By Post Staff

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as part of a coalition of 25 states, filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Learning Resources v. Trump, a case challenging President Trump’s latest “unlawful” attempt to tax the states and American consumers through illegal tariffs, according to a media release issued by the California Department of Justice.

In the brief, Bonta argues the latest round of tariffs levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 are pretextual and are not targeted to address the purported harms of forced labor, as that statute requires, but instead are designed to re-create the tariffs already declared illegal by various courts.

Last month, Bonta and the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s decision to impose these tariffs on over 80 countries that together account for 99.4% of all U.S. imports — costs that will be passed along to Americans already struggling with affordability.

“President Trump is so intent on raising the cost of living for Americans that he is willing to break law after law to continue his tariff regime,” said Bonta.

“Imposing these tariffs under Section 301 has nothing to do with forced labor and everything to do with continuing the President’s failed economic policy and reimposing the global tariffs that the Supreme Court invalidated,” he continued.

“We urge the Court of International Trade to declare the president’s tariffs under Section 301 illegal. Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the president’s illegal tariffs.” 

By Tanya Dennis

Zakiya Jendayi received good news Monday, Sept. 14, when the appellate court ruled in her favor in the Hamlin v. Jendayi case, agreeing to hear the case on its merits regarding her motion to have Judge Sandra K. Bean’s ruling invalidated based upon Laura Dean Head’s living trust.

The bad news is that, at the time of this writing, the Sheriff’s Department was scheduled to evict Jendayi from her home yesterday.

“Friends and Neighbors of Zakiya,” a community group of more than 60 neighbors, friends and community activists, is standing strong with Jendayi. The group holds weekly vigils every Tuesday from 6 p.m.-7p.m. at Jendayi’s residence at 3614 Randolph Ave. in Oakland.

The group is asking the community to join them and to make calls to Congresswoman Lateefah Simon, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and DA Ursula Jones Dickson to stop what they deem the illegal eviction of Jendayi from her home of 13 years.

“I would hope that the Sheriff listens because, unlike the courts, my friends and neighbors have read the transcripts and seen for themselves the 42 findings that result in 35 false, six misleading, and one that is an error, which unbelievably the appeals court upheld.” says Jendayi.  “With this new appeal, the court quite possibly will return my home to me, and so this makes no sense. The Sheriff is threatening to move forward to remove me before my appeal is heard.” 

“This makes no sense,” says group member Rev. Raymond Langford. “She’s not a criminal, and she’s never had a criminal record. This situation has been horribly impactful on her physical and mental health. She’s now medically compromised due to all this stress, and all we’re asking for is time to see if the courts are in error. She should be given the opportunity for the appeal to be heard. That’s called justice, nothing more, nothing less.”.

Friends and Neighbors of Zakiya are organizing future protest actions to secure more time for Jendayi. They will be seen in front of the offices of Bonta, Simon and Sanchez, demanding that she have the opportunity for her case to be heard.

The Post is asking that the public join Friends and Neighbors of Zakiya and use the information listed to join in this fight for justice.

Friends and Neighbors of Zakiya asks you to sign the petition by activating the QR code below to enact a stay in Jendayi’s pending eviction from her home and to pursue a full and independent investigation into the ruling that invalidated Dr. Head’s trust.

By Tanya Dennis

Part 3

Alameda County District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson wants the public she serves to know more about what office really does.

The key, she said, is education, helping residents understand how the office operates, what it can and cannot do, and how the public can work with the office to achieve the results they seek.

The DA’s powers and duties regarding the court system are limited, Jones Dickson explained, and that there is a process for determining when the office can become involved.

“When there’s a complaint of criminal abuse or exploitation, the DA’s office will investigate, but to trigger that investigation, a person must file a complaint first with the Police Department,” she said.

Most issues, however, remain within the court system. Within the Probate Court system, for instance, if fraud or neglect occurs, the matter will generally be referred to the appropriate agency.

Jones Dickson emphasized that each situation is “case-specific,” particularly when determining whether a matter is criminal or civil. She explained that significant documentation of criminal activity is generally necessary before the DA’s Office can intervene.

“That is where the jurisdiction starts,” Jones Dickson said. “If it’s exploitation, it begins with a police report. We only proceed when the evidence leans beyond reasonable doubt.”

The District Attorney’s Office has a Real Estate Fraud Unit as well as an Elder Abuse Unit. Jones Dickson acknowledged that the office has been addressing multiple real estate fraud cases since she took office in June.

“Cases receive priority and witness a lot more success when there’s documentation,” she said. “This is the message the DA’s Office is utilizing in their police training and consumer division. When we have the cooperation of the community, that makes us even more effective.”

When asked how the DA’s Office can assist people in probate who feel they have not received justice, Jones Dickson acknowledged that the office’s powers are limited because most conflicts must be resolved through the court system.

She noted that many probate-related referrals involving children come through Child Protective Services (CPS) or Dependency Court. When it comes to adults involved in the probate system, however, Jones Dickson emphasized the need for the public to take greater responsibility through advance planning and family communication.

“The truth is, especially in the Black community, we don’t like to think about death, much less talk about it,” she said. “I can’t stress enough how important that discussion is.

“Get that will and trust, then have that conversation with the family, exactly what your wishes are, and back it up with documentation. Hopefully that will help avoid the Probate Court altogether.”

If an issue involves an attorney, for example, a complaint may be made to the California State Bar. If it involves a judge, the matter may fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Petitioning the appellate court is another option in certain circumstances, as the Court of Appeals provides a means of challenging a decision made by a lower court.

Jones Dickson said she wants the community to have a clear understanding of the DA’s role and the importance of communication between the office and the people it serves.

“I need the community to know what our job is,” she said. “Education is what we do, and when we’re supported through civil conversation, it makes communication more effective. We don’t get anywhere with mud-slinging. The DA’s Office focuses on what we are required to do, and that is to protect the community while we do the work.”

Jones Dickson also stressed the importance of recognizing the communities most affected by victimization and approaching those communities with understanding and sensitivity.

“That’s why it is so important that we acknowledge that most victimization occurs in the Black and Brown community and that we have to be especially sensitive as to how we address that community that is so deserving of our protection,” Jones Dickson said.

By Oakland Post Staff

Alameda County District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson announced a $3.15 million settlement with Terminix International Inc. and Rentokil North America Inc. over allegations that the pest control companies illegally disposed of pesticides and hazardous waste and mishandled confidential customer records.

The settlement was reached by Jones Dickson, 28 other California district attorneys and the Los Angeles city attorney. The companies are collectively identified as Terminix in the settlement.

District attorney investigators examining Terminix facilities throughout California between 2021 and 2024 found hundreds of pesticides and other hazardous-waste items that had allegedly been disposed of unlawfully, according to Jones Dickson’s office.

The investigation also found instances in which Terminix allegedly failed to properly manage and dispose of private customer records, violating California laws intended to protect confidential consumer information.

Terminix cooperated with prosecutors after being notified of the alleged violations, the district attorney’s office said. As part of the settlement, the company agreed to strengthen its policies and procedures governing the handling and disposal of pesticides, hazardous materials and customer records.

The new requirements are intended to prevent prohibited waste from being placed in ordinary trash receptacles or sent to facilities not authorized to receive it. Terminix must also improve safeguards for confidential customer information before records are discarded.

Terminix operates five Alameda County locations under the Terminix and Western Exterminator Company names. The facilities are located in Hayward, Pleasanton and Union City.

Alameda County will receive $160,000 from the statewide settlement for civil penalties and reimbursement of investigative costs.

The agreement resolves the prosecutors’ claims against the companies and requires Terminix to maintain stronger waste-management and privacy protections at its California operations.

Jones Dickson announced the settlement Sept. 4.

By Bo Tefu California Black Media

Local housing capacity, behavioral health services and criminal justice policies are playing a role in California’s homelessness and drug crises, according to a new report examining how policy decisions have affected outcomes across the state.

The report compiled by the Public Policy Institute of California found that counties that added more permanent housing beds per capita saw larger decreases in homelessness, while areas with larger declines in incarceration following Proposition 47 saw greater increases in homelessness.

“Places that saw larger increases in permanent housing beds per capita saw larger decreases in the homelessness rate,” researchers Magnus Lofstrom, Shannon McConville, and Sean Cremin stated in the report.

California’s homelessness rate has increased more than 60% since 2014, with unsheltered homelessness driving most of the growth. The state had the sixth-highest overall homelessness rate and the second-highest unsheltered homelessness rate among states in 2025.

Researchers found that counties with higher rents tended to have higher homelessness rates. But they did not find a statistically significant relationship between changes in homelessness and changes in local housing markets, poverty or unemployment.

The report also examined Proposition 47, the 2014 ballot measure that reclassified some drug and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Researchers estimate that the law contributed to a roughly 10% increase in California’s unsheltered homelessness rate, equivalent to about 7,000 additional people experiencing unsheltered homelessness between 2015 and 2019.

The researchers also estimated that Prop. 47 was associated with a 7% to 8% increase in serious drug use, measured through overdose deaths, hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Drug treatment admissions fell by roughly 20%, largely because of fewer referrals from courts and criminal justice agencies.

“Our findings suggest that Prop 47 likely did contribute to rising rates of homelessness and drug overdoses, as well as declines in drug treatment,” the researchers stated.

The report cautions that the relationship between homelessness, drug use and criminal justice policy is complex. Researchers found no consistent evidence that California’s 2011 public safety realignment or pandemic-era reductions in incarceration affected homelessness or drug use.

They also emphasized the role of the criminal justice system in connecting vulnerable people with services.

“Jails and prisons serve as sources of shelter for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness,” the researchers stated in the report. They added that courts and criminal justice agencies can help connect people with the drug treatment they need.

California has made major investments in housing and behavioral health services in recent years. The researchers said state and local agencies should continue evaluating whether those investments are reaching people most at risk and whether newer policies, including Proposition 36, are effectively connecting people with treatment.

By Antonio Ray Harvey, California Black Media

A California rule requiring an unrelated adult man living with a family receiving welfare benefits to contribute financially to the household could be repealed if Gov. Gavin Newsom signs Senate Bill (SB) 1030 into law.

Authored by Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas (D-Los Angeles), SB 1030 would eliminate the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) “Unrelated Adult Male,” or UAM, rule. Smallwood-Cuevas called the policy “outdated” and “harmful,” saying it relies on gender stereotypes and subjects families to intrusive surveillance.

The Assembly approved the bill 77-0 on Aug. 19, followed by a 40-0 Senate concurrence vote five days later. Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the measure.

“This is a law that helped divide our families. This is a rule that separated us from our mothers, fathers, and restricted men’s access to their families mainly because of the discriminatory practices of public housing systems back in the 1960s and 1970s,” said Smallwood-Cuevas, a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC).

Under Section 11351.5 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, an unrelated adult man living with a family applying for or receiving CalWORKs must make a financial contribution based on his income and expenses. He and the mother must disclose their household expense-sharing arrangement under penalty of perjury. Benefits may be discontinued if either person knowingly refuses to cooperate.

SB 1030 would repeal those requirements beginning July 1, 2027, or later if the state’s welfare computer system is not ready to implement the change.

Smallwood-Cuevas, a veteran journalist who has written about families relying on public assistance, said the law should be modernized as low-income households confront rising housing and food costs and broader economic uncertainty.

“We wanted to take that law off the books that limited men from being in the home with their families. We recognize Donald Trump is in the White House, and he will use all of the racist tools of the past to discriminate and surveil,” Smallwood-Cuevas told California Black Media (CBM).

Smallwood-Cuevas also told the Assembly Human Services Committee that SB 1030 was a priority of the California Legislative Women’s Caucus.

“Historically, the man in the house rule was disproportionately applied to Black women, women of color, reflecting a broader racialized system of surveillance and negative stereotypes and narratives. We know that was embedded in some of our early welfare policies,” Smallwood-Cuevas said.

“Man-in-the-house” policies emerged from state welfare programs during the early and mid-20th century. They were later applied under Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), a federal assistance program established by the Social Security Act of 1935.

For decades, some state welfare agencies denied assistance to low-income families if an able-bodied man lived in or regularly visited the home, treating him as a substitute father whether he was legally or financially responsible for the children or not.

Smallwood-Cuevas compared the rule’s effect on Black families to the welfare policies depicted in the 1974 film “Claudine”, starring Diahann Carroll and James Earl Jones.

“In this environment with unemployment rates, shutting down of industries that employ, particularly men in our communities, sometimes men can’t contribute financially, but that doesn’t mean they don’t contribute to our families,” she said. “These laws shouldn’t divide and separate our families, and this is what this rule has done for so many years.”