You can click on any highlighted word to view or download that item
Forming a Legal Coalition for Victory Suit vs. Alameda County District Attorney (DA), California Attorney General (AG) and the Alameda County Department of Child Support Service (DCSS)
This case is about, a civil and criminal judicial, governmental, and law enforcement fraud that goes back to the Department Of Justice- U. S. Attorney General and NSA. The government can not defend this admitted fraud, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary, extortion (recorded conversation and all documents can be listen to and/or downloaded below) and obstruction of justice in a MAJOR civil suit!
The nearly three decades old continuing story of the conflict between Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim and his Family with the Alameda County District Attorney (DA), the California Attorney General (AG) and the Alameda County Department of Child Support Service (DCSS) must be among the most extensively told in the history of the American judiciary. The related child support matter was being heard by Judge Stephen Pulido. Current Presiding Court Judge Winifred Smith has previously recused, as has former Presiding Judge Yolanda Northridge, Judge Sue Alexander, Commissioner Taylor Culver is conflicted, Commissioner Glenn Oleon has committed crimes that are the basis for this action and Supervising Judge C. Don Clay has been involved in this matter and exhibited highly questionable judgment by not pursuing a complaint against the investigator Bob Connor and the District Attorney’s office. We now have concerns about the impartiality of Judge Pulido with this case allegedly being assigned to him with the obvious exparte communications that have been had between him, court administration, the DA and DCSS. Pulido ducked out of the case after he incriminated himself, Commissioner Hendricks recused herself and even though she was TOTALLY conflicted by having worked in the D. A.’s office and was supervised by the mastermind of the fraud Sue Eadie, Commissioner Boydine Hall REFUSED to recuse herself and ruled in favor of her former supervisor! Hall, who first refused to answer if she worked for the D. A.’s office, then denied that she, later admitted that she had worked for the D. A.’s office. Hall had a 30 year career in the D. A.’s office, worked with ALL the individuals on this case that committed the admitted fraud, and Eadie was her supervisor! Just as soon as Hall admitted she worked for the DA, she denied it again when confronted with the fact that she was participating in this ongoing fraud and obstructing justice! In the related al-Hakim vs Rescue and CSAA et., al. there are numerous instances of judicial misconduct, where EVERY judge and commissioner in this case has admitted error, committed perjury, recused themselves, or all three!
In pursuing the matter with the leads that we have developed entraps those mentioned above and others that tried to investigate us for pushing back against the persecution and terrorizing that colluded with the real criminals that perpetrated these continuing crimes in their attempts to entrap us in crime. When there was no crime that we could be entrapped in, they created the crimes themselves and simply chose to prosecute on that basis. How does one answer to the question of “how can the District Attorney admit to committing a crime of fraud, embezzlement and obstruction of justice of a minor child and prosecute the father for it?”. How can ALL the State and Federal law enforcement agencies be on notice of the crime and prosecution, have received formal complaints of the crime and prosecution, be directed to investigate and prosecute the fraud and prosecution and do NOTHING but cover up the crime and prosecution?
We are seeking purposeful organizations that might be interested in forming a coalition for a MAJOR VICTORY that would inspire Muslims to stand up against the national criminal judicial, governmental, and law enforcement persecution and terror being inflicted upon innocent citizens everywhere! At the very least I would expect you ALL to support that effort. The government can not fight this admitted fraud and embezzlement in a civil suit! Since the facts and testimony is already admitted and developed over years, there’s little risk or costs involved and a GREAT REWARD/RETURN!! WE respect and recognize the boundaries that each of you have set for yourselves and if you would prefer not to get engaged in the task we ask that share this cause widely and refer it to others.With that in mind, we would like to propose just that. Forming a Legal Coalition for Victory and would like references to organizations that want to participate in the civil suit against the DA and that will bring into focus the activities of the others in the cover-up and collusion. Ismail had mentioned the Muslim Advocates as a resource and I think they are a good fit. Please share this proposal with EVERYONE that you think might or should be interested in winning justice and respect for ALL childern, responsile parents, Muslims and people in general!
al-Hakim and family now wish to sue the DA, AG, DCSS, and possibly California Governor Jerry Brown. Due to the admitted, uncontroverted, uncontested evidence in this matter it could be won on summary judgment and I have attached recent filings to give you an idea of what has transpired in this matter. It just needs some relentless tenacity! Attorneys here are afraid of the system that has ignored the law for fear of being blackballed!
They created and complied an entire presumptively inadmissible product and evidence of admitted fraud and bribery, then exercised a clearly illegal conflict of interest in misrepresenting the family, conducting a complete trial to defend their illegal actions and evidence before admitting the conflict AFTER the trial was completed and have sought to cover it up since!
The DA, AG and DCSS and their judicial team of covert illicit participants the putative accounting expert that created and complied the entire presumptively inadmissible product and evidence of admitted fraud and bribery, the accounting report used as the sole basis for the judgment by Commissioner Glenn Oleon despite the fact he knew it was the product of fraud.
al-Hakim and Family assert that good cause exists to question the legality of the standing of ALL the Parties including the Attorney General of The State of California (AG) whom substituted in as Attorney of Record allegedly representing The People of The State of California, et. al., In The Interest of Justice in this case for the Alameda County District Attorney (DA) and the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) as they exercised a clearly illegal conflict of interest in misrepresenting the family, conducting a complete trial to defend their illegal actions and evidence before admitting the conflict AFTER the trial was completed. This act makes them ALL a co-conspirator in the DCSSs continuing fraud upon The People of The Sate of California, the Superior Court and the al-Hakim Family, continuing their persecution of our family. They did not have standing then and CAN NOT NOW!
On October 10, 2013 al-Hakim was finally issued a traffic citation for driving with a suspended license for 10 years, no proof of insurance and no current registration. The arresting officer called for back-up and a tow truck to impound the truck that was filled with food for a free food distribution that al-Hakim’s family charity was having that day. This truck is used in the 57 year old Family charity for free food distribution to the needy. He told al-Hakim of the child support suspension and upon al-Hakim showing him court documents showing the order for the release of the hold and explaining the situation, he cancelled the tow truck and released al-Hakim to go on to the food distribution. The ripple effect of the suspension is: no drivers license (suspended), no insurance; no insurance, no registration. As a direct result of this continuing persecution of the Family with their fraud. This citation is further proof of the product of their admitted fraud, which includes the illegal holds on al-Hakim’s drivers license and passport.
On December 18, 2013 al-Hakim received a phone call from Mrs.Remelton of DCSS stating that the attorney for DCSS had reviewed the letter and declined the request and stating it was not necessary and that they DON’T sign off on stipulations as they are not a party and did not want to be involved. You can listen to and/or download that conversation at: https://app.box.com/s/k2zgu1cy3ombflq39ypn. The original stipulation submitted to the court has a signature line for the DCSS that was later whited out as per their request.
On December 19, 2013 at 10:49AM however al-Hakim received voice mail message from Mrs. Alcantara of DCSS requesting the attachment to the letter they rejected. You can listen to and/or download that conversation at: https://app.box.com/s/yf2if5sgq0xwpa1plr55.
On January 8, 2014 al-Hakim received collection “robo-calls” from DCSS which you can listen to and/or download at: https://app.box.com/s/cr5hrzx9tte6mghhx7f1. What’s really unique about this effort is that al-Hakim had NEVER received any such call in the entire 39 year life of his children.
On May 1, 2014 al-Hakim got a call from B. Hofmann in the DCSS and discussed the matter with her as well, that the truck was towed off the street in Berkeley, though legally parked, and impounded for no current registration. It has been held in impound since that time with charges mounting daily of $75 per day storage and $162 for towing. This is a direct and proximate result of the extortionate methods used by the DA and DCSS. She stated that she would be leaving for the weekend and would have someone to return my call and follow up on my request. You can listen to and/or download the conversation with B. Hoffmann at: https://app.box.com/s/c6rkc73k7dyg9g46vcsu.
On May 2, 2014 at 10:00am al-Hakim received a extortionate phone call from a Mr. Williams of DCSS allegedly to resolve the issue of the drivers license and towing. He suggested that al-Hakim get another Stipulation signed by Joette Hall and they could close all the pending cases since Patty Flenory was now deceased and that was the only open case. al-Hakim informed him that BOTH cases were closed regardless of his records and this was just another example of the ongoing fraud on behalf of the DA and DCSS. After 20 minutes of explaining to him that there was NO WAY OUT for the DA and DCSS short of paying the alleged arrearage themselves, he asked me who was behind the persecution of my family. I told him it had to be several people and it has affected ALL of al-Hakim’s family for nearly 30 years as this was akin to al-Hakim’s minor daughters being raped for 30 years and being asked by Judge Pulido to meet with the rapist, let him know it was “OK” by getting the permission and consent of the rapist, and give the Judge the rapists acceptance of your being raped for court approval! You can listen to and/or download the conversation with Mr. Williams at: https://app.box.com/s/jiwqu7cqh2khpk5kwe65.
On May 14, 2014 al-Hakim received another extortionate phone call from Mrs. B. Hoffmann of DCSS allegedly to settle case. You can listen to and/or download the conversation with B. Hoffmann DCSS 5-14-14 2:46 PM https://app.box.com/s/s4ef9v4f5fpqu0kzx5uw
We also have the Case of al-Hakim vs CSAA and Rescue Rooter, et. al.
This is an over $30 million, 17 year; contentious action; with the largest case file in the history of Alameda County Superior Court, over 70 file boxes; over 100 motions and responses; plaintiff had over 300 trial exhibits; over 5,000 pages of exhibits; 3,000 pages of documents for trial rebuttal argument; 20 expert witnesses; 77 other witnesses; over 100 pages of jury instructions; numerous allegations of judicial misconduct, where EVERY judge and commissioner in this case has admitted error, committed perjury, recused themselves, or all three!
al-Hakim then filed a Federal Corruption Complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him during the trial al-Hakim v. CSAA and Rescue, et. al in Superior Court of Alameda County, California.
The complaint, drafted and filed by al-Hakim in pro per, had broad based support from Democrats and Republicans, was submitted by Congresswoman Barbara Lee with the offices of Congressmen John Conyers, and Charles Rangel, reviewed by several legal experts, with advocacy by former Republican Senator J. C. Watts, a client of al-Hakims, is moving forward with the investigation and charges of criminal extrinsic fraud upon the court of the State of California, fabricating and planting fabricated evidence, spoliation of evidence, and the doctrine unclean hands against defendants/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Ron Cook and the law firm of WILLOUGHBY, STUART & BENING; defense counsel Steve Barber and the law firm of Ropers Majeski; and many others.
The complaint addresses concern that Superior Court Judges, defendants, defense counsels and others conduct rose to the level of consideration for a Federal Crime and a Civil Rights violation because the bench upon which the judge rules is under the color of law and certainly the violation of anyones civil rights is a federal crime, perhaps even more importantly, not only requested Merrily Friedlander, Chief of the Civil Rights Division, to make an investigation of a judicial hate crime, but also the many other civil rights and due process violations of judicial misconduct, and attorney extrinsic fraud upon the court and law that are themselves directly the matters complained.
After review in the U. S. A. G. Office, the case was thought of as being so egregious that even the infamous Bradley Schlozman, whom is now fired and facing Federal indictment with resigned former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez for removing Democratic attorneys from the U. S. Attorneys Generals offices nationwide, sent al-Hakim a letter referring the matter (because of jurisdictional limitations) to the California State Attorney General, California State Bar Association, the California State Judicial Council, and California State Insurance Commissioner for investigation and prosecution. And these were Republican Judges and attorneys being complained of!
The requested depositions and investigation concerns trial Judge David C. Lees allowance of the illegal product of fabricated and planted evidence, spoliated evidence and unclean hands by defendant/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Cook and Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; defense counsel Steve Barber and the law firm of Ropers Majeski; the other underlying defendants; and the Oakland City Attorneys Office run by John Russo to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony, and fostered its use to prejudice the jury. During the trial, testimony revealed that there were numerous documents and photos of a very damning nature to the defense and AAA as the hostile intervener, that were missing, altered, or incomplete. Now, however, the very same then California State Attorney General and current Govenor, Jerry Brown, responsible for carrying out the investigation of these crimes is himself defending these and other criminals and covering up the very same corruption he is supposed to be investigating and prosecuting! Not so shockingly Retired Judges Lee, Michael Ballachey, and Richard Hodge, though they live in three different counties, all coincidentally hired the same Oakland defense firm, Meyers Nave, run by former Oakland and current San Leandro City Attorney Jayne Williams whom was responsible for providing the files to the defendants initially that was then given to her client Judge Lee for trial by John Russo. (See July 26, 2006 letter from Kim Colwell under Exhibit B) Clearly an effort on the part of the defendants, their defense counsels, and the courts to protect their own fallen, now exposed crooks and coverup their corruption. Kim Colwell who represented them is now a Judge!
The following is dishonorable judge Robert B. Freedman’s ADMISSIONS to crimes as he responds with his Amended Notice of Formal Proceedings before the Commission on Judicial Performance.
Marshall B. Grossman
Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3660
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
INQUIRY CONCERNING VERIFIED ANSWER OF JUDGE
JUDGE ROBERT B. FREEDMAN ROBERT B. FREEDMAN TO
NO. 179 FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF
The Honorable Robert B. Freedman responds to the Amended Notice of Formal
Proceedings now pending before the Commission on Judicial Performance as follows:
1. Judge Freedman admits that during the period from 2000 to 2004, he took matters under submission and did not issue ruling in some matters for in excess of 90 days.
2. Judge Freedman admits that during this period, two presiding judges spoke with or wrote to him about the fact that he had gotten behind with respect to certain matters. He moved expeditiously to decide the matters once notified.
3. Judge Freedman denies that his conduct violated Code of Judicial Ethics Canons 1, 2A and 3A. He admits that he violated Canon 3B(8) only insofar as he failed to adjudicate matters with sufficient speed. He denies that he was unfair in deciding any matter.
4. With regard to Alameda Restaurant Associates v. McCabe, Schwartz, Case No. C-805366, Judge Freedman admits that he heard defendant’s demurrer to the second amended complaint, or in the alternative, motion for judgment on the pleadings on March 23,2000. He admits that he ruled on all causes of action before him with the exception of the fifth cause of action, which he took under submission. Judge Freedman further admits that his decision as to the motion on the fifth cause of action was signed and filed on April 16, 2001.
5. With regard to Paula Insurance Co. v. Stone Candles, Case Nos. 807669/808428, Judge Freedman admits that he heard a motion for summary judgment on November 20,2000. He further admits that he signed his decision on March 16,2001.
6. As to Bellamy v. United Parcel Service, Case No. C-81S035, Judge Freedman admits that he heard a motion for summary judgment on November 29, 2000.
He further admits that he took the motion under submission as to the punitive damage claims. Judge Freedman admits that his decision was signed on March 19, 2001 and filed on March 23, 2001.
7. With regard to CSK, Inc. v. City of Berkeley, Case No. C-833044, Judge Freedman admits that he heard argument on a petition for writ of mandate on or around January 5,2001. He further admits that he thereafter took the matter under submission and that his decision was signed and filed on April 19, 2001.
8. With regard to Walker v. Salume, Case No. C-728344, Judge Freedman admits that on January 9, 2001, he heard a motion regarding costs. He took the matter under submission on or after that date. Judge Freedman further admits that his decision was filed more than 90 days later on April 13,2003.
9. As to County of Contra Costa v. Insurance Co. of the West, Case No. C-827858, Judge Freedman admits that he heard a demurrer on January 11, 2001. Judge Freedman took the matter under submission on or around that date. He further admits that his decision was filed on April 16, 2001, 98 days later.
10. Judge Freedman admits that he heard a motion for summary judgment in Semprimoznik v. Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Case No. C-821892 on January 16, 2001. He confirmed the Court’s tentative ruling as to the first cause of action and took under submission an issue related to the second cause of action. Judge Freedman admits that he filed his decision on April 19, 2001, 93 days after the hearing.
11. Judge Freedman admits that he presided over the court trial in Slauson v. Arntz Builders, Case No. C-823752. Sometime after May 6,2002, Judge Freedman took the matter under submission. He further admits that he signed and filed his Notice of Intended Decision in that matter on January 31, 2003.
In February 2003, the parties requested a statement of decision. Judge Freedman admits that he presided over a hearing on that matter on March 18, 2003 and took the matter under submission after argument. Judge Freedman admits that his decision was signed on October 12,2004 and filed on October 13,2004.
12. With regard to 0 ‘Toole v. University of California, Case No. C-81077, Judge Freedman admits that he presided over the court trial and took the case under submission on or around July 2, 2002. He further admits that he signed and filed his decision on February 7, 2003. His decision was affirmed on appeal.
13. Judge Freedman admits that he presided over the re-trial of a damages issue in Willard v. Stuart, Case No. C-746169 and took the matter under submission on or around July 8,2002. He further admits that he signed his decision on January 14, 2003, and that it was filed on January 15, 2003.
Further, although Judge Freedman does not have present sufficient knowledge to admit or deny that Willard submitted two proposed forms of judgment in January 2003 he notes that the DOMAIN register of actions reflected a judgment entered as of January 14, 2003: There are no such documents in the court’s paper file and they do not appear on the DOMAIN register of actions. Judge Freedman admits that the court record reflects that a document titled “Issues After Tentative Decision” was filed on January 30,2003 on behalf of Mr. Stuart. He denies that the document came into his possession at that time or required that he take any action or caused the matter to remain under submission.
Judge Freedman admits that, because he believed the matter was concluded, he took no further action until May 2006, when he was contacted by plaintiff and promptly set the case for a case management conference on May 31, 2006. He admits that he signed the “Judgment of Amendment to Amended Judgment of June 5, 1997,” submitted by plaintiff at the May 31, 2006 hearing, on May 31,2006.
14. As to Nwokoro v. Okereke, Case No. C-785575, Judge Freedman admits that he heard a motion for distribution of proceeds of a sale of partnership property and a motion to stay proceedings on June 23,2003. He further admits that a letter brief ordered on that date was filed on July 2, 2003. Judge Freedman admits that his decision in that matter was signed and filed on September 7,2004.
15. With regard to Morgan Lincoln v. Wah On Asian Foods Corp., Case No. 2000-025136, Judge Freedman admits that he heard a motion to compel enforcement of a settlement agreement on September 4,2003. He further admits that on or around September 11, 2003, he took the matter under submission. Judge Freedman further admits that his decision in that matter was signed and filed on August 22, 2004.
16. As to Levy v. Rubin, Palache & Associates, Case No. C-808701, Judge Freedman admits that he presided over the court trial of this matter that ended on July 21, 2003. He further admits that post-trial briefing was completed on or about November 25, 2003. He denies that no action was taken on the case for the next nine and a half months.
Judge Freedman admits that plaintiff filed a “request for judicial decision of matters pending after court trial” on September 13, 2004. He also admits that he subsequently ordered oral argument and additional briefing. Judge Freedman further admits that his decision was signed on November 2,2004 and filed on November 3, 2004.
17. Judge Freedman admits that he heard a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in Mar/Dan v. Wells Fargo, Case No. 2001-022315 on December 16, 2003 and took it under submission at or around that time. He further admits that his decision in that matter was signed and filed on August 26,2004. An appeal of the underlying judgment (after court trial) was pending when the fee motion was filed and heard. The judgment was affirmed in full.
18. Judge Freedman admits that he presided over the jury trial in Bell v. Beasley, Case No. C-822820, in the fall of 2003. He admits that the jury reached a verdict on November 7, 2003 and that it made a number of damage awards in favor of cross-complainant Beasley. Further, Judge Freedman admits that Bell objected to the proposed judgment submitted by Beasley and that he presided over a hearing concerning the judgment on December 5, 2003. Judge Freedman admits that post-judgment briefing was completed on December 22, 2003 and that he signed a judgment on July 2, 2004.
19. With regard to Kassoffv. National Health Laboratories, Case Nos. C-7496261RG03123643, Judge Freedman admits that he heard a motion regarding attorneys’ fees and costs, a motion to vacate a renewed judgment, and for sanctions on January 8, 2004. He further admits that his decisions were signed and filed on August 31, 2004. His decision was affirmed on appeal.
20. With regard to Weaver v. Big Dog Holdings, Case No. 2001-035505, Judge Freedman admits that he heard a motion for attorney’s fees on March 4,2004.
Judge Freedman further admits that the last supplemental declaration was filed in that matter on or around March 17, 2004. He also admits that his decision was signed and filed on September 9, 2004.
21. Judge Freedman admits that he presided over the court trial of Nat Nat v. Valdez, Case No. 2002-063090 on March 2,2004. He further admits that the last closing brief was filed on March 17, 2004. Judge Freedman admits that his decision in that matter was signed and filed on August 24, 2004. His decision was affirmed on appeal.
22. With regard to Tibbs v. V&V Auto Repair, Case No. 2002-054418, Judge Freedman admits that he presided over the court trial of that matter. He took the case under submission on our around May 6,2004. Judge Freedman further admits that his decision was signed and filed on August 30,2004, 116 days later.
23. Judge Freedman admits that he presided over a hearing on an application for a restraining order in Caswell v. Cunningham, Case No. HF04140845 on May 18, 2004. He took the matter under submission on or around May 18, 2004. Judge Freedman admits that he signed the decision on September 5, 2004 and filed it on September 7,2004, 110 days later.
24. As to Teixiera v. Caragan, Case Nos. HF041434091HF03129039, Judge Freedman admits that he presided over a hearing regarding two restraining orders on May 12,2004 and June 2, 2004. He further admits that the last evidence was submitted to him on June 10,2004, at which time the case was under submission. Judge Freedman admits that his decision was signed on September 6,2004, and filed on September 7,2004,89 days later.
25. Judge Freedman admits that the California Constitution Article VI, Section 19, provides that a judge may not receive a salary “while any cause before the judge remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision. ”
26. Judge Freedman admits that Government Code Section 68210 provides that no judge shall receive his salary unless he executes “an affidavit stating that no cause before him remains pending and undetermined for 90 days after it has been submitted for decision. ”
27. Judge Freedman admits that during the periods of approximately June 2000 through April 2001, August 2002 through February 2003, June 2003 through August 2004, and in October 2004, he executed state and county salary affidavits while he had matters pending and undetermined before him for more than 90 days. Judge Freedman admits that he erred in executing certain of the affidavits, many of which were prospective in nature, but denies that he executed them knowing that they were incorrect or inaccurate.
28. Judge Freedman denies that his conduct violated Code of Judicial Ethics, Canons 1 and 2(a).
29. Judge Freedman admits that during the first half of 2004, when he was the supervising judge in Hayward, he was unable to act within applicable deadlines on over 200 fee waiver applications in civil and family law matters. Judge Freedman admits that in February 2005, the court ordered the refund of $9,894 in fees in over thirty of those cases.
30. Judge Freedman admits that his failure to timely act on the fee waiver applications violated Canon 3B(8) to the extent that they were untimely. He denies that his conduct violated Code of Judicial Ethics Canons 1, 2(a) and 3(a) or that the decisions he rendered were unfair under Canon 3B(8).
Judge Freedman is a conscientious judge who strives to arrive at the right decision in all matters that come before him. When Judge Freedman takes a matter under submission, he does so because he believes that the matter requires the type of careful reading and analysis of the record that litigants should be able to expect occurs prior to a judge rendering a decision in their case. Judge Freedman has tried to maintain his personal standards for judging in the face of a tremendous docket.
Judge Freedman understands that he has a duty to not only decide matters properly, but also within the 90-day period set by statute. Sometimes, when his workload has been particUlarly heavy, Judge Freedman fell behind. For example, Judge Freedman fell behind in many of the matters identified above during a four-month period when he covered not only his own Department (there were approximately 300 cases under his management at the time), but also the Law & Motion Department while another judge was sitting pro tern on the First District Court of Appeal. On a daily basis, between 25 and 45 Law & Motion matters required consideration.
Judge Freedman regrets not only that he was untimely in rendering decisions in several cases, but also in processing fee waiver applications. At the time Judge Freedman became the Supervising Judge of the Hayward Courthouse in November 2003, approximately 200 fee waiver applications were filed monthly with the court. In order to improve the manner in which the applications were processed, Judge Freedman assumed complete responsibility for the 200 fee waiver applications filed each month. By statute, the applications were to have to been decided within five days. Though the vast majority of the applications were timely decided, many were not.
During the period that Judge Freedman acted as Supervising Judge of the. Hayward Hall of Justice and processed the fee waiver applications, that is, from November 2003 through October 2004, approximately 3,535 matters were assigned to his calendar. The 3,535 matters reflected on the Scheduled Appearance List do not include, among other things, the fee waiver applications or the high volume of other miscellaneous ex-parte applications including applications for temporary restraining orders in domestic violence, civil harassment and elder abuse cases, unlawful detainer eviction stay applications, posting orders, and void filing orders.
In hindsight, Judge Freedman’s assumption of responsibility for all Hayward fee waiver applications was, at best, overly optimistic. At the point he embarked on the system change, however, he was unaware of the magnitude of the overall workload he had assumed. He learned from his mistakes and did his best to improve the system through the creation of a judicial rotating Work Queue.
Judge Freedman has a demonstrated long time professional commitment to assisting indigent litigants and persons of limited means gain access to justice. He was a director of the Alameda County Bar Foundation and became its President in 1995. The Foundation’s mission was to raise funds and support services for indigent litigants in civil matters.
Judge Freedman is also committed to improving his court and the legal and judging communities in general. He was a founding director of Consumer Group Legal Services, a pioneer group legal services program associated with the now defunct Consumer’s Coop of Berkeley; a member of the Board of Directors of the Alameda County Bar Association and its President in 1988; a member for approximately eight years of the Judicial Council’s Civil and Small Claims Advisory Committee and is currently chair of its Case Management Subcommittee; past chair of the ADR and Legislation Subcommittees; Chair of the Working Group on Ethical Standards for Mediators in Court Annexed Mediation which developed California Rules of Court Rules 1620 et seq. adopted effective Jan 1,2003; Chair of the State Bar of California Task Force on Accreditation ofInternet Only Law Schools; Co-chair of the Judicial Council’s Temporary Judges Working Group responsible for developing the new California Rules of Court for temporary judges adopted by the Judicial Council in December 2005 and now found inter alia at CRC 6.740, 6.743 etc. effective July 1, 2006; Trustee (and Past President) of the Bernard E. Witkin Alameda County Law Library; and a founding director of Bay Area Lawyers for the Arts (BALA), predecessor of the current California Lawyers for the Arts.
Judge Freedman was recently selected by his Presiding Judge to serve as one of two complex litigation department judges in Alameda County (one of approximately 25 in the state). He was also asked to chair the court’s Direct Calendar Task Force.
Dated: October 2, 2006 LONG & LEVIT LLP
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
I, ROBERT B. FREEDMAN, DECLARE that:
I am the respondent judge in the above-entitled proceeding. I have read the foregoing Answer of Judge Robert B. Freedman. to First Amended Notice of Formal Proceedings, and all facts alleged in the above document. not otherwise supported by citations to the record, exhibits, or other documents, are true of my own personal knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 2ndday of October, 2006, at Oakland, California.
Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim filed a motion to disqualify the bribe taking and bribe paying judge with a STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION/EXHIBITS (CCP § 170.3 (c) (1)), CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE, CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)), CANON 4(E)(4); MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE, DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE; MOTION AND DEMAND FOR REMOVAL OF disHONORABLE JUDGE ROBERT FREEDMAN ON PEREMPTORY BIAS OR FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CCP §170.6 and FOR CAUSE UNDER CCP §§170.1-5 DUE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §242
TO THE disHONORABLE ROBERT FREEDMAN, JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT
The PLAINTIFF, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim in the above-entitled matter hereby moves that the hearing, which involves a contested issue of law or fact, and which has been assigned to the Honorable Robert Freedman, Judge of the above-entitled Court, be reassigned from that Judge, and that no matters hereinafter arising in this cause be heard or assigned to the Honorable Robert Freedman, on the ground that said Judge is prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action.
Pursuant to current California law, two methods exist for seeking to disqualify a judge. A party may either move to disqualify the judge for cause pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 170.1 through 170.5, or he may file a peremptory challenge in accordance with Cal. Civ. Proc. §170.6.
This motion is based on the matters contained herein, on Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 and on the supporting Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury of plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim attached hereto and filed herewith.
COME NOW THE PLAINTIFF with this Motion and Demand for Removal of the Honorable
Judge Robert Freedman on either peremptory bias grounds pursuant to California Civil Code §170.6 or otherwise “for cause” pursuant to California Civil Code §§170.1-170.5.
California Civil Code §170.6 states in part:
(a) (1) No judge, court commissioner, or referee of any superior court of the State of California shall try any civil or criminal action or special proceeding of any kind or character nor hear any matter therein that involves a contested issue of law or fact when it shall be established as hereinafter provided that the judge or court commissioner is prejudiced against any party or attorney or the interest of any party or attorney appearing in the action or proceeding.
(2) Any party to or any attorney appearing in any action or proceeding may establish this prejudice by an oral or written motion without notice supported by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury or an oral statement under oath that the judge, court commissioner, or referee before whom the action or proceeding is pending or to whom it is assigned is prejudiced against any party or attorney or the interest of the party or attorney so that the party or attorney cannot or believes that he or she cannot have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before the judge, court commissioner, or referee.
I. GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION
For over 15 years it has come to the attention of plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim that Judge Robert Freedman has deep conflicts of interest regarding the above cited matter, requiring his recusal or disqualification, on grounds of conflict of interest, bias, prejudice, a minimum appearance of impropriety and other grounds, making it likely that a person aware of the facts could reasonably entertain a doubt as to the ability of the judge to be impartial.
II. BACKGROUND FACTS
al-Hakim received a letter dated April 15, 2008 from Judge Yolanda Northridge (see letter attached under Exhibit “A”) acknowledging receipt of the complaint against Judge Jon Tigar, promising a response and referring the matter to the Supervising Judge, Robert Freedman for review. But after nearly eight years of waiting to date, al-Hakim has not received the promised response. Tigar and Freedman shared adjoining courtroom and chambers at the time, causing for a very cozy relationship.
In al-Hakim’s recent Defendant’s Declaration in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Order Denying Review of License Denial; Code Civ. Proc. § 473 et seq., § 663, subd. 1, § 657, subd. 6. and § 1008(b) filed October 23, 2014 he discusses the matter of Freedman’s refusal to complete the investigation of Tigar and the delay fits his form as he jas done that before while getting paid for it!.
al-Hakim has been deprived of his right to proper, effectively litigation of his case and denied his rights to a fair trial and to due process under the federal and state Constitutions (U.S. Const., 6th & 14th Amends; Cal. Const., art. 1, §§ 7, 15, 24), because “the trial court engaged in a systematic ‘pattern of judicial hostility,’ ” which consisted, among others, of erroneous exclusion of crucial evidence but allowed the defense to use the same; interference with witnesses; disparaging comments regarding al-Hakim; and exhibiting blatant hostility, disdain, and animosity toward al-Hakim.
al-Hakim was not surprised in that Judge Freedman has had his own well documented problems with honesty by willfully and intentionally filing false, perjurious and deceiving documents and affidavits, to support the fabricated timeliness in the administration of his duties that resulted public reprimand. Judge Freeman Censure can be seen (see May 27, 2010 article “ The Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Judges, Attorneys and Public Officials” and June 27, 2007 article “CJP Rebukes Judge Over Delayed Rulings, False Salary Affidavits” attached under Exhibit “A”).
He has a checkered past in the al-Hakim vs CSAA, Rescue Rooter case as well. At one hearing in this matter he openly stated bias, prejudice, voiced a fixed opinion of al-Hakim and having an improper ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim and his case while using such information to hold al-Hakim to a higher legal standard than that of the opposing counsel in this case as a guise for sanctioning al-Hakim for it. After that hearing, with the parties appearing in a follow up session, with the case was now before a new judge, when it was called suddenly Freedman bolts out of the judges chambers door to the surprise of everyone in the courtroom announcing that he was going to hear the al-Hakim case. His attempt at ambushing al-Hakim failed much to his chagrin as the parties announced that they had complied and agreed on all the matters that he had hoped to use as a means for terminating sanctions against al-Hakim. Everyone was and is convinced that he will not seriously review nor is he capable of impartially or fairly judging this matter, and never for review of Tigar, his next door neighbor in the courtroom.
In a May 25, 2010 Media Advisory (attached under Exhibit “A”) al-Hakim mobilized attorney’s to represent these poor, under served youth trapped in the widely cast net of the Gang Injunction and secured ALL-Americans, NFL All-Pro, Super Bowl Champions, NBA World Champions, North Oakland residents, Oakland Tech High School and U. C. Berkeley classmates Marshawn Lynch, Josh Johnson, and Leon Powe along with several native Oakland celebrities to join national celebrities in this fight! Through the collaboration of the individuals, we provide the much needed alternatives to these profiled youth to succeed in life and not be eliminated from it because some developers want their families property and them out the neighborhood. Margaret White who’s son was one of those who was charged and both a friend of Lynch’s was removed from the list as a result of these efforts. Mrs. White whom has lost a son comments that “The injunction is not going to stop violence, just as the War on Drugs did not stop the flow of drugs” (see May 27, 2010 article “Judge Intends To Issue Gang Injunction For Oakland” (attached under Exhibit “A”).
In a May 16, 2011 Media Advisory (attached under Exhibit “A”) entitled “Oakland City Attorney John Russo’s Proposed Gang Injunction is a tool for Gentrification “SAY NO TO JOHN RUSSO!” people are urged to attend a hearing before Judge Freedman on June 24, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. Freedman appears to have overlooked pages of Affidavits signed by several Oakland Police Department officers, many of which live outside of Oakland, swear that these named defendants are gang members who committed crimes, that they are menaces to society and they should be punished. Curious to note however, the Affidavits themselves are repetitive – cut and pasted text with recycled facts according to Oakland Police Officer Frank Morrow who refused to sign on when presented with one. The entire process is flawed as ever which is probably why a Federal Judge called a meeting with Police Administration and the City of Oakland in April 2011 to force the terms of the settlement intended to clean up that department that followed the infamous “Riders” scandal and trial.
Thus, Judge Freedman has a conflict of interest and cannot serve impartially in this matter. His actions with his long-time courtroom mate Judge Tigar is a perfect example of his inability to fairly judge. There is no possible way that Judge Freedman could be reasonably expected to overcome his bias and prejudice. He is far more likely to be sympathetic to Judge Tigar and these institutional and government defendants.
From these facts, Judge Freedman would certainly be dismissed for bias as a juror if he were being voir dired by any competent attorney. A judge has an ethical duty to make reasonable efforts to keep himself informed of any possible conflicts and recuse himself if he believes he would have difficulty being impartial. He has not done that here.
Presiding Judge Winifred Smith and Supervising Judge Don Clay has a similar duty when assigning judges. Judges Smith and Clay again clearly has not done that either.
Any judge reviewing this challenge should require disclosures of what happened to the investigation of Judge Tigar? In that case, a judge with the power to decide whether or not al-Hakim’s rights has been violated would have a direct pecuniary interest in serving the institution rather than the al-Hakim.
This is too much. At the very least the appearance of bias is impossible to overcome. At the least, Judge Freedman should recuse himself without making any decisions in this case, to serve the interests of the appearance of judicial impartiality.
At a minimum, Judge Freedman fails to meet the test for impropriety and should be disqualified or recused because “A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.” (CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)).
