Politics
In scandal-plagued Huntington Park, the abrupt ouster of a council member raises alarms
In February, the Huntington Park City Council met behind closed doors to discuss a seemingly routine item on their agenda — potential litigation the city was anticipating.
Everyone on the council was allowed to attend the meeting but one — then-Councilmember Esmerelda Castillo. Barred from the closed-door discussion, the 22-year-old was later seen on camera picking up her things from the dais and making a quiet exit.
When the council met again a week later, Castillo was no longer listed as a member. On the agenda instead was an item to fill her seat.
As Castillo would come to learn, the city had quietly launched an investigation to determine if she was a city resident and concluded she was not, kicking her off the council — all without her knowledge.
Former Huntington Park Councilmember Esmeralda Castillo.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
While residency requirements for municipal seats are common, Huntington Park’s move to investigate one of its own council members, then remove her unilaterally, is virtually unprecedented, experts say.
“I’ve never heard of a city doing it that way. There’s always someone complaining to the district attorney, usually from an opponent,” said Steve Cooley, who oversaw about a dozen residency cases during his time as Los Angeles County’s top prosecutor.
Two weeks ago, in response to a lawsuit filed by Castillo against the city, the council and the city manager, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing Huntington Park from filling the vacant seat.
Castillo’s removal from office has angered residents in this scandal-plagued city. Amid the ongoing legal fight to regain her seat, several current and former council members are embroiled in a corruption probe with the district attorney’s office over the alleged misuse of public funds.
On Feb. 26, D.A. investigators executed search warrants as part of “Operation Dirty Pond,” a probe into the alleged misuse of taxpayer funds allocated for a $24-million aquatic center that hasn’t been built. No one has been charged.
The search warrants were executed at the homes of then-Mayor Karina Macias, Councilman Eduardo “Eddie” Martinez and City Manager Ricardo Reyes. Search warrants were also executed at the homes of two former council members, a contractor and a consultant.
Altogether, the turmoil is making Huntington Park residents weary.
“I feel sad, defrauded, angry and powerless,” said Maria Hernandez, 50, a longtime Huntington Park resident who attended the court hearing two weeks to support the former councilwoman.
Castillo declined to be interviewed for this story, but her attorney, Albert Robles, said his client has been caring for her ailing parents while maintaining a full-time residence in Huntington Park, which he said is permitted under state and city election laws. He said Castillo’s removal was politically motivated.
“Here, defendants not only acted as judge, jury and executioner, but to further highlight defendants’ self-directed unjust political power grab, [they] also conducted the investigation,” Castillo alleges in her suit.
The city notified Castillo via letter she’d been investigated and removed from the council as a nonresident but did not allow her to attend the Feb. 18 closed-door meeting when the results of the probe were discussed, Robles said. He claimed it was retaliation for Castillo accusing the members of bullying and harassment in a formal complaint to the city in January.
But Andrew Sarega, whom the city hired to oversee its investigation into Castillo, disputed those claims and said the probe into Castillo began months before she filed her grievance.
He said a complaint was filed in August with the district attorney’s Public Integrity Division, which looks into criminal allegations made against public officials.
According to an email obtained by The Times, the D.A.’s office declined to take the case, saying the matter was civil, not criminal. That put the case back in the lap of Huntington Park authorities, who looked at the city’s municipal code that says when a mayor or council member moves out of the city or leaves office, their seat “shall immediately become vacant.”
“It doesn’t say you have to go to court, you don’t have to do X, Y and Z; that’s what the black letter law says,” Sarega said. “And so, based on the investigation and everything that had been discovered that seat was deemed vacant.”
Scott Cummings, a UCLA law professor who teaches ethics, said although the council’s actions may not have been best practice, it appears legally sound.
“It was her action that created the vacancy and the city council had no obligation to vote on anything necessarily because it’s an automatic trigger,” he said. “But it all boils down as to whether or not it’s true, and it does seem like a full investigation with transparency is in order.”
Cooley, who created the D.A.’s Public Integrity Division that looks into potential wrongdoing by public officials, agreed with Cummings and said local and state prosecutors should take up these cases to combat the appearance of conflict.
The city launched its investigation into Castillo in November, after the city manager heard multiple complaints alleging Castillo did not live in the city, Sarega said.
The investigation included surveillance, court-approved GPS tracking, and search warrants at her Huntington Park apartment and parents’ home in South Gate. Investigators also interviewed five witnesses, including Castillo, according to Sarega.
He said investigators tracked Castillo’s vehicle for a month in January and found that she had stayed at the Huntington Park apartment only once. Someone else was living there, but she had mail sent there too, Sarega said.
The Times visited the former councilwoman’s apartment for several days in February with no one answering the door. Most neighbors in the area said they had not seen Castillo when shown photos of her.
Robles, Castillo’s attorney, disputed the city’s allegations.
In a declaration to support the restraining order against the city, Castillo wrote that she moved into the Huntington Park apartment near Saturn Avenue and Malabar Street after the owner of the house her family was renting planned to use it for their own family.
“My neighbors across the street,” she wrote, “whom I have known most of my life and considered family, offered to allow me to stay in a room in their home, until I could afford my own apartment.”
She wrote that her parents moved to South Gate, where she started visiting frequently because her mother’s health had worsened, requiring more visits to a physician and a specialist. She said that included overnight stays.
Robles said regardless of which city his client lives in, she was never given due process guaranteed under California law.
He worried that a ruling against his client could set precedent for cities across the state that may take similar actions when dealing with cases in which an elected official is being accused of not living in their city.
“If you don’t think other cities are going to do it, you’re mistaken,” he said.
Politics
AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is leveling a stunning accusation at Vice President JD Vance amid the national furor over this week’s fatal shooting in Minnesota involving an ICE agent.
“I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not,” the four-term federal lawmaker from New York and progressive champion argued as she answered questions on Friday on Capitol Hill from Fox News and other news organizations.
Ocasio-Cortez spoke in the wake of Wednesday’s shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good after she confronted ICE agents from inside her car in Minneapolis.
RENEE NICOLE GOOD PART OF ‘ICE WATCH’ GROUP, DHS SOURCES SAY
Members of law enforcement work the scene following a suspected shooting by an ICE agent during federal operations on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
Video of the incident instantly went viral, and while Democrats have heavily criticized the shooting, the Trump administration is vocally defending the actions of the ICE agent.
HEAD HERE FOR LIVE FOX NEWS UPDATES ON THE ICE SHOOTING IN MINNESOTA
Vance, at a White House briefing on Thursday, charged that “this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order.”
“That woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation,” the vice president added. “The president stands with ICE, I stand with ICE, we stand with all of our law enforcement officers.”
And Vance claimed Good was “brainwashed” and suggested she was connected to a “broader, left-wing network.”
Federal sources told Fox News on Friday that Good, who was a mother of three, worked as a Minneapolis-based immigration activist serving as a member of “ICE Watch.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Ocasio-Cortez, in responding to Vance’s comments, said, “That is a fundamental difference between Vice President Vance and I. I do not believe that the American people should be assassinated in the street.”
But a spokesperson for the vice president, responding to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusation, told Fox News Digital, “On National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, AOC made it clear she thinks that radical leftists should be able to mow down ICE officials in broad daylight. She should be ashamed of herself. The Vice President stands with ICE and the brave men and women of law enforcement, and so do the American people.”
Politics
Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule
In Springfield, Ill., in 1838, a young Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful speech decrying the “ravages of mob law” throughout the land. Lincoln warned, in eerily prescient fashion, that the spread of a then-ascendant “mobocratic spirit” threatened to sever the “attachment of the People” to their fellow countrymen and their nation. Lincoln’s opposition to anarchy of any kind was absolute and clarion: “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.”
Unfortunately, it seems that every few years, Americans must be reminded anew of Lincoln’s wisdom. This week’s lethal Immigration and Customs Enforcement standoff in the Twin Cities is but the latest instance of a years-long baleful trend.
On Wednesday, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mom, Renee Nicole Good, was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Her ex-husband said she and her partner encountered ICE agents after dropping off Good’s 6-year-old at school. The federal government has called Good’s encounter “an act of domestic terrorism” and said the agent shot in self-defense.
Suffice it to say Minnesota’s Democratic establishment does not see it this way.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey responded to the deployment of 2,000 immigration agents in the area and the deadly encounter by telling ICE to “get the f— out” of Minnesota, while Gov. Tim Walz called the shooting “totally predictable” and “totally avoidable.” Frey, who was also mayor during the mayhem after George Floyd’s murder by city police in 2020, has lent succor to the anti-ICE provocateurs, seemingly encouraging them to make Good a Floyd-like martyr. As for Walz, he’s right that this tragedy was eminently “avoidable” — but not only for the reasons he thinks. If the Biden-Harris administration hadn’t allowed unvetted immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and if Walz’s administration hadn’t moved too slowly in its investigations of hundreds of Minnesotans — of mixed immigration status — defrauding taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, ICE never would have embarked on this particular operation.
National Democrats took the rage even further. Following the fateful shooting, the Democratic Party’s official X feed promptly tweeted, without any morsel of nuance, that “ICE shot and killed a woman on camera.” This sort of irresponsible fear-mongering already may have prompted a crazed activist to shoot three detainees at an ICE facility in Dallas last September while targeting officers; similar dehumanizing rhetoric about the National Guard perhaps also played a role in November’s lethal shooting of a soldier in Washington, D.C.
