ICE Still Won’t Answer Questions About Prosecutor with White Supremacist X Account

posted in: All news | 0

Democratic Congressman Marc Veasey made an unannounced visit to a Dallas Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) processing facility on Monday in an effort to demand accountability from the agency, which has failed to respond to multiple inquiries from the congressman—including one stemming from a Texas Observer investigation earlier this year.

“I’m here today to get answers,” Veasey said. “I have letters from myself and other members of Congress and we’re simply asking for answers.”

Veasey, who wanted to inspect the facility, was not granted entry despite having authority as a member of Congress to conduct unannounced oversight visits to Department of Homeland Security facilities. “There’s a lot of secrecy and game playing right now,” Veasey said. “I’m sick of it.”

On February 19, the Observer reported that James “Jim” Joseph Rodden—an ICE assistant chief counsel representing the agency in immigration court in Dallas—operates a white supremacist X account named GlomarResponder, based on an overwhelming number of biographical details that the Observer matched through publicly available documents, other social media activity, and courtroom observation. Reached in-person at the time, Rodden said only to “call [his] press office,” and an ICE spokesperson said the agency “will not comment on the substance of this article pending further investigation.”

(Shutterstock, X)

The GlomarResponder account has posted that “Migrants’ are all criminals” and that “All blacks are foreign to my people,” in addition to posting apparent praise of Adolf Hitler, among numerous other similar posts. Following the Observer’s reporting, the account was set to private, but it is still active and routinely opines on issues including immigration. “How about we deport all the people who don’t belong here, rather than turn nice neighborhoods into third world bug hives,” GlomarResponder wrote on June 28.

It is unclear whether Rodden still works for ICE. 

Following the initial story, Rodden was not present at court hearings where he was scheduled to appear. “Rodden has not been spotted at the Executive Office for Immigration Review courts, but the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor also has not confirmed if he was fired,” an immigration attorney who works in Dallas and asked not to be named told the Observer. “Even the government attorneys I’ve spoken with cannot get a clear answer on that.”

The Observer has repeatedly requested an update from ICE about Rodden’s employment, but the agency has declined to answer. Veasey is one of three Congress members who have requested information from the agency about Rodden.

On February 24, Veasey sent a letter about the Observer’s reporting to then-acting deputy director of ICE Kenneth Genalo demanding “a full and transparent account of what actions your agency is taking to investigate this matter” and a response within 30 days.”

On March 6, ICE responded to Veasey in a letter, in which it acknowledged “recent media reports alleging an ICE employee operated a white supremacist social-media account” and stated that the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) “understands the seriousness of the allegations and will ensure the allegations are addressed appropriately, fairly, and expeditiously.” 

The letter, which the Observer reviewed, further stated that typically “OPR administrative investigations are completed within 120 days” and that “OPR is unable to share additional information regarding this matter.” The letter did not confirm Rodden’s status with the agency, and Veasey condemned the lack of clarity later that month.

A spokesperson for Veasey told the Observer the congressman has continued to seek answers  from ICE regarding Rodden. Now, well past ICE’s own internal 120-day estimate for the duration of the investigation, Veasey’s office still has not received a second response or any substantive information. 

“We have not heard anything back,” Veasey told the Observer. “It’s ridiculous that there’s a white supremacist that would be working at an ICE facility. That makes absolutely no sense other than the fact that they want to signal to the other white supremacists and other KKK people out there that under this administration things are going to be different and you’re not going to have to worry about losing your job.”

The status of the investigation into Rodden wasn’t the only unanswered inquiry Veasey sought to address during his Monday visit to the Dallas ICE processing center.

On July 28, Veasey sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Acting Director of ICE Todd Lyons, demanding immediate answers regarding credible reports of inhumane treatment of detainees at ICE’s Dallas Field Office. And on September 30, Veasey sent another letter to Noem and Lyons demanding immediate answers regarding the field office’s handling of appointments following the September 24 shooting at the site, which ultimately left two detainees dead, and the ongoing federal government shutdown, which has caused immigration appointments, including citizenship ceremonies, to be canceled.  

“We’ve heard awful stories about sleep deprivation, about people being denied food and water, and about people being held in this facility longer than they should,” Veasey said during a press conference following his attempted site visit. “I don’t know what’s going on in there, but if what is being told to me is wrong, open up the doors and show me.”

