The city of Camarillo was supposed
to be the second victory in Ventura County against SB 54. In some senses, there
were wins, even though the city council decided to do nothing for now.
It’s strange and sad that the city
council chose to do nothing about SB 54 as a law, when the city council had
issued a letter opposing SB 54 while still a bill going through the state
legislature.
What happened? The patriots did
outnumber the open border bigots, brown supremacists, and Democratic handlers
in the audience. The California patriots showed up organized and ready to make
their case and pressure the city council to oppose SB 54 a second time:
Even Don Rosenberg of Westlake
Village, and a leading member of Advocates for Victims of Illegal Crime,
arrived to speak at the meeting. His stake in the fight is particularly
important since his son was killed by an illegal alien in sanctuary city San
Francisco.
Our Camarillo team displayed courage
and boldness like never before, and yet our organization and skills did not
convince the Camarillo City Council to take the next steps against SB 54.
Why? I submit two reasons:
- Sheriff Dean spoke out against any further actions on
SB 54.
- The city attorney gave a biased, incomplete presentation
on the law and responses from the state.
Sheriff Geoff Dean is not running
for re-election, probably in part because of his tacit support for SB 54 after
vocally opposing the measure when it was going through the state legislature.
However, the city attorney Brian Pierik’s extended presentation probably harmed
our cause more than the bitter, racist remarks of the SB 54 proponents.
 |
| Camarillo City Attorney Brian Pierik |
He offered extensive legal research
for the Department of Justice lawsuit against the state of California, touching
on the arguments from both sides. He also listed eight options for the city
council to pursue.
Then he tipped his hand publicly
when he declared that he had no interest in writing an amicus brief or signing
off on an official letter opposing SB 54. His remarks were unprofessional and
inappropriate, since a city attorney serves the city, not at his own pleasure,
and is responsible to advise the council not provide his own preferences.
For my public comment in favor of a
resolution against SB 54 along with an amicus brief, I had prepared some
scripted remarks. After Camarillo city attorney Brian Pierik's very biased,
incomplete presentation, I called him out on everything that he had overlooked:
1.
The California Sheriff's Association
still opposes SB 54, even after Governor Brown's so-called amendments to the
improve the bill.
2.
Police chiefs like LAPD Chief
Charlie Beck supported SB 54, but he has retired because of the backlash.
Furthermore, police chiefs are political appointees, and therefore they follow
the lead of their executives rather than following a principled stance.
3.
Individual police officers do not
support SB 54, but they fear speaking out because of retaliation.
4.
The city attorney stated that five
counties and twenty cities had taken different actions against SB 54. Not five,
but eleven counties have opted out of SB 54, and they are:
- Amador County
- Butte County
- Kern County
- Mariposa County
- Orange County
- San Diego County
- Shasta County
- Siskiyou County
- Tehama County
- Tulare County
- Tuolumne County
- Calaveras!
This is BREAKING NEWS since I recently discovered that this county
issued a resolution opposing SB 54.
5.
He said 20 cities, but it's more
than that. I had stated 45 cities, and the correct tally is 43. Before the
meeting started, someone had told me that a city named "Cardiff" had
opted out -- but there is no such city. One could expand the standards for this
list with San Marcos, in which the mayor filed his own amicus brief; and San
Dimas, in which councilman Ryan Vienna filed his own amicus brief with the
Department of Justice. The current number of cities (not counting individual
elected officials in their own right) which have taken action are 43:
- · Adelanto
- · Aliso Viejo
- · Anderson
- · Apple Valley
- · Barstow
- · Beaumont
- · California City
- · Carlsbad
- · Colusa
- · Corona
- · Costa Mesa
- · Dana Point
- · Escondido
- · Fountain Valley
- · Glendora
- · Hanford
- · Hemet
- · Hesperia
- · Highland
- · Huntington Beach
- · Laguna Niguel
- · Lake Elsinore
- · Lake Forest
- · Lincoln
- · Los Alamitos
- · Mission Viejo
- · Murrieta
- · Newport Beach
- · Orange
- · Ridgecrest
- · Ripon
- · San Jacinto
- · San Juan Capistrano
- · Santa Clarita
- · Simi Valley
- · Upland
- · Villa Park
- · Waterford
- · Westminster
- · Wildomar
- · Yorba Linda
- · Yuba City
- · Yucaipa
It's surprising that the city
attorney couldn't do a basic Google search to find this information.
The city attorney neglected to
mention what the city of Orange had issued: a stay of compliance. The city
attorney also forgot to mention that SB 54 violates United States
Constitution Article IV, Section 4, in which the federal government is charged
with protect all states from foreign invastion as well as domestic
insurrection.
Pierik also forgot (or willfully neglected
to mention) that San Diego County voted for file an amicus brief for the
appellate courts since the DOJ case against California will likely advance to
the 9th Circuit.
Many people in the audience
supported my comments, and I hope that people will follow up on that.
The Camarillo city council chose to
do nothing more than receive and file the reports from the city attorney. What
a sad downturn considering that they city council had issued a letter opposing
SB 54 last year. Not only that, but the city of Glendora in Los Angeles County
had also issued a letter against SB 54 during its legislative process, but just
three weeks ago they passed a second resolution and filed an amicus brief against
the state of California for the law, too.
Camarillo city council failed to
uphold their oath of office, and part of the blame lies with the forgetful—or I
believe willfully negligent—city attorney Brian Pierik.
No comments:
Post a Comment