7633 SUNKIST DRIVE, OAKLAND, CA 94605-3024
PH (510) 394-4501
TO: Barbara J. Parker FAX #: 510 238-6500
City Attorney NO PAGES: 11
City of Oakland
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor
Oakland CA 94612
The Honorable Mayor Jean Quan FAX #: 510 238-4731
City of Oakland
One City Hall Plaza, 3rd Floor
OAKLAND CA 94612
Deanna J. Santana FAX #: 510 238-2223
Oakland City Administrator
City of Oakland
One City Hall Plaza, 3rd Floor
OAKLAND CA 94612
The Honorable C. Don Clay FAX #: 510 891-6276
Superior Court of California
County of Alameda
1225 Fallon St., Dept #1
Oakland CA 94612
Nancy O’Malley FAX #: 510 271-5157
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street, Room 900
Oakland CA 94612
cc: Barbara Lee, Desley Brooks, Larry Reid, Sandre Swanson, K. Carson, Courtney Ruby, Jayne Williams, bcc:
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: May 3, 2012
RE: Repairs to City Sewer along 7633 Sunkist Drive, Oakland, CA 94605 and Non-Response to Filed and Served “Whistle-Blower” Corruption Complaint
Dear Mrs. Parker,
I am in receipt of a letter dated April 10, 2012 from a Donna Enright, Administrative Assistant 1, with copies to Arlette Flores-Medina, the Open Government Coordinator from your office, with another non response to my continuing requests for ALL documents and materials related to the repair work of the sewer main along my property that was most recently allegedly performed by Andes Construction from June to August 2010. From the physical observations of the areas repaired, the same concern seems to be apparent again and the main is still in need of repair due to the negligent and improper repair from 1992 to present as a result of the main collapse in 1991. (Enright link to letter attached hereto and can be viewed and/or downloaded at: https://www.box.com/s/93e388d1d54da35a6658 )
The response from your office provided nothing related to my property but was enlightening as I have requested ALL DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS RELATED TO THE REPAIR yet nothing you offered was responsive.
The document from Gunawan Santoso, P.E., of the City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency dated March 26, 2012, to Andes Construction entitled “PROPOSAL REQUEST No. 2”; with headings:
PROJECT: The Rehabilitation of Sanitary Sewer in Area Bounded by Lakeshore Dr., Alice St., 20th St., and 11th St.
PROJECT NO: C59310
This City of Oakland document requests quoted estimates for the quantities of the repairs for changes in “a contracted sum or proposed modifications to the contract” and states that very sternly “THIS IS NOT A CHANGE ORDER NOR A DIRECTION TO PROCEED WITH THE WORK HEREIN.”
It further indicates that: “Note: Construction area is located in easement between Sunkist Dr and Hillmont Dr, enter from 10’ path at the side 7633 Sunkist Dr.
Per Maintenance CCTV LH 84-112-14 does not exist. Please verify.”
The document provided from Cynthia Orozco of Andes Construction dated May 18, 2012 entitled “Alice C59310-Proposal No. 2” for “Re: The Rehabilitation of Sanitary Sewer in Area Bounded by Lakeshore Dr., Alice St., 20th St., and 11th St. C59310” is addressed to Julius (perhaps Kale Jr.) Below that entitlement is another line that reads “Sub: Proposal #2- Emergency Job @ Sunkist Dr.” This Rehabilitation proposal includes “Clean & Televise Sewer Main” as a line item of the repair. It further states that Andes will “perform the aforementioned work as described in Proposal Request # 2 and as per plans provided by the City”. There is also a hand written attachment on the face of this document stating “NOTE: PLEASE USE BID ITEMS OF PROJECT C59310”. The acceptance of this Proposal for $30,297 is endorsed by Allen Law of City of Oakland Public Works on May 19, 2012.
I have a few questions that must be answered:
1) When was this “Request for Proposal #2 for the Emergency work at Sunkist Drive” prepared?
2) How was this “Request for Proposal #2 for the Emergency work at Sunkist Drive” prepared?
3) Who prepared the Request for Proposal?
4) How were bids solicited for the Request for Proposal?
5) How were bids submitted for this “Request for Proposal #2 for the Emergency work at Sunkist Drive”?
6) How many bid responses were there to the Request for Proposal?
7) What criteria was used to select the awarded bid to the Request for Proposal?
8) How was the bid awarded for the Request for Proposal?
9) When was the bid awarded for the Request for Proposal?