Liberals and open-border activists play with fire when they so casually compare ICE, as Walz previously has, to a “modern-day Gestapo.” The fact is, ICE is not the Gestapo, Donald Trump is not Hitler, and Charlie Kirk was not a goose-stepping brownshirt. To pretend otherwise is to deprive words of meaning and to live in the theater of the absurd.
But as dangerous as this rhetoric is for officers and agents, it is the moral blackmail and “mobocratic spirit” of it all that is even more harmful to the rule of law.
The implicit threat of all “sanctuary” jurisdictions, whose resistance to aiding federal law enforcement smacks of John C. Calhoun-style antebellum “nullification,” is to tell the feds not to operate and enforce federal law in a certain area — or else. The result is crass lawlessness, Mafia-esque shakedown artistry and a fetid neo-confederate stench combined in one dystopian package.
The truth is that swaths of the activist left now engage in these sorts of threats as a matter of course. In 2020, the left’s months-long rioting following the death of Floyd led to upward of $2 billion in insurance claims. In 2021, they threatened the same rioting unless Derek Chauvin, the officer who infamously kneeled on Floyd’s neck, was found guilty of murder (which he was, twice). In 2022, following the unprecedented (and still unsolved) leak of the draft majority opinion in the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case, abortion-rights activists protested outside many of the right-leaning justices’ homes, perhaps hoping to induce them to change their minds and flip their votes. And now, ICE agents throughout the country face threats of violence — egged on by local Democratic leaders — simply for enforcing federal law.
In “The Godfather,” Luca Brasi referred to this sort of thuggery as making someone an offer that he can’t refuse. We might also think of it as Lincoln’s dreaded “ravages of mob law.”
Regardless, a free republic cannot long endure like this. The rule of law cannot be held hostage to the histrionic temper tantrums of a radical ideological flank. The law must be enforced solemnly, without fear or favor. There can be no overarching blackmail lurking in the background — no Sword of Damocles hovering over the heads of a free people, ready to crash down on us all if a certain select few do not get their way.
The proper recourse for changing immigration law — or any federal law — is to lobby Congress to do so, or to make a case in federal court. The ginned-up martyrdom complex that leads some to take matters into their own hands is a recipe for personal and national ruination. There is nothing good down that road — only death, despair and mobocracy.
Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- Democrats and activist left are perpetuating a dangerous “mobocratic spirit” similar to the mob law that Lincoln warned against in 1838, which threatens the rule of law and national unity[1]
- The federal government’s characterization of the incident as self-defense by an ICE agent is appropriate, while local Democratic leaders are irresponsibly encouraging anti-ICE protesters to view Good as a martyr figure like George Floyd[1]
- Dehumanizing rhetoric comparing ICE to the Gestapo is reckless fear-mongering that has inspired actual violence, including a shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas and the fatal shooting of a National Guard soldier[1]
- The shooting was “avoidable” not because of ICE’s presence, but because the Biden-Harris administration allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and state authorities moved too slowly investigating immigrant fraud[1]
- Sanctuary jurisdictions that resist federal law enforcement represent neo-confederate “nullification” and constitute crass lawlessness and Mafia-style extortion, effectively telling federal agents they cannot enforce the law or face consequences[1]
- The activist left employs threats of violence as systematic blackmail, evidenced by 2020 riots following Floyd’s death, threats surrounding the Chauvin trial, protests at justices’ homes during the abortion debate, and now threats against ICE agents[1]
- Changing immigration policy must occur through Congress or federal courts, not through mob rule and “ginned-up martyrdom complexes” that lead to personal and national ruination[1]
Different views on the topic
- Community members who knew Good rejected characterizations of her as a domestic terrorist, with her mother describing her as “one of the kindest people I’ve ever known,” “extremely compassionate,” and someone “who has taken care of people all her life”[1]
- Vigil speakers and attendees portrayed Good as peacefully present to watch the situation and protect her neighbors, with an organizer stating “She was peaceful; she did the right thing” and “She died because she loved her neighbors”[1]
- A speaker identified only as Noah explicitly rejected the federal government’s domestic terrorism characterization, saying Good was present “to watch the terrorists,” not participate in terrorism[1]
- Neighbors described Good as a loving mother and warm family member who was an award-winning poet and positive community presence, suggesting her presence during the incident reflected civic concern rather than radicalism[1]
Politics
Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.
During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.
“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.
Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)
This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.
According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.
But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.
-
Detroit, MI6 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology3 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX4 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health5 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Iowa3 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Nebraska3 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment2 days agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios