Date: Sat, March 31, 2018 2:00 pm
Everyone!
We have seen incredible victories across Southern California against the unconstitutional Sanctuary State Law (SB 54)
Now we need to get more victories in Northern California, too, along with the North State Counties which have already opted out of SB 54 (Tehama, Siskiyou, Shasta, El Dorado, etc).
We need to get people to attend the next Yolo County Board of Supervisors Meeting.
They are planning to remove ICE completely from the county jails!
Here is all the information you need:
Email addresses to Yolo County Board of Supervisors and staff:
marianne.estes@yolocounty.org;oscar.villegas@yolocounty.org;carol.strunk@yolocounty.org;
don.saylor@yolocounty.org;tara.thronson@yolocounty.org;jessica.jones@yolocounty.org;
matt@rexroad.com;dotty.pritchard@yolocounty.org;jim.provenza@yolocounty.org;
richard.reed@yolocounty.org;sandra.rodriguez@yolocounty.org;sheila.allen@yolocounty.org;
duane.chamberlain@yolocounty.org;patricia.valenzuela@yolocounty.org;
ana.vazquez@yolocounty.org
Phone Numbers:
County Administrator's Office at (530) 666-8150.
Clerk of the Board at (530) 666-8195.
Here's the article detailing what the Yolo County Board of Supervisors are planning to do:
|
|
www.sacbee.com
The Yolo County Board of Supervisors is considering canceling its contract with federal authorities to detain two dozen immigrant teens in its high-security facility following disclosures last year that some youth there were improperly labeled as gang members.
|
Below, you will find a draft ordinance and template letter to send to them to OPT OUT of SB 54, Sanctuary State.
PLEASE Get the word out.
The Yolo County Board of Supervisors Meeting:
04/03/2018 9:00 AM
Location: Board Chambers
625 Court Street, Room 206
Woodland, California 95695
DRAFT OF ORDINANCE:
City of [CITY]
Agenda Report Date:
Ordinance Item No.:
To: Mayor & Members of the City Council
Via: City Manager
From:
Subject: Introduce Ordinance Adding Chapter X Constitution
of the United States Compliance
Summary: This is an opportunity to discuss the Council’s desire to show its resolve
and support for the Constitution of the United States by adopting a Resolution or
Ordinance.
Recommendations:
1. Introduce for first reading, read by title only, and waive further reading of
Ordinance No. X; and,
2. Title of Ordinance: “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF [CITY], CALIFORNIA: CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES COMPLIANCE.”
Background and Discussion
The California Values Act (SB54) is contrary to the United States Constitution and
infringes on the rights of the citizens of the City of [CITY]. Furthermore, it affects
the City Council’s oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
In view of this contradiction, it is impossible to comply with both the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution of the State of California. When two governing
documents contradict each other, the order of precedence needs to be invoked and
followed.
In this situation, my belief is that the Constitution of the United States has precedence
over the Constitution of the State of California, so therefore I am proposing that the City
Council discuss and adopt Ordinance No. 2018-03 to exempt the City of [CITY]
from the California Values Act.
ORDINANCE NO. X
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF [CITY]CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER
X CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES COMPLIANCE
WHEREAS, the members of the City of [CITY] City Council have taken an
oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of
the State of California, and
WHEREAS, the State of California enacted SB54, called the California Values
Act, and
WHEREAS, the California Values Act is codified into Government Code Title 1,
Division 7, Chapter 17.25 entitled "Cooperation with Immigration Authorities", and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of [CITY], a Charter City, finds that it is
impossible to honor our oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States and to be in compliance with California Government Code Title 1, Division 7,
Chapter 17.25, and
WHEREAS, employees of the City of [CITY], residents, business owners,
guests, visitors, employees and employees of the United States Department of Defense
who proudly serve our Nation while stationed on the Joint Forces Training Base, are
entitled to the protections afforded by the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of
Rights, and the Amendments to the Constitution, and
WHEREAS, employers, including the City of [CITY], operating within the
jurisdiction of the City of [CITY]who accept Federal Contracts and must comply
with Federal Law, including lawful requests for access to premises, and
WHEREAS, the entire Joint Forces Training Base may be required to comply
with Federal Laws and is wholly located within the boundaries of the City of [CITY], and
WHEREAS, the California Values Act may be in direct conflict with Federal Laws
and the Constitution of the United States;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF [CITY]
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of [CITY], California finds that the
above recitals are true and correct and incorporates them by reference herein.