10) What is CCTV LH 84-112-14 ? Does CCTV LH 84-112-14 exist?
11) Where is CCTV LH 84-112-14?
12) Where are the videos of the sewer main inspection both pre and post repair?
13) Where are the photos of the repair including the one of the cleaning snake stuck in the displaced rubber donut coupling that triggered this problem in January 2010?
Both the videos and photos exist and that existence is verified in a conversation between myself and City of Oakland Engineer Julius Kale Jr. on January 26, 2012. You can listen to and/or download that conversation at: http://www.box.com/s/61971f508caaba0e67bb
It seems that perhaps the reason why you feel you are able to withhold the requested documents and materials with impunity is because this repair is just another example of the ongoing fraud in this case dating back to 1991. If the alleged repairs to my property were performed and billed as part of repairs to another property, it would conceal the fraud not only in the repair to my property but also the awarding of the bid for the repair to both properties without the existence of any record of repairs to my property, as it is neatly tucked into the ALICE C59310 repair!
On February 25, 2010 I appeared at your offices and filed a request for the documents from this event and videos of the sewer dating back to 2004. I have not received any response from your crack staff headed by Mark Morodomi, and Michele Abbey whom have pledged in former City Attorney John Russo and your office’s infamous Public Service videos for Real Oakland Administrative Reform (ROAR) to provide those documents to the public as a right of Oakland citizens.
In a Public Service Announcement entitled “Oakland Open Government” Russo point out Mark Morodomi and Michelle Abney as “The Advocate for the Public”. Morodomi proclaims “Citizens have a right to see documents” and the City motto is “Jus Por Popolo” meaning “Law in the Service of the Public” to give you(the citizens of Oakland) the tools and the resources to compete fully in our local democracy.
On Russo’s website he refered to himself as “The Leader for government transparency and civic reform!” – Pragmatic Progressive Leadership!, and describes himself as “passionate that all Oakland citizens have a right to a safe community, good job opportunities, a thriving economy, and a responsible and transparent government.” He paraded this rhetoric of Government Transparency, Accountability and Civic Reform in cleaning up Government and Law Enforcement aimed at restoring public confidence in government, and maintaining the Highest Ethical Standards designed to “make city government more accountable, more transparent and more effective” as his personal “Shield of Honor”. We shall now find out if you are any different for Russo or like Russo and really stand for the things you selectively choose to enforce on others and more like Russo, if you just want to in RUSSO’s OWN WORDS act as “most politicians, and simply keeping the game going as long as they can!”
After leaving the City Attorney’s office I went to the office of the City Auditor to inquire about the process to file an ethics and “Whistle-blower” complaint against Russo and your staff. While meeting with the receptionist, Russo entered the office in a very intimate manner with the City Auditor, Courtney Ruby. I introduced myself and gave them both cards and stated that I would be in touch them both. I am fulfilled that mention with a letter and “Whistle-blower” complaint.
I have filed and am still awaiting the City of Oakland, City Attorney, and John Russo’s answer to the notice of the Corruption Complaint filed and served on your office on May 5, 2010 and the formal 200 page Corruption, Extrinsic Fraud, Criminal Misconduct, Ethics and “Whistle-Blower” Complaint complete with audio CD filed and served on your office on June 7, 2010 stemming from criminal actions committed by the City Attorney’s Office, Mr. Russo and others resulting from the sewer main collapse alongside my home in 1991. A copy of that complaint can be viewed and/or downloaded at: http://www.box.net/shared/4424e7822p. A documents referred to herein below are in reference to documents attached to the complaint.
My ethics and “Whistle-blower” complaint that I filed against Russo and your staff including Mark Morodomi, Randy Hall, Janie Wong, Anita Hong, Sophia Li, Demetruis Shelton, Elizabeth Allen, Erica Harrold and Michele Abbey; former Oakland and current San Leandro City Attorney Jane Williams and former employee Pat Smith; was for their fraudulently fabricating evidence in 1999 and planting that evidence favorable to the defendants in the case files SIX years AFTER the case was closed, engaged in spoliation of remaining evidence in the court files from 1991, fostering Rescue 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; Ron 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; to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony based on this planted evidence in the al-Hakim v CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case that was created thru EXTRINSIC FRAUD with accompanying testimony procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious acts and fostered it’s use to prejudice the jury. During the Rescue 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, and providing the case file to defendants Stephan Barber and Ron Cook for nearly a year, Russo and your office failed to notify the court of this unpardonable illegal breach in the chain of custody of the file, and engaged in actions to destroy the litigation of my legal case; Russo and your office engaged in actions to coverup your unlawful acts; as you committed, aided and abetted this criminal activity.
