More than 1,600 Californians have been evicted during pandemic

By Matt Levin, Nigel Duara and Erica Yee, Cal Matters

Like any parent, Jamie Burson didn’t want her 11-year-old son to discover how frightened she really was about the novel coronavirus. But it’s hard to mask anxiety when you’re living and sleeping together in the same car.

After Burson was evicted from her two bedroom apartment in Vacaville the second week of April, she heeded Gov. Gavin Newsom’s order to shelter in place by cooping up in a two-door sedan near her Walmart job. With school campuses shuttered, her son propped his school-issued laptop on top of the glovebox and attended class in the same passenger seat he slept in. It helped that he could occasionally spend a night at a relative’s or friend’s house, although Burson hesitated to ask to sleep there herself, partly out of fear of spreading the virus to friends and family.

“I was scared because of how many people were dying on a daily basis,” said Burson, who was evicted for a late February rent payment. “Made me feel like mankind was going to go extinct. I’ve never lived to see any type of disease take people out the way this one has.” 

More than 1,600 California households like Burson’s have been evicted since Newsom declared a statewide state of emergency March 4, according to data CalMatters obtained via public record requests from more than 40 California sheriffs’ departments. Nearly a third of those evictions took place after Newsom’s March 19 shelter-in-place order, and more than 400 since Newsom issued a self-described March 27 “eviction moratorium.” 

The 1,600 evictions are likely a significant undercount of how many renters have been forced to leave their homes since the pandemic struck, as both court-sanctioned and informal evictions often do not show up on the sheriffs’ lockout lists obtained by CalMatters. Additionally, sheriffs’ departments in 14 counties did not respond to data requests; more than 14 million Californians live in those counties, including Los Angeles County with 10 million residents.

Newsom’s moratorium — which tenant groups criticized as belated and inadequate — focused on delaying eviction cases related to financial hardship from the pandemic until May 31. An April 6 emergency rule passed by the Judicial Council, the governing body for the state court system, went further, halting nearly all eviction court proceedings in California. 

But neither Newsom’s executive orders nor the Judicial Council rule addressed a major subset of eviction cases: tenants like Burson who already lost in court, often for missed rent payments in February or March, and were simply waiting on sheriffs’ deputies to lock them out. Federal eviction moratoria also did not stop these evictions. 

As state lawmakers scramble to find a solution for a looming “eviction wave” when courts reopen as early as this month, tenant groups and public health experts warn that the loophole in state protections continues to endanger renters who may become homeless or move into unsafe and overcrowded housing. 

Just last week, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department resumed serving its backlog of nearly 1,000 scheduled eviction lockouts, even as the county remains on a state watchlist for surging coronavirus cases. When performing eviction lockouts in the past few months, San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies encountered two separate households where tenants claimed they were quarantining because of COVID-19, according to a sheriff’s spokesperson. Those households were allowed to complete their quarantine before being evicted. 

“(These evictions) could have been prevented, and it really is distressing to hear that this many people have been evicted when we have these shelter-in-place orders,” said Madeline Howard, senior staff attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty, which has lobbied for tighter eviction protections during the pandemic.

Unclear authority

Burson now stays in a one-bedroom motel room in Fairfield, paid for by a temporary Solano County homelessness program. She’s unsure where she’ll live once the program ends this week.

She was evicted because of a late February rent payment, lost the eviction lawsuit by default when she says she misunderstood how to respond within the legally required five-day window, and was given until early April to vacate the property. She left before she thought law enforcement was scheduled to lock her out.

While she understands that it was technically within her landlord’s right to kick her out, she wonders why the eviction wasn’t postponed. 

“Why wasn’t everything set aside, period?” said Burson, who had been living in the Vacaville apartment more than a year.

ROEM Development Corporation, owner of the apartment complex from which Burson was evicted, and FPI Management, the building’s property management company, did not respond to requests for comment. 

