- Judge Roesch’s Arrogance, Willful Misconduct, Racism and Corruption
Among the incidents of patterned willful misconduct, Plaintiff al-Hakim correctly predicted in his filed answer to the “Items to Be Appraised” of Judge Roesch’s guised confusion and intentional erroneous ruling on the matter of calculating “loss and value” at the May 24, 2006 hearing; Roesch’s July 12, 2006 order refuses to submit a major part of Claim 02 to appraisal and denies the provision that insures 100% Replacement Cost Guarantee of the replacement cost only for plaintiff’s Dwelling and Personal Property; Roesch’s order awards the defendants with legal and contractual benefits they have plead, argued, and been denied in the past and are not legally nor contractually entitled to; Roesch has previously granted defendants a very controversial ruling on plaintiff’s motion to vacate a stipulation, yet denied plaintiff’s request to have the attorney whom executed the stipulation without plaintiff’s knowledge or permission, that was present pursuant to a subpoena, to testify at that hearing without any explanation when asked; he ignored the evidence of plaintiff’s declaration that he was not aware of the document until much later; he concluded that plaintiff should have been aware of the document once he took control of the files without considering the fact that several judges prior to Roesch have stated that this is the largest case file in Alameda County Superior Court history with over 50 file boxes of documents; that it would have been impossible to review and find that document that plaintiff was unaware of it’s existence; and Roesch summarily dismissed the motion without any basis in fact or law. This coming from someone whom admits that the files a voluminous and he himself did not look through them at the same time that he is condemning plaintiff for not doing so! Plaintiff requested that the record reflect that the attorney was present under subpoena and available for questions but Roesch refused to allow the witness to testify.
In an exhibit of pure arrogance and to insure that plaintiff understood that he was committing in-your-face, clear, gross, corrupt misconduct, bias and prejudice, -Roesch, still seated on the bench, then gave a “wink and a nod” and asks the attorney still seated in the audience if he knew a particular gentleman, when the attorney responded “no” Roesch said “You look just like him” inciting the old incriminating racial epithet that “all niggers look alike” and plaintiff reminded him by stating “you know we all look alike”. Plaintiff further stated that “you could not ask him a meaningful question under oath that will affect the disposition of this entire case, but you can ask him that?.
On another occasion when court was adjourned, plaintiff had to return to the court room to request a transcript of the two hearings mentioned, plaintiff handed a written letter request to the reporter whom responded that she actually was the reporter on both matters and would have the transcript ready by the weekend along with the previously ordered transcript. Roesch, whom was present, in an attempt to intimidate, humiliate and insult plaintiff, then laughed and stated “Ooooh Mr. al-Hakim, YOU’RE SLIPPING!!!, you forgot who she was!!!” taunting plaintiff!. What Roesch did not know was plaintiff had spoken with the reporter but had never met her before and did not know who she was nor if she was the reporter on both hearings.
These comments by judge Roesch 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 Roesch’s actions and remarks constitute conduct prejudicial at a minimum.
Judge Roesch was 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 the judge’s intent was to intimidate, infer, taunt and depict plaintiff as worthless, and as such, impress on those in attendance a judicial imprimatur of the defense’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”].)
On October 31, 2006 Judge Roesch served on the parties an “Order To Show Cause” why the stay that was ordered in this matter should not be lifted. Every order for appraisal since it’s inception in 1999 has been accompanied with a stay. The only exception to that was when plaintiff predicated that Judge Henry Needham would make an erroneous ruling and have to reverse it. That is exactly what he did on his own motion October 7, 2005. There is no logical, ethical, nor legal reason to lift the stay other than to cripple plaintiff’s case while the appraisal is tainted; and the defense and appraisal panel refuse to properly disclose any conflict; and plaintiff will not waive their conflict nor acquiesce to another illegal corrupt appraisal award, as the award is headed for another motion to vacate.
These travesties of justice Roesch 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 Roesch appears to be 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. Plaintiff is entitled to an order to vacate and set aside the July 12, 2006 order; or in the alternate to modify the order compelling Judge Roesch to comply with this Court’s lawful PREVIOUS OCTOBER 7, 1999 ORDER FOR APPRAISAL and ALL Previous NINE Orders on Appraisal, there is no question that Judge Roesch has repeatedly violated plaintiff’s rights and HE CAN NOT SERVE IN THIS MATTER.