Editor’s Note: Exiting extremism can be a difficult process. If you or someone you love is caught up in hate or extremist politics, there are free resources that can help. Life After Hate and Parents for Peace are two non-profit organizations that operate help lines and provide support to help individuals and families recover from extremism.

The post ICE Still Won’t Answer Questions About Prosecutor with White Supremacist X Account appeared first on The Texas Observer.

NYC Housing Calendar, Oct. 20-27

posted in: All news | 0

City Limits rounds up the latest housing and land use-related events, public hearings and affordable housing lotteries that are ending soon.

A closet with water damage and mold in an apartment at NYCHA’s Red Hook Houses. The City Council will hold an oversight hearing next Monday, Oct. 27 on mold remediation at NYCHA. (Adi Talwar/City Limits)

Welcome to City Limits’ NYC Housing Calendar, a weekly feature where we round up the latest housing and land use-related events and hearings, as well as upcoming affordable housing lotteries that are ending soon.

Know of an event we should include in next week’s calendar? Email us.

Upcoming Housing and Land Use-Related Events:

Tuesday, Oct. 21 at 9:30 a.m.: The Landmarks Preservation Commission will hold a public hearing on proposed historic districts in Brooklyn’s Flatbush neighborhood: the proposed Beverley Square West Historic District and the proposed Ditmas Park West Historic District. More here.

Tuesday, Oct. 21 at 12 p.m..: The city’s Department of Housing, Preservation and Development will host “Know Your Rights: Market Rate Apartments and Good Cause Protection,” on Zoom. More here.

Wednesday, Oct. 22 at 10 a.m.: The NYC Planning Commission will meet regarding the following land use applications: 142 Flagg Place, 47 Farview Place SNAD Authorization, Jenna Lane – Modification, Praise Tabernacle, Queens CD 3 Walk to Park Site Selection / Acquisition, Brooklyn CD 5 Walk to Park Site Selection / Acquisition, AAMUP Follow-Up Action, Coney Island Business Improvement District. More here.

Wednesday, Oct. 22 at 1 p.m.: The NYC Council’s Committee on Environmental Protection, Resiliency and Waterfronts will hold an oversight hearing on stormwater resiliency, including legislation related to draining requirements for building roofs. More here.

Wednesday, Oct. 22 at 5:30 p.m.: Author Jonathan Tarleton will discuss his book, “Homes for Living: The Fight for Social Housing and a New American Commons,” at NYU’s Institute for Public Knowledge. More here.

Thursday, Oct. 23 at 10 a.m.: The NYC Council’s Committee on Housing and Buildings will hold an oversight hearing on tax incentives for housing. More here.

Thursday, Oct. 23 at 11 a.m.: The NYC Council’s Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises will meet regarding land use applications for the Long Island City Neighborhood Plan, 74 Bogart Street Rezoning, 78-01 Queens Boulevard Rezoning, Ovi’s Place, 1720 Atlantic Avenue Rezoning,  699-703 Lexington Avenue Rezoning, MTA 125th and Lexington Rezoning, and the Special Atlantic Avenue Mixed Use Plan Follow-Up Action. More here.

Thursday, Oct. 23 at 6 p.m.: Councilmember Selvena Brooks-Powers, Local Initiatives Support Coporation (LISC) NY, and the Far Rockaway YMCA will host the Far Rockaway Housing Expo, featuring information on affordable housing for both renters and buyers. More here.

Monday, Oct. 27 at 10 a.m.: The NYC Council’s Committee on Public Housing will hold an oversight hearing on mold remediation at NYCHA. More here.

NYC Affordable Housing Lotteries Ending Soon: The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) are closing lotteries on the following subsidized buildings over the next week.

205 Cabrini Boulevard Apartments, Manhattan, for households earning between $131,760 – $227,500 (last day to apply is 10/20)

2183 3rd Avenue Apartments, Manhattan, for households earning between $58,629 – $105,000 (last day to apply is 10/20)

25-13 23rd Street Apartments, Queens, for households earning between $94,012 – $189,540 (last day to apply is 10/21)

134 Erasmus Street Apartments, Brooklyn, for households earning between $95,109 – $227,500 (last day to apply is 10/21)

540 Atlantic Avenue Apartments, Brooklyn, for households earning between $122,400 – $227,500 (last day to apply is 10/21)

330 Melrose Street Apartments, Brooklyn, for households earning between $37,406 – $129,600 (last day to apply is 10/24)

The post NYC Housing Calendar, Oct. 20-27 appeared first on City Limits.