These conflicts represent a perfect demonstration of what plaintiffs have been predicting for the past 20 years, that there is simply no possibility of a fair trial of the county and these entrenched and influential judges, district attorneys, city attorneys and defendants in their home county of Alameda. Plaintiff may petition that this case should be transferred without delay to the “nearest county without like objection”, such as San Francisco, as requested in a motion to change venue.
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim charges and has shown that previously, under color of law, Honorable Judge Robert Freedman sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. In so doing the Honorable Judge Robert Freedman acted with malicious intent to favor Judge Tigar, previous defendants and the court by unlawful exercise of discretion. Judge Robert Freedman’s conduct, together with that of judge Tigar, with Judges Smith and Clay, possibly by agreement or conspiracy between these parties in violation of 18 U.S.C. §241, constituted an egregious crime within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §242, quoted below.
Plaintiff further charge and has shown that this conduct on Judge Freedman’s part constituted, beyond reasonable doubt, a clear, direct, intentional, knowing, and premeditated violation of 18 U.S.C. §242, which states as follows:
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
In support of plaintiff’s Demand and Notice of Disqualification for Cause, plaintiff submits this Statement of Disqualification and Exhibits.
B. Judge Robert Freedman Discriminated Against Plaintiff In Violation of Cal. Gvt. Code § 12926.1.
1. Plaintiff timely files this complaint against Judge Robert Freedman, reserving his right to challenge Judge Freedman under § 170.6. Plaintiff is demanding the results and pending outcome of Freedman’ alleged investigation of Judge Jon Tigar by order of then Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge. Plaintiff’s complaints documented Judge Tigar’s many, many violations of Local Court Rules and the Canons. Plaintiff is entitled to know those results as they affect his trial and Judge Freedman should not be allowed to ignore nor “rubber stamp” a defense of Judge Tigar. To date Judge Freedman has refused to investigate or cause Plaintiff’s complaints to be investigated as requested by then Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge.
2. Judge Freedman’s denial of plaintiff’s request is blatant a conflict of interest, bias, prejudice, abuse of discretion, coercion and retaliation for his filing complaints against him regarding prejudice, bias, discrimination, and ethics.
3. Presiding Judge Winifred Smith and Supervising Judge Don Clay are willfully blind to bias, prejudice, coercion, retaliation, and discrimination in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
4. “When the plaintiff offers direct evidence of discriminatory motive, a triable issue as to the actual motivation is created even if the evidence is not substantial…” (Stegall v Citadel Broadcasting, U.S. 9th Circuit, No. 02-35399, December 2, 2003, p.16928)
C. Plaintiff’s Peremptory Challenge Pursuant to CCP § 170.6
CCP § 170.6(3) states that:
“…if the motion is duly presented and the affidavit or declaration… is duly filed… thereupon and without any further act or proof…” a judge should refer the case for reassignment.
Further CCC § 170.6 (3) states that:
“…In other cases, the trial of the cause or the hearing of the matter shall be assigned or transferred to another judge… or if there is not other judge… the Chair of the Judicial Council shall assign some other judge… to try the matter as promptly as possible.”
Plaintiff’s Peremptory Challenge and Motion to Disqualify Judge Freedman merely reflect factual findings of the existence and encouragement of blatant bias, prejudice, discrimination, duress, coercion and retaliation by Judges and the Court against the against him.
1. Judges Smith and Clay will continue to violate the local court’s policy against bias, and prejudice. Absent their disqualification, these judges and their colleagues on the Superior Court will assure that retaliatory reassignment occurs in plaintiff’s case in order to attempt to extend their cover-up of discriminatory animus against plaintiff and all disabled litigants.
2. The records and files in plaintiff’s case prove an unprecedented, covert policy of “JURISPREJUDICE” in the California courts.
3. Judge Freedman’s actions along with Judges Smith and Clay violate Canons 2 and 3 of the California Code of Judicial Conduct, which provide that a “judge should perform the duties of judicial office impartially…”
“Statutes governing disqualification for cause are intended to ensure public confidence in the judiciary and to protect the right of litigants to a fair and impartial adjudicator – not to safeguard an asserted right, privilege or preference of a judge to try or hear a particular dispute.” (Curle v. Superior Court (Gleason) (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 103.
4. “‘When the record clearly demonstrates what the trial court did, we will not presume it did something different’… we are confident that if that is what Judge Golden meant, he knew how to say it.” (Paterno v. State of California (2003) Cal.App.4th) Judge Freedman has a clear pattern of discriminatory conduct, which Judges Smith and Clay are attempting to cover up by after-the-fact pretexts, to justify his conduct, which have no basis in fact or law.
5. As of the date of this document (1/26/2015), Judge Freedman has failed to provide his response, if any, to plaintiff’s request for the results of his nearly 20 year investigation.
6. Ignoring plaintiff’s request is illegal and represents additional undisputed evidence of discriminatory animus intended to cause unconscionable duress to plaintiff.
7. Judge Freedman’s prejudice, coercion and retaliation are clearly reflected by his “inexplicable” ruling in the previous matter claiming that al-Hakim did not go far enough on a standard form that was the same as the defendants. His rulings resemble “inexplicable,” rulings made by the Duchess, regarding Alice’s complaints, as written in Alice in Wonderland:
“… and the moral of that is – ‘Be what you would seem to be’ – or, if you’d like to put it more simply – ‘Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise that what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'”
8. The existence and cover-up of discriminatory animus against litigants is a cancer on the California courts. These judges have transformed the California Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court into a “gauntlet,” which litigants are unconscionably forced to endure under duress in order to exercise their Constitutional and civil rights. Such unconscionability should shock the judicial instinct.
D. The Court Is Guilty Of Judicial Misconduct
The herein documented misconduct of Judge Freedman legally and practically prevents al-Hakim from having a fair hearing, wherein the findings and award resulting from such misconduct must be annulled, and the matter remanded for further proceedings as in the event of a mistrial . ( Reimer v. Firpo (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 798, 801 [212 P.2d 23]. See Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 1001, 1015-1016 [163 Cal. Rptr. 339]; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 796, 806-807 [183 Cal. Rptr. 440].)
In Spruance v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 13 Cal.3d 778 [119 Cal.Rptr. 841, 532 P.2d 1209], the court removed a judge from office for acting with hostility toward an attorney, failing to properly disqualify himself, maliciously attempting to prejudice a criminal defendant’s case, attempting to influence the disposition of criminal matters as a favor to friends and political supporters, and appointing friends and supporters as attorneys in cases in which the defendant was not entitled to counsel at public expense. Judge Freedman has met the criterion mentioned here of judicial misconduct under Spruance, supra,that demand removal form office. Judge Freedman conduct therefore constitutes willful misconduct. ( Spruance, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 798.) and violated canon 2B of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
These same charges of willful misconduct and charges of prejudicial conduct led to removal of a judge in Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1983) 33 Cal.3d 359 [188 Cal.Rptr. 880, 657 P.2d 372].
California courts recognize that misconduct, bias or prejudice on the part of a judge such as that committed here by the court, will deprive a party of due process by depriving him of the right to a fair and impartial appraisal hearing and trial. (See, United States v. Navarro-Flores (9th Cir. 1980) 628 F.2d 1178, 1182; Corbett v. Bordenkircher (6th Cir. 1980) 615 F.2d 722, 723.)
E. The Court Is Guilty Of Abuse Of Discretion
The herein described indiscretions of Judge Freedman clearly fall within the confines of An Abuse of Discretion as may be found when, all relevant circumstances considered, the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason, or when no judge would reasonably make the same order under the same circumstances. Rappleyea v. Campbell, (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 987 [35 Cal.Rptr.2d 669]. With judge Northridge’s PREVIOUS order to investigate that is in conflict with the actions of Judge Freedman, he has simply abused any reasonable discretion necessary to properly rule in this matter or in this case.
F. Judge Freedman’s Arrogance and Patterned Willful Misconduct
Among the incidents of patterned willful misconduct, Judge Freedman’s announcement in the court that exhibited disdain and an intimate knowledge of al-Hakim that was revealed with his comment of “the word around here is that you are not the average “pro per”” that foretells an illegal ex-parte communication, if even through a third party! He did this as he sanctioned al-Hakim while holding him to a higher standard than the opposing counsel whom had the same content in his pleading.
These comments by the court were unwarranted, inappropriate and also pose a serious threat to public esteem for the integrity of the judiciary, as held in re Stevens (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 403 [183 Cal. Rptr. 48, 645 P.2d 99], where it was determined that inappropriate comments uttered in chambers do constitute the offense of conduct prejudicial. ( Id. at p. 404.) Derogatory remarks, although made in chambers or at a staff gathering, may become public knowledge and thereby diminish the hearer’s esteem for the judiciary — again regardless of the speaker’s subjective intent or motivation. The reputation in the community of an individual judge necessarily reflects on that community’s regard for the judicial system. You must hold that Judge Freedman’s actions and remarks constitute conduct prejudicial at a minimum.
Judge Freedman has been intemperate and stepped outside the boundaries of what could be characterized as proper. A plain reading of the declaration and the transcripts, clearly reflects that his intent was to intimidate, infer, taunt and depict al-Hakim as shiftless, and as such, impress on those in attendance a judicial imprimatur of the alleged plaintiff’s position. (See People v. Brock (1967) 66 Cal.2d 645, 649, 654-655 [58 Cal. Rptr. 321, 426 P.2d 889]; People v. Flores, (1971), 17 Cal. App. 3d at p. 587 [“When the trial judge’s remarks transgress the bounds of critical comment and assume the complexion of partisan advocacy and conclude with an expression of a defendant’s guilt such comment is prejudicial as a matter of law”].)
These travesties of justice Judge Freedman has committed herein falls under those in Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance which were characterized as a “continuous course of overreaching and abuse of judicial authority” ( id. at p. 371) and Freedman was advocating for the defense Catchpole v. Brannon (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 237, 249-253 [advocacy for a party is judicial misconduct] in violation of the law. For ALL of the foregoing, HE CAN NOT SERVE IN THIS MATTER.
G. This Issue Presents An Actual Controversy.
al-Hakim argues that the issues raised in this motion presents an actual controversy. The court ruled that this matter be investigated and Judge Freedman has refused, and engaged now the courts attempt to cover up their transgressions when they are exposed for being guilty of willful corrupt misconduct, they refused to acknowledged plaintiff’s memorandum filled with the courts abuses. This matter is of the character which the principles of U.S. Const. amend. I, V, VI, and XIV, as adopted by the Due Process Clause, protect. This is a clear denial of Defendant Family’s rights under the United States and California State Constitution.
The court’s denying plaintiff’s rights thereto in defiance of the law implicates the fundamental issues of violating plaintiff’s right to due process and civil rights AND CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO HIS CASE. The court has let their personal convictions interfere with the duty to be scrupulously fair as the exclusive trier of fact. ( People v. Cook, (1983), 33 Cal.3d at p. 408; People v. Friend, (1958), 50 Cal.2d at pp. 577-578.) There is no question that Judge Freedman has repeatedly violated this tenant of fairness and further HE CAN NOT SERVE IN THIS MATTER.
Judge Freedman presence in this case summarily denies plaintiff’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing such a ruling and places an intolerable burden on him, denying his legitimate and undeniable rights and strikes at the heart of his fundamental civil rights and due process under the law, guaranteed by the United States Constitution and California Constitution. No statute in California authorizes the court to deny a right that is uncontroverted while in the process denying such precious fundamental rights of due process and justice. The use of judicial power to permit such injustice raises significant legal questions, and an order from this Court is necessary to prevent this abuse.
There are also grounds for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085; on the ground of misconduct, prejudicial misconduct, bias, and prejudice in violations of Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.0-170.5; specifically 170, subd. (a)(5); 170, subd. (e); 170.1, subdivision (a)(2); 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(C); 170.3, subd. (c)(1); 170.3, subd. (c)(5); 170.3, subd. (d); 170.l(a)(6), §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8) and 3C( a corresponding Federal Statute, 28 United States Code section 455(a) adopted by Congress in 1974); Business and Professions Code sections 6068, subdivisions (b) and (f), 6103 and 6106 and former rule 7-105(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 8, 18; see Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3D(1).); and violates al-Hakim’s fundamental civil rights and due process under the law guaranteed by the United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, and XIV, and as applicable to this state of California Constitution by the first clause of Section 13 of Article I; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3).
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim prays that the relief herein requested be granted. Judge Freedman should recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety, or if not be disqualified and required to make a full disclosure of the investigation involving Judge Tigar. If Judge Freedman refuses, I request a hearing on this matter before an impartial judge. This matter may need to be transferred to another county venue on fair trial grounds as provided by CCP §397(b) where the influence of the Judges, district attorney, city attorney and defendants is not so inextricably intertwined with judicial interests. At the very least, this matter should be transferred to a calendar judge other than Judges Smith or Clay or someone selected by her for reassignment.
Respectfully submitted this 26th day of January 2015, at Oakland, CA
I, plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing challenge for cause and the facts stated therein are true and correct:
1. I am the PLAINTIFF in the above-entitled matter.
2. The Honorable Robert Freedman, Judge to whom the Case Management Conference and Defendants Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint Hearing of the above-entitled matter is pending in Department 20, is prejudiced against the PLAINTIFF.
3. Declarant Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, says that in the past Judge Robert Freedman purported to exercise his authority in which he violated my civil rights, has admittedly acting with personal interest in the outcome under the color of law 18 USC §242. Judge Freedman’s persistent willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability he would continue his unethical behavior if he were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future. That Robert Freedman the judge, before whom the hearing aforesaid action is pending is prejudiced against the party or the interest of the party so that affiant cannot or believes that he cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before this judge.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, based on my direct first hand personal knowledge.
Date: January 26, 2015
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Attached Under Exhibit “A”: a letter dated April 15, 2008 from Judge Yolanda Northridge
Attached Under Exhibit “A”: May 27, 2010 article “ The Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Judges, Attorneys and Public Officials”
Attached Under Exhibit “A”: June 27, 2007 article “CJP Rebukes Judge Over Delayed Rulings, False Salary Affidavits”
Attached Under Exhibit “A”: May 25, 2010 Media Advisory on Gang Injunction
Attached Under Exhibit “A”: May 27, 2010 article “Judge Intends To Issue Gang Injunction For Oakland”
Attached Under Exhibit “A”: May 16, 2011 Media Advisory entitled “Oakland City Attorney John Russo’s Proposed Gang Injunction is a tool for Gentrification “SAY NO TO JOHN RUSSO!”
Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim has filed a letter and complaint against convicted superior court judge Robert Freedman for his continued corruption in the matter of miscreant judge Jon Tigar and his infamous operation of the defense scheme to steal al-Hakim’s case against his now co-defendants CSAA, Rescue Rooter, and the City of Oakland, et al and Freedman’s attempt now to highjack al-Hakim’s present action against EBMUD!
Freedman’s presence now demands that the courts and their responsible leaders of Executive Officer Wilson, Counsel Finke, Judges Smith, Clay, Haag, Wilken, A. G. Harris, Counsel Ziegler and Admin. Muranishi must produce the oft requested complete written investigation of Tigar as ordered by then presiding court judge Yolanda Northridge that was assigned to Freedman in 2007!! The courts have avoided facing the fact that it’s findings will assuredly not only overturn al-Hakim’s case mentioned but ALL CASES that both Tigar and Freedman have been involved in since 2000!
7633 SUNKIST DR., OAKLAND, CA 94605-3024 (510) 394-4501
TO: Leah T. Wilson, Executive Officer
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (510) 891-6276
Chad Finke, General Counsel
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (510) 891-6276
The Hon. Winifred Smith
Presiding Judge Supervising Judge
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
1225 Fallon St., Dept #1
Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: 510 891-6276
The Hon. C. Don Clay
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
1225 Fallon St., Dept.#6
Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: 510 891-6276
The Hon. Melinda Haag, Director- No. District
U. S. Attorney’s Office
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Federal Courthouse- 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234
The Hon. Claudia Wilken, Chief District Judge
U. S. District Court- No. Division
1301 Clay Street, Oakland Courthouse- 2
Oakland, CA 94612
FAX No.: 415 522-3605
The Hon. Kamala D. Harris
Attorney General of California
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
FAX No.: (916) 324-8835
Susan Muranishi-County Administrator
County of Alameda
1221 Oak Street, Suite 450
Oakland, CA 94612
FAX No.: 510 272-3784
County of Alameda
1221 Oak Street, Suite 450
Oakland, CA 94612
FAX No.: 510 272-5020
cc: Supervisor Keith Carson, Congresswoman Barbara Lee
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: February 24, 2015
NO PAGES: 12
RE: Demand for Documents and Disqualification of Judge Freedman In the Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim vs. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Superior Court Case No.:RG14740943, CMC and Demurrer Hearing set for March 5, 2015 in Department 20.
Dear Executive Officer Wilson, Counsel Finke, Judges Smith, Clay, Haag, Wilken, A. G. Harris, Counsel Ziegler and Admin. Muranishi,
I am in receipt of the February 4, 2015 ORDER DENYING PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE AND STRIKING CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE TO JUDGE ROBERT FREEDMAN filed January 30, 2015 allegedly because the challenge for cause must be stricken because it fails to set forth a legal basis for disqualifying Judge Freedman.
He alleges “the Challenge contains no specific factual allegations that, if true, would support the conclusion that Judge Freedman is biased, or might reasonably lead a person to doubt Judge Freedman’s impartiality. Rather, Plaintiffs allegations are entirely conclusory or irrelevant.” He further alleges “it consists mainly of allegations and conclusions unsupported by specific references to evidence, making a specific response difficult to formulate.
There is no statement nor phrase in the english language that can not be considered “conclusory”, as with any legal phrase, argument or verdict, in fact that is the whole point of the legal process! However, when a legal indictment IS supported by the irrefutable facts, you reach a verdict, a conclusion. al-Hakim has done just that in his challenge. Freedman NEVER addresses the facts of the challenge, choosing rather to be the sole judge and jury of his actions and excluding anything that might cause someone to have the slightest hint of his gross inherent bias, prejudice, disdain, corruption and collusion in the al-Hakim matters he has been involved in. Freedman’s conclusory conclusions rightfully entrap him in his actions as opposed to exonerating him as wishfully attempts to avoid the facts. These CONCLUSORY CONCLUSIONS ARE THE FACTS as the FACTS ARE THE CONCLUSORY CONCLUSIONS!
He further states “to the extent that charges may be ascertained, they appear to fall into three categories.”
1. He relates that Judge Northridge’s April 15, 2008 letter to Mr. aI-Hakim attached to the Challenge as an exhibit which in relevant part the letter states: “Pursuant to your request, the Court is reviewing the matter described in your correspondence concerning your case. I have requested the Supervising Judge [Judge Robert B. Freedman] to review the matter and advise me on his/her findings. I will provide a further response to you in the near future.” The letter makes clear that any further response was to come from Judge Northridge, not Judge Freedman. To the extent that the Challenge is based on a theory that Judge Freedman had a duty to report the results of his investigation to plaintiff, it is mistaken and cannot form the basis for a challenge for cause because no bias is evident.
al-Hakim had been threatened by both Judges and the District Attorney staff and had requested security from both since 1989. In May 2008 Judge Tigar attempted to provoke al-Hakim with comments made during a side bar at the testimony on behalf of al-Hakim by fellow Judge Leo Dorado in al-Hakim’s bad faith insurance case.
In deciding pre-trial issues Tigar addressed the court with the admission that he had erred, without any real specifications, and the error was of such magnitude that al-Hakim was entitled to mistrial and an appeal. The worst part of that admission is that it was predicted by al-Hakim in the 4th of 7 disqualifications filed against Tigar. In a fit of retaliation, Tigar continued his attempt to instill fear in al-Hakim with continued threats of contempt for speaking the truth and then added the threat for objecting, al-Hakim’s right to due process and civil right was now being taken away by Tigar. al-Hakim responded with “your constant threats of contempt and jail is tantamount to your hanging a noose from the tree in front of my home, or burning a cross in my front yard”. “As a African-Native American and Muslim, our people have come too far to accept this kind of treatment, these attempts to intimidate and instill fear to force me to capitulate to your demands”.
As a result of Tigar’s continuing misconduct, al-Hakim took the extraordinary measure of filing another complaint with Victoria Henley and the Judicial Council, Alameda County Superior Court Presiding Judge Yolanda Northridge and former Presiding Judge George Hernandez demanding that all side bars be recorded for his own security.
al-Hakim also filed the Complaint for Disciplinary Action and Censure Against Tigar from The Judicial Council, Commission On Judicial Performance, The California Judges Association, and The Alameda County Superior Court.
There is NO way that Freedman could simply have knowledge of the Tigar complaint and not be biased and prejudiced! If he read the complaint he is irreparably flawed with the same biases and prejudices from it’s contaminating content. If has not read it, he is guilty of being derelict and supports the contention that he is a recidivist in his ongoing personal criminal actions for which he has been convicted! If he has read it and not filed the investigative report, he again is guilty of being derelict and supports the contention that he is a recidivist in his ongoing personal criminal actions for which he has been convicted! Freedman operates his own “play for pay” system from the bench which leads to “the best rulings money can buy!” The report has been requested and referenced far too many times over the years for it NOT to exist. It’s existence MUST be revealed now!
Where is Freedman’s investigative findings report, how and what did he advise Judge Northridge of and the response to and from Judge Northridge? If Freedman did not perform the investigation, he is guilty as charged in the challenge of his being a recidivist in his constant action of “honor for dollars!”.
If he did perform, as he does not state, but wants to infer, he has intimate knowledge of the criminal activity reported in the complaint and would be disqualified due as his immeasurable bias is evident in his own words. He knows his investigation findings report, how and what he advised Judge Northridge is critical to al-Hakim’s eight year CSAA case that he relates al-Hakim loss and is liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars to the defendants. Though it’s mention is TOTALLY irrelevant, he fails and refuses to mention that Tigar concluded the case while al-Hakim was attending a funeral and his leave was already approved by Tigar! Though the REAL relevance here is that his findings actually conceal exculpatory evidence that will allow al-Hakim to prevail in HIS $20 million case unopposed in that and other matters involving years of fraud and corruption covered up by the courts and defendants! Unfortunately for Freedman, Northridge, Tigar and the defendants the complaint is made up entirely of specific questions that require specific answers so as to avoid any possible perjury by omission! So again, where is Freedman’s findings report, how and what did he advise Judge Northridge of and the response to and from Judge Northridge? It is a DIRECT and PROXIMATE result of Freedman and Northridge’s continued fraud and concealment that ALL these cases remain open! It also raises the distinct possibility that of ALL of Tigar’s and Freedman’s case could be set aside dating as far back as 1999! Again Freedman’s guilty of perjury by omission as he fails and refuses to acknowledge or discuss the fact that Tigar and Freedman shared adjoining courtrooms, entry ways to chambers and chambers at the time of his investigation findings report and when he advised Judge Northridge, nor Tigar and Freedman’s very cozy relationship.
Thus, Freedman has a conflict of interest and cannot serve impartially in this matter. His actions with his long-time courtroom mate Tigar is a perfect example of his inability to fairly judge. There is no possible way that Freedman could be reasonably expected to overcome his bias and prejudice. He is far more likely to be sympathetic to Tigar and the civil, institutional and government defendants.
2. Freedman alleges one specific ground for disqualification is advanced: “In al-Hakim’s recent Defendant’s Declaration in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiffs Order Denying Review of License Denial; Code Civ. Proc. Section 473 et seq., section 663, subd. 1, section 657, subd. 6. and section 1008 filed October 23, 2014, he discusses the matter of Freedman’s refusal to complete the investigation of Tigar and the delay fits his form as he jas (sic) done that before while getting paid for it!.” (Challenge, 3: 19-24.) A review of the Register of Actions in this case shows that nothing was filed between September 19, 2014 and December 4. 2014. Therefore it is unclear what document is being referred to.
The Declaration in Support of Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiffs Order Denying Review of License Denial in al-Hakim-Hall vs. al-Hakim, Superior Court case no. 556643 – 7 is/was very easy to ascertain from the challenge and to get a copy of exclusive of only looking at the register of actions thou he does not state what case he looked for in the register unsuccessfully. Did he need clarification and refused to ask? Freedman is playing “dodgeball” with the truth and “hide and seek” with justice and merely attempts to defraud al-Hakim and family, the People of the State of California, and the court with this judicial “sleight of hand” attempting to be excused because, as with so many other documents filed with the court in al-Hakim’s cases, it may NEVER appear in the register of actions as a way to suppress the evidence and conceal court corruption.
Again, Freedman only perpetuates his being a recidivist in his constant profitable venture and court action of “honor for dollars!”.
Where is Freedman’s findings report, how and what did he advise Judge Northridge of and the response to and from Judge Northridge? If Freedman did not perform the investigation, he is guilty as charged in the challenge of his being a recidivist in his constant action of “honor for dollars!” . If he did perform, as he does not state, but wants to infer, he has intimate knowledge of the criminal activity reported in the complaint and would be disqualified due as his immeasurable bias is evident in his own words. He knows his investigation findings report, how and what he advised Judge Northridge is critical to al-Hakim’s eight year CSAA case that he relates al-Hakim loss and is liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars to the defendants. Though the REAL relevance here is that his findings actually conceal exculpatory evidence that will allow al-Hakim to prevail unopposed in that and other matters involving years of fraud and corruption covered up by the courts and defendants!
3. Freedman contends the Challenge must also be stricken for the additional reason that it is untimely. Section 170.3( c)(1) provides that a statement of disqualification shall be presented at the earliest practical opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification. A disqualification statement that is untimely filed may be stricken by the judge against whom it is filed. (Section 170.4(b ).) To the extent that the Challenge is based on facts connected to the AI-Hakim v CSSA case, supra, these facts were known to plaintiff when the case was assigned to Judge Freedman in September 2014, making the present Challenge untimely.
Criminal judicial fraud, conspiracy and corruption is TIMELESS as is the statute of limitations on it’s litigation and references to that will be with Freedman FOREVER! No member of the public is FORCED to be subject to a criminal in the court serving on the bench when the concept of the court is to serve the innocent and just. Freedman’s presence is intolerable, a distraction placed in this case solely for the purpose of serving INJUSTICE!!
Presiding Judge Smith, whom has had to previously recuse herself in al-Hakim matters and Supervising Judge Clay have intimate knowledge of the many years of al-Hakim’s direct requests of the Freedman investigative report when assigning and supervising this case. al-Hakim waited for them to act on this assignment and did so without consequence.
Judges Smith and Clay both know that legally Freedman should have NEVER been involved in the assignment of this case and it is very clear he is solely for the purpose of serving further INJUSTICE!!
al-Hakim timely filed his complaint against Freedman, reserving his right to challenge Freedman under § 170.6 and the causes contained herein clearly disqualify him from ANY POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT in this and any other al-Hakim matter as a CONTINUING demonstrated conflict of interest, abuse of discretion, obstruction of justice, and make you a co-conspirator in the continuing fraud upon The People of The Sate of California, the Superior Court and the al-Hakim Family, continuing their persecution of our family will NEVER disappear as his criminal presence/activity continues.
How does Freedman argue timeliness with his own well documented problems with honesty by willfully and intentionally filing false, perjurious and deceiving documents and affidavits, ALL contingent on the timeliness in the administration of his duties, ALL for pay! Here’s someone entrusted with the publics well being, sworn under the ultimate authority of GOD to execute his duties not only honestly and fairly, but beyond reproach yet he’s taking bride money, paying himself with the publics money, while lying about the performance of his PAID duties that are solely payable contingent upon the TIMELINESS of his performance. DESPICABLE!!!
Each and every time he is involved in this case is another opportunity for timely service of a disqualification! There are also grounds for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085; on the ground of misconduct, prejudicial misconduct, bias, and prejudice in violations of Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.0-170.5; specifically 170, subd. (a)(5); 170, subd. (e); 170.1, subdivision (a)(2); 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(C); 170.3, subd. (c)(1); 170.3, subd. (c)(5); 170.3, subd. (d); 170.l(a)(6), §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8) and 3C( a corresponding Federal Statute, 28 United States Code section 455(a) adopted by Congress in 1974); Business and Professions Code sections 6068, subdivisions (b) and (f), 6103 and 6106 and former rule 7-105(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 8, 18; see Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3D(1).); and violates al-Hakim’s fundamental civil rights and due process under the law guaranteed by the United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, and XIV, and as applicable to this state of California Constitution by the first clause of Section 13 of Article I; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3).
4. Freedman’s Failure and Refusal to Address the REAL Issues of the Challenge
He fails and refuses to acknowledge or discuss his a checkered past in the al-Hakim vs CSAA, and Rescue Rooter case as well. For over 15 years it has been obvious to anyone casual observer that Freedman has deep conflicts of interest regarding al-Hakim and the above cited matters, requiring his recusal or disqualification, on grounds of conflict of interest, bias, prejudice, persistent willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, retaliation and an “atmosphere of unfairness”, even with a minimum appearance of impropriety and other grounds, determines that there is a high probability he would continue his unethical behavior if he were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future making it likely that a person aware of the facts could reasonably entertain a doubt as to the ability of the judge to be impartial. At one hearing in this matter he openly stated bias, prejudice, voiced a fixed opinion of al-Hakim and having an improper ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim and his case while using such information to hold al-Hakim to a higher legal standard than that of the opposing counsel in this case as a guise for sanctioning al-Hakim for it. After that hearing, with the parties appearing in a follow up session, with the case was now before a new judge, when it was called suddenly Freedman bolts out of the judges chambers door to the surprise of everyone in the courtroom announcing that he was going to hear the al-Hakim case. His attempt at ambushing al-Hakim failed much to his chagrin as the parties announced that they had complied and agreed on all the matters that he had hoped to use as a means for terminating sanctions against al-Hakim. Everyone was and is convinced that he will not seriously review nor is he capable of impartially or fairly judging this matter, and never for review of Tigar, his next door neighbor in the courtroom.
He conveniently fails and refuses to acknowledge or discuss his paid role in approving the Gang Injunction for then Oakland City Attorney John Russo wherein he “overlooked” pages of repetitive – cut and pasted text with recycled facts in Affidavits signed by Oakland Police Department officers, many of which live outside of Oakland, swear that these named defendants are gang members who committed crimes, that they are menaces to society and they should be punished. He conveniently failed to question why the affidavits were the same nor why Oakland Police Officer Frank Morrow refused to sign on when presented with one. The entire process was flawed as ever which is why a Federal Judge called a meeting with Police Administration and the City of Oakland in April 2011 to force the terms of the settlement intended to clean up that department.
From these facts, Judge Freedman would certainly be dismissed for bias as a juror if he were being voir dired by any attorney. A judge has an ethical duty to make reasonable efforts to keep himself informed of any possible conflicts and recuse himself if he believes he would have difficulty being impartial. He has not done that here.
Presiding Judge Winifred Smith, whom has had to previously recuse herself in al-Hakim matters and Supervising Judge Don Clay has a similar duty when assigning judges. Judges Smith and Clay again clearly has not done that either. Judge Smith should have NEVER been involved in the assignment of this case and Judge Clay has exhibited such egregious behavior in al-Hakim matters that he will be challenged upon his appearance. If they were involved in the assignment of this case that in itself is grounds to set aside this case.
At the very least, this matter should be transferred to a calendar judge other than Judges Smith or Clay or someone selected by an unbiased party for reassignment.
It is clear by the pattern set by this Superior Court leadership in this and other al-Hakim matters, the idea is to use one judicial officer to exhaust ALL al-Hakim’s civil remedies and foreclose on his rights without sacrificing any other judges/commissioners that should rightfully be disqualified! It also appears that from the lack of corrective action, or ANY ACTION taken by the other herein noticed responsible judicial, legislative and governmental bodies that the coverup of these ongoing illegal, corrupt activities of the parties mentioned herein.
Any judge reviewing this challenge should require disclosures of what happened to the investigation of Judge Tigar? In that case, a judge with the power to decide whether or not al-Hakim’s rights has been violated would have a direct pecuniary interest in serving the institution rather than the al-Hakim.
This is too much. At the very least the appearance of bias is impossible to overcome. At the least, Judge Freedman should recuse himself without making any decisions in this case, to serve the interests of the appearance of judicial impartiality.
At a minimum, Judge Freedman fails to meet the test for impropriety and should be disqualified or recused because “A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.” (CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)).
5. This Issue Presents An Actual Controversy.
al-Hakim argues that the issues raised in this motion presents an actual controversy. The court ruled that this matter be investigated and Judge Freedman has refused, and engaged now the courts attempt to cover up their transgressions when they are exposed for being guilty of willful corrupt misconduct, they refused to acknowledged plaintiff’s memorandum filled with the courts abuses. This matter is of the character which the principles of U.S. Const. amend. I, V, VI, and XIV, as adopted by the Due Process Clause, protect. This is a clear denial of al-Hakim’s rights under the United States and California State Constitution.
These conflicts represent a perfect demonstration of what plaintiffs have been predicting for the past 20 years, that there is simply no possibility of a fair trial of the county and these entrenched and influential judges, district attorneys, city attorneys and defendants in their home county of Alameda.
In the challenge al-Hakim request a hearing on this matter before an impartial judge. This matter may need to be transferred to another county venue on fair trial grounds as provided by CCP §397(b) where the influence of the Judges, district attorney, city attorney and defendants is not so inextricably intertwined with judicial interests. Certainly, there is no reason to deem a single judge in the Superior Court of Alameda County even capable of deciding whether norms of civil procedure or legal ethics have been or can be followed in this case. Yet that is exactly what needs to be done here as the al-Hakim family may demand this Court to do just that. Indeed, it has gone further, putting the’s entire County government, the Superior Court, the District Attorney and ALL previous defendants on trial. A courtroom spectacle more anathema to justice and civil rights is hard to imagine.
Unless and until Superior Court and Freedman produces his investigation findings report, how and what he advised Judge Northridge regarding al-Hakim’s complaint against Tigar in the eight year CSAA case AND recuses himself from this case, al-Hakim will file at least one motion for disqualification at EVERY possible juncture with Freedman, seek ALL possible civil remedies and penalties against ALL parties concerned and aggressively pursue ALL remedies publicly!
6. Produce Freedman’s Investigation Findings and Complete U.S.A.G. Investigation of al-Hakim vs. CSAA and Rescue Rooter et., al. Corruption Cases
To Executive Officer Wilson, Counsel Finke, Judges Smith, Clay, Counsel Ziegler and Administrator Muranishi, produce Freedman’s investigation findings report replete with the specific answers to the specific questions in the Complaint for Disciplinary Action and Censure Against Tigar, how and what he advised Judge Northridge regarding al-Hakim’s complaint against Tigar.
To Hon. Haag, Hon. Wilken, A. G. Harris, Counsel Ziegler, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and Supervisor Keith Carson, et., al., accept this formal request/complaint to complete the investigation of the al-Hakim vs. CSAA and Rescue Rooter et., al. corruption cases as previously submitted to and filed with the U. S. Attorney General and approved for investigation by Alberto Gonzalez but ignored by then California Attorney General General Jerry Brown when submitted to him. The USAG complaint, like the the Tigar complaint is made up of specific questions that require specific answers so as to avoid any possible perjury by omission and is updated to include ALL the continuing corruption that has occurred since it’s filing.
It is clear that the parties mentioned herein are and have attempted to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. In so doing the parties, including , are and have acted with malicious intent to favor Judge Tigar, previous defendants and the court by unlawful exercise of discretion. The herein mentioned parties conduct, as we explore who knew what when and what they did or did not do, possibly by agreement or conspiracy between these parties, is in violation of 18 U.S.C. §241, constituted an egregious crime within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §242.
