Attorney General Jerry Brown Defending and Covering Up DA Tom Orloff and Criminals Supposed To Investigate and Prosecute!

Attorney General Jerry Brown

Attorney General Jerry Brown responsible for carrying out investigation of Alameda County Superior Court, State Appeals Court, District Attorney Tom Orloff, and various corporate defendants is himself defending some of the criminals and covering up the very same corruption he is supposed to be investigating and prosecuting!

Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge Conceals Corruption

As demonstrated in Page-Section entitled “Judicial, Government, Attorney and Corporate Corruption in al-Hakim v. CSAA and Rescue Matters”, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim filed a federal complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him during a trial in Superior Court of Alameda County, California.

Congresswoman Lee's Letter Referring USAG Bradley Scholzman to al-Hakim

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, reviewed by several legal experts, with advocacy by former Republican Senator J. C. Watts, a client of al-Hakim’s, is moving forward with the investigation and charges of criminal extrinsic fraud upon the court of the State of California, fabricating and planting fabricated evidence, 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 many others.
The complaint addresses concern that Superior Court Judges’, defendants, defense counsels and others 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, 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.
After review in the U. S. A. G. Office, the case was thought of as being so egregious that even the infamous Bradley Schlozman, whom is now fired and facing Federal indictment with resigned former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez for removing Democratic attorneys from the U. S. Attorneys Generals offices nationwide, sent al-Hakim a letter referring the matter (because of jurisdictional limitations) to the California State Attorney General, California State Bar Association, the California State Judicial Council, and California State Insurance Commissioner for investigation and prosecution. And these were Republican Judges and attorney’s being complained of!

Page 1 of USAG Bradley Scholzman Letter to al-Hakim

Page 2 of USAG Bradley Scholzman Letter to al-Hakim

Watch U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Comment On Bradley Schlozman

The requested depositions and investigation concerns trial Judge David C. Lee’s allowance of the illegal product of fabricated and planted evidence, spoliated evidence and unclean hands by defendant/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Cook and Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; defense counsel Steve Barber and the law firm of Ropers Majeski; the other underlying defendants; 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.
Now, however, the very same California State Attorney General, Jerry Brown, responsible for carrying out the investigation of these crimes is himself defending these and other criminals and covering up the very same corruption he is supposed to be investigating and prosecuting!

DA Tom Orloff Committed Extrinsic Fraud

Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff’s Extrinsic Fraud Upon the Court, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Willful and Malicious Prosecution, Conflict of Interest, Obstruction of Justice, Denial of Due Process, Willful and Intentional Fabrication and Authoring False Evidence; Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts

al-Hakim had to file an action against Tom Orloff and the Alameda County District Attorney’s (DA) and the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services (ACDCSS) because for over 15 years they repeatedly failed and refused to enforce the courts own orders for the fair and proper application and accounting of payments al-Hakim made in trust to the DA in their fiduciary capacity for the minor al-Hakim child depriving al-Hakim and the minor child of over $2,000 of monies paid, thus creating a “mythical” arrearage and open account in al-Hakim’s name and on his behalf owed to the minor child, then illegally charging al-Hakim with the crime of violating the child support statute for nonpayment, reporting the alleged violation to the State of California for Collection and the State Department of Motor Vehicles for suspension of his driving privilege for nonpayment and illegally tossing al-Hakim into “debtors prison”, suspending his drivers license, revoking his passport, and ruining his credit. ACDCSS actions and claimed “right” to perform in this manner are not contained in any State or Federal statute, regulation, or other legislative act and therefore, do not have the force of law and renders it constitutionally infirm and no court officer can merely “grant” a ruling in their favor to cover getting caught having done so.

Oakland Community Wants To Meet With Orloff- Denied!!