What to know about the murder trial of an Illinois sheriff deputy who killed Sonya Massey

posted in: All news | 0

By JOHN O’CONNOR, Associated Press

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — The murder trial of an Illinois sheriff’s deputy charged with killing Sonya Massey, a Black woman shot in her home last year after calling police for help, is set to begin Monday.

Sean Grayson, 31, responding to a call about a suspected prowler, fired on the 36-year-old Massey in her Springfield home early on July 6, 2024, after confronting her about how she was handling a pan of hot water Grayson had ordered removed from her stove.

Jurors will report Monday and the trial could continue into next week.

Massey’s killing raised new questions about U.S. law enforcement shootings of Black people in their homes and it prompted a change in Illinois law requiring fuller transparency on the background of candidates for law enforcement jobs.

FILE – In this image taken from body camera video released by Illinois State Police, Sonya Massey, left, talks with former Sangamon County Sheriff’s Deputy Sean Grayson outside her home in Springfield, Ill., July 6, 2024. (Illinois State Police via AP, File)

Here’s what to know about the charges.

Trial relocated due to national attention

In addition to first-degree murder, Grayson is charged with aggravated battery with a firearm and official misconduct. He has pleaded not guilty.

Widespread attention on Grayson’s shooting of Massey prompted Sangamon County Circuit Judge Ryan Cadagin to move the trial from Springfield, 200 miles (322 kilometers) southwest of Chicago. Jurors will instead come from Peoria and surrounding areas, an hour’s drive north, and will hear the case in their local courthouse.

Grayson, who is white, faces a sentence of 45 years to life in prison if convicted of first-degree murder.

Body camera footage shows the shooting

After Grayson and another deputy checked the area around Massey’s house, body camera video shows Grayson knocked on her door to report they had found nothing suspicious. He entered the house to obtain details for a report, noticed a pan on the stove and ordered its removal. Massey picked it up.

She laughingly asked Grayson why he was backing away; he said he was trying to avoid the “hot, steaming water.” Massey responded, “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.” Grayson wrote in an incident report, “I interpreted this to mean she was going to kill me.”

According to body camera video, Grayson pulled his 9 mm pistol and yelled at Massey to drop the pot. She apologized then put the pan down and ducked behind a counter, but in the confusion, as Grayson yelled, it appears she picked it up again. Grayson fired three times, hitting Massey once just below the left eye.

Massey’s family had sought mental health care

Massey, a single mother of two teenagers who had a strong religious faith, was beset by mental health problems. When she answered Grayson’s knock minutes before the shooting, she said, “Don’t hurt me,” and then, as she was questioned and Grayson asked her if she was all right, she repeatedly said, “Please God.”

Earlier that same week, Sonya Massey had admitted herself to a 30-day inpatient mental health program in St. Louis but returned two days later without explanation.

County records indicate that in the days leading up to the shooting, three 911 calls were made by Massey or on her behalf. In one, her mother, Donna Massey, told authorities her daughter was suffering a “mental breakdown.” Donna Massey also told the dispatcher, “I don’t want you guys to hurt her.”

Grayson was not aware of the calls or Massey’s background. County officials have since said there’s no practical way to determine and communicate such information for police responding to emergency calls.

FILE – This January 2025 booking photo provided by the Macon County jail shows Sean Grayson, a former Sangamon County Sheriff’s deputy who is charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of Sonya Massey in Springfield, Ill. (Macon County Jail via AP,File)

The deputy’s history prompted Illinois reform

Grayson was arrested 11 days after killing Massey and fired from the sheriff’s department.

As his background was scrutinized, Massey’s family and others questioned why Grayson, who had been a Sangamon County deputy sheriff for 14 months, had been hired at all.

In his early 20s, he was ejected from the Army for a drunken-driving arrest in which he had a weapon in his car. He was convicted of a DUI again within the year.

Before joining the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department, Grayson had four policing jobs in six years — the first three of which were part-time.

