"No responsive records" of communications from active mayor during Palisades Fire, says L.A. City
On May 19th, the City of Los Angeles responded to KTLA's request for public records of the officials involved in the city's response to the Palisades fire by closing the case, saying there were 'no responsive records matching [the] search parameters.'As permitted in the California Public Records Act of 1968, KTLA had been pursuing records of communication from key officials relating to the fires just weeks after they occurred. One of the officials targeted was Los Angeles City Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson, the acting mayor of the city while Mayor Karen Bass was out of the country on a visit to Ghana. The parameters established by KTLA's initial request were intentionally broad so as to cover any relevant information to the city's wildfire crisis response, seeking 'ANY digital communications (including email/ text/ WhatsApp/ or other) originating FROM or TO Harris-Dawson over a period of days'.
When the news outlet failed to receive a response, they resubmitted the request on March 11th. The city got back to them 10 days later, saying it had 'records that match [KTLA's] request and will… provide them no later than May 21, 2025.' This runs directly counter to the most recent update from Harris-Dawson's office, claiming the case would be closed because there were no relevant records. In their response to KTLA, the Councilmember's office did not explain the discrepancy between its first response, saying the documents existed, and its most recent update, saying they did not. The city's response to the public records request, already longer than the standard turnaround time for such a request, has raised concerns about the transparency of the city government on social media. Defense lawyer and legal expert Allison Triesl states to KTLA: 'I can think of nothing more central to the conduct of the people's business than knowing why Los Angeles County was ill-prepared to combat one of the greatest natural disasters in this State's history.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
Harris calls Trump's LA response ‘dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos'
Former Vice President Harris criticized President Trump's deployment of the National Guard in her home city of Los Angeles and stressed the importance of the right to protest. In a statement on the social platform X, the former California attorney general and U.S. senator said she's 'appalled at what we are witnessing on the streets of our city.' 'Deploying the National Guard is a dangerous escalation meant to provoke chaos,' she continued. 'In addition to the recent ICE raids in Southern California and across our nation, it is part of the Trump Administration's cruel, calculated agenda to spread panic and division.' 'This Administration's actions are not about public safety — they're about stoking fear,' she added. 'Fear of a community demanding dignity and due process.' Harris said she supports the protesters, who, she said, have been 'overwhelmingly peaceful.' 'Protest is a powerful tool – essential in the fight for justice. And as the LAPD, Mayor, and Governor have noted, demonstrations in defense of our immigrant neighbors have been overwhelmingly peaceful,' Harris said. 'I continue to support the millions of Americans who are standing up to protect our most fundamental rights and freedoms,' she added. Her statement comes as tensions mounted in Los Angeles on Sunday, as police clashed with protesters and made dozens of arrests. Trump made the extraordinary decision to deploy 2,000 National Guard members, about 300 of whom have already been deployed in the city, as of Sunday afternoon. Trump said they were deployed to counter what he called 'insurrectionist mobs.' The administration's response to the protests has drawn widespread condemnation from Democrats. All 23 Democratic governors issued a joint statement pushing back against the federalization of National Guard units without Gov. Gavin Newsom's request or consent.
Hamilton Spectator
a day ago
- Hamilton Spectator
‘Uphill battle': Criminal Code must include definition for femicide, advocates say
TORONTO - As police in Ontario increasingly investigate killings of women and girls as femicides, advocates say a firm definition of the term must be embedded in the Criminal Code. It's a change they hope could be on the table soon after Prime Minister Mark Carney proposed cracking down on intimate partner violence in this year's federal election campaign. Ottawa police, who have been using the term since August 2024, said last week they were investigating the death of a 54-year-old woman as a femicide. They arrested a 57-year-old man and charged him with second-degree murder. Last month, Kingston Police logged its first use of the label in a news release. Police said they determined the death of a 25-year-old woman to be a femicide because it occurred 'in the context of intimate partner violence,' and they arrested a 26-year-old man for first-degree murder. They confirmed it was their first time describing a homicide in this way. Police use the word so rarely that the Kingston example was a 'very significant' move, said Myrna Dawson, founder and director of the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability. 'That's not something that's really in their vocabulary right now. It's not something that is in many people's vocabulary as much as it should be,' she said. Dawson, who is also a sociology professor at the University of Guelph, said the lack of Criminal Code definition is part of the reason why. The observatory defines femicide as the killing of women and girls because of their gender. The group also uses a framework from the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime that lists 10 specific indicators that a crime could be considered femicide. They include a woman or girl being killed by her intimate partner or family member, a victim having had a history of being harassed and sexual violence playing a role in the crime. In some cases, more than one factor can be at play. 'They're killed in distinct ways from men and boys, and they're killed in many ways because of men and boys being entitled to relationships with them and expecting that women don't get to decide when they don't want a relationship any longer,' Dawson said. Using the UN framework, her group has counted 1,014 femicides across Canada since it began tracking the killing of women and girls in 2018. That included 187 femicides last year. A current or former intimate partner was accused in nearly half of those cases, the observatory found. Family members were accused in another 28 per cent of cases. Only six per cent of alleged perpetrators were strangers to the victims. Though Kingston police have now called one case a femicide, the group's data suggests at least four killings since 2018 could meet the definition. Other groups are attempting the same work. The Ontario Association of Interval Houses, which tracks cases in the province, has identified five femicides in Kingston since late 2019. Its executive director, Marlene Ham, said that without a universally recognized definition for femicide, different groups will end up with different numbers. Adding a definition of femicide to the Criminal Code would allow better data on violence against women to be captured by police and national agencies such as Statistics Canada, both advocates said. Kingston Police spokesperson Const. Anthony Colangeli declined to answer questions about what motivated the force to use the term femicide and whether it plans to use similar terminology in the future. An Ottawa police spokesperson said the force started using the word femicide to 'highlight the realities of gender-based violence faced by women in our community.' 'By using appropriate language to refer to these murders, we are continuing conversations about this subject that is often considered 'private.' We are raising awareness about an epidemic that is occurring and labelling these deaths appropriately,' the spokesperson said in an email. In the absence of an agreed-upon definition, Ottawa police have come up with a list of 14 forms of violence that fall into the category of femicide, including intimate partner violence killings, the torture and misogynistic slaying of women, the killing of Indigenous women and girls, killing related to sexual violence and the 'non-intimate killings of women and girls.' The force confirmed it does not use femicide to describe women killed in murder-suicides — something Dawson said should change as it is 'a very common scenario in femicide cases.' Other police forces, such as the Toronto Police Service, don't use the term femicide because it currently has no bearing on which charges police lay in homicides. The force does, however, lay terrorism charges in homicides where misogyny is a motivating factor. Dawson says police are 'fighting an uphill battle' when it comes to using femicide terminology more consistently. 'Police really need leaders to take the initiative, and by that I mean the federal government who decides what is a criminal offence and what should be labelled and legislated officially,' she said. Carney promised in the campaign to make killings motivated by hate — including femicide — a 'constructive first-degree offence,' which means a first-degree murder charge would be laid even if the slaying was not planned and deliberate. Chantalle Aubertin, a spokesperson for Justice Minister Sean Fraser, said in a statement the government is 'determined to bring forward legislation to advance this commitment as soon as possible.' Should the federal government enshrine a definition of femicide, Statistics Canada could record better data, Dawson said. The agency already tracks homicides reported by police each year, and the genders of the accused perpetrators and victims. While a 2023 report on gender-related homicides of women and girls broke down some indicators of femicide, it only addressed some of the UN's indicators. 'The more we know about these killings and the more we can contextualize them within that understanding of femicide, the more awareness that we can ultimately build and continue to have these discussions about prevention,' Ham said, noting a history of threats, violence and coercive control is present in many cases. It's important to keep the conversation about violence toward women going, Dawson added, with an emphasis on how these killings differ from those targeting boys and men. 'That's what we're trying to emphasize because if we don't recognize that, then our prevention efforts also don't recognize that, and we don't recognize the urgency of this.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats are busy bashing themselves. Is it needed, or just needy?
To hear Republicans tell it, California is a failed state and Donald Trump won the presidency in a landslide that gives him a mandate to do as he pleases. No surprise there. But more and more, Democrats are echoing those talking points. Ever since Kamala Harris lost the election, the Democratic Party has been on a nationwide self-flagellation tour. One after another, its leaders have stuck their heads deep into their navels, hoping to find out why so many Americans — especially young people, Black voters and Latinos — shunned the former vice president. Even in California, a reliably blue state, the soul-searching has been extreme, as seen at last weekend's state Democratic Party convention, where a parade of speakers — including Harris' 2024 running mate, Tim Walz — wailed and moaned and did the woe-is-us-thing. Is it long-overdue introspection, or just annoying self-pity? Our columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak hash it out. Chabria: Mark, you were at the convention in Anaheim. Thoughts? Barabak: I'll start by noting this is the first convention I've attended — and I've been to dozens — rated 'R' for adult language. Apparently, Democrats think by dropping a lot of f-bombs they can demonstrate to voters their authenticity and passion. But it seemed kind of stagy and, after a while, grew tiresome. I've covered Nancy Pelosi for more than three decades and never once heard her utter a curse word, in public or private. I don't recall Martin Luther King Jr., saying, 'I have a [expletive deleted] dream.' Both were pretty darned effective leaders. Democrats have a lot of work to do. But cursing a blue streak isn't going to win them back the White House or control of Congress. Chabria: As someone known to routinely curse in polite society, I'm not one to judge an expletive. But that cussing and fussing brings up a larger point: Democrats are desperate to prove how serious and passionate they are about fixing themselves. Gov. Gavin Newsom has called the Democratic brand 'toxic.' Walz told his fellow Dems: 'We're in this mess because some of it's our own doing.' It seems like across the country, the one thing Democrats can agree on is that they are lame. Or at least, they see themselves as lame. I'm not sure the average person finds Democratic ideals such as equality or due process quite so off-putting, especially as Trump and his MAGA brigade move forward on the many campaign promises — deportations, rollbacks of civil rights, stripping the names of civil rights icons off ships — that at least some voters believed were more talk than substance. I always tell my kids to be their own hero, and I'm starting to think the Democrats need to hear that. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. Move on. Do you think all this self-reproach is useful, Mark? Does Harris' loss really mean the party is bereft of value or values? Barabak: I think self-reflection is good for the party, to a point. Democrats suffered a soul-crushing loss in November — at the presidential level and in the Senate, where the GOP seized control — and they did so in part because many of their traditional voters stayed home. It would be political malpractice not to figure out why. That said, there is a tendency to go overboard and over-interpret the long-term significance of any one election. This is not the end of the Democratic Party. It's not even the first time one of the two major parties has been cast into the political wilderness. Democrats went through similar soul-searching after presidential losses in 1984 and 1988. In 1991, a book was published explaining how Democrats were again destined to lose the White House and suggesting they would do so for the foreseeable future. In November 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president. Four years later, he romped to reelection. In 2013, after two straight losing presidential campaigns, Republicans commissioned a political autopsy that, among other recommendations, urged the party to increase its outreach to gay and Latino voters. In 2016, Donald Trump — not exactly a model of inclusion — was elected. Here, by the way, is how The Times wrote up that postmortem: 'A smug, uncaring, ideologically rigid national Republican Party is turning off the majority of American voters, with stale policies that have changed little in 30 years and an image that alienates minorities and the young, according to an internal GOP study.' Sound familar? So, sure, look inward. But spare us the existential freakout. Chabria: I would also argue that this moment is about more than the next election. I do think there are questions about if democracy will make it that long, and if so, if the next round at the polls will be a free and fair one. I know the price of everything continues to rise, and conventional wisdom is that it's all about the economy. But Democrats seem stuck in election politics as usual. These however, are unusual times that call for something more. There are a lot of folks who don't like to see their neighbors, family or friends rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in masks; a lot of people who don't want to see Medicaid cut for millions, with Medicare likely to be on the chopping block next; a lot of people who are afraid our courts won't hold the line until the midterms. They want to know Democrats are fighting to protect these things, not fighting each other. I agree with you that any loss should be followed by introspection. But also, there's a hunger for leadership in opposition to this administration, and the Democrats are losing an opportunity to be those leaders with their endless self-immolation. Did Harris really lose that bad? Did Trump really receive a mandate to end America as we know it? Barabak: No, and no. I mean, a loss is a loss. Trump swept all seven battleground states and the election result was beyond dispute unlike, say, 2000. But Trump's margin over Harris in the popular vote was just 1.5% — which is far from landslide territory — and he didn't even win a majority of support, falling just shy of 50%. As for a supposed mandate, the most pithy and perceptive post-election analysis I read came from the American Enterprise Institute's Yuval Levin, who noted Trump's victory marked the third presidential campaign in a row in which the incumbent party lost — something not seen since the 19th century. Challengers 'win elections because their opponents were unpopular,' Levin wrote, 'and then — imagining the public has endorsed their party activists' agenda — they use the power of their office to make themselves unpopular.' It's a long way to 2026, and an even longer way to 2028. But Levin is sure looking smart. Chabria: I know Kamala-bashing is popular right now, but I'd argue that Harris wasn't resoundingly unpopular — just unpopular enough, with some. Harris had 107 days to campaign. Many candidates spend years running for the White House, and much longer if you count the coy 'maybe' period. She was unknown to most Americans, faced double discrimination from race and gender, and (to be fair) has never been considered wildly charismatic. So to nearly split the popular vote with all that baggage is notable. But maybe Elon Musk said it best. As part of his messy breakup with Trump, the billionaire tweeted, 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' Sometimes there's truth in anger. Musk's money influenced this election, and probably tipped it to Trump in at least one battleground state. Any postmortem needs to examine not just the message, but also the medium. Is it what Democrats are saying that isn't resonating, or is it that right-wing oligarchs are dominating communication? Barabak: Chabria: Mark? Barabak: Sorry. I was so caught up in the spectacle of the world's richest man going all neener-neener with the world's most powerful man I lost track of where we were. With all due respect to Marshall McLuhan, I think Democrats need first off to figure out a message to carry them through the 2026 midterms. They were quite successful in 2018 pushing back on GOP efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, if you prefer. It's not hard to see them resurrecting that playbook if Republicans take a meat-ax to Medicare and millions of Americans lose their healthcare coverage. Then, come 2028, they'll pick a presidential nominee and have their messenger, who can then focus on the medium — TV, radio, podcasts, TikTok, Bluesky or whatever else is in political fashion at the moment. Now, excuse me while I return my sights to the sandbox.