Upon being informed by CalMatters that Burson was no longer occupying the apartment, Todd Rothbard, the landlord attorney who represented ROEM in the eviction lawsuit, said his firm would consider no longer contesting a legal motion Burson had filed to remove the eviction from her record. Evictions stay on tenant records for seven years, and can make it very difficult for renters to find another place to live. 

But although Rothbard sympathizes with some tenants, he pushed back on the notion that Burson should not have been evicted in the first place. 

“Life can be hard,” Rothbard said. “To the extent people need help, it’s nice to see when society is able to provide help. But it is somewhat unfair to say to a landlord who is in business ‘Hey, it’s now your obligation to support this person.’  Because it’s not.” 

Rothbard also said Newsom and the Judicial Council have already overstepped their constitutional powers by the eviction protections they’ve mandated. Instructing sheriffs to not perform eviction lockouts would likely be challenged in court. 

Some constitutional law experts say it’s at best unclear what is and isn’t within Newsom’s power when it comes to “enforcing writs” in eviction cases — legalese for court orders to sheriffs’ departments to perform lockouts. Separation of powers between the court system and the executive branch complicate his authority. 

“While a governor possesses broad authority under the Emergency Services Act to respond to the pandemic, directing county sheriffs to disobey or slow-walk lawful court orders is beyond a governor’s emergency powers,” said Stephen Duvernay, a senior research fellow at UC Berkeley’s California Constitution Center.

But pro-tenant attorneys disagree, arguing Newsom has remarkable powers during public emergencies — powers they urged the governor to deploy in early March as the first reports of hospitalizations and deaths mounted.

Navneet Grewal, litigation counsel for Disability Rights California, said that there was nothing legally restraining Newsom from ordering sheriffs to stop performing evictions for cases that pre-dated the pandemic. Newsom had included such a provision in one of his executive orders, although it only applied to cases where tenants could demonstrate financial hardship because of the virus.  

“I think part of the unique thing here really is that there is no precedent of the situation that we’re in,” Grewal said. “There’s clearly a lot of broad powers to deal with emergencies; we just haven’t had an emergency like this in our lifetime.”

The Newsom administration declined multiple requests for comment. 

Tenant groups also approached Attorney General Xavier Becerra to intervene.

“The reports of ongoing evictions in communities across the state and in the midst of the public health crisis are profoundly troubling,” Becerra’s press office said in an emailed statement. “Our office does not have the authority to direct Sheriffs to refuse to comply with lawful orders issued by Courts hearing eviction cases.” 

But pro-tenant lawyers say Becerra is constitutionally empowered to oversee how local law enforcement executes court orders. 

“I think the attorney general seems to have some priorities that are focused on dealing with the Trump administration, which are obviously very important,” Howard said. “But some of these very important issues are not getting addressed.”

Sheriff choices

On the morning of March 19, Sgt. Lydia Montoya anxiously awaited an announcement from the governor. She had heard news reports that a shelter-in-place order was coming. 

The civil unit she oversees at the Kings County Sheriff’s Department had performed three evictions already that day, which they believed they were legally obligated to carry out. But Montoya and other officers in the department harbored concerns about the potential health risks — to the community and the deputies themselves — of pushing renters onto the street. 

When Newsom issued the shelter-in-place order that afternoon, Montoya believed she had the legal justification she needed to stop evicting people. Conferring with a county attorney and the publicly elected sheriff, the department decided to stop performing eviction lockouts except in emergency cases that threatened public health and safety. Six evictions on their calendar have been indefinitely postponed. If the shelter-in-place order had come a day earlier, so would the three performed the morning of the 19th.  

“The (shelter-in-place) order implies that it is a public safety issue to have people out and about,” said Montoya, who also supplied her deputies with handmade masks before her department acquired personal protective equipment. “And certainly evicting people, them out and about looking for rentals or whatnot, or making them homeless, is not in line with his shelter-in-place order.” 

But not every California sheriff’s department shared Kings County’s interpretation of the governor’s executive order. Without clear guidance from the state, individual sheriffs’ departments were left to choose whether to continue with evictions already on their lockout calendars. 