There was no indication Grayson had been fired from any job, but evaluations from past employers documented concerns about him. One department reported that while Grayson worked hard and had a good attitude, he struggled with report writing, was “not great with evidence — left items laying around office” and was “a bragger.”

Related Articles


Officials due in court to answer questions about immigration crackdown in Chicago area


How military’s ‘safe’ plan to fire munitions over Interstate 5 went off the rails with CHP cruiser hit


China accuses US of cyberattack on national time center


Amazon cloud computing outage disrupts many online services


Today in History: October 20, Hearings question alleged Communist influence in Hollywood

Jack Campbell, the Sangamon County sheriff, was forced to retire six weeks after the shooting. He insisted though that none of Grayson’s issues disqualified him from working as a deputy.

State law enforcement authorities had certified Grayson to serve in each of his previous jobs, but Campbell required him to attend the 16-week police academy training course nonetheless.

In August, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signed a law requiring that prospective police officers permit the release of all personal and employment background records to any law enforcement agency considering hiring them. Legislative sponsors of the measure acknowledged it doesn’t prevent candidates with checkered paths from being hired but provides greater transparency.

Why the City of Austin Wants Voters to Hike Their Property Taxes

posted in: All news | 0

It’s a tough time to be an Austin property taxpayer. Nothing seems to make sense. 

Maybe you figured high taxes were a fair price to pay for the tremendous increase in the value of your home over the years. But in the past couple years home prices have actually plummeted, and yet your taxes are still increasing

Worse, you’re probably not feeling great about what you’re getting in return. The transformative light rail system that you voted to fund with a tax hike in 2020 has since been whittled down to a fraction of the original plan and won’t get built until the early 2030s, if ever. Last year you voted for a hefty tax hike to support Austin’s struggling local schools, but the school district just announced plans to shutter 13 schools, perhaps including your own. 

So this is probably not the best time for the City of Austin to come to you with its hand out, telling you it needs you to vote for an additional (on average) $200 a year. How could they possibly not have enough money? If Austin is so rich, and taxes are so high, why is the state of public services so bleak? 

On November 4, Austin voters will decide whether to approve a tax hike on their homes. If Proposition Q passes, it will generate roughly $110 million of additional revenue that City Council members say is necessary to prevent devastating cuts to city services.  

Property taxes are very high in Austin, but the city itself is not the chief culprit. 

About half of your tax bill in Austin goes to the school district, whose tax rate is effectively set by the state. Worse, half of your school district taxes don’t even go to the local schools, but are being seized by the State of Texas through “recapture.” The state could fund rural education with the hundreds of billions of dollars a year it raises in sales, business, and excise taxes, but the GOP leadership would simply prefer to pummel urban (Austin, Dallas, Houston, Fort Worth) property taxpayers instead. 

This is the cruel irony of politics in Texas: the party of “small government” has figured out a way to tax the hell out of its city dwellers without getting any of the blame. Instead voters are more likely to blame local government––the school board, the county, the city. 

Now, when it comes to city taxes, it’s probably fair to say the City of Austin’s are higher than average, but the difference is not enormous. 

If you own the median value home in Austin ($503,000), you will pay $2,108 in city property taxes this year if the tax rate election fails—out of a total property tax bill of $7,960. If the TRE passes, your total tax will rise by roughly $200 to $8,161. 

How does that compare to other cities? Frankly, it’s hard to say. While every city is required to report its tax rate, many don’t report median home values. Or some focus on the “average” home value, which is a little different. 

One comparison that exists is Dallas, where the median homeowner will pay $2,138 in city property taxes this year. In Fort Worth, the median homeowner will pay less—about $1,640. In San Antonio, it’s even lower—$1,266—largely thanks to the half-a-billion dollars a year the city takes from its extremely profitable municipal utility. 

The suburban communities around Austin where people often move for more affordable housing don’t appear to charge significantly lower taxes compared to those who live in suburbs like Buda, Manor, or Georgetown. 

The upshot is that Austinites are likely paying a few hundred dollars more a year in city taxes than most other Texans, but that’s somewhat predictable given the higher cost of living and the fact that Austin has big city problems. 

