Tigar’s Perjurious, Deceptive, Fraudulent Bereavement And Trial Ending Orders
Tigar’s orders denying al-Hakim’s afore noticed and approved bereavement request and ending the trial in al-Hakim’s noticed absence, as do the others, presents clear, uncontroverted, unopposed, uncontested, corroborated proof Tigar has written, signed and submitted willfully perjurious, deceptive and fraudulent orders in attempting to deceive the public in support of his rulings; 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; 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.; the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the corresponding Federal Statutes; Business and Professions Code; 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 was a high probability he would continue his unethical behavior as he continued in a judicial capacity in the case. Click here to View or Download Perjurious Order Ending CSAA Trial
al-Hakim News of Expected Passing of Two More Over Forty Year Friends and Associates
On Thursday, April 3, 2008 at approximately 1:45 p.m. al-Hakim faxed a letter to Judge Tigar in Department 21 and defense counsel Steve Barber to notify the court of his possible leave for bereavement due to the expected demise of two additional friends of over forty years as well. He did so to facilitate the courts efforts and give them four days to notify the jury of this possibility before resuming expected trial on Monday April 7, 2008.
al-Hakim Called and Personally Served Notice To The Court
On Friday morning, April 3, 2008 al-Hakim had the letter of the previous day personally served upon the court and at approximately 10:45 a.m. al-Hakim called the court to ascertain the fact they had received the letter of the previous day that he had faxed and personally served upon the court. al-Hakim got no answer to his phone call and in his voicemail message he left on the courts recorder, he requested that the court notify him of their position on this request for bereavement ASAP. al-Hakim never received an answer from the court to the fax, personally served letter, or phone voicemail message.
The Passing of Shababu Kawaeta
On late Friday night, April 4- early Saturday morning, April 5 around 1:00 a.m. the news of Brother Shababu Kawaeta’s (Edward H. Bradshaw, loving referred to as “Shaw”) death was received by the community. This was the second death of another very dear 40 year friend in a matter of weeks that al-Hakim had not taken time to grieve and pay proper respect to. On this occasion, it was not only necessary and desired, it was religiously obligatory. There was no other alternative comfortable for al-Hakim and the trial could surely be continued for three-four days given the circumstances of now two deaths during the short time of the trial.
Tigar Legal Charges
al-Hakim Notice Of Pending Janaazah
On Monday, April 7, 2008 al-Hakim faxed another letter to Judge Tigar and defense counsel Steve Barber to update them on this second death of another very dear, 40 year friend in a matter of weeks, notice of the impending demise of perhaps a third whom died later, some unexpected complications with the release of the body, the pending Janaazah, the duration of the leave for bereavement and return to the court trial.(Click here to View or Download letter attached under Ex E -Plaintiff’s Complaint to Judicial Council etc., as Exh D) In the letter al-Hakim referred to his faxed letter, personally served letter, phone voicemail message of Friday, April 4, 2008 and his request to get an answer from the court to his bereavement request ASAP. al-Hakim never received an answer from the court to this fax either.
al-Hakim Notice Of Return To Trial
On Thursday, April 10, 2008 al-Hakim faxed another letter to Judge Tigar and defense counsel Steve Barber to update them on the completion of the Janaazah and his return to the court trial on April 14, 2008 resuming examination of Ron Cook on the witness stand.(Click here to View or Download letter attached under Ex E -Plaintiff’s Complaint to Judicial Council, as Exh D) al-Hakim never received an answer from the court to this fax either.
al-Hakim Files Second Complaint With Judicial Council Against Judge Tigar
On April 11, 2008 al-Hakim filed a second formal complaint against Judge Tigar with The Honorable Victoria B. Henley, Director-Chief Counsel of the Sate of California Commission on Judicial Performance, requesting audio recording of all matters that were to be heard in Department 21 given the continued egregious misconduct of Judge Tigar during Judge Leo Dorado’s testimony.
Tigar’s Denial Of al-Hakim’s Request for Bereavement
Latter that evening on April 11, 2008 when al-Hakim returned to the location at 6:30 p.m., al-Hakim received an order from Judge Jon Tigar dated April 9, 2008 denying al-Hakim’s request for bereavement on Monday April 7, 2008 as a request to continue the trial to the alleged prejudice of the defendants. (Click here to View or Download Order) The order further notes that in plaintiff’s request there was no mention of who died or why plaintiff could not have attended to the matter during the previous week that court was in recess for Tigar’s inferred vacation. Tigar makes this statement though the court was fully aware that:
1) That plaintiff in serving in Pro Per, is acting as counsel in this case;
2) That plaintiff is a material witness;
3) The trial could not proceed without him;
4) There is no greater reason for a continuance than death or bereavement;
5) Tigar’s presumptive stashing order delaying Cook’s testimony provides prejudice as shown by the loss of a material witnesses;
6) That the timing of al-Hakim’s justified absence from the requested, afore noticed and approved leave for bereavement and Tigar’s granting leave for Cook’s alleged vacation until April 14, 2008 would have allowed the parties to be away at the same time to the prejudice of absolutely NO ONE;
7) the continuance would allow Cook to resume the witness stand and avoiding the loss of the material witness;
8) If prejudice on a motion for continuance may be shown by the loss of a material witnesses and the motion denied, surely the continuance of the testimony of a material witness currently on the stand being examined until a time beyond which the trial is expected to last is patently prejudicial and operates to the same affect as losing that witness;
9) If a trial continuance must be denied on that basis, and surely if a material witness must testify in accordance with the fair and proper administration of justice, then it is inconceivably improper not to continue the trial until such time as that testimony of the material witness can be had. So as an alternate means in this case, the proper ruling would have been to continue the trial until April 14, 2008 or such time as Cook could resume the stand to accommodate his alleged vacation, and allow for plaintiff’s bereavement leave at the same time to the prejudice of absolutely NO ONE and the interest of justice is best served. Tigar’s order is circumscribed in perjury, fraud, deceit and completely void of truth, reason, fairness and due process.