Respectfully submitted this 24th day of February 2015, at Oakland, CA
These actions are unconscionable!
Read and distribute widely!!!
At the hearing on December 4, 2014, Chief Counsel for the Department of Child Support Services, Sue Eadies, sits in attorneys gallery/jury box mouthing requests and response to court clerk to set a court date of Dec. 23, 2014 as opposed to Dec. 24 for hearing date in first case called and continued due to non service of respondent.
Court Commissioner Boydine Hall- calls case, Eadies was not announced as representing any party to the case. She attempted to sit at respondents place at table when case called, announced as representing DCSS and sits at plaintiff’s side.
al-Hakim requests that her former boss, Sue Eadies be sworn, Hall denies requests and orders that she will not be allowed to testify without any explanation. Hall stated that she had answered all al-Hakim’s questions regarding her conflict, wherein al-Hakim stated “that not true, you had failed and refused to answer any questions at the hearing!”
al-Hakim stated Hall’s lack of honesty reflects her integrity, conflict of interest and she’s participating in this continuing fraud and obstructing justice, to which she responded “there’s no obstruction” as she swiveled to the side to avoid any eye contact with al-Hakim.
Hall admitted she lied, committing perjury, and that al-Hakim was right that she worked for the DA’s office but that the rest of the allegations in the challenge were not true. al-Hakim responded that they were true and that she worked in the Family Law department now DCSS wherein she responded that she did not. al-Hakim further asked “didn’t you work with Ms. Eadies?” Hall again failed and refused to respond to the question. While this exchange is going on Eadies gets up and scurries away from the table and runs to the lawyers gallery/jury box.
Hall refers to the 2007 order in this case and that this matter has been previously decided.
al-Hakim stated that the order was obtained by fraud and “you don’t want to hear the truth, you don’t want anyone to know the truth!
Hall restates that the motion was untimely to which al-Hakim responded that “it can’t be untimely, you still have never filed nor served an order after hearing”.
I am not discussing this any further, this hearing is over.
Hall lied, committing perjury by omission when she failed and refused to answer the question if she worked for the DA’s office when she knew the answer would incriminate her,then admitted she lied committing perjury by commission when she answered that she worked for the DA’s office, then she lied committing perjury by commission when she answered that she did not work for the DA’s Family Law now DCSS office, then she lied committing perjury by omission again when she refused to answer if she worked with Eadie in the DA’s Family Law or now DCSS office.
al-Hakim stated that he would began with the fact that there was no order after hearing that was endorsed, filed or served and he was under the impression that this matter would be heard by Judge Pulido not her since it was his order that the motion was filed on. She failed and refused to respond.
Hall also failed and refused to address her challenge for cause nor was it referred out to a regional judge for objective review.
On further review of her record, you will find that Hall is listed as “Inactive” in the California State Bar Association.
Even more revealing is the fact that in the recent survey of Judicial Performance, Hall rates as VERY POOR in ALL areas evaluated for judges! Only 5 people were even interested in participating in the rating for the survey of her when she sees hundreds of litigants a day and ONLY received 3’s across the board! TERRIBLE!!!!
She rated only 20% in knowledge of the law, 40% in judicial temperament, bias, and respect for others, and a whooping 0% on handling peremptory and challenges for cause, disqualification!!!
You can read and/or download the Statement of Disqualification of both Boy Hall and Judge Stephan Pulido at:
These actions are unconscionable!
Read and distribute widely!!!
Father Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim filed a motion for Reconsideration in a case were the Superior Court judges have colluded by banding together to protect their corruption from exposure and having to address the scandal they have been caught in! You can read and/or download the complete motion with exhibits at:
1. I am the Defendant/Respondent herein and if called as a witness, I would and could competently testify to the following facts, all of which are within my personal knowledge, except as to those matters based upon information and belief, and on that basis, allege them to be true and correct.
2. This Motion for Reconsideration is based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law then was presented at the time of the August 26, 2014 hearing on Defendants Motion for Review of License Denial. (order attached as Exhibit A)
3. The new facts set forth in the Declaration and Points and Authorities attached hereto show that the Motion for Reconsideration on the grounds that these new facts and circumstances were not known to or acknowledged by the court at the time of their decision on the motion for Review of License Denial.
4. The order entitled “ORDER RE: RECOMMENDATION ORDER OF COMMISSIONER“ as written and served reflects a complete misunderstanding or disregard of Defendant’s statements at the hearing, his filed pleadings, the facts and evidence in this matter and is WITHOUT the original recommended order issued by Commissioner Boydine Hall that was NEVER filed and served on Defendant al-Hakim. The original order was not formalized in writing nor memorialized in a minute order.
5. The one paragraph order states “ The Court has reviewed the recommended order issued by Commissioner Boydine Hall on August 26, 2014. Pursuant to Family Code § 4251 (c) the Court ratifies the recommended order of Commissioner Boydine Hall issued on August 26, 2014. It is so ordered. Date: 9-12-2014. Judge of the Superior Court, Stephen M. Pulido.
6. The order is filed stamped 9-12-2014 that same day by Executive-Officer/Clerk of the Superior Court Valerie M. Brown, Deputy Clerk, yet the order is served by United States mail on 9/22/2014 and envelope postmarked that same day. aI-Hakim received the order on 9/26/14 WITHOUT the original recommended order issued by Commissioner Hall.
7. Family Code §4251(b) state “matters assigned to a court commissioner require that the parties stipulate to the commissioner hearing the matter. If a party refuses to stipulate to having a case heard by a commissioner, the commissioner may hear the matter as a referee. A judge of the Superior Court will thereafter approve, reject, or modify the findings and conclusions of the commissioner. In the absence of the assigned judge or court commissioner, matters may be assigned to a judge pro tempore acting as a temporary judge. Failure to stipulate to a judge pro tempore will result in the matter being continued to the next available calendar date.”
8. At NO TIME did Commissioner Hall state that she was hearing the matter as a referee, judge pro tempore or as a temporary judge.
THE TRUE PARTIES:
9. Abdul-Jalil al- Hakim, the named Defendant/Respondent and Joette al-Hakim-Hall, the named Plaintiff/Petitioner are NOT opposing parties in this action. This al-Hakim Family action, which includes BOTH Defendant/Respondent and Plaintiff/Petitioner as the TRUE Defendants, exposes the true plaintiff is the Attorney General of the State of California (AG), the Alameda County District Attorney (DA) and the Alameda County Department of Child Support Service (DCSS), whom do not have standing in this case, has a clear conflict of interest as they DO NOT and DID NOT represent Joette al-Hakim-Hall or the then minor child, the named Plaintiff/Petitioner, whom the DA and DCSS embezzled the money from causing the mythical alleged arrearage of the Defendant/Respondent al-Hakim. The AG, DA and DCSS used this representation litigation ploy in their attempts to cover up their illegal transgressions. They have NEVER represented the Plaintiff/Petitioner, in fact they have NEVER discussed the matter with them!!!
10. In response to al-Hakim Family’s appeal of Commissioner Glenn Olean, the DA and DCSS’s fraudulent order (order attached under Exhibit B), on January 22, 2008 then Attorney General Jerry Brown and the Office of The Attorney General of The State of California substituted in as attorney of record in this case for the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) allegedly “in the interest of justice” Representing the Public Interest pursuant to Family Code Sections 17406-17407 (attached under Exhibit B). This was done to excuse and protect the Alameda County District Attorney (DA) and Alameda County Department of Child Support Services from their ongoing conflict of interest in their alleging to represent the interest of Joette al-Hakim-Hall and the then minor child Bari al-Hakim, whom they had defrauded along with al-Hakim of the funds paid to the DA and DCSS in trust for their minor child. al-Hakim and his family had complained many times each year about the misapplication of the funds tendered to the Alameda County District Attorney (DA) and Department of Child Support Services in trust for the al-Hakim-Hall Family. Further, the current Attorney General of the State of California (AG), Kamala Harris, personally knows the then minor child whom was defrauded by the AG, DA and DCSS, as she has worked on Harris’ political election campaign and held fundraisers and benefits for her campaign fund!
11. The AG, DA and DCSS was and has never represented the al-Hakim-Hall family, they were defending and covering up their extrinsic fraud upon the State and the families. The AG, DA and DCSS wanted to conceal their attempted coercion of al-Hakim to pay the arrearage they created in his name.
12. This was done to further the AG, DA and DCSS’ litigation, legislative, and political strategies to compel their enforcement strategy: an extortionate scheme to force al-Hakim to pay their fraudulent arrears including enforcement in multiple jurisdictions by placing illegal and unwarranted holds on his drivers license with the California Department of Motor Vehicles with the intent of al-Hakim being arrested and harmed physically and financially; placing illegal and unwarranted holds on his passport with the State Department; and these efforts to use judgment enforcement for settlement leverage to undertake in the event they don’t prevail before the courts. These proceeding efforts are ongoing.
13. The court must now address that issue with the family in open court with these admission and the product of fraud upon the court, The People of the State of California and the family. The DA, DCSS, and now AG’s larcenous moral turpitude, obstruction of justice and misrepresentation is all that remains of this case.
Conflicts and Recusals:
14. For nearly three decades the persecution and human suffering from this conflict by Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim and his Family (Defendant/Respondent) at the hands of the Alameda County District Attorney (DA), the Attorney General of State of California (AG) and the Alameda County Department of Child Support Service (DCSS) must be among the most extensively told in the history of the American judiciary.
15. The courts have previously described in detail the parties’ underlying dispute, which concerns the admitted willful fraud and extortionate scheme that the AG, DA and DCSS extensively exercised to persecute the family for that which THEY-the AG, DA and DCSS, are liable for.
16. The case of Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. CSAA and the underlying al-Hakim v. Rescue Rooter, cases so vile that a Federal complaint was filed with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, is an over $30 million, 16 year; contentious legal action; that has the largest case file in the history of Alameda County Superior Court, with over 60 file boxes of pleadings; over 120 motions and responses; plaintiff had over 300 trail exhibits; over 5,000 pages of exhibits; 3,000 pages of documents for trial rebuttal argument; 20 expert witnesses; 77 other witnesses; over 100 pages of jury instructions; with DQ’s filed against EVERY Judge for numerous charges from judicial misconduct to corruption, where EVERY judge in this case has admitted error, committed perjury, recused themselves, or all three! Current Presiding Court Judge Winifred Smith has previously recused in matters involving al-Hakim and personally knows the minor child whom was defrauded by the DA and DCSS, as has former Presiding Judge Yolanda Northridge, and Commissioner Sue Alexander; Commissioner Taylor Culver is conflicted, Commissioners Glenn Oleon and Boydine Hall has committed crimes that are the basis for this action and Supervising Judge C. Don Clay has been involved in this matter and exhibited highly questionable judgment by not pursuing a complaint against the investigator Bob Connor and the District Attorney’s office. We had concerns about the impartiality of Judge Pulido with this case allegedly being assigned to him but now are certain of his bias and obstruction of justice with this ruling and the obvious ex-parte communications that have been had between him, court administration, the DA and DCSS. The Family is rightfully concerned that his untenable position may in fact bleed over into other pending matters that may come before him or others he may influence.
17. The Federal complaint filed with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against al-Hakim by Judge David C. Lee during a trial in Superior Court of Alameda County, California that addresses the concern that his conduct rose to the level of consideration for a Federal Crime and a Civil Rights violation because the bench upon which the judge rules is “under the color of law” and certainly the violation of anyone’s civil rights is a federal crime. The complaint, perhaps even more importantly, not only requested Merrily Friedlander, Chief of the Civil Rights Division, to make an investigation of a judicial hate crime, but also the many other civil rights and due process violations of judicial misconduct, and attorney extrinsic fraud upon the court and law that are themselves directly the matters complained of.
THE UNCONTESTED FACTS:
18. Defendant/Respondent Abdul-Jalil aI-Hakim was ordered to pay $350 per month as child support for his daughter Bari al-Hakim to the mother, Joette al-Hakim-Hall (FSD # 044308A) in the above entitled matter. Of this amount $250 represented current support and $100 was for payment of accrued arrears. (See Exhibit C, Order of December 8, 1992) At the same time al-Hakim was ordered to pay $100 per month toward arrears to Patty Flenory (FSD # 274454A) in the separate District Attorney enforcement action no. 511339.
19. At ALL times, Abdul-Jalil al- Hakim, the named Defendant/Respondent, paid the monthly child support of the al-Hakim-Hall then minor child with the current outstanding order in trust to the DA and DCSS in their custodial fiduciary capacity as per the court order, received the receipts for those payments from the DA and DCSS as per the court order. Those payments ended in February 1998 when the daughter reached 18 years of age yet in December 1998, the DA claimed that al-Hakim had an arrearage that he had always denied owing to Joette al-Hakim-Hall and provided all of the receipts for payments made since 1992.
20. On September 10, 1999, in Department 3 before Commissioner John Porter, District Attorney Bill Kleeman admitted that the monies had been paid to the DA’s office in trust for the minor al-Hakim child, and receipts therefore given to al-Hakim but misapplied by their office and in fact al-Hakim was entitled to a refund on the al-Hakim-Hall account, and it would be too expensive for the DA’s office to conduct a formal accounting to correct the problem. Among the many responses that I have gotten from the District Attorney’s office is that “since this was a non-welfare case, the money has been paid out and there is nothing that the District Attorney could do “to get the money back”.
21. Mr. Kleeman further stated in court since the overpayment monies had been misapplied to Flenory, the account for Hall would be closed and reflect that it has been paid with no further payments due by al-Hakim, but for internal accounting purposes of their Office only, to ensure payment to Hall, it would be left open with the $100 monthly payments made to Flenory being shared with Hall. I have attached herewith as Exhibit D the letter that was sent to me with copies sent to the mothers by District Attorney Tom Orloff apologizing for the error in the application of the funds and ascertaining these facts in October 19, 1999, the letter from then attorney Brent Kernan referencing the agreement to pay ALL funds to al-Hakim-Hall from the Flenory account, ending the al-Hakim-Hall account; and the pertinent transcript of that hearing (all attached as Exhibit D).
From that time until beyond his death at a District Attorney softball game in 2001, the DA and DCSS maintained that policy as agree to by Mr. Kleeman to pay monies that were collected on the Flenory account to the closed al-Hakim-Hall account. The DA and DCSS NEVER demanded nor received ANY payment for the closed al-Hakim-Hall account per that agreement. That changed in 2006 yet the DA and DCSS has repeatedly admitted in court that the source of their contention that al-Hakim owes arrears in their own fraudulently contrived, unsupported accounting that is in violation of the very court order it alleges to enforce!
22.al-Hakim had always made payments to the District Attorney, but adamantly refuse to pay the extortion and again renewed my objection to such action on behalf of the District Attorney and advised that I would not be liable for any miscalculations, partial payments, late payments, interest, or penalties as a result of their continued willful fraud in the misapplication of the funds I paid on that account, and dereliction on their behalf.
The District Attorney and DCSS has sought many, many ways and attempts to extort money from me to pay their fraudulent violation of the prevailing court order and their fiduciary responsibility to my then minor child with the outstanding order for payment of support.
I have made many, many reasonable and good faith attempts to resolve the matter with Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) ALLEGING to “represent” Plaintiffs and have realized that further efforts will probably be futile or unduly burdensome because Plaintiffs have failed and refused to properly respond in the past as recently as this motion.
The child support orders and their violation by the DA , AG and DCSS, which are the nexus in this case, was entered requiring al-Hakim to make his child support payments through the District Attorney’s office as the court trustee for the family with the fiduciary responsibility to comply with the court’s order, receipt for payment, and the proper disbursement pursuant thereto. al-Hakim and the DA agreed with this process because there were claims in the past of payments being made as gifts, as opposed to being truthful payments of child support that resulted in the arrearage that the court has awarded in another case that is now settled.
In spite of the courts orders for DCSS to compile the actual accounting of the complete proper application of the child support payments al-Hakim made pursuant the court order of December 1992 complete with al-Hakim’s submitted documents and pleadings commensurate with the court orders for child support, DCSS’s own receipts in his possession and the law, DCSS refused to do as ordered! In defiance of the courts orders and effectuating their extortionate scheme, the DCSS continued to fail and refuse to properly apply the payments while placing 10 year holds and suspensions on al-Hakim’s drivers license with the California Department of Motor Vehicles with the intent of al-Hakim being arrested and harmed physically and financially; revoked his passport despite; illegally charging al-Hakim with the crime of violating the child support statute for nonpayment, reporting the alleged violation to multiple collection agencies and the State of California for Collection, illegally tossing al-Hakim into “debtors prison” ruining his credit; all this despite multiple court orders for their release and the accounts being current, in their attempt to force al-Hakim and Family to pay for the DCSS defrauding THEM!
THERE IS NO ARREARAGE IN THIS CASE. THESE UNCONTROVERTED, UNCONTESTED FACTS WILL NEVER CHANGE!!!
23. The AG, DA and DCSS admitted extrinsic fraud upon the court and The People of the State of California is the only thing left of these cases and must now be finally ended, as the only evidence they have or can produce is the product of their admitted fraud, including the illegal holds on al-Hakim’s drivers license and passport.
24. It is terribly oppressive and inhumanely punitive that al-Hakim can not work nor support his family in the manner in which they have all become dependent on because he is unable to lawfully drive while his license has been unjustly suspended. al-Hakim and the Family has and will suffer immediate and continuous irreparable harm because his drivers license privilege has been suspended since October 29, 2006. al-Hakim and the Family has made many, many reasonable and good faith attempts to resolve the matter and has realized that further efforts would be futile or unduly burdensome because the DA and DCSS have failed and refused to respond in the past.