Commissioner Glenn Oleon’s Misconduct, Bias, Prejudice,

Gross Abuse of Discretion” and Intentional Erroneous Rulings

al-Hakim further brought an appeal because he was prejudiced by Commissioner Glenn Oleon’s “misconduct, bias, prejudice, gross abuse of discretion” and erroneous rulings when he: (1) failed and refused to enforce the courts own order of February 5, 2007 for the District Attorney’s(DA) fair and proper application and accounting of payments al-Hakim made in trust to the DA in their fiduciary capacity for the al-Hakim Hall account as per al-Hakim’s pleading, supported by al-Hakim’s submitted documents including his own ACDCSS receipts for the al-Hakim Hall account depriving al-Hakim of over $2,000 credit of monies paid thus creating this mythical $5,000 arrearage and open account, (2) when he failed and refused to enforce Family Law code section 5238 requiring first payment of all monies due to the minor with the outstanding current order for support, thus Ms. Maureen Lenahan and ACDCSS proceeded to deny the minor al-Hakim Hall child her due payments for the months listed herein creating this mythical $5,000 arrearage and open account, (3) when he complicitly committed fraud with his knowing, conscience, and willful action of adopting Ms. Lenahan and ACDCSS’s known fraudulent accounting of the monies paid by al-Hakim in trust to the DA for the al-Hakim Hall account in their fiduciary capacity in defiance of the law and the courts December 1992, and February 5, 2007 orders with knowledge the accounting was fraudulent, totally in error, had no integrity, no legal basis, no factual support, no evidence of any actual disbursements and changed six times with ACDCSS’s desired result creating this mythical $5,000 arrearage and open account, (4) when he knowingly, consciously, and willfully allowed the commission of fraud by the acceptance of Ms. Maureen Lenahan and ACDCSS’s known fraudulent accounting of the monies paid in trust to the DA for the al-Hakim Hall account in their fiduciary capacity in defiance of the law and the courts December 1992, and February 5, 2007 orders with knowledge the accounting was fraudulent, totally in error, had no integrity, no legal basis, no factual support, no evidence of any actual disbursements and changed six times with ACDCSS’s desired result creating this mythical $5,000 arrearage and open account, (5) when he denied al-Hakim’s motion to temporarily reinstate his driving privilege, suspended for alleged nonpayment of child support, pending the resolution of this matter, (6) when he failed and refused to enforce the law and court orders regarding the allowance/disallowance of evidence and testimony surroundings the issues in the motion and (7) al-Hakim believes and thereon alleges that Commissioner Glenn P. Oleon had improper ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim and did not inform the parties.

Chris Muhammed On DA Orloff Denying Meeting

These erroneous rulings based on the courts knowing and willing adoption and allowance of the known fraudulent misapplication of the money paid by al-Hakim to the District Attorney in their fiduciary capacity in trust for al-Hakim Hall created an arrearage in the al-Hakim Hall case that does not truly exist. There is no excuse for these errors on behalf of ACDCSS since they have had the same reconciliation of the payments made pursuant to the courts order and al-Hakim’s submitted documents and pleadings commensurate with ACDCSS own receipts therefrom for the fair and proper application and accounting of the same payments made as per al-Hakim’s pleading to the al-Hakim Hall account from al-Hakim for 10 years! The court should never have made these rulings, and certainly never knowingly.
As a result of Commissioner Oleon’s abuse of discretion, willful misconduct, conduct prejudicial, and bias that resulted in error; and the District Attorney’s extrinsic fraud upon the court, prosecutorial misconduct, willful and malicious prosecution, misconduct, conflict of interest, obstruction of justice, denial of due process under the law, willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance, harassment and intimidation; the judgment below must be reversed, and the court should order (1) the enforcement of the courts order of February 5, 2007 for the DA’s fair and proper application and accounting of al-Hakim’s payments made in trust to the DA in their fiduciary capacity for the al-Hakim Hall account as per al-Hakim’s pleading, supported by al-Hakim’s submitted documents, (2) officially close the al-Hakim Hall account with no arrearage owed; (3) the D. A. is estopped from any attempt to collect the arrearages that they themselves caused; (4) the immediate reinstatement of al-Hakim’s driving privilege until such time as the matter is concluded with  all references to his license being suspended expunged from his driving record; (5) awarding Attorney’s and Professional Fees, Costs, and Sanctions for the total cost of $24,620.00; (6) damages for the loss of income, pursuit of happiness, pain and suffering for the years of punitive deprivation of appellants driving privilege and (7) this Court to remand this case to the trial court level to continue further trial proceedings consistent with the requested decision and order.
The issues raised in his motion presents an actual controversy in that the issues in that matter were not argued nor briefed and the court did not rule on the issues as plead by al-Hakim. These orders denying the appeal, the motions to Augment the Record on Appeal and for an Extension of Time to file the Opening Brief in this matter is of the character which the principles of U.S. Const. amend. I, V, VI, and XIV, as adopted by the Due Process Clause, protect. This is a clear denial of al-Hakim rights under the United States and California State Constitution. To allow these orders is oppressive, unconscionable, prejudicial, a clear abuse of process and a gross miscarriage of justice!

Attorney General of The State of California Substituted In

Attorney General Substitute for DA Tom Orloff

On January 22, 2008 Attorney General Jerry Brown and the Office of The Attorney General of The State of California substituted in as attorney of record in this case for the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services allegedly “in the interest of justice”. What justice is there in the Attorney General defending, concealing and thereby further complicitly committing the admitted willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the court; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; and intimidation on behalf of District Attorney Tom Orloff, Maureen Lenahan, Valgeria Harvey, counselors L. Lavagetto, Ms. K. Pendergrass, Ms. Adler, Kris Ferre, and accountant Mr. Lovelady and others unnamed in the DA’s office and Commissioner Oleon’s abuse of discretion, willful misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias that resulted in error.
This was done to excuse and protect the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services from their ongoing conflict of interest in their alleging to represent the interest of Joette Hall, whom they had defrauded along with al-Hakim of the funds paid to the DCSS in trust for their minor child.
The Alameda County Department of Child Support Services was never representing the al-Hakim Hall family, they were defending and covering up their extrinsic fraud upon the state and the families. The Alameda County Department of Child Support Services wanted to conceal their attempted coercion of al-Hakim to pay the arrearage they created in his name and illegally tossing him into “debtors prison”, suspending his drivers license, revoking his passport, and ruining his credit.
al-Hakim and his family had complained many times each year about the misapplication of the funds tendered to the Department of Child Support Services in trust for the al-Hakim Hall family (See Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 in Documents Section to the left)

The Case- District Attorney Admits Misapplication of Funds

al-Hakim had previously communicated with Mr. L. Lavagetto and Ms. K. Pendergrass from the Office of the District Attorney- Family Support Division several times regarding this matter of the misapplication of funds and the suspension of his drivers license and personally knows that both are intimately familiar with this case. In the past he had met with both regarding the misapplication of the monies paid into the account of Mrs. Hall. This was done over al-Hakim’s objection, continued after he found out about it and complained, and with out his permission.

DA Bill Kleeman Letter to al-Hakim Admitting Orloff Fraud!

Both personally knew that this matter was further adjudicated in September 1999 wherein District Attorney Bill Kleeman admitted to the judge that the monies had been paid, misapplied by their office and in fact al-Hakim was entitled to a refund on the al-Hakim Hall account, and it would be too expensive to conduct a formal accounting to correct the problem.
Mr. Kleeman stated since the overpayment monies had been misapplied or where missing, the account for al-Hakim Hall would be closed and reflect that it has been paid with no further payments due by al-Hakim, but for internal accounting purposes of the their Office only, to ensure payment to al-Hakim Hall, it would be left open with the $100 monthly payments made being shared with al-Hakim Hall. al-Hakim has attached herewith a letter that was sent to him with copies sent to the mothers by District Attorney’s Tom Orloff and Bill Kleeman apologizing for the error in the application of the funds and ascertaining these facts in October 19, 1999.
From 1999 to District Attorney Kleeman’s death in 2001 the payments were applied according to Tom Orloff’s letter of October 1999. After his death the Department of Child Support Services office reverted to paying the funds anyway that they chose.Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal in al-Hakim v. Hall filed in Appeals Court July 31, 2008(attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 21, Line 16 to Page 22, Line 11 of partial transcript of February 5, 2007 hearing in Documents Section to the left)
District Attorney Harvey attempts to dismiss the factual basis and policy followed by District Attorney Kleeman and the Department of Child Support Services and argued that the letter from her current boss Tom Orloff, was unsigned, there was no further record of it and did not know how it came about. (attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 11, Line 10-12 of partial transcript of November 28, 2006 hearing in Documents Section to the left)
District Attorney Harvey admits that the DA did not properly account for the funds even after being ordered to do so by the court. (attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 17, Line 17 of partial transcript of February 5, 2007 hearing in Documents Section to the left)
Judge Sue Alexander states that “my concern is that the money can’t be refunded to him, and it may go to the wrong party”. (attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 11, Line 17 of partial transcript of November 28, 2006 hearing in Documents Section to the left)

Requests for Reporters and Clerks Transcripts

On June 7, 2007 al-Hakim paid fees of $100 for the Notice of Appeal and $325 for reporters transcripts and on January 2, 2008 paid $320 for the clerks transcripts even though he did not want or need them, simply to get the reporters transcripts. The Appeals Court has never produced or provided either of them to al-Hakim.
On June 4, 2008 al-Hakim went to the Appeals Court and filed a letter to Mr. Dick Sandvick of the Court of Appeals office regarding the fees he paid of $320 for the clerks transcripts that he never received nor the record on appeal nor the two reporters transcripts ordered and paid $325 for(See letter in Documents Section to the left). They checked the record on appeal and found that there was only the four reporters transcripts that al-Hakim had previously provided to the Appeals Court with various pleadings, the other requested and paid reporters transcripts were still missing. Mr. Sandvick suggested that al-Hakim file the motion to augment the record on appeal to secure the needed reporters transcripts. Mr. Sandvick also advised al-Hakim not to file an incomplete brief just to meet the deadline and stated that would be more problematic than filing the motions for augmentation and reconsideration.
On June 10, 2008 al-Hakim filed a motion to Augment the Record on Appeal and on June 13, 2008 filed an Application for an Extension of Time To File Opening Brief with the Court of Appeals. (See motion in Documents Section to the left)
On June 23, 2008 both motions were granted with the motion to Augment the Record on Appeal to include the reporters transcripts of the August 12, 1999 hearing. (See order attached under Motion to Augment filed July 11, 2008 in Documents Section to the left)

DA Orloff Refuses To Provide Documents and Information On Police

The Importance of The Needed Transcripts that Was Denied

The transcript that was needed was the transcript of the September 10, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. hearing in Department  3. (see September 2, 1999 letter to Brent Kernan attached as Exhibit A to July 9, 2008 letter to Dick Sandvick in Documents Section to left) The letter discusses the fact that al-Hakim was personally at the September 10, 1999 hearing, represented by attorney Brent Kernan, the County was represented by Assistant District Attorney Bill Kleeman, and the judge made a request in court that everyone acknowledge that we both had a mutual business associate that was involved in this matter and he did not want there to be any perception of bias or conflict.
Before the hearing al-Hakim had meet with Bill Kleeman regarding the case matter, went over the receipts for payment again, and he admitted during the September 10, 1999 hearing that the DA’s office had made some very unfortunate mistakes in this matter and he wanted to resolve them. Then after that hearing Mr. Kleeman sent al-Hakim the letter of October 19, 1999 from the District Attorney, Tom Orloff apologizing for the errors on the part of the District Attorney’s Office.(see October 19, 1999 letter in Documents Section to left)
al-Hakim made a continued effort to secure the transcripts ordered as far back as ten years ago and just two years ago paid in advance for the transcript to no avail. al-Hakim still does not have the transcripts ordered and the critical importance and necessity of the transcripts are found in the sound discretion of Alameda County Superior Court Judge Sue Alexander on record at the November 28, 2006 hearing in this matter as follows:
a)    Judge Alexander implored al-Hakim “you need to get a copy of the transcript from …. September 10, 1999, the Court Reporter was Carol Gilbert. And she can be found in Oakland”.(attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 2, Line 4-8 of partial transcript of November 28, 2006 hearing in Documents Section to the left)
b)    Judge Alexander tells al-Hakim “That’s why you need to get those transcripts” (attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 4, Line 1-2 of partial transcript of November 28, 2006 hearing in Documents Section to the left)
c)    Judge Alexander states to District Attorney Vangeria Harvey “then he needs to get those transcripts” (attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 5, Line 1-2 of partial transcript of November 28, 2006 hearing in Documents Section to the left)
d)    Judge Alexander advises al-Hakim “I’m just telling you, if these are things — if these are things — you need to get these records, because otherwise they’re not in the Court file”. (attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 5, Line 13-15 of partial transcript of November 28, 2006 hearing in Documents Section to the left)
e)    Judge Alexander advises al-Hakim “All I’m trying to inform you is that —- some of the information you’re saying is not in the Court file. You may want to get the transcripts”. (attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 5, Line 17-20 of partial transcript of November 28, 2006 hearing in Documents Section to the left)
f)    Judge Alexander advises al-Hakim “If you want to get transcripts, you should probably have them for the hearing”. (attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 14, Line 1-2 of partial transcript of November 28, 2006 hearing in Documents Section to the left)

The importance of the transcripts from the September 10, 1999 hearing and the October 19, 1999 letter from District Attorney, Tom Orloff are reflected in Judge Sue Alexander’s comments on the record:
a) Judge Alexander reads the District Attorney’s letter stating “Since the money was sent erroneously to the wrong custodial parent, it is my present intention to pay all money received on the arrears to Ms. Hall” your department, you misapplied the payment. This letter states that”. (attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 3, Line 1-12 of partial transcript of November 28, 2006 hearing in Documents Section to the left)
b) Judge Alexander tells District Attorney Vangeria Harvey “It seems like what got us into this problem is: The wrong person got the money in the first place, at some point in time”. (attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 10, Line 23-25 of partial transcript of November 28, 2006 hearing in Documents Section to the left)
c) Judge Alexander tells District Attorney Vangeria Harvey “According to the letter from your department, you misapplied the payment. The letter states that”. (attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 11, Line 7-9 of partial transcript of November 28, 2006 hearing in Documents Section to the left)