Many did just that. According to data obtained by CalMatters, three counties in the Inland Empire and Central Valley led the pack: San Bernardino, with 135 evictions since shelter-in-place; Riverside, with 93; and Kern County, with 68. 

“It was a combination of considerations looking at both sides, obviously with the stay-at-home orders as well as the other side of the actual landlords and the people that own the property and their ability to make rent, pay bills and things like that,” said Adam Plugge, a commander at the Kern County Sheriff’s Office that oversees its eviction unit.

After Kern County sheriff’s deputies paused lockouts in late March, Plugge said his department fielded phone calls and emails from frustrated landlords and attorneys, including those referred his way from local elected officials. The lockouts resumed in April. 

Plugge said that an explicit directive from the state would have avoided considerable confusion.

“It would have made decisions a lot easier to decide whether or not something could be done, and I think it would have been clearer for the public as well going forward in any shape, fashion or form,” Plugge said.

Evicting without masks

On July 1, deputies from the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department showed up at 7886 Myrtle Avenue in Eureka to tell Ernie Bull and Mary Wildman the two had to leave.

Bull, 59, had lost a dispute with his step-brother about who should inherit the property he had been living at with his late father and step-mother. Bull said he missed a key court date because he accidentally dialed into the wrong Zoom number for a remote court hearing. Humboldt County Superior Court stopped in-person hearings because of coronavirus.

A group of Wildman’s friends were there to help them with the move. While some of their friends wore masks, Bull and Wildman didn’t — and neither did the sheriff’s deputies who came to evict them. 

“If we can socially distance six feet away, then we’re not going to wear a mask,” said Lt. Mike Fridley, who oversees the department’s eviction unit. 

While he couldn’t speak to the specifics of Bull and Wildman’s eviction, Fridley said that his deputies carry masks with them, and can put them on at their own discretion. Wearing masks makes it difficult for the deputies to use their radios, he said.

Like most sheriffs’ departments, Humboldt County deputies typically perform multiple lockouts on the same day at different addresses. On the day they evicted Bull and Wildman, three other addresses were scheduled for lockouts, according to sheriff’s department documents. 

Asked if he believed there was a health risk in performing multiple evictions on the same day, Fridley said “I wouldn’t see any more risk than five people going to the cashier’s line in Costco.” 

Dr. Margot Kushel, director at the UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations, said she knows of no documented case of sheriffs’ deputies spreading coronavirus through eviction lockouts. But she does fear a “nightmare scenario.” 

“If you had a situation where there was a group of deputies going into different people’s households in a highly charged atmosphere, where people might be upset and might be yelling, I think you could potentially have risks for both the deputies going in and for the households being evicted,” Kushel said. 

Other sheriffs’ departments interviewed for this story say they require deputies to wear protective gear while performing lockouts. 

Neither Bull nor Wildman — who has kidney problems — have shown symptoms of the coronavirus since the eviction. Wildman has been staying at a friend’s place, while Bull has slept outside. 

“I want to stay away from people. I’m scared,” said Bull. “I gotta admit, I’m scared.”

Landlord costs

Of course, keeping tenants in a unit for multiple months while they can’t pay rent has a cost. For Karen Clark, that cost is $10,000 — and the fear of falling behind on her mortgage. 

Clark, who owns and lives in a triplex in walking distance from the University of Southern California, rents one of her units to a single father and his twin teenage daughters. She was charging $2,400 for the unit — a deal she said was well below market value for the three-bed, three-bath home near downtown Los Angeles. 

“I just really liked them and I wanted to help them,” said Clark, who preferred the stability of renting to families instead of students. 

Her tenant began to fall behind in his rent payments last fall when his catering business began to decline, according to Clark. Then COVID-19 hit this spring — evaporating most of what remained of her tenant’s income and, along with it, the rent.