25. The ripple effect of the suspension is: no drivers license (suspended), no insurance; no insurance, no registration. As a direct result of this continuing persecution of the Family with their fraud, al-Hakim was finally issued a traffic citation for driving with a suspended license, no proof of insurance and no current registration on October 10, 2013. The arresting officer called for back-up and a tow truck to impound the truck that was filled with food for a free food distribution that al-Hakim’s family charity was having that day. This truck is used in the 57 year old Family charity for free food distribution to the needy. He told al-Hakim of the child support suspension and upon al-Hakim showing him court documents showing the order for the release of the hold and explaining the situation, he cancelled the tow truck and released al-Hakim to go on to the food distribution. This citation is further proof of the product of their admitted fraud, which includes the illegal holds on al-Hakim’s drivers license and passport.
We have long maintained that the SAR program’s overbroad standards lead to the investigation of constitutionally protected conduct and expression, and may result in innocent people being placed in criminal intelligence databases. With guidelines that describe innocuous activities as suspicious, racial and religious profiling are bound to result. This prediction was borne out by over 1700 SAR reports from California fusion centers that we previously released with the ACLU, and which also reveal a disturbing pattern of Islamophobia.
And it’s also borne out in the story of three of the five plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit we filed today. On the basis of totally innocuous activities—plus being Muslim or looking Middle Eastern—these three young men were investigated and their names placed in federal criminal intelligence databases as having a potential nexus to terrorism, even when they did nothing wrong.
Tariq Razak is a young American college graduate of Pakistani descent. In 2011, he went to the Santa Ana Train Depot for an appointment with the county employment resource center. It was his first time there, so, naturally, he spent time looking for the office before he went to the bathrooms to meet his mother, who wears a headscarf. But a private security officer trained on “Suspicious Activity Reporting” saw this innocent activity very differently. To the security officer, Razak “appeared to be observant of his surroundings and was constantly surveying all areas of the facility” before he went to the restrooms and met “a female wearing a white burka head dress.” The officer then followed Razak to his car and took note of his license plate, and filed a report that ended up in the hands of the local fusion center for analysis as possibly connected to terrorism.
Wiley Gill is also a young U.S. citizen who converted to Islam and enjoys playing video games. But a local police officer observed him spending time at the mosque and walking around town with Muslim “elders,” and then pressured his way into Gill’s home. Later, the police officer reported Gill to the local fusion center as a potential terrorist. Why? Gill was “suspicious” because of his “full conversion to Islam as a young WMA [white, male adult]” with “pious demeanor” and “potential access to flight simulators via the internet.”
Khaled Ibrahim, yet another young Muslim-American man, was at a Best Buy in Dublin, California trying to buy computers in his role as a purchasing manager for a computer company. The store wouldn’t sell them, so he left. But someone reported the attempted purchase of “a large amount of computers” to the local fusion center, potentially because of his Middle Eastern descent, and a terrorism analyst there concluded that Ibrahim’s attempted computer purchase could have a nexus to terrorism, so the report was uploaded to a federal criminal intelligence database.
As these examples demonstrate, SARs and other reports that result from biased profiling or innocuous conduct yield little information of use in law enforcement efforts, and all Americans’, especially Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian communities’, trust in law enforcement.
Such racial and religious profiling is an affront to our communities—and it needs to be stopped. No one should be investigated, let alone placed in a counter-terrorism database, unless there’s a credible reason to think they are engaged in criminal conduct, a principle the SAR program fails to respect. By reining in the SAR program and the fusion centers that administer it through this lawsuit, we can start the process of restoring the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, and stopping unjustified surveillance of our communities.
The Washington Post published an interesting article on the U.S. Central Command’s infiltration of social media using fake personas.
Spy bloggers not ‘friending’ U.S. targets, Centcom says
The U.S. Central Command says its new “Persona” social media “infiltration” software is designed to cozy up to extremist bloggers overseas, not law-abiding Americans chatting on Facebook or similar sites.
Earlier this month, the Web buzzed with a report that the software was designed to “manage ‘fake people’ on social media sites and create the illusion of consensus on controversial issues,” implying that the Defense Department was targeting critics of the war in Afghanistan and other conflicts.
Further compounding a sinister view of the software was the discovery of e-mails from the head of a company implicated in “dirty tricks” against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and a pro-labor organization, which discussed how such technology could be used.
“There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to all fictitious personas…” wrote Aaron Barr, the chief executive officer of HBGary Federal, a Colorado Springs company whose hacked e-mails revealed plans to attack critics of Bank of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Barr resigned Feb. 28 “to allow the company to move on after an embarrassing data breach,” according to the technology Web site ThreatPost.
Centom’s June 22, 2010, contract, offered through the U.S. Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, specified that “Individual applications will enable an operator to exercise a number of different online persons from the same workstation and without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries…while hiding the existence of the operation…and provid(ing) excellent cover and powerful deniability.”
“Individuals can perform static impersonations, which allow them to look like the same person over time,” the contract added. It “also allows organizations that frequent same site/service often to easily switch IP addresses to look like ordinary users as opposed to one organization.”
The fake Internet personas, the contract specified, “must be able to appear to originate in nearly any part of the world and can interact through conventional online services and social media platforms.”
Centcom spokesman Cmdr. Bill Speaks acknowledged in an interview last week that the Air Force had a contract for the Persona Management Software, but denied it would be deployed against domestic online protesters.
“The contract, and the Persona management technology itself, supports classified blogging activities on foreign-language Web sites to enable CENTCOM to counter violent extremist and enemy propaganda outside the U.S.,” Speaks told SpyTalk. “The contract would more accurately be described as supporting U.S. Central Command, rather than the Air Force — the Wing here at MacDill provides contracting support for us — efforts.”
Speaks said the software would “absolutely” not be used against law-abiding Americans.
[Update: Speaks adds, “The phrase [law-abiding] suggests that we might use it against Americans who are not law-abiding. The truth is that these activities are not directed towards Americans, without qualification.”]
Former CIA director and retired Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden called the technology cutting-edge but “developmental.”
“Operationally developmental, technologically developmental and legally developmental,” he told Washington Times reporter Shawn Waterman.
But in testimony last June, then-Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus suggested the use of such technology was well underway.
“Operation Earnest Voice (OEV) is the critical program of record that resources our efforts to synchronize our Information Operations activities, to counter extremist ideology and propaganda, and to ensure that credible voices in the region are heard,” Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“OEV provides Centcom with direct communication capabilities to reach regional audiences through traditional media as well as via Web sites and regional public affairs blogging,” Petraeus said.
The FBI has also used fictitious identities for years to infiltrate jihadist Web sites.
Sometimes touted as “America’s first online operative in the War on Terror,” the FBI’s Shannen L. Rossmiller, a former Montana municipal judge, is said to have “created 30 fictitious male Islamist undercover identities…for purposes of communicating and tracking the enemy [in] Arabic language Internet forums.”
“Since 9/11, Judge Rossmiller has delivered more than 200 cases of actionable intelligence and stings — including two of the largest convictions in the War on Terror,” her Web site claims.
Despite the fact that this article mentions numerous times that those tactics are not used against “Law Abiding Americans”, there are reasons to think that they might be used anyhow – especially against “conspiracy theories” (I hate that term). Cass Sunstein, who is the current administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs published in 2008 an important essay entitled “Conspiracy Theories” (read it here).
The National Security Agency and FBI have covertly monitored the emails of prominent Muslim-Americans—including a political candidate and several civil rights activists, academics, and lawyers—under secretive procedures intended to target terrorists and foreign spies.
According to documents provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the list of Americans monitored by their own government includes:
• Faisal Gill, a longtime Republican Party operative and one-time candidate for public office who held a top-secret security clearance and served in the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush;
• Asim Ghafoor, a prominent attorney who has represented clients in terrorism-related cases;
• Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University;
• Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights;
• Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country.
The individuals appear on an NSA spreadsheet in the Snowden archives called “FISA recap”—short for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, the Justice Department must convince a judge with the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that there is probable cause to believe that American targets are not only agents of an international terrorist organization or other foreign power, but also “are or may be” engaged in or abetting espionage, sabotage, or terrorism. The authorizations must be renewed by the court, usually every 90 days for U.S. citizens.
The spreadsheet shows 7,485 email addresses listed as monitored between 2002 and 2008. Many of the email addresses on the list appear to belong to foreigners whom the government believes are linked to Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Among the Americans on the list are individuals long accused of terrorist activity, including Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, who were killed in a 2011 drone strike in Yemen.
But a three-month investigation by The Intercept—including interviews with more than a dozen current and former federal law enforcement officials involved in the FISA process—reveals that in practice, the system for authorizing NSA surveillance affords the government wide latitude in spying on U.S. citizens.
The five Americans whose email accounts were monitored by the NSA and FBI have all led highly public, outwardly exemplary lives. All five vehemently deny any involvement in terrorism or espionage, and none advocates violent jihad or is known to have been implicated in any crime, despite years of intense scrutiny by the government and the press. Some have even climbed the ranks of the U.S. national security and foreign policy establishments.
“I just don’t know why,” says Gill, whose AOL and Yahoo! email accounts were monitored while he was a Republican candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates. “I’ve done everything in my life to be patriotic. I served in the Navy, served in the government, was active in my community—I’ve done everything that a good citizen, in my opinion, should do.”
(An Intercept video interview with Gill is below, as are videos of Ghafoor and Awad. They were directed by Nadia Hallgren and Intercept co-founder Laura Poitras.)
Given that the government’s justifications for subjecting Gill and the other U.S. citizens to surveillance remain classified, it is impossible to know why their emails were monitored, or the extent of the surveillance. It is also unclear under what legal authority it was conducted, whether the men were formally targeted under FISA warrants, and what, if anything, authorities found that permitted them to continue spying on the men for prolonged periods of time. But the five individuals share one thing in common: Like many if not most of the people listed in the NSA spreadsheet, they are of Muslim heritage.
“I believe that they tapped me because my name is Asim Abdur Rahman Ghafoor, my parents are from India, I travelled to Saudi Arabia as a young man, and I do the pilgrimage,” says Ghafoor, when told that no non-Muslim attorneys who defended terror suspects had been identified on the list. “Yes, absolutely I believe that had something to do with it.”
The FBI—which is listed as the “responsible agency” for surveillance on the five men—has a controversial record when it comes to the ethnic profiling of Muslim-Americans. According to FBI training materials uncovered by Wired in 2011, the bureau taught agents to treat “mainstream” Muslims as supporters of terrorism, to view charitable donations by Muslims as “a funding mechanism for combat,” and to view Islam itself as a “Death Star” that must be destroyed if terrorism is to be contained.
John Guandolo, a former FBI counterterrorism official who takes credit for developing a training program for agents on the “Muslim Brotherhood and their subversive movement in the United States,” told The Intercept that he participated in investigations of some of the individuals whose email accounts were monitored. Echoing the “red under every bed” hysteria of the McCarthy era, Guandolo believes that “hundreds” of covert members of the Muslim Brotherhood are active in the United States, that some of them have succeeded in infiltrating the Pentagon, and that CIA director John Brennan is a secret Muslim.
Other former and current federal officials say such beliefs are not representative of the FBI or Justice Department. But blatant prejudice against Muslim-Americans is also documented in the Snowden archive.
In one 2005 document, intelligence community personnel are instructed how to properly format internal memos to justify FISA surveillance. In the place where the target’s real name would go, the memo offers a fake name as a placeholder: “Mohammed Raghead.”
The vast majority of individuals on the “FISA recap” spreadsheet are not named. Instead, only their email addresses are listed, making it impossible in most cases to ascertain their identities. Under the heading “Nationality,” the list designates 202 email addresses as belonging to “U.S. persons,” 1,782 as belonging to “non-U.S. persons,” and 5,501 as “unknown” or simply blank. The Intercept identified the five Americans placed under surveillance from their email addresses.
It is unclear whether the government obtained any legal permission to monitor the Americans on the list. The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment for this story. During the course of multiple conversations with The Intercept,the NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence urged against publication of any surveillance targets. “Except in exceptional circumstances,” they argued, surveillance directly targeting Americans is conducted only with court-approved warrants. Last week, anonymous officials told another news outlet that the government did not have a FISA warrant against at least one of the individuals named here during the timeframe covered by the spreadsheet.
The FISA process was enacted in 1978 in response to disclosures that J. Edgar Hoover and a long line of presidents from both parties had used U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on dissidents and political enemies. Intended to allow authorities to covertly investigate suspected spies or terrorists on U.S. soil, the surveillance is often used simply to gather intelligence, not to build a criminal case. The law was revised in 2008—in part to place limits on the controversial program of warrantless wiretaps initiated by George W. Bush after 9/11, and in part to legalize the program’s warrantless eavesdropping on Americans when they speak with foreign surveillance targets.
Under current law, the NSA may directly target a “U.S. person” (an American citizen or legal permanent resident) for electronic surveillance only with a warrant approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Because the FISC operates in complete secrecy—only the Justice Department and the FBI are permitted to attend its proceedings on domestic surveillance—it is impossible to assess how the court applies the standard of “probable cause” in cases of suspected terrorism or espionage. But its rulings are notoriously one-sided: In its 35-year history, the court has approved 35,434 government requests for surveillance, while rejecting only 12.
Law enforcement officials familiar with the FISA process told The Intercept that the FISC’s high approval rate is the result of a thorough vetting process that weeds out weak applications before they reach the court. The system, they added, seeks to balance what they consider to be the essential role of surveillance in protecting national security with the civil liberties of potential targets. The NSA issued a statement that reads in part: “No U.S. person can be the subject of FISA surveillance based solely on First Amendment activities, such as staging public rallies, organizing campaigns, writing critical essays, or expressing personal beliefs.”
But legal experts have long expressed concern that the secretive nature of the FISA process makes it impossible to know what level of evidence is actually used to authorize surveillance, precisely what it means to be an agent of a foreign power, or whether there is any effective oversight to protect civil liberties. “We have very little idea what this probable cause standard means in individual FISA cases,” says Patrick Toomey, a staff attorney for the National Security Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “No FISA application or order has ever been publicly disclosed, even to a criminal defendant or his lawyer in cases where the government later brings charges based on that FISA surveillance.”
A former Justice Department official involved in FISA policy in the Obama Administration says the process contains too many internal checks and balances to serve as a rubber stamp on surveillance of Americans. But the former official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about FISA matters, acknowledges that there are significant problems with the process. Having no one present in court to contest the secret allegations can be an invitation to overreach. “There are serious weaknesses,” the former official says. “The lack of transparency and adversarial process—that’s a problem.”
Indeed, the government’s ability to monitor such high-profile Muslim-Americans—with or without warrants—suggests that the most alarming and invasive aspects of the NSA’s surveillance occur not because the agency breaks the law, but because it is able to exploit the law’s permissive contours. “The scandal is what Congress has made legal,” says Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU deputy legal director. “The claim that the intelligence agencies are complying with the laws is just a distraction from more urgent questions relating to the breadth of the laws themselves.”
Government agencies have invoked a host of legal theories over the years to justify spying on Americans without obtaining individual FISA warrants. Prior to mid-2008, for example, the NSA could target Americans when they were located on foreign soil simply by obtaining an authorization from the attorney general. The NSA also relies on the so-called “FISA backdoor” to read the emails of Americans communicating with foreign targets without obtaining a warrant, and engages in the bulk collection of “metadata” from Internet service providers without individual warrants. In other cases, it can obtain a warrant against an entire organization—and then monitor the emails of individuals allegedly associated with the group.
While the NSA documents do not prove that the government has been systematically monitoring the communications of political dissidents, Jaffer notes that some of the most abusive surveillance practices carried out by the FBI during the 1960s were arguably legal at a time when many Americans believed that the groups targeted by Hoover’s FBI—including anti-government activists on the left and right—posed a threat to the country.
“Some of the government’s surveillance practices today are reminiscent of those earlier abusive practices,” Jaffer says. “Today’s American-Muslim activists occupy the same position that civil-rights and anti-war activists occupied during the 1960s.”
Current and former law enforcement officials reject that analogy, and say that the FISA process is too rigorous to permit any abuse. Still, several acknowledge that political speech is sometimes viewed as a sufficient reason to launch an investigation that can culminate in full-blown surveillance.
“If you are a political activist calling for violent jihad—yes, that could trigger an investigation,” says Marion “Spike” Bowman, the top FBI lawyer whose office handled all law enforcement requests for FISA surveillance under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Bowman stresses that such investigations are launched only when the bureau believes that speech has crossed the line into incitement.
When Edward Snowden turned over a trove of NSA documents last year, he explained that he included the spreadsheet of monitored emails because he wanted to give people subjected to electronic surveillance the opportunity to challenge the spying as unconstitutional. For years, the government has succeeded in having such challenges dismissed on the ground that the various plaintiffs lack standing to sue because they could not prove that they were personally targeted.
Thanks to Snowden’s disclosures, those seeking to obtain such a ruling now have specific cases of surveillance against American citizens to examine. So do those charged with reforming the FISA process. Richard Clarke, a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations, served on the recent White House intelligence review panel convened to address concerns raised by the Snowden revelations. If he had seen the NSA spreadsheet, Clarke says, he would have asked more questions about the process, and reviewed individual FISA warrants.
“Knowing that, I would specifically ask the Justice Department: How many American citizens are there active FISAs on now?” he says. “And without naming names, tell me what categories they fall into—how many are counterterrorism, counterintelligence, espionage cases? We’d want to go through [some applications], and frankly, we didn’t. It’s not something that five part-time guys can do—rummage through thousands of FISA warrants.”
The “FISA recap” spreadsheet offers a revealing if incomplete glimpse into the murky world of government surveillance. Each email address is accompanied by a date that appears to denote the beginning of surveillance, and another that indicates when it was set to expire. A column called “Collection Status” indicates whether the surveillance was “terminated,” “sustained,” or “pending” as of a particular date. In some cases, the spreadsheet also names the federal agency that requested the surveillance, and a terrorist group, target, or foreign power affiliated with the email address. In addition, each address has a corresponding “Case Notation” code beginning with the prefix “XX.SQF”—a designation that, according to other documents in the Snowden archive, is assigned to all “FISA accounts” as a unique identifier.
