Thread: FREEHOLD MUST PAY $278,000

Click here: NJ.com: Search
http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/bas ... top&coll=1

Town settles suit on Latino laborers

Freehold must pay $278,000 in fees and respect rights of migrants

Wednesday, November 15, 2006
BY MARYANN SPOTO
Star-Ledger Staff
Ending a three-year legal struggle with its day laborer population, Freehold Borough has settled a lawsuit that alleged the town targeted Latino immigrants in employment and housing code enforcement. The settlement, which still has to be approved by a federal judge, requires the county seat of Monmouth to shell out $278,000 in attorney fees and reimbursement funds and establishes a police protocol for enforcing certain regulations against immigrants. The settlement comes as Congress and the national political parties are debating what do about burgeoning immigration -- and the strains it is putting on local and state budgets. Critics of the Freehold crackdown called the agreement a huge victory and a cautionary tale for other communities employing similar hardball tactics against burgeoning immigrant populations. "It's a victory for the rights of people," said Mahonnry Hidalgo, chairman of the immigration committee of the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey. "At the same time, it's sad that taxpayers, including Latinos who live there, will have to deal with this expense. There are better ways to solve this, and we hope the next town in New Jersey that wants to do this will think twice." Stan Organek, spokesman for Monmouth County Residents for Immigration Rights, one of the groups that sued the borough, agreed that other towns had been put on notice that "there can be consequences to taking steps that will be found unconstitutional." But an unrepentant Mayor Michael Wilson vowed to continue enforcing the housing codes and laws of the borough. "A little respect for the law-abiding citizens of Freehold would go a long way toward making our residents more understanding of how we can resolve these hard questions that are caused by national immigration policy," Wilson said. The settlement, approved Monday night by the Borough Council, is the the result of long-simmering tensions that accompanied the explosion of the Latino population in the two-square-mile community. Some long-time residents blamed the new arrivals for swelling school populations and straining services, driving up taxes. A gravel area between Conrail railroad tracks and Throckmorton Street, about a half mile from the central business district, became an impromptu muster zone for day laborers, many of them illegal immigrants from southern Mexico who sought work for contractors or landscapers. As the zone expanded and residents stepped up complaints, Wilson announced plans in the fall of 2003 to shut it down on Jan. 1, 2004. Civil rights advocates sued the borough, and in March 2004, U.S. District Judge Anne E. Thompson ordered it to reopen a portion of the zone that is on public property.
But the issues went beyond the rights of the immigrants to gather for work, however, and the underlying civil lawsuit continued. Attorneys for the immigrant groups alleged borough officials and residents often targeted their living situations -- violating their civil rights in the process -- in an effort to drive them out of town. Renee Steinhagen, executive director of the New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center, one of the organizations that sued, said Freehold agreed in the settlement to treat the immigrants lawfully and respect their rights.
She said housing-code inspectors will no longer be allowed to conduct inspections without resident consent. Owners will be given time to correct violations. And while a police officer will be allowed to accompany inspectors, he will not enter the premises unless an incident occurs. Day laborers, meanwhile, will continue to use the public portion of the muster zone. The borough will set up a $33,000 fund to reimburse Latino residents fined for loitering or certain housing-code violations, dating back to Jan. 1, 2002. The borough will pay its adversaries' legal fees, estimated at $245,000. Steinhagen said the settlement "has ramifications beyond Freehold as to the rights of people, regardless of their documentation status. It's sort of setting the parameters for the other debates about immigration." Praising the outcome of negotiations in what he called a "difficult social situation," retired state Supreme Court Justice Daniel O'Hern, who served as mediator, acknowledged an ongoing statewide struggle in areas with growing immigrant populations. "Immigration reform is a national issue. Persons who have entered this country without documentation are nonetheless persons entitled to the protections of the (U.S.) Constitution and laws of the United States and this state," he said in a prepared statement. "We have seen other communities that have reacted to this social migration with repression and outright harassment." Staff writer Brian Dononue contributed to this report. Mary Ann Spoto may be reached at mspoto@starledger.com or (732) 462-8603.

IF THIS DOESN'T SUCK...I DON'T KNOW WHAT DOES>>>>
I'M GOING TO WRITE Mayor Michael Wilson IN SUPPORT OF HIS STANCE....