Clark said she had seriously considered evicting the tenant in March, but never filed the necessary paperwork with a court. Now those courts are closed to new eviction cases, and Clark said she has been digging into her savings to pay for utilities and other costs. She has explored forbearance options on her mortgage, but was scared of the prospect of a lump-sum payment due at the end of the forbearance period. 

“I don’t know what to do,” said Clark, who has kept her job working at City National Bank during the pandemic. “I’ve got to get my cash back. I went through some of my savings, now I’m robbing other bills. It’s just not gonna give forever.” 

Clark helps financially support her son and grandchild in Oregon, and rents her other unit to her daughter and son-in-law. When courts resume eviction proceedings, she plans on filing.

Stopgap measures

While sheriffs’ departments across the state continue evictions for cases that pre-date the pandemic, Newsom and state lawmakers are scrambling to head off what experts say is a looming “eviction wave” of tenants who have lost their income because of COVID-19. A UC Berkeley analysis found that as of June, nearly 1 million renter heads of households in California lost their job because of COVID-19. 

Two proposals to compensate landlords and prevent more evictions are making their way through the Legislature, but both face daunting questions about how they’ll actually work. 

California State Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who chairs the state Judicial Council, said the state court system could resume eviction proceedings as early as Aug. 14th. If tenants contest them, proceedings can take weeks. Because supplemental federal unemployment benefits of $600 per week expired last month, tenants groups fear swelling ranks of renters unable to afford a roof over their heads. 

Unless the state intervenes or a new round of federal support is extended, 24-year old Gabriella Aldana is one of those at-risk renters, and could be evicted for the second time since the virus hit California.

Just before 10 a.m. on March 26, three Riverside County Sheriff’s deputies banged on Aldana’s front door. None of the deputies wore a mask, she said, and they told her she had to leave the premises with her two children, ages 6 and 3. The family was permitted to take only what they could carry. 

Aldana, then two months pregnant, and her two children piled what they could into her 2013 Honda Accord and drove off into a pandemic at a time when public health officials didn’t know much about the virus. 

She left her job at Walmart, she said, over fears of infecting her daughters or complicating her own pregnancy. The night of her eviction, she stayed in a hotel, then moved in for a few days with her parents. She eventually found a studio apartment for the April for $1170. After that, they moved into a two-bedroom duplex in downtown Riverside. The new place is beyond their current means, but also the only place that would accept Aldana, who said she has bad credit. 

She has survived on unemployment benefits and, especially, the $600 weekly federal unemployment boost. 

If the federal unemployment boost isn’t renewed by late August, Aldana and her children will likely once more be evicted. Even if she gets one of the jobs she’s interviewed for recently, her monthly take-home pay after taxes would be about $1,600. Her rent is $1,595.

“I have some savings to cover some of (rent) next month, I might look for a roommate if the job doesn’t come through and the (federal unemployment benefits) goes away,” Aldana said. “I have to start looking for all of that because now it’s just me.”

Leading Pastor Says Black Lives Matter Should Dialogue with the Black Church

Staff

      Bishop Clarence McClendon of the Inglewood-based Place of Grace says that while he is grateful that the Black Lives Matter movement has thrust the mantra of black lives into the national conversation, he believes there needs to be dialogue between the black church and Black Lives Matter and he is hoping to help facilitate it.

       “I believe that the prophetic community will welcome the Black Lives Matter movement,” McClendon said. “I’m not sure the Black Lives Matter movement will welcome the prophetic community, but I believe we are a voice among a multiplicity of voices that have to be heard, and I do not believe that there will be any substantial, long-lasting change without the prophetic community making the contribution to it.”

       To that end, McClendon says he is in the process of attempting to arrange such dialogues, though the pandemic has made it more challenging.

      “But,” he says, “I believe that those conversations need to happen and they need to happen now.

      “I have said it publicly, and will say again,” McClendon continued, “whether black lives matter to white people is immaterial to me. I understand and I’m grateful for the pushing of the mantra and the insertion of the mindset into the corporate consciousness of America, but whether black lives matter, doesn’t matter to me relative to people of European descent, because whales lives matter to them… The question is, is my black life equal to yours… because only if my life is equal to yours, will you take your foot off my neck when I say I can’t breathe. Only when my life is equal to yours, will what I say make any real difference in how you leave my presence and live your life.”