CC ORD 2018-03
SECTION 2. Chapter 9.30 Constitution of the United States Compliance is hereby
added to the [CITY]Municipal Code as follows:
X Constitution of the United States Compliance
The City of [CITY], a Charter City, does hereby exempt the City of [CITY]
from the California Values Act, Government Code Title 1, Division 7,
Chapter 17.25 and instead will comply with the appropriate Federal Laws and the
Constitution of the United States.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it
would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision,
sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions
thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
cause a summary thereof to be published within fifteen (15) days of the adoption and
shall post a Certified copy of this Ordinance, including the vote for and against the
same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section
36933.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of April, 2018.
, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
X, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF [COUNTY]) ss.
CITY OF LOS [CITY])
I, CMC, City Clerk of the City of [CITY], do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2018-03 was duly introduced and placed upon
its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on X day of X, 2018, and
that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of
the City Council on the X day of X, 2018, by the following roll-call vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
LETTER TEMPLATE:
Please Pass a Constitution Compliance Ordinance/Resolution--Disregard/Opt out of SB 54
Dear [County] County Board of Supervisors and staff:
My name is __________, a life-long California resident [OR WHATEVER YOUR STATUS/BACKGROUND] deeply concerned about SB 54, the sanctuary state law which is endangering our public safety officers, our businesses, and our fellow citizens.
I am writing this extended letter to all of you urging the county to pass an ordinance/resolution rejecting compliance with the unconstitutional California Values Act, i.e. SB 54. The legislation creates a direct conflict for municipal governments between compliance with state and federal law.
This crisis must be resolved, especially for private firms who must comply with federal law, yet face fines and prosecution from the state attorney general for doing so. The same holds true for police and other public safety and civil servants in the state of California. This schism between federal and state law is untenable.
We are a nation of laws, and cities and counties can draft ordinances/resolutions that reflect not just the oaths of office taken by every elected official, but also the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. 2)
The City of Los Alamitos has submitted and approved an ordinance called "Constitution of the United States Compliance," which resolves the above conflict for their city, civil staff, residents, and businesses. They have opted to disregard SB 54 and comply with federal law.
Entire counties in Northern California have already opted out of SB 54, refusing to disobey federal law, including Tehama, Siskiyou and Shasta counties. Kern County still cooperates fully with ICE, too. The Orange County Board of Supervisors just passed a resolution condemning SB 54 and filing an amicus brief with the Department of Justice against the State of California. The city of Mission Viejo has done the same thing, along with the city of Yorba Linda. The week of April 2, 2018, the cities of Huntington Beach and Aliso Viejo will be considering similar ordinances, too. Glendora, Murrieta, and other Southern California cities are exploring their options, too,
Sheriffs throughout the state are rejecting this lawlessness. El Dorado County Sheriff John D’Agostini officially asserted that he would comply with federal law, not the contradictory state law. Orange County Sheriff Sarah Hutchens has released the information on all inmates and their release times, including illegal aliens, in full cooperation with federal agencies and in defiance of the unlawful, unconstitutional California, Sanctuary State legislation. Even in Los Angeles County, Sheriff Jim McDonnell has taken every step possible to ensure public safety and cooperate with ICE in spite of repeated pressure from Sacramento politicians, the left-wing Board of Supervisors, and open-border advocates.
Here are the news articles announcing Los Alamitos’ decision to opt out of SB 54:
http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/los-alamitos-rejects-ca-state-sanctuary-law
|
|
www.foxla.com
Los Alamitos Council members voted 4-1 to ignore CA sanctuary laws Monday night.
|
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Los-Alamitos-Weighs-Opts-Out-of-So-Called-Sanctuary-Law-477349573.html
|
|
www.nbclosangeles.com
A Southern California city has opted exempt itself from a state law that limits cooperation between local police and federal immigration agents.
|
[COUNTY] County can and must do the same. The county has the authority and the responsibility to do so.
I have provided a template attached with the exact same language as the ordinance passed in Los Alamitos.
Of course, the [COUNTY] County Board of Supervisors should direct legal and civil staff to look over the language of the ordinance to affirm that everything is in proper order.
For the PDF file of the Los Alamitos Ordinance, see below, pg. 171-173:
http://cityoflosalamitos.org/?wpfb_dl=3092
|
cityoflosalamitos.org
CITY OF LOS ALAMITOS 3191 Katella Avenue Los Alamitos, CA 90720 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Monday, March 19, 2018 – 6:00 p.m. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC – This Agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered.
|
[County] County should take on the state legislature's affront to the rule of law imposed on California's municipalities because of SB 54. The county has taken the lead on many issues. This is one core matter which the city can and should take a stand on.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
You are out of your fucking mind.
ReplyDelete