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.
new video loaded: Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
transcript
transcript
Jan. 6 Rioter Hired by Pentagon
Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty to climbing through a broken window at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, now works for an office responsible for uncovering and defending against terrorism plots at the Pentagon.
-
“Full pardon or commutation?” “Full pardon.”
By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 4, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Democrats splintered over a resolution seeking to block the U.S. from assisting Israel’s war against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist group, on Thursday.
The measure, offered by progressive Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., would require President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from Lebanon. For months, Israel and Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group and Iranian proxy, have been at war in southern Lebanon, but the United States has not joined the conflict.
A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., rejected the measure. Critics argued the resolution could aid Hezbollah and potentially hamstring U.S. military operations in the country.
Tlaib’s resolution failed 92-324, with more than half of House Democrats joining nearly all Republicans to vote it down.
The Lebanon war powers resolution divided Democrats, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., joining Republicans in rejecting the measure. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
REP RASHIDA TLAIB MOVES TO BLOCK US OPERATIONS IN LEBANON BUT IGNORES HEZBOLLAH
Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., an Israel critic, was the lone Republican to support Tlaib’s measure. Meanwhile, Reps. Derek Tran, D-Calif., and Betty McCollum, D-Minn., voted present.
House Democratic leaders said shortly before the vote they would oppose Tlaib’s resolution and work with the progressive lawmaker on a narrower measure exempting some U.S. military operations in the country. Their statement also denounced Hezbollah as a “violent terrorist organization” and a “sworn enemy of the United States.”
Tlaib, who has accused Israel of committing “ethnic cleansing” in Lebanon, did not mention Hezbollah in her resolution. She and other proponents of the measure also avoided discussing the Iranian proxy force during heated floor debate over the measure.
Republicans highlighted the omission and accused the legislation’s supporters of serving as “proxies for Hezbollah.”
“Apparently they don’t want to see Israel killing Hezbollah, even though it’s Hezbollah that is killing Israeli children, Israeli adults, Israeli elders,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., said Wednesday, referring to his Democratic colleagues.
Tlaib asserted that her resolution would only affect U.S. forces actively engaged in hostilities. Republicans, however, disputed that claim and suggested it would hurt U.S. efforts to counter Hezbollah.
“It doesn’t say anything about [whether] you can keep the Marines that are in the embassy,” Mast said, referring to the U.S. embassy in Beirut. “That’s a pretty big oversight. It doesn’t say anything about whether we can keep United States armed forces that are training missions with the LAF [Lebanese Armed Forces]. Again, pretty big oversight.”
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan, attempted to bar U.S. forces from joining Israel’s war in Lebanon. (Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg)
RASHIDA TLAIB HIT WITH HOUSE CENSURE THREAT, ACCUSED OF ‘CELEBRATING TERRORISM’ IN PRO-PALESTINIAN SPEECH
The debate turned personal when Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, linked Tlaib to Hezbollah.
“Hezbollah is a terrorist organization … and its members are butchers that you like to hang out with to a certain extent,” the Ohio lawmaker said, referring to Tlaib.
A shouting match between the two then broke out, with Tlaib demanding that Miller’s remarks be stricken from the record.
The presiding chair ultimately complied with her request, but Miller doubled down on his remarks.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Yes, I said it. I own it, and I stand by it,” Mast said on behalf of Miller on the floor.
Tlaib’s failed war powers resolution comes as Iran has sought to tie Israel’s invasion of Lebanon to its ceasefire negotiations with the United States.
Hezbollah, which has long helped Iran project power in the region, rejected a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon’s government Thursday.
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.
-
North Carolina3 minutes agoMom driving 111 mph crashes car with 3 kids inside, 2 killed, one in critically injured, NCSHP says
-
North Dakota10 minutes agoArmstrong applauds federal funding for upgrading coal infrastructure, including Antelope Valley Station
-
Ohio13 minutes agoOhio freezes new behavioral health provider applications amid fraud concerns
-
Oklahoma18 minutes agoOklahoma House Democratic leader reflects on final session, calls for focus on cost of living
-
Oregon25 minutes agoOregon resumes SNAP renewal interviews as advocates warn more could lose benefits
-
Pennsylvania28 minutes agoPennsylvania hunting licenses to soon go on sale
-
Rhode Island33 minutes agoRhode Island DCYF discloses fatality of 18-year-old
-
South-Carolina40 minutes agoDECISION 2026: What to know about primary elections in South Carolina