On October 20, 2010 I filed a letter response entitled “Response to Denial of Your Claim #C28043 Served and Filed August 31, 2010” to a Mr. Doug Kapovich, Claims Administrator for Acclamation Insurance Management Services in which I stated “ I am in receipt of your letters addressed to “Abdul-Salil Al-Hakim” dated September 3, and 24, 2010 both denying a claim numbered C28043 that HE/SHE/THEY filed on August 31, 2010. Since I am not “Abdul-Salil Al-Hakim” and your information contained in both denial letters are not factually related to my claim, nor grounds for denial of my claim, it is deduced that my claim filed on the date referenced above is still active and pending unless
and until such proper notice of denial is received. His/your denial letters gave four (4) repeated erroneous grounds for denial without factual evidence to support those assertions, and in fact refute the common facts established and acknowledged in his/your letters.
Given that he and your office had ALL this information at the time of your “assumed denial letter”, it is reasonably deduced that your denial could not possibly have been related to my claim, but was in fact intended for the differently named party in the letters I received. I further requested that if I was in error, please feel free to factually correct me with a properly named, factually evidenced denial letter and not merely serve another misstep in your, the City of Oakland, City Attorney’s Office, John Russo and others bad faith, fraud, civil conspiracy, and violation of the business and professional codes. Russo and your office has never responded to the letter and the uncured defect is yours!
I have contacted Russo and your office many, many times by registered mail, phone and fax, regarding Russo and your staffs independent knowledge of the defendants absconding with the files from the City’s possession, and if such action was with the permission of the City Attorney. Russo and your office have failed and refused to effectively respond and has always denied knowing who made the request to review the files or what happened to them, while me and my attorneys at that time, Michael Michel and Jeff Fackler, had attempted several times to obtain copies of the City litigation file from October 1999 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. Fackler and Michel was told that the file had been returned by CSAA’s attorney. I 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”.
Although Russo and your office have adamantly denied the City Attorney’s office had anything to do with the case and was not involved as recently as your assistant Alex Katz’s threatening emails and voice mail messages left for KPFA reporter Gabrielle Wilson, then interim Program Director Sasha Lilly, and Music Director Luis Medina, that resulted in Ms. Wilson’s September 5, 2009 show being censored and canceled. Mr. Cook and Mr. Barber both recently testified in the CSAA trial that they were given the case file by your office and they did not “remove” them without notice. I have previously served multiple deposition and trial subpoenas on ALL the parties from the City Attorney’s office named above and they have ALL failed and refused to provide the information sought by me, and further failed and refused to appear under court ordered subpoena for deposition testimony twice and under court ordered subpoena for trial testimony every time.
You can read, listen to and/or download the City Attorney interactions with Ms. Wilson and KPFA at:
Gabrielle Wilson Aborted Interview Announcement 1 http://www.box.net/shared/5hrfbsm8xj
Gabrielle Wilson Aborted Interview Announcement 2 http://www.box.net/shared/0idjh3jitg
Gabrielle Wilson Aborted Interview Announcement 3 http://www.box.net/shared/t4dg2k65a3
Gabrielle Wilson Aborted Interview Voicemail from Emmitt Powell http://www.box.net/shared/l8h09yujof
Gabrielle Wilson Aborted Interview Announcement Voicemail from Luis Medina http://www.box.net/shared/2epx0xcla1
Oakland City Attorney Alex Katz email to Gabrielle Wilson http://www.box.net/shared/8csivs26ku
Oakland City Attorney Alex Katz email to Gabrielle Wilson jpg http://www.box.net/shared/17dpkclfgt
Oakland City Attorney Alex Katz email to Gabrielle Wilson for Interview Request http://www.box.net/shared/m1jqn21sr8
Oakland City Attorney Alex Katz to Gabrielle Wilson Complete correspondence http://www.box.net/shared/p941j8vxv2
Then California Attorney General Jerry Brown interview request from Gabrielle Wilson http://www.box.net/shared/i1yzhd2th1
In a voicemail message left for me by Demetrius Shelton, current President of the National Bar Association and City Attorney employee he acknowledges that Russo had in fact received the Trial Subpoenas! A copy of that voice mail is provided on the audio CD attached to the complaint or you can listen to or download the voicemail at: http://www.box.net/shared/88g62hzaky
The censoring of Ms. Wilson’s scheduled show was another instance of Russo and your office continual engaging in actions to destroy the litigation of my legal case; continuing to engage in actions to coverup your unlawful acts; and that Russo and your office committed, aided and abetted this criminal activity of the defendants in both the al-Hakim matters mentioned herein.
As a direct and proximate result of Russo and your office’s actions, you have caused me and my family to be forced from our $1 million plus home and office, foreclosed from two over $20 million law suits, and multi million business for 14 years thru the City Attorneys violation of the business and professional codes, extrinsic fraud, subornation of perjurious testimony, committing these acts under the color of law with unclean hands, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I should remind you that Russo and your office again did this with the unwitting aid of the same army of City Officials that Russo eagerly employ to rid the City of criminals like himself!
We now have you, Mr. Russo, and the municipality of the City of Oakland with the City Attorney’s Office being guilty of unclean hands without notifying the court of these specious, treacherous acts and my complaint addresses the concern that Russo and your office criminal violations of the Civil Code, Business and Professions Code, the Rules of Professional Conduct; and Cal.Cannons and strikes at the heart of my fundamental civil and human rights and right to due process under the law guaranteed by the United States Constitution Amendments and the California Constitution and qualify as a Hate Crime under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts, while they are clear acts of religious bigotry and intolerance where such conduct rose to the level of consideration for a Federal Crime and a Civil Rights violation because the City Attorney’s Office operates “under the color of law” and certainly the violation of anyone’s civil rights is a federal crime. This deprivation of my 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 criminal actions by you, Russo, your staff and your office demand you ALL be charged and prosecuted.
Mr. Russo, has stated “that City employees should be held to the highest ethical standards; that there is a formidable crisis of lack of public confidence in Oakland City Government”; in his ROAR video he and City Auditor Courtney Ruby state they truly believe “that City employees should be held to the highest ethical standards; that there is a formidable crisis of lack of public confidence in Oakland City Government”, that people are fatally mad about the unethical behavior, and abuse of power rampant in the City Government; and that Oakland truly deserves a new day”.
If you like Russo and your office are honestly “mad about it; that it is truly time for Oakland, in quoting Mr. Russo, “To Get On With It!” to clean up corruption”; that you, Russo, your office and Ruby “truly want to enact, and enforce your self authored Whistleblower program”; and you sincerely “want the public to believe that the City Government is operating on the level”, then you and the City should start with the complaint to investigate your office and provide answers as to why you, Russo, Mark Morodomi, Randy Hall, Janie Wong, Anita Hong, Sophia Li, Demetruis Shelton, Elizabeth Allen, Erica Harrold and Michele Abbey, and former Oakland and current San Leandro City Attorney Jane Williams and former employee Pat Smith fraudulently fabricated evidence in 1999 and planted that evidence favorable to the defendants in the case files SIX years AFTER the case was closed, engaged in spoliation of remaining evidence in the court files from 1991, fostering Rescue 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; Ron 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; to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony based on this planted evidence in the al-Hakim v CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case that was created thru EXTRINSIC FRAUD with accompanying testimony procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious acts and fostered it’s use to prejudice the jury.
You will NEVER escape the fact that during the Rescue 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, and providing the case file to defendants Stephan Barber and Ron Cook for nearly a year, you failed to notify the court of this unpardonable illegal breach in the chain of custody of the file, and engaged in actions to destroy the litigation of my legal case; you engaged in actions to coverup your unlawful acts; as you committed, aided and abetted this criminal activity; you all failed and refused to provide the information sought by me, and further failed and refused to appear under court ordered subpoena for deposition testimony twice and under court ordered subpoena for trial testimony and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Perhaps even worst, this evidence was the ONLY EVIDENCED PRODUCED AT TRIAL BY THE DEFENDANTS in the recent al-Hakim v. CSAA trial and presented while I was away attending a funeral!
Judge John Tigar’s Admission of Fabricated Evidence, Planted in Case Files Tainted, and Spoiled by the Hostile Intervener and the Oakland City Attorney
The only evidence produced by CSAA in their defense at trial during the al-Hakim vs. CSAA trial in April 2008 was the two fabricated notes allegedly from Pat Smith taken at the time of the occurrence of 1991 back up. There was no other evidence lodged with the court reflected in the minutes of the hearing. The hearing was held in al-Hakim’s noticed absence as he was attending a funeral after a second death during the trial of an over 40 year friend.
THE AUGUST 1999 CITY NOTE
al-Hakim had served a trial subpoena upon defendant Ron Cook to produce his entire case file at trial. Cook appeared at trial with less than 15 boxes of files claiming that these were the only ones he felt was responsive to the subpoena. Upon review of the files provided, it was clear that there were just many, many duplicates of the same documents copied over and over without there being any new information provided. al-Hakim had also subpoenaed Ronald J. Cook, Randy Willoughby, Alex Stuart, Bradley Bening and others of the law firm Willoughby, Stuart & Bening yet no one else appeared or provided their case files pursuant to the subpoena claiming that they knew nothing about the case and it was Cook’s alone as an unsupervised “independent contractor”.
During a review of Cooks files in the court room while trial was recessed for a week, al-Hakim found a document in Ron Cook’s copies of the City of Oakland files which was a note entitled “Al-Hakim v. C/O (92416)” with two bates stamp numbers 001323 and 000002 (See one page note under Exhibit C) 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 Jayne W. Williams) 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 Janie L. Wong) 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, nondescript notes for placement into the City file.
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 (See two pages of notes under Exhibit C) that were fabricated and 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.
Acting as 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)
Oakland City Attorney Was Aware At All Times Whom Had The Files And Why and Concealed Oakland City File Note Refutes Defendants 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 Jayne 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 Area 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.
As a protective measure for his co-defendants, Judge Jon Tigar had ruled that Barber would have to testify and answer al-Hakim’s charges of spoliation of evidence and subornation of perjurious testimony stemming from his handling of the City file if there was more than one case file. If there was ever more than one case file, they were ALL missing and that fact was attributed to CSAA’s attorneys by the City Attorney. Clearly, Mr. Barber now has to leave the seat as defense counsel and take the stand as a witness and defendant! (See video of Tigar’s ruling at
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 Jayne 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, Jayne 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 Attorneys Jayne Williams and John Russo Fabricated and Planted Evidence!
Now my Dear Mrs. Parker you have the honor privilege and responsibility to answer:
1) Who authored the August 1999 City note and how did they come to know the facts that were contained in it?
2) When was the note constructed?
3) What documents were provided to the requesting counsel?
4) Who was the attorney that requested the file and how was it provided to them?
5) What other documents were withheld and why?
6) Who is the Attorney and who was the Client referred to in the Attorney-Client asserted in the note?
7) What documents comprised the Attorney-Client privilege?
8) What documents comprised the work product?
9) What are the notes for, who’s file and what happened to them?
10) Did they get placed in the file, if so, by whom, when, where, why, how?
11) What was the chain of command in the handling of the notes?
12) Who approved and who knew about this illegal covert action?
13) 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?
14) 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?
15) 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 of 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.
Jayne William’s Specious, Treacherous Acts
After see all the aforementioned evidence, not so shockingly Retired Judges Lee, Michael Ballachey, and Richard Hodge, though they live in three different counties, all coincidentally hired the same Oakland defense firm, Meyers Nave, run by former Oakland and current San Leandro City Attorney Jayne Williams whom was responsible for providing the files to the defendants initially that was then given to her client Judge Lee for trial by John Russo. (See July 26, 2006 letter from Kim Colwell under Exhibit B) Clearly an effort on the part of the defendants, their defense counsels, and the courts to protect their own fallen, now exposed crooks and coverup their corruption.
al-Hakim was stumped for years trying to find “Jane Williams” and was unsuccessful until recently while attending a Oscar Grant Town Hall meeting someone mentioned the Meyers Nave report on the abuses of the BART police in his murder and the general professional and ethical nature of the force. Curious about the alleged findings, al-Hakim did a web search and was surprised to find out that the principle of Meyers Nave and the City Attorney of San Leandro was none other than “Jayne Williams”! From there he found her active in many investigative roles as the finder of fact in case involving high level, high profile, governmental crimes.
How important is it to the integrity and validity of the proper investigation and analysis of high profile crimes that the finder of fact is in fact guilty of corruption, collusion, conspiracy, extrinsic fraud, breaching the chain of custody giving the case files to defendants for nearly a year, fabricating evidence, planting fabricated evidence in case files and providing that spoliated case file to the courts without informing the court! This fact alone would bring all of their cases under scrutiny with the potential to be overturned!
As you all are aware, this matter has been and will continue to be submitted to the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, among others, for further investigation and prosecution.
Thank you and I welcome and look forward to your response with the furthering of the litigation and resolution of this ongoing case.