$158.00 donated in past month
Corruption in California Courts
This story is one that I think you should take notice of. It is about a forthright individual who zealously asserts his rights in a California court of law yet is denied his day in court by judges with less than honorable rulings. Justice has become a casualty as the very court where justice is sought excercises cover-ups and blatant bias. Wasted taxpayer dollars abound yet there is no easy way out for the court. Is it no wonder the state of California has a budget defecit?
August 14, 2009
NEWSNOW! MEDIA ADVISORY
7633 Sunkist Drive, Oakland CA 94605-3032
(510) 638-0808 Fax (510) 638-8889
Contact: Martin Silverman (510) 638-0808
Newsnow1 [at] gmail.com
Judge Charged with Extrinsic Fraud and Nullification
Issues Perjured Order then Tries to Bury Case and Evidence
Judge said to render verdicts based upon bigotry, racism,
bias, social-economic status, class and privilege.
All information contained herein is taken from Superior Court of California, County of Alameda case Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim v. CSAA, Alameda County Case No. 811337-3
This is an over $20 million, 11 year; contentious action; the largest file in the history of Alameda County, over 60 file boxes; over 100 motions and responses; plaintiff had over 300 exhibits; over 5,000 pages of exhibits; 3,000 pages of documents for rebuttal argument; 20 expert witnesses; 77 other witnesses; over 100 pages of jury instructions; numerous allegations of judicial misconduct, where every judge in this case has admitted error, committed perjury, rescued themselves, or all three.
The case sounding in Contract in what began as a simple insurance claim as plaintiff Al-Hakim began revealing concise, irrefutable and straightforward evidence of a “smoking gun” type of the continued blatant and seemingly illegal activities of defense counsel Stephan Barber in this and the underlying case. All key defense evidence and testimony designed and constructed in fraud and deceit and planted in the City of Oakland case file in August 1999 as the product of extrinsic fraud, planting fraudulent evidence, spoliation of evidence, and suborned perjured testimony in support of their defense litigation strategy. It is further proof that the entire City case file was purged and re-constructed to accommodate the defendants litigation strategy in both this and the underlying Rescue Rooter case.
These activities were done in concert with Oakland City Attorneys John Russo, Randy Hall, Elizabeth Allen, Eliada Perez, Janie Wong and former City Attorney Jane Williams and former employee Pat Smith; Stephan Barber and others of the law firm Ropers, Majeski; Ronald J. Cook, Randy Willoughby, Alex Stuart, Bradley Bening and others of the law firm Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; William Jemmott now of the law firm Wilson Elser; Todd Jones and the law firm Archer Norris; Daniel Crowley of the law firm Daniel Crowley & Assoc.; Fletcher Alford, Joel K. Liberson and the law firm Gordon & Rees; Sean Robert O’Halloran now of the law firm Crone Rozynko; Anne Brooks Harrigan now of the law firm Grancell, Lebovitz, Stander, Barnes & Reubens; Yolanda Marnell Jackson now of the law firm Jackson Alternative Dispute Resolution; the law firm of Caven, Cleaveland, Murray; the former law firm of Jackson Harrigan; John Ratto and Dean K. Beyer, of ASU Group (formerly D. L. Glaze); defendants Rescue Rooter and Bay Area Carpet Cleaning; and retired Judges David Lee, Michael Ballachey, and Richard Hodge.
Retired judges Lee, Ballachey, and Hodge, though they live in three different counties, all coincidently hired the same Oakland defense firm. There has been judiciary litigation support given by now Appellate Judges Barbara Jones, James Richman, and Henry Needham and Superior Court Judge Frank Roeschwhom had disqualifications or complaints filed against them with cover and sanctuary provide by Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge and former Alameda County Presiding Court Judge George Hernandez that portrays corruption.
All of the parties above were aware of or should have been aware of the blatant illegal activities of defense counsels Stephan Barber and Shawn O’Halloran in this and the underlying case and that all their key evidence and testimony was the product of extrinsic fraud, planting fraudulent evidence, spoliation of evidence, and suborned perjured testimony in support of their defense litigation strategy. Al-Hakim has previously served multiple deposition and trial subpoenas on all the parties named above and they have all failed to appear every time.
In what would appear a deceitful manner, Judge Jon Tigar openly confessed at a hearing on August 4, 2008 that one of the major concerns in this Al-Hakim v. CSAA Insurance case is his desire to protect his own interest (and those of other judges, his friends and defendant parties) and not to have those damaging issues (testimony, facts, and evidence) presented in this case. Tigar has recently attempted to bury this case and the evidence of his nullification by constructing and issuing perjured orders; withholding the filing and serving of endorsed orders until such time as the right to an appeal was encumbered; twice denying the presentation of that damaging evidence in a Separate Statement of Facts with Exhibits part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, submitted by Al-Hakim; denying and then delaying the hearing on crucial motions until such time as the right to an appeal has run.