2. Roesch’s Contemptuous Emotional Outburst Portends Hostility, Bias and Prejudice Toward Plaintiff
At the hearing on December 11, 2006, Roesch, in an emotional fit of rage, his face red, veins popping out in his neck, leaning over the bench glaring, yelled at plaintiff “You don’t interrupt!!”, “do you hear me!!!, do you hear me!!!”. Plaintiff realizing that Roesch was attempting to provoke him into an angry exchange to prompt a contempt charge, merely stood there silently without any expression. The moments of silence and non response obviously angered Roesch more who repeated his rage with another round of “do you hear me!!!” Plaintiff, still remaining silent and without any expression did nothing, because it was an obvious trap for him to make any response. It was impossible for anyone within a block of the courtroom not to hear him and the redundant question needed no answer, especially after being ordered not to speak. Roesch then yells “ I am waiting for an answer!!!”. Plaintiff responded” I have not said anything, obviously I understand english”. Roesch’s malicious, hostile, contemptuous outburst indicates that he is not emotionally stable enough to sit in this matter and should recuse as 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. Roesch has established a climate of terror and lawlessness in his courtroom, wherein Plaintiff feels under siege, fear and unsafe, as his continued reign of abuse, misconduct, racism and religious bigotry meet the criterion mentioned here of judicial misconduct under Spruance, supra, that demand removal form office.
3. Roesch is An Unmitigating Liar
Roesch recently at a hearing on December 28, 2006, stated that he had searched the file on the previously vacated appraisal award and had not found where the panel had awarded personal and business property losses to Plaintiff, and plaintiff was “confused” with his order of July 12, 2006 that had excluded those items. This is nothing more than a blatant lie to conceal his obvious attempt to cheat plaintiff, his family, his business, clients, and all those affected out of millions of dollars in actual and projected losses and damages in the defenses bidding for them where they have been perviously denied and could not do it for themselves. Plaintiff confronted Roesch on June 15, 2006 with the truth of these matters and that he would make the erroneous ruling BEFORE he made the ruling. Roesch exhibited guised confusion to conceal his true intent, but it was transparent to plaintiff. plaintiff again gave notice to Roesch on July 17. 2006 that the order was in error and requested that he modify it at that time, but Roesch refused.
At the hearing after Roesch stated that “the way this is going to go is, you (plaintiff) where confused with the ruling”. Plaintiff retorted that “That’s not true!!”, I was never confused, and was never deceived by the guised confusion exhibited by you(Roesch)”. The vacated award did address the personal and business property in claim 02 as did judge Richmond order vacating the appraisal, so they were there for you to see, you are not being truthful and you(Roesch) clearly tried to steal millions of dollars from me and my family, and if I am not going to let the defendants do that, I am certainly not going to let YOU do it!!”. Roesch plainly lied to conceal his willful and intentional attempt to cheat plaintiff and impact the outcome of this case. He was forced to vacate his order only after plaintiff had to file a motion to vacate it.
4. Roesch’s Bigotry
Petitioner notified the court on September 18, 2006, ALL OTHER PARTIES by September 22, 2006, and defense counsel on August 16, 2006 of his annual retreat from September 23-October 29, 2006(see letters attached under Exhibit D). This time happen to coincide with Judge Roesch’s vacation. Petitioner reminded the Respondent court that Mr. Yovino-Young was appointed umpire at a time when he was on a one month vacation, and Mr. Brown has been away several times since his appointment as appraiser for Petitioner.
The defense exposes their inherent bigotry and that of the court by suggesting that plaintiff was not entitled to retreat during Ramadan, though he notified the court and defendants two months in advance and no one complained until after he was in retreat, filed this motion while he was in retreat and failed and refused to serve him. Roesch was also on vacation (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) during the same time that plaintiff was in retreat. These efforts of the defense and the court may qualify as a Hate Crime under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts, (see Hate Crimes under Exhibit D) while they are clear acts of religious bigotry and intolerance for which Petitioner will not allow.
Roesch’s complicity with defendants actions implicates fundamental issues of religious liberty and privacy, in violation of his right to the free exercise of his religious beliefs as a Muslim, and religious practices, without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing such. Neither the insurance contract between Petitioner and CSAA nor any statute in California authorizes these actions. The use of judicial power to permit the religious raping of a private individual over that individual’s objections in such circumstances raises significant legal questions, even apart from any religious objections to the procedure.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The First Amendment applies to the states by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Curran v. Mt. Diablo Council of The Boy Scouts (1998) 17 Cal.4th 670, 723 [concurring opinion of Kennard, J.].) The free exercise clause of the First Amendment “guarantees the government will not prevent us from freely pursuing any religion we choose.” (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1112.) Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution likewise guarantees the free exercise of religion. (Id.)
The free exercise clauses of the federal and state constitutions protect religious beliefs absolutely. (Id.) While a court can inquire into the sincerity of a person’s beliefs, “it may not judge the truth or falsity of those beliefs.” (Id., emphasis added.) The court cannot “penalize or discriminate against individuals because of their religious beliefs.” (Id., citing Fowler v. Rhode Island (1953) 345 U.S. 67, 70; 97 L.Ed. 828, 831.)
This is not the first time defendants have attempted to trash Petitioner’s religion and violate his religious beliefs as a Muslim and penalize him for exercising his religious beliefs. Roesch seems to side with the defense and require Petitioner to choose between asserting his valid claim for insurance benefits and following his religious beliefs, at the cost of losing his right to due process and civil rights. This violates his constitutional right to the free exercise of his religion.
5. Roesch’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Specially Set and to Determine Time
A. Denial of Plaintiff’s Request to Specially Set for Trial
This Case Management Conference is void of any possibility that the trial date could be set. Still the onus of an early trial setting can not merely be denied by Roesch because it carries the same context and burden as a motion to dismiss and affords Plaintiff and the court the ability to determine the time to be excluded from the five year dismissal statute.
B. Determination of Time to Be Excluded From The Five Year Dismissal Statute
Likewise, the determination of time to be excluded from the five year dismissal statute is necessary whenever there is a motion for an early trial setting and would be necessary when there is also a motion to dismiss. There is no question that this court allowed and participated in the defendants illegal action for dismissal as there was a stay of actions ordered in this matter, that defendants motion to dismiss was improper and without proper legal standing and plaintiff would not waive any rights to the fair and proper litigation of his case by the forced answer to the unserved motion.
Plaintiff had notified the defendants and the court that he would be in retreat several times on August 16, September 18, and 22, 2006. On September 28, 2006, after plaintiff was away, defense counsel Stephan Barber(Thief Robber) sent plaintiff a letter stating that although he is aware that plaintiff is “away and in retreat from September 23 until October 28, 2006” ¶1 and “ defendants assume your retreat is related to the celebration of Ramadan” ¶ 2. He follows that with “defendants intend to file motions in the very near future that will affect your lawsuit” ¶ 4, “defendants can not agree to put off…. to allow you to do nothing to prosecute your lawsuit toward trial” ¶ 4, and “the defendants(and presumably the courts) will expect you to fulfill your obligation as a litigant during that period of time.” ¶ 4.
Judge Roesch authorized and advocated this heinous, malicious, underhanded, unscrupulous, fraudulent, deceptive, shyster legal action of defense counsel’s waiting until plaintiff was in retreat before initiating any action. This action may qualify as a Hate Crime under Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts while they are clear acts of religious bigotry and intolerance for which plaintiff will not allow and is actively pursuing. Why did Barber not bring the action before plaintiff’s retreat September 23, or after October 29, 2006? Why is there no mention of any motion to dismiss in any of the letters or pleadings filed with their response to the courts order to show cause heard on December 11, 2006? There were pleadings filed by the defendants with the court on November 27, 2006, and December 4, 2006 in the order to show cause and they failed to file any notice of non opposition by plaintiff to the motion to dismiss, as there was not one mention of any motion to dismiss in any of the pleadings. That is virtually impossible given the defendants penchant for broadcasting any alleged wrongdoing of plaintiff and highly suspect if that motion is to be believed as legitimate. That motion was without merit, legal standing, proper legal service, was covert on behalf of the court and defendants while of certain surprise in violation of plaintiff’s right to due process and civil rights. California courts recognize that misconduct, bias or prejudice on the part of a judge such as that committed here by Judge Roesch, 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.) These travesties of justice Roesch has committed herein falls under those in Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1983) 33 Cal.3d 371 which were characterized as a “continuous course of overreaching and abuse of judicial authority” ( id. at p. 371) and Roesch 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. The defendants nor Roesch can argue that there was no motion to dismiss pending when this action by Plaintiff was taken. At the hearing on January 16, 2006, he then changes his order by attempting to amend it to read “an order for dismissal under the five year statute” as opposed to an order to dismiss for lack of prosecution. They are both authorized under the same statute and are the same. Another erroneous ruling.
C. Dissolved Stay
Roesch’s illegal dissolving of the stay, which is currently subject of appeal, if legal, can only affect the litigation of this matter and has no impact on the tolling of time to be excluded from the five year statute, as that right is automatic with the appraisal process as argued in plaintiff’s pleadings before this court.
Effective January 1, 1984, California Rules of Court section 1141.17 was amended to read, in pertinent part: “If an action is or remains submitted to arbitration pursuant to this chapter more than four years and six months after the plaintiff has filed the action, then the time beginning on the date four years and six months after the plaintiff has filed the action and ending on the date on which a request for a de novo trial is filed under Section 1141.20 shall not be included in computing the five-year period specified in Section 583.310.” (Italics added.) Because this section encompassed the timing requirements outlined in rule 1602(d), the latter subdivision was repealed.
There are three methods for entering the judicial arbitration/appraisal arena: by stipulation of the parties, by plaintiff’s election, or by order of the court. The former two were termed “consensual,” the latter, “mandatory.”
In Lazelle v. Lovelady (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 34 [217 Cal.Rptr. 145], the court stated, without further analysis, “tolling now occurs whenever an action is submitted to judicial arbitration whether by court order or by plaintiff’s election.” ( Id., at p. 43, fn. omitted.) As in Lazelle v. Lovelady it is clearly established that this case qualifies for tolling from it’s initial filing of the complaint in April 1999 to the
order compelling appraisal in September 1999, until the order on the motion to vacate the appraisal awards in February 2003, and since that time that the order was made to complete a fair and impartial appraisal or to date. It matters not that this was a mandatory order of the court for appraisal and not an arbitration, for the court in Porreco v. Red Top RV Center (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 113 [264 Cal.Rptr. 609], although addressing a stipulation for binding arbitration, agreed: “[T]he effect of this amendment [to section 1141.17] was to make the tolling provision apply whenever an action is submitted to judicial arbitration, regardless of whether this is accomplished by court order.” ( Id., at p. 124.) The statute makes no distinction among the methods for initiating judicial arbitration or court ordered appraisal– court-ordered, plaintiff-initiated, or by stipulation.
Further, the courts have held that “a plaintiff is protected from the diligent prosecution five-year statute simply because the case is in arbitration during the last six months of the statutory five-year period and thereafter. [Citation.]” ( Niesner v. Kusch (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 291, 298 [230 Cal.Rptr. 613].)
Also stated in Niesner, “[T]he Supreme Court succinctly stated that ‘if an action is referred to arbitration or if arbitration is pending during the six-month period preceding a section 583 deadline, the tolling provision of section 1141.17 is applicable.'” ( Niesner v. Kusch, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d 291, 296.)
Tolling is automatic when in appraisal and plaintiff will not waive all the time that defendants have wasted with six years of delays and ten motions for terminating sanctions.
The Commission on Judicial Performance found Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch’s prior discipline an aggravating factor in deciding to admonish him.
An Alameda County judge was publicly admonished Thursday for becoming embroiled in two cases that were both overturned on appeals.
The Commission on Judicial Performance found Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch “displayed a lack of the dispassionate neutrality and the courtesy to others that is expected of judges” while overseeing both a 2015 jury trial and a 2017 property title matter.
“Although Judge Roesch believed, based on faulty assumptions, that his intervention in each case was justified, it is the misguided manner in which he attempted to address his misassumptions, and the discourteous way he comported himself toward those appearing in court before him, that is the basis for this discipline,” the commission wrote.
Roesch’s attorney, Long & Levit partner David McMonigle, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
During the 2015 jury trial, Roesch repeatedly quizzed an insurance adjuster testifying in the case and then suggested she had perjured herself, according to a transcript provided by the commission. After the witness retained an attorney and asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Roesch ordered her to announce that in front of the jury. The judge did not allow cross-examination of the adjuster.
Roesch should not have required the witness to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in front of the jury, nor should he have required a “blanket” declaration, the commission wrote. In 2018, the First District Court of Appeal, citing “several errors” by Roesch overturned the jury verdict.
Roesch said he allowed the witness to invoke a blanket privilege because he thought he had “buy-in from counsel in the case,” according to the commission’s report.
“Having attorneys agree to something the law does not permit does not obviate the judge’s duty to respect and comply with the law,” the commission wrote. “The judge’s action in this regard constituted an intentional disregard of the law.”
In 2017, Roesch engaged in an extensive debate with an attorney representing a client seeking a quiet title judgment. After repeatedly questioning whether anyone would pay supplemental taxes on the property, despite assurances from the new owner that he would, Roesch dismissed the case with prejudice. The First District reversed the ruling.
The commission found that Roesch displayed poor demeanor and became embroiled in the matter.
“Judge Roesch argued that he was merely exercising his ‘gatekeeping’ function because he believed there should have been a probate proceeding to transfer the property,” the commission wrote. “Even if the judge had been correct about his concerns, he could have conveyed those concerns to the parties and counsel without resorting to unduly harsh language.”
The commission found Roesch’s prior discipline an aggravating factor in deciding to admonish him. Roesch, appointed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2001, received a private advisory letter in 2011 for making discourteous remarks to a self-represented litigant.
Nine of the 11 commissioners voted to publicly admonish Roesch. One member, Kay Cooperman Jue, would have imposed a private admonishment. Commissioner Sarah Kruer Jager did not participate in the matter.
Judge Frank Roesch Corruption Leads to Unjust Enrichment as “Our Trash is His CASH!”
In his ruling, Roesch ignored his conflict of having an interest in a garbage company, said, “It is because of that evidence in the record and the unanimity of the uncertainty whether paper bags are less (or more) environmentally friendly than plastic bags that the city cannot assert that there is ‘no possibility’ of any significant environmental effect caused by the ban.”
In a statement, Keith Christman, senior director of the American Chemistry Council’s plastics division, said, “They also take up more space in landfills.” “Banning plastic bags would dramatically increase energy use, double greenhouse gas emissions and increase waste. Recycling plastic bags is the right approach and makes plastic bags the environmentally responsible choice.” He said, “We encourage the city to help Oakland residents improve the recycling of plastic bags consistent with AB 2449, California’s state-wide recycling program,” and “Plastics are a valuable resource – too valuable to waste — and we believe effective implementation of the state’s recycling program is the best and fastest way to steward environmental resources and reduce litter by recycling these bags.”
Michael Mills, the attorney for the Coalition to Support Plastic Bag Recycling, said internal e-mails between Oakland officials last year indicate that they admit that compostable plastic bags aren’t any better for the environment than are regular plastic shopping Bags and he believes Oakland officials only approved the ordinance for “feel-good public relations spin.”
“Uuuuuh a CaCa Roesch is in The Garbage!!!”
Recently Oakland and other parts of the East Bay area wallowed in its own filth with a month’s worth of garbage piling up in the streets from the recent garbage lockout/strike. We know that garbage strikes can be nasty; it was in a garbage strike dispute that Martin Luther King was killed.
The recent lockout affected about 200,000 Waste Management of Alameda County customers in Oakland, Emeryville, San Ramon, Livermore, Albany, Hayward, Newark, Castro Valley and Oro Loma sanitary districts and some unincorporated areas but not other areas of the East Bay. WHY? Ask Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch.
Alameda County Superior Court Law and Motion Judge Frank Roesch has risen the perception of judicial misconduct to a new all time low in official graft and carpet bagging corruption of buying and selling influence and the power of the gavel in the bowels of justice to secure illicit personal gains in politics and business.
The renegade “Caca” Roesch, whom is of latino descent when it is advantageous, is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Tri-City Economic Development Corporation, a local non-profit recycling company that has recently been awarded large contracts for garbage collections and recycling with the Cities of Hayward and Union City and received over $8.5 million dollars in funding supported through tax-exempt bonds that were approved by the California Pollution Control Financing Authority, chaired by state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a Hayward resident.
Tri-City Economic Development Corporation, doing business as Tri-CED Community Recycling, a tax-exempt, nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation with no stockholders list it’s key officials as:
Frank Roesch, Board Chair
Richard Valle, President and CEO
Michael Mahoney, Secretary/Treasurer
33377 Western Avenue, Union City, California 94587
On Tuesday, December 12, 2006 at the City of Union City, City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting, at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 34009 Alvarado Niles Road, Judge Frank Roesch performed the swearing in of Richard Valle. Councilmember Valle thanked his family and supporters for helping him to win re-election. Roesch also performed the swearing in of Councilmember Manny Fernandez.
On February 6, 2007, the City Council of Union City awarded Tri-City Economic Development Corporation, doing business as Tri-CED Community Recycling, a tax-exempt, nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation with no stockholders that is allegedly in the business of collecting curbside wastes in the cities of Union City and Hayward, and provides community recycling, education, job training and economic development a $5,595,937 loan through the California Pollution Control Financing Authority Bond Financing Program and assistance from The Small Business Assistance Fund. The company has recently received over $8.5 million dollars in funding.
The City Council Authority received letters in support of the Project from Assemblymembers Mary Hayashi and Alberto O. Torrico and Senator Ellen M. Corbett. Months earlier leading up to the loan, Senator Ellen Corbett held a private closed door session with the Union City Council.
Recently filed December 2006 State of California statements of political fundraising and contributions of politicians reveal contributions to the campaigns of these politicians by “Caca” Roesch and company.
Roesch and TRI-CED used what can clearly be perceived as official and political graft with corrupt influence in securing the contract with the City of Hayward. In June 2006, Michael Sweeney was elected Mayor for the City of Hayward and had been appointed by the City of Hayward to the Board of Directors of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency in 2006. Mayor Sweeney was first elected to Hayward’s City Council in 1982, and previously served as Mayor from 1990 to 1994. He became a member of the state legislature representing the 18th Assembly District from 1994 to 1998. From 1999 to 2003, he served as Governor Gray Davis’ Undersecretary for the California Resources Agency. He assisted the Secretary in developing policy and overseeing a $5.2 billion budget and 31 departments, conservancies, boards and commissions. Sweeney worked as a consultant with TRI-CED were he assisted TRI-CED with the development of their e-waste program, community relations, contract negotiations, and obtaining the grant funding. The political connections are like a veritable Who’s Who in local/statewide politics with TRI-CED employing, among many others, the services of John Dutra, former Assemblymember, to give presentations. Something smells besides the garbage in the East Bay but rest assured there will not be a strike in cockroach’s land. If an African-American judge or politician had done this they would be Under jail!
Frank “Caca” Roesch has been charged in legal proceedings with, among others, exhibiting willful corrupt misconduct, hostility, bias and prejudice, is an unmitigating liar, crook, thief, racist, bigot, has unclean hands, and is incapable of the fair and proper administration of justice and has gone to extreme lengths to establish that fact as he finds truth inconvenient, evidence oppressive, law inapplicable, and justice intolerable!. He simply utters convenient lies that do not pass the applicable test of truth.