Appeals Court’s Previous CRC rule 25(c) Denials

California Presiding Supreme Court Justice Ronald M. George

al-Hakim feared, and quite correctly so, that as in the past, this Appeals Court Division lead by Appellate Judges Barbara Jones, James Richman, and Henry Needham with cover and sanctuary provide by Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, and court administrators Mary Quilez and Clerk Diana Herbert had engaged in and were directly responsible for the denials and resulting dismissals as they would not act on his motions and merely deny them outright or by not making a ruling until it’s jurisdiction has run and any order is “timed out”. He has had this Appeals court do this twice when it was known to the court the information sought to be found or augmented to the record was fatal to the opposition, they denied them outright or by not making a ruling until it’s jurisdiction has run.
For example, in case A 112691 the Respondent/Defendants failed and refused to serve a motion to dismiss on al-Hakim, and he was in the Court of Appeals regarding another matter and was informed that there was a motion to dismiss filed by the respondents and that it had a proof of service attached. At that time al-Hakim was informed to file a response with the information included. al-Hakim could not reasonably respond to the motion without having seen it and requested the opportunity to do so in a timely manner. For that reason, al-Hakim requested that the court deny the motion for failure to legally or properly serve it. The Appeals court did nothing to ensure the proper litigation process and it was discovered that Deputy Clerk Mary Quilez was directly responsible for the reigning confusion and resulting dismissal by Clerk Diana Herbert due to CRC rule 25(c) as they allowed the jurisdictional time to elapse without a ruling.

Appeals Court Denial of al-Hakim’s Request to Supplement Record on Appeal

As this action was taken against the State, the State has a vested interested in this matter not going forward in a fair and just manner, and is the basis for not providing al-Hakim with the clerks transcripts that were ordered and paid for; the ordered and paid for transcripts of the hearings to complete the record on appeal; denying the motions to Augment the Record on Appeal and for an Extension of Time to file the Opening Brief; and not ruling on the July 31, 2008 Motion for Reconsideration of the courts July 19, 2008 order denying al-Hakim requests to Augment the Record on Appeal and for an Extension of Time to file the Opening Brief; and finally- dismissing the case. This fact is apparent and resonates with inherent bias when Judge Alexander tells District Attorney Vangeria Harvey “It seems like what got us (the State) into this problem is: The wrong person got the money in the first place, at some point in time”. (attached with Motion for Reconsideration filed July 31, 2008 under Exhibit B is Page 10, Line 23-25 of partial transcript of November 28, 2006 hearing in Documents Section to the left)
al-Hakim had waited for a ruling on the July 31, 2008 Motion for Reconsideration of the courts July 19, 2008 order denying his requests to Augment the Record on Appeal and for an Extension of Time to file the Opening Brief before filing the motion and did not have any more time to wait to address this issue and the court must so.
As with the motions that were “denied” because the appeals court did not rule on them in a timely manner, it also has refused to augment the record on appeal when it was clear that the evidence would be harmful to the State and defendants Alameda County Department of Child Support Services (ACDCSS) and the Alameda County District Attorney(DA).
The Appeals Court had discretion to take additional evidence on appeal (Code Civ. Proc., § 909.) where the proffered evidence demonstrates that the matter turns on the evidence tendered.

In cases A101832 and A112089 al-Hakim had requested the Appeals Court grant his request to supplement the record on Appeal and present evidence imperative to the establishment of Respondents/Defendants Ron Cook, the law firm of Willoughby Stuart and Bening, CSAA and it’s defense counsels Sean O’Halloran, Stephan Barber and the firm of Ropers Majeski as the hostile intervener in his underlying case against Rescue Industries and Bay Area Carpets, provided evidence that was procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious testimony by them and the underlying defendants, their counsels and experts; engaged in actions to interfere with my 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; committed willful, criminal and corrupt perjury, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud; fraudulent concealment by willfully and intentionally withholding their knowledge and insight of the intervention hearing and the transcript of said hearing; and allowed the trial to proceed knowing their responsibility and the legal impact; extrinsic fraud; spoliation of evidence; and qualify for the doctrine of unclean hands with the appropriate consequent sanctions and punishment upon them was denied with no explanation.

