Atty

A planned increase in federal immigration enforcement in the Bay Area is now on pause throughout the region and in major East Bay cities, not just in San Francisco, Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee said Friday.

Lee said in a statement that Alameda County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez had “confirmed through her communications” with federal immigration officials that the planned operations were “cancelled for the greater Bay Area — which includes Oakland — at this time.”

The announcement followed lingering concerns about ramped up immigration enforcement among East Bay leaders after President Trump and San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie announced Thursday that a planned “surge” had been called off in San Francisco.

Trump and Lurie had very specifically addressed San Francisco, even as additional Border Patrol agents were being staged across the bay on Coast Guard Island, which is in the waters between Alameda and Oakland.

At a press conference following Trump’s annoucement about San Francisco, Lee had said the situation remained “fluid,” that she had received no such assurances about the East Bay and that Oakland was continuing to prepare for enhanced immigration enforcement in the region.

Alameda County Dist. Atty. Ursula Jones Dickson had previously warned that the announced stand down in San Francisco could be a sign the administration was looking to focus on Oakland instead — and make an example of it.

“We know that they’re baiting Oakland, and that’s why San Francisco, all of a sudden, is off the table,” Jones Dickson said Thursday morning. “So I’m not going to be quiet about what we know is coming. We know that their expectation is that Oakland is going to do something to cause them to make us the example.”

The White House on Friday directed questions about the scope of the pause in operations and whether it applied to the East Bay to the Department of Homeland Security, which referred The Times back to Trump’s statement about San Francisco on Friday — despite its making no mention of the East Bay or Oakland.

In that statement, posted to his Truth Social platform, Trump had written that a “surge” had been planned for San Francisco starting Saturday, but that he had called it off after speaking to Lurie.

Trump said Lurie had asked “very nicely” that Trump “give him a chance to see if he can turn it around” in the city, and that business leaders — including Jensen Huang of Nvidia and Marc Benioff of Salesforce — had expressed confidence in Lurie.

Trump said he told Lurie that it would be “easier” to make San Francisco safer if federal forces were sent in, but told him, “let’s see how you do.”

Lurie in recent days has touted falling crime rates and numbers of homeless encampments in the city, and said in his own announcement of the stand down that he had told Trump that San Francisco was “on the rise” and that “having the military and militarized immigration enforcement in our city will hinder our recovery.”

In California and elsewhere, the Trump administration has aggressively sought to expand the reach and authority of the Border Patrol and federal immigration agents. Last month, the DOJ fired its top prosecutor in Sacramento after she told Gregory Bovino, chief of the Border Patrol’s El Centro Sector, that he could not carry out indiscriminate immigration raids around Sacramento this summer.

In Oakland on Thursday, the planned surge in enforcement had sparked protests near the entrance to Coast Guard Island, and drew widespread condemnation from local liberal officials and immigrant advocacy organizations.

On Thursday night, security officers at the base opened fire on the driver of a U-Haul truck who was reversing the truck toward them, wounding the driver and a civilian nearby. The FBI is investigating that incident.

Some liberal officials had warned that federal agents who violated the rights of Californians could face consequences — even possible arrest — from local law enforcement, which drew condemnation from federal officials.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche responded with a scathing letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and others on Thursday in which he wrote that any attempt by local law enforcement to arrest federal officers doing their jobs would be viewed by the Justice Department as “both illegal and futile” and as part of a “criminal conspiracy.”

Blanche wrote that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution precludes any federal law enforcement official to be “held on a state criminal charge where the alleged crime arose during the performance of his federal duties,” and that the Justice Department would pursue legal action against any state officials who advocate for such enforcement.

“In the meantime, federal agents and officers will continue to enforce federal law and will not be deterred by the threat of arrest by California authorities who have abdicated their duty to protect their constituents,” Blanche wrote.

The threat of arrest for federal officers had originated in part with San Francisco Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins, who had written on social media that if federal agents “come to San Francisco and illegally harass our residents … I will not hesitate to do my job and hold you accountable just like I do other violators of the law every single day.”

Los Angeles County prosecutors unsealed an indictment Friday against a former LAPD officer responsible for the 2015 on-duty shooting of an unarmed man in Venice.

The ex-cop, Clifford Proctor, pleaded not guilty to the charges during a brief hearing in a downtown courtroom.

Wearing an orange jumpsuit, Proctor, 60, leaned over several times to whisper to his attorney but otherwise said little during the hearing, a portion of which was held behind closed doors. He waived a reading of the indictment. He will remain in custody with no bail, and is expected to return to court for a hearing early next month.

Proctor’s lawyer, Anthony “Tony” Garcia, said he would reserve comment until he’d had a chance to review the case.

But he questioned the timing of the charges, which came more than a decade after the incident in question.

The L.A. County District Attorney’s office reviewed the case when it was fresh and “determined there was nothing to proceed,” Garcia said.

Proctor was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport last week when U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents noticed he had an active warrant. Proctor has been living abroad for several years, according to sources who were not authorized to speak publicly about the pending case.

Proctor resigned from the LAPD in 2017. While still with the department, he shot and killed Brendon Glenn, a 29-year-old homeless man, after a dispute outside of a Venice bar in 2015. Glenn and his dog had been kicked out of the Bank of Venice restaurant for causing a disturbance.

Proctor and Glenn got into an argument and the officer ordered Glenn to leave the area. Glenn responded by hurling several racial epithets at Proctor. Both men are Black, according to court records.

Glenn then got into an argument with a bouncer outside of a different bar, and Proctor and his partner moved to make an arrest. During the ensuing struggle, Proctor shot Glenn twice in the back. Proctor alleged Glenn reached for his partner’s gun, but footage from the scene appeared to contradict that claim.

Glenn’s hand was never seen “on or near any portion” of the holster, according to a report made by the city’s Police Commission in 2016, and Proctor’s partner never made “any statements or actions” suggesting Glenn was trying to take the gun.

Former LAPD Chief Charlie Beck called for Proctor to be charged with manslaughter in the wake of public outrage over the killing, but ex-Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey declined to prosecute. After being elected on a police accountability platform in 2020, her successor, George Gascón hired a special prosecutor to reexamine charges against several L.A. County law enforcement officers in on-duty killings, including Glenn’s death.

Last year, sources told The Times that a warrant had been issued for Proctor’s arrest. Gascón and his chosen special prosecutor, Lawrence Middleton, repeatedly declined to comment on the case.

Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, who fired Middleton shortly after taking office last year, has not given updates on the case. Hochman hired another special prosecutor, Michael Gennaco, to oversee Middleton’s pending cases.

Hochman’s appetite to prosecute Proctor is unclear. He was often critical of Gascón’s decision to employ a special prosecutor during the 2024 campaign cycle, and Hochman’s close ties to law enforcement have left some skeptical of his willingness to pursue difficult cases involving on-duty misconduct.

NORFOLK, Va. — New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James is set to make her first court appearance in a mortgage fraud case on Friday, the third adversary of President Trump to face a judge on federal charges in recent weeks.

James was indicted earlier this month on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a 2020 home purchase in Norfolk, Va. The charges came shortly after the official who had been overseeing the investigation was pushed out by the Trump administration and the Republican president publicly called on the Justice Department to take action against James and other political foes.

James, a Democrat who has sued Trump and his administration dozens of times, has denied wrongdoing and decried the indictment as “nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system.”

The indictment stems from James’ purchase of a modest house in Norfolk, where she has family. During the sale, she signed a standard document called a “second home rider” in which she agreed to keep the property primarily for her “personal use and enjoyment for at least one year,” unless the lender agreed otherwise.

Rather than using the home as a second residence, the indictment alleges, James rented it out to a family of three. According to the indictment, the misrepresentation allowed James to obtain favorable loan terms not available for investment properties.

James drew Trump’s ire when she won a staggering judgment against the president and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements. An appeals court overturned the fine, which had ballooned to more than $500 million with interest, but upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.

James’ indictment followed the resignation of Erik Siebert as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after he resisted Trump administration pressure to bring charges. Siebert was replaced with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide and former Trump lawyer who had never previously served as a federal prosecutor and presented James’ case to the grand jury herself.

On Thursday, lawyers for James asked for an order prohibiting prosecutors from disclosing to the news media information about the investigation, or materials from the case, outside of court.

The motion followed the revelation from earlier this week that Halligan contacted via an encrypted text messaging platform a reporter from Lawfare, a media organization that covers legal and national security issues, to discuss the James prosecution and complain about coverage of it. The reporter published the exchange that she and Halligan had.

“The exchange was a stunning disclosure of internal government information,” lawyers for James wrote.

They added: “It has been reported that Ms. Halligan has no prosecutorial experience whatsoever. But all federal prosecutors are required to know and follow the rules governing their conduct from their first day on the job, and so any lack of experience cannot excuse their violation.”

The motion also asks that the government be required to preserve all communications with representatives of the media as well as to prevent the deletion of any records or communications related to the investigation and the prosecution of the case.

Separately on Thursday, defense lawyers said they intended to challenge Halligan’s appointment, a step also taken this week by attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey in a different case filed by Halligan. Comey has been charged with lying to Congress in a criminal case filed days after Trump appeared to urge his attorney general to prosecute him, and he has pleaded not guilty.

A third Trump adversary, former national security adviser John Bolton, pleaded not guilty last week to charges against him of emailing classified information to family members and keeping top secret documents at his Maryland home.

The Justice Department has also been investigating mortgage fraud allegations against Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California, whom Trump has called to be prosecuted over allegations related to a property in Maryland. In a separate mortgage investigation, authorities have been probing allegations against Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, who is challenging a Trump administration effort to remove her from her job. Schiff and Cook have denied wrongdoing.

Finely and Richer write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington. Associated Press reporter Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — U.S. Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III announced today that he will resign at the end of July or in early August.

He told a news conference that an independent prosecutor investigating his personal financial affairs had found no grounds for legal action against him and therefore he could leave the Reagan Administration with a clear name.

“I have stated that I would not resign under a cloud or until I was completely vindicated,” Meese said, adding that the filing of a report by independent counsel James McKay–rather than an indictment–”fully vindicates me.”

Meese’s tenure at the Justice Department has been marked by repeated controversy surrounding his conduct and marred by resignations by senior personnel.

Won’t Be ‘Hounded’

Explaining why he had now decided to resign, Meese, who has always maintained his innocence, declared, “to allow myself to be hounded out of office by false accusations or allegations, unjust political attacks and media clamor would undermine the integrity of our system of justice which I have championed. . . . “

He said: “I have informed the President that I will be leaving the Administration towards the end of July or early in August.”

Earlier today, McKay ended his investigation of Meese without bringing criminal charges, but filed a report that raised questions about Meese’s ethics.

Sources close to the nearly 14-month-old probe said the secret report, totaling more than 800 pages, referred certain matters on Meese’s ethical behavior to the Justice Department for further review.

The department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the agency’s internal ethics unit, is expected to review whether Meese violated federal ethics rules that prohibit actions that create the appearance of impropriety.

Allegations Detailed

McKay, who previously said he had insufficient evidence to indict Meese on most key matters under scrutiny, detailed in the report his probe into various conflict-of-interest charges against the attorney general.

It was filed under seal with a special panel of three federal appeals court judges. After Meese’s defense attorneys comment on the report, the judges will decide when to release it.

Meese, the nation’s top law enforcement officer who had President Reagan’s continued support throughout the inquiry, has denied any wrongdoing.

Most of McKay’s investigation centered on action Meese took as a government official that benefited his longtime friend and former lawyer, E. Robert Wallach, and on assistance that Wallach extended to Meese.

Wallach has been indicted on charges of attempting to illegally influence Meese and other government officials in helping win lucrative government contracts for the scandal-plagued Wedtech Corp., a defense contractor.

The most serious charge against Meese involved his role in a failed Iraqi oil pipeline deal that allegedly called for payoffs of as much as $700 million over 10 years to Israel and the Israeli Labor Party.

Meese received a secret 1985 memo from Wallach, who represented one of the project’s promoters, outlining the alleged payoff plan in return for an Israeli commitment not to attack the pipeline.

Meese then helped set up a meeting between a top White House national security adviser and former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres to discuss the project.

Telephone Contacts Probed

McKay also investigated Meese’s meetings with regional Bell Telephone company executives while holding $14,000 in phone stock.

William French Smith, Ronald Reagan’s personal lawyer and a key adviser who placed his conservative stamp on federal policy during his term as U.S. attorney general, died Monday in Los Angeles.

Smith, 73, died with his family at his bedside at the Kenneth Norris Jr. Cancer Center at County-USC Medical Center, where he had been admitted Oct. 2, a hospital spokeswoman said.

A corporate attorney and senior partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles’ largest law firm, Smith was an original member of the “kitchen cabinet” that helped guide Reagan from Hollywood to Sacramento and the White House.

As attorney general, Smith “brought talent, wisdom and the highest integrity to the Department of Justice,” Reagan said Monday. “Our nation was indeed fortunate to have a person of his excellence and patriotism in the cabinet. And we were made better as a country because of Bill’s work.

“More than a colleague, Bill was a valued and trusted friend and adviser. I often sought his wise counsel throughout my years in public life, and I was fortunate to have him at my side.”

As attorney general from 1981-85, Smith was a key architect of the Reagan Administration’s conservative shift on issues affecting domestic policy, including civil rights. While acknowledging that the Administration had been accused of “abandoning the federal civil rights effort,” he maintained that the Justice Department under his leadership vigorously enforced civil rights laws.

But more than half the lawyers in the Justice Department’s civil rights division signed a letter of protest after Smith reversed an 11-year-old policy that gave the Internal Revenue Service the power to deny tax exemptions to private schools.

Smith “served the United States with great distinction,” Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh said.

U.S. Solicitor General Kenneth Starr, Smith’s former law partner and his chief of staff in the Justice Department, said Smith was “an immensely gifted lawyer with marvelous sound and wise judgment (who was) unfailingly kind and thoughtful. He was always willing to listen to people, to hear people out.

“It was one of the ironies of his tenure that it was characterized by such far-reaching and profound change in the direction of the federal legal system . . . done in a quintessentially quiet, prudent and lawyerlike fashion.”

After meeting Reagan in 1963, Smith became the future President’s personal lawyer, confidant and business adviser. He has been credited with engineering Reagan’s rise to wealth at a time when the former actor’s primary income was royalties from movies.

Smith, drug store magnate Justin Dart, auto dealer Holmes Tuttle and oil, entertainment and real estate entrepreneur Jack Wrather were among the group of California millionaires known as the “kitchen cabinet.”

They rallied to Reagan after hearing him give a nationally broadcast speech in support of Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential candidacy. The group persuaded Reagan to run for California governor in 1966, and remained his most important political advisers and fund-raisers. Tuttle once remarked that during Reagan’s eight years in Sacramento, the group “never made a move” without first asking: “Has this been cleared with Bill Smith?”

Born Aug. 26, 1917, in Wilton, N.H., Smith was a direct descendant of Uriah Oakes, the fourth president of Harvard College. His father, who died when Smith was 6, was president of the Mexican Telephone and Telegraph Co., whose headquarters were in Boston.

Smith graduated summa cum laude from UC Berkeley in 1939 and earned his law degree at Harvard in 1942. After World War II duty as an officer in the Naval Reserve, Smith broke away from his New England roots and settled in California. He had decided, he said, that his life “wasn’t going to be dictated to by my ancestors.”

He joined Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in 1946 and eventually headed its labor department, where he represented the firms blue-chip corporate clients in collective bargaining negotiations.

In 1968, Reagan appointed Smith to the University of California Board of Regents, where he reflected the then-governor’s hard-line views toward Vietnam War protesters. He opposed demands that the university discontinue nuclear weapons research, and he resisted efforts to force the university to divest itself of stock in countries doing business in South Africa.

Fred Dutton, a former official in the John F. Kennedy Administration who served as a UC regent with Smith, said the former attorney general’s philosophy “is that a small central establishment of a few people who have proven successful should run the rest of our lives.”

But other liberals on the board credited Smith with being free of ideological rigidity and willing to listen to all sides of any argument.

Once at the helm in the Justice Department, Smith systematically set about dismantling policies that had been in place for a generation.

In 1981, he summarized the direction in which he was taking the department:

“We have firmly enforced the law that forbids federal employees from striking. We have opposed the distortion of the meaning of equal protection by courts that mandate counterproductive busing and quotas. We have helped to select appointees to the federal bench who understand the meaning of judicial restraint.”

One of those appointees–one he took great pride in recruiting–is Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Smith was president of the California Chamber of Commerce from 1974 to 1975. He was a director of Pacific Telephone & Telegraph of San Francisco, Crocker National Bank and Crocker National Corp., Pacific Mutual Life Insurance of Los Angeles, Pacific Lighting Corp., Jorgensen Steel Corp. and Pullman Inc. of Chicago.

Smith’s first marriage ended in divorce. In 1964 he married his second wife, Jean Webb. In addition to his wife, he is survived by a daughter, Stephanie Smith Lorenzen; three sons, William, Scott and Gregory; a stepson, G. William Vaughan Jr.; a stepdaughter, Merry Vaughan Dunn, and seven grandchildren.

Funeral arrangements were incomplete.

WASHINGTON — A grand jury has indicted New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James on a fraud charge in the latest Justice Department case against a perceived enemy of President Trump, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday.

James was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia on one count after a mortgage fraud investigation, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the matter.

James’ office had no immediate comment Thursday.

The indictment, two weeks after a separate criminal case charging former FBI Director James Comey with lying to Congress, is the latest indication of the Trump administration’s norm-busting determination to use the law enforcement powers of the Justice Department to pursue the president’s political foes and public figures who once investigated him.

The James case remained under seal Thursday, making it impossible to assess what evidence prosecutors have. But as was the case with the Comey charges, the prosecution followed a strikingly unconventional case.

The Trump administration two weeks ago pushed out Erik Siebert, the veteran prosecutor who had overseen the investigation for months but had resisted pressure to file a case, and replaced him with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide who was once Trump’s personal lawyer but who has never worked as a federal prosecutor.

Halligan presented the case to the grand jury herself, as she did in the case against Comey, according to the person familiar with the matter.

Trump has been advocating charging James for months, posting on social media without citing any evidence that she’s “guilty as hell” and telling reporters at the White House, “It looks to me like she’s really guilty of something, but I really don’t know.”

James, a second-term Democrat, has denied wrongdoing. She has said that she made an error while filling out a form related to a home purchase but quickly rectified it and didn’t deceive the lender.

Her lawyer has accused the Justice Department of concocting a bogus criminal case to settle Trump’s personal vendetta against James, who last year won a staggering judgment against Trump and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he lied to banks and others about the value of his assets.

The Justice Department has also been investigating mortgage-related allegations against Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, using the probe to demand her ouster, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), whose lawyer called the allegations against him “transparently false, stale, and long debunked.”

But James is a particularly personal target. As attorney general, she sued the Republican president and his administration dozens of times and oversaw a lawsuit accusing him of defrauding banks by dramatically overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements.

An appeals court overturned the fine, which had ballooned to more than $500 million with interest, but upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.

Richer, Sisak and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi struck a defiant tone Tuesday during a Senate hearing where she dodged a series of questions about brewing scandals that have dogged her agency.

Bondi, a Trump loyalist, refused to discuss her conversations with the White House about the recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey and the deployment of federal troops to Democrat-run cities.

She deflected questions about an alleged bribery scheme involving the president’s border advisor and declined to elaborate on her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

In many instances, Bondi’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee devolved into personal attacks against Democrats, who expressed dismay at their inability to get her to answer their inquiries.

“This is supposed to be an oversight hearing in which members of Congress can get serious answers to serious questions about the cover-up of corruption about the prosecution of the president’s enemies,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said toward the end of the nearly five-hour hearing. “When will it be that the members of this committee on a bipartisan basis demand answers to those questions?”

Her testimony came as the Justice Department faces increased accusations that it is being weaponized against President Trump’s political foes.

It marked a continuation of what has become a hallmark of not just Bondi, but most of Trump’s top officials. When pressed on potential scandals that the president has taken great pains to publicly avoid, they almost universally turn to one tactic: ignore and attack the questioner.

That strategy was shown in an exchange between Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who wanted to know who decided to close an investigation into Trump border advisor Tom Homan. Homan reportedly accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents after indicating he could get them government contracts. Bondi declined to say and shifted the focus to Padilla.

“I wish that you loved your state of California as much as you hate President Trump,” Bondi said. “We’d be in really good shape then because violent crime in California is currently 35% higher than the national average.”

In between partisan attacks, the congressional hearing allowed Bondi to boast about her eight months in office. She said her focus has been on combating illegal immigration, violent crime and restoring public trust in the Justice Department, which she said Biden-era officials weaponized against Trump.

“They wanted to take President Trump off the playing field,” she said about the effort to indict Trump. “This is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people’s faith in our law enforcement system. We will work to earn that back every single day. We are returning to our core mission of fighting real crime.”

She defended the administration’s deployment of federal troops to Washington, D.C., and Chicago, where she said troops had been sent on Tuesday. Bondi declined to say whether the White House consulted her on the deployment of troops to American cities but said the effort is meant to “protect” citizens from violent crime.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked about the legal justification for the military shooting vessels crossing the Carribbean Sea off Venezuela. The administration has said the boats are carrying drugs, but Coons told Bondi that “Congress has never authorized such a use of military force.”

“It’s unclear to me how the administration has concluded that the strikes are legal,” Coons said.

Bondi told Coons she would not discuss the legal advice her department has given to the president on the matter but said Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro “is a narcoterrorist,” and that “drugs coming from Venezuela are killing our children at record levels.”

Coons said he was “gravely concerned” that she was not leading a department that is making decisions that are in “keeping with the core values of the Constitution.” As another example, he pointed to Trump urging her to prosecute his political adversaries, such as Comey.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) the top Democrat on the committee, raised a similar concern at the beginning of the hearing, saying Bondi has “systematically weaponized our nation’s leading law enforcement agency to protect President Trump and his allies.”

“In eight short months, you have fundamentally transformed the Justice Department and left an enormous stain on American history,” Durbin said. “It will take decades to recover.”