnesties. U.S. (13 Wall.) 154, 156 (1871). The Supreme Court has
been equally clear that pardon may occur before, during, after prosecution, parte
Garland, U.S. Wall.) 333, 380 (1866), and that the power cannot limited abridged any way Congress, Schick Reed, 419 U.S. 256, 266 (1974).
See Peter Markowitz, Can Obama Pardon Millions Immigrants?, N.Y. TIMES (Op-Ed July 2016).
See generally Messing, Noah, New Power?: Civil Offenses and Presidential Clemency (March 25, 2016),
BUFF. REV. (forthcoming), available SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2754845; Markowitz, Peter L.,
Prosecutorial Discretion Power its Zenith: The Power Protect Liberty (February 17, 2016), B.U. REV.
(forthcoming), available SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2753709.
11/14/16
PRIVILEGED CONFIDENTIAL
Historical Record There are Many Historical Examples Presidents Issuing Categorical Pardons Heal
Divisions Furtherance the National Interest: President Carter, for example, his
very first day office issued categorical unconditional pardon approximately half
million men who had violated draft laws avoid military service Vietnam. doing, followed the examples Presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln,
Truman and Ford who all had issued broad categorical amnesties.3 Categorical Pardons Have Been Issued Specifically Because Disagreement with the
Statutory Scheme Enacted Congress: President Jefferson disagreed with Congress
decision criminalize what saw protected speech under the Sediti Act. Accordingly, pardoned all individuals convicted facing prosecution under Act. The Historical Record Regarding the King England Prerogati Makes Clear that the
Pardon Power Extends Civil Offenses: The Supreme Court has een clear that the
President pardon power identical the analogous power exercise the King
England the time the founding: the king prerogative. See Parte Gros man, 267 U.S.
87, 109 (1925), parte Wells, U.S. 307, 308 (1855); United States Wil U.S.
150, 160 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.)). The histori record makes clear that the king
prerogative was repeatedly invoke outside the crimina ontext.4
Which Immigrants Could the President Pardon? Pardon Immigrants with Minor Old Convictions: immigration laws can have
devastating and disproportionate consequences immigrants (especially long-term lawful
permanent residents) with the most min criminal ictions, even the convictions
occurred decades ago. The Obama Admin stration has made clear its judgment that not all
individuals with criminal
victions should the focus enforcement actions.5 most
situations, President Obama pardon the convictions themselves because they are state
convictions. Howev based the legal and storical precedent above, the President could
directly pardon feder ivil igration penalties (such deportation) that are triggered
such convictions and/o applicati the provisions federal law that disqualify
individuals with criminal victions from individualized custody determinations and from
various affirmativ
thways permanent legal status. Pardon and Parole Recipients and Other Immigrants Who Face Unfair Obstacles
Reg rization Statu Certain violations immigration law including prior orders
remov accrual awful presence and unauthorized work, among others operate
disqualify rge categ ries immigrants, including many DACA and potential DAPA
recipients,
critical pathways lawful status that would otherwise available them.
President Obam issue categorical pardon that would open pathways lawful status for
many these immigrants. such recipients were simultaneously granted parole place,
many would immediately have viable path adjust permanent legal status. in-depth review the legal precedent, historical record and mechanics which categories immigrants can
pardoned currently process. For further information about any these topics, please contact Professor Peter Markowitz Cardozo School Law peter.markowitz@yu.edu 212-790-0340.
See W.H. Humbert, THE PARDONING POWER THE PRESIDENT, 39-40 (1941); Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, The
Executive Duty Disregard Unconstitutional Laws, GEO. L.J. 1613, 1664-65 (2008).
See Messing supra note 23-25.
Memorandum from Jeh Charles Johnson, Sec U.S. Dept Homeland Sec., Thomas Winkowski, Acting
Dir., U.S. Immigration Customs Enft, al. 3-4 (Nov. 20, 2014), available
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutorial_discretion.pdf.
