Please Support AMWFT Efforts with Your Secure Paypal Sponsorship Donation

Sponsorship of a Benefit!

Man Who Turn$ HIt$ Into Million$

Man Who Turn$ HIt$ Into Million$

Ed Snowden PRISM Whistleblower Part 1

Ed Snowden PRISM Whistleblower Part 1

BORP Sponsor Poster

Jalil & AMWFT Sponsor Wheelchair Basketball Tournament

Ed Snowden PRISM Whistleblower Part 2

Ed Snowden PRISM Whistleblower Part 2

Distribution of Wealth in America

Distribution of Wealth in America

KGO Radio Conversation On "OUT. The Glenn Burke Story"

KGO Radio Conversation On "OUT. The Glenn Burke Story"

Oink’Malley & Carson Coontoon

Occupiers Redeem Kings Dream While Keith Carson and His Poverty Pimps are Killers of Kings Dream- Sell It Out

Alameda DA Nancy Oink'Malley & Supervisor Keith Carson Civil Rights Violations & Corruption!

Jalil on ESPN/KNBR Sports Radio

Jalil on ESPN/KNBR Sports Radio

Oakland City Attorney John Russo's Political Suicide

Jalil Enshrined in “Who’s Who”

Jalil Enshrined in "Who's Who"

“Reppin Superstar Pro Athletes & Entertainers”

Superstar Managements Lecture Series "Reppin Superstar Pro Athletes & Entertainers"

Purchase SUPERSTAR MANAGEMENT Lecture Series

Lecture Series Purchase Prices

Previous Posts

Oscar Grant's "Fruitvale Station"

Oscar Grant's "Fruitvale Station"

Call Us Free Here

Drug Agents Use Vast Phone Trove of AT&T and DEA Surveillance Records

Drug Agents Use Vast Phone Trove of AT&T and DEA Surveillance Records

Click “Discuss on ooVoo” on any page for Video Chat

1995 Pizza Hut Commercial with Deion Sanders and Jerry Jones

1995 Pizza Hut Commercial with Deion Sanders and Jerry Jones

Portrait of Abdul-Jalil by Artist Buford Delaney in Paris, France

Portrait of Abdul-Jalil by Artist Buford Delaney in Paris, France

Black Sports Leaders Summitt on Civil Rights

Black Sports Leaders Summitt on Civil Rights

Santa Fe Elementary School's Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation

Santa Fe Elementary School's Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation

Nowtruth Pages

Nowtruth Documents Box

Second Statement of Disqualification of Judge Robert Freedman

Join The Legal Coalition for Victory! UNITE and DEMONSTRATE #BlackLivesMatter, #BrownLivesMatter, #YellowLivesMatter, #RedLivesMatter,#PoorLivesMatter, #MinorityLivesMatter, #ImmigrantLivesMatter, #MuslimLivesMatter, #ALLLivesMatter, #ActivistMatter, #UnionsMatter, #CivilRightsMatter, #HumanRightsMatter, #ImmigrationRightsMatter, #JusticeMatters!!!

Your Name (required)

Your Profession (Attorney, Tech, Media, Activist, Organizer, Union, Labor, Politics, Law Enforcement, Volunteer, etc.)

Your Address, City, State, Zip, Country

Your Phone- Office, Home, Cell for calls and text messages

Your Email (required)

Your Website

Your FaceBook/Ello/Google+/Myspace

Your Twitter

Your LinkedIn/Meetme/4Square

Your Instagram/Pintrest/Tumblr/Flickr

Your YouTube/Vimeo/Vine/Periscope

Your Other Social Media

What is your Area of Expertise?

How can you and what do you want to do to help? (required)

 I want to subscribe and join Legal Coalition for Victory!

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

7633 Sunkist Drive

Oakland, CA  94605

Tel: (510) 394-4501

Plaintiff

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

Case No.:RG14740943

SECOND 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 HONORABLE 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;

CMC and Demurrer Hearing Date: March 5, 2015

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Location: Administration Bldg., 1221 Oak St., Oakland, CA 9460712

Department 20

TO THE HONORABLE 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 and has failed and refused to respond to the allegations contained in the challenge for cause. Plaintiff has filed now a second statement of disqualification to disqualify Freedman as well as a complaint with the State of California Judicial Council and Alameda County Superior Court officers Leah T. Wilson, Executive Officer, Superior Court of California; Chad Finke, General Counsel, Superior Court of California The Hon. Winifred Smith, Presiding Judge; The Hon. C. Don Clay, Supervising Judge; The Hon. Melinda Haag, Director- No. District U. S. Attorney’s Office ; The Hon. Claudia Wilken, Chief District Judge, U. S. District Court- No. Division; Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California; County Chief Counsel Donna Ziegler; Susan Muranishi, County Administrator; Congresswoman Barbara Lee and County Supervisor Keith Carson in an effort to attain a fair hearing in his case.

