By Tanya Dennis

Last Thursday, Zakiya Jendayi parked on the side of the René C. Davidson Courthouse in Oakland to file an emergency stay request in what Jendayi asserts was the “legal” theft of her home of 13 years by a court administrator in her ongoing battle for her rightful inheritance in a probate battle.

But before she could fully emerge from the car at 12th and Oak streets, she was arrested by Alameda County Sheriffs for disobeying a court order and obstruction.

According to observers who have read the transcripts, the Hamlin v. Jendayi case, now in its sixth year, has resulted in what they describe as a gross miscarriage of justice.

Judge Sandra K. Bean ordered a legally inherited home to be taken from beneficiary Jendayi, citing “undue influence,” and gave it to Court Administrator Phillip Campbell, who Jendayi believes will quickly sell the house and pay himself more than $600,000 in court fees. The disinherited sisters will get the remainder of the proceeds of the sale.

Dr. Laura Dean Head named Jendayi as the beneficiary and executor over her estate after Jendayi took care of her during the last months of her life. Head’s disinherited sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head, challenged the validity of Head’s will and trust, despite not being able to recognize Head in a photo during the trial, and Della stating she hadn’t spoken to her sister since 1997 or 1998 and would not have taken care of her during her hospice.

The appellate court upheld Bean’s ruling, which Jendayi asserts was based on a failure to fully consider the transcripts. “They never read the transcripts because if they had, they would have seen the truth,” Jendayi said.

Accompanied by Alameda Couty Sheriff’s Department deputies, Campbell arrived unannounced at Jendayi’s home on Oct. 1 – at the same time Jendayi was being arrested – to change the locks, board up the windows, and place a fence around the property.

Neither Jendayi, nor her supporters who had been in touch with Alameda County leadership and the Sheriff’s Department and been given the impression that nothing would happen without warning had been told Campbell was coming.

“I went to the courthouse to file an emergency stay document, and while getting out of the car, a sheriff immediately approached me and put handcuffs on me before I could stand up,” Jendayi said in recounting the events of Oct. 1. “I asked him if he had a warrant. He said ‘yes,’ and seven other officers immediately approached and surrounded me, with an additional three sheriffs standing back observing.

“I asked why it was necessary to have 10 officers to arrest me. They would not answer. I asked if the sergeant was there and asked if I could speak to him, but the sergeant refused to approach while another officer started taunting me over and over, stating, ‘I was at your house. I was at your house when you refused to surrender. We got you now.’

“The officer put the handcuffs on tight. I asked him to please loosen them. He refused and said they weren’t too tight. Then a Black, female deputy named Lewis, came over and asked him to loosen the handcuffs. Three times the white male officers were overly aggressive with me, and each time Deputy Lewis would step up and they would fall back. They said I was under arrest for refusing to surrender the house on Aug. 25.

“I asked them if I could file my paperwork, and they said, ‘No.’ Several officers asked me if I was on drugs. I felt like my life was in danger. I asked to speak to Deputy Lewis, and she came. I said, ‘Please tell my mother and Joyce Gordon that I would never kill myself.’ I did not want to end up like Sandra Bland, who was murdered by police officers in a Texas jail.”

Zendayi said they then took her to a section in the basement of the courthouse, placed her in a holding cell, and confiscated her belongings around 3 p.m. “They went through everything, took both cell phones, and asked if they could turn off my phones. I said ‘no,’ so they placed them in airplane mode.”

Then she was taken in a van to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, which, because of traffic took almost two hours. “They asked me if I was on drugs and asked me to give a urine sample. I refused. They took a mug shot, and I was told it would be Monday before I could go to court. They put me in a cell with feces on the wall.

An hour after being detained, a deputy asked Jendayi if she knew someone who worked for the county and then asked if knew someone from the Sheriff’s Office and answered ‘no’ to both questions. He said, “You must know someone because we received orders to release you immediately. You’ll be out of here in about 40 minutes.”

“Rev. Raymond Langford of the Oakland Private Industry Council has been helping me to negotiate for more time to stay in my home,” Jendayi said. “I have an appeal with the Northern District Court of Appeals, where I’ve been promised they will review my case based on its merits. I was hoping to stay (in my home) until they reached a determination.

Rev. Langford reached out to Alameda County Supervisor Nikki Fortunata Bas and Chief Administrator David Brown, and they’ve been in contact with Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez.

“They weren’t going to give me the time I requested, but they did say that I would have time to move my belongings and would also be notified when they were coming,” Jendayi said. “None of that occurred.”

Langford said he spoke to Brown, Fortunato Bas and Sanchez right after the first attempt to evict Jendayi on Aug. 25 as well as the Alameda County Counsel and others to negotiate a time for Jendayi to move her belongings.

“There is no truth to the statement that there was no contact [with court and law enforcement officials.] There was an obvious miscommunication between Sanchez and her officers. They don’t have to inform the public of their actions, I understand that, but Zakiya and the community were concerned after they confiscated her guns.”

(Jendayi relinquished her weapons on Aug. 25 when sheriff’s deputies came to forcibly evict her while her petition for bankruptcy was still pending and should have interrupted the eviction process.)

“The Sheriffs have their own trust issues, and they need to work on that. They are not following the chain of command. David Brown, Fortunato Bas’s chief of staff, was puzzled also. He was told they would be informed when they would be returning. He was also blindsided like all of us.”

“(The Sheriffs’ Department) can come to the supervisors and get millions of dollars, but they can’t exhibit the courtesy to inform a citizen when she needs to move.”

“We, our group, ‘Friends of Zakiya,’ took a letter to Sanchez’s office citing Zakiya’s health issues, asking for more time just last week. Sanchez was a person who ran on the platform that she would not run the Sheriff’s Department on a military strategy, which they did on an African American senior in a comfortable, safe community.

“We understand they have to do their job, but we don’t want them targeting and profiling seniors. There has to be some accountability to the community,” Lankford said.

Supervisor Nikki Bas, deeply concerned with what has occurred, is joining with Supervisor Nate Miley to request a meeting with Attorney General Rob Bonta to request an independent investigation.

By Ruth Dessault, Bay City News

More than 100 protesters packed the Marin County Board of Supervisors chamber Sept. 29, urging supervisors to consider an ordinance restricting the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

County and state officials are already advancing some measures that overlap with demands the protesters have made for the past year.

“I want to share that the immigration subcommittee has been hard at work drafting important board policy as directed by the Board of Supervisors,” said Marin County Executive Derek Johnson, referring to policy that will prevent the use of county property for federal immigration enforcement activities.

“County resources are to never be used in the furtherance of federal immigration enforcement,” Johnson said, of the policy which is still in development. “The policy will require all county employees to notify the county executive within 24 hours of any immigration enforcement activity in which they become aware on county property.”

Those policy goals align with the two central provisions proposed by the No ICE in Marin Coalition, which filled the room at Tuesday’s meeting.

Their policy proposal, called ICE-Free Marin, prohibits ICE from using county property, resources or personnel without a judicial warrant and establishes clear reporting requirements whenever county department staff observe or communicate with federal immigration authorities. Those interactions may include the service of subpoenas and warrants, as well as attempts to access county facilities.

The ICE-Free Marin ordinance would require the county to post signs and barriers restricting ICE from entering county property, with county staff denying ICE officials entry and refusing to provide information and assistance. If ICE disregards directives, the county counsel would seek a court order to stop them, and if ICE unlawfully detains someone, they can be challenged in court, according to the ordinance.

Last year, the group protested the county’s participation in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Justice in conjunction with ICE and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

SCAAP funds are used to reimburse costs incurred for jailing immigrants lacking permanent legal status who have at least one felony or two misdemeanor convictions and are incarcerated for a minimum of four consecutive days.

In February, the county announced its 2026-28 budget does not include SCAAP funding.

State Takes Action on Immigrant Protections

Also on Sep.t 29, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a package of more than 20 bills aimed at increasing state oversight of federal immigration enforcement and protecting immigrant communities, according to a news release from the governor’s office.

The state legislation creates a 25% tax on private detention centers, expands health and safety oversight in those centers, requires additional public input and planning approvals for new facilities, and strengthens the role of state Attorney General Rob Bonta in inspecting them.

The measures also ban law enforcement from using wearable electroshock “shock gloves,” restrict flash-bang grenades and explosive breaching charges, limit the use of state-owned property for federal immigration operations, and require temporary identification decals on rental vehicles used by law enforcement.

The legislation expands access to public records involving private detention facilities and restricts former federal immigration officers who committed serious misconduct from becoming California peace officers or public employees.

Other measures allow people to sue federal officials for alleged violations of their constitutional rights and protect people traveling to and from courthouses from civil immigration arrests.

“We may not be able to dictate federal immigration enforcement policy, but we can make clear that activities taking place in California will be subject to California law,” the governor said in a video message announcing the bills.

The group leading the local campaign for the ICE-Free Marin ordinance is the Democratic Socialists of America. DSA spokesperson Courtney Sadowski said in an email that the group has spoken with supervisors Eric Lucan, Mary Sackett, Dennis Rodoni and Stephanie Moulton-Peters.

“But none have committed to introducing the ICE-Free Marin ordinance,” Sadowski said.

The group has attended numerous meetings of the Civilian Oversight Commission of the Sheriff’s Office asking for their support, she said.

“We cannot afford to wait the months or years it would take them to review and consider this item,” she said. “Even if they moved more quickly, all they can do is issue a recommendation.”

Speakers Weigh In

Hector Garcia, a community library specialist with the Marin County Free Library, spoke to the supervisors. He said that he recently completed an intense Department of Justice certification that will allow him to provide immigration services at the library.

The Recognition and Accreditation program allows qualified non-attorney staff working for eligible nonprofit organizations to legally provide immigration services for low-income and indigent individuals who cannot afford private attorneys.

“It would be impossible for me to fulfill this job with the presence of ICE,” Garcia said. “A fascist police force, they disregard the law, terrorize, assassinate and separate Black indigenous people of color and their families.”

Lisa Bennett with the Marin Rapid Response Network, a nonprofit that helps families locate detained relatives and provides other support services, said families go into shock when the major breadwinner is detained.

“Basic things like money for food, utilities, even driving are no longer a given,” she said. “They worry about their parent’s medical needs. They worry about themselves being next. They worry about what happens if the remaining parent is taken. This is what our government is doing to its own people. Silence is complicity.”

Former Dallas police officerAmber Guyger has been granted parole seven years after she was convicted of murdering her neighbor,Botham Jean, inside his Dallas apartment.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles approved Guyger’s release Thursday (October 1), seven years to the day after Guyger was convicted of Jean’s murder, according to NBC News.

In 2019, a jury convicted Guyger of murder and she was sentenced to 10 years in prison for Jean’s 2018 death. Her conviction and 10-year sentence were upheld on appeal in 2022.

Geyger’s first parole request was denied in 2024, NBC Dallas-Fort Worth reported.

The Dallas Police Department fired her after the shooting. During her trial, Guyger testified that she mistakenly entered Jean’s apartment after returning home from work, believing it was her own apartment one floor below.

She said she saw Jean inside and fired her weapon because she believed he was an intruder, according to NBC News.

Jean was a 26-year-old Black man from St. Lucia who worked as an accountant. He was inside his home eating ice cream when Guyger entered and shot him, NBC DFW reported.

The parole board cited Guyger’s prison record in approving her release. According to NBC DFW, officials said she did not have a documented pattern of violent or assaultive arrests or convictions, maintained a satisfactory adjustment while incarcerated, and completed programs intended to help her obtain and maintain employment.

Jean’s family opposed the parole decision and had asked that Guyger serve her full 10-year sentence, according to NBC DFW.

Civil rights attorney Lee Merritt, who represents the family, told NBC DFW that the decision was deeply disappointing.

“They stood up again and again to ask that the full sentence be served,” Merritt said.

The Dallas Police Department told NBC DFW that the parole decision was outside its authority and that the department had no role in determining whether Guyger would be released. The department said its thoughts remained with Jean’s family and others affected by his death.

Guyger’s conviction and 10-year sentence were upheld on appeal in 2022.

A civil jury ordered Guyger to pay Jean’s family $98.6 million in damages in 2024, according to NBC DFW.

Guyger’s release date has not been announced. NBC News reported that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice will determine when she is released.

The Black Information Network is your source for Black News! Get the latest news 24/7 on The Black Information Network. Listen now on the iHeartRadio app or click HEREto tune in live.

Based on reporting by Michigan Chronicle.

By Paul Cobb, Publisher, Oakland Post

I understand the frustration driving Proposition 40. I share our labor partners’ concerns about protecting health care and essential services at a time when working families are already under enormous pressure.

But labor itself is divided over Proposition 40, and there is good reason to look carefully at what this measure could mean beyond the money it promises to raise.

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5 percent tax on the wealth of Californians with more than $1 billion in assets. Most of that money would go toward health care, with the remainder supporting food assistance and education-related programs.

Those are worthy investments. The question is whether this is the right way to pay for them.

California’s independent Legislative Analyst says the measure could raise tens of billions of dollars in the short term. But that same analysis warns that California could eventually lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year in ongoing income-tax revenue if some wealthy taxpayers leave the state or change their financial behavior.

That matters because those dollars help support the General Fund and the broader system of programs and services Californians rely on.

So let’s be clear: This is not about feeling sorry for billionaires. Billionaires will be fine.

This is about protecting the people who will not be fine if we get the policy wrong.

For decades, those of us in Black media have watched public policy debates move from crisis to crisis. We have also watched Black communities deal with the consequences when decisions made in Sacramento or Washington did not fully consider what would happen two, three, or four moves later.

We know what happens when funding disappears. Community organizations struggle. Small businesses lose support. Programs serving young people are squeezed. Schools and local governments are asked to do more with less. The people with the fewest resources are usually the first to feel the consequences.

That history should make us cautious about making major changes to California’s tax system without considering the entire board.

If California believes billionaires should contribute more, then let’s have that conversation. There is nothing unreasonable about asking whether people who have benefited enormously from California’s economy should contribute more to sustaining it.

But we should build tax policy that is thoughtful, sustainable, and difficult to avoid. We should not create a temporary solution that could leave us confronting another revenue problem down the road.

This is also why I respect those in labor who support Proposition 40, even though I have reached a different conclusion. They are responding to very real concerns about health care and the people who depend on it. Those concerns should not be dismissed.

But neither should legitimate questions about Proposition 40.

Too often our politics tells us that if we agree with the goal, we must agree with the proposed solution. That is not how responsible public policy works.

You can believe health care must be protected and still question the mechanism being proposed to protect it.

You can believe billionaires should pay more and still ask whether this particular tax is the smartest way to accomplish that.

And you can stand with working people while insisting that California consider the long-term consequences for all of the public programs working people depend upon.

We need to stop treating complicated economic decisions like a game of checkers, where we look only at the move directly in front of us.

We need to play chess.

Look at the whole board. Think several moves ahead. Understand what happens after the first check is collected and spent.

The question before Californians is not whether billionaires can afford to pay more. They can.

The question is whether Proposition 40 is the right way to do it and whether we are confident enough in the consequences to make this kind of change.

Our communities cannot afford for us to discover the answer too late.

Cornell University is at the center of a developing matter involving an alleged gang rape case that took place in 2024. Prosecutors are reopening the matter after the alleged victim filed a civil lawsuit against a group of fraternity members at Cornell University.

ABC News reports that prosecutors in Tompkins County in Central New York State are examining the claims made by a Jane Doe, the alleged victim of the assault. According to Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten, his office is examining whether or not to bring charges but did share that there are two conflicting claims at the heart of the matter.

“It’s our intention to present the case to the Tompkins County grand jury with Jane Doe’s cooperation,” Van Houten told the outlet. “We want to reexamine whether there’s additional evidence that we were not aware of in November of 2024, that exists now that would change our assessment of the case and would result in the grand jury finding that there was criminal conduct.”

Back in 2024, the Jane Doe and former student accused seven current and former members of the Chi Phi fraternity of assaulting her, leading to the chapter’s expulsion from Cornell University. The school conducted an investigation, and initially, Doe did not say she was drugged and forced into acts. Doe’s lawsuit is now alleging the fraternity members drugged and assaulted her.

“She never says that she was drugged without her knowledge. She admits to taking drugs and alcohol voluntarily and with knowledge. She does not allege that she was forced to engage in any acts. She does not say that she was physically helpless or unconscious or incapacitated at any point during the time at the fraternity house,” Van Houten added.

Based on reporting by New York Beacon.

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – Annika E. Ashton is the new Broward County Attorney, becoming the first Black woman and Jamaican American to assume the role.

Ashton, 42, was sworn in last month to replace Andrew Meyers who retired after eight years at the helm.

The Broward County Commission unanimously appointed Ashton, who was the Deputy Broward County attorney, in April 2026 and she took over on September 10, 2026 the official last day of Meyers’ tenure.

She will oversee more than 50 attorneys and a support staff.

Ashton’s appointment reflects overcoming racial and gender barriers to become the chief legal advisor for the county.

The Coral Springs resident thanked the commission and Broward County legal department for their support.
“I’m very excited to work with a really great office of people and have the support of the Broward County Commission,” Ashton said.

Broward County Commissioner Nan Rich called Ashton “the most qualified person to lead the County Attorney’s Office,” noting the county attorney position is one of only three the board is responsible for appointing

Ashton has worked for Broward County since 2014, starting as an assistant county attorney and rose to senior assistant county attorney before becoming deputy county attorney in 2019.

She graduated from Princeton University and Columbia Law School and clerked for the Hon. Adalberto Jordan on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Ashton’s county work has included litigating federal court cases, drafting ordinances and contributing to the $1 billion expansion of the Broward County Convention Center in Fort Lauderdale.

She previously did private practice in New York and Miami.

According to her bio, Ashton was born in Spanish Town, Jamaica and raised with deepy family roots in Clarendon, particularly Palmer Cross.

She migrated to the U.S. and graduated from Ft. Lauderdale Boyd Anderson High School, earned her bachelor’s degree from Princeton University and law degree from Columbia Law School.

As the new chief attorney for Broward County, Ashton will provide legal counsel for commissioners and administrators, represent the county in litigation, drafting legal documents including preparing ordinances, government contracts and oversight of zoning issues.

Ashton will also advise commissioners on legal aspects of county projects, developments and public services, including environmental, transportation, and consumer protection issues in Broward County.

She is also a Past President of the Caribbean Bar Association.

Ashton credits her Jamaican upbringing for a stellar legal career.

She said women leadership in Jamaica helped her thrive, studying successful women in business and public service, as well as community figures like Cathy Levy, founder of the iconic Little People and Teen Players Club, who has been a stalwart of youth arts education in Jamaica for decades.

These early influences, along with the cultural ethos of resilience captured in the popular Jamaican refrain, “Wi likkle but wi tallawah,” she notes, helped shape her ambition and belief that she could make a meaningful impact on the world around her.

The post Annika Ashton first Black woman and Jamaican Broward County Attorney appeared first on South Florida Times.

Based on reporting by South Florida Times.