Please Support AMWFT Efforts with Your Secure Paypal Sponsorship Donation

Sponsorship of a Benefit!

Clients & Friends: MJ and Hammer

Hammer- GOD sent me an Angel

"hammer-grammysGOD sent me an ANGEL" - Hammer speaking about Abdul-Jalil

Man Who Turn$ HIt$ Into Million$

Ed Snowden PRISM Whistleblower Part 1

Ed Snowden PRISM Whistleblower Part 1

Shop AMAZON and Help US Help OTHERS

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

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”

“Reppin Superstar Pro Athletes & Entertainers”

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

Purchase SUPERSTAR MANAGEMENT Lecture Series

Lecture Series Purchase Prices

Adeel Malik Testimonial on Jalil

“"In some religions they honor people who serve like you with SAINTHOOD!”"

Adeel

-Economics Professor Adeel Malik, Oxford University, England-

Speaking about Abdul-Jalil and the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation

 

Oscar Grant's "Fruitvale Station"

Oscar Grant's "Fruitvale Station"

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

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

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

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

1995 Pizza Hut Commercial with Deion Sanders and Jerry Jones

1995 Pizza Hut Commercial with Deion Sanders and Jerry Jones

Black Sports Leaders Summitt on Civil Rights

Black Sports Leaders Summitt on Civil Rights

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

Previous Posts

Nowtruth Pages

Nowtruth Documents Box

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)


[recaptcha]

 I want to subscribe and join Legal Coalition for Victory!

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

Be Sociable, Share!