Pre Inauguration National Actions Overview 12/10/16
This document brief overview for Local Progress members the major national direct
actions currently moving response Trump. There lot moving. While there are other
possible national actions (and many different local and state actions motion) well, the
following actions are the largest national days action.
Week December Don Take Our Healthcare week action launch national
resistance ACA, Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP cuts. Coordinated HCAN. Info here.
January Marches Protect Immigrants Refugees cities throughout the
country protect immigrant communities. Coordinated FIRM and United Dream
with significant engagement from number other national allies and local immigrant
advocacy groups. Info here English and here Spanish.
January National day action education goal actions 1,000
communities resist Trump education agenda and cabinet nominee Betsy DeVos.
Coordinated AROS partnership with NEA, AFT, CPD, and others. Info here.
January Inauguration day. anticipate there will large number local
actions. encourage members share their local actions with and will work
compile and share additional information about local actions that hear about from
national and local partners.
January Women March Washington Info here. you are participating any these actions want share information about any other
actions happening either locally nationally, please contact Local Progress Membership
Programming Associate Tarsi Dunlop (tdunlop@populardemocracy.org) sure tweet
@LocalProgress.
micro-units with onsite healthcare, social services, and assisted living services. passed
unanimously. hope that this will provide road map for future supportive housing
developments that can replicated other affected communities.
Community Meeting Armed Robberies. held community meeting discuss the
neighborhoods concerns about armed robberies and other community violence. 150 people
attended. Mayor Arreguin, Officer Spencer Fomby, and spoke the Berkeley Police
Departments work improve public safety, including recruiting more officers, and forming unit focus violent crime. Special thanks the Krav Maga experts who provided
instruction tactics for self-defense!
Small Sites Acquisition Program and Tenants Opportunity Purchase Act. cosponsored this initiative the Mayor. The small sites program will assist non-profits with
acquiring properties create permanently affordable units. The Tenants Opportunity
Purchase Act will offer existing tenants the first right refusal when property owners place
rental property the sales market, which can transferred qualifying affordable
housing provider. This passed unanimously.
Supporting HR5 and SR9 Support Planned Parenthood. co-sponsored
Councilmember Wengraf initiative send letter support House Resolution No.
and Senate Resolution No. pledging oppose any plans defund Planned Parenthood
the federal administration. This passed unanimously.
Pro-Trump Rally March Last Saturday, Trump supporters gathered outside City Hall downtown Berkeley. was scene working with Mayor Arreguin assist
peacekeeping and First Amendment protections.
Coming
2902 Adeline St. For over year, the East Bay Community Law Center has worked
diligently with South Berkeley residents ensure that the developer 2902 Adeline St.
would responsive South Berkeley community needs especially surrounding
displacement and housing affordability issues. had roller coaster hearing Tuesday
night. The Mayor and are working hard with the neighbors, EBCLC, and the developer
achieve the best possible result for our community. want ensure that this project will
serve model for Equitable Development South Berkeley and the community large.
Come support our efforts April
Anti-Displacement Public Advocate. are the convergence housing and racial
equity crisis the Berkeley African American population has declined 37% since 2000.
Existing legal aid service providers are massively under resourced. response this crisis, are introducing initiative create Anti-Displacement Public Advocate, which the
first its kind the nation. The Advocate will responsible for providing legal
representation; coordinating housing counselling and financial literacy training; conducting
community stakeholder meetings; and providing outreach community members at-risk
displacement. Come speak support this matter March 28!
Border Wall Divestment. keeping with the ethical vision government and its finances, proposed resolution for the City Berkeley divest from all companies involved
the construction Trumps border wall. not believe demonizing people Mexican
and Latin American descent. Furthermore, the construction border wall would waste
enormous amount taxpayer money, hurt the environment, contribute climate change,
divide ancestral native lands, disrupt tribal communities, increase international tensions, and
reinforce failed Cold War policies isolationism and exclusion. must speak with our
dollars. Come speak support this matter March 14!
