Bay Area

No Justice in the Justice System

Published

5 months ago

November 16, 2025

Dr. Head and Zakiya Jendayi, Their 28 year old friendship was ignored by Probate Court Judge Bean who ruled in favor of Dr. Head's estranged sister's. One sister could not identify Head, in a picture shown while under oath.

Documented court transcripts reveal that justice was denied by Judge Sandra K. Bean’s ruling that invalidated a Black professor’s trust and property rights. The civil case was misdirected to the probate court instead.

By Tanya Dennis

On March 28, 2023, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Sandra K. Bean issued a ruling that overrode state law, federal constitutional rights, and the final wishes of the late Dr. Laura Dean Head, a well-respected Black Studies professor at San Francisco State University.

Dr. Head’s lawfully executed living trust left her home and entire estate to Zakiya Jendayi, her former student, mentee, sorority sister, and friend of 28 years. Despite this, Bean invalidated the trust based on false testimony, excluded evidence, and legal arguments that contradicted her own statements on the record. What happened in Bean’s courtroom is not just a miscarriage of justice, it is a civil rights crisis happening in probate courts throughout the nation.

Dr. Head transitioned on June 19, 2013. After she passed away, Head’s two estranged sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head hired three different attorneys to sue Jendayi for Dr. Head’s estate. All three attorneys informed them that they did not have standing, since Dr. Head had a trust and they were not named in the trust.

Seven years after Dr. Head transitioned, her sisters found probate attorney, Daniel Leahy, who took their case. He filed a lawsuit against Jendayi to invalidate Dr. Head’s trust, claiming undue influence and/or forgery. Later, they claimed Dr. Head lacked capacity.

After an 18-day trial, Judge Bean ruled the following: The evidence regarding capacity was inconclusive. Therefore, the court found that Dr. Head had capacity; The court had no credible evidence of forgery and thereby found that Dr. Head did execute the trust; The court found that Dr. Head was vulnerable and unduly influenced by Jendayi. That finding invalidated the Laura Dean Head Trust.

The evidence presented in the trial regarding Dr. Head’s capacity was not inconclusive, it was extremely conclusive that Dr. Head was of sound mind. During Dr. Head’s 10-day Kaiser hospital stay, she was seen by 12 physicians, 23 nurses and three social workers. Not one medical team member diagnosed Dr. Head lacked mental capacity. In Dr. Head’s medical records, totaling 972 pages, not once is there any mention that Dr. Head lacked capacity. Two Kaiser doctors, two social workers and a nurse all testified that Dr. Head had capacity.

Bean’s ruling that there was “no credible evidence of forgery” is fraudulent, in that it infers that forgery was, however, was suspected. Dr. Head’s estate planning attorney Elaine Lee testified that she wrote Dr. Head’s trust and witnessed her signing her trust in the presence of two witnesses, a Kaiser nurse, her notary and Jendayi. Kaiser social worker Jennifer Hoppings testified that she filled out Dr. Head’s power of attorney and healthcare directive forms and witnessed Dr. Head signing both documents in the presence of her notary. Dr. Head’s notary, Trina E. Jackson testified that she witnessed Dr. Head signing her trust and will in the presence of Dr. Head’s probate attorney and Dr. Head signing her power of attorney and healthcare directive forms in the presence of a Kaiser social worker.

All three of the women took an oath to the state of California to uphold the truth. None of the three women ever had a complaint filed against them throughout their careers. There was neither evidence nor witnesses presented throughout the entire 18-day trial that Jendayi committed forgery.

Despite the testimony of several credible witnesses that Head was of sound mind and judgement, Bean ruled that Dr. Head was vulnerable and Jendayi unduly influenced her, therefore Bean invalidated Dr. Head’s trust. That ruling was fraudulent because throughout the trial none of the 15 witnesses testified to nor was there evidence presented supporting Bean’s claim that Jendayi unduly influenced Dr. Head. There were, however, numerous testimonies and evidence presented throughout the trial proving Jendayi did not unduly influence Dr. Head.

Dr. Head’s legally executed trust was invalidated by Judge Bean, based on a charge of dishonesty and subterfuge from Attorney Daniel J. Leahy, a certified specialist in Estate Planning.