Al-Hakim’s charges that Tigar committed extrinsic fraud upon the court, Sate and al-Hakim with his judicial “slight-of-hand” by staging his recuing himself when formally Challenged for Cause and Disqualification by Al-Hakim. Although Al-Hakim issued numerous fact supported, uncontested, undeniable, irrefutable charges of lying under oath, perjury, corrupt misconduct, deceit, abuse of process and discretion to disqualify Tigar, he ignored all of Al-Hakim’s charges while failing and refusing answer any of them. However, Tigar chose to stage his recusal based on a law that Al-Hakim did not cite because it did not apply. In doing so, he disregarded the facts, gravity and truth of Al-Hakim’s charges, and altered the controlling law and entitlement of the disqualification in an attempt to avoid scrutiny.
Knowing that Tigar had changed the disqualification from a just law with irrefutable evidence to support the disqualification, to one that was inapplicable and easily defeated, defense counsel Stephan Barber moved to represent Tigar, the interest of the Insurance Company, and himself by filing a motion to deny Tigar’s stepping down and restore his illegal place in this case. Tigar officially made himself a defendant and fourth element in this case though sitting as the judge in this matter, he is now a defendant, co-defense counsel and deputy defense judge ruling in matters that he has lied and has been deceitful about and is personally involved in, was represented by defense counsel Barber himself in an action that was brought by Barber before Tigar to establish his right to sit and rule in the same matter that he is now personally involved in and he sits in judgment of himself before himself. Tigar’s representation by the defense has the unfortunate consequence of making the judge a litigant, obliged to the defense and their counsel by leaving his defense to one of the litigants appearing before him in the same case. Judges should be umpires rather than players. This is a travesty and a mockery of justice with clear conflict that wreaks of corruption and collusion.
On Friday, April 11, 2008 Al-Hakim filed a complaint against Judge Tigar with the Judicial Council and on Monday, April 14, 2008 with the Presiding Court Judge of Alameda County Superior Court. Why has the disciplinary body of the Judiciary, Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge and former Alameda County Presiding Court Judge George Hernandez been so derelict while failing and refusing so miserably to enforce the same rules of conduct and law on incompetent, mendacious Judge Jon Tigar after so many complaints filed? There is no place in justice for this type of prejudicial misconduct that truly smacks of corruption. Tigar, still breast feeding from his father’s name, should not have ever been involved in this case or the Superior Court.
Nullification or Jury Nullification
What is referred to as “nullification” is a jury’s or judge’s “defiance of the law” (U.S. v. Thomas (2d Cir. 1997) 116 F.3d 606, 614.) and rendering verdicts based upon such things as bigotry, racism, bias, political views, public sentiment or outrage, disability, gender, sexual preference, age, social-economic status, physical appearance, class and privilege, among others. It “can cover a number of distinct, though related, phenomena, encompassing … conduct that takes place for a variety of different reasons; jurors or judges may nullify, for example, because of the identity of a party, a disapprobation of the particular prosecution at issue, or a more general opposition to the applicable law or laws.” Nullification simply means that a fair and just verdict cannot or was not reached on the merits of the facts, evidence and testimony. This can also be most effectively executed by unscrupulous judges with the unbridled power of authority to control those factors with no censoring oversight even if it is a jury trial.
Accordingly, “it is important not to encourage or glorify the jury’s or judge’s power to disregard the law. While that power has, on some occasions, achieved just results, it also has led to verdicts such as the Al-Hakim case based upon bigotry, racism, bias, class and privilege, coupled with the desire of Judge Tigar to conceal his transgression in engineering that nullification. A jury or judge that disregards the law and, instead, reaches a verdict based upon their personal views, beliefs and gains, violates one of our nation’s most basic precepts: that we are ‘a government of laws and not men.’ [Citation.]” (Williams, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 459, fn. omitted.)
Nullification certainly has no place in a civil trial where neither party has a right to a general verdict. Nullification is wholly inconsistent with the trial court’s authority in a civil case to order a special verdict in which the jury finds the facts, leaving for the court the determination of the conclusions of law to be drawn from those facts.
