Contra Costa Herald

New Contra Costa County Assistant Sheriff Charlene Jacquez. Photo: CCC Sheriff’s Office

East County native will oversee Administrative Services Bureau

By Jimmy Lee, Director of Public Affairs, Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff

Contra Costa County Sheriff David Livingston announces the promotion of Captain Charlene Jacquez to the rank of Assistant Sheriff.

Captain Charlene Jacquez began her public safety career in 1999 with the City of Galt Police Department, serving as both a 9-1-1 Dispatcher and Community Service Officer (CSO). In 2001, she joined the Brentwood Police Department as a CSO, a position she held for five years. While working full time, she attended the police academy graduating in 2005.

In 2006, Captain Jacquez began her career with the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office as a Deputy Sheriff in the Custody Services Bureau where she worked in detention facilities, served as a Jail Training Officer, and worked in the Classification Unit. Captain Jacquez later transferred to the Field Operations Bureau where her assignments included county patrol, contract City of Oakley, and Detective in Investigations where she handled domestic violence, sexual as-sault, and homicide cases.

Captain Jacquez was promoted to the rank of Sergeant in 2019, serving at the Martinez Deten-tion Facility and later in the contract City of Lafayette. In 2022, she was promoted to Lieutenant and assigned as the Station House Commander of Delta Station. In February last year, she was promoted to the rank of Captain and assigned as the West County Detention Division Commander, which includes the Marsh Creek Detention Facility.

Captain Jacquez served on the SWAT Hostage Negotiations Team and as Commander of the County’s Mutual Aid Mobile Field Force (MAMFF) Team. She is a graduate of POST Command College, Class 75, and holds a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice and a Master of Arts in Organizational Leadership.

“I am pleased to promote Captain Charlene Jacquez to the rank of Assistant Sheriff,” said Sheriff David Livingston. “Captain Jacquez has been dedicated and committed to the agency and serving Contra Costa County residents. I am proud of her accomplishments and throughout her career she has shown leadership and is well-positioned to guide the Sheriff’s Office and staff into the future.”

As Assistant Sheriff, Jacquez will oversee the Administrative Services Bureau which includes Personnel & Finance, Professional Standards, Recruiting, and Training.

“I am honored and humbled by the opportunity to serve as Assistant Sheriff,” said Captain Jacquez. “Having been born and raised in East Contra Costa County, I have a deep connection to this community and am committed to continuing to serve our residents while supporting the men and women of the Office of the Sheriff.”

Hikers explore Strathearn Ranch Natural Reserve in the Diablo Range. Photo: Scott Hein. Source: Save Mount Diablo

By Laura Kindsvater, Senior Communications Manager, Save Mount Diablo

SACRAMENTO, CA—On August 13, the California legislature did something historic when they recognized and approved the Diablo Range as an official California conservation priority deemed critical to helping the state meet its 30×30 initiative to address the climate crisis.

A California condor soars over Pinnacles National Park in the Diablo Range. Photo: Scott Hein. Source: Save Mount Diablo

Last year, Save Mount Diablo sponsored an Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR), authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, officially recognizing the Diablo Range as a California conservation priority.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution, ACR 107, was reviewed and approved by the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife on September 10, 2025, after we provided testimony to the committee addressing the need for the resolution.

Our Diablo Range resolution then went before the Assembly, where it was reviewed and approved on September 13, 2025.

On June 9, 2026, we provided testimony in support of ACR 107 to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, and thereafter they approved our Diablo Range resolution.

Then on August 13, 2026, the Senate approved ACR 107 unanimously (33-0). With that final approval, our Diablo Range resolution was adopted, thereby officially recognizing the Diablo Range as a California conservation priority critical to helping the state meet its 30×30 initiative.

Introducing the resolution to the Senate floor for a vote, Senator John Laird remarked, “On behalf of Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, I rise with alacrity to present ACR 107 . . . which recognizes the importance of the Diablo Range, one of California’s most significant overlooked natural landscapes. This covers 4 million acres, 12 counties, some of which I represent. It was a trivia question at the Senate Democratic Caucus, and not many people knew where the Diablo Range was. Now they do, because this resolution celebrates the ecological, historical, and economic significance of the Diablo Range and encourages continued stewardship of the landscape.”

Tule elk in the San Antonio Valley, part of the Diablo Range. Photo: Sean Burke. Source: Save Mount Diablo

The Diablo Range is over 200 miles long, contains more than 4 million acres that are largely intact and undeveloped, and is less than 30 percent conserved. And this mountain range runs through 12 counties, with Mount Diablo in its northernmost county of Contra Costa.

The Diablo Range is an immense and important wildlife habitat corridor, teeming with biodiversity. It is home to hundreds of rare and endangered species, such as the California condor and blunt-nosed leopard lizard.

More than 10 million people reside in communities immediately surrounding the Diablo Range, so protecting more lands and creating more parks within the range has been identified as a fantastic way to help more people get access to nature.

The Diablo Range provides California with one of its best opportunities to meet multiple goals in its 30×30 initiative set up to help the state address the climate crisis.

California’s 30×30 initiative aims to conserve 30 percent of the state’s lands and coastal waters by 2030, promoting biodiversity, climate resilience, and access to nature.

California Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (center) is joined by (L-R) Save Mount Diablo Board member Jim Felton, Board President Robert Phelps, Executive Director Ted Clement and Board member Phil O’Loane. Photo: Dylan Finley. Source: Save Mount Diablo

We thank Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan; Senator John Laird, who gave ACR 107 a great introduction on the floor of the Senate before the Senate vote; and the rest of the California legislature that approved our Diablo Range resolution.

We also give thanks to our Save Mount Diablo team who worked hard on this historic effort, including a small group of staff, Board members, and leadership donors to our Diablo Range Campaign.