Perhaps most importantly, Austin voters are more liberal and tend to support more services, from parks to public transit to housing for the homeless. Over the past decade, Austin voters have approved every single bond or tax election put before them by the city, county and school district.

But what even some liberal Austinites are now saying is they don’t feel local government has held up its end of the bargain. Again, in many cases their frustration is due to things beyond the city’s control (school taxes, school closures), but you can’t blame a voter for becoming somewhat jaded about City Hall when they read that the city manager, who makes close to half-a-million a year, is putting his lunches on the city credit card, or that the city spent over $1.1 million for a new logo. Plus, the city is now facing a $33 million shortfall. It’s natural in that instance to conclude that what the city lacks is not money, but judgment.  

Until relatively recently, Texas cities and counties were allowed considerable discretion on property taxes. Specifically, they were allowed to collect up to 8 percent more in property tax each year to fund the government’s operating budget, the great majority of which goes to paying municipal employees.

In 2019, however, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law capping the annual tax increase at a meager 3.5 percent. If a local government wants to collect more, it needs to get voter approval. 

A 3.5 percent limit is hard enough to make work even if all you want to do is maintain existing services. If you want to attract and retain employees, from police officers to transportation engineers, you have to spend more money each year just so their wages and benefits keep pace with inflation.

But if you’re a local government that has decided that it should be doing more—then 3.5 percent is nearly impossible. Last year, for instance, the Austin City Council decided to do much more for police officers: it approved a five-year contract with the police association giving officers an 8 percent wage hike in the first year, followed by incrementally smaller increases in the remaining years. Setting aside the merits of the police deal, it’s not hard to see how giving your largest employee group raises that far outpace your budget’s allowable growth will lead to problems. 

At the same time, Austin leaders believe that the city is making progress on homelessness and could be on the cusp of dramatic improvement. Thanks to $100 million in federal pandemic relief funds and tens of millions from voter-approved bonds, the city is funding a variety of housing projects to get people off the street. But this system is expensive to operate and takes time to see pay off.

It has been clear ever since the 3.5 percent limit was introduced that the city would eventually have to go to the voters for more money. The post-pandemic boom in sales tax revenue—the other principal source of city funds—allowed the city to keep the budget balanced for longer than expected. But sales tax revenue has come back down to earth, forcing council to either make service cuts or hold a tax rate election (TRE). All but one city council member decided the TRE was necessary. 

You could be forgiven if you’re confused by conflicting messages about Prop Q from its supporters. In some cases they describe it as an emergency measure to preserve existing services threatened by state and federal austerity. In other cases they describe it as a bold investment. So which is it? 

It’s a mixed bag. In the approved budget, some of the $110 million in new revenue would simply go to continue existing services. For instance, there is $8 million just to maintain the fire department’s overtime budget. There is also $12 million to restore cuts to low-income housing assistance programs that the city manager made in order to balance the budget and another $12 million will allow the continuation of social service contracts with local nonprofits. Finally, some of the money will simply go into the city’s reserves.

But the TRE definitely also funds new stuff. For instance: over $5 million for increased mental health treatment, $6 million for increased parks maintenance, and more than $1 million for wildfire prevention.

Most notably, Prop Q will result in more than a doubling of the budget of the Homeless Strategy Office, from $36 million to $75 million. This heap of new money would go to increase the availability of a variety of different housing interventions, from emergency shelters to “permanent supportive housing.” 

Investments in homeless services are already working in the sense that they are getting people off the street and into housing. But whether they are perceived as working is a very different question—one that will be, in part, answered at the ballot box.

So far, no major city in Texas besides Austin has held a TRE since the state enacted the tax cap. And this will actually be Austin’s second––the first was the 2020 measure voters approved to fund Project Connect, the embattled mass transit plan. But the pressure the state has put on local governments will eventually lead to tax rate elections in communities of all political stripes.

Last year, voters in Cibolo approved a TRE that was framed as a “public safety” investment and Mesquite and Copperas Cove also have TREs on the ballot this year. In many cases, local governments will not be making a bold case for increased investment, but simply asking voters to authorize money to maintain existing services. 

Long-term, it could be an interesting case study in what exactly Texas voters want from their local governments. What services are they willing to pay for—and how much? 

The post Why the City of Austin Wants Voters to Hike Their Property Taxes appeared first on The Texas Observer.