MISTAH FAB On Orloff Denying Rights of Due Process

Unreported Conflict of Commissioner Taylor Culver and

Presiding Judge Yolanda Northridge

On November 8, 2006, al-Hakim was informed by the Family Law Clerk that the license reinstatement application was denied by Commissioner Taylor Culver in Department 24. al-Hakim then objected to Mr. Culver ruling on this matter wherein he is conflicted as he has represented al-Hakim in the past, was fired for his dereliction, and he is aware that his dereliction is still an ongoing concern in that case. Additionally, his ex-wife Sandra was involved in this same child case earlier. Upon al-Hakim serving that notice, Presiding Judge Yolanda Northridge, whom also was conflicted, reassigned this matter as per Judicial Administration Rule 6.603 (b) (1) (D) to Department 508 of the Alameda County Superior Court in Hayward.
Once in Department 508 the matter was initially heard by Judge Sue Alexander whom admitted that she had a conflict due to her relationships with Mr. L. Lavagetto and Ms. K. Pendergrass and asked if they might be called as witnesses. al-Hakim stated he intended to have them testify as they were the perpetrators of this crime. She withdrew and sent the matter to Commissioner Glenn Oleon, but not before mentioning that she had discussed this case with Presiding Judge Yolanda Northridge.
On October 30, 2006 al-Hakim also filed an Order To Show Cause for Judicial Review of License Denial, and Request for Judicial Determination of Support Arrearages. (See Order To Show Cause in Documents Section to the left)

Alameda County District Attorney Crimes:

Extrinsic Fraud
On Monday, February 5, 2007 the court ordered that al-Hakim meet with ACDCSS to provide the receipts and documentation for the complete proper accounting on the al-Hakim Hall account to properly apply the payments al-Hakim made pursuant the court orders of December 1992, February 5, 2007, al-Hakim’s submitted documents and pleadings commensurate with ACDCSS own receipts. (See order in Documents Section to the left)
On Wednesday, February 7, 2007 al-Hakim met ACDCSS accountant Mr. Lovelady whom had a rough accounting of the receipts that did not include the payments made by Attorney Ed Bell in this matter nor had he properly account for the missing payment for June 1994 and others.(attached as Exhibit C in Documents Section to the left) He still had proposed errors of payments still missing, payments reversed, incorrect amounts, and no accounting or application support or logic.
al-Hakim supplied Mr. Lovelady with the actual accounting to properly apply the payments he made pursuant the court orders of December 1992, February 5, 2007, al-Hakim’s submitted documents and pleadings commensurate with ACDCSS own receipts and the law.(attached as Exhibit D in Documents Section to the left) Mr. Lovelady assured al-Hakim that he would complete the computations with the corrections and have it to al-Hakim by Friday, February 9, 2007 so that they could review and make any necessary changes before issuance of a final accounting. Lovelady said that he would provide an accurate, truthful accounting with the payments as detailed in accordance with the court order of al-Hakim’s ACDCSS receipts for payment and the clarifications they discussed. al-Hakim did not receive the accounting by the date promised and was unable to make any changes to the final draft.
On February 20, 2007, al-Hakim received the accounting that was still very much in error and clearly reflects ACDCSS offices continued willful and intentional fraud, defying of court orders, withholding of evidence, misstating of the facts, etc. The court ordered the proper application of the payments to be made yet the accounting is still void of such application in the face of the court orders, the actual receipts, the clarifications the parties discussed, and documents presented by al-Hakim! Some of the intentional errors include: payments still missing, payments reversed, incorrect amounts, and misapplication of payments.
Ms. Lenahan and ACDCSS, in defiance of the courts orders, has continued to fail and refuse to properly apply the payments al-Hakim made pursuant the court orders of December 1992, February 5, 2007, al-Hakim’s submitted documents and pleadings commensurate with ACDCSS own receipts and the law, that has still created a deficit with the $1,337 that has willfully not been properly applied and still failed and refused to respond to the letter.

The District Attorney of AIameda County is charged with child support orders in non-welfare cases in which the custodial parent requests such enforcement. Wel. & Inst. §11475.1. Being so charged, the District Attorney is given no statutory authority to apply child support payments in a manner contrary to that ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction over the repeated objection of the al-Hakim. al-Hakim has overpaid his child support and arrears obligation for Joette Hall.

Yolanda "The Toad" Northridge

Fabricating and Authoring False Evidence
The District Attorney’s Office willfully and intentionally fabricating and authoring false evidence, and misstating or mischaracterizing the evidence of the many accountings submitted by ACDCSS despite court orders and the law against such actions. That cannot be done. A Superior Court is a single tribunal. An order made by one judge cannot be ignored or overlooked by another judge or the District Attorney.  An order by a judge is “the order of the superior court and it [is] binding and effective on all other departments of the court.” (Lee v. Offenberg (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 575, 583.) The D. A. has committed misconduct and denied al-Hakim due process.

Prosecutorial Misconduct
The People of the State of California, County of Alameda, represented by District Attorney Tom Orloff, Maureen Lenahan, Valgeria Harvey, counselors L. Lavagetto, Ms. K. Pendergrass, Ms. Adler, Kris Ferre, and accountant Mr. Lovelady and others unnamed have committed continuing acts of prosecutorial misconduct. “The applicable Federal and State standards regarding prosecutorial misconduct are well established. ‘ “A prosecutor’s . . . intemperate behavior violates the Federal Constitution when it comprises a pattern of conduct ‘so egregious that it infects the hearing with such unfairness as to create a denial of due process.’ ”  ( People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 1196, 1214 [40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 456, 892 P.2d 1199]; People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 806, 820 [12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 682, 838 P.2d 204].) Conduct by a prosecutor that renders a trial or hearing fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law if it involves ‘ ” ‘the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.’ ” ‘ ( People v. Espinoza, supra, 3 Cal. 4th at p. 820.)” ( People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal. 4th 795, 841 [64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 400, 938 P.2d 2] (hereafter Samayoa).)

Prosecutors, however, are held to an elevated standard of conduct. “It is the duty of every member of the bar to ‘maintain the respect due to the courts’ and to ‘abstain from all offensive personality.’ ( Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subds. (b) and (f).) A prosecutor is held to a standard higher than that imposed on other attorneys because of the unique function he or she performs in representing the interests, and in exercising the sovereign power, of the state. ( People v. Kelley (1977) 75 Cal. App. 3d 672, 690 [142 Cal. Rptr. 457].) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, the prosecutor represents ‘a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.’ ( Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88 [79 L. Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629].)

California Appellate Judge Barbara Jones

Prosecutors who engage in rude or intemperate behavior, even in response to provocation by opposing counsel, greatly demean the office they hold and the People in whose name they serve. (See People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 839, 849 [97 Cal. Rptr. 684, 489 P.2d 564]; People v. Kelley, supra, 75 Cal. 3d 672, 680-689.)” ( People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 806, 819-820 [12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 682, 838 P.2d 204]; see also People v. Herring (1993) 20 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1076 [25 Cal. Rptr. 2d 213].)

Misstating the Evidence
al-Hakim contends the District Attorney’s Office committed misconduct on several occasions by willfully and intentionally fabricating and authoring false evidence, and misstating or mischaracterizing the evidence of the many accountings submitted by ACDCSS despite court orders and the law against such actions. Although prosecutors have wide latitude to draw inferences from the evidence presented at trial or hearing, mischaracterizing the evidence is misconduct. ( People v. Avena (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 394, 420 [53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 301, 916 P.2d 1000]; see also People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal. 4th 415, 472 [48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 525, 907 P.2d 373].) A prosecutor’s “vigorous” presentation of facts favorable to his or her side “does not excuse either deliberate or mistaken misstatements of fact.” ( People v. Purvis (1963) 60 Cal. 2d 323, 343 [33 Cal. Rptr. 104, 384 P.2d 424].) (1c) Although the line between permissible and impermissible argument may sometimes appear unclear, the District Attorney’s office here has clearly crossed that line many times and al-Hakim is entitled to relief as plead.

Presenting False Evidence and Violation of Due Process
In spite of the courts orders for ACDCSS to compile the actual accounting of the complete proper application of the payments al-Hakim made pursuant the court orders of December 1992, February 5, 2007, al-Hakim’s submitted documents and pleadings commensurate with ACDCSS own receipts and the law, Ms. Lenahan and ACDCSS, in defiance of the courts orders, has continued to fail and refuse to properly apply the payments. al-Hakim is correct when he contends on the authority of Giglio v. U.S.  (1972) 405 U.S. 150, 153-154 [31 L.Ed.2d 104, 108-109, 92 S.Ct. 763] and Napue  v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264 [3 L.Ed.2d 1217, 79 S.Ct. 1173] that the failure to correct false evidence is just as offensive to the precepts of justice as the knowing presentation of false testimony. The United States Supreme Court has unequivocally held that the District Attorney’s knowing use of false or perjured testimony or evidence constitutes a violation of due process. (See Mooney  Holohan  (1935) 294 U.S. 103, 112 [79 L.Ed. 791, 794, 55 S.Ct. 340, 98 A.L.R. 406]; Pyle  v. Kansas  (1942) 317 U.S. 213 [87 L.Ed. 214, 63 S.Ct. 177]; Napue v. Illinois, supra,  360 U.S. 264, 269 [3 L.Ed.2d 1217, 1221]; Colorado v. Connelly (1986) 479 U.S. 157, 166-167 [93 L.Ed.2d 473, 484, 107 S.Ct. 515, 522].) As the Supreme Court reiterated in Connelly, “[t]he aim of the requirement of due process is not to exclude presumptively false evidence, but to prevent fundamental unfairness in the use of evidence, whether true or false.’ Lisenba  v. California 314 U.S. 219, 236 . . . (1941).” (479 U.S. at p. 167 [93 L.Ed.2d at p.484,107 S.Ct. at 522].)
The District Attorney’s misconduct is unprofessional, outrageous, reprehensible, and betrayed their trust as a public prosecutor in this instance which merely adds to the growing mountain of deceit and unethical behavior in the al-Hakim cases, is profoundly troubling. You cannot ignore their methods ushered the overall prejudice to al-Hakim’s rights caused by the District Attorney’s pervasive campaign to mislead on key legal points created a negative synergistic effect, rendering the degree of overall unfairness to al-Hakim and his family more than that flowing from the sum of the individual errors. Considering the cumulative impact of the District Attorney’s misconduct, at both the previous hearings, the evidence submitted and the admissions of their offices of the accuracy of al-Hakim’s accounting, together with the other errors throughout the matter, you must conclude al-Hakim was deprived of that which the state was constitutionally required to provide and he is entitled to receive a fair hearing, a proper accounting of the funds tendered on both accounts, attorney’s fees and costs, sanctions for the herein described behavior of the District Attorney’s Office and it’s employees, and a release from the suspension of his driving privilege.

Attorney General Jerry Brown with Mass Murderer Jim Jones

The child support order in this case was entered requiring al-Hakim to make his child support payments through the District Attorney’s office as the court trustee for the family with the fiduciary responsibility to comply with the court’s order, receipt for payment, and the proper disbursement pursuant thereto. al-Hakim requested this process and the DA agreed because there were claims in the past of payments being made as gifts, as opposed to being truthful payments of child support that resulted in the arrearage that the court has awarded in the other case. ACDCSS has performed no better than the deceitful mother that claimed all child support payments made to her were a gift to her after receiving 17 years of child support.

Attorney General Jerry Brown and District Attorney Tom Orloff’s Accountability and Transparency
Accountability and transparency is Orloff and DA Bill Kleeman openly admitting that they have reviewed the reciepts and concluded District Attorney Tom Orloff, Maureen Lenahan, Valgeria Harvey, counselors L. Lavagetto, Ms. K. Pendergrass, Ms. Adler, Kris Ferre, and accountant Mr. Lovelady and others unnamed in the DA’s office had defrauded al-Hakim and his family, apologized and took responsibility for it. That’s a mans way of facing the crime head on without firing the perpratrators and paying the mythical debt.
When upon Kleeman’s death District Attorney Tom Orloff, Maureen Lenahan, Valgeria Harvey, counselors L. Lavagetto, Ms. K. Pendergrass, Ms. Adler, Kris Ferre,  accountant Mr. Lovelady and others unnamed in the DA’s office later defied and denied this admission and resorted to conceal their attempted coercion of al-Hakim to pay the mythical arrearage they created in his name, illegally tossing him into “debtors prison”, suspending his drivers license, revoking his passport, and ruining al-Hakim’s credit; District Attorney Tom Orloff, Maureen Lenahan, Valgeria Harvey, counselors L. Lavagetto, Ms. K. Pendergrass, Ms. Adler, Kris Ferre, and accountant Mr. Lovelady and others unnamed was willfully and intentionally committing extrinsic fraud upon the court; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; and intimidation.

Attorney General Jerry Brown Complicitly Committed Admitted Willful and Intentional Extrinsic Fraud Upon The State, al-Hakim and His Family
California Attorney General Jerry Brown defended, concealed and thereby further complicitly committed the admitted willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the State, al-Hakim and his family, and the court; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; and intimidation committed by District Attorney Tom Orloff, Maureen Lenahan, Valgeria Harvey, counselors L. Lavagetto, Ms. K. Pendergrass, Ms. Adler, Kris Ferre, and accountant Mr. Lovelady and others unnamed in the DA’s office; as well as Commissioner Oleon’s abuse of discretion, willful misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias that resulted in error.
This onerous, odious taint and obvious complicity in quilt of these crimes makes it legally impossible for Brown to unbaisedly and practically investigate and prosecute the wrong doing of ALL the parties known to have committed these heinous, over 12 years of crimes against al-Hakim, his family, business, clients, community, and humanity as he himself defended the criminals and covered up the very same corruption he is supposed to be investigating and prosecuting!
This is one of the myriad of reasons this matter will be referred back to Congressman John Conyers and the Judiciary Committee and United States Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice for complete investigation and prosecution of the crimes against al-Hakim.

(510) 394-4701

2 Comments

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI