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

Courtroom Convict Judge Freedman Back Committing Crime!!

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!

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!”

Be Sociable, Share!