Council - Regular Meeting

Good morning, Patterson. Justice has prevailed. On May 24th of last year, I received a call from our corporation council letting me know that Donald Trump was suing me and the city. And it seemed very daunting, but I'm never afraid to stand up for my residents. I want them to know that we don't want them to live or work here in this great city in fear of unlawful federal overreach. In fact, we would never infringe on anyone's civil liberties while at the same time implementing the rule of law. And what gave me confidence after that phone call that I received over a year ago is that we have a leader like Eamon Ibushi. Because we could have gone out to an outside firm to defend our city. But we trust our corporation council. And we knew that this day would come. That justice would be served. And that the city of Patterson would win. And we would defeat Donald Trump. And it would be a victory for our residents. A victory over fear. And rewarding the faith that they have in us. So as long as I'm here, Our corporation council will continue to stand in solidarity for our residents and their rights. So without any further ado, our remarkable leader in the legal department, our corporation council has brought this victory to us today, Eamon Abushi.

Good morning, everybody. I want to start off with saying how daunting it is when you have the weight of the federal government on your city. And in those types of moments, it's important for you to rise up and work collaboratively and fight for your city. And I want to start off by thanking the Mayor for his support and direction, the City Council, our Police Director, our VA, and specifically Olin Campbell from my office. It was important for us to fight this case from City Hall. It was important to us to represent our residents. And I want to thank former Attorney General Gray Wall for his support and his action. And I also want to thank Jersey City, Hoboken, and Newark, and their Corporation Council, Kenyatta, Stewart, for their assistance in this as well. It was a team effort. But when you have the weight of the federal government come down on your residents, You have no choice but to fight for your residents. And I want to be clear, and I'm going to read directly from the Patterson Police Department policy that was attacked by the federal government. Immigrants are less likely to report a crime if they fear that the responding officer will turn them over to immigration authorities. This fear makes it more difficult for officers to solve crimes and bring suspects to justice. And so our policies and procedures enable law enforcement to fight crime, to solve crime, and to keep residents safe. We can't be in a situation where our residents are afraid of the police who are supposed to protect and serve them. We can't put our residents in the position between seeking justice or having fear of unlawful federal overreach. And what we fought and what we won against was constitutional overreach by the federal government. In essence, the federal government sought to federalize the Paterson Police Department. They sought, in no uncertain terms, to make our police officers, who are hired by the city, paid for by our taxpayers, they sought to make them federal immigration officers. And the judge found that that was a violation of the Constitution. And I want to take a few moments and dispel some of the rumors and political talking points that are out there. Because when they say that these policies and procedures protect unlawful immigration or encourage people to violate the law. That's not true. Reading directly from our policies and procedures. Any person who violates New Jersey criminal laws can and will be held accountable for their actions, no matter of their immigration status. And so when people say that these policies and procedures protect criminals, that's simply not true. And if you read the policy and procedure, it says that. It also says that nothing restricts Patterson police officers from complying with the requirements of federal law or valid court orders including judicially issued arrest warrants for individuals regardless of their immigration status. So these policies and procedures are the definition of law and order. These policies and procedures support victims, support the reduction of crime, and ensure that anyone affected by crime can reach out without fear to the Paterson Police Department so that those officers can serve their residents. So thank you, Mayor. Again, a special thank you to Olin Campbell, who's an in-house attorney here in the Patterson Law Department, born in Patterson, serving his city, who, when this case was filed against the city of Patterson, and we were thinking about strategy, raised his hand to volunteer to fight for justice and fight for his hometown very successfully.

Once again, I can't thank Amon Ibushi, our corporation counsel, enough and commend him for his long legal leadership in this matter. The word that we've been using is daunting. Yes, it is no easy task when the President of the United States is attacking Our city. But we prevailed. And challenged the police policy. And with us today, someone who's very well versed in police policy with over four decades of experience, our Public Safety Director, Jerry Spisiali. Thank you, man. Good morning, everyone.

Thank you. On behalf of the Patterson Department of Public Safety and Police, I want to recognize the outstanding work of the attorneys, our corporation counsel, and our attorney, the legal professionals who represented this city and the other municipalities involved in this matter. This recent court decision reflects the importance of our judicial system and the role the skilled legal advocates play in ensuring complex issues are resolved through the rule of law. The lawsuit challenged longstanding policies, as our corporate counsel just read, at the City of Paterson, and they defended and ultimately won. We congratulate the legal team on their efforts and thank them for their continued service to the City of Paterson and the residents they represent. Our focus remains on public safety, constitutional policing, and maintaining the trust of the community we serve. Trust built on years of community engagement and understanding that when someone calls 911, they do so without fear and with confidence that our priority is their safety. Public safety is strongest. when there is trust between law enforcement and the community. Paterson is one of the most diverse cities in the nation, and our officers are committed to serving every resident with dignity, respect, professionalism.

Where people feel comfortable in reporting crime,

It makes our neighborhoods safer for everyone. I thank you once again. Congratulations. Thank you.