Judge Freedman has written, signed and submitted willfully perjurious, deceptive and fraudulent response to his motion for disqualification in attempting to deceive the public in support of his ruling; responded to his disqualification by his failure and refusal to answer any of the issues; repeatedly lied under oath by failing and refusing to answer the issues of the motion; made knowingly false statements while lying under oath and perjury; dishonesty; fraudulent deception; calumny deceit; willful and prejudicial misconduct; abuse of discretion; negligence; bias; prejudice; misrepresentation; incompetence; conflict of interest; bad faith; collusion; denial of due process; obstruction of justice; racism; bigotry; has exhibited, expressed and shown a fixed opinion of al-Hakim; displayed favoritism towards the defendants in prior cases; made false accusations; harassed al-Hakim; has willfully, deceitfully and recklessly indulged in a series of offensive acts against plaintiff and has displayed disdain, malice, and a mental attitude or disposition toward al-Hakim that prohibits the right to a fair hearing or trial; conduct prejudicial; and advocated a judicial imprimatur of the defense’s position are grounds for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc. §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); 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; and Cal. Code Jud. Conduct Cannons 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5) and 3B(8). Judge Tigar’s persistent willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, promised 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 violates and strikes at the heart of 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).

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.

There are 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).

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.

Judge Freedman has a serious aversion to the truth from al-Hakim experience with him and he has had to admit as much in his own writing.

In THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE INQUIRY CONCERNING

JUDGE ROBERT B. FREEDMAN NO. 179, Freedman filed the VERIFIED ANSWER OF JUDGE ROBERT B. FREEDMAN TO FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF FORMAL PROCEEDINGS.

The Honorable Robert B. Freedman responds to the Amended Notice of Formal Proceedings now pending before the Commission on Judicial Performance as follows:

COUNT ONE

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.

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. 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.

COUNT TWO

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).

COUNT THREE

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).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

“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. “

“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.”

How sincere is his regrets for his actions when he blames these same poor, indigent people for HIS fraud upon these same poor People of the State of California, by HIS CHOSEN dereliction of duties while at the same time “paying himself” for it? There is NOTHING conclusory here about his actions and admitted fraud!

II. BACKGROUND FACTS

al-Hakim received 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.

al-Hakim’s Response:

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!

al-Hakim’s Allegations Is Conclusory

Conclusory:  relating to an assertion for which no supporting evidence is offered (“a conclusory argument”). Conclusory as used by lawyers, usually means “asserting conclusions without evidence.”  It’s a useful concept for analyzing Freedman’s exculpatory use as his evidence that works to clear him of fault or to evade answering the self-incriminating questions and actions supported in the challenges for cause. If I say “Freedman is a crook” I’ve summed up my conclusion without giving any facts for it. If I stop there I haven’t said anything that is justified and supported by fact. However, on ever occasion al-Hakim has presented uncontroverted, unopposed, unadulterated truth, irrefutable evidence and undeniable proof that makes the findings a foregone conclusion that are all conclusory, that are repeatedly supported with Freedman’s own actions, words, and writings verbatim that are entirely well grounded in facts and reasoning that he has written, signed and submitted willfully perjurious, deceptive and fraudulent response to his motion for disqualification in attempting to deceive the public in support of his ruling; responded to his disqualification by his failure and refusal to answer any of the issues; repeatedly lied under oath by failing and refusing to answer the issues of the motion; made knowingly false statements while lying under oath and perjury; dishonesty; fraudulent deception; calumny deceit; willful and prejudicial misconduct; abuse of discretion; negligence; bias; prejudice; misrepresentation; incompetence; conflict of interest; bad faith; collusion; denial of due process; obstruction of justice; racism; bigotry; has exhibited, expressed and shown a fixed opinion of al-Hakim; displayed favoritism towards the defendants in prior cases; made false accusations; harassed al-Hakim; has willfully, deceitfully and recklessly indulged in a series of offensive acts against plaintiff and has displayed disdain, malice, and a mental attitude or disposition toward al-Hakim that prohibits the right to a fair hearing or trial; conduct prejudicial; and advocated a judicial imprimatur of the defense’s position are grounds for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc. §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); 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; and Cal. Code Jud. Conduct Cannons 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5) and 3B(8). Judge Tigar’s persistent willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, promised 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 violates and strikes at the heart of 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).

These charges are fully supported by evidence. al-Hakim contends that this and ALL the other challenge are unanswered, unopposed and uncontroverted and on the merits there is no legal or factual basis to uphold Freedman’s order striking the challenge and the challenges must be responded to and the charges truthfully denied in detailed specifics. A consideration of the entire record compels the conclusion that the willfully perjurious, deceptive, fraudulent answer and proposed ruling are prejudicial. The unopposed, uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law are not required to be disputed or argued as a matter of law.