Anti-Dumping Initiative. are working with BART Director Lateefah Simon tackle
the longstanding problem illegal dumping that has been unaddressed until now. are
doing research into the causes illegal dumping, and are talking other Cities that have
tried out different policies and programs. will keep you posted our progress! Please
reach out with ideas suggestions!
Neighborhood Impact Meetings. Over the past few months, have held several
Neighborhood Impact Meetings (colloquially, NIM), help community members mediate
longstanding neighborhood disputes. During these meetings, sit down with both sides
neighborhood dispute, and over the course afternoon, hash things out and reach
resolution. Our most recent NIM was the community meeting armed robberies. Our next
NIM will regarding the Shattuck Ave CBCB dispensary, and will held the Starry
Plough April Save the date! Let know you need assistance with any neighborhood
issues!
Tenant Protection Ordinance. are co-sponsoring the Mayors initiative propose
Tenant Protection Ordinance. The Ordinance provides civil remedy tenants for cases
harassment. More than ever, renters are being subject constant disruptive behavior
means constructively evict. Some have also received verbal written threats eviction,
with legal basis. imperative that protect our tenants. This being considered
the March Council meeting. Come speak support!
Escape Alcatraz. are working with local businesses putting together block party Alcatraz Ave over the summer. Stay tuned for more! the Works. are working fast track the development Backyard Cottages
(Accessory Dwelling Units), and are developing South Berkeley community benefits
overlay.
Events
Ben The Community
March 18, 12pm
Sweet Adelines, 3350 Adeline St. holding monthly office hours district coffee shop. The photo the right was
from February office hours. Please stop by!
City Council Meetings
March and 28, 7pm
City Hall, 2134 MLK St.
Topics the agenda include the Anti-Displacement Public Advocate, the Tenant Protection
Ordinance, and the Resolution Divest from Trumps Border Wall. Come voice your
opinion!
Commissioner Spotlight delighted introduce Christine Schwartz appointee the Disability
Commission.
Christine has lived Berkeley since 1991. She community leader and activist.
addition serving the Disability Commission, she also Interim Housing Advisory
Commissioner, member the Berkeley Tenants Union, and participant the Alameda
County Council Disabilities. She also volunteers her time with numerous other City and
County programs relating disability rights, tenants rights, and public safety.
Christine advocacy began early age. Christine learned firsthand from watching her
mother (an immigrant from Ecuador, widowed with six children), deal with the tragedies
homelessness, and the imbalance power that exists between landlord and tenants. the
age 25, Christine became the primary caregiver for her twin sister with disabilities.
Christine has maintained this privilege and these responsibilities since.
Christine driven with passion, commitment, and focus advocate behalf the health
and safety everyone our society, particularly those that are vulnerable, including
individuals with disabilities, seniors, families, tenants, and low and moderate income
residents.
Internship Volunteer Opportunities you are interested working with our office, please reach out. need interns all ages!
Lastly, happy birthday Vicki Alexander, South Berkeley legend.
Cheers,
Benny
Vision. Ethics. Courage.
Councilmember Ben Bartlett
-=-=Councilmember Ben Bartlett Berkeley, 94703, United States
This email was sent jarreguin@gmail.com. stop receiving emails, click here.
You can also keep with Councilmember Ben Bartlett Twitter Facebook.
-=-=Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders.
Jesse Arregu
Mayor, City Berkeley
510.646.2852 cell
510.981.7100 office
www.jessearreguin.com
International Workers Day General Strike March
Monday, May 1st, 2017
3pm
Rally Fruitvale Plaza
4pm
March San Antonio Park
Why Strike, Why March
International Workers Day has been time uplift the struggles, honor the sacrifices, and celebrate the triumphs working people
across the world. stand Ohlone Indigenous land this May 1st, march celebration and resistance with our families,
friends, neighbors, and co-workers our communities, and solidarity with working people across all borders, continue the
historic struggle against economic and social inequity. With Trump administration power, rising fascist tendency, and growing
economic and political oppression people everywhere, this May Day march the spirit organizing and defending our
communities from state violence and toward liberation and self-determination. You can read the full text our Points Unity
online here. make this mobilization one that goes down the hxstory books, must leverage people power and broad based support. There
are many ways get involved this year march; taking part outreach, volunteering May 1st for security other roles,
donating money, approaching organizations endorse this march. you want get involved, email
oaklandmayday@googlegroups.com. You can also visit the event website oaklandsinfronteras.wordpress.com.
Donations encourage anyone able to, make financial contribution support the event. Donations will toward making sure have
all the materials necessary carry out this mobilization safe and organized way. NOT have any budget for food, drinks
and other materials, are relying the generosity our community. Donations can made out Mujeres Unidas
Activas with Oakland Sin Fronteras the memo line and mailed MUA 3543 18th #23, San Francisco, 94110. you are part organization, would love your organizational support Endorsing.
Endorsements:
This May Day looks one the largest recent history and important that get all our family, friends, co-workers, and
neighbors out the street. love count your organization support and participation. Endorsers commit publicizing the
event, turning out your members. endorse this year International Workers Day General Strike and March May 1st, complete
the form April 20th, oaklandsinfronteras.wordpress.com/endorse. solidarity,
Oakland Sin Fronteras
-Sagnicthe Salazar
510-812-1426 long lungs can breath, will fight for Justice and Liberation. And when move the spirit world,
will continue work there! annonymous
-You received this message because you are subscribed the Google Groups OaklandMayDay group. unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send email
oaklandmayday+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. post this group, send email oaklandmayday@googlegroups.com. view this discussion the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/oaklandmayday/CAENQBRt07Mu4u5%3DbD%2BrMWAPohv1RDOon5J
Xqx0LC1LR6Cak1xw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
clgraham@berkeley.edu Apr 25, 2017, 4:09 PM, Commission  wrote:
Dear Ms. Graham:
This reminder that your Annual Affidavit Residency and Form 700-Statement
Economic Interests for your position the Commission Disability were due April
2017 and remain outstanding.
The Affidavit Residency must received the City Clerk department later than
May 2017; failure submit this form this deadline will result automatic
termination from your position the Homeless Commission accordance with
Berkeley Municipal Code 2.04.145. addition, the Citys Conflict Interest Code requires automatic termination board
and commission members who fail file economic interest statements timely
manner well possible fines and penalties. Please note that all forms must
returned hard copy and have your original signature (photocopies and scans are not
accepted). have attached the required forms well your Form 700 disclosure
requirements. Please feel free contact our office you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Leslie Rome
City Clerk Department
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, 94704
Ph. (510) 981-6914 Fax (510) 981-6901
website: www.cityofberkeley.info
email: lrome@cityofberkeley.info ensure timely response from staff, please send all commission related requests and
information the Commission Inbox commission@cityofberkeley.info.
Apply for Passports the Berkeley City Clerk Department
COMMISSION DISABILITY APPENDIX
Designated Officials
Members the Commission
Disclosure Category
All members the Commission shall disclose business entities and non-profit
organizations which they hold investment which they are director, officer,
partner, trustee, employee have any position management; and income, including
gifts, loans, and travel payments; the business entity, non-profit organization, source
income within the previous two years has provided services, goods, equipment
disabled persons.
EXHIBIT B-7
G:CLERKCONFLICT CODECode Updates2016 CodeReportExhibit BB-7 Disability.DOC
09/16
2016/2017
Statement
Economic Interests
Form 700 Public Document
Also available the FPPC website:
Form 700 Excel format
Reference Pamphlet for Form 700
California Fair Political Practices Commission
Email Advice: advice@fppc.ca.gov
Toll-free advice line: (866) ASK-FPPC (866) 275-3772
Telephone: (916)322-5660 Website: www.fppc.ca.gov
December 2016
What New
How file:
Gift Limit Increase
The gift limit increased $470 for calendar years 2017
and 2018. The gift limit during 2016 was $460.