In a careful examination of the trial transcript of Bean’s Statement of Decision, Jendayi discovered that of the 42 findings and rulings made against her, 30 were false, six were misleading, and six were errors.

Jendayi said she did not receive due process several times, throughout the trial, based on the Constitution of the United States, Fifth and 14th amendments, with a shocking number of fraudulent actions by Bean – all documented in trial transcripts – including, for example, that Head’s sisters had no legal rights to a probate trial.

During the first remote, pre-trial hearing, Bean concurred that the petitioners, Dr. Head’s estranged and disinherited sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head were neither trustees nor beneficiaries, therefore, they had no standing to have their case heard in probate court.

According to the Reporter’s transcript, Aug. 5, 2020, page four, lines 23-27, page five, lines 1-8

THE COURT: “And so, Mr. Leahy, having received all of this information and documents, why shouldn’t the court dismiss this petition for lack of standing?”

MR. LEAHY: “For lack of standing?”

THE COURT: “Standing.”

MR. LEAHY: “OK, it seems like the court enumerated a number of issues that they might have concerns with the merit of my client’s claim.”

THE COURT: “No. It is a standing issue. So, Mr. Leahy, your clients are not named in the documents, right?”

MR LEAHY: “They are not.”

THE COURT: “They are not beneficiaries, so that creates a Barefoot issue.”

Despite this, Bean allowed the petitioners to proceed under Probate Code §17200, which strictly applies only to trustees and beneficiaries. This opened the door for their baseless challenge to move forward, illegally.

On May 10, 2021, during the second pre-trial remote hearing, Bean reaffirmed that the case did not belong in probate court, but authorized this trial to proceed in probate court, which was the wrong jurisdiction, even though she knew that it should have been in civil court in the presence of a jury.

Reporter’s transcript: May 10, 2021, page three, lines 15-21, page four lines 1-6

THE COURT: “Mr. Leahy, the court still has issues with standing. And here’s the issue that the court has. There is no question that you can file this case in CIVIL. But the question for this court is how we can have a petition filed under 17200 when your clients are neither trustee nor beneficiaries under any document. It’s not the court’s position that you don’t have a case. You’ve been very clear that you have some evidence, but it appears that this would be a CIVIL case, not a probate case. Do you want to speak to that?”

MR LEAHY: “Sure. So, two things. The first thing is, I believe, at the first hearing, your honor was not aware that Barefoot vs. Jennings had been overturned.”

THE COURT: “Well, I am aware of it. I just don’t believe it does what you say. We have; we have a disagreement. I believe in footnote two of the Barefoot case [that]the issue is that you can file in CIVIL, but not in, in probate.”

Yet judge Bean kept the case in probate, denying Jendayi a jury trial and protections guaranteed in civil proceedings. This was not a misstep; it was an intentional removal of jurisdictional safeguards.

Jendayi was muted by the court during both pre-trial remote hearings. Jendayi’s rights under the Fifth and 14th constitutional amendments were violated repeatedly and blatantly. Due process focuses on a fair trial and includes the right to be heard, which was denied. Jendayi was only allowed to speak after Bean made the decision to have a trial.

Below is evidence from the pre-trial remote hearing itself:

Reporter’s transcript, Aug. 5, 2020, page two, lines 7-14

THE COURT: “Alright. And who else do I have appearing this morning? It looks like I have Ms. Jendayi.”

MS. JENDAYI: “Zakiya Jendayi.”

THE COURT: “Ms. Jendayi, I’m going to put you on mute because this is Mr. Leahy’s petition and I have some questions for him. And when it’s your turn to talk, you can unmute yourself.”

Note: The court placed Ms. Jendayi on mute so she never had the ability to unmute herself.

Reporter’s transcript, May 10, 2021, page two, lines 11-15

THE COURT: “Alright. And the respondent?”

MS. JENDAYI: “Zakiya Jendayi.”

THE COURT: “I am getting a lot of feedback from Miss Jendayi’s microphone. I am going to keep your mic on mute until it is your time to speak.”

Reporter’s transcript, May 10, 2021, page six, lines 20-28

THE COURT: “And let me hear from Ms. Jendayi as far as whether she agrees with the trial time estimates.”

MS. JENDAYI: “Greetings, your honor. Zakiya Jendayi here. I completely object to the fact that again there’s no standing. They were never in the original trust or will. Matter of fact, the only time that the heirs were brought up in the trust or will is when they were disinherited from the will and the trust. There is absolutely no standing. 17200.”

