The Los Angeles Redistricting Committee’s new constituency lines met with fierce opposition by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF). The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors provisional-redistricted map failed to generate a second “Latino-majority supervisorial district.”
MALDEF contends five of the County Supervisors neglected their obligation to create a second all-Latino district as mandated by the federal Voting Rights Act. “They need to respect the Federal Voting Rights Act (in order to) avoid an expensive lawsuit the county is guaranteed to lose,” said Thomas Saenz, President and General Counsel of MALDEF.
In an email, Saenz pointed to the Census Bureau statistics that showed the Hispanic population in Los Angeles County, between 2000 and 2010, grew by almost half a million residents. On the other hand, the county lost approximately 150,000 non-Latino residents. “Latinos now make up almost half the county’s population,” he said.
However, MALDEF argues that the majority of the County Supervisors “specifically Supervisors Mike Antonovich, Don Knabe, and Zev Yaroslavsky apparently oppose creating a second Latino supervisorial district. They are more interested in preserving their comfortable, current district lines,” Saenz said.
He also says that Los Angeles County has put incumbents’ preferential district lines ahead of Hispanic voting rights in the past. Twenty years ago, Los Angeles County lost a Voting Rights Act lawsuit that found some supervisors intentionally sought to prevent the creation of a Latino district. The lawsuit paved the way for the first Latino member of the Board of Supervisors, Gloria Molina.
“Now, the Supervisors are on the verge of again adopting a map that disrespects the Latino community and its population growth. Moreover, they are on the verge of violating the Voting Rights Act by failing to create a new Latino district when they know that one is warranted,” Saenz explained.
In an effort to secure another Hispanic district, the Advisory Commission received several maps from leaders that would create a second Latino-majority district. Nevertheless representatives Knabe and Yaroslavsky rejected all redistricting proposals.
As a result, MALDEF is encouraging Latino residents to call or email their representatives and make the following points;
Click here to find out more!
1. It’s just, and it is the law.Support the creation of a second Latino district because it better respects Los Angeles County’s population and the Federal Voting Rights Act.
2. Latino voters have a long memory.The Latino community will interpret self-interested votes to deny a second Latino district as hostile actions against the Latino community. Remind them that the Latino community has a long memory should these Supervisors ever want to run for future offices.
3. Don’t waste taxpayer money.Los Angeles County lost a costly lawsuit the last time it tried to ignore the Federal Voting Rights Act. Don’t waste taxpayer money by triggering another successful lawsuit.
The County Supervisors MALDEF are targeting include; Gloria Molina, 1st District; Mark Ridley-Thomas, 2nd District; Zev Yaroslavsky, 3rd District; Don Knabe, 4th District and Michael D. Antonovich; 5th District Mayor.
MALDEF is a leading Latino civil rights organization specializing in courtroom litigation ensuring Hispanics get equal access to education, employment, immigrant rights and a voice in the political arena. They describe themselves as the “law firm of the Latino community,” and promote social justice through advocacy and community organizing.
For more information on MALDEF, http://maldef.org/
© Copyright 2011Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.
Continue reading on Examiner.com Latino activist group MALDEF wants a 2nd all-Latino district in California – San Diego County Political Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/latino-activist-group-maldef-wants-a-2nd-all-latino-district-california#ixzz1Tp55Q4FZ
Well-funded illegal alien activists in Southern California have found a new way to attack Americans fighting for secure borders and enforcement of current immigration laws. The fight has moved from the streets where they wave the their Mexican flag to America’s civil courtrooms.
“Allow me to understand this correctly. Illegal aliens, people who have committed a crime by entering this country illegally, and who continue to commit additional crimes by using counterfeit documents to project a status they are not entitled to, are suing cities and citizens for “disrupting their RIGHT to work in the US, even though they have no such right? If any immigrant “rights” organization or other advocacy group is responsible for the filing of such suits, either directly or indirectly, they should be counter claimed against for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. It’s time for the good citizens of this country to fight back through the courts,” said retired ICE Agent John Sampson who now runs CSI Consulting and Investigations.
