Vol. 49 No. 5
May 24, 2018 - May 30, 2018
This publication is a Certified DBE/ SBE / MBE in the State of California CUCP #43264 Metro File #7074 & State of Texas File #802505971 “If you can control a man's thinking you do not have to worry about his action. When you determine what a man shall think you do not have to concern yourself about what he will do. If you make a man feel that he is inferior, you do not have to compel him to accept an inferior status, for he will seek it himself. If you make a man think that he is justly an outcast, you do not have to order him to the back door. He will go without being told; and if there is no back door, his very nature will demand one.” Carter G. Woodson, The Mis-Education of the Negro
The Royal Wedding Ceremony Included the African-American Experience
Editor in Chief’s Corner Email: sbamericannews@gmail.com Clifton Harris Publisher of The San Bernardino AMERICAN News
Running Afoul of the Law State/Government News
A sermon on the civil rights movement and slavery in America and the soulful sounds of a gospel choir were important parts of the ceremony. BySheryl Estrada May 20, 2018
The marriage of American actress Meghan Markle and Britain's Prince Harry on Saturday was anything but the traditional royal protocol for a wedding at Windsor Castle in England. From a sermon by the first Black leader of the Episcopal Church in the United States to a soul-stirring gospel choir, it was clear that Markle is taking her African-American heritage with her as she begins a new life as one of Britain's royals. In a 14-minute message called "The Power of Love," The Most Rev. Bishop Michael Curry of Chi-
cago gave a sermon that echoed throughout St. George's Castle. Curry made sure to bring up the teachings of civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "Dr. King was right: We must discover the power of love, the redemptive power of love," he said. "And when we discover that, we will be able to make of this old world a new world." He also quoted a slave song. "Oh there's power in love. There's power. Not just in its romantic forms," he said. "I'm talking about some power, real power, power to change the
church at the royal wedding. Markle's mother, Doria Ragland, also had a significant presence. Ragland, who is Black, has locks, a rose ring and is a yoga instructor and social worker in Los Angeles, rode in the Queen's RollsRoyce Phantom to the ceremony with her daughter beaming with pride. Ragland was actually the only blood relative from Markle's family present. Her father, Thomas Markle, who is white, did not attend. He and Ragland divorced when Markle was a young child. "My dad is Caucasian and my
mom is African American. I'm half black and half white," Markle wrote in a column for ELLE magazine in 2015.
world ... If you don't believe me, there were some old slaves in America's South who explained the power of love." Curry continued, "They sang a spiritual, even in the midst of their captivity. It's the one that says there's a balm in Gilead, a healing balm." April Ryan, Washington Bureau
chief and White House correspondent for the American Urban Radio Networks and a CNN correspondent, tweeted:
By Me."
and Duchess of Sussex exited the chapel, the gospel choir singing "Amen," and then "This Little Light of Mine" serenaded them.
@AprilDRyan Bishop Curry brought up the slaves talking about the old song the healing balm of Gilead to heal the sin sick soul. Preach!! This is
@EveningStandard This gospel choir singing 'Stand by me' was an incredible and powerful moment at the Royal wedding And when the newly wed Duke
@SherylEstrada #MeghanMarkle's mother, Doria, watches the ceremony. Nothing like a mother's love. #RoyalWedding A-list Black celebrities who attended the wedding included Oprah Winfrey, Serena Williams and Idris Elba. Karen Gibson and The Kingdom Choir gave a heartfelt performance of Ben E. King's "Stand
@SherylEstrada "This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine ..." #RoyalWedding
California School Officials May Not Indefinitely Ban Parent from Child’s School As Retaliation for Free Speech or Without Opportunity to Contest Community/Education News
(Sacramento, CA) – In a ruling that recognizes the critical right of all parents to participate in their children’s education, a federal court today rejected Gustine, California school officials’ attempt to dismiss a Latina mother’s lawsuit challenging the school principal’s decision to ban her from campus after she sought to protect her son’s education. The court held that banning parents from school cannot be done in retaliation for exercise of free-speech rights. It further held that, under California law, no parental ban can ex-
tend beyond two weeks without providing the parent as chance at a hearing to contest the legitimacy of the ban. The decision comes in a lawsuit filed by MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) on behalf of a Latina mother who was indefinitely banned from a Merced County elementary school after lodging complaints about her son’s treatment in class. In denying a motion filed by the defendants – the school principal and two other officials – to
dismiss the case, U.S. District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii ruled on Thursday that barring a parent from campus indefinitely in retaliation for free-speech activity was unlawful. Further, Judge Ishii held that, “California law provides a sufficiently concrete right allowing parents to participate in their child’s education, such that an alleged ‘indefinite ban’ cannot be imposed without a hearing.” “California law acknowledges the importance of parental involvement in children’s educa-
tion,” said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and general counsel. “This court ruling recognizes that such involvement cannot be unfairly or arbitrarily denied to any parent.” The lawsuit was filed in September 2017 on behalf of Claudia Macias, who complained in August 2015 to the then-principal of Romero Elementary School – the only school in an unincorporated community in Merced County – that her fourth-grade son’s as(continued on page 2)
Ramona Morales has worked for most of her life cleaning houses and selling Avon makeup in and around California’s Coachella Valley. Through hard work and thrift, she was eventually able to save enough money to buy a modest rental property. With the help of friends and relatives, she fixed it up and rented it to supplement her income. After many years of work, Ramona has purchased and rehabilitated ten rental properties. After owning and operating the properties for many years without any major issues, in late 2014 one of her tenants ran afoul of the law. On December 30, 2014, a city code enforcement officer mailed Ramona a warning indicating that her tenant was illegally raising chickens and roosters in her backyard, which is illegal in Indio.7 Ramona immediately told her tenant that she had to get rid of them. The tenant initially agreed, but dragged her feet on finding a new home for the fowl. A few months later, Ramona received a second warning in the mail. She contacted her tenant again and demanded that she get rid of the chickens. Thinking that the problem was the noise, Ramona’s tenant got rid of the rooster, but kept the chickens. Finally, in June of 2015, a city inspector was dispatched to Ramona’s property “in reference to a complaint regarding roosters at the location.”8 The officer reported she “could see from the sidewalk one rooster/chicken through the side yard fencing in the backyard.” The officer wrote two tickets: One for keeping farm animals for $75 and the second for $75 for renting a house without a business license (something Ramona had not understood was required). The officer issued a declaration in support of an arrest warrant for Ramona, authorizing her arrest “day or night.” At her arraignment in Riverside Superior Court, Ramona used her limited English to attempt to explain the situation. She said that she had done everything she could as a landlord short of evicting them to make the tenant remove the chickens and that the tenant had been confused about whether the citation applied to chickens as well as roosters. Unrepresented by an attorney, she ultimately pleaded guilty and immediately paid a $225 fine.9 Frustrated but relieved, she thought her ordeal was over, but the reality was that it was just getting started. Nearly a year later, in early September, 2016, Ramona opened her mail to find a certified letter demanding $3,030.33 for fees associated with “nuisance abatement.”10 The private attorneys hired by the city appeared
to be charging her for their time associated with the $225 fine she’d paid. Shocked and confused, she requested a hearing. Ahead of the hearing, an attorney from Silver & Wright filed a boilerplate memo claiming that the $3,030.33 award was authorized by law and that the firm was entitled to another $2,628.69 for the time spent preparing for the hearing Ramona had requested. The hearing officer—not a judge, but a city official—approved the fee request and ordered Ramona to pay, which she did.11 At the time, she could not believe why, or how, a tiny dispute about a backyard chicken had cost her almost $6,000. Under California law, when a city resolves a public nuisance—by, for instance, mowing someone’s severely overgrown lawn for them—the city may pass an ordinance allowing it to bill the property owner. The law also allows cities to include “the recovery of attorneys’ fees in any action, administrative proceeding, or special proceeding to abate a nuisance.”12 Until recently, few cities had enacted such ordinances, which meant that in nuisance abatement actions, both sides paid for their own attorneys, win or lose. That started changing four years ago, however, when two attorneys— Matthew Silver and Curtis Wright— formed a new law firm with a new business model: pitch cities on “cost neutral” code enforcement by prosecuting code violations in criminal court and enabling the collection of attorney’s fees. And the linchpin of their business model was California’s cost-recovery statute. Silver & Wright started aggressively marketing themselves to cities around California by writing articles and speaking at conferences. The most important part of their pitch to cities was a simple promise: We’ll make the property owners themselves pay our rates, which run between $10013 and $200 an hour. For the scheme to work, however, Silver & Wright insisted that cities rewrite their ordinances.14 The most important order of business was making sure that the city code explicitly provided for recovery of attorney’s fees in nuisance abatement actions. They also advised that nuisance abatement actions should be defined very broadly, to encompass not only “abatements”— such as the cost of mowing a lawn or picking up trash—but also the administrative and legal aspects, including criminal nuisance prosecutions, civil suits, administrative hearings, and appeals. Silver & Wright also requested that (continued on page 3)
Our Values, Mission, & Vision Statement Our Values: Treat all people with care, respect, honor, and dignity. Tell it as it is with love, truth and integrity. Promote the interests of advertisers and sponsors along their strategic interest for the betterment of the community and beyond. Speak truth to power. Our Mission: To continuously improve communication between all people of the world. Our Vision: To be the best community newspaper in our region and the nation. Provider of: A voice for the poor, the underserved, those that are marginalized, Positive and edifying news about people, places and businesses. Keep San Bernardino, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties informed about global trends while retaining the consciousness of local events and processes. Memberships and Associations: The San Bernardino American Newspaper is a member of the California Newspaper Publishers Association, National Newspaper Association and addociated with California Black Media.