Video Proof Oakland City Attorney Entrapped in Crime

Embattled Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar attempted to provoke plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim with comments made during a side bar at the recent testimony on behalf of plainitff by fellow Judge Leo Dorado in al-Hakim's bad faith insurance case.

PRESS RELEASE

Judge Attempts to Provoke Plaintiff at Sidebar, Plaintiff Demands Security!


Contact: Martin Silverman (510) 839-5400, newsnow1 [at] gmail.com;
May 5, 2008, Oakland, CA: Click here to view video proof Oakland City Attorney Entrapped in Crime!


Embattled Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar attempted to provoke plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim with comments made during a side bar at the recent testimony on behalf of plainitff by fellow Judge Leo Dorado in al-Hakim's bad faith insurance case.
As a result of this and Tigar's continuing misconduct, al-Hakim has taken the extraordinary measure of filing another complaint with Victoria Henley and the Judicial Council, Alameda County Superior Court Presiding Judge Yolanda Northridge and former Presiding Judge George Hernandez demanding that all side bars be recorded for his own security.(See attached complaint) The complaint also addresses some of the concerns of Congress with this matter.

al-Hakim, in a letter to Judge Dorado(see attached) lists the comment made by Tigar and apoligized to Judge Dorado for being manipulated by Tigar for his own injudicious agenda of revenge and retaliation.

The trial has been a 3-Ring Circus with Tigar as the ticket taker, circus barker, lion tamer, erroneous ruling contortionist, lying trapeze artist, and performing tigar.

Tigar had repeatedly threatened Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim with contempt of court and jail if he objected during a hearing or requested Tigar answer the charges he 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. §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); 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; and Cal. Code Jud. Conduct Cannons 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5) and 3B(8). 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 violates and strikes at the heart of 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). al-Hakim is convinced that a fair and impartial trial could not be had before this judge now or in the future as you simply can not order a lie to be the truth! A lie will always remain a lie!

al-Hakim has repeatedly requested that the judge truthfully answer the disqualifications by meeting in any forum, the court, a public hearing, an administrative hearing, a Judicial Council hearing, any place and al-Hakim would present the evidence of Tigar's own words, writing and action against him. At another recent hearing al-Hakim responded with the fact that his objections just as his speaking the truth of Tigar’s lying under oath would not be silenced by threats of contempt as al-Hakim is not making a "groundless attack" upon Tigar and again challenged Tigar to meet him in any venue, forum, tribunal etc. and Plaintiff would prove Tigar has lied under oath, committed perjury, been dishonest, deceitful, committed prejudicial misconduct. Tigar has refused to address the issues and ignores the truth of the matters. "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley

After one recent disqualification, Tigar gave a verbal order striking the disqualification but remained on the case while he submitted his written order 8 days later.
that Tigar serves in several capacities in the State and Northern California Judicial system and feels he has the insulation to protect him fom scruntiny.

al-Hakim previously filed a formal complaint with the California Judicial Council after a 4th Disqualification and Tigar has only increased his retaliation against al-Hakim since. In a recent hearing in the span of ten minutes Tigar, in his self grandiose way, twice touted his “elite status” as an insider in the Judicial Council which is a concern in

After several days in deciding pre-trial issues last week, Tigar addressed the court with the admission that he had errored, without any real specifications, and the error was of such magnitude that al-Hakim was entitled to an appeal.

The worst part of this admission is that it was predicted by al-Hakim in the last disqualification of Tigar over a month ago. In a fit of retaliation, Tigar continued his attempt to instill fear in al-Hakim with continued threats of contempt for speaking the truth and then added the threat for objecting, al-Hakim's right to due process and civil right was now being taken away by Tigar. al-Hakim responded with "your constant threats of contempt and jail is tantamount to your hanging a noose from the tree in front of my home, or burning a cross in my front yard". "As a African-Native American and Muslim, our people have come too far to accept this kind of treatment, these attempts to intimidate and instill fear to force me to capitulate to your demands". Tigar has continued his prejudicial and bigoted ways with even more admitted error, and charging al-Hakim with contempt and a $200 fine after Tigar admitted that a question al-Hakim submitted for the jury was of a plain variety after he had ruled it was prejudicial and al-Hakim responded, "this is a farce" proving the old axiom "YOU CAN’T CHANGE THE LYING STRIPES ON A TIGAR!"
###

Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland, California, Judge Jon Tigar has repeatedly threatened Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim with contempt of court and jail if he objected during a hearing or requested Tigar answer the charges of 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<p>PRESS RELEASE