The beef about an upcoming lawsuit in San Diego against Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, stems from a violent attack on Los Angeles anti-illegal immigration activist John Monti in November 2006 at the Rancho Penasquitos day-labor site in San Diego.
“Controversial San Diego attorney Daniel Gilleon was hired by La Raza operatives more than three years ago to go after San Diego Minutemen and other pro-security activists,” says Schwilk.
Monti had gone to the infamous makeshift hiring site to photograph the day laborers and the law-breaking employers hiring illegal workers. “It is still a felony to hire illegal aliens in the U.S. and studies have shown that almost all day laborers are illegal aliens from Latin America, Schwilk explains.
While photographing the street-side hiring process, Monti was suddenly jumped from behind by at least seven Hispanic men. “They punched him, tried to steal his professional camera, and pushed him into the busy boulevard. Several passersby’s witnessed the attack and called 911. When police arrived two minutes later, they found a bloody and shaken Mr. Monti,” witnesses reported.
Once the police were called to the scene, all of the attackers had made a run for it. Luckily, Monti photographed many of the laborers prior to the attack and was able to show San Diego Police Department. The next day the victim, Monti, sent the same pictures via email to local San Diego activists so they could call the police if the suspects returned to the day labor site where they usually look for employment every day. At this point Schwilk received the pictures and forwarded them to his local law enforcement contacts and other concerned residents in the area.
Their claim was defendants were disseminating pictures of the suspects with Monti’s statement and pointed out that they were wanted for questioning by SDPD regarding day-labor site scuffle. The flyer indicated if anyone had any information about the incident to phone the police.
Police records show the suspects were being sought for questioning and most of them were eventually found and questioned. No charges against the suspects were ever filed, as they all, not surprisingly, claimed that Monti attacked them first. According to Schwilk, local illegal alien activists were seen speaking with the suspects soon after the attacks.
“Witnesses who saw Monti being attacked and beaten were ignored by investigators and the city attorney, who were under extreme pressure from the so-called ‘Mexican mafia’ to protect the suspects (most of them Mexican citizens) from prosecution,” Schwilk contends. Fox News’ and Monti’s lawsuits were eventually dismissed or settled, but Schwilk demanded a trial to prove that this was just another unfounded, frivolous lawsuit and malicious prosecution meant to harass and silence those who oppose illegal immigration.
This defamation suit also accuses Schwilk of putting up Monti’s “wanted posters” in the area around the day labor site – a charge Schwilk denies. Schwilk and a few other concerned citizens did use Monti’s pictures to identify two of the suspects standing at the sidewalk hiring area three days after the attack.
“When we saw two of the suspects back at their sidewalk loitering area, we immediately called SDPD. The lead detective of the nearby division came to the scene and explained to us that they had already questioned and released those two men and that an arrest had been made,” Schwilk said. “The officers refused to elaborate further, but they told us they were fully investigating the assault on Monti and hoped to bring all of the guilty day laborers to justice.”
The lead attorney in this so-called lawsuit is Dan Gilleon of Del Mar(??). In emails from Gilleon obtained by the Examiner, Gilleon repeatedly seems to be asking Schwilk to settle the case over the past year. In the most recent email sent on Feb. 6, Gilleon again offers to Schwilk, “If you want to settle, we’ll take $1,000 for each plaintiff, cash now, or $10,000 each in stipulated judgments.”
Schwilk has repeatedly told the plaintiff’s attorney Gilleon that he has no intention of settling this case because he is the victim not the other way around. In addition to last minute attempts to avoid taking this case to trial, Gilleon failed to depose Schwilk for 2 1/2 years and recently convinced the judge to allow a last-minute deposition just days before the trial is set to commence.
In a voicemail message from Gilleon, he declined to comment on this pending case. However he claims there is a new lawsuit pending against Schwilk. However, court records show no new lawsuits have been filed.
Schwilk, who is now defending himself, says he strongly opposes a deposition at this late date because he believes Gilleon lied to the judge about trying to depose him in October. Evidence submitted to the court last week clearly shows that Gilleon claimed to have served Schwilk a notice of a deposition at a long-abandoned store in Oceanside. Schwilk says he has asked Judge Styn to rescind his recent deposition order and the motion is pending.
The trial begins on Thursday. It is worth pointing out, the attorney for the plaintiffs admitted that all his clients were living in Mexico and may not be able to enter the country legally to attend the trial, according to Schwilk.
It is a sad commentary that the civil court system is filled with well-funded foreign interests who hire activist lawyers to gain control of the country for their illegal clients.
The Minutemen vow to keep fighting no matter how many lawsuits La Raza activists file against them. “Our cause to make our cities and our country safe and secure is too great to be deterred by these people who make a mockery of our legal system,” Schwilk finishes.
In another lawsuit filed in Costa Mesa, California, MALDEF the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund charges the city’s anti-solicitation ordinance is unconstitutional. Joining in on the February 2, 2010 lawsuit is the ACLU of Southern California and the National Day Laborer’s Organizing Network (NDLON).
The civil rights groups filed the lawsuit against the City of Costa Mesa on behalf of the Association de Jornaleros de Costa Mesa and the Colectivo Tonantzin, whose members have been restricted from peaceably expressing their need and availability for employment in the city’s public areas due to the ordinance.
Claiming his client’s first Amendment right, MALDEF President and General Counsel Thomas A. Saenz said, “Free speech, one of our most cherished rights, belongs to everyone in society. Day laborers seeking work have as much right to express themselves as the largest corporation employing hundreds of thousands. Costa Mesa’s anti-solicitation ordinance violates this vital and longstanding constitutional principle.”
“The city’s anti-solicitation ordinance prohibits any person standing on a sidewalk or other public area from soliciting employment, business or contributions in any manner deemed to be intended to attract the attention of traveling vehicles. The ordinance subjects day laborers and other solicitors to a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment up to six months. The ordinance violates the day laborers’ First and Fourteenth amendments rights under the United States Constitution,” according Saenz.
“Day laborers have contributed to the Costa Mesa economy for decades,” says Pablo Alvarado, director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. “Particularly during these tough times, the hard work they provide the community should be rewarded and not the target of destructive law enforcement practices.”
The ruling of federal courts throughout the country in the past have ruled in favor of preserving the free speech rights of day laborers, which allows them to continue to solicit work.
“The contention that the civil rights of illegal day laborers are being violated is pure malarkey and if anything at all, the advocates can be criminally charged and prosecuted for aiding and abetting illegal alien immigration,” says Vince Johnson in a letter to the city of Costa Mesa.
He goes on to explain this frivolous lawsuit should be recognized as such by any federal judge who may incorporate immigration law regarding employment by undocumented immigrants.
“I suggest that you utilize the resources of Homeland Security/ICE, the US Department of Labor and the US Justice Department to promptly stop this court action and affirm that this country can not be controlled by people who do not even have the right to be in this country. Any meddling by the Mexican government is a clear-cut violation of American law and sovereignty,” Johnson finished.
The meddling of Mexico continues to play out on both sides of the border. It was reported by the M3 report (a publication put out by the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers) that all political parties of the Mexican Senate must reproached the policy change of direction of President, Barack Obama, “who has decided to go back on the promise he made to all the Hispanic groups that supported him, and now he insists on closing the border. The government of Barack Obama seeks to increase the funds to reinforce border security with $4.6 billion to support 20,000 agents of the Border Patrol, as well as to finish the first portion of the ‘virtual fence,’” the report stated.
The Mexican government continues by “announcing that he (Obama) will build the missing portion of the ‘virtual fence’ by means of which everyone who crosses, undocumented or illegally, will be detected and can be immediately jailed and later expelled, (and also) reinforcing the number of agents for customs, as well as for the border. From now on we Mexicans will not know what to believe when we speak with the President of all the Americans, because he is a President who fails to keep his word,” according to a member of the Mexican Senate.
One thing is certain Mexico continues to demand the rule of law be tweaked in their favor when it comes to illegal immigration. This will surely set up a very contentious immigration reform debate, one the American people have clearly stated Amnesty will not be a part of the legislation.
For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner