Miscreant Judge Jon Tigar Being Protected By Victoria Henley and the State Judicial Council; Alameda County Superior Court Presiding Court judge Yolanda Northridge, and Ronald G. Overholt and the California Judges Association
al-Hakim has established that Judge Jon Tigar has written, signed and submitted willfully perjurious, deceptive and fraudulent orders in attempting to deceive the public in support of his rulings; responded to his disqualification by his failure and refusal to timely filing an answer; doing so 8 days later only after al-Hakim had requested the written answer at least six times; filing an answer 8 days later only after al-Hakim contested his continued sitting in the case and indicated his intent to file an appeal for same; stating al-Hakim “attacks judges” in his answer without any explanation; calling al-Hakim a liar in his answer without any substance; publicly criticizing al-Hakim in court on the record; repeatedly lied under oath; made knowingly false statements in an effort to demean, humiliate and provoke plaintiff while lying under oath and perjury; dishonesty; fraudulent deception; calumny deceit; willful and prejudicial misconduct; abuse of discretion; negligence; bias; prejudice; misrepresentation; incompetence; conflict of interest; bad faith; collusion; denial of due process; obstruction of justice; racism; bigotry; has exhibited, expressed and shown a fixed opinion of al-Hakim; displayed favoritism towards the defendants; made false accusations; harassed al-Hakim; has willfully, deceitfully and recklessly indulged in a series of offensive acts and statements against plaintiff and has displayed disdain, malice, and a mental attitude or disposition toward al-Hakim that prohibits the right to
a fair hearing or trial; failed and refused to respond to the allegations contained in the challenges for cause; conduct prejudicial; and advocated a judicial imprimatur of the defense’s position are grounds for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085; on the ground of misconduct, prejudicial misconduct, bias, and prejudice in violations of Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.0-170.5; specifically 170, subd. (a)(5); 170, subd. (e); 170.1, subdivision (a)(2); 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(C); 170.3, subd. (c)(1); 170.3, subd. (c)(5); 170.3, subd. (d); 170.l(a)(6), §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8) and 3C( a corresponding Federal Statute, 28 United States Code section 455(a) adopted by Congress in 1974); Business and Professions Code sections 6068, subdivisions (b) and (f), 6103 and 6106 and former rule 7-105(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 8, 18; see Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3D(1).); and violates al-Hakim’s fundamental civil rights and due process under the law guaranteed by the United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, and XIV, and as applicable to this state of California Constitution by the first clause of Section 13 of Article I; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3). Judge Tigar’s persistent willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, promised retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability he would continue his unethical behavior if he were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future.
Specious Tigar’s Legal Charges
In December 2008 al-Hakim filed a judicial complaint against dispicable Judge Tigar with Victoria Henley of the State Judicial Council; Ala Co presiding court judge Yolanda Northridge, and Ronald G. Overholt of the California Judges Association The 93 page complaint was accompanying the Seventh Challenge For Cause, a 253 page document with over 500 pages of exhibits. The complaint posed specific questions to ALL PARTIES that require direct written responses, not evasive, boiler plate, stock, non-answers. The statutes of California expressly provide that the suppression of a fact by one who gives information of other facts likely to mislead for want of communication of the fact concealed is deceit (Civ. Code, sec. 1710), and any other act fitted to deceive is actual fraud. (Civ. Code, sec. 1572.) Civ. Code, § 137.) After six months to date, all four have failed and refused to answer the charges in the complaint.
Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge Conceals Corruption
Judge Northridge’s Non-Response to al-Hakim’s April 14, 2008 Complaint vs Tigar
al-Hakim received a letter dated April 15, 2008 from Judge Northridge acknowledging receipt of the complaint, promising a response and referring the matter to the Supervising Judge, Robert Freedman for review. But after over a year of waiting to date, al-Hakim has not received the promised response. 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 here. He has a checkered past in this 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. Everyone is convinced that he will not seriously review nor is he capable of impartially or fairly judging this matter, even for review of Tigar, his next door neighbor in the courtroom.
On April 11, 2008 al-Hakim filed a judicial complaint against specious Judge Jon Tigar with Victoria Henley of the State Judicial Council; Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge, and former Presiding Court Judge George Hernandez that over a year later, all four have failed and refused to answer.
Perhaps the single most important reason why Victoria Henley, Yolanda Northridge, and Ronald George, heads of the displinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in this case, has been so derilict in doing so, is because they are inextricablly placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defenfant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparrable loss of pubilc confindence in the legal system.
In March 2007 al-Hakim filed a judicial complaint against Judge Frank Roesch with then presiding court judge George Hernandez that to date nearly three years later, both failed and refused to answer the charges in the complaint.
Tigar’s Mental Meltdown On Bench, Denies 750 Page Indictment Without Reading It!
On August 28, 2008 al-Hakim hand delivered a letter to Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge requesting a reservation number to file a Motion to Vacate the fraudlent Rescue judgment after hearing noting he had already received an order from former Presiding Court Judge Barbara Miller to exceed the 15 page limit on Points and Authorities for that filing. al-Hakim never received a response to that written request.
al-Hakim again request that reservation number to file the Motion to Vacate the Rescue judgment after hearing from Pres Ct Judge Yolanda Northridge with notice to ALL Parties on page five of the December 12, 2008 complaint and again al-Hakim has never received a response to that request.
Alameda County Superior Court Corruption
On May 7, 2008 al-Hakim hand delivered a letter to Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge requesting a reservation number to file a Motion to Vacate the fraudlent and perjurious trial ending orders of Judge Jon Tigar, wherein al-Hakim mentioned the known bias of Tigar’s best friend Judge Roesch in Department 31 as the reason to file the motion elsewhere and the fact that Northridge has had to recuse herself from matters involving al-Hakim in the past. The only response al-Hakim received from her was to refer him back to Tigar for his now well noted continued abuse. There was no reference to the conflicts on Roesch’s or her parts at all.