The Form 700 available www.fppc.ca.gov. Form
700 schedules are also available Excel format. All
statements must have original wet signature
duly authorized your filin office fil electronically
under Government Code Section 87500.2. Instructions,
examples, FAQs, and reference pamphlet are available help answer your questions.
Gifts Travel individual receives payment that reportable
gift for travel taken after January 2016, she
must disclose the travel destination. (See Schedule
instructions for other details that must disclosed.)
Who must file:
Elected and appointed official and candidates listed
Government Code Section 87200
Employees, appointed officials and consultants filin
pursuant conflic interest code code filers
Obtain your disclosure categories, which describe
the interests you must report, from your agency;
they are not part the Form 700
Candidates running for local elective office that are
designated conflic interest code (e.g., county
sheriffs, city clerks, school board trustees, and water
board members)
Exception: Candidates for county central committee are
not required fil the Form 700.
Members newly created boards and commissions not
yet covered under conflic interest code
Employees newly created positions existing
agencies
See Reference Pamphlet, page www.fppc.ca.gov.
Where file:
87200 Filers
State offices
Judicial offices
Retired Judges
County offices
City offices
Multi-County offices
Your agency
The clerk your court
Directly with FPPC
Your county filin officia
Your city clerk
Your agency
Code Filers State and Local Officials, Employees,
and Consultants Designated Conflict Interest
Code: File with your agency, board, commission unless
otherwise specifie your agency code (e.g., Legislative
staff file directly with FPPC). most cases, the agency,
board, commission will retain the statements.
Members Boards and Commissions Newly
Created Agencies: File with your newly created agency with your agency code reviewing body.
Employees Newly Created Positions Existing
Agencies: File with your agency with your agency
code reviewing body. See Reference Pamphlet, page
Candidates: File with your local elections office
When file:
Annual Statements
March 2017 Elected State Officer Judges and Court Commissioners State Board and State Commission Members listed Government Code Section 87200
April 2017 Most other filer
Individuals filin under conflic interest codes city and
county jurisdictions should verify the annual filin date with
their local filin officers
Statements postmarked the filin deadline are
considered file time.
Assuming Office and Leaving Office Statements
Most filer fil within days assuming leaving offic within days the effective date newly adopted amended conflic interest code.
Exception: you assumed offic between October 2016, and
December 31, 2016, and file assuming offic statement,
you are not required fil annual statement until March 2018, April 2018, whichever applicable. The
annual statement will cover the day after you assumed offic
through December 31, 2017. See Reference Pamphlet,
pages and for additional exceptions.
Candidate Statements
File later than the fina filin date for the declaration
candidacy nomination documents.
Amendments
Statements may amended any time. You are only
required amend the schedule that needs revised. not necessary amend the entire file form. Obtain
amendment schedules www.fppc.ca.gov.
There provision for filing deadline extensions
unless the filer serving active military duty.
Statements pages less may faxed the
deadline long the originally signed paper version
sent firs class mail the filin officia within hours.
Introduction
The Political Reform Act (Gov. Code Sections 8100091014) requires most state and local government official
and employees publicly disclose their personal assets
and income. They also must disqualify themselves
from participating decisions that may affect their
personal economic interests. The Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC) the state agency responsible for
issuing the attached Statement Economic Interests,
Form 700, and for interpreting the law provisions.
Post-Governmental Employment
Gift Prohibition
Late Filing
Gifts received most state and local officials employees,
and candidates are subject limit. During 2015 and
2016, the gift limit was $460 from single source per
calendar year. For years 2017-2018, the limit increased
$470 from single source during calendar year. addition, state officials state candidates, and certain
state employees are subject $10 limit per calendar
month gifts from lobbyists and lobbying firm registered
with the Secretary State. See Reference Pamphlet,
page 10.
State and local official and employees should check with
their agency determine other restrictions apply.
Disqualification
Public official are, under certain circumstances, required disqualify themselves from making, participating in,
attempting