But in Oakland, City Attorney John Russo and city officials said garbage was stacking up, Waste Management was in breach of contract, the trash created a public nuisance, and they had received more than 3,000 complaints which lead the city to ask an Alameda County Superior Court judge to issue a court order compelling the garbage hauler to pick up trash. Oddly enough Russo himself has been subpoenaed for the City Attorney’s own role in spoliation of evidence, subornation of perjurious testimony, and unclean hands in turning over the court files to a defendant in a case for six months, not notifying the court of the brake in the chain of custody of the files, nor the critical missing documents after the return of the files by the defense counsel.
Judge Richard Keller issued that injunction after holding a contempt-of-court hearing. Waste Management faced fines of as much as $2,500 for every missed collection beyond the contracted 20 missed collections per day in Oakland.
The Pick up of Garbage was Clearly Defined by Racial and Economic Lines
A survey of homes and businesses from Albany to San Ramon found that trash is being taken away on time in well-to-do neighborhoods.
Service in poorer neighborhoods , particularly in the Oakland flatlands, Fruitvale, East Oakland and West Oakland is spottier. Garbage bins were overflowing days, even weeks after the trash was supposed to have been picked up, but no garbage trucks had been by since the lockout began.
“I call them every day and (the phone) is busy, busy, busy,” store proprietor Mohammad Ali said, looking at the bin near the intersection of 34th and Helen streets. “Customers come in and tell us about it. They think it is because we didn’t pay the bill. But we tell them it isn’t our fault.”
Elteaser Lomax, with her primary residence on Rhoda Avenue near MacArthur Boulevard in the modest Dimond district of Oakland. “The smell is terrible,” Lomax said. She received a recorded message from Waste Management on Sunday saying her garbage would be picked up this week, but it wasn’t.
A store clerk who would only give his last name of Krishna said he had called Waste Management several times to complain. “I don’t know what they’re doing or when they’re doing it,” he said. “I know they’re not cleaning it up.”
“People down here pay dues here, too,” said Shaunté Childs, 19, on 98th Avenue, where trash bins weren’t being picked up.
Scott Haggerty, president of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, said his office had received complaints that “lower-income areas of the county are not being paid as much attention to.”
Waste Management spokeswoman Monica Devincenzi denied that the company was picking up trash in more affluent areas at the expense of poorer neighborhoods.
Service was more predictable in more affluent areas, in Oakland and elsewhere. At Montclair Village, a shopping center in the hills above Highway 13, the Montclair Egg Shop restaurant had its garbage picked up on Wednesdays and Fridays, as scheduled.
“Everything is like normal,” said Mario Maita, a server at the restaurant. “No problems.”
In Albany, Dave Lyons had noticed no disruption of service. He’d know, too. Not only does he regularly walk his dog Gus near Santa Fe Avenue, he’s a real estate appraiser and is always eyeballing properties.
If garbage is getting picked up more often in middle-class and wealthier neighborhoods than in poorer ones, Lyons knows why.
“I’m 63 years old, and this is about money and power and clout,” Lyons said. “Look around at this neighborhood. There’s Wall Street Journals on the doorsteps here. I’m just guessing that if the people in charge of picking up the garbage are going to decide where not to pick it up, it’s going to be in the neighborhoods where people don’t vote, they don’t complain and they don’t have clout.”
Residents served by Waste Management on tree-lined Tahiti Drive and Bahama Court near the Crow Canyon Country Club in San Ramon aren’t complaining either. The trash is scheduled to be picked up today, and no one’s expecting any delays.
“Last week, they picked up mine,” said resident Dennis Dutra. “As far as I know, it’s business as usual.”
Cindy Simons, a Castro Valley woman filed a class-action lawsuit against Waste Management claiming they breached its contact as well as broke state business codes when they continued to take payments from residents when it was not providing trash collection service. The suit seeks reimbursement for money already paid Waste Management as well as damages.
How important is it to the integrity and validity of the proper investigation and analysis of high profile crimes that the finder of fact is in fact guilty of corruption, collusion, conspiracy, extrinsic fraud, breaching the chain of custody giving the case files to defendants for nearly a year, fabricating evidence, planting fabricated evidence in case files and providing that spoliated case file to the courts without informing the court! This fact alone would bring all of their cases under scrutiny with the potential to be overturned!