Challenge Is Not Supported By Competent and Admissible Evidence

These charges are fully supported by evidence. al-Hakim contends that this and the other challenge are unanswered, unopposed and uncontroverted and on the merits there is no legal or factual basis to uphold Freedman’s order striking the challenge and the challenges must be responded to and the charges truthfully denied in detailed specifics. A consideration of the entire record compels the conclusion that the many willfully perjurious, deceptive, fraudulent answer and proposed ruling are prejudicial. The unopposed, uncontroverted facts and conclusions of law are not required to be disputed or argued as a matter of law. On every occasion al-Hakim has presented uncontroverted, unopposed, unadulterated truth, irrefutable evidence and undeniable proof that makes the findings a foregone conclusion that are all conclusory, that are repeatedly supported with Freedman’s own conviction, admissions, actions, words, and writings verbatim that are entirely well grounded in facts and reasoning that he has committed these herein listed crimes. Freedman can not answer the charges because he knows that the answers will verify al-Hakim’s charges, eliminate any doubt about his guilt of the charges, and convict him of ALL the charges that al-Hakim has leveled against him. His answers would be conclusive of his guilt in committing these crimes!

There is NOTHING conclusory here regarding his continued perjury by omission, refusing to answer the issues before him to avoid revealing the truth; his actions of fraud upon the al-Hakim family, People of the State of California, Superior Court; his concealment and suppression of the facts and evidence; and admitted corruption and cover-up therewith!

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’s Response:

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!

Judge Freedman’s Verified Answer Does Not Address The Allegations Contained In Plaintiff’s Statement Avoiding Facts Material or Relevant To The Disqualification

Because Freedman was aware of al-Hakim’s challenge, he was required to address the charges contained in the challenge in order to prove that al-Hakim’s allegations was false, otherwise Freedman is guilty of contempt and evasion. Freedman had no such responses in his answer. A charge of judicial misconduct herein the answer by the judge is unsupported by facts, constitutes contempt and is a groundless attack upon the integrity al-Hakim, a slap in the face of all judicial officers, and is on its face contemptuous. (See Lamberson v. Superior Court, supra, 151 Cal. at pp. 463-464.) Freedman is required to do more than simply ignore the charges of judicial misconduct, coupled with the fact he does not answer the questions posed in the challenge, his response is unsupported by fact and is false, and falls within contempt and demonstrates an attitude of bias toward Plaintiff.

It is clear that Freedman’s answer and allegation toward al-Hakim are false, it can be held that an order of contempt is sufficient with respect to his answer and allegation since the answer does not set forth facts necessary to uphold the answer and is contemptuous, but rather the answer incorporates statements that require further answers in contempt for al-Hakim’s right to due process.

Freedman’s answer should have been stricken as facially inadequate. Freedman fails to admit or deny Plaintiff’s allegations as required by § 170.3, subd. (c)(3). Plaintiff request that Judge Tigar recuse himself in the interest of justice as per Code of Civil Procedure §170.1(a)(6)(A), and (B) in violation of the law and/or must be disqualified.

Judge Freedman Is Tainted With Inadmissible Evidence From His Challenge and Is Disqualified California law requires that a judge be honest, unbiased and competent. Plaintiff has presented evidence that Freedman is not honest, unbiased, nor therefore competent and does not meet any of these requirements. Additionally, he is tainted, lacks disinterestedness, is biased and prejudiced as Plaintiff has informed Judge Freedman of the many transgressions of the respective judges in this case, the defendants, and defense counsels and as a matter of law can Freedman not be impartial due to this Challenge, his dismally evasive Answer and non response in this matter.

Plaintiff’s direct charges to Judge Tigar exposed, corrupted and impregnated Freedman by the interjecting and introduction of illegal, inadmissible, irrelevant and prejudicial evidence in the complaint, the Challenge, and the peremptory challenge that will improperly influence Freedman and he can not expect to be unblemished, to serve as a disinterested third party, fair, impartial and without bias after this exposure. Again, defendants, knowing that Freedman will retaliate against Plaintiff, want to retain Freedman in their continuing effort to curry the courts favor, to seek and establish an illegal, unfair advantage, thus further establishing this need for Freedman to recuse from this trial.

It is beyond dispute that Freedman has personal knowledge of evidentiary facts crucial to this complaint and must be disqualified.  (Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1(a)(1) [mandatory disqualification of judge who has personal knowledge of evidentiary facts]; Catchpole v. Brannon (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 237, 249-253 [advocacy for a party is judicial misconduct]

These conflicts are a direct pecuniary interest and clear evidence which casts considerable doubt on Freedman’s ability to act impartially and that he can never be allowed to be considered as the judge now. Plaintiffs’ uncontradicted evidence on this point is more than ample to satisfy the “impression of possible bias” test. ( Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 919, 924 [20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834] and decisions cited.)

Knowing this makes it very difficult for any objective person to contemplate how Judge Freedman can serve in this matter and smacks of collusion and corruption! As a matter of law, if Freedman does not recuse himself, Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order disqualifying Freedman from acting as the judge in this matter rather than proceeding to trial in a matter that would surely be appealed and be vacated. Freedman fails to admit or deny Plaintiff’s allegations as required by § 170.3, subd. (c)(3). Plaintiff request that Judge Freedman recuse himself in the interest of justice as per Code of Civil Procedure §170.1(a)(6)(A), and (B) in violation of the law and/or must be disqualified.