The five Americans whose email accounts were placed on the list come from different backgrounds, and hold different religious and political views. None was designated on the list as connected to a foreign power. Some have come under sharp public scrutiny for their activities on behalf of Muslim-Americans, and several have been investigated by the government. But despite being subjected to what appears to be long periods of government surveillance, none has been charged with a crime, let alone convincingly linked to terrorism or espionage on behalf of a foreign power. Taken together, their personal stories raise disturbing questions about who the government chooses to monitor, and why.
Gill is an American citizen whose parents emigrated from Pakistan when he was eight years old. He grew up in Northern Virginia, earned a law degree from American University in 1996, and joined the U.S. Navy. As a boy, he had dreamed of flying with the Blue Angels, but was disqualified as a pilot for poor eyesight. Instead, he became a JAG officer.
After leaving the Navy, Gill worked as a consultant for the American Muslim Council, which was founded by the political activist Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi to encourage participation by American Muslims in the political process. A Republican since high school, Gill joined the Bush Administration in the aftermath of 9/11, eventually moving to the White House Office of Homeland Security, where he briefly worked with Richard Clarke and obtained a top-secret security clearance. After roughly a year, he joined the Department of Homeland Security as a senior policy adviser, where he was cleared to access sensitive compartmented information, a classification level reserved for some of the nation’s most closely held secrets.
In 2003, al-Amoudi was arrested for participating in a Libyan plot to assassinate Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and for illegal financial transactions with the Libyan government, crimes for which he eventually pleaded guilty. Because Gill’s name had turned up in al-Amoudi’s papers, he was investigated by DHS security officials and asked not to report to work pending the outcome. He told investigators that he had met al-Amoudi only three or four times and didn’t work closely with him during his time at the American Muslim Council. After passing a polygraph test, Gill says, he was told by DHS that he was “good to go” and returned to work.
Not long after that incident, Salon reporter Mary Jacoby wrote an article accusing Gill of failing to disclose his freelance work for the American Muslim Council on his application for a security clearance. (The clearance form asked for former employers; Gill, who had previously disclosed the consulting job to the White House and on a separate publicly available ethics disclosure, says he did not think he was being asked to list his freelance work.) The DHS again investigated Gill, and again cleared him of any wrongdoing. “Our investigation found no evidence to suggest that you falsified or intentionally omitted relevant information,” the acting inspector general informed Gill in a 2005 letter. He continued at DHS, he says, with full security clearance.
After leaving the government, Gill founded a law firm with his friend Asim Ghafoor. The NSA spreadsheet indicates that a year later, in April 2006, the email surveillance began. The agency apparently began monitoring a second email account of Gill’s in May 2007, the year he secured the Republican nomination for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. During that campaign, hardline neoconservatives in his own party—inspired by the work of the anti-Islamic pundit Frank Gaffney—resurrected the accusations that Gill had concealed allegedly nefarious ties to a Muslim group, provoking an outpouring of anti-Muslim animus. With the GOP divided over Gill’s candidacy, he narrowly lost the general election in November.
That same year, Gill and Ghafoor traveled to Sudan to meet with government officials there about representing the country in U.S. court. Many family members of victims of Al Qaeda terror attacks were suing the government of Sudan for aiding the operations; the white-shoe law firm Hunton & Williams was representing Sudan in similar litigation over the USS Cole attack, and Ghafoor wanted to pitch his services on the other cases. Ghafoor was ultimately retained, and Gill performed contract work on one case.
While Gill and Ghafoor both ended up being surveilled, none of the Hunton & Williams lawyers who represented Sudan appear to be listed in the NSA spreadsheet. Also missing from the list is any apparent mention of the multitude of American, non-Muslim politicians who have represented foreign governments, including former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (Turkey), former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (United Arab Emirates), former Rep. Bob Livingston (Libya), and former Clinton adviser Lanny Davis (Honduras post-coup).
Under U.S. law, Gill’s legal work for the Sudanese government could not have been used to justify targeting him for surveillance, absent any other evidence. “Representation of a foreign government in legal matters by itself does not make a U.S. lawyer an agent of a foreign power,” NSA spokesperson Vanee Vines said in a statement. According to the NSA spreadsheet, Gill’s surveillance was terminated in February 2008.
Asked whether he believes he would have been monitored by the NSA if he were not Muslim, Gill is blunt. “Absolutely not,” he says. “Look, I’ve never made an appearance or been a lawyer for anyone who’s been [associated with terrorism]. But there are plenty of other lawyers who have made those appearances and actually represented those governments, and their name isn’t Faisal Gill and they weren’t born in Pakistan and they aren’t on this list.”
Gill says he is deeply concerned by what the NSA was able to collect. “I’m sure there was private stuff with my wife where we were arguing about stuff, as well as emails of a more private nature,” he says. “Things that obviously I don’t want anyone looking at.”
Gill knows he faces a personal and professional risk in agreeing to discuss the government’s surveillance of his emails. “Maybe people will say, ‘Hey he was being surveilled—the government must have some reason for doing it, especially if there’s a FISA warrant.’ There will be a lot of folks who will say it was justified and there’s something there. I’m sure it’ll have some sort of negative impact with clients, and who knows what else.”
Despite those concerns, Gill agreed to discuss the surveillance. “The real reason I’m talking to you is that I don’t have anything to hide,” he says. “I didn’t do anything wrong. I served my country, the whole time.”
Ghafoor was born in St. Louis in 1969. A first-generation American whose Muslim parents emigrated from India, he has been a lawyer for two decades.
In 1997, Ghafoor worked for a Texas state representative, Ciro Rodriguez, who won a special election to the U.S. Congress. Ghafoor moved to Washington and became Rodriguez’s legislative assistant. At the time, he says, he was only one of three Muslim staffers he knew of on Capitol Hill.
Ghafoor left government shortly before 9/11 to become a public relations consultant, lobbyist, lawyer, and civil rights advocate on behalf of American Muslims. In the climate of anxiety after the attacks, the need for representation and access for American Muslims in Washington rapidly expanded. Ghafoor became a prominent behind-the-scenes operator on Capitol Hill for the Muslim community.
In 2003, the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi charity, hired Ghafoor after its U.S. assets were frozen by the Treasury Department over claims that it funded terrorist operations. The government alleged that there were “direct links” between the U.S. branch of the charity and Osama bin Laden. Al Haramain had previously been represented by some of the biggest and most prestigious American law firms, including the D.C. powerhouse Akin Gump. Ghafoor’s work with Al Haramain led him to other controversial clients, including Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden who was the subject of FBI and CIA surveillance for years, as well as the government of Sudan.
In 2004, during the Al Haramain litigation, the Treasury Department accidentally provided one of the foundation’s lawyers with a top-secret call log showing that the government had been eavesdropping on Ghafoor’s calls with his clients. FBI agents quickly showed up to retrieve the document, and they took Ghafoor’s laptop for a week to “scrub” it of any trace of the classified information. At the time, neither Ghafoor nor Wendell Belew, the other attorney whose conversations were monitored, knew what to make of the log. The following year, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Timesrevealed the Bush Administration’s illegal wiretapping program, Ghafoor realized that his attorney-client conversations had been surveilled without a warrant.
“When I received a document that proved I had been tapped talking to my clients, I was shocked beyond belief,” Ghafoor recalls. “It’s like finding out there was a peeping tom. You just wonder: What else did they violate?”
The attorneys and Al Haramain sued the U.S. government, claiming that the eavesdropping violated their constitutional rights. After nearly five years of litigation, Ghafoor was awarded more than $20,000 in damages and the government was ordered to pay his legal fees of $2.5 million. Those judgments were later reversed on appeal, on the grounds that the law does not explicitly entitle those targeted by surveillance to damages from the government, even if they prove that the surveillance was illegal.
In a 2008 article that featured Ghafoor’s case, a Justice Department official told the Times that the government does not specifically target attorneys. “It’s not as if we’re targeting the lawyer for surveillance,” the official said. “It’s not like we’re eager to violate lawyer-client privilege. The lawyer is just one of the people whose calls from the suspect are being swept up.” Last February, in response to revelations that the NSA had monitored the communications of a U.S. law firm representing the government of Indonesia, then-NSA chief Keith Alexander assured the American Bar Association that the “NSA has afforded, and will continue to afford, appropriate protection to privileged attorney-client communications acquired during its lawful foreign intelligence mission.”
In Ghafoor’s case, however, the NSA appears to have gone beyond monitoring an attorney who represented clients in a case against the U.S. government. During the time he was monitored, from March 2005 until at least March 2008—at which point the NSA spreadsheet indicates that his surveillance was “sustained” for an unspecified period—Ghafoor was personally suing the government over its prior, illegal surveillance of his own communications.
The discovery that he was surveilled has not changed Ghafoor’s core views of his country. “I’m really proud to have grown up in the U.S.,” he says. “And if you ever tap my calls and read my emails you’ll see that even though I sued the government, I love my country. I love America.”
But Ghafoor has no doubts that he was placed under government surveillance because of his name, his religion, and his legal work. When he would go to court to represent Saudi interests, he points out, “there were over 40 lawyers from every blue-chip law firm in D.C. representing the Saudi government, Saudi princes—I’m not the only lawyer representing a foreign government.
“There were former Bush Administration officials representing Saudi entities, and I doubt their emails were tapped,” he continues. “And if they were, at some point some official would’ve said, ‘Why are we tapping [former Bush Justice Department official] Viet Dinh?’ I’d be shocked if they were tapping Viet Dinh. But Asim Ghafoor—’Oh, well he’s Muslim.’”
Saeed has lived in the U.S. since 1974, when, as a graduate student in Pakistan, he was accepted to Iowa State University. He became an American citizen in 1982, then received a second masters degree from the University of California at Berkeley and a joint Ph.D. from Berkeley and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. For years, he taught in the communications and political science departments at Berkeley and California State University in Hayward.
For two decades, Saeed’s political activism has been largely devoted to organizing American Muslims to register to vote and to participate in the political process: “I am an American, I am a Muslim, and I vote,” he declared in one 2003 speech. He founded the American Muslim Alliance, which The New York Timesdescribed in October 2001 as “the main organization devoted to the political assimilation of the nation’s seven million Arab-Americans.” By 2009, the group grew to more than 100 chapters in more than 30 states, and Saeed met with high-ranking officials from both political parties.
In 2000, as chair of the American Muslim Political Coordination Council Political Action Committee, a coalition of four major Muslim organizations, Saeed announced the group’s endorsement of George W. Bush for president.
On the day of the 9/11 attack, Saeed was in Washington, D.C. He was scheduled to meet that afternoon with President Bush in the White House, along with several other prominent American Muslim leaders. In the weeks after the attack, he was again invited by Bush to the White House. The Times described him as a symbol of moderation and assimilation who urged Arab-American cooperation with law enforcement authorities and preached “forbearance…to his constituents alarmed at all the investigative attention American Muslims have been garnering.”
Since 9/11, however, Saeed has emerged as a leading advocate against sweeping and secretive government surveillance. He was one of the principal organizers against the 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot Act, serving as a coordinator for the California Civil Rights Alliance, which persuaded the California legislature to enact a resolution calling for limitations on the law.
The only notable public controversy involving Saeed occurred in 2000, two days after the American Muslim Alliance announced its endorsement of Bush. The New York Daily Newsattempted to demonize a $50,000 donation the group made to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign by highlighting Saeed’s support for the right of Palestinians to armed resistance against occupation if peaceful means fail—a right affirmed in a series of resolutions by the United Nations General Assembly.
Yielding to pressure, Clinton quickly condemned the remarks and announced that she was returning the donation. Her GOP opponent, Rick Lazio, attacked her for receiving “blood money” and criticized her and her husband for having invited Muslim-Americans who opposed the Middle East peace process to the White House.
But even if Saeed had asserted that Palestinian violence is justified in response to Israeli occupation, such a statement could not legally be used to authorize surveillance under FISA. In the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “advocacy of the use of force” is protected by the First Amendment unless it is likely to incite imminent violence. In a statement to The Intercept, the NSA also emphasized that “no U.S. person can be found to be an agent of a foreign power based solely on activity protected by the First Amendment.”
According to the NSA spreadsheet, the agency’s surveillance of Saeed began in June 2007 and was still sustained as of May 2008.
Today, Saeed suffers from advanced Parkinson’s disease, making communications difficult. Via email, he told The Intercept that he believes he was placed on the NSA list because of his political activism and his friendship with controversial figures such as Sami Al-Arian, a former University of South Florida professor and activist who pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to aid the militant group Palestinian Islamic Jihad in a case that many civil libertarians regard as prosecutorial overreach motivated by anti-Muslim hysteria.
“The government is always looking for a pretext to surveil people who are critical of policy,” Saeed said by telephone, with the help of an interpreter who can decipher his muffled speech. “Now it has become common to accuse people of Islamist ties to do this; before, it was communism and leftists. The FBI has questioned me over both these things in my lifetime. In the 1980s they were suspicious of me over my opposition to arming Afghan Islamists; now they accuse me of being an Islamist.”
Awad is the co-founder and executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organization. A Palestinian born in Jordan, he was naturalized as an American citizen and has lived in the U.S. for more than two decades.
Awad has worked with U.S. officials at the highest levels. In 1997, he served on Vice President Al Gore’s Civil Liberties Advisory Panel to the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, and he has personally met with Presidents Clinton and Bush, as well as former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell, to discuss issues relating to the American Muslim community. A few days after 9/11, Awad was one of the few American Muslim leaders who participated in a press conference with President Bush at the Islamic Center of Washington.
“I’m outraged as an American citizen that my government, after decades of civil rights struggle, still spies on political activists and civil right activists and leaders,” says Awad. “I’m really angry that despite all the work that we have been doing in our communities to serve the nation, we are treated with suspicion.”
The bulk of CAIR’s work is devoted to protecting the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans. (Full disclosure: Glenn Greenwald, a co-author of this story, has given paid speeches before CAIR’s regional affiliates.) The group frequently provides legal counsel to those who believe their rights have been infringed, and litigates constitutional challenges to state and federal laws. Awad says he is particularly incensed about the surveillance given the close cooperation that CAIR has provided the U.S. government in denouncing violent extremism. “The government knows very well that I am not a foreign agent,” he says.
Despite its political moderation and relationship to federal law enforcement agencies, CAIR became a primary target of hardline neoconservatives after 9/11. In 2007, the Justice Department named the group as one of more than 300 “unindicted co-conspirators” in its controversial prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation, then the largest Muslim charity in the U.S., which was eventually convicted of providing material support to Hamas. The Justice Department later attempted to justify its inclusion of CAIR by referring to wiretap evidence showing that in 1993, a Palestinian advocacy group that prosecutors believed was linked to Hamas met in a Philadelphia hotel and talked about founding CAIR. In 1994, Awad voiced public support for Hamas—before the group’s campaign of suicide attacks against civilians and subsequent placement on the State Department’s terrorist list in 1997.
“I do not support Hamas,” Awad says today, pointing out that the group was not involved in terrorist activities at the time he made the statement. “It was not on the list of organizations that sponsor or conduct terrorism by the State Department. And when the organization took those acts, CAIR has condemned it, repeatedly.”
Awad’s surveillance appears to have coincided with the timing of the Holy Land Foundation case: It began in July 2006, and two other email accounts belonging to Awad were added in September and November of that year. The surveillance is marked “terminated” as of February 2008.
The government’s denunciation of CAIR as an “unindicted co-conspirator” cast the group in a nefarious light while denying it the opportunity to defend itself in court. It also caused the FBI to terminate its formal community outreach efforts with the group in 2008, despite the fact that, as The Christian Science Monitor reported, “CAIR itself has never been charged with any wrongdoing.”
Awad cites how much scrutiny the group has received, combined with the fact that it has never been charged with a crime, as proof of its purely civic and legal activities. “Our door has been open for 20 years,” he says. “The government—obviously from the scrutiny we have seen so far—they know everything. And they know perfectly well that we are a transparent, above-the-board, American, true success story.”
Nonetheless, CAIR and its leaders have been publicly maligned as terrorist supporters by the Muslim-focused fringes of the far right, led by activists such as Frank Gaffney, Pamela Geller, and Daniel Pipes. FBI sources told The Intercept that CAIR is still on the government’s “radar screen,” and it was one of the primary targets of a 2011 investigation led by GOP Rep. Peter King into what he called the “radicalization of the American Muslim community.” The New York Timesdenounced those hearings as spreading “fear and bigotry” and seemingly “designed to stoke fear against American Muslims,” while Slate labeled them “Muslim McCarthyism.”
“I think all Americans should be worried about NSA surveillance and the targeting of American Muslims,” Awad says. “Because if it is American Muslims today, it is going to be them next. ”
Amirahmadi is a professor at Rutgers University, where he has been on the faculty since 1983, and is the former director of the school’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies. He is also the founder and president of the American Iranian Council, a nonprofit group devoted to public policy research on the relationship between the U.S. and Iran, and the president of Caspian Associates, a consulting firm that works with developing nations.
The AIC is affiliated with many senior U.S. government officials and diplomats. Its honorary board includes former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering, and its board of directors include former Senator J. Bennett Johnston and former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy. Past directors include Cyrus Vance and Sargent Shriver. Vice President Joe Biden, Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel have all spoken at events organized by Amirahmadi.
Amirahmadi has dual citizenship as an American and an Iranian. A secularist, he has twice launched quixotic candidacies to become the president of Iran (in 2005 and again in 2013) as a statement against the Iranian political establishment. He was prevented both times from appearing on the ballot by the Guardian Council, which controls the election process in Iran.
Amirahmadi holds many Western liberal views, describing homosexuality as a “non-problem” and pledging during his last campaign to name a female vice president. He has said that “every Iranian citizen regardless of their religion, ethnicity, race, color, gender … are equal in front of the law.” He has been a strong advocate for improving ties between the U.S. and Iran, and he vehemently opposes any attempt by Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. He also recognizes the validity of Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state. “Israel is a reality,” he says. “It has to be recognized as a reality.”
But mixed in with those conventional pro-Western views, Amirahmadi has voiced substantial dissent from America’s foreign policy toward Iran. Much of his work within the U.S. foreign policy community, in fact, has been devoted to persuading high-level officials that sanctions against Iran, as well as external efforts to bring about regime change, will backfire. In 2007, he defended the regime of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claiming in an interview that Iranian connections to terrorism are a “myth” and that “Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, they are defending their country and their nations.” Last year conservative media outlets seized on those comments to mount a campaign against Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary, claiming that his association with Amirahmadi should disqualify him.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page and other neoconservative outlets also criticized Amirahmadi’s connections to the Alavi Foundation, a U.S. charity that federal investigators believe is controlled by Iran. The foundation donated money to Amirahmadi’s program at Rutgers, and has made similar contributions to Persian culture programs at Harvard University, Columbia University, and other schools.
Leaders in the Iranian expatriate community say privately that Amirahmadi cultivated ties to the Ahmadinejad regime in order to raise his profile as a potential broker of détente between the U.S. and Iran. The sources also note that he was in regular contact with the State Department over the past decade, and was an unlikely candidate for the role of foreign spy.
Amirahmadi, who does not self-identify as a Muslim and describes himself as an atheist, believes that the NSA surveillance was motivated by his diplomatic work, not his religious heritage. [Update: Although Amirahmadi used the word “atheist” to describe his religious identity to The Intercept, in a HuffPost Live interview on Wednesday, he said he prefers to be called a “secular Muslim.”] While he considers the surveillance to be illegal and has no objection to it being made public, he declined to comment further on the matter. His surveillance began in August 2007, with a second email account added in November of that year and a third in February 2008. The government’s apparent monitoring of Amirahmadi’s emails was still marked as “sustained” as of May 2008.
Even if the government obtained FISA warrants to monitor some or all of the five Muslim-Americans, the law’s standards do not always appear to be applied uniformly.More than a dozen former and current law enforcement officials contacted by The Intercept say that the process for seeking a FISA warrant is so bureaucratically complex and larded with privacy safeguards that it is essentially inviolate. If the surveillance court approved a warrant, they say, then the target must have deserved it.
“The Justice Department was notoriously difficult to get a FISA warrant through,” says Bowman, the top FBI lawyer for national security matters from 1995 to 2006. “They always wanted more than probable cause. And so they would frequently, at least 50 percent of the time, send it back [to the FBI] with questions.”
According to Bowman, whose office handled all requests for domestic FISA surveillance throughout the intelligence community, requests for warrants involve multiple stages of approval. Starting at an FBI field office, a request moves up through FBI supervisory agents at headquarters and attorneys at the bureau’s National Security Branch, then on to the Justice Department’s Office of Intelligence—with the various gatekeepers frequently rejecting applications or sending them back for further review. It is only once all the hurdles have been cleared, Bowman says, that the Justice Department prepares a formal application “package” for a judge with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Those packages, Bowman says, range anywhere from 35 to 150 pages. The warrant applications are supposed to establish probable cause that a target is an agent of a foreign power and is engaged in—or about to engage in—one of what Bowman calls the “three crimes” spelled out by the FISA statute: an actual or potential attack or other grave hostile act, sabotage or international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities. The standard for probable cause used by the court, Bowman adds, is “more than a suspicion, but less than a certainty.”
Taken together, he says, the hurdles and safeguards prevent any potential abuse. “I’ve never seen the FBI in my experience in the 11 years I was there, ever begin an investigation strictly on political issues,” Bowman says.
But one former law enforcement official paints a different picture of the process. FISC judges who approve the warrants, he says, often rely implicitly on the claims of the agents seeking them. “I got a lot of warrants signed by a judge at 2 a.m., in his pajamas in his living room. The judge would size you up, and if he believed you that you had probable cause, he would sign the warrant.”
One current senior federal prosecutor who has participated in high-level counterterrorism and intelligence cases also describes a looser standard for obtaining a FISA warrant. The process, he says, requires only that the government establish probable cause that the target meets a broad definition as an “agent of a foreign power”—not that they are actually engaged in terrorism, espionage, sabotage, or other criminal activity.
“If you are dealing with a foreign power, I don’t think you have any choice,” says the prosecutor. “I don’t believe it is realistic to say that you can only get a FISA when you have probable cause that an agent of a foreign power is committing a crime—because you’ll never know. And often the best way to figure out what is going on is not to prosecute them criminally, but to just watch what they do.”
Such a standard, law enforcement officials say, takes advantage of what amount to loopholes in the FISA law, which requires that warrants demonstrate probable cause that an agent of a foreign power is engaged in activities that “involve or may involve” criminal activity, are “about to involve” criminal activity, or constitute aiding someone who is. In a statement to The Intercept, an NSA spokesperson confirmed that warrants must demonstrate probable cause that targets “are or may be engaged in certain criminal activity … on behalf of a foreign power.”
Asked how many Americans could currently be under FISA surveillance given the looser guidelines he cites, the prosecutor is unequivocal. “I would think it would be a large number of people,” he says.
Whatever the merits of the process, it is clear that at least some of the law enforcement officials involved in it harbored conspiratorial and bigoted views about Americans of Muslim descent. John Guandolo, the former counterterrorism agent who was active at the time several of the five identified Americans were monitored, provides a candid view of that mindset. Asked by The Intercept about the men, he responded with a series of uncorroborated accusations, suggesting that many of them are part of a vast Muslim conspiracy to infiltrate and topple the United States from within.
To hear Guandolo tell it, Faisal Gill, the former homeland security official under Bush, was “a major player in the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.” Asim Ghafoor, Gill’s fellow attorney, is “a jihadi” who was “directly linked to Al Qaeda guys” simply because of his representation of the Al Haramain Foundation. “He had knowledge of who they were and what they were doing,” Guandolo says. (Such logic would subject every lawyer representing defendants accused of terrorism to government surveillance.) To Guandolo, Agha Saeed was yet another secret operative for the Muslim Brotherhood. “He’s a pretty senior guy with them,” Guandolo says, “affiliated with several groups.” (“That’s a big lie,” Saeed says, “and given my life history, absurd” because he has “always been a leftist.”)
Such far-fetched accusations don’t bear serious scrutiny, given Guandolo’s increasingly bizarre and paranoid views since leaving the FBI. (Last year, for instance, he told a talk-radio host that CIA director John Brennan secretly converted to Islam and is a tool of Saudi intelligence.) But during his tenure at the FBI, Guandolo worked on cases to obtain FISA warrants, and his anti-Islamic views were deemed acceptable enough to be reflected in basic training materials within the bureau.
Numerous other current and former agents interviewed about the surveillance process say it’s possible that the overseas connections and political beliefs of the five Americans played a role in arousing suspicions. They cite Ghafoor’s representation of Al Haramain at a time when it was under so many terrorism investigations, and Amirahmadi’s ties to Iran at a time when the country was a major target of NSA surveillance because of its suspected nuclear weapons program and support for terrorist organizations.
One former FBI counterterrorism agent also said that Saeed’s speech echoing the UN resolution on Palestinian armed resistance likely helped lead the bureau to launch an investigation against him, although the government surveillance began seven years after that statement. While the comments alone wouldn’t have been enough to secure FISA authorization for electronic surveillance, the remarks may have been viewed as sufficient to get the process started.
Law enforcement officials say that the FBI’s interest in Gill was likely sparked by the smear campaign waged against him by neoconservatives. And they also cite Nihad Awad’s political comments and connections—including the public support that he offered for Hamas and the accusations against CAIR stemming from the Holy Land Foundation Case—as enough in the FBI’s eyes to merit an investigation that could lead to surveillance.
Asked about the document that refers to a potential target of FISA surveillance as a “raghead,” an NSA spokeswoman said the agency “has not and would not approve official training documents that include insulting or inflammatory language. Any use of racial or ethnic stereotypes, slurs, or other similar language by employees is both unacceptable and inconsistent with NSA policy and core values.”
The Justice Department did not respond to repeated requests for comment on this story, or for clarification about why the five men’s email addresses appear on the list. But in the weeks before the story was published, The Intercept learned that officials from the department were reaching out to Muslim-American leaders across the country to warn them that the piece would contain errors and misrepresentations, even though it had not yet been written.
Prior to publication, current and former government officials who knew about the story in advance also told another news outlet that no FISA warrant had been obtained against Awad during the period cited. When The Intercept delayed publication to investigate further, the NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence refused to confirm or deny the claim, or to address why any of the men’s names appear on the FISA spreadsheet. Prior to 2008, however, FISA required only an authorization from the attorney general—not a court warrant—for surveillance against Americans located overseas. Awad frequently travelled to the Middle East during the timeframe of his surveillance.
Whatever the specific reasons and methods used to monitor the five men’s emails, the surveillance against them took place during the chaos and fear that enveloped the national security community in the years after 9/11. The Clinton Administration had avoided investigating potential links between Muslim charities and suspected terrorists, and the FBI was scrambling to catch up and scrutinize dozens of organizations on the orders of the Bush Administration. Those probes led to some prosecutions and convictions, but they also generated a huge backlash of criticism for targeting innocent groups. One former law enforcement official said that, while the FBI was diligent in trying to hew to the law, there may have been “some missteps” along the way.
Those missteps have landed heavily on Americans of Muslim heritage. Even when the surveillance process is overseen by officials and judges who don’t share the Islamophobic mindset of John Guandolo, mainstream and constitutionally protected forms of activism by American Muslims have come to be seen by some within the intelligence community as potentially dangerous—a dynamic that raises the potential for abuse, especially when warrants are issued in secret and authorized by a law that gives wide latitude to those seeking them. A Washington Post report earlier this week found that the government used FISA procedures to intercept and retain vast amounts of private data belonging to “ordinary internet users” who had no evident connection to terrorism or espionage and had been “caught in a net the [NSA] had cast for somebody else.”
Asim Ghafoor says his first-hand experience working on behalf of other Muslim-Americans has led him to believe that “the U.S. government embarked on a very systematic approach” to target his community.
“I saw the government specifically go after Muslim people who were involved in certain activities such as charity work, humanitarian work, political activism,” he says. “Maybe they had some website that had some speeches that nobody ever read or even noticed, maybe they had some bloodcurdling speeches. So the government just treated you like you were blowing up the next tower. They treated you like you were going to be the Manchurian Candidate, you were going to destroy America from within. There were U.S. attorneys, FBI agents, DHS agents, customs agents all over the country that were trying to find the next terror cell in their midst. If you were involved in those activities and maybe you were on a student visa and you didn’t quite fill out the paperwork, you were hosed. There is no question about it, you were worse off than a migrant worker in Dubai. You were just packed up and sent home. Life became very, very unbearable for them.”
Even a U.S. citizen like Faisal Gill, who served his country both in the armed forces and in the White House, found himself spied on by his own government. “I was a very conservative, Reagan-loving Republican,” he says. “If somebody like me could be surveilled, then [there are] other people out there I can only imagine who are under surveillance.
“I went to school here as a fourth grader – learned about the Revolutionary War, learned about individual rights, Thomas Jefferson, all these things,” he continues. “That is ingrained in you – your privacy is important. And to have that basically invaded for no reason whatsoever – for the fact that I didn’t do anything – I think that’s troubling. And I think that certainly goes to show how we need to shape policy differently than it is right now.”
Californians sue government after being placed on ‘Suspicious Activity’ watch list
by Steve Watson | Infowars.com | July 14, 2014
Five Californians are fighting the Department of Justice in court over the fact that they have been entered into a terrorism database over entirely innocent activities such as taking photographs, buying a computer, and even waiting for relatives to arrive at a train station.
Court House News reports that the ACLU and the Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus are representing the plaintiffs, who have been entered into a “Suspicious Activity Reports” (SAR) database, and could remain on it for decades to come.
The database is part of a federal government program which encourages local and state law enforcement to report any “suspicious activity” they believe could be related to terrorism. The database is just one of many managed through the Department of Homeland Security’s controversial fusion centers.
According to a government report, over 35,000 names had been added to the database by 2013.
“An individual who is reported in a SAR is flagged as a person with a potential nexus to terrorism and automatically falls under law enforcement scrutiny which may include intrusive questioning by local or federal law enforcement agents.” the legal complaint notes.
“Even when the Federal Bureau of Investigation concludes that the person did not have any nexus to terrorism, a SAR can haunt that individual for decades, as SARs remain in federal databases for up to 30 years,” the complaint adds.
One of the plaintiffs, James Prigoff, an 86-year-old internationally renowned photographer of public art, has been on the database for a decade now, after he was “caught” taking pictures of a piece of modern art in Boston in 2004. When private security guards reported the incident to police, the FBI got involved, paying a visit to Prigoff’s house, and questioning his neighbors, according to the lawsuit.
Taking pictures of public landmarks, and taking pictures from public land is protected under the First Amendment to The Constitution.
“All I was doing was taking pictures in a public place, and now I’m apparently in a government terrorism database for decades,” Prigoff said in a statement issued by the ACLU.
“This is supposed to be a free country, where the government isn’t supposed to be tracking you if you’re not doing anything wrong. I lived through the McCarthy era, and I know how false accusations, surveillance, and keeping files on innocent people can destroy careers and lives. I am deeply troubled that the SAR program may be recreating that same climate of false accusation and fear today.”
Another of the men, lead plaintiff Wiley Gill, was entered onto the database because he was identified as a “Suspicious Male Subject in Possession of Flight Simulator Game,” by the Chico Police Department in 2012. The key fact that made Gill suspicious was that he converted to Islam while a student at a state university. Gill says that he does not own a flight simulator game, and was merely browsing a website about a video game on his computer at home. That’s correct, In America you can be entered into a terrorism database for looking at a video game website in your own home.
“The only reason that someone deemed Mr. Gill ‘suspicious’ is because he is a devout Muslim, not because he has done anything wrong,” Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus attorney Nasrina Bargzie said in a statement. “With such a lax standard, it’s not surprising that the result is religious profiling of this nature. Racial and religious profiling of Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian communities needs to stop.”
Another of the plaintiffs was put on the terror database because he attempted to buy some computer equipment in bulk from Best Buy. The fact that Khaled Ibrahim, a U.S. citizen, is a computer network consultant didn’t matter – he has a Muslimy name, so whack him on there.
Another US citizen, Tariq Razak was placed on the terror database because he was “observed surveying entry/exit points” at the Santa Ana Train Depot. The report entered into the database describes Razak as a “Male of Middle Easter decent”, and says he was seen “exiting the facility with a female wearing a white burka head dress.” In reality he was picking up his mother from the train station. The report also referred to him as an “Arab”, despite the fact that he is of Pakistani descent. The report also contained the make, model and license plate number of Razak’s car. The security officer responsible for making the report claims that everything she did complied with the “terrorism training” she had received from the local police department’s terrorism liaison officers.
Other activities deemed to be potentially terroristic include “Abandoning a [hotel] room and leaving behind clothing, toiletries, or other items”; “Refusal of housekeeping services for extended periods”; and “Multiple visitors or deliveries to one individual or room.”
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office report on the SAR database, the program has failed to result in any arrests, convictions, or thwarted threats. ZERO. NADA.
What it has done, however, is create a sea of utter bullshit that government workers have to waste their time dealing with. In 2012, a Senate subcommittee found “‘dozens of problematic or useless’ reports ‘potentially violating civil liberties protections,’” according to the complaint.
“The Justice Department’s own rules say that there should be reasonable suspicion before creating a record on someone, but the government’s instructions to local police are that they should write up SARs even if there’s no valid reason to suspect a person of doing anything wrong,” ACLU staff attorney Linda Lye said in the statement.
Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.
Part 2 of 2 Interviews of Abdul-Jalil, Nanita Strong and Imam Wali Mohammed on AmericanMuslim360 (AM360) Abdul-Jalil, Nanita Strong and Imam Wali Mohammed discuss Feeding the needy on AmericanMuslim360 (AM360)in Part 2 of 2 Interviews by Niamat Shaheed. AmericanMuslim360 (AM360) AmericanMuslim360 Premium Channel is about Islam and being Muslim in American. AmericanMuslim360 has programing space […]
Part 1 of 2 Interviews on AmericanMuslim360 (AM360) AmericanMuslim360 Premium Channel is about Islam and being Muslim in American. AmericanMuslim360 has programing space available for Muslims who wish to host their own show. AM360 goal is to become a Network Channel in 2013, creating the AmericanMuslim360 Network Channel broadcasting an Islamic focused, 24/7 Muslim hosted […]
When former UCLA basketball player Don Barksdale died of cancer of the esophagus in March 1993,his passing was noted in a two-sentence obituary in The Times, a woefully inadequate summation of an extraordinary life. Barksdale, a 6-foot-6 center from Berkeley and a Bay Area legend not only as an athlete but also as a TV […]
Glenn Burke's journey through baseball began and ended in Oakland, California. His sports career had many stops along the way, starting as a multi-sport star at Berkeley High School, followed by a brief stint at the University of Nevada, Reno as a prized basketball recruit, and then moving into professional baseball with the Los Angeles […]
Nigerians go to the polls on March 28 in a tight contest, which is getting extra attention after the original date was rescheduled at the last minute. Many voters will be holding their registration card in one hand, and their mobile in the other -- making democratic history with the help of tech.
Yemen is a fractious, impoverished, weakly governed Middle Eastern nation that has long served as a haven for Islamic terrorists. Now, it appears to be teetering on the brink of all-out conflict. The U.N.'s top adviser on Yemen has warned that the country is moving toward "the edge of civil war."