Judge Lies Under Oath, Threatens Contempt if Mentioned, Admits Appealable Error


Contact: Martin Silverman (510) 839-5400, newsnow1 [at] gmail.com;
May 14, 2008, Oakland, CA:
Click here to view video proof Oakland City Attorney Entrapped in Crime!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3tNcSMEyfo

Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland, California, Judge Jon Tigar has repeatedly threatened Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim with contempt of court and jail if he objected during a hearing or requested Tigar answer the charges of 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. §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); 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; and Cal. Code Jud. Conduct Cannons 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5) and 3B(8). 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 violates and strikes at the heart of 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). al-Hakim is convinced that a fair and impartial trial could not be had before this judge now or in the future as you simply can not order a lie to be the truth! A lie will always remain a lie!

al-Hakim has repeatedly requested that the judge truthfully answer the disqualifications by meeting in any forum, the court, a public hearing, an administrative hearing, a Judicial Council hearing, any place and al-Hakim would present the evidence of Tigar's own words, writing and action against him. At another recent hearing al-Hakim responded with the fact that his objections just as his speaking the truth of Tigar’s lying under oath would not be silenced by threats of contempt as al-Hakim is not making a "groundless attack" upon Tigar and again challenged Tigar to meet him in any venue, forum, tribunal etc. and Plaintiff would prove Tigar has lied under oath, committed perjury, been dishonest, deceitful, committed prejudicial misconduct. Tigar has refused to address the issues and ignores the truth of the matters. "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." - Aldous Huxley

Because there was such a demand from others, I have attached a reduced version of his Challenge, 82 pages, without the 100 plus pages of exhibits for your perusal. I will provide the rest if you or anyone else desires

After one recent disqualification, Tigar gave a verbal order striking the disqualification but remained on the case while he submitted his written order 8 days later.

that Tigar serves in several capacities in the State and Northern California Judicial system and feels he has the insulation to protect him fom scruntiny.
al-Hakim filed a formal complaint with the California Judicial Council after a 4th Disqualification and Tigar has only increased his retaliation against al-Hakim since. In a recent hearing in the span of ten minutes Tigar, in his self grandiose way, twice touted his “elite status” as an insider in the Judicial Council which is a concern in
After several days in deciding pre-trial issues last week, Tigar addressed the court with the admission that he had errored, without any real specifications, and the error was of such magnitude that al-Hakim was entitled to an appeal.
The worst part of this admission is that it was predicted by al-Hakim in the last disqualification of Tigar over a month ago. In a fit of retaliation, Tigar continued his attempt to instill fear in al-Hakim with continued threats of contempt for speaking the truth and then added the threat for objecting, al-Hakim's right to due process and civil right was now being taken away by Tigar. al-Hakim responded with "your constant threats of contempt and jail is tantamount to your hanging a noose from the tree in front of my home, or burning a cross in my front yard". "As a African-Native American and Muslim, our people have come too far to accept this kind of treatment, these attempts to intimidate and instill fear to force me to capitulate to your demands". Tigar has continued his prejudicial and bigoted ways with even more admitted error, and charging al-Hakim with contempt and a $200 fine after Tigar admitted that a question al-Hakim submitted for the jury was of a plain variety after he had ruled it was prejudicial and al-Hakim responded, "this is a farce" proving the old axiom "YOU CAN’T CHANGE THE LYING STRIPES ON A TIGAR!"
al-Hakim, well known, successful business manager, producer, and agent Barb Leefrom Oakland, California, filed a federal complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him by Judge Lee during a trial in Superior Court of Alameda County, California, is moving forward with the investigation and charges of criminal extrinsic fraud upon the court of the State of California, spoliation of evidence, and the doctrine “unclean hands” against defendants/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Ron Cook and the law firm of WILLOUGHBY, STUART & BENING; defense counsel Steve Barber and the law firm of Ropers Majeski; and others. The complaint, drafted and filed by al-Hakim in pro per, has broad based support from Democrats and Republicans, was submitted by Congresswoman Barbara Lee with the offices of Congressmen John Conyers, and Charles Rangel, has been review by several legal experts, with advocacy by former Republican Senator J. C. Watts, a client of al-Hakim's.
The complaint addresses the concern that a Superior Court Judges’ conduct rose to the level of consideration for a Federal Crime and a Civil Rights violation because the bench upon which the judge rules is “under the color of law” and certainly the violation of anyone's civil rights is a federal crime. “Muslims, just as any other group, can notJ.C. Watts be afraid to speak up when their rights have been abridged. If one does not speak up, then the transgressions goes unreported and the perpetrator goes on to harm again unchecked, it does not matter whom the transgressor is” said al-Hakim. The complaint, perhaps even more importantly, not only requested Merrily Friedlander, Chief of the Civil Rights Division, to make an investigation of a judicial hate crime, but also the many other civil rights and due process violations of judicial misconduct, and attorney extrinsic fraud upon the court and law that are themselves directly the matters complained. J. C. Watts in asking “What does a supposed terrorist act in Russia have to do with the negligent contamination of a home in America?” posed the argument that there must be consideration of and a response to the many issues in the complaint.
The investigation concerns trial Judge David C. Lee's allowance of the illegal product of the spoliated evidence and unclean hands by defendant/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Cook and Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; and the Oakland City Attorney's Office run by John Russo to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony, and fostered it’s use to prejudice the jury. During the trial, testimony revealed that there were numerous documents and photos of a very damning nature to the defense and AAA as the hostile intervener, that were missing, altered, or incomplete. View vdeo proof Oakland City Attorney Entrapped in Crime!