Judge Freedman Must Recuse Himself In The Interest Of Justice or Plaintiff Is Entitled To An Order To Disqualify

California, like the federal courts have recognized that misconduct, bias or prejudice on the part of a judge, may deprive one of due process by depriving him of the right to a fair and impartial trial. (See, e.g., United States v. Navarro-Flores (9th Cir. 1980) 628 F.2d 1178, 1182; Corbett v. Bordenkircher (6th Cir. 1980) 615 F.2d 722, 723.)

The objective test is whether a reasonable member of the public at large, aware of all the facts that plaintiff has brought before the court in the motion to disqualify, would fairly entertain doubts as to the judge’s impartiality (Briggs v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 312, 318-319, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 445; Ng v. Superior Court (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 1010, 1024, 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 49]. Code Civ. Proc. §170. 1 (a) (6) is broader than the former Code Civ. Proc. § 170(a)(5) which provided for disqualification when it appeared probable that, by reason of bias or prejudice on the part of the judge, a fair and impartial trial could not be had before that judge [see Ensher, Alexander & Barsoom v. Ensher (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 318,322-323, 37 Cal. Rptr. 327].

In consideration of the gravity of the issues leveled here of possible cronyism, collusion, inappropriate ex parte communications, friendship and favoritism displayed towards certain parties, and considering specifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 170 provides in pertinent part: “(a) No justice or judge shall sit or act as such in any action or proceeding: [para.] . . . [para.] (5) When it is made to appear probable that, by reason of bias or prejudice of such justice or judge a fair and impartial trial cannot be had before that justice or judge.” Plaintiff request that Judge Tigar recuse himself in the interest of justice as per Code of Civil Procedure §170.1(a)(6)(A), and (B) in violation of the law and/or must be disqualified.

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.

Oddly enough, Freedman also blames Tigar for his repeated dereliction in verified answer when stating “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 (Tigar) was sitting pro tern on the First District Court of Appeal.”

There is NOTHING conclusory here regarding his continued perjury by omission, refusing to answer the issues before him to avoid revealing the truth; his actions of fraud upon the al-Hakim family, People of the State of California, Superior Court; his concealment and suppression of the facts and evidence; and admitted corruption and cover-up therewith!

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.

al-Hakim’s Response:

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!

But this “Register of Actions” ploy has been used by Freedman before as is the court practice of “labeling” motions. In his aforementioned verified answer he is forced to create a ruse in the Willard case of  “I didn’t know” and “I couldn’t find” by labeling, mislabeling, falsely claiming motions and actions of the court as follows:

“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.” FOUR YEARS LATER!!!

There is NOTHING conclusory here regarding his continued perjury by omission, refusing to answer the issues before him to avoid revealing the truth; his actions of fraud upon the al-Hakim family, People of the State of California, Superior Court; his concealment and suppression of the facts and evidence; and admitted corruption and cover-up therewith!

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.

al-Hakim’s Response:

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!!

Freedman has argued that the challenge filed by al-Hakim was untimely as per C.C. P. §170.4(b). This challenge complains about conduct that happened in the past, have been timely filed and served in accordance with the governing laws and has been presented as the events enlisted herein have occurred and the charges lodged against Freedman. This argument is offered as if discovery of facts happen simultaneously as desired by the judge and must be presented at the earliest practical opportunity as per C.C. P. §170.3(c(1)). The operative word here is “practical”. The earliest “practical” opportunity would have been at present because there did not exist prior to now the practical time to make a necessary motion for disqualification given the repeated offenses on behalf of Freedman.  As Freedman has continued to commit these enlisted crimes on a basis of every hearing and order since his involvement began in al-Hakim’s case and he has steadfastly refused to answer the charges, they remain a open item until truthfully responded to. With each denial, failure, and refusal to truthfully answer the charges of the challenges, they are renewed, incorporated and reasserted, thus timely. The charges will not go away merely because he can not afford to answer them, the facts, the evidence and the truth. If al-Hakim had to make a challenge for every just cause at the time of it’s occurrence, the challenges would have been daily. This motions meets that criterion.

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!

His categorical denial of the statement of disqualification without any explanation or discussion, and never addresses the issues plead by plaintiff in the statement nor motions. These actions are among many that lead to plaintiff’s certainty that he can not be fair and impartial and will cause further conflict and result in further appeal. That it is this very same misconduct, bias, prejudice, and defiance of the law in his actions and conduct which has occurred in the past that plaintiff is illustrating, that he fears, and he is filing this complaint about. Plaintiff has never been afforded the opportunity for a fair hearing on any matter before him and it is with the principles of due process in mind, plaintiffs’ contention that, in failing to afford a full evidentiary hearing on the motion to disqualify Freedman, his constitutional rights are impinged. The purpose of section 170 is to insure that a party is given a fair and impartial trial as sought by plaintiff. (People ex rel. Air Resources Bd. v. Superior Court (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 10, 17 [177 Cal.Rptr. 816].) Willful misconduct is grounds for removal.[re Kreling v. Superior Court (1944) 25 Cal. 2d 305, 312-313, 153 P.2d 734, Keating v. Superior Court (1955) 45 Cal. 2d 440, 444, 289 P.2d 209; Briggs v. Superior Court (1932) 215 Cal. 336, 343, 10 P.2d 1103, Evans v. Superior Court (1930) 107 Cal. App. 372, 382-383, 290 P. 662] Further, with this very same hostility committed by Freedman in this matter, 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. Notwithstanding the petitioner’s “pervasive course” of judicial misconduct ( id. at p. 797), we declined to disbar, observing that “justice [would] best be served by allowing petitioner to resume the practice of law.” ( Id. at pp. 802-803.)

A judge was removed for the same in Wenger v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1981) 29 Cal.3d 615 [175 Cal.Rptr. 420, 630 P.2d 954]. There the court sustained 10 charges of willful misconduct in separate incidents, including abuse of the contempt power, failure to properly disqualify himself, and banishing an attorney from the courtroom because the petitioner suspected the attorney had communicated with the Commission on Judicial Performance concerning his conduct.

The sustaining of 18 charges of willful misconduct and charges of prejudicial conduct led to removal in Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1983) 33 Cal.3d 359 [188 Cal.Rptr. 880, 657 P.2d 372]. Among the incidents of willful misconduct, which were characterized as a “continuous course of overreaching and abuse of judicial authority” ( id. at p. 371), were interceding on behalf of criminal defendants for the benefit of friends and benefactors, arbitrary bail-setting, impugning the character of colleagues, personal verbal attacks, and ethnic and racial slurs.

Also, one need only look at his boiler plate order striking the challenge for cause, to see that he has incorporated by reference the “15 previous challenges” with striking orders of the respective judges to be convinced that there was obvious collusion and inappropriate ex parte communication between the judges, even if through a third party. One can view the same in the case of Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 153 Cal. App. 3d 965 to find the inappropriate context of Freedman’s actions. Consider that “ The Initiation and Consideration by a Judge of Ex Parte Communications Concerning a Proceeding Pending Before That Judge Violates the Requirements of a Fair Trial and Due Process of Law”.

This misconduct on behalf of the judges legally or practically prevents any party from having a fair trial, 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 in municipal and superior courts. ( 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].)

There is NOTHING conclusory here regarding his continued perjury by omission, refusing to answer the issues before him to avoid revealing the truth; his actions of fraud upon the al-Hakim family, People of the State of California, Superior Court; his concealment and suppression of the facts and evidence; and admitted corruption and cover-up therewith!

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)).

There is NOTHING conclusory here regarding his continued perjury by omission, refusing to answer the issues before him to avoid revealing the truth; his actions of fraud upon the al-Hakim family, People of the State of California, Superior Court; his concealment and suppression of the facts and evidence; and admitted corruption and cover-up therewith!

Continue reading Second Statement of Disqualification of Judge Robert Freedman

Forming a Legal Coalition for Victory Over Corruption

I Want You!

Join The Legal Coalition for Victory! UNITE and DEMONSTRATE #BlackLivesMatter, #BrownLivesMatter, #YellowLivesMatter, #RedLivesMatter,#PoorLivesMatter, #MinorityLivesMatter, #ImmigrantLivesMatter, #MuslimLivesMatter, #ALLLivesMatter, #ActivistMatter, #UnionsMatter, #CivilRightsMatter, #HumanRightsMatter, #ImmigrationRightsMatter, #JusticeMatters!!!

Your Name (required)

Your Profession (Attorney, Tech, Media, Activist, Organizer, Union, Labor, Politics, Law Enforcement, Volunteer, etc.)

Your Address, City, State, Zip, Country

Your Phone- Office, Home, Cell for calls and text messages

Your Email (required)

Your Website

Your FaceBook/Ello/Google+/Myspace

Your Twitter

Your LinkedIn/Meetme/4Square

Your Instagram/Pintrest/Tumblr/Flickr

Your YouTube/Vimeo/Vine/Periscope

Your Other Social Media

What is your Area of Expertise?

How can you and what do you want to do to help? (required)

 I want to subscribe and join Legal Coalition for Victory!

7633 Sunkist Drive, Oakland CA  94605-3032

Phone  (510) 394-4101
http://Superstarmanagement.com
Abdul-Jalil on iTunes
Abdul-Jalil Front Row @ 1995 ESPY Awards
Co-Promoted, Managed and Trained Evander Holyfield versus Riddick Bowe Heavyweight Title Boxing Matches 11/13/92, 11/6/93, 11/4/95
1995 Pizza Hut Commercial with Deion Sanders and Jerry Jones “BOTH”
Superstar Management and Hammertime Open Office in New Orleans
Hammer and Deion in ESPN Sports Bloopers 3 Produced by Abdul-Jalil and SSM
http://Ex-Why.com
¿eX-whY ? AdVentures Promotional Video
¿eX-whY? AdVentures Wrote, Directed and Produced “I Know You’ll Love Oakland” Image Campaign PSA’s
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation-KPFA Promotional Video:
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Kids Celebrity Gift BackPacks
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Free Food Program Celebrity Giving Back
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville KPFA Interview Video
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Alameda Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Entourage & Randy Holland in Trader Joe’s Pinole “Tribute to Legends of Jazz” Show
Santa Fe Elementary School’s Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, SemiFreddi’s, Trader Joe’s, Little Ceasar’s Pizza, Marshawn Lynch’s “Fam1ly F1rst” and Leon Powe’s “Fresh Start Oakland”
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 1
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 2
FaceBook Fundrazr
Abdul-Jalil Honored in Port Au-Prince, Haiti and Miami, Fla. for Relief Missions to Haiti
Join the Superstars Entertainment and Sports Network
Abdul-Jalil’s Haas School of Business Profile
Haas School of Business Alumni Thank Abdul-Jalil for Cal Head Basketball Coach Mike Montgomery’s $750 Phelps Gift:
Cals’ Haas School of Business, the Y.E.A.H. Program, The Bread Project Giving Back to the Community:
Ziggs Profile of Abdul-Jalil
Linked In Profile on Abdul-Jalil
Abdul-Jalil on Twitter: @ajalil
Thanks You from Arch Bishop Joel Jeune to Abdul-Jalil
Abdul-Jalil’s “ooVoo” Video Chat Room
Abdul-Jalil on FaceBook
iPhone 4 FaceTime: (510) 394-4501
AIM, Video Chat Screen Name: jalil@superstarmanagement.com
Skype Video Chat Screen Contact Name: Superstarmanagement
Portrait of Abdul-Jalil by Artist Buford Delaney in Paris, France
Video and Audio with Abdul-Jalil: “Out. The Glenn Burke Story” , KGO Radio Conversation On “OUT. The Glenn Burke Story” , ESPN Story “Before Jason Collins” , KGO Radio’s broadcast discussion of “Out. The Glenn Burke Story”KNBR Radio’s broadcast discussion of “Out. The Glenn Burke Story”KNBR Radio’s broadcast discussion of “Bounce. The Don Barksdale Story”, ESPN Bostock 5th & Jackson TV Special Part 1, and Part 2, ¿eX-whY? AdVentures Wrote, Directed and Produced Oakland Urban Economic Development Conference, Part 1 of 2 Interviews of Abdul-Jalil on American Muslim 360 (AM360) by Niamat Shaheed., Part 2 of 2 Interviews of Abdul-Jalil, Nanita Strong and Imam Wali Mohammed on American Muslim 360 (AM360) by Niamat Shaheed.,
Community Movement Toward Improvement,

Award for “Distinguished Marketing and Promotional Services” from NFL Super Bowl NFL Experience,
Founder of BLACK EXPO shown with Olympic Sprinter John Carlos , Hip Hop’s Islamic Influence, 1979 National BALSA Conference , Dellums for Mayor, Hip Hop’s Islamic Influence, 1979 National BALSA Conference, Oakland Police Officers Arrested for Computer Store Burglaries, Police Found Guilty in Burglaries, Police Officers Sentenced for Burglaries


You can click on any highlighted word to view or download that item

Join The Legal Coalition for Victory! UNITE and DEMONSTRATE #BlackLivesMatter, #BrownLivesMatter, #YellowLivesMatter, #RedLivesMatter,#PoorLivesMatter, #MinorityLivesMatter, #ImmigrantLivesMatter, #MuslimLivesMatter, #ALLLivesMatter, #ActivistMatter, #UnionsMatter, #CivilRightsMatter, #HumanRightsMatter, #ImmigrationRightsMatter, #JusticeMatters!!!

Your Name (required)

Your Profession (Attorney, Tech, Media, Activist, Organizer, Union, Labor, Politics, Law Enforcement, Volunteer, etc.)

Your Address, City, State, Zip, Country

Your Phone- Office, Home, Cell for calls and text messages

Your Email (required)

Your Website

Your FaceBook/Ello/Google+/Myspace

Your Twitter

Your LinkedIn/Meetme/4Square

Your Instagram/Pintrest/Tumblr/Flickr

Your YouTube/Vimeo/Vine/Periscope

Your Other Social Media

What is your Area of Expertise?

How can you and what do you want to do to help? (required)

 I want to subscribe and join Legal Coalition for Victory!

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 DCSS’s 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 2, 2014 at 3:29PM. Mrs. Alcantara of DCSS followed that with another voice mail request. You can listen to and/or download that conversation at: https://app.box.com/s/eoizygico6im1sd92xi2.

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 January 9, 2014 at 3:39PM. Ms. Alder of DCSS followed that with another voice mail request. You can listen to and/or download that conversation at: https://app.box.com/s/ljvjb102dgsle6ggoq5j

Then
al-Hakim received collection “robo-calls” from DCSS on February 6, 2014 which you can listen to and/or download at: https://app.box.com/s/p2vppp8k7nymdxb8s04d and March 3, 2014 which you can listen to and/or download at: https://app.box.com/s/qtqf85tmlty6cyzzatlu.

On March 12, 2014 at 3:20 PM
al-Hakim received a voice mail message from a Terry Simmons-Booker allegedly from DCSS stating that he calling regarding the stipulation asking that al-Hakim call him back. You can listen to and/or download that voice mail message at: https://app.box.com/s/zvurhqzy8qvmxb56ym1a

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

Join The Legal Coalition for Victory! UNITE and DEMONSTRATE #BlackLivesMatter, #BrownLivesMatter, #YellowLivesMatter, #RedLivesMatter,#PoorLivesMatter, #MinorityLivesMatter, #ImmigrantLivesMatter, #MuslimLivesMatter, #ALLLivesMatter, #ActivistMatter, #UnionsMatter, #CivilRightsMatter, #HumanRightsMatter, #ImmigrationRightsMatter, #JusticeMatters!!!

Your Name (required)

Your Profession (Attorney, Tech, Media, Activist, Organizer, Union, Labor, Politics, Law Enforcement, Volunteer, etc.)

Your Address, City, State, Zip, Country

Your Phone- Office, Home, Cell for calls and text messages

Your Email (required)

Your Website

Your FaceBook/Ello/Google+/Myspace

Your Twitter

Your LinkedIn/Meetme/4Square

Your Instagram/Pintrest/Tumblr/Flickr

Your YouTube/Vimeo/Vine/Periscope

Your Other Social Media

What is your Area of Expertise?

How can you and what do you want to do to help? (required)

 I want to subscribe and join Legal Coalition for Victory!


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-Hakim’s, 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 anyone’s 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 attorney’s being complained of!

The requested depositions and investigation concerns trial Judge David C. Lee’s 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 Attorney’s Office run by John Russo to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony, and fostered it’s 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!

ALL these matters have been served on the Honorable Winifred Smith- Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, C. Don Clay- Supervising Judge, Stephen Pulido- Presiding Judge Family Law, Judge The Hon. Melinda Haag- Director- No. District U. S. Attorney’s Office, The Hon. Claudia Wilken-Chief District Judge U. S. District Court- No. Division, Kamala D. Harris- Attorney General of California, Mr. Brega, District Attorney Nancy O’Malley and County Supervisor Keith Carson without consequence.

al-Hakim took the extraordinary measure of filing a 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.
You can view, listen to, and/or download the following related documents or audio files:
Judge Dorado Responds to D. A.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/4ai0vr2s5j
City Administrator Dan Lindhiem Respond Russo Formal Complaint.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/yfyvhaug0l
City Administrator Dan Lindhiem Post Russo Complaint Meeting.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/6gj1ae9pa4
D. A. O’Malley Responds to Russo Formal Complaint.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/pdquncg8x6
County Presiding Judge Rolfenson Responds to Russo Formal Complaint.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/n8xxh4a93e
County Presiding Judge Rolfenson Discards Formal Complaint- Maggie Takeda Voice mail
http://www.box.net/shared/g10s3kzxn7
County Presiding Judge Rolfenson Receives Formal Complaint Maggie Takeda email
http://www.box.net/shared/2fqsl69z79
City Auditor Courtney Ruby Responds to Russo Formal Complaint.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/pdi4kxel16
City Auditor Courtney Ruby’s Second Respond Russo Formal Complaint.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/5a5ndkbmrb
al-Hakim’s Notice to Russo of Action.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/lnvn6kn92k
Russo Responds to Formal Complaint.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/dz72had24u
District Attorney Investigates City Attorneys John Russo, Jayne Williams, Meyers Nave Corruption Complaint.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/sjgi7ynhgh
Oakland City Administrator to Meet al-Hakim on Fate of City Attorneys John Russo, Jayne Williams, Meyers Nave Corruption Complaint.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/kuf0d18b7i
al-Hakim’s Second Notice to Russo of Action.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/9gn72snasl
al-Hakim’s ROAR Complaint Against Russo.pdf
http://www.box.net/shared/4424e7822p
D. A. Kevin Dunleavy Removed al-Hakim from Davidson Courthouse Building VM
http://www.box.net/shared/x46rvjorhj
D. A. Mike O’Connor Ends Investigation VM
http://www.box.net/shared/3oampngtby
D. A. Kevin Dunleavy Tells al-Hakim he to Talk with Vangeria Harvey VM
http://www.box.net/shared/ma0fyvzkdc

 *****

Convict Judge Freedman’s Admissions to Crimes

FreedmanThe 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

Jay Linderman

Andrew Blum

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
                                                                                 FORMAL PROCEEDINGS

The Honorable Robert B. Freedman responds to the Amended Notice of Formal

Proceedings now pending before the Commission on Judicial Performance as follows:

COUNT ONE

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.

COUNT TWO

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).

COUNT THREE

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).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 2, 2006                                             LONG & LEVIT LLP Ewins Sig

 

 

 

 

VERIFICATION

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 2nd day of October, 2006, at Oakland, California. Freedmans Sig

Convicted Judge Robert Freedman Must Reveal Miscreant judge Jon Tigar and his infamous Operation of Defense Scheme

Join The Legal Coalition for Victory! UNITE and DEMONSTRATE #BlackLivesMatter, #BrownLivesMatter, #YellowLivesMatter, #RedLivesMatter,#PoorLivesMatter, #MinorityLivesMatter, #ImmigrantLivesMatter, #MuslimLivesMatter, #ALLLivesMatter, #ActivistMatter, #UnionsMatter, #CivilRightsMatter, #HumanRightsMatter, #ImmigrationRightsMatter, #JusticeMatters!!!

Your Name (required)

Your Profession (Attorney, Tech, Media, Activist, Organizer, Union, Labor, Politics, Law Enforcement, Volunteer, etc.)

Your Address, City, State, Zip, Country

Your Phone- Office, Home, Cell for calls and text messages

Your Email (required)

Your Website

Your FaceBook/Ello/Google+/Myspace

Your Twitter

Your LinkedIn/Meetme/4Square

Your Instagram/Pintrest/Tumblr/Flickr

Your YouTube/Vimeo/Vine/Periscope

Your Other Social Media

What is your Area of Expertise?

How can you and what do you want to do to help? (required)

 I want to subscribe and join Legal Coalition for Victory!

Convicted Alameda County Superior Court judge Robert Freedman is back committing crimes while serving on the bench! DESPICABLE!! You can read and/or download the complete motion with exhibits at:

https://app.box.com/s/98tbk9i2abit2c3bc41gpozne2af3ty2

Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim filed a motion to disqualify the bribe taking Freedmanand 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).

IV. CONCLUSION

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

________________________

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim

V. VERIFICATION

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

____________________

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim

 

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!”

Courtroom Convict Judge Freedman Back Committing Crime!!

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 Freedmanleaders 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!

 

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

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

 

Donna Ziegler

Chief Counsel

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.

al-Hakim’s Response:

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’s Response:

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.

al-Hakim’s Response:

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.

al-Hakim’s Response:

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

________________________

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim

Crooked Comm. Boydine Hall Lies, Admits Lying, Then Denies Lies From Bench to Protect Her Boss!

 

NewTruth Logo-Red1NOWTRUTH.ORG

Award for “Distinguished Marketing and Promotional Services” from NFL Super Bowl NFL Experience,
Founder of BLACK EXPO shown with Olympic Sprinter John Carlos , Hip Hop’s Islamic Influence, 1979 National BALSA Conference , Dellums for Mayor, Hip Hop’s Islamic Influence, 1979 National BALSA Conference, Oakland Police Officers Arrested for Computer Store Burglaries, Police Found Guilty in Burglaries, Police Officers Sentenced for Burglaries,


You can click on any highlighted word to view or download that item

MEDIA ADVISORY

March 4, 2015,  Oakland, CA:

Contact:
Martin Silverman (510) 394-4701
nowtruth@nowtruth.org;

    These actions are unconscionable!
Read and distribute widely!!!

Martin

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’s 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”.

Hall, clearly disturbed blurts out “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.

BoyHall Conf3

Bad Good Ole Boy Hall works for DA’s 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!!!!

Hall 5PeopleShe 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!!!

Hall JudicialEvaluation

You can read and/or download the Statement of Disqualification of both Boy Hall and Judge Stephan Pulido at:

https://app.box.com/s/2guzwdxcs7kmawmrn1h694rfuz9734q8

Father Fights District Attorney Fraud and Extortion of Daughter and Family!

 

NewTruth Logo-Red1NOWTRUTH.ORG

Award for “Distinguished Marketing and Promotional Services” from NFL Super Bowl NFL Experience,
Founder of BLACK EXPO shown with Olympic Sprinter John Carlos , Hip Hop’s Islamic Influence, 1979 National BALSA Conference , Dellums for Mayor, Hip Hop’s Islamic Influence, 1979 National BALSA Conference, Oakland Police Officers Arrested for Computer Store Burglaries, Police Found Guilty in Burglaries, Police Officers Sentenced for Burglaries,


You can click on any highlighted word to view or download that item

MEDIA ADVISORY

March 4, 2015,  Oakland, CA:

Contact:
Martin Silverman (510) 394-4701
nowtruth@nowtruth.org;

    These actions are unconscionable!
Read and distribute widely!!!

Martin

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:

https://app.box.com/s/2guzwdxcs7kmawmrn1h694rfuz9734q8

ABDUL-JALIL AL-HAKIM

7633 Sunkist Drive

Oakland, CA  94605

Tel: (510) 394-4501

Defendant

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

 

I, Abdul-Jalil al- Hakim, declare:

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.

Continue reading Father Fights District Attorney Fraud and Extortion of Daughter and Family!