I also would like to acknowledge someone who's standing in solidarity with us, our business administrator, Dan Kolomag. Thank you, Dan. This past weekend for Father's Day, my wife and my children took me to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Presidential Library and Museum. And he was famous for espousing the four freedoms. And one of those freedoms is freedom from fear. And it's refreshing to know that there was a president that didn't want his residents to live in fear. I wish the current occupant of the Oval Office shared that same sentiment that FDR espoused. But we're here today letting our residents know that we stand in solidarity with you to make sure that you don't have to live in fear of any illegal federal overreach or oversight for that matter. And that when we are implementing the rule of law, we don't infringe on anybody's civil liberties. We stand for freedom. We stand for freedom from fear in the city of Patterson. Justice has prevailed. Thank you.

What was your initial reaction when you get a lawsuit like this from the federal government? What do you think is your first course of action?

Well, my first course of action was to call him, but he called me first.

Well, I think it's important when you get something like this to really analyze the law and really look at the facts on the ground. We always look at these things with how do we best serve our residents? How do we ensure that we are complying with federal law while balancing the very important protections that every resident enjoys? And so we went through the lawsuit. We went through the legal claims. and we determined pretty quickly that they were without merit and immediately began designing a plan of attack and drafting a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which the judge granted and so we always look at these types of actions with the eye of what's best for the city what's best for our residents and ensuring that we're in good lines with the relevant laws fair to say that this is your most challenging case today for the city I would say this is definitely amongst them. This is a far-reaching type of case. It has far-reaching implications. And other cities are watching what happens here. And I think part of the federal government strategies is to try to scare cities or to pick cities off one at a time. And we knew that other cities were watching what was going on here and that it would affect their policies. One of the things that we hope comes out of this is that other cities all across this country, no matter where they're located, now have legal protection, a precedent-setting case that tells them they don't have to sacrifice the security and liberties of their residents to comply with federal law. We have the roadmap on how to do that. It's been challenged and successfully upheld. So it is a difficult case because you know there's a lot riding on it, not just for our city, not just for our residents, but nationally. And I think this sends the right message, and I think the judge did a tremendous job in a very thorough and well-reasoned opinion, agreeing with us on almost every point.

And a dovetail to what Damon was saying, Yeah, the president came out swinging. He was punching it, punching Patterson. But we're not afraid to punch back. And we want other cities to know that they shouldn't be afraid to fight back either. That we set a precedent here for the president and for the nation to see.

That's probably a dumb question for any of you, actually. It's a law degree. But is there any chance that the administration can appeal or any sort of action?

They could refile. They could appeal. I believe they have 45 days.

Yeah, every litigant has appellate rights. And we do think that the government will contemplate some further action here. And I think it's important to know that the government viewed the city of Patterson as an integral piece of their tactic. And what I mean by that is one of the first things we did when we got this lawsuit is we searched every case that the federal government had filed. Every similar case in this regard. And we started to heat map it. We started to track trends. Where were the courts going on this? What arguments was the government raising? And we learned that they were filing very similar cases all across the country. They were filing cases in New York State. They were filing cases, I believe, as far as Denver. They were filing cases in Illinois. And so that helped us sort of understand the government's strategy and understand how best to attack it and understand where things were trending and what would lead us to the most successful outcome. This is one of the primary or the initial defeats for the federal government. I think it will force them to reassess that strategy. And I think that if they look at the law closely and they look at our policy, they'll realize that an appeal of further action would be meritless.

Is this the first defeat for this kind of suit nationwide?

I can't speak as to whether it's the, I can say it's probably amongst the first because they pursued these actions against various cities across the nation almost simultaneously. So it did seem like based off the data and all the lawsuits that we had uncovered throughout the United States that they were essentially testing each city to find the soft spot, essentially finding a city that would roll over, finding a city that may not contest it, finding a city that would capitulate in some way, shape, or form their residents' rights or their fidelity to the Constitution. And now they know that they tested the wrong city in the city of Paterson.

Has the federal government prevailed in any of those other cases?

I'm not aware of the government prevailing in any of those cases. It bears noting that while the government filed many of these cases across the country, these cases tend to be nuanced. They do have a common theme, but for instance, they're challenging the city of Patterson's policy. They're challenging, I believe, the city of Denver's policy. I believe they challenged the city of Buffalo's policy. So these are nuanced. They're fact-specific because these policies are different. But I'm not aware of rulings that have come out yet that have the same sweeping reach that our decision does.

Yeah, absolutely.

Absolutely. And every decision that comes down really focuses on that municipality. But the arguments that we raised were broader than that. We not only defended our policies and procedures, which explicitly incorporate relevant federal law, but we raised constitutional claims. Very basic things. As we embark on our country's 250th birthday, some of the same principles that were applicable at the founding of our great country were raised in our lawsuit. Very simple things like the federal government cannot federalize local police force. federal government cannot utilize the resources of cities and towns and mayors. And so that was a bedrock of our founding constitution. That was one of the reasons why this country was founded, to make sure that the power is in the people and not in any one ruler And so, you know, it's kind of apropos that we're here 250 years later citing the same principles that our founding fathers fought for.

But any chance you speak Spanish for Telemundo? Can you say something in Spanish for our viewers in Espanol?

I can't, but I won't. This is not live. It's OK. Maybe I'll want to... We'll get to somebody.

But on that note, that was like a mic drop moment. If there are no further questions, I want to thank everyone for participating in today's press conference. And don't forget, at 11 a.m., we're announcing a new public safety initiative. So you can join us at the Public Safety Complex in 30 minutes. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.