Tigar’s Nulification of Trial
al-Hakim Receives Document entitled “Minutes” Concluding the Trial
On Monday morning, April 14, 2008 al-Hakim arrived in Department 21 and was welcomed by the court staff with a document entitled “Minutes” alleged to be an order from Judge Tigar concluding the trial in his absence and awarding a judgment in favor of the defendants.(Click here to View or Download Minutes)
al-Hakim also filed with Department 21 a packet of documents including the complaint against judge Tigar filed with the Judicial Council, Judge Northridge, and Judge Hernandez, copies of the letters of bereavement, a letter to Stephan Barber regarding the documents Cook failed to produce, and letters to Bruce Bogart.
This document entitled “Minutes” presumably purports to be minutes of the hearing held on April 9, 2008 and entered on the same date. The document states that the cause was called for jury trial on April 9, 2008 with al-Hakim absent and defendants CSAA and Ken George represented by Stephan Barber with company representative Douglas Kroll present and proceeds as follows:
At 3:12 p.m. the Court, defense counsel and Kroll are present and Tigar has read all of the testimony of unavailable witnesses and has marked it as Defendant’s #1579 and admitted. It does not say whom the unavailable witnesses were, why they were unavailable, what efforts were made by defendants to secure their testimony, what proof they have of their efforts to secure the testimony of the unavailable witness and what testimony was read.
At 3:15 Kroll resumes the stand for further testimony. It makes no mention of the previous testimony of Kroll, when it happened, for how long, what was testified to, what exhibits were introduced? Kroll is presented with Exhibits marked and admitted as Defendants #1580: alleged printouts of All Payments made by CSAA to Plaintiff on Claim 01; Defendants #1581: alleged All Claims “H” and “G” drafts paid by CSAA to Plaintiff on Claim 02, Defendants #1582: alleged Compilation of All “H”drafts Payments on Claims 01 and 02 including Copies of Checks; Defendants #1583: alleged Supplemented Copy of Answer to Form Interrogatories in al-Hakim vs City of Oakland.
At 3:25 p.m. Kroll is excused. Barber makes a request to vacate the courts order for Ron Cook to appear on Monday, April 14, 2008 and the request is granted.
At 3:35 p.m. Defendants REST their case and at 3:36 p.m. they present Closing statement.
At 4:18 p.m. the matter is submitted.
IT IS ADJUDGED that al-Hakim take nothing by the action from defendants and defendants recover from al-Hakim costs per memo, $127,128.63 principal, 101,696.00 interest, and Attorneys fees per memo/motion and costs per memo. Defendant is to prepare the judgment, and set a compliance hearing for September 10, 20087 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 21.
At 4:41 p.m. the Court is adjourned.
al-Hakim has never received any other order from the courts or the defendants reflecting the endorsed, filed stamp ruling of the court.
These minutes makes no mention of the events of the trial days of April 7-9, 2008, the seating or dismissal of the jury, any jury instructions, nothing what so ever. Where are the minutes of those days and what occurred?
The minutes state that al-Hakim has voluntarily absented himself. By, Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. the court was well aware that al-Hakim was at a Janaazah (funeral) at that very same moment!
Perhaps more exemplary of the vindictive nature of Tigar, these minutes were allegedly recorded and entered on April 9, 2008 yet they were never mailed to al-Hakim, instead they were held by the court until al-Hakim appeared for trial on April 14, 2008 unknowing that the trial had been concluded in his absence.
Tigar obviously thought this stunt would shock and enrage al-Hakim and there would be violence which explains the presence of TWO armed Sheriffs in the courtroom and Tigar was not visible. To Tigar’s dismay, that did not occur.
Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge Conceals Corruption
al-Hakim Files Complaint Against Judge Tigar With Alameda County Presiding Court Judge
On April 14, 2008 al-Hakim hand delivered a complaint against Judge Tigar to Alameda County
Presiding Court Judge, the Honorable Yolanda Northridge in Department 1 and former Presiding Court Judge George Hernandez in conjunction with the second formal complaint against Judge Tigar with The Honorable Victoria B. Henley, Director-Chief Counsel of the Sate of California Commission on Judicial Performance, requesting audio recording of all matters that were to be heard in Department 21 given the continued egregious misconduct of Judge Tigar during Judge Leo Dorado’s testimony.
al-Hakim’s Diligence in Obtaining Leave for Bereavement
al-Hakim’s efforts to notice the court a month in advance of the desired bereavement continuance, to send another notice four days before trial resumed requesting the continuance and a response from the court, to call and send another notice three days before the trial resumed again requesting the continuance and a response from the court, to send another notice the day the trial resumed on April 7, 2008 providing an update on the bereavement continuance and requesting a response from the court, and to send another notice two days after the trial resumed providing an update on the bereavement continuance and requesting a response from the court, were sufficiently diligent so that denial of the continuance constituted an abuse of discretion or a violation of his right to due process and a fair trial.
It is anomalous for Tigar and the court to construe the statute to permit the key witness to leave the stand under oath and examination to take an alleged week vacation and more importantly, to return after the time that the court anticipates the trial will end pursuant to defendant’s own bad faith act to procure Cooks absence. This even after Tigar had just taken a week vacation, and then limited the application of the statute to deny al-Hakim’s requested bereavement continuance with a months notice while al-Hakim was irredeemably bereaved from TWO deaths with another shortly after and still conducted trial throughout the pendency of his grief which was not attributable to any act of will on the part of al-Hakim.
Tigar’s Inhumanity With Denial
Judge Tigar exhibited his punitive, retaliatory inhumanity by denying al-Hakim’s long noticed rightful request for the expected bereavement of his 40 year friends during the trial. al-Hakim never received a response from the court to his many varied efforts to gain the continuance BEFORE the trial resumed on April 7, 2008. The court could have simply called al-Hakim and informed him of the courts wish for him to come in and explain the circumstances if that was Tigar’s decision, but that was too much like fair and right. So instead Tigar ignored al-Hakim’s plea for guidance and/or approval from the court and denied the bereavement request after the fact.
This outrageous action was taken notwithstanding the fact that on several occasions al-Hakim has witnessed in the courtroom during hearings Tigar request the clerk, Pam Drummer to call a party attorney whom had not appeared and instruct them to come to court. al-Hakim has also witnessed when a couple of those parties finally did appear and Tigar’s ruling was not to dismiss their case or continue trial without them. Furthermore, al-Hakim has previously called, left voicemail messages, faxed and emailed the court many times without any complaint or problem and the court has done likewise to al-Hakim. Tigar even boasts of having had explict phone, fax and email contact with al-Hakim in documents he filed with the court. So why is there no communication now?
On one occasion during trial, al-Hakim sent a letter to the court and defense counsel informing them that he had been contacted by the Oakland Police Department and been requested to report to the investigators whom had recovered al-Hakim’s vehicle that had been “stolen” a month earlier from a repair shop. al-Hakim appeared in court with the letter and requested that he be allowed to attend to this police matter and that he knew nothing more than what he was informed of in the letter. Tigar allowed al-Hakim leave to address the police matter for the morning of the trial preparedness hearings with al-Hakim to return at 1:00 p.m. al-Hakim spent all that time in the police department going through the procedure for the release of the vehicle and al-Hakim still was unable to get custody of the vehicle until 9:00 p.m.
On another occasion during a break before meeting the prospective jurors in the trial preparedness hearings, al-Hakim notified the clerk Pam Drummer that he had to go over to the County Superior Court Clerks office to pay the court fees due and after waiting in line al-Hakim walked back over to the court and met the bailiff whom the court had sent to retrieve him. al-Hakim later noticed on his phone where the clerk Pam Drummer had attempted to call him while he was in line at the County Clerks office but al-Hakim’s phone was not on because he had been in court.
Given these examples of the court sending and receiving letters, faxes, emails, voicemails and phone calls; al-Hakim having the court personally served the bereavement request; previously in the courtroom during hearings Tigar requesting the clerk, Pam Drummer to call a party attorney whom had not appeared and instruct them to come to court; the court sending a bailiff to retrieve al-Hakim from the County Clerks offices; and the court granting al-Hakim leave from trial to attend to a police matter, it is unconscionable that Tigar could summarily deny the long noticed and expected bereavement request without any good faith attempt to either understand or accept the the request or even respond to al-Hakim’s request for guidance and/or approval from the court BEFORE the trial was to resume on April 7, 2008.
This brazen misconduct and gross abuse of discretion is emblematic of Tigar’s penchant for deceit, provocation, and retaliation predicted by al-Hakim in his many Challenges for Cause to disqualify Tigar filed in this matter. Tigar could not change in this matter and given the many, many remorseless, vicious, dastardly transgressions he has committed that al-Hakim has oft complained of and documented in this case, he’s always proven to be incapable of the fair and proper administration of justice. What Tigar did was a willful and intentional unjustified abandonment of the doctrine of fairness and the right to due process during trial.