As you can see from the above excerpts from the transcripts of these hearings, Ms. Jendayi is only allowed to state her name in the first remote hearing. After Ms. Jendayi is allowed to state her name, the judge puts her on mute and never unmutes her or invites her to speak. In the second remote hearing, Ms. Jendayi is only allowed to come off mute after the judge has decided to have the trial in probate court. Jendayi did not receive her due process.

Fraud on the court refers to actions that undermine the integrity of the judicial process, typically involving deceitful conduct that affects the court’s ability to make fair decisions. Tampering with evidence is illegal under both state and federal law. In this case, there were multiple cases of fraud which should invalidate this court ruling.

In numerous instances in the pre-trial remote hearings, the trial itself, and especially in the post-trial statement of decision, the judge excluded key evidence presented by Jendayi that had disproved the claim that Jendayi unduly influenced Dr. Head. Then Bean invalidated the Trust, ruling that Jendayi unduly influenced Dr. Head.

Following are examples of evidence from the first pre-trial remote hearing, the trial, and statement of decision transcripts.

During the first pretrial remote hearing on Aug. 5, 2020, the judge read a declaration written and signed by Dr. Head’s estate planning attorney, Elaine Lee, on July 22, 2020. The declaration stated that Dr. Head was not a victim of fraud or undue influence. The judge excluded the last three words on the declaration and therefore these words were not included into the official transcript.

According to the Reporter’s transcript, Aug. 5, 2020, page four, lines 19-22

THE COURT: “And then the last sentence before the declaration under penalty of perjury, ‘I met with Dr. Dean Head alone, as well as with Ms. Jendayi, and I did not find her to be a victim of fraud.’”

The declaration actually states: “I met with Dr. Head alone, as well as with Ms. Jendayi and I did not find her to be a victim of fraud or undue influence.”

Reporter’s transcript, Aug. 5, 2020, page three, lines 18-19

THE COURT: “And there’s another sentence that I don’t think is relevant.”

Judge Bean is referring to a statement made by Dr. Head’s hospice nurse, Kristen Brady, made on July 18, 2013. The sentence is very relevant, considering Judge Bean ruled that Jendayi unduly influenced Dr. Head. The last sentence reads “Ms. Jendayi kept excellent records of the care she gave to Ms. Head and was a guardian who carried out her wishes.”

Reporter’s transcript, Aug. 5, 2020, page two, last paragraph:

Judge Bean excludes the entire second paragraph of a statement made by Dr. Derethia DuVal, Dr. Head’s friend and colleague of more than 20 years on July 20, 2020. The paragraph that is excluded is as follows: “As I am a psychologist and therapist through training and experience, I have professional knowledge when a person is of sound mind, if not body. Dr. Head was a rational, cognitive, functioning individual until she transitioned. I was with her the day she expired. I am a witness to the wishes of Dr. Laura Head that Zakiya Jendayi cares for her last days at her home because she discussed with me, she did not want to die in the hospital. When she was diagnosed as being terminal, she discussed with me, she wanted Zakiya Jendayi to inherit her property and belongings. They had a long-standing professional and personal relationship. I declare under penalty of perjury State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.”

Judge Bean ruled that the petitioners did not have standing under probate code 17200 and they were not bringing their case under 17200. However, trial transcript proves, that Attorney Leahy did bring his petitioners, petition under 17200, Barefoot v. Jennings, and Judge Bean was aware of that and allowed the illegal hearing in probate court.

Reporter’s Transcript May 10, 2021, page seven, lines 1-2:

THE COURT: That’s what we’re talking about, Miss Jendayi. He’s not bringing the petition under 17200.

Reporter’s Transcript, Oct. 12, 2022

Della Hamlin Page 34, lines 14–17:

THE COURT: Alright. So, Exhibit 1, that’s gonna be in – Exhibit 1 is the petition to invalidate trust and/or finding of undue influence and/or forgery, filed May 18 of 2020. It is in evidence. Go ahead.

This transcript clearly reveals that Judge Bean was aware that Leahy brought his case under Barefoot v. Jennings, 17200 which should have been heard in civil court, not probate court.