###
CONTACT: Martin Silverman (510) 839-5400

Judge Richman has been charged with abusing the prerogative of office; intentionally exploiting his judicial office to attempt to influence the disposition of a matter; willful misconduct; corruption; cronyism; collusion; conduct prejudicial; gross negligence; bias; prejudice; suborned and solicited perjurious testimony; engaged in actions to interfere with a litigant's legal case; engaged in actions to coverup the unlawful act of suborn and solicited perjurious testimony; thereby committed patterned willful, criminal, and corrupt deception and fraud upon the Court of the State of California

PRESS RELEASE May 14, 2008, Oakland, CA: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: TV * RADIO * PRESS * INTERNET * Contact: Martin Silverman (510) 839-5400 newsnow1@gmail.com LABELED AN "UNMITIGATING LIAR" IN APPEALS COURT APPELLATE JUDGE JAMES RICHMAN RUNNING FOR SEAT ON BENCH *** Associate Justice James Richman was a candidate for California State Court of Appeal; District 1, Division 2 (Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, Sonoma Counties). This very same judge Richman was recently called an "unmitigating liar" in the appeals court that he current serves in and is running for re-election to. Judge Richman has been charged with abusing the prerogative of office; intentionally exploiting his judicial office to attempt to influence the disposition of a matter; willful misconduct; corruption; cronyism; collusion; conduct prejudicial; gross negligence; bias; prejudice; suborned and solicited perjurious testimony; engaged in actions to interfere with a litigant's legal case; engaged in actions to coverup the unlawful act of suborn and solicited perjurious testimony; thereby committed patterned willful, criminal, and corrupt deception and fraud upon the Court of the State of California; committed willful, criminal and corrupt perjury; fraud; conspiracy to commit fraud; conspiracy; fraudulent concealment; extrinsic fraud, illegal and improper ex-parte communications, and abuse of discretion. A prime example of the lack of character and integrity necessary for the "Rent-a-Ruling" insurance compnay and big business machine that control the court system. CAN YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE LIKE THIS!!! Additionally there are many, many others in the legal profession that feel he can not be trusted. At the August 17, 2004 the Alameda County Bar Association(ACBA) and Barristers Section held the Bridging the Gap Program (BTG) while making the civil law and motion presentation Judge Richman talked about the ACBA Statement of Professionalism and Civility and added, "Guard your reputation jealously and zealously." Yet his reputation, which is not worth "spit in the gutter" has been severly criticized and he has received no support from any of the top non partisan election committees. A following quote from Heidi Salerno, a DOJ attorney, is very revealing: "Some of you may know I'm an attorney for the Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. Needless to say, I appear before a lot of judges in trial court, court of appeal and the California Supreme Court as well as all the Federal Courts. Normally when the State Judges come up for re-election I just vote for them all. But not this time. This time I'm voting against re-electing Judge James A. Richman, he's listed under Associate Justice Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division 2, and urging everyone I know to do the same. If you'd like to know why you shouldn't vote for him, please send me an email and I'll be more than happy to tell you why." Heidi Salerno (510) 865-4556 steveandheidi@balboaswing.com The post can be found at: http://www.swingtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5886

Reply to Richman's Answer for Disqualification

ROGUE JUDGES REFUSE TO APPEAR ON CORRUPTION! ALL HIRE SAME ATTORNEY!
OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY JOHN RUSSO ALSO REFUSED TO APPEAR
NAMED IN EXTRINSIC FRAUD AND SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE CHARGES
TO BE ISSUED COURT ORDERED SUBPOENAS FOR DEPOSITION

PRESS RELEASE

May 14, 2008, Oakland, CA:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: TV * RADIO * PRESS * INTERNET *

Contact:
Martin Silverman
510) 839-5400
newsnow1 [at] gmail.com

ROGUE JUDGES REFUSE TO APPEAR ON CORRUPTION! ALL HIRE SAME ATTORNEY!
OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY JOHN RUSSO ALSO REFUSED TO APPEAR
NAMED IN EXTRINSIC FRAUD AND SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE CHARGES
TO BE ISSUED COURT ORDERED SUBPOENAS FOR DEPOSITION
***

The depositions of Retired Alameda County Judges David C. Lee, Richard Hodge and Michael Ballachey as well as those of Oakland City Attorneys John Russo(a former candidate for State Assembly District 16), Jannie Wong and Anita Hong was scheduled to begin in Oakland California in response to charges of Corruption, Misconduct, Collusion, Cronyism, Illegal Ex-Parte Communications, Fraud Upon The Court, Spoliation of Evidence and Unclean Hands were continued when ALL of the accused refused to appear at their deposition even though they were subpoenaed. Now, more interestingly, the three judges, Lee, Hodge and Ballachey, though residing and working in three different counties, ALL hired the same Oakland attorney to defend them! What a coincidence. It is this same illegal corruption, collusion and ex-parte communications that plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim has been complained of.
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, well known, successful business manager, producer, and Muslim of native Barb LeeAfrican-American descent from Oakland, California, whom filed a federal complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him by Judge Lee during a trial in Superior Court of Alameda County, California, is moving forward with the investigation and charges of criminal extrinsic fraud upon the court of the State of California, spoliation of evidence, and the doctrine “unclean hands” against defendants/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Ron Cook(Con Crook) and the law firm of WILLOUGHBY, STUART & BENING; defense counsel Steve Barber(Thief Robber) and the law firm of Ropers Majeski; and those named above. The complaint, drafted and filed by al-Hakim in pro per, has broad based support from Democrats and Republicans, was submitted by Congresswoman Barbara Lee with the offices of Congressmen John Conyers, and Charles Rangel, has been review by several legal experts, with advocacy by former Republican Senator J. C. Watts, a client of al-Hakim's.
The complaint addresses the concern that a Superior Court Judges’ conduct rose to the level of consideration for a Federal Crime and a Civil Rights violation because the bench upon which the judge rules is “under the color of law” and certainly the violation of anyone's civil rights is a federal crime. “Muslims, just as any other group, can notJ.C. Watts be afraid to speak up when their rights have been abridged. If one does not speak up, then the transgressions goes unreported and the perpetrator goes on to harm again unchecked, it does not matter whom the transgressor is” said al-Hakim. The complaint, perhaps even more importantly, not only requested Merrily Friedlander, Chief of the Civil Rights Division, to make an investigation of a judicial hate crime, but also the many other civil rights and due process violations of judicial misconduct, and attorney extrinsic fraud upon the court and law that are themselves directly the matters complained. J. C. Watts in asking “What does a supposed terrorist act in Russia have to do with the negligent contamination of a home in America?” posed the argument that there must be consideration of and a response to the many issues in the complaint.
The depositions and investigation concerns trial Judge David C. Lee and his: (1) inciting Islamophobia and Xenophobia as the commission of a Hate Crime during the civil jury trial of al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries; (2) his illegal and improper ex parte communications with Judge Ballachey and attorney Frank McKeown during the trial; (3) Defendant AAA nomination of both Judge Richard Hodge and Judge David Lee as the appraisal umpire, both of whom are conflicted as material percipient eye witness to extrinsic fraud perpetrated by AAA and defense counsels Sean O’Halloran and Stephan Barber in effort to compromise the Judges as a witness in the case; (4) Judge James Richman abusing the prerogatives of office in appointing Judge Hodge as the appraisal umpire with knowledge of his conflict, intentionally exploited his judicial office in an attempt to influence the disposition of this matter; (5) the illegal and improper ex parte communications between Judge Richman, Judge Hodge and Defendant AAA; (6) Judge Lee's trial court's allowance of the illegal product of the spoliated evidence and unclean hands by defendant/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Cook and Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; and the Oakland City Attorney's Office run by John Russo to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony, and fostered it’s use to prejudice the jury. During the trial, testimony revealed that there were numerous documents and photos of a very damning nature to the defense and AAA as the hostile intervener, that were missing, altered, or incomplete.

The Hate Crime

Judge Lee is guilty of inciting Islamophobia and Xenophobia in the commission of a Hate Crime during the civil jury trial of al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries, Judge Lee depicted evil in the form of Islamic extremists, as America's evil du jour appears in the person of al-Hakim, cast as the jihadists on trial.
On the morning of Monday, October 28, 2002, in convening the court after a brief delay, the Judge Lee dismissed the only African-American juror and tells the jury “In the general world situation and particularly in view of the tragedy that took place in Moscow over the weekend(referring to an alleged hostage massacre by islamic terrorist)” and “the fact that the plaintiff uses an arabic name and that that may be a token that he is a follower of the Muslim sect.” To even mention any religion in a court room environment is improper and illegal. In this post 911 worldJudge Lee environment and the rampant, uncontrolled Islamophobia and Xenophobia that reigns supreme in the world today, it is impossible for someone with an Arabic name, or middle eastern dress or look, or of the Islamic belief not to have that held against them. To align the plaintiff, who is not a member of any “sect”, with 911, terrorism, hostages taking, sects, and murder while announcing that the only African American on the jury panel was being dismissed was outrageous, illegal, totally inappropriate, a modern day legal lynching, a judicial terrorist travesty of justice, a highjacking of al-Hakim’s civil rights and the judges’ hostage taking of al-Hakim’s right to due process. Further, to give an example of that islamophobia and xenophobia, the Russian investigation determined that the hostage killings in the theater were committed by the Russian police themselves, no one else.
This is what America, and the jury fears - Islamic terrorism. This fear of what we are fighting, capitalizes on Americans' fears of Islamic fundamentalists, allowed Judge Lee to accomplished two things: One was to draw a critical outcry from the jury by announcing the plaintiff might be muslim and belong to a “sect”, and the other to boldly lay claim to America's (and the rest of the world's, for that matter) not-so-proud history of demonizing various ethnic groups to advance the interest of the defense in this matter by referring to terrorist and murder in Russia in association with al-Hakim being in a “sect”. Remember "the Injuns"? The "Nips," the "Japs" and the "Riceballs"? The "Commies" and the "Reds" "Charlie" and the "Gooks"?
al-Hakim, having been identified for the jury as a Muslim and belonging to a “sect” only conjures up the image and belief of his being an extremist, even outside the norm of any moderate muslim or islam. The connotation of the word “sect” to this fearful nation and jury is akin to calling the plaintiff a terrorist. But now being referred to as individual and not by an ethnic pejorative, his treatment at the hands of Judge Lee before the jury is not so different from what was accorded this country's enemies of yore.
America has made images of shiftless, lazy ex-slaves(Negros or Blacks); savages of blood-thirsty Indians; devious Mexicans; sneaky Japanese bomber pilots; goose-stepping Nazis; and now the rag head “sand niggers”(middle easterners); each of whom represents a new wave of fear, cultural bias and the resulting vilification - that the world has exaggerated for maximum dramatic purposes- but the meaning to all is clear and permission to lynch, maim, beat, kill, cheat, discriminate, and persecute is granted.
As our government initiated a war on terror and created the Department of Homeland Security, good and conscience Americans who struggled through the politically correct years of peacetime and who ritually demonized Nazis, aliens or monolithic corporations to avoid antagonizing specific ethnic groups suddenly have at their disposal a new face of terror. Ethnic and religious attacks are back in style under the guise of patriotism.
The plaintiff and others are portrayed as villains because of their religion, names, have Middle Eastern complexions, have dark hair, some speak with pronounced accents, for their racial profiles, which match those of our new foe. They provide a visual link to the terrorist in the Russian incident referred to by Judge Lee at trial, the 9/11 hijackers, Osama bin Laden, the insurgents in Iraq and our imaginings of terrorist cell members who may be living among us while plotting our destruction. It is this Islamophobia and Xenophobia that is "casting a shadow of suspicion on ordinary American Muslims such as al-Hakim.
The representation of Muslims in the court room and our popular culture is an exhibition of American insensitivity and bigotry, false antidotes to the climate of fear and retribution that have sprung up in the aftermath of 9/11.
From a vacuum where the few Muslims visible in our culture are generally seen under FBI wanted signs, Judge Lee dared to tip the legal scales of Justice in the favor of the defense by feeding the fears of a worried jury and population. The structure of a court room is an unacceptable forum for a nuanced portrait of "the enemy in the form of al-Hakim" before a fearful jury. Even if the intended result of that dialogue and trial was to balance and insure the fair perception and judging of al-Hakim and Muslim character, it can be argued that, legally and culturally speaking, it was retrograding.
What was in danger of being lost and consequently was, was a sense of fairness toward al-Hakim. In any honest portrayal, villainy almost always has more than one face, and human evil or error is never confined to one side, one faith or one skin type. These actions left al-Hakim feeling threatened, oppressed, injured, intimidated, and fearful of the ultimate retribution in the forms of physical, judicial, legal and jury verdict retaliation with his being identified as “Muslim” by Judge Lee, while referring to and associating plaintiff with acts of terror, hostage taking, and murder in Russian and his being in the “Muslim sect”. This attack on his integrity, assassination of his character and assault on his litigation, resulted in the murder of any remote chance of fairness by the jury, the hostage taking of his right to due process by the judge and the highjacking of his rights by the legal system, both now and in the future. Al-Hakim, who was the victim of terror in that court, now has no recourse but to pay the ransom of appeal and is very fearful of the weapon of mass destruction of retaliation from the judiciary in this, other pending and all future matters.
Anyone will conclude that under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts, the above comments are a particularly egregious example of a Hate Crime, inciting Islamophobia and Xenophobia, Judicial Misconduct, Prejudicial Error, Abuse of Discretion, Conduct Prejudicial, Gross Negligence, Disdain, Bias and Malice toward the Appellant and partiality towards the defense. There is no reason to ever mention al-Hakim’s arabic name, alleged religion, Islam, Muslims, terrorism, murder, being in a “sect”, or anything else of a personal nature regarding al-Hakim, as it was totally extraneous to any issues in this case. The judge's incitement of “Islamophobia among the jury and his ”follow-up actions reveal his intent to enable the jury to draw the adverse inference that al-Hakim was violent, a liar, evil, vicious, and not trustworthy. These instances of misconduct also can not be cured by any admonition or instruction.
Al-Hakim was victimized as per the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts, and denied his rights to a fair trial and to due process under the Federal and State of California Constitutions (U.S. Const., 6th & 14th Amends; Cal. Const., art. 1, §§ 7, 15, 24), because "the trial court engaged in a systematic “pattern of judicial hostility,” " which consisted of being aligned with terrorism, murder, hostage taking, and being a member of the “Muslim sect”, continual admission of tainted and spoiled evidence, allowing the improper and illegal testimony of defense witnesses, disparaging comments regarding al-Hakims’ honesty, and erroneous exclusion of crucial evidence and testimony. A review of the record and applicable law, will easily reverse the decision and remand for a new trial. One will easily conclude these material instances of judicial misconduct prejudicially deprived al-Hakim of his rights to due process and a fair trial.
Judge Lee certainly knew that any religious, ethnic or sexual references or remarks he may have made, even if they were made in jest, can be construed as to have treated that religious, ethnic or minority group unfairly. However, Judge Lee' subjective intent is not at issue. As a judge he is charged with the obligation to conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence and esteem for the judiciary. Such facially blatant religious slurs and assault indictments of al-Hakim as those Judge Lee repeatedly uttered from the bench are apt to alienate and offend both jurors and al-Hakim and may be construed by the public at large as highly demeaning to al-Hakim, Muslims and minorities. Regardless, Judge Lee should have known that his courtroom comments were in violation of the law and al-Hakim’s rights, while at a minimum, unbecoming and inappropriate. The terrorist, murder, sect, islamophobic and xenophobic slurs coupled with the assault charges uttered from the bench constitute unjudicial conduct by a judge acting in his judicial capacity and are therefore sanctionable as willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial.
These comments also pose a serious threat to public esteem for the integrity of the judiciary and can not be tolerated in modern society.

Illegal and Improper Ex Parte Communications

Judge Lee had illegal and improper ex parte communications and committed prejudicial error, abuse of discretion, gross misconduct, conduct prejudicial, gross negligence, bias, and showed malice toward appellant and thus prejudiced the jury by having inappropriate ex parte communications with Judge Michael Ballachey Judge Ballacheyand discussing al-Hakim and his case during the trial.
During post trial deliberations on November 12, 2002 in the matter of al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries, the Honorable Judge David Lee related to al-Hakim's attorney Frank McKeown that he recently had lunch with Judge Michael Ballachey and was informed during that meeting that al-Hakim was a liar” and had “failed to pay child support” in a matter before Ballachey and that Ballachey had al-Hakim “remanded into custody” for same. Ballachey was found to be in error in his actions, had violated al-Hakims’ Civil Rights, and the matter was overturned by the Appeals Court while forcing Ballachey to recuse himself for his misconduct and bias before al-Hakim in all matters since. Judge Lee further stated to McKeown that he felt that al-Hakim was a pathological liar and would say anything on the stand.” Since there was no cause for Judge Lee to conduct any outside private inquiry, nor relevance to, nor proof of al-Hakim's child support matter nor lying, to cast the plaintiff as a liar and a deadbeat dad was prejudicial, outrageous, illegal and totally inappropriate, and had to play a roll in some of the decisions that Judge Lee made during the trial. Frank McKeown stating that Judges talk among themselves, and felt that this opinion and attitude toward plaintiff with these "whispers in the halls of justice" had played a roll in some of the decisions that Judge Lee and others have made against al-Hakim during the trial and in prior matters in this and the related insurance case over the years.

Corruption and Extrinsic Fraud

In Pre-Trial motions Judge David C. Lee had ruled that the hostile intervener AAA was dismissed, not a proper party to this action and would not be allowed to participate in the trial. Judge Lee then went against his own ruling based on a order that retired Judge Richard Hodge granted to AAA on January 19, 2000 and allowed AAA into the case. What Judge Lee did not know was that AAA had deceived and perpetrated extrinsic fraud, and criminal, corrupt fraud on the court and law by not disclosing that Judge Hodge, in his last days on the bench, had granted their motion to intervene in the matter at that time, but further conditioned in that order that he would leave it to the trial judge to determine if they could, in fact and law, intervene and be a proper party to the trial.
The defense counsels for AAA, Sean O’Halloran and Stephan Barber of Ropers Majeski, had a fraudulent order executed by Hodge that eliminated the condition of their being a proper party of and admittance to this matter being left to the sole discretion of the trial judge and has it endorsed by the court without review or approval by al-Hakim.
Now, AFTER Judge Lee has determined that AAA was not a proper legal party to the action and dismissed them, Sean O’Halloran produced to Judge Lee only the fraudulent order for their intervention, and then willfully and intentionally concealed and withheld their knowledge and insight of the true order and ruling by Judge Hodge.Judge Hodge
Now that the trial court judge had already ruled that the intervention was not proper and dismissed AAA, the order to allow them in was moot and of no effect, thus should have never been presented.
At a recent hearing on August 15, 2005, before Judge Henry Needham, defendant Ron Cook and defense counsel Stephan Barber of Ropers Majeski addressed the court and boasted about how AAA twice defeated al-Hakim’s motion to dismiss their motion to intervene in the underlying matter of al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries. In their doing so, they entrapped themselves in the admission of having perpetrated willful and criminal extrinsic fraud upon plaintiff, the court and law of which Judge Hodge is a material percipient eye witness.
These matters were known in October 2005 by AAA and counsel Stephan Barber when he nominated Hodge for the position of appraisal umpire and Judge James Richman before his appointment of Hodge as umpire. al-Hakim filed a motion to disqualify Hodge based on the above and Hodge withdrew from consideration.
But perhaps even more startling is the fact that at the November 22, 2005 hearing on the matter of Hodge’s disqualification AAA presented testimony that one of the reasons that Hodge declined the appointment was because plaintiff had not paid a proposed conflicted umpire. al-Hakim got a copy of a letter Judge Hodge wrote dated November 11, 2005 declining the appointment as the appraisal umpire in this matter stating that he is “advised that Plaintiff has refused to pay for the services of the previous umpire, Ralph Lombardi, after he had provided significant services to the parties; similarly, Plaintiff allegedly had refused to pay Mr. Lombardi’s retainer fee and I would not be prepared to offer my services in the absence of a retainer.”
al-Hakim sent Hodge three letters, two registered certified, asking since he was not involved in the referenced appraisal that Hodge answer and explain the source of his information and what independent knowledge he has of these facts, and what relationship he has with the parties including Judge Richman. Hodge has failed and refused to respond and thus is being deposed.
Judge Richman, abused the prerogative of office in appointing Ret. Judge Richard Hodge as the appraisal umpire, intentionally exploited his judicial office to attempt to influence the disposition of this matter. His conduct therefore constitutes willful misconduct, corruption, cronyism, collusion and abuse of discretion.
Defendants AAA in June of 2006 submitted and requested the nomination of trial Judge David Lee, as they had Judge Richard Hodge before him, as the appraisal umpire. Both of whom were conflicted as material percipient eye witness to extrinsic fraud perpetrated by AAA and defense counsels Sean O’Halloran and Stephan Barber in effort to compromise the Judges as a witness in the case. al-Hakim proposed to file another motion to disqualify Lee based on the above and AAA withdrew his nomination from consideration. Both Judges Lee and Hodge have been subpoenaed for depositions in the ongoing investigation of same.

Spoliation of Evidence and Unclean Hands

The City Attorney's Office has engaged in acts to coverup these unlawful tactics, failed and refused to disclose to the court, nor inform the Judge of their improper and illegal transgressions regarding the fact of the defendants removing and taking custody of the City of Oakland files for several months and allowed the trial to proceed knowing their liability and the legal impact of their spoliation of evidence of the documents therein and their unpardonable breach in the chain of custody of the City of Oakland files.
Judge Lee "unknowingly" allowed the illegal product of the spoliated evidence and unclean hands by defendant/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Cook and Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; and the Oakland City Attorney's Office run by John Russo to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony, as defendants and AAA fostered it’s use to prejudice the jury. During the trial, testimony revealed that there were numerous documents and photos of a very damaging nature to the defense and AAA that were missing, altered, or incomplete.
al-Hakim and his attorneys Michael Michel and Jeff Fackler, had attempted several times to obtain copies of the City litigation file from January 2000 to June of 2000 and was told by the City Attorney’s Office that the file was “missing” and was last requested by defendant Ron Cook. Finally, after six months, in June 2000, Anita Hong called to notify Mr. Michel that the file had been returned and was available for viewing. At that time Mr. Michel was told that the file had been returned by CSAA’s attorney. al-Hakim called Ms. Hong and was told the file was back and available for viewing, and when asked who returned the file, she responded “it was returned by Steve Barber of Ropers Majeski”.
al-Hakim contacted John Russo, the City Attorney of the City of Oakland several times by registered mail, phone and fax, regarding their independent knowledge of the interveners removal of the files from the City’s possession, and if such action was with the permission of the City Attorney. The City Attorney has failed and refused to effectively respond and such a non response, to ignore the fact that they have been caught in this transgression, reveals that John Russo and the City Attorney’s office was an accomplice to the breaking of the chain of custody of the evidence that was spoliated by the unclean hands of the hostile intervener, allowed the court to make the file a part of the record, and presented the spoliated evidence at trial. al-Hakim asserts that Russo's and the City Attorney's Office and the hostile intervener's misconduct in connection with the Rescue case qualified as “unclean hands” as their actions meet the requirement that, to be considered as unclean hands, a party's misbehavior must relate to the transaction in suit and to the adversary party.
You now have the municipality of the City of Oakland with John Russo and the City Attorney's Office being a willing accomplice to the unclean hands of the hostile intervener with their breaking the chain of custody of the court files and providing them to the defendants whom absconded with the files, engaged in spoliating them and later allowed the court to subpoena those files into the trial record without notifying the court of this specious, treacherous act. This deprivation of al-Hakim's civil, human and due process rights by the law enforcement body of the City Attorneys’ office of Oakland rise to the level of criminal activity and “misconduct by local and federal law enforcement officials. These actions are currently under investigation with Russo and his staff being subpoenaed to testify.

AAA Worked with The Defense Against It's Own Insured

As for the actions of al-Hakim’s own insurance carrier, AAA, the defendant/hostile intervener, there are equally as serious charges with regards to the actions of Cook and Willoughby Stuart & Bening; Barber and Ropers Majeski participation in the orchestration of defendants Rescue Rooter and Bay Area Carpet’s defense strategy against their client rather than represent al-Hakim as required by law. The witness testimony and evidence that was procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious testimony by them and the defendants, they engaged in actions to interfere with their client and litigant's legal case, engaged in actions to coverup the unlawful act of suborn and solicited perjurious testimony, committed fraud upon the court of the State of California, aided and abetted criminal activity, committed willful, criminal and corrupt perjury, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, conspiracy, subornation of perjurious testimony and solicitation of perjurious testimony, fraudulent concealment, spoliation of evidence with the City of Oakland, their unpardonable breach in the chain of custody of the court files, has committed patterned willful, criminal, and corrupt deception and fraud upon the court, extrinsic fraud, spoliation of evidence with the disappearance of court records, and qualify for the doctrine of unclean hands.

No Impunity and New Charges Against Parties

al-Hakim has asserted that as relevant to whether these and the many other new causes of action including abuse of al-Hakimdiscretion, gross misconduct, conduct prejudicial, gross negligence, bias, the subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony charges are inextricably intertwined with the truthful testimony and conduct of the named Judges Lee, Hodge and Ballachey; attorney Frank McKeown; defendant’s and their attorneys, agents, witnesses and experts; AAA and their attorneys, agents, witnesses and experts; Ron Cook and Willoughby Stuart & Bening and their attorneys, agents, witnesses and experts; and the City of Oakland Attorneys’ office, suggest that all documents, notes, meetings and conversations with and of the respective judges, witnesses, experts, defendants and counsels are admissible as to these charges for which there is no impunity.

###