Further, we thank our legislative advocate, Douglas D. Houston, and his team at Houston Magnani and Associates who assisted us throughout this process. Finally, we thank all our partner organizations, agencies, and supporters who sent ACR 107 support letters to the legislature.

The California legislature’s historic approval of our resolution has just given much needed visibility, attention, and momentum to protecting the previously little-known, yet hugely important, Diablo Range.

Left graphic source: CABAT

Says “the District Board wrote the RTM Ballot Question…in a way that is intentionally confusing or misleading to voters.”

By Allen D. Payton

The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit (CABAT) organized to oppose the Regional Transit Measure (RTM) on the November ballot filed a lawsuit, Monday, against Election Officials in the five included counties and Kimberly Ward, the Public Transit Revenue Measure District Elections Official. If approved by voters, the tax measure, known as Connect Bay Area Transit, will raise a half-cent in four of the five counties, including Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo and one-cent in San Francisco County for 14 years and raise an estimated $17 billion.

Labeled a VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, the lawsuit was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court by 10 petitioners including former State Senator Quentin L. Kopp, Gregg A. Diéguez, President of CABAT and Director of Sustainability for SHIFT Bay Area, and Marc Joffe, President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, as well as Brian Holtz, Thomas Rubin and five others listed as individuals and electors in the Public Transit Revenue Measure District.

Kopp is also President of the San Francisco Taxpayers Association; Holtz is President of the Purissima Hills Water District Board of Directors in Santa Clara County and Secretary and Treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County; and Rubin is Vice President of the Alameda County Taxpayers Association, Inc.

Attorney Jason Bezis of Lafayette is representing them.

The District was formed to oversee the process for the transit tax measure. (See related article) A separate oversight committee will be formed to verify proper expenditure of the funds should the measure pass.

The lawsuit was filed before “the final printing deadline date” of “Friday, August 28, 2026, by which all ballot language and County Voter Information Guides (CVIG) materials must be finalized, including resolving any legal challenges in court.”

Transit Officials Were Warned But Did It Anyway

According to Joffe, “Transit officials cannot claim they were blindsided. On the night of July 23, 2026, the eve of the board’s special meeting, attorney Bezis sent a detailed pre-litigation demand letter urging the board not to approve the question as drafted.  The letter was acknowledged multiple times and the measure was placed on the ballot with the slanted wording anyway.”

Lawsuit cover page. Source: CABAT

Legal Claims

The lawsuit “challenges biased, not neutral, untrue, partial, argumentative, and/or prejudicial wording in the RTM Ballot Question (also called ‘ballot label’ or ‘statement of the measure’) in violation of the Elections Code sections 9051(e) and 13119(c) standards and false and/or misleading wording in the RTM Ballot Question under the Elections Code section 9380/McDonough v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1169 (‘McDonough’) standard. This lawsuit also challenges the Impartial Analysis authored by real party in interest DISTRICT Counsel KATHLEEN KANE as false, misleading, and/or not impartial in violation of Elections Code section 9380.”

The petitioners “seek a writ of mandate to compel amendment of the ballot question (also known as ‘ballot label’ or ‘statement of the measure’) and the impartial analysis that Respondents COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIALS and Ms. WARD are preparing for voter use in the Regional Transit Measure (‘RTM’) election to be held on November 3, 2026.”

Further, the lawsuit claims, “Petitioners assert that the DISTRICT and DISTRICT BOARD wrote the RTM Ballot Question…in a way that is intentionally confusing or misleading to voters.”

Current Ballot Language

The lawsuit explains, “As approved by the PTRMD BOARD at its July 24, 2026 meeting, the RTM Ballot Question (see District Resolution No. 2 Page 7) currently reads:

‘To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit, avoid increased traffic, and reduce pollution by: Preserving BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness, affordability, reliability; Repairing targeted roads/potholes; Requiring financial transparency, oversight, accountability; shall the measure enacting a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties), and 1% (San Francisco) sales tax for 14 years generating approximately $980,000,000 annually, be adopted?’”

Challenges & Proposed Changes

However, the petitioners claim the adopted ballot language does not comply with state Elections Code and the amount is incorrect and should instead be $1.2 million per year. They claim the statement of the measure is not “a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure,” is “argumentative” and “likely to create prejudice for or against the measure,” and that the “RTM Ballot question is inherently prejudicial” based on a survey MTC conducted last year. Furthermore, the petitioners “argue that components of the RTM Ballot Question are false and/or misleading.”

They want to make the following changes:

• Amend the phrase “Preserving BART …” to read “Funding BART …”
• Delete the phrase “for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities”.
• Delete the phrase “To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit”.
• Alternatively, strike the word “major” in the phrase “To prevent major service cuts …”
• Delete the phrase “avoid increased traffic”.
• Delete the phrase “reduce pollution”.
• Strike the phrase “/potholes”.
• Amend “Repairing targeted roads” to read “Repaving transit-served roads”.
• Strike the words “affordability, reliability”.
• Amend “enacting” to read “imposing”.
• Amend the phrase “sales tax” to read “sales and use tax”.
• Strike the word “oversight” in the phrase “Requiring … oversight”.
• Strike the word “accountability” in the phrase “Requiring … accountability”.
• Amend “$980,000,000 annually” (September 2025 estimate) to an updated number (an August 2026 estimate) or “$1,200,000,000 annually” (September 2025 estimates, averaged over 14 years).

Alternative Ballot Language

The lawsuit offers the following ballot language alternatives:

“If the Court were to order all of the amendments and corrections suggested by Petitioners supra, the RTM Ballot Question would read:

‘Funding BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness; Repaving transit-serving roads; Requiring financial transparency; shall the measure imposing a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties) and 1% (San Francisco) sales and use tax for 14 years generating approximately $1,200,000,000 annually, be adopted?’”

The lawsuit further reads, “If the Court were to order all of the amendments and corrections suggested by Petitioners supra, including use of the ‘Shall the measure … be adopted?’ format, the RTM Ballot Question would read:

‘Shall the measure imposing a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties) and 1% (San Francisco) sales and use tax for 14 years generating approximately $1,200,000,000 annually; Funding BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness; Repaving transit-serving roads; Requiring financial transparency; be adopted?’”

The petitioners also claim the “RTM Impartial Analysis is partial, false, and/or misleading” and that it should be written by either the California Attorney General, a county counsel or district attorney instead of Kathleen Kane who is he legal counsel for the District.

“Supporters of the Transit Measure need to use misleading advertising because voters won’t pass the measure if they have the real story that it is a regressive tax falling hardest on seniors and low-income families for 14 years,” Dieguez stated.

“Voters deserve the honest description the law guarantees them, and if the district won’t provide it, a court should,” Joffe added.

See the Public Transit Revenue Measure District’s Legal Counsel RTM Impartial Analysis.

See RTM Ballot Question Lawsuit Aug 17

For more information about CABAT visit Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit.

The election is Tuesday, Nov. 3.

Source: CDTFA

Share ideas, raise concerns, provide suggestions online or in person

By David Hafner, Office of Public Affairs, CDTFA

What: The Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights Meeting, on August 19, 2026, is an opportunity for taxpayers to provide valuable feedback on the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration’s (CDTFA) programs and procedures. Presided over by the Department’s Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate, Alfred Buck, the annual meeting encourages taxpayers to share ideas, raise concerns and provide suggestions. This meeting is open to everyone.

DATE: Wednesday, August 19, 2026

TIME:  9:30 a.m.

ONLINE: https://cdtfa.ca.gov/tra/tbor-meetings.htm

IN PERSON: May Lee State Office Complex Auditorium, 651 Bannon Street, Sacramento, CA 95811-0299
Those unable to attend in person can also participate by:

• Telephone, toll-free at 844-767-5651, access code 8014689.

• Viewing the livestream (link will be posted at www.cdtfa.ca.gov/tra/tbor-meetings.htm prior to the meeting).

• Submitting comments by email.

To learn more about the rights provided under the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, visit CDTFA’s Taxpayers’ Rights Advocate (TRA) website or contact the TRA Office at taxpayer.rights@cdtfa.ca.gov or +1.888.324.2798. You can also view the TRA’s  2024/25 Annual Report.

About the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights

Enacted in January 1989, the Harris-Katz California Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights ensures that the rights of California taxpayers are protected during the assessment and collection of sales taxes. The Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights was expanded in 1993 to include special tax programs such as environmental fees, fuel taxes, and tobacco taxes.

According to the California Franchise Tax Board, “As a California taxpayer, your rights are protected. The California Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights requires us to adequately protect the rights, privacy, and property of all California taxpayers when we assess or collect tax.

“Your rights include:

• Privacy and confidentiality: The privacy of your tax information.
• Professional and courteous service: Our employees should treat taxpayers courteously and complete tasks (such as audits) within a reasonable amount of time.
• Representation: You may represent yourself, or with proper authorization, have someone else represent you.
• Pay no more than the correct amount you owe: You should promptly pay the full amount of taxes that you owe. In general, we do not take collection action on an amount you owe until after we give you an opportunity to pay.
• Protests, appeals, and judicial review: You have protest and appeal rights as a taxpayer. If you disagree with a decision, you have the right to file a protest with us. If you disagree with FTB’s determination of your protest, you have the right to appeal your case to the Office of Tax Appeals.

For more information:

• California Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (FTB 4058) – This publication provides an overview of your rights and includes the major provisions of California legislation.
• California Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights – An Overview (FTB 4058C) – Describes the Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) provisions of your rights.”

The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) administers California’s sales and use, fuel, tobacco, alcohol and cannabis taxes, as well as other taxes and fees that fund specific state programs. CDTFA-administered programs accounted for more than $97.8 billion in the 2024/25 fiscal year, supporting essential local services such as transportation, public safety and health, libraries, schools, social services and natural resource management programs through the distribution of tax dollars directly to local communities.

Photo, agency & map graphics: MTC

To oversee process for Bay Area transit tax on Nov. ballot

By Metropolitan Transportation Commission

OAKLAND, CA – Updated Aug. 17, 2026 – The Public Transit Revenue Measure District (PTRMD) was established under Government Code Title 7.85, by Senate Bill 63 (2025), which also authorizes a regional transportation revenue measure to be placed on the November 2026 ballot, known as the Connect Bay Area Transit Initiative.

District Members

The Public Transit Revenue Measure District is comprised of the same individuals that govern the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).

The PTRMD on Jan. 16, 2026, received a notice of intent from the Connect Bay Area Transit Committee to place a citizen’s initiative on the November 2026 ballot. Senate Bill 63, authored by state senators Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Jesse Arreguín of Berkeley, authorized a qualified voter initiative to impose a retail transactions and use tax ordinance applicable to the entire district for a duration of 14 years, in an amount of 0.5% in each of the counties located within the district and 1% in the City and County of San Francisco, subject to voter approval at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.

On July 1, 2026, the District Elections Official issued a Certificate to Initiative Petition, certifying that proponents of the Connect Bay Area Transit Initiative submitted sufficient valid signatures for the measure to qualify for placement on the ballot.

The District at its July 24, 2026, meeting formally approved a resolution accepting the District Elections Official’s certification of the Connect Bay Area Transit initiative measure and requesting the Boards of Supervisors in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties to call a special election on the measure and to consolidate this special election with the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.

Impartial Analysis of Regional Transit Measure 

Legal counsel for the Public Transit Revenue Measure District has prepared an impartial analysis of the  Regional Transit Measure pursuant to subdivision (d) of Government Code 67740. This text will also be included in each county’s voter information guide per state law.

Notices of Election Provided by Santa Clara County

Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters provided the following notices of election:

• Notice of General Election
• 大選通告
• AVISO DE ELECCIÓN GENERAL
• THÔNG BÁO TỔNG TUYỂN CỬ
• Paunawa Sa Pangkalahatang Halalan

Election-Related Deadlines 

Established election dates related to the measure can be found on the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (ROV) website. Please reference the most recently published Public Transit Revenue Measure District (PTRMD) calendars, which may be accessed at the SantaClaraCounty.gov website.  If you are unable to access the link, please contact the Santa Clara County ROV directly for assistance.

Staff Contact

Kimberly Ward, District Elections Official
Phone: 415-778-5367
Email: kward@bayareametro.gov

請求協助! | ¡Solicita ayuda! | Request assistance! 

您是否需要我們翻譯其中一份文件的內容? 您是否需要大字體或盲文印刷的書面資料? 您是否需要手語或您所說語言的口譯服務才能參與?

如需協助，請致電 (415) 778-6757。若需使用 TDD 或為聽障人士，請致電 711，加州轉接服務，或 (800) 735-2929 (TTY) ，(800) 735-2922 (語音)，然後要求轉接至(415) 778-6700。請至少提前三個工作日提出申請，以便我們能為您提供適當的安排。

¿Necesita que alguno de nuestros documentos sea traducido? ¿Necesita nuestras comunicaciones escritas en letra grande o en Braille? ¿Necesita un intérprete del lenguaje de señas o un intérprete que hable su idioma para poder participar?

Para solicitar asistencia, por favor llamemos al (415) 778-6757. Para telecomunicaciones para personas sordas y discapacitadas, favor de llamar al 711, el Servicio de Retransmisión de California (CRS) para TTY/VCO/HCO a Voz o para Voz a TTY/VCO/HCO al (800) 855-3000 y pedir que lo conecten al (415) 778-6700. Necesitamos aviso de al menos tres días hábiles de anticipación para proporcionar la asistencia adecuada.

Do you need one of our documents translated? Do you need written materials in large type or in Braille? Do you need a sign language interpreter or an interpreter who speaks your language in order to participate?

To request accommodation, please call (415) 778-6757. For TDD or hearing impaired, call 711, California Relay Service, or (800) 735-2929 (TTY), (800) 735-2922 (voice) and ask to be relayed to (415) 778-6700. We require at least three working days’ notice to accommodate requests.

For more information visit Public Transit Revenue Measure District.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Acalanes High School and Stanley Intermediate were placed on lockdown by Lafayette police Monday, Aug. 17, 2026. Photo sources: acalanes61.com and Stanley Wildcats PTA Facebook page

By Allen D. Payton

The Lafayette Police Department placed Acalanes High School and Stanley Intermediate School on lockdown Monday afternoon, Aug. 17, 2026, due to an anonymous called in threat.

At 12:59 p.m. and 1:29 p.m. the Department posted alerts on Nixle, a service that sends out text messages about critical events in the community, with links on the department’s Facebook page.

They read:

“Officers are working a potential threat that was called into Acalanes High School by an annomoyous [sic] automated call. The lock down is a precaution. Avoid the area. Updates will be sent via Nixle.

“Oficers [sic] are on site and have drones over the school.”

and

“POLICE ACTIVITY – Officers are at Stanley Intermediate School while they determine if there is a viable threat that was called in.   It appears to be a swatting call, but are taking it seriously.

Officers will remain on campus and updates will be sent via Nixle.

If you see something call 9-1-1

94549TIP@gmail.com
925-284-5010 24 hour dispatch.”

By 1:47 p.m. and 1:52 p.m. All Clear messages were posted.

They read:

“All Clear – Acalanes High School Lockdown has been lifted. officers have completed a thorough search of the school, campus clear.

UPDATE: School Campus Cleared

Law enforcement officers have completed a thorough search of the school and determined that the campus is clear. There is no active threat to students, staff, or the surrounding community.

Officers will remain on site as a precaution while the incident is investigated. Preliminary information indicates this was likely a ‘swatting’ call—a false report intended to prompt a large emergency response.

Thank you for your patience and cooperation.”

and:

“All Clear- Stanley Intermediate School lockdown has been lifted, officers have completed a search of the school.

UPDATE: School Campus Cleared

Law enforcement officers have completed a thorough search of the school and determined that the campus is clear. There is no active threat to students, staff, or the surrounding community.

Officers will remain on site as a precaution while the incident is investigated. Preliminary information indicates this was likely a ‘swatting’ call—a false report intended to prompt a large emergency response.

Thank you for your patience and cooperation.”

According to the FBI, “Swatting is the malicious tactic of making hoax calls or reports to emergency services, typically feigning an immediate threat to life. Swatting is intended to draw a large response from SWAT teams or other law enforcement resources to an unsuspecting victim’s location, causing chaos and the potential for injury or violence.

“Targets of swatting often include high-profile public figures, as well as schools, hospitals, places of worship, and centers of mass transportation, but anyone can be a victim. A swatting incident may be an isolated event targeting one victim or part of a larger coordinated effort to target multiple victims.”

Lafayette Police arrested the burglary suspect in Martinez on Aug. 14, 2026. Photos: Lafayette PD

Held on $516K bail, has history of arrests, owns business in Martinez; multi-agency effort

By Lafayette Police Department

Earlier last week, three residential burglaries occurred in Lafayette. Lafayette PD identified the suspect who committed them. On Tuesday Aug. 11, 2026, Lafayette detectives went to a home in the 3800 block of Alhambra Way in Martinez to serve a search warrant in connection to the cases.

The suspect fled after seeing police. Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office, Walnut Creek PD, Martinez PD and East Bay Regional Park Police assisted in the search for the suspect, who was not located. Property stolen in the burglaries was recovered in the house. On Wednesday, Lafayette detectives and the Sheriff’s Office special enforcement unit J-Team took the suspect, who was driving a stolen vehicle, into custody in Walnut Creek.

Contra Costa Sheriff’s Deputies assist in the arrest at the suspect’s home in Martinez. Photo: Lafayette PD

The suspect is identified as 34-year-old Kohlton Shawn Kumnick of Martinez (born 3/6/1992). He was booked into the Martinez Detention Facility on burglary, vehicle theft, possession of stolen property, felon in possession of a firearm, grand theft, identity theft, resisting arrest, and narcotic charges. He is being held in lieu of $220,000 bail.

According to the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, the six-foot, three-inch tall, 205-pound suspect is Hispanic and being held on $516,000 bail and his next court appearance is scheduled for Wednesday, Aug. 19th at 1:30 p.m. in Martinez Superior Court Dept. 5.

According to localcrimenews.com, Kummick is White and has a history of arrests by multiple agencies dating back to 2013 for crimes including rape by threat, battery with serious bodily injury, battery on a peace officer, assault with any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, inflicting corporal injury on spouse or cohabitant, false imprisonment by violence, child endangerment, vehicle theft, evading police officer with wanton disregard for safety, drug possession and DUI. His most recent arrest prior to this was on April 10, 2026, for hit and run resulting in property damage, DUI – drugs and alcohol and drug possession.

According to Bizapedia, he is the sole principal of Kumnick Electric, LLC located in Martinez and according to contractorlicenseca.com, he’s a licensed contractor.

The investigation is ongoing. Anyone with any information is asked to contact the Lafayette Police Department at (925) 284-5010. Tips can be emailed to: 94549tip@gmail.com.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Sexual harassment training slide. Source: CA Civil Rights Department

“Misusing a coworker’s pronouns is sexual harassment”

By California Family Council

SACRAMENTO, CA —  Christian radio host Dennis McCourt sat down at his computer earlier this year to complete a training California law required. He got a few slides in, read a question asking him to affirm that misusing a coworker’s pronouns is sexual harassment, and stopped.

“There’s absolutely no way I’m going to do this,” McCourt said in an interview. “You could put a gun to my head. I won’t do it.”

McCourt works for an out-of-state Christian software company with two employees in California. That was enough to pull his employer into one of the most far-reaching workplace training mandates in the country, a law that requires employees to affirm concepts about gender identity that some religious workers say conflict with their faith. Whether the law exempts religious employers at all is a question no court, regulator, or state agency has definitively answered.

A Law That Grew

California has required sexual harassment training since 2005, but two later bills changed its scope substantially. In 2017, then-state Sen. Ricardo Lara authored SB 396, requiring employers with 50 or more employees to add training on harassment based on gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation. The following year, then-state Sen. Holly Mitchell authored SB 1343, which dropped the threshold to five employees and extended the one-hour training requirement to all employees, not just supervisors. Both are now part of Government Code section 12950.1, and the next compliance deadline for covered employers is Jan. 1, 2027.

The law’s reach surprises many employers. A company must train its California workers if it has five or more employees anywhere in the country, even if only one works in California and the company is headquartered elsewhere, which is how McCourt’s employer became subject to it.

Sexual harassment training slide. Source: CA Civil Rights Department

An Unanswered Exemption Question

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act generally excludes nonprofit religious organizations from the definition of “employer”, shielding churches and qualifying religious groups from many discrimination and harassment claims. But the training mandate in section 12950.1 defines “employer” on its own terms, covering any business with five or more workers, without mentioning religion or nonprofit status.

The Church Law Center of California, a firm that represents churches and religious nonprofits statewide, tells its clients they are not exempt from the training requirement. Separately, the employment law firm Weintraub Tobin has noted that other FEHA provisions requiring “all” employers to comply only “impliedly” carry forward the religious exemption found elsewhere in the code, leaving open whether that exemption applies to the training mandate specifically.

California Family Council, a Fresno-based Christian advocacy organization that tracks religious liberty issues in state law, says it has found no published court decision, no attorney general opinion, and nothing on the Civil Rights Department’s website that resolves the question. The department’s guidance repeats that the requirement applies to “all employers with five or more employees” without addressing religious organizations directly.

Even if courts eventually find that the law does reach religious employers, a further question remains untested: whether the First Amendment requires an exemption when a religious organization’s staff are asked to affirm gender identity content as a condition of compliance. Employment attorneys say that question has not yet been litigated in this context.

Sexual harassment training slide. Source: CA Civil Rights Department

What the Training Covers (see training slides here…)

The Civil Rights Department’s free supervisor training, posted at calcivilrights.ca.gov/shpt, goes beyond conduct rules into concepts about gender. One slide defines “gender identity” as a person’s internal sense of being male, female, a combination of the two, neither, or nonbinary and states that gender identity can differ from the sex a person was “assigned at birth”.

The training also walks supervisors through a scenario in which a transgender employee reports that a coworker keeps using their prior name and pronouns and has objected to their use of the women’s restroom. The training’s slides state that continuing to use a person’s prior name after a gender transition, known as “dead-naming”, “is considered harassment”, that intentionally using the wrong pronoun “is considered harassment”, and that objecting to a coworker’s restroom use based on their stated gender identity “is harassment”.

Under that framing, an employee who voices disagreement with a coworker’s restroom use, without any complaint, rudeness, or other conduct involved, has engaged in harassment as the state defines it.

Supervisors also required to watch the following video about gender and sexual orientation ideology. Notice how everything in this video is stated as facts with no acknowledgement that some employers and employees might have differing viewpoints that should also be respected. Watch here. 

The training separately warns supervisors that they can be held personally, not just professionally, liable: one slide states that employees who believe they were harassed “can sue the person who harassed them for money damages,” in addition to any action taken against the employer.

California’s own list of protected characteristics places “religion, creed” and “gender identity, gender expression” side by side as equally protected classes. Critics of the training, including McCourt and California Family Council, argue that the material puts those protections in direct tension by casting a sincerely held religious view about sex and gender as itself a form of discrimination.

Sexual harassment training slide. Source: CA Civil Rights Department

One Employee’s Refusal

McCourt’s employer required him to affirm the training’s gender identity statements before he could move to the next slide. The platform allowed a comment field, and McCourt used it on every page to record his objection rather than let a silent click stand in for agreement.

“It’s not simply passively listening to the theory,” McCourt said. “It’s having to affirm it to get to the next page, to comply with the state’s requirement and my employer’s requirement.”

McCourt’s objection is rooted in a traditional Christian reading of Genesis, which he and many other Christians understand as teaching that God created human beings male and female. For McCourt, being asked to affirm a different framework in writing is not a minor technicality but a direct conflict with that belief.

He has told his employer he cannot comply and is seeking either a religious accommodation or an alternative curriculum, and is reaching out to Christian legal organizations for help. Federal and state law both generally require employers to accommodate a sincerely held religious belief unless doing so would impose a genuine undue hardship on the business, a standard that predates this training mandate. Whether that standard applies here, and how, is the question now taking shape.

McCourt is also asking pastors in his network to speak out on the mandate.

“I have a genuine concern regarding my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ being discipled by the state of California regarding their sexual ethic,” he said. “The fact that thousands of pastors in CA are not even aware that their church members are being forced into this indoctrination is very disturbing.”

Greg Burt, vice president of California Family Council, argues the training crosses a line. “California isn’t just regulating workplaces anymore. It’s dictating what its citizens must believe,” Burt said. “No state agency has the authority to force a Christian to affirm, in writing, a view of gender he doesn’t hold. That isn’t harassment prevention. That’s compelled speech.”

McCourt points to a passage in Acts 5:29, in which the apostles tell religious authorities they “must obey God rather than men,” when they were told they should not longer speak about Jesus and his teachings. This is the biblical text he and other Christians draw on when they say conscience should take precedence over a legal requirement they believe conflicts with their faith.

Sexual harassment training slide. Source: CA Civil Rights Department

A Broader Pattern

California Family Council says this case fits a pattern it has documented in other settings, including gender-identity training for public school teachers through the state’s PRISM program, pronoun policies at the University of California, and training mandates for healthcare workers. In each case, the organization argues, Californians have faced pressure to affirm a contested view of sex and gender or risk professional consequences.

What Happens Next

California Family Council is compiling a list of pastors, employers and employees willing to go on record about the training requirement ahead of the Jan. 1, 2027 compliance deadline. The organization says it is continuing to consult attorneys on the exemption question and plans to press the Civil Rights Department and state lawmakers for clarity on whether religious organizations are covered.

About California Family Council

California Family Council works to advance God’s design for life, family, and liberty through California’s Church, Capitol, and Culture. By advocating for policies that reinforce the sanctity of life, the strength of traditional marriages, and the essential freedoms of religion, CFC is dedicated to preserving California’s moral and social foundation.

Steve Hilton shares about his campaign for California governor at a fundraiser in Brentwood in Eastern Contra Costa County on Tuesday, August 11, 2026. Photos by Allen D. Payton

Calls Delta tunnel “completely ridiculous”; will make first $150 grand of residents’ income tax free

By Allen D. Payton

Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate for governor of California, stopped in Brentwood on Tuesday, Aug. 11th, and shared about his campaign platform during a fundraiser. He specifically addressed a concern to Eastern Contra Costa County residents when he stated his opposition to the proposed and planned tunnel to move more water south, known as the Delta Conveyance. (See related articles here and here)

In answering a question from Discovery Bay Town Councilwoman Carolyn Graham, Hilton called it a “scheme” and said, “it seems to me like another high-speed rail” which he also opposes. “I think it’s completely ridiculous and I’m totally, dead against it and will do everything in my power to stop it,” Hilton exclaimed.

The event was held at the McCauley Estate Vineyards, hosted by the McCauley and Billheimer families and catered by Lavish Grazing. Prior to the main event, a VIP reception with the candidate was held for those who contributed additional funds, where he autographed copies of his book entitled, Califailure.

Hilton autographs his book, Califailure and speaks with VIP guests at a pre-reception to the fundraiser on Aug. 11, 2026.

Shares About Campaign Platform

After being introduced by Contra Costa Republican Party Central Committee District 3 Chair and the campaign’s Contra Costa Volunteer Director Pamela Neitte-Garcia, Hilton shared a new part of his platform that he just announced that day. He said, “Your first $150 grand tax free” meaning no state income tax on the first $150,000 Californians earn each year. It will cost the state budget $20 billion he later shared.

“That means cutting spending. You can only cut taxes if you cut spending,” Hilton stated.

“Do you know what they’ve done to the budget of California in the last 10 years?” he asked. “It actually more than doubled. Ten years ago, the budget was $170 billion. The one that Newsom just signed off…$350 billion.”

“Is everything twice as good?” Hilton asked. “Don’t tell me we can’t find some savings to go with those tax cuts.”

“We’re calling it Operation Zero Waste,” he continued. “The best way to help people with the cost of living is to get more money in their pocket. Right? Well, what’s the quickest, most direct, simple, way of getting more money in people’s pockets? The government to take less out in the first place.”

East County veterans leader J.R. Wilson speaks with Steve Hilton during the fundraiser Aug. 11, 2026.

Hilton then shared how he would cut spending.

“Number one, cancel high-speed rail,” he stated to cheers and a loud round of applause. “That is $4 billion, right there.”

“It’s a fiasco of epic proportions,” Hilton added. “We’re going to shut it down and stop it in its tracks. Except they haven’t laid any tracks,” which garnered laughter from the attendees.

“Secondly, no more free health care for illegal immigrants,” he stated, next. “That will save $11 billion.”

“Next, we’re going to cancel the vanity projects…all this stuff is so much bloat in this budget,” Hilton continued. “We’re going to shut down the non-profit scam and rip-off.”

“We’re going to shut down the homeless industrial complex where billions of dollars are going into these apartment units for homeless people at about a million dollars each,” he stated.

“We’re going to be doing a very modest, five percent efficiency saving across all government departments in Sacramento,” Hilton shared. “That’s $18 billion, right there. We’re over the twenty billion already.”

He then mentioned his final cost saving proposal of reducing the number of “bureaucrats in Sacramento,” which increased by 40,000 people during Newsom’s terms.

“We’re going to take the headcount right down, back to where it was,” Hilton stated. “We’re basically at thirty-seven billion and we haven’t even had to try very hard.”

“So, there’s no question we will find that money to deliver what we need, especially for working people in California,” he said. “We’ve done the work. I’ve been at this for a long time.”

Hilton mentioned his latest campaign slogan of, “Enough is enough.”

Steve Hiton speaks from the McCauley Estate Vineyards in a video on his X account Aug. 11, 2026. Video screenshot.

He also touched on the other planks of his campaign platform under what he calls “Califordable” which were displayed on a banner, including $3.00 per gallon gas, cut utility bills in half and starter homes for young families. In response to a question about education, Hilton shared briefly about part of what he calls the “Califuture” portion of his campaign platform showing another of the large banners in the room with the list. It read, “Every Student Reads by 3rd Grade” and “Skills Training in Every School.” The list also included, “Bust the $745 Billion Job-Killer Bloat” and “Abolish $800 Small Business Tax.”

Hilton concluded by saying he wants “to make California the best place of anywhere in the world to start and raise a family, to start and grow a business. That’s California and we will be back.”

In a video of the candidate posted on his personal X account the next morning recorded at the McCauley Estate Vineyard following the event he said, “Alright everyone. I know you think of wine country as Napa and Sonoma. But look at this. Beautiful vines. It’s so mellow. Lovely evening. We’ve had an event here in Brentwood, Contra Costa County. You don’t think of that when you think of wine. But we’ve had a wonderful time, and this is what it’s all about. Every part of our state, every business, every family, we’re here for you to save our beautiful state of California. Please join us.”

For more information about Hilton’s campaign visit https://stevehiltonforgovernor.com. His next event in the county will be another fundraiser at the Blackhawk Country Club on Sept. 2. For details call (916) 849-1546 or email julie@stevehiltonforgovernor.com.

Hilton faces Democrat Xavier Becerra in the General Election on November 3rd.

Map of the service are for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California led by First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bilal A. “Bill” Essayli. Source: USAOCDC

Despite sanctuary state laws; part of Operation Take Back America

Almost all charged with illegally re-entering U.S. following removal

By Allen D. Payton

In an Aug. 12, 2026 post on X by First Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District of California Bilal A. “Bill” Essayli, he wrote, “Last year I launched Operation Guardian Angel to force sanctuary jurisdictions to hand over criminal illegal immigrants. It’s been a tremendous success. We’ve picked up hundreds of criminal illegal aliens from local CA jails despite state law making it illegal for local law enforcement to cooperate with us. This program is a model for the rest of the nation and a proven strategy to compel states to hand over criminal illegal immigrants to @ICEgov.”

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s webpage, “the Central District of California serves the seven counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. This includes a population of nearly 20 million people – the largest of any federal judicial district in the country. The role of the Office is to enforce the laws and defend the interests of the United States. It does so through three primary litigating Divisions: Criminal, National Security, and Civil.”

A former California State Assemblyman, Essayli, “leads a team of 500 lawyers, special agents, and staff members enforcing federal criminal law.”

Contra Costa County is located in the Northern District of California led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Missakian.

The operation was launched in May 2025, as “a program that seeks to neutralize California’s sanctuary state policy and protect Americans from criminal illegal aliens incarcerated in county jails by issuing federal arrest warrants for them.” The announcement claimed, “The Central District of California…is home to an estimated 1.5 million illegal aliens. Among this population are gang members and other dangerous felons.”

According to a May 19, 2025 FOX News report the operation is “a task force, made up of assets from ICE, HSI (Homeland Security Investigations), DEA, FBI, ATF and Border Patrol.”

An article by the California Post, published earlier Wenesday, entitled, Inside feds’ stealth mission to deport California killers, rapists and child molesters, shared additional details about the operation.

“Federal authorities snared a child molester, a rapist and an accused killer in a sophisticated operation that has rid Southern California of hundreds of criminal illegal migrants” and “has so far collared 362 previously deported illegal migrants using federal law to defeat California’s controversial ‘sanctuary state’ rule prohibiting local police from cooperating with immigration agents even if they wanted to.”

An announcement on Wednesday by the Central District office’s PIO, Ciaran McEvoy, provided details about the operation.

“Since its launch last year, Operation Guardian Angel, a program that seeks to neutralize California’s sanctuary state policy, has resulted in 362 arrests of criminal illegal aliens from county jails into federal custody in the Los Angeles area, the Inland Empire, and the Central Coast.

“Operation Guardian Angel’s goal is to apprehend criminal illegal aliens incarcerated in county jails, (who are) prohibited by ‘sanctuary state’ laws from cooperating with federal immigration officials. SB 54, also known as the California Values Act, signed into law in 2017, limits state and local police cooperation with federal immigration officers and restricts local resources from being used to remove illegal aliens – including violent felons.

“Operation Guardian Angel works by securing federal arrest warrants for aliens recently arrested by local law enforcement. Once issued, local jails are legally required to honor the arrest warrants and must hand over the criminal illegal alien in their custody to the federal government.

“The operation began in May 2025 and has resulted in 769 arrest warrants issued, and the actual transfer of 362 defendants – 347 of whom are federally charged with illegally re-entering the United States following removal, or another federal offense. Other federal charges include unlawful possession of a firearm by an alien, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, using a firearm in drug trafficking or a crime of violence, and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute.

“Broken California ‘sanctuary state’ policies endanger the public and cannot go unchallenged by the federal government,” said Essayli. “Operation Guardian Angel is an answer to these misguided policies. Through this task force we are forcing California to do the thing it hates most: handing hundreds of criminal illegal aliens into federal custody to face justice and deportation.”

“ICE ERO’s mission is to identify, arrest, detain, and remove those who are in the United States illegally,” said Thomas Giles, Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Los Angeles Field Office for Enforcement and Removal Operations. “Unfortunately, California’s politicians are forcing local law enforcement agencies to release criminal illegal aliens back into our communities to create more American victims. Our partnership with the U.S. Attorney’s Office here in the Central District of California through Operation Guardian Angel allows us to keep rapists, gang members, and murderers, who shouldn’t be in the U.S. at all, off the streets of California. We will not be deterred. We are not going away. We will continue to enforce the laws passed by the people’s representatives in Congress here in California and everywhere in the United States.”

“Among the defendants taken into federal custody under this program are:

• Jaime Rodríguez Ladesma, 70, of Long Beach, an illegal alien from Mexico who was convicted in Los Angeles Superior Court in October 2023 of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 and who was removed in December 2023. He subsequently illegally returned to the United States and was convicted of being found in the U.S. following removal. He was removed to Mexico in March 2026.
• Héctor Bueno-Moreno, 55, of San Luis Obispo, an illegal alien from Mexico who was removed in September 2001 and January 2020, whose criminal history includes a 1995 rape conviction in Kern County Superior Court. He was arrested in August 2025 by the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office on a bench warrant out of Santa Barbara County prior to his federal arrest. He pleaded guilty last year to improper entry by an alien. He was removed to Mexico in September 2025.
• Ricardo López Jaramillo, 50, a.k.a. “Sharky,” of Pasadena, a five-times-deported illegal alien from Mexico and gang member whose criminal history includes multiple felony robbery convictions in Los Angeles Superior Court, and a 2007 conviction in San Diego federal court of three counts of illegal entry, for which he was sentenced to three years in federal prison. In November 2025, he was sentenced to 10 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to a single-count information charging him with illegal alien found in the U.S. following removal. He was removed to Mexico in June 2026.
• Alejandro Lima Ramírez, 46, a.k.a. “Fidel Garcia Vasquez,” of Santa Maria, a four-times-deported illegal alien from Mexico, whose criminal history includes convictions for drug trafficking, stalking, domestic violence, robbery, theft, and driving under the influence. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office transferred him to federal custody last year after Lima was arrested for drug-and-traffic violations. He is serving a 30-month federal prison sentence after pleading guilty in October 2025 to illegal alien found in the U.S. following removal.
• Andrés Velásquez Ocampo, 37, of Santa Ana, an illegal alien from Mexico who was deported in January 2019 and was arrested in South Gate in May 2025 on drug charges. His criminal history includes convictions for carjacking and hit-and-run with property damage. He pleaded guilty in November 2025 to one count of illegal alien found in the U.S. following removal, was sentenced to three months in federal prison, he was removed to Mexico in December 2025.
• In February 2025, José Cristián Saravia-Sánchez, 31, of Mexico, shot and killed an Inglewood man who tried to stop him from stealing a catalytic converter. Despite the fact he was an illegal alien who had been convicted of vehicle theft, was removed from the United States in 2013, and had been arrested 11 times between June 2022 and August 2024, local law enforcement was prevented by state law from complying with an immigration detainer request. While his state criminal case is pending, he also faces federal criminal charges of illegal alien found in the United States following removal and alien in possession of a firearm.

“Operation Guardian Angel is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, to achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations, and to protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime.”

About Operation Take Back America

Established in March 2025 as a single initiative, Operation Take Back America Organized that combines the resources of the DEA’s Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, launched in 1982, and the USDOJ’s Project Safe Neighborhoods Program, launched in 2001, to implement core policy objectives established by President Trump and the Attorney General which were outlined in a memo, here. The focus of the operation is “to address the Justice Department’s core enforcement priorities: stopping illegal immigration, eliminating Cartels and TCOs (Transnational Criminal Organizations) and ending illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs and human beings.” According to the memo, “In a February 5, 2025 memorandum, the Attorney General established a charging policy around a core principle: in the absence of unusual facts, prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.”

The operation includes “all efforts to target TdA (Tren de Aragua), MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha), the Sinaloa Cartel, Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), the Northeast Cartel (Los Zetas), New Michoacan Family, United Cartels, the Gulf Cartel, and any other Cartel or TCO designated pursuant to the process established in Executive Order 14157, entitled Designating Cartels and Other Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists.”