Write them a check and report them to ICE. Better yet, have them come in to pick up the check, load them on a bus and ship them back to their homeland.

I hope the judge doesn't approve that settlement. These people were committing a crime and a government body should not be punished for attempting to curtailing that crime.

Dixie

[quote="HOTCBNS"]Click here: NJ.com: Search
http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/bas ... top&coll=1

Town settles suit on Latino laborers

Freehold must pay $278,000 in fees and respect rights of migrants

Wednesday, November 15, 2006
BY MARYANN SPOTO
Star-Ledger Staff

Ending a three-year legal struggle with its day laborer population, Freehold Borough has settled a lawsuit that alleged the town targeted Latino immigrants in employment and housing code enforcement. [b]The settlement, which still has to be approved by a federal judge, requires the county seat of Monmouth to shell out $278,000 in attorney fees and reimbursement funds and establishes a police protocol for enforcing certain regulations against immigrants.

Praising the outcome of negotiations in what he called a "difficult social situation," retired state Supreme Court Justice Daniel O'Hern, who served as mediator, acknowledged an ongoing statewide struggle in areas with growing immigrant populations. "Immigration reform is a national issue. Persons who have entered this country without documentation are nonetheless persons entitled to the protections of the (U.S.) Constitution and laws of the United States and this state," he said in a prepared statement. "We have seen other communities that have reacted to this social migration with repression and outright harassment." quote]


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't know who the city's lawyer was, but I wouldn't use him. This case was decided by a mediator ? Does anyone know why a retired judge mediated this case ? Pls advise.

If the city agreed to abide by the decision on the mediator, they should pay. I think the city got screwed. The retired judge wanted to be a "nice guy".

Where does the money come from, for the illegals to fight our laws ?
Where are our GOOD lawyers ?
What are the chances a "real" judge will throw out this decision ?
Who is he ? Perhaps we can write him ?
This really does suck. Always be cautious of using any type of mediator, in any situation.

This why I beleive we must contact judges. We must elect judges that agree with us and try to positively sway those that have been appointed.
Judges can help us or screw us. We must not focus only on politicians in the state and federal arena.

Thats what they are counting on...what would happen if they didn't pay it?
This is out of control. Does ANYONE HAVE INTEGRITY? Are their minds so evil and thirst for power and greed so far gone...that NO ONE WILL STAND AGAINST THIS INSANITY???!!!!!

I voted NO ON A FEW JUDGES THIS TIME AROUND!!

Here's his website. There's a 'Contact Us' tab if you'd like to let him know what you think of his mediation.

http://www.resolvethedispute.com/pg9.cfm

Work History: Associate Justice, New Jersey Supreme Court, 1981-2000; Counsel to the Governor Brendan T Byrne, 1979-1981; Abramoff, Apy and O’Hern 1966-1978.

Could it be? I haven't looked yet but who's taking bets? I think a little digging is in order...

Originally Posted by JAK

Thats what they are counting on...what would happen if they didn't pay it?
This is out of control. Does ANYONE HAVE INTEGRITY? Are their minds so evil and thirst for power and greed so far gone...that NO ONE WILL STAND AGAINST THIS INSANITY???!!!!!

I voted NO ON A FEW JUDGES THIS TIME AROUND!!

That's my question. I think he should ignore the whole thing. This has gotten crazy.....a town can no longer govern itself? If I were the Mayor, I would call ICE everyday.....get them down there or I would spread the word that ICE was going to do a sweep thru the town.

Here in Nashville, a rumor spread in a security company that immigration was going to do a check at a site and 20 security guards left the job site. They came back to work the next day and were fired. The worrisome thing is 20 illegal alien SECURITY GUARDS!

WHO PAYS FOR THE LAWYERS???
WELL IT SAID IN FREEHOLD...THE TAAXPAYERS HAD TO PAY...SO I GUESS IF THE TOWN LOOSES...IT PAYS THE ILLEGALS LAWYERS...
MY QUESTION IS...IN THE CONSTITUTION IT SAYS THE STATES,ENTITIES
CAN'T BE SUED.....SOWHAT'S HAPPING???

THE PROBLEM IS WE HAVE NO LAWYERS WITH CAY-OONS...WHO WILL FIGHT AND SUE THE STATE,LOCALL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE CITIZENS...UNLESS SOMEONE KNOWS ONE......BUT THE JUDICIAL WATCH IS SUEING ON A LOT OF CASES FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS...CHECK IT OUT...

lick here: Judicial Watch
http://www.judicialwatch.org

E-MAIL THEM WITH YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND COMPLAINTS...ASK THEM IF THEY CAN DO ANYTHING....YOU PROBABLY WON'T GET A REPLY...BUT THEY MAY TAKE YOUR COMPLAINT SERIOUSLY...I HAVE E-MAILED A FEW COMPLAINTS
IF ANYBODY FINDS E-MAIL ADDRESSES FOR JUDGES WHO HAVE DUCKED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING SANITY BACK TO THIS COUNTRY PLEASE POST...SO WE CAN BOMBARD THEM.....

Info@judicialwatch.org

The other side of PRLDEF - Lawyers walked away with the cash, leaving the illegals with nothing -- no Muster Zone, no labor center, and an even greater rift between the illegals and the people of Freehold, NJ. It even convinced the laborers that, as a result of the law suit settlement, laborers are now a "part of the community" AFTER it bailed on its clients.

After this, what town business will grant permission to gather on their property? If they gather along the streets and impeded the flow of traffic, they create a safety risk and Public Works will have to step in and move them along.

Yes, this was a victory for PRLDEF - a $245,000 victory for the coffers of PRLDEF.

And what is the likelihood of any laborer being reimbursed for fines paid from the court mandated fund without verifiable identification?

This is the side of PRLDEF that needs to be exposed.

---------------------------------------------------------

http://www.prldef. org/Press/ News%20Stories/ FREEHOLD% 20-%20FREHHOLD% 20SETTLES% 20WITH%20DAY% 20LABORERS. htm

PRLDEF_Press
Freehold settles with day laborers
SOARING LEGAL FEES IMPETUS
Asbury Park Press
BY ANDREA ALEXANDER
FREEHOLD BUREAU

FREEHOLD — Denying that the agreement to end the three-year-old lawsuit against the borough over its treatment of day laborers was a victory for the workers' advocates, the Borough Council agreed unanimously Monday night to pay up to $278,000 to settle the case.

Mayor Michael Wilson and the Borough Council offered harsh words for groups representing the laborers but said they approved an agreement to put a stop to skyrocketing attorney fees.

The borough agreed to pay $245,000 in legal fees to the groups that brought the lawsuit against the town in 2003. The Borough Council also agreed to establish a $33,000 fund to reimburse fines that were assessed against the day laborers.

Councilman Marc LeVine offered the most stinging critique of the settlement and said he was "reviled" by the vote he cast and "got nauseous" thinking about the action the council had to take to resolve the litigation.

The agreement reignited antagonism between the day laborers and residents who blame illegal immigrants for overcrowded housing and schools, high taxes, loitering and excessive noise.

"This case and the feelings from advocates from outside this community be damned," LeVine said. "We are going to steamroll over this issue, and we are going to make this a town that is desirable to young families that are going to come into this community and not be transient."

LeVine said residents are going to take a stand to make sure the borough does not become "some depot for people who come in here to take advantage of the town basically for their own good, so they can hire $5- and $6-an-hour employees or house eight or 12 or 15 people in a house and profit from it.

"That doesn't help any of us," LeVine said. "We will win this war by using prosperity as our tool."


No muster zone

Wilson said the day laborers' advocates failed to succeed in any of their goals in the lawsuit, namely forcing the borough to establish a permanent muster zone.

The day laborers and their advocates "wanted a special place to gather to look for work," Wilson said. "They didn't get it."

Groups representing the day laborers, however, hailed the agreement and said the terms could mark a positive turning point in the relationship between the town and Latino workers.

"Day laborers won't feel like outsiders," said Pablo Lopez, 33, a Latino worker who has lived in Freehold for 12 years. "They will feel like part of the community."

The agreement "reaffirms the rights of day laborers to solicit employment in public places," said Alan Levine, special counsel to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented groups that filed the lawsuit.

"Given the fact that many communities around the country have sought to prohibit day laborers from doing that, it is especially important to have a community like Freehold, where the dispute has been so highly visible, to agree that day laborers have that right," Levine said.

Groups advocating for the day laborers, including Monmouth County Residents for Immigrants Rights, El Comite De Trabajadores Por El Progreso Y Bienestar Social (The Workers Committee for Progress and Social Welfare), and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, filed a class-action lawsuit against the borough in December 2003 for shutting down the muster zone on Throckmorton Street near Rhea Street.

Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the borough rescinded an ordinance that prohibited loitering on public property to comply with a New Jersey Supreme Court decision that found such measures were unconstitutional.

In March 2004, a judge also ordered the borough to reopen the muster zone on a publicly owned portion of the site.

But as part of the resolution of the lawsuit, borough officials and groups representing day laborers all acknowledged that the majority of the area on Throckmorton Street where workers currently gather is not public property, and trespassing is not allowed there. Conrail owns most of the property that has been the site of the disputed muster zone.

State and federal laws do not require towns to provide muster zones, Daniel J. O'Hern, a retired state Supreme Court justice appointed as a mediator in the case, said in a prepared statement.

"Had the case gone to trial, the federal court could not have ordered the municipality to provide a muster zone, nor could it have ordered Conrail to allow the use of its property," O'Hern said.

Keeping pressure on

The day laborers and their advocates will continue to push for an area where workers are allowed to gather, said Stan Organek, Monmouth County

Residents For Immigrants Rights spokesman.

The mayor "seems to take pride in the fact that the muster zone was lost," Organek said. "He doesn't seem to get it. . . . This community needs an area for the day laborers to gather together."

In Lakewood, township officials have been struggling with similar issues as they try to clear downtown streets of the laborers who cluster there each morning.

Lakewood recently opened a muster zone three miles from the downtown. But a month later, workers still gather downtown.

The agreement to end the litigation does not resolve concerns for many borough residents, said Gail Trojan, 59.

"We are still going to have garbage on the streets," Trojan said. "We are still going to have overcrowding in the schools and overcrowding in residents' houses."

My city has been sued numerous times by local hispanic activists, including Margret Carrasco (google her!). I think the latest one tied up is against the city's $500 fine for getting one's car back after it was towed if one has no insurance. They felt this targeted the hispanics. There was an article on this site a while back about it.


http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/news ... S10809.htm
North Chicago gets tough on drivers who don't have licenses, insurance

By Ralph Zahorik rzahorik@scn1.com

NORTH CHICAGO — A law that could cost uninsured motorists up to $500 in fines and impoundment of their vehicles was approved this week by the City Council.

The law is similar to one in Waukegan and Park City. The Waukegan law provoked an uproar last year when it was adopted. Critics charged it unfairly targeted the city's Hispanic immigrant community.

Waukegan has thousands of illegal immigrants, mainly from Mexico. While most drive to work, many have no valid driver licenses or vehicle liability insurance.

The council voted 5-1 to approve the tough measure, with no discussion. Third Ward Ald. Valerie DeVost cast the only dissenting vote. Seventh Ward Ald. Thelma Mayers was absent.

The measure was first proposed as a means to improve the city's finances but Mayor Leon Rockingham said last month that the measure, called Operation Safe Streets, is needed for public safety. "It's something we need," he said.
"We're implementing this more for the safety of motorists. It will benefit the citizens of North Chicago."

The council also approved an increase in the hotel/motel tax from 6 percent to 9.5 percent and creation of a new 1 percent city sales tax on food and beverages.

Even with a 4.9 percent property tax increase, the maximum allowed without going to a public hearing, the measures aren't expected to bring in enough revenue to cover the city budget of $49 million.

City spending is expected to exceed revenue by about $900,000 in the 2006-2007 fiscal year.

Sixth Ward Ald. Larry Hightower, Finance Committee chairman, called the action a step in the right direction. :For the last five years we've been going into the surplus," he said at a committee meeting last month. "We'll still have a $925,000 deficit but this is the first time we've taken some aggressive action (to reduce the deficit)," he said.


08/09/06

Yes, this was a victory for PRLDEF - a $245,000 victory for the coffers of PRLDEF.

The country's illegal immigrant situation seems to be making a lot of pro-illegal immigration lawyers very happy and wealthy. This is a trend that needs reversed! I'm very disappointed that Freehold, NJ caved on this, but it would appear as if they had little choice in the matter. These so-called civil rights lawyers have become nothing more than illegal immigrant "ambulance chasers."