In this case, the jury was released by the court before the misconduct could be addressed, the jury trial was never completed and the jury never reached a verdict. Yet all the same objectionable, improper influences from the trial that was in the province of the jury are then safely in the hands of the perpetrator of the improper influences, Tigar, to render judgment for and upon himself as he wished. Tigar’s Statement of The Case and Jury Voire Dire was a refusal to properly and fairly instruct the jury and furnished inferences of the value of Al-Hakim’s claim, that Al-Hakim could not possibly prove his case, and gave the jury an invitation to consider “the weaknesses” of Al-Hakim’s claim.
Al-Hakim found it incomprehensible that no parts of his Statement of the Case could be used in anyway by Tigar, his jury questions submitted to the court for the jury were all prejudicial, his personal jury voire dire questions were all prejudicial, his questions of the witnesses during examination were all disallowed from objections by the defendants repeatedly sustained by Tigar. All his exhibit evidence was inadmissible because it violated the erroneous prejudicial in limine orders, and all his questions of the witnesses during examination were all disallowed because they violated the erroneous prejudicial in limine orders. Yet when Al-Hakim objected, Tigar allowed the matter to go forward without hesitating. Tigar facilitated the misleading argument of defense counsel and the non-responsive testimony of witnesses that emphasized their case theory by refusing to use any portions of plaintiff’s proffered Statement of The Case or Jury Voire Dire.
Tigar told the prospective jurors “to follow the law as instructed by the court.” Tigar did not inform the jury that he had already exercised his inherent power to nullify the law with his many erroneous rulings, including on the Motion to Vacate, an impermissible invasion of the province of the jury and a denial of the historic right of due process. “Tigar engaged in nullification when he removed from the Sixth Amendment the jury’s role” as “the conscience of the community” and “the final barrier against unjust trials and verdicts.”
The Separate Statement of Facts with Exhibits part 1, part 2, part 3,part 4, part 5 Al-Hakim filed an Ex Parte Motion to Exceed the 15 Page Limit and be allowed to file a fifty (50) page memorandum along with a normal fifteen (15) page one. His Motions to Vacate and Set Aside the Trial Related Orders; one that would address the order and issues relative to the Bereavement and at least another to address other trial orders and issues including the limine motions etc.; to the extent the later of those pleadings exceed fifteen (15) pages is made on the grounds that the complexity and number of issues raised by the actions of Judge Jon Tigar, defendants, their defense counsel and several other parties in this and the underlying Rescue Rooter case require a detailed factual and legal analysis in order for the Court to consider those matters on their merits and will exceed the limit of 15 page memoranda. On June 3, 2008 Al-Hakim was granted an order to exceed that limit and allowed to file a thirty (30) page memorandum.
Al-Hakim filed the two motions, one of the court ordered 30 page memoranda and one of the regular 15 page limits as expected and the hearing date was set for August 8, 2008. The motions were supported by a 72 page Separate Statement that did not request or require the defendants to answer or respond to any argument or any issues contained therein, just support the validity of the interpretation of the stated facts that addressed the different orders and issues for a more complete understanding thereof. The Separate Statement was necessary to address the complexity and sheer volume of issues raised by the actions of Judge Jon Tigar and the defendants during trial. On July 14, 2008 Al-Hakim had the motions personally served on the defendants.
The defendants objected and filed but did not serve on Al-Hakim an Ex-Parte motion to strike the motions based on the argument that there were two motions to vacate rather than one, and the Separate Statement contained law and therefore should be considered additional pages to the memorandum exceeding the 30 page limit, and if all the moving papers were combined into one, there would be over 100 pages of memorandum. On July 23, 2008 Tigar issued his order striking Al-Hakim’s previous filed motions to vacate as being in violation of the court’s order of a 30 page memoranda by including all of the moving papers as one motion. The order, as were others complained of in the motions, is factually constructed in deceit and perjury.
This is not the first time Tigar, whom has tried to demonize Al-Hakim, is found to have lied, committed perjury, deceit, misconduct, racism, bigotry, made intentional erroneous rulings or a combination of all, at least once in every hearing or ruling that he had made in the Al-Hakim v. CSAA Insurance case. He was caught at it again as he recently issued deliberate perjured orders for his legal counsel, Stephan Barber and Ropers Majeski (See the April 7, 2008 Order and April 9, 2008 Minutes/Order). Al-Hakim has requested an investigation into charges that Tigar’s statement in the perjured trial ending minute order and in the bereavement order that “he did not know why Al-Hakim had chosen to absent himself from the trial on April 7, 2008″ is simply untrue. Tigar had been contacted personally at least five times before the order was written.
The Courts Order of July 23, 2008 Striking Al-Hakim’s Filed Motions to Vacate Al-Hakim’s Intention to File At Least Two Motions contrary to the statement in the courts order of July 23, 2008 striking Al-Hakim’s motions to vacate the orders, at the hearing on June 3, 2008, Al-Hakim clearly established before the court that he intended to file at least two motions, one that would address the order and issues relative to the bereavement and at least another to address other trial orders and issues including the limine motions etc.
Al-Hakim argued twice in his Ex-Parte application to exceed the page limit on memoranda that he would have to file three separate motions to address the issues complained of. (Application at Page 2, Line 1 and at page 4, Line 2) al-Hakim stated at the hearing that there was such a volume of orders and issues that had to be addressed in the later motion that the motion was presently over seventy five (75) pages.
A. Al-Hakim argued in his Ex-Parte application to exceed the page limit on memoranda that he would need to have at least fifty (50) pages to address the issues complained of and that after a month of editing, the memoranda was over seventy five (75) pages and he would need to file three separate motions (Application at Page 3, Line 14-20). At the hearing Al-Hakim further stated that he did not want to file two or more motions to address those later orders and issues and requested at least an order for fifty (50) pages for the memorandum.
B. Al-Hakim’s Memoranda
The order states that on July 14, 2008 Al-Hakim filed the two motions in question that “Both bear the identical title “Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Order and Request for New Trial”, yet they have different reservations numbers. The motion addressing the bereavement is supported by a two page notice, nine (9) page declaration, and a fifteen (15) page memorandum. The motion addressing the other trial orders is supported by a two page notice, seven (7) page declaration, and a thirty (30) page memorandum. Plaintiff also filed a seventy page “Separate Statement” that bears a different reservation number than either of the two motions, so it is not possible to allocate the Statement only to one motion or the other. It appears to support both,”(Order at page 2,¶2).
Further, the court ruled that the motions and various papers constitute one motion, as defendants allege, because they bear same title and request the same relief. (Order at page 2,¶4)“For that reason they are to be treated as one motion limited to a memorandum of thirty (30) pages. Al-Hakim filed a Separate Statement containing legal argument and acts as a supplemental memorandum, thus considering this Statement and the other Memoranda together, plaintiff’s total Memoranda consume 117 pages, exceeding the page limit set by the court”. (Order at page 2,¶5)
THE COURT, IN IT’S ORDER AFFIRMS Al-HAKIM’S ARGUMENT AND MAKES HIS NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PAGES A CERTAINTY.
Al-Hakim has the inherent right to file these motions and has chosen to exercise that right. Al-Hakim made it clear that he intended to file at least two motions at the hearing on June 3, 2008 and did so to address the different orders and issues. Al-Hakim’s motions bear different reservations numbers in accordance with his intention to address the different orders and issues.
The memorandums are of very different lengths to address the different orders and issues; as are the declarations in support of them to address the different orders and issues; they address drastically different orders and issues; contain different subject matter and argument to address the different orders and issues; are solely supported on the basis of their pleadings to address the different orders and issues; do not request or require the defendants to respond to any argument in the Separate Statement, just the facts to address the different orders and issues; the law cited in the Separate Statement only support the validity of the interpretation of the facts to address the different orders and issues; the bereavement motion only references a list in the Separate Statement and that does not contain any law to address that issue.
The motions do not cross reference each other for support nor to address the different orders and issues. These motions are distinct and can in no way be considered the same because they have the same title and request the same relief. They would because they are the same type of motion but the similarity ends there. Specifically, Al-Hakim’s motion contains the issues derived from the actions of the above parties that were presented before, during and after the trial that affect his case and causes of action on separate grounds requiring Al-Hakim to address the legal arguments and legal theories regarding certain theories of the court and defendants separately. In certain instances, the court and defendants raised more than one line of argument in support of a ground for their theory/action.
Al-Hakim is also required to address in response to the court and defendants’ theories/actions the improper efforts of the court and defendants to introduce evidence in support of their theories/actions. In addition, Al-Hakim is required to address and analyze cases and other authorities to conclusively refute these actions including the courts’ blanket assertions that “all evidence and actions that occurred during the appraisal were inadmissible and non-existent, as if it never happened, as a result of the granting of the motion to vacate”, “that plaintiff is precluded from using the vacated appraisal as an evidentiary sanction issued by Judge Roesch for not completing the appraisal”, “Ron Cook’s conduct during the appraisal was irrelevant”, “the destructive testing that caused damage to the home was inadmissible and within defendants rights” and allowing Cook, the key material witness to leave the stand for an alleged vacation to return to complete his testimony after such time as the court expected the trial to be over. Such an undertaking which obviously requires more lengthy briefing than can be captured in the normal 15 pages and could not be captured in 30 pages.
With respect to Al-Hakim’s motion, he is required to respond to not only the parties’ previous pleadings, but also points of legal argument and numerous assertions of facts not in evidence nor based on the parties personal knowledge, but also over 100 pages of exhibits. Considering the full text of al-Hakim’s necessary Memorandum of Points and Authorities is required to address in detail the facts omitted from the parties previous motion papers which are relevant to the determination of this motion, including the facts pertaining to defense counsel Stephan Barber’s bad faith, deceptive conduct in the handling of Ron Cook’s testifying at trial under subpoena, the documents subpoenaed at trial and the City of Oakland files, Al-Hakim is entitled to and required to address each of those issues separately and in detail.
Plaintiff made his request to the court to extend the courts order on page limit on Points and Authorities in the trial orders motion to at least 50 pages in legal format. The original document detailing solely the facts and law was over 75 pages, without exhibits, and after much review by several others, we are unable to reduce it any further without compromising the matters submitted. The intricacies of this matter must be explained and can only be done if allowed to provide the information to remand for new trial. If given the 50 page limit the document could be filed shortly, within a week of the granting of the motion, and be an effective one. After a month of editing, he could not edit any further at over 75 pages.
Second Attempt To Allow Tigar To Be Fair
On July 31, 2007 Al-Hakim contacted the Court and reserved the date for an Ex Parte Application for hearing to again request an order to exceed the previously ordered 30 page limit on Points and Authorities and was given a hearing date of August 4, 2008.
Tigar openly confessed at the hearing on August 4, 2008 that one of the major concerns in this case is his desire to protect his own interest (and those of other judges and the defendants) and not to have those damaging issues (testimony, facts, and evidence) presented in this case.
Al-Hakim reaffirmed he stated at the July 3, 2008 hearing that he always intended to file at least two motions to vacate and the court clearly understood. Al-Hakim sought the order extending that order allowing consideration of his pleadings in their entirety because, as witnessed by the courts own order striking the previous filed motions, it was necessary to exceed the previously ordered 30 page limit on Points and Authorities in order to properly present the evidence necessary to address and support the issues raised in the Motion to Vacate the orders in the two pleadings addressing many different orders. The only other alternative would be to file at least three separate motions to address the orders and issues complained of to Vacate and Set Aside the orders.
Plaintiff argued he has discovered new and vital information and documents at trial in this referenced matter, is awaiting response to more outstanding demands from the defendants, the results of more investigation, and as this is an ongoing case, there have been several new developments that have taken place since the issued the orders complained of. It was further recommended upon review by others that these actions be reported to the State Attorney General’s Office, Bar Association, and the State Insurance Commissioner. As Tigar was aware, a few have already been presented to the State Judicial Council. The new complaint for each is still being developed and will be submitted upon completion of these remaining immediate actions. It will address some of the criminal transgressions committed on behalf of the court, the defendants, their counsels and several other parties in this and the underlying Rescue Rooter case.
There are many very serious, even rising to the level of criminal actions that the parties have engaged in that are part of the motion, but it required more than the 15 page limit or even the 30 pages ordered by the court on points and authorities to properly address. Therefore, Al-Hakim requested a waiver of the page limit to submit a thorough document that would do justice to this matter. If Al-Hakim must file three separate motions to address the issues complained of if not granted the order to extend the page limit, he would, but one would think that the court is interested in properly disposing of this matter and having an honest trial on the merits.
Al-Hakim, in an attempt to allay any possible excuses by Tigar, had clearly stated that he wanted a 50 page limit, no more than that, and the if the complaint about the separate statement was that it contained legal citations, the newly filed one may not include any at all.
Tigar, realizing his vulnerability and the inevitable consequences of his many criminal actions being revealed to the public, denied Al-Hakim’s request to exceed the page limit citing “plaintiff cannot tell me how long the memorandum will be”. If Tigar is judicially bipolar, with the psychopathology of no more than a petty thief, and pathological liar, then is he akin to no more than a common crook operating as a judge? If he is incompetent, incapable of truth, with no respect for justice, is morally bankrupt, and like a child molester or pedophile, if left to his own devices, will he offend again?
Re: Tigar’s closed door policy. What has taken place in the chambers of Judge Tigar in the past that he now has ordered that court staff to knock and announce themselves and wait for an affirmative response before they may open the door? In what state of disarray was he found in to demand such precautions now?
Al-Hakim has re-filed.
Gabrielle Wilson / KPFA
1929 Martin Luther King Jr Way
Berkeley, CA 94704 | USA
http://www.pacifica.org | 510.848.6767 Ext.634
Gabrielle's Blog: missgabrielle.wordpress.com
Follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/GabbyWilson