       He says the problems with movements is that they can become commercialized.

       “I see young Caucasian brothers and sisters saying black lives matter and holding BLM signs and do not understand the issues nor have a real concept of the substance.

       “I am not seeking reparations and have nothing against the people who are seeking reparations. If the U.S government starts handing out checks, I want them to know where my address is. But with the disenfranchisement that has been systemically perpetrated on people of color in this nation, this government cannot afford to pay me what they owe me.”

L.A. To Double Down on Businesses Defying COVID Safety Orders

      With California surpassing New York in Coronavirus cases, L.A. County health officials have said that they are stepping up enforcement on businesses that fail to comply with health orders imposed with the COVID-19 pandemic. More than 17,000 businesses has been investigated since the state first issued lockdown orders in mid-March.

      While most of the businesses—including restaurants, grocery stores and pools—have either come into compliance or are working to come into compliance, 100 businesses have been shut down.

      The department is set to begin issuing fines at the end of August. Fines range from $100 to $500 for the first offense. Repeated offenses may result in a 30-day business suspension.

      “This is an unprecedented public health emergency and we’re still learning and adapting as we navigate this crisis,” said L.A. County Health Officer Dr. Muntu Davis, said. “COVID-19 is not going to disappear overnight. We all want our local businesses to be open and more people to get back to making a living and to thrive, but we all must operate responsibly. Business owners and operators are critical partners in slowing the spread of COVID-19. It protects their employees, it protects their customers and it helps the entire community.”

      To curtail unsafe business operations in the city of Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti, is deploying “business ambassadors” to advise or cite businesses that are not following COVID safety guidelines. The city received over 500 reports over the past two weeks of businesses not operating in compliance with health protocols.

California Churches Suing Governor Newsom Say They Have a Right to Sing

Three northern California churches are suing Governor Gavin Newsom in an attempt to overturn his ban on singing and chanting inside places of worship. On behalf of Calvary Chapel of Ukiah, Calvary Chapel of Fort Bragg and River of Life Church in Oroville, the lawsuit seeks an injunction against the state health department’s July 1 order that looks to slow the spread of COVID-19.

            The churches argue that Newsom unfairly targeted places of worship and didn’t enact the same guidelines for businesses and the ongoing protests that have swept the nation.

            “On or about July 2, 2020, following implementation of the Worship Ban, when asked to explain whether people should heed Newsom’s mandate and avoid large crowds and gatherings, Newsom refused to place the same restrictions on protesters and explained ‘we have a Constitution, we have a right to free speech,’ and further stated that ‘we are all dealing with a moment in our nation‘s history that is profound and pronounced … Do what you think is best,’” the lawsuit states.

            Public health officials and medical professionals have reiterated that there’s evidence that suggests talking and increased ventilation increase germ particles in the air, two occurrences that happen while singing. The officials suggest that these particles, should they contain COVID-19, can cause infection after lingering in the air for a time and then being ingested.

            Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) says that the governor’s order is unconstitutional. 

            “Banning singing in California churches is an unconstitutional abuse of power,” said Sekulowin in an announcement about the suit. “And to do it in the name of a pandemic is despicable.”

            Along with Tyler & Bursch, The National Center for Law and Policy and Advocates for Faith & Freedom, ACLJ acted as the churches’ legal team for the lawsuit and many of the attorneys have challenged Newsom’s past orders regarding places of worship during the pandemic. 

“Since the initiation of the lockdown, restrictive mandates in the state’s health orders have been applied to houses of worship unfairly and much more aggressively than other businesses arbitrarily deemed essential, including restaurants and other gatherings,” a press release from ACLJ reads.  

Pasadena-based Harvest Rock Church and Harvest International Ministry Inc. filed an emergency request with a federal judge seeking a temporary restraining order that would halt the enforcement of Newsom’s ban on singing. The civil complaint states that the ban violates religious freedom and the “cherished liberties for which so many have fought and died.” The lawsuit also states that in times of distress ”congregants are to sing to the Lord even more and to sing aloud to him.”

As it stands, congregations are still being held to the guidelines of the order which state that no chanting or singing is allowed and all houses of worship are required to limit attendance to 25 percent of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees.

“Stop Killing Us:” Activists Bring Their Pain to State Capitol

Antonio Ray Harvey | California Black Media 

            Last week, several California social and criminal justice organizations, as well as community-based groups, gathered for a rally at the state Capitol titled “Stop Killing Us.” Oakland-based All of Us or None (AOUON) organized the event — with the help of other partners across the state — to condemn police violence against African Americans. 

            AOUON is a project of Legal Service for Prisoners With Children (LSPC), a nonprofit civil rights organization that advocates for the rights of formerly and currently incarcerated people and their families. 

            Their demonstration was peaceful — done with official permission — and less spontaneous than recent explosive protests and riots triggered by the brutal murder of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man in Minnesota, at the hands of police officers.  

            But it was charged with strong convictions and a solemn sense of grief, much like those protests.  

            “You mess with our children, I’ll come running,” said Yolanda Banks, the mother of Sahleem Tindle, who a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) officer killed on Jan. 3, 2018. He was 28.  

            “I have to march,” Banks continued. “We fight together.”  

            Banks frequently joins other grieving African American families from around California who have lost loved ones to police violence for rallies and vigils like the one AOUON held in Sacramento.  

            Participants arrived from Riverside, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Bakersfield, Vallejo, Richmond, Oakland, San Francisco, and other places in the state. Most of the people in attendance were people who have been impacted by police violence. 

            On the front steps of the State Capitol, large black-and-white photos of people of color who have been victims of police deadly force were on display. According to AOUON, police violence has claimed the lives of 600 people in California over the last five years 

            Asale-Haquekyah Chandler (pronounced “Ah-SAH-lah”)  made the trip east to Sacramento from San Francisco to support Banks and the other families involved with “Stop Killing Us.” Chandler is hosting the “One Life Walk: A Silent Walk Parade Protest” in downtown San Francisco July 28.  

            Chandler, who ran unsuccessfully for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors District 10 seat in 2018, has also been affected by violence, but not at the hands of law enforcement. Her 19-year-old son Yalani Chinyamurindi, while on a lunch break in San Francisco, was shot and killed, along with three individuals he knew.  

            The young men 20, 21, and 22 years of age were giving her son a ride back to his job when four gunmen surrounded the car they were in and opened fire. 

            Locally, around the Bay Area, the crime, which took place on Jan. 9, 2015, has been dubbed the “San Francisco 4.” Chandler said she and Banks (the two women knew each other well before their sons died) attended the event because see themselves as “fighters of justice and equality for all of our lives,” she said. 

            “We were fighting way before these children were murdered,” Chandler said. “So, the uniqueness we’re bringing to the table was meant to be. Though I hate to say it — because we lost (our children). My child was killed by the community and her child was killed by the police. We didn’t want to be in this club (mothers of children violently killed). But we are the right ones to be in this club.” 

            Banks, who lives on a rural farm in Calaveras County, told California Black Media (CBM) that the events that AOUON stage are “painful but therapeutic.” 
            The pain and passion expressed by Banks, Chandler, and other participants (who each read aloud the names of the departed) was evident.  Several lawmakers emerged from the State Capitol to support the event and stand with the families. They included African American legislators: Sen. Holly J. Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), Sen. Steven Bradford (D- Los Angeles), and Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento). 

            McCarty authored a constitutional amendment, ACA 6, which will be on the general election ballot in November. Known as the “Free the Vote Act,” ACA 6 will seek voters’ approval to restore voting rights to former inmates on parole.  

            AOUON and LSPC’s policy director Ken Oliver said the prison inmate-support organizations side with ACA 6. 

            “Yes, we support ACA 6,” Oliver told the large crowd at the rally. “We have 40 thousand people out here who can’t vote. So, understand when we talk policy. I have 80 thousand sitting behind the wall right now, I have eight million in California that have felony convictions, I have neighborhoods that are suffering. People can’t get jobs, and I have people out here getting killed by the police. That’s going to change.”

Protesters Mourn the Loss of Robert Fuller in Palmdale Park

By Stephen Oduntan | Staff Writer

Several dozen protesters descended Thursday evening on Poncitlan Square in Palmdale, questioning the circumstances surrounding Robert Fuller’s death and demanding justice for other victims of police brutality against African Americans.

Fuller, 24, was found hanging from a tree last Wednesday less than a fortnight after another black man was found dead in a strikingly similar manner about 45 miles east of Palmdale.

But if that initial tragedy wasn’t enough, a second tragedy occurred when the half brother of Fuller, was killed by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies in a shootout Wednesday, officials say.

“This afternoon I had to notify the sisters of Robert Fuller that their half-brother Terron Jammal Boone was killed by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies in Kern County,” said Hicks in an email released to the press.

Now, both deaths are under investigation.

“The system isn’t built for us, and it’s got to change,” said National Action Network’s Jonathan Moseley. “That’s why we have representatives across the country so that they can have some sort of comfort in knowing we’ve got their back.”

Asked if he believed the official report from the sheriff’s department that “Mr. Fuller, tragically, committed suicide,” Moseley immediately and unequivocally answered, “I don’t believe it. African-Americans do not commit death by hanging. Under no circumstances. It’s just not our culture.”

At the protest for Fuller that was hosted by the Let Me Catch My Breath movement, people voiced concerns that Fuller may have been lynched and believe investigators failed to follow proper procedures by considering alternatives, such as the possibility of a hate crime.

The proof is all around them some said.

Pointing out that racism is rife in the high desert city where confederate flags hang from front poles in people’s yards, on bumper stickers and T-shirts.

“A significant number of white people that are here are just southerners who moved to California for a quote-unquote, better way of life,” said Moseley. “That’s why you have the same Jim Crow attitudes in pockets of areas like here.”

But the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said there was no evidence of foul play in the death of Fuller and deemed it a likely suicide based on preliminary findings but vowed to continue to look deeper into the case.

“Investigators have been in contact with Mr. Fuller’s family and are continuing their investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr. Fuller’s death,” Palmdale officials wrote in a statement.

Still, the message of Thursday’s gathering echoed those taking place around the country: Stop police brutality against the black community. Organizers said the protest was originally meant to honor George Floyd, an unarmed black man killed last month while in the custody of Minneapolis police. But they decided to hold a peaceful gathering to remember Fuller because he was found dead hanging from a tree in a park in the city.

They filled the Palmdale park holding signs that read “Black lives matter,” “Say their names” and “I can’t breathe” as Bob Marley’s song “War”, and Fela Kuti’s “Water No Get Enemy” played from a loudspeaker.

“We lost a brother who should still be with us,” said Isabel Flax, one of the protest organizers who urged the crowd to channel their energy as a collective front united on one accord. 

“We might never get justice in Robert Fuller’s case because we possibly won’t ever know who killed him, and so justice for us is going to be changing policy.”

Arthur Calloway, another one of the organizers and speakers, said the city would’ve responded with the full weight of law enforcement, had a police officer been found hanging from a tree.

“They’d had been 600 cops scouring the neighborhood,” he said. “Kicking down doors and getting every ounce of video they can scrape. Doing everything that they can to find out who did it.

“But when Robert Fuller died, it was considered a suicide immediately. It’s indicative of a system that does not value all life the same.”

And this added Calloway, “is why it’s important to vote.

Stressing that part of policy change is making sure people can be put in office and push the reforms that extend to the black community. “We need to go out and vote because that is what’s going to stop us from getting lynched on a tree.”


© Copyright 2021 - LA Focus Newspaper