It was fraudulent for the Judge to hear the case in probate court.

The court fraudulently excluded key evidence from the statement of decision:

Statement of decision by Judge Sandra Bean: March 28, 2023

The court excluded exhibits 90 and 91, and the trial transcript of Oct. 3, 2022, from the Statement of Decision. Jendayi testified for the entire trial session on Oct. 3, 2022, providing clear, persuasive, and corroborated testimony and evidence, which contradicted all three of the petitioners’ allegations against her. Additionally, exhibits 90 and 91 were key evidence supporting Jendayi and were admitted into evidence, but excluded from Bean’s Statement of Decision.

Exhibit 90 is a letter attributed to Kaiser physician, Dr. Sarafian concerning Dr. Head’s mental capacity. The letter had the wrong day, wrong month, wrong year and refers to Dr. Head as a male. Sarafian’s denial that he wrote that letter should have been included as evidence of wrongdoing. Exhibit 91 was an email dated in 1990 from Dr. Head to both petitioners proving she was estranged from both of her sisters.

Despite the obvious fraud in Dr. Sarafian’s letter on Oct. 3, 2022, the court stated that “The Court will receive Exhibit 90 in its entirety,” but it was excluded from the statement of decision.

The trial transcript below shows that there was court on Oct. 3, 2022, when Exhibit 90 was presented and admitted into evidence.

Court Reporter’s Trial Transcript on Oct. 3, 2022. Zakiya Jendayi Page eight, lines 23-28:

Ms. Jendayi: Greetings. My name is Zakiya Jendayi. I’m the respondent in the Laura Dean Head Living Trust Matter, and I will present today, evidence that all three of the allegations against me are false. Through my documentation I will present today, and my upcoming witnesses, I will present to the court.

Page nine, lines 1-7:

Ms. Jendayi: Again, that all of the accusations against me for undue influence, lack of mental capacity, for Dr. Head, and forgery are all false. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Any response, counsel?

Mr. Leahy: No, your honor.

The court fraudulently ruled that Jendayi gave attorney Lee the names of the beneficiaries. Jendayi’s deposition page 89, lines 5-15 do not mention any beneficiaries. Jendayi did not name herself beneficiary, as the trial transcripts prove. This is another fraudulent ruling from Judge Bean.

Statement of Decision: March 28, 2023, Page three, paragraph seven, eigth sentence:

The court ruled that “the Respondent gave Attorney Lee the information as to the beneficiaries of the Trust based on her conversation with Laura Dean Head”

(Exhibit 27, Deposition of Zakiya Jendayi, page 89 lines 5–15).

This ruling was false according to court proceedings on Aug. 1, 2022. Attorney Elaine Lee Page 208, lines 11-25 and page 209, line 1

Leahy: You’ll see at the top we see writing that says “primary beneficiaries?”

Lee: Yes.

Leahy: And do you see how it says: “I give my entire estate consisting of both real and personal property and any and all interest therein to the following who survive me by 10 days: to my friend Zakiya Jendayi. If she does not survive me by 10 days, then my estate should be given to Hattie Simsisulu.” do you see that?

Lee: I do.

Leahy: OK. Does that refresh your recollection then that indeed Ms. Jendayi is the exclusive beneficiary of the Laura Dean Head Trust?

Lee: Yes.

Page 263, lines 12–15:

Jendayi: Did I, Zakiya Jendayi, take any part in creating Dr. Head’s estate plan?

Lee: Other than giving me the list of assets, no.

Page 266, line 24–25: Page 267, lines 1-10:

Jendayi: When you met with Dr. Head and you all created her estate planning documents, did she inform you herself that she was making me the sole beneficiary?

Lee: We certainly discussed it.

Jendayi: Was it Dr. Head who informed you that she was leaving me her Estate?

Lee: Yes.

Jendayi: So, she clearly communicated with you herself?

Lee: Yes, she did.

Jendayi: Appeared to be lucid and of clear mind?

Lee: Yes. And she was adamant about not leaving anything to her sisters.

Trial Proceeding Aug. 3, 2022

Zakiya Jendayi, Page 397, lines 14–17: Page 398, Line 8–13:

Leahy: But you were the one who gave all the information to Elaine Lee which enabled her to draft the Laura Dean Head Living Trust. Correct?

Jendayi: No, that is not correct.

Leahy: In other words, you were already the hundred-percent beneficiary of the Laura Dean Head Living Trust when she dropped the document off. Correct?

Jendayi: No, that is not correct.

Page 401, line 17–24:

Leahy: Ms. Jendayi, does that refresh your recollection that it was actually you who informed Ms. Lee to put yourself in as the hundred-percent beneficiary of the Laura Dean Head trust?

Jendayi: That’s incorrect. And if you recall, you were very aggressive and verbally abusive, and I felt uncomfortable. That’s a very persuasive question, and it’s incorrect.

Page 493, Line 15–20:

Leahy: It was Ms. Jendayi who told Elaine Lee to make Ms. Jendayi a hundred-percent beneficiary.

Jendayi: Objection, your honor. That’s false information. I never –

THE COURT: It’s just argument. You can give me your argument. OK.

Court Reporter’s Trial Transcript, Oct. 5, 2022. Social Worker Jenna Noe, Page 17, lines 3–6

Jendayi: And it states, “She wants to leave her things to her friend, Zakiya.” Is that something she shared with you?

Noe: Yes.

Court Reporter’s Trial Transcript, July 20, 2020.

Excerpt from testimony by Dr. Derethia DuVal, Dr. Head’s friend and colleague of over 20 years, which Bean read in the first remote pre-trial hearing.

“When she was diagnosed terminal, she discussed with me, she wanted Zakiya Jendayi to inherit her property and belongings.”

Bean’s denial of this statement on the record, which proves that Jendayi did not name herself beneficiary, amounts to judicial tampering.

Obstruction of Justice. Perjury. Due Process Violation.

This is fraud. Excluding admitted evidence and rewriting the record violates state and federal laws and is grounds for disbarment and criminal prosecution. This was not a simple probate dispute. This was theft of Jendayi’s home, car, the Laura Dean Head Living Trust bank account, all estate assets, Jendayi’s rights, and Dr. Head’s final wishes. Bean weaponized her robe to serve a false narrative.

Fifteen witnesses testified, and not one presented evidence that Jendayi unduly influenced Dr. Head, including both petitioners. Kaiser social workers, nurses, her estate planning attorney, her longtime friends, all confirmed Dr. Head’s mental clarity and her desire for Jendayi to inherit Dr. Head’s estate.

Enough is enough, we must stop the “justice system” from stealing generational wealth from the Black community. Jendayi is working with the Probate Reform Movement and the Center for Estate Administration Reform (CEAR). Together, they are calling on the legal community, elected officials, journalists, and the public to rise up and help expose this injustice within the justice system. Demand accountability. Help restore what was rightfully, and lawfully inherited.

Jendayi has completed a thorough and precise complaint on Bean’s fraudulent ruling. Pages 1-4 1/2 proves the petitioners did not have standing, the trial was heard in the wrong jurisdiction and Jendayi did not receive due process. Pages 4 1/2-27 are all examples of Bean’s fraudulent ruling directly from the trial transcripts and Kaiser medical records.

Zakiya Jendayi has not stayed silent. She has filed complaints against Bean with the California Commission on Judicial Performance, the Oakland Police Department, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Mayor of Oakland, Barbara Lee, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, Oakland City Council members, Congresswoman Lateefah Simon, California State senators, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

This case is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, and a moral emergency. This case is a crime scene. This was not a legal error. This was fraud, corruption, discrimination, bias, abuse of discretion and theft disguised as justice, according to Jendayi. “I am standing up not only for myself, but for the Probate Reform Movement members and all who have also had their generational wealth stolen from them by the injustices of the probate court system as well. I will continue to fight this injustice until justice is upheld and I am victorious!”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

HBCU Football Roundup: SC State and Delaware State will battle for MEAC Title

Don't Miss

Oakland Post: Week of November 12 – 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Up to the Job: How San Francisco’s PRC Is Providing Work Opportunities That Turn Into Lasting Stability

Each year, PRC serves more than 5,000 clients through a wide range of programs. These include housing navigation, legal advocacy to ensure access to health and public benefits, supportive housing, job and life-skills training, and residential treatment programs.

Published

3 hours ago

April 20, 2026

Oakland Post

Black Leadership Council (BLC) Advocacy Day in Sacramento. BLC works to advance meaningful change through policy engagement to unlock the full potential of Black and low-income communities. Photo courtesy PRC.

Joe Kocurek | California Black Media

Seville Christian arrived in San Francisco in the 1990s from Kansas City, Mo., a transgender woman coming from a time and place still hostile to who she was.

San Francisco offered a deeper LGBTQ+ history and a more visible community of people like her, but even in a city known for acceptance, building a stable life from scratch was no small task.

After arriving in the city, she turned to Positive Resource Center (PRC) looking for work — and for a foothold — in a new place.

“PRC gave me my first job,” Christian said. “A simple gig — passing out magazines at the San Francisco Pride Parade.”

That first opportunity marked the beginning of a decades-long relationship with PRC, one that has seen Christian grow from client to valued employee, and eventually to policy fellow.

“Today, I’ve been with PRC for 27 years, going on 28,” she said.

Helping people access employment and build sustainable careers has been a cornerstone of PRC’s mission since its inception nearly four decades ago. In its most recent annual impact report, PRC served 443 clients through workforce development services, including career counseling, educational programs, hands-on training, and job search assistance. The average wage earned by PRC clients is $26.48 per hour — approximately 38% above San Francisco’s minimum wage.

To advance this work, organizations like PRC have benefited from funding through California’s Stop the Hate Program, which provides direct support to community-based organizations leading anti-hate initiatives.

Christian’s path was not without challenges. During some rocky years, she experienced periods of housing instability and struggled with addiction. Through PRC, she enrolled in a life-skills program that emphasized using her own lived experience as a means of helping others. The program helped set her on a path toward completing an associate’s degree and ultimately launching a career in case management.

“Today, whether someone is new to the city or has lived here their whole life, I know how to help them navigate to where they need to be,” Christian said.

PRC welcomed guests to their annual Open House in April, an evening dedicated to connection, reflection, and learning more about the programs and people working every day to support San Franciscans experiencing housing instability, unemployment, and behavioral health challenges.

While PRC was founded to serve people living with HIV, its mission has expanded over the decades to meet the needs of people with disabilities, individuals experiencing homelessness, and those facing mental health and substance use challenges.

According to PRC’s Chief of Public Policy and Public Affairs, Tasha Henneman, some of the organization’s earliest programs remain as vital today as they were at the start.

“Our emergency financial assistance program helped more than 1,200 people this year pay rent, cover medical bills, and keep the lights on,” Henneman said. “And over 1,400 people reached out for legal advocacy, resulting in more than $2.5 million in retroactive benefits unlocked.”

Beyond direct services, PRC is deeply committed to community empowerment and policy change. Programs such as the Black Leadership Council support community leaders in advocating for systemic reform, while the Black Trans Initiative focuses on addressing the unique challenges faced by Black transgender individuals.

A recent study from the Williams Institute highlighted findings that 71% of transgender homicide victims in the U.S. between 2010 and 2021 were Black and that nearly a third of the transgender homicides during that period were confirmed or suspected hate crimes. 

PRC’s direct and indirect services can be a lifeline for people experiencing hate and are an example of the resources people can get connected with through the state’s CA vs Hate hotline. 

PRC is now also producing a film project that centers the lived experiences of Black trans clients, including individuals like Christian.

“Our film highlights the health journeys and lived experiences of some of PRC’s Black trans clients,” Henneman said. “Our goal is to give voice, visibility, and agency to the participants — and to bring their stories, both harrowing and inspirational, to policymakers and the broader public.”

The film, expected to be released later this year, is directed by Yule Caise, with assistant director Zarina Codes, a Black transgender San Francisco resident.

Today, Christian continues her relationship with PRC as an ambassador, reflecting on a journey that began with a single job opportunity and grew into a lifelong commitment to service.

“Sometimes I’ll be riding the bus or standing in a grocery store, and someone will come up to me from a women’s shelter,” she said. “They’ll say, ‘Oh, Miss Seville, I just want to thank you. You really helped me with what I was dealing with.’”

She paused, smiling.

“And in those moments,” Christian said, “I think to myself, “Well!.”

A single word that sums up pride in a journey to find the best in herself.

Get Support After Hate:

California vs Hate is a non-emergency, multilingual hotline and online portal offering confidential support for hate crimes and incidents. Victims and witnesses can