The 1999 City File Note Refutes Recission Claim

The 1999 City File Note from Ron Cook's Files

The 1999 City File Note from Ron Cook's Files

The August 1999 City Note

These notes from Ron Cook’s copies of the City of Oakland files comes from a document entitled “Al-Hakim v. C/O (92416)” with two bates stamp numbers 001323 and 000002 (Attached thereto as Exhibit N) that was discovered on April 2, 2008 during trial subject to subpoena. This document apparently states a list of “documents not provided to council requesting file”, and further mentions “Attorney-Client and work product documents”. These notes clearly address:

1) conversations between and a one page memo from EFA (City Attorney Elizabeth Allen) to RWH (City Attorney Randy Hall) and former City Attorney employee Pat Smith on August 27, 1999- SIX YEARS AFTER Smith was fired by the City;

2) another conversation between and a one page memo from EFA (City Attorney Elizabeth Allen) to former City Attorney employee Pat Smith on August 27, 1999- SIX YEARS AFTER Smith was fired by the City;

3) Two pages of hand-written notes from JWW (City Attorney Janie Wong) to RWH (City Attorney Randy Hall) and former City Attorney employee Pat Smith on September 3, 1999- SIX YEARS AFTER Smith was fired by the City;

4) Undated, one page hand-written note from JLW (City Attorney Jane Williams) to persons unknown;

5) Undated, one page hand-written note from former City Attorney employee Pat Smith SIX YEARS AFTER Smith was fired by the City to EFA (City Attorney Elizabeth Allen);

6) Two pages of undated, unaddressed, undescribed notes for placement into the City file.

Pat Smith's Notes, Page 1

Pat Smith's Notes, Page 1

For years al-Hakim has asked for answers to the illuminating question of “Where are the rest of Pat Smith’s alleged City case file notes allegedly taken contemporaneously during her two years of involvement from 1991-1993 in this case?”. There was never any answer because there were no notes other than the two pages of notes (Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit #230, and Defendant’s Trial Exhibit #1514 with defendants bates stamp #000762-3 attached hereto as Exhibit O) that were planted into the City file after August 1999 by the Oakland City Attorney’s mentioned herein and at the behest of the defense attorney Stephan Barber.

Pat Smith's Notes, Page 2

Pat Smith's Notes, Page 2

Deputy defense-counsel Judge Tigar had ruled in pre-trail conference that Pat Smith’s notes would be admitted as evidence despite the fact that he noted that Judge David Lee had ruled them inadmissible in the Rescue trial. This is inconsistent with his ruling of all the previous orders of other judges relative to this case, no matter how remote, would prevail in this case and remain in full effect as he ruled on them and cited the prior judges ruling. Perhaps more revealing is that ALL those orders that he ruled on with the alleged support of previous judges orders were ALL against al-Hakim’s interest. During pre-trial conference al-Hakim had stated to the court that the defendants could not and would not produce any of the witnesses from the Rescue trial and none would appear at this trial because they all were known to have committed perjury. During the trial Defense counsel Barber stated to the court that he had tried to locate Pat Smith at the City of San Francisco but she no longer worked there and requested of the court that Pat Smith be allowed to testify through her notes and the Rescue transcript. al-Hakim raised the issue that the defendants had not provided any proof of their efforts to locate and serve Smith and alleging that they merely tried to reach her at her former place of employment was not enough. Tigar stated that he had read the Rescue trial testimony and notes of Pat Smith and would allow the transcript and her notes to be admitted as evidence if there was agreement that she would not appear as a witness. There was never any agreement between the parties on her not appearing as a witness and though Tigar knew there was no such agreement, Tigar admitted her testimony and notes into evidence at trial on August 6, 2008 while al-Hakim was absent attending a funeral for a second death during the trial.(See Trial ending order dated August 9, 2008 in Documents Box)

Oakland City Attorney Was Aware At All Times

Whom Had The Files And Why

Oakland City File Note Refutes Defendfants Recision Claim!

This evidence proves that the Oakland City Attorney’s Office knew at all times that defendants CSAA, Ron Cook and defense counsel Stephan Barber had the case files, that they provided the case files to them, that Pat Smith’s notes were clearly constructed in fraud and planted in the case files by the Oakland City Attorney’s Jane Williams, Randy Hall, Elizabeth Allen, Eliada Perez, Janie Wong, Anita Hong, and former Senior Investigator Pat Smith at the behest of defendants CSAA, Ron Cook, defense counsel Stephan Barber, and underlying defendants Rescue Rooter with their counsel William Jemmott and Bay Artea Carpets with their counsel Todd Jones. al-Hakim has previously served several deposition and trial subpoenas on ALL the parties named above and they have all failed to appear every time.

Since Pat Smith was terminated from the al-Hakim v. City of Oakland case for lying, fraud, and presenting false evidence before it was settled in September 1993 and she was fired from Oakland City employment shortly thereafter in 1994, there is no logical reason for her to have had such close and alleged privileged contact, conversations, and the sending and receiving of documents between her and Oakland City Attorneys Jane Williams, Randy Hall, Elizabeth Allen, Eliada Perez, Janie Wong, Anita Hong in August 1999- SIX YEARS AFTER she was fired by the City of Oakland. As she said at the Rescue trial while being examined by Rescue defense counsel William Jemmott under oath she “required her notes to respond to questions” because she could not remember what lies she had to testify to without them. The notes she previously alleged to have “created those notes at or near the time of the event as part of her claims file” is simply untrue. Her notes and testimony is why the defendants could not and would not ever produce her for testimony at trial and Oakland City Attorneys John Russo, Jane Williams, Randy Hall, Elizabeth Allen, Eliada Perez, Janie Wong, Anita Hong could not and would not ever appear for testimony at deposition or trial in this or the underlying case.

Oakland City Attorney John Russo Fabricated and Planted Evidence!

Who authored the August 1999 City note and how did they come to know the facts that were contained in it? When was the note constructed? What documents were provided to the requesting counsel? Who was the attorney that requested the file and how was it provided to them? What other documents were withheld and why? Who is the Attorney and who was the Client referred to in the Attorney-Client asserted in the note? What documents comprised the Attorney-Client privilege? What documents comprised the work product?

What are the notes for file and what happened to them? Did they get placed in the file, if by whom, when, where, why, how? What was the chain of command in the handling of the notes? Who approved and who knew about this illegal covert action?

The August 1999 City note clearly demonstrates that someone had made contact with Pat Smith before that date in order for her to engage in the illegal activities with the City Attorneys. Who contacted Smith, when, how and why? She admitted during her testimony at trial in the Rescue case that she was being paid for her efforts by the defendants. How much was she paid and what was the basis for her employment? When did Pat Smith review the City file after her employment ended in 1994 and October 1999? Since there is proof from invoices that defendant Ron Cook had hired John Ratto of D. L. Glaze, later called ASU, as an alleged adjustor in this case and we have found out that they had contacted the Oakland Police Department, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Department of Insurance in an investigation of al-Hakim under the guise adjusting/settling the claim in early 1999. It is entirely reasonable to expect that defendants CSAA, Cook and defense counsels themselves may have initiated the contact directly with both Smith and the Oakland City Attorneys office prior to August 1999 or at the very least it was another of their employees or contractors Douglas Kroll, Eller Torres, Lynn Koehler, Michael DeCesare, Gary Halpin. The blatant illegal activities of defense counsels Stephan Barber and Shawn O’Halloran are well established in this and the underlying case.

Oakland City Attorney John Russo Gave Files To Defendant Stephan Barber

Further, this file note clearly refutes all the testimony, alleged evidence and contentions in January and May 2000 on behalf of Cook and CSAA in their canceling the policy, denying the claim and demanding repayment of the partial tender of the repairs that they discovered during the October 1999 EUO that al-Hakim had withheld evidence of the City file and mislead them on the magnitude of the back up. This also refutes any allegation of al-Hakim not complying with the terms of the insurance contract by not agreeing to CSAA’s subpoena of the Crawford files in July 2000 because as al-Hakim had asserted, CSAA already had them in 1997 and at least a year earlier in August 1999 in the City files they had possession of. Not only did al-Hakim provide CSAA with his files from the City in 1997, but clearly CSAA had contacted both Pat Smith and City Attorneys before August 1999, had accessed the City file on or before August 1999, planted the evidence they wanted and purged the evidence they knew was damaging BEFORE the EUO began in October 1999, rescinded in the contract and denied coverage in May 2000 alleged on information they discovered during the EUO, then returned the file to the City in July 2000. It is without any question that the defendants CSAA and Ron Cook had this defense strategy long before the EUO began, began the investigation of al-Hakim in January 1999, contacted both Pat Smith and City Attorneys before August 1999, planted the alleged evidence before the EUO, conducted the EUO with the spoliated files in October-November 1999, illegally rescinded the contract and denied coverage of the claim in January and March 2000, conducted the appraisal with the spoliated files in April 2000, suborned perjurious testimony in support of their appraisal/defense strategy, and engineered the fraudulent appraisal that was overturned because of the fraud committed by Cook and CSAA. CSAA and Cook’s rescission of the contract, denying coverage and demanding repayment was all the product of extrinsic fraud, planting fraudulent evidence, spoliation of evidence, and suborned perjurious testimony in support of their appraisal/defense litigation strategy.

(510) 394-4701

Advertisements

Leave a comment

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Please Support AMWFT Efforts with Your Secure Paypal Sponsorship Donation

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 3 other followers

  • SUPERSTARMANAGEMENT’S iTUNES Podcast’s

  • ABC-TV Breaking News

    [clearspring_widget title="abc7news.com: news, weather & video" wid="4921ce44d2cc0f1e" pid="4a4c63c6d26c3e46" width="304" height="254" domain="widgets.clearspring.com"]
  • Now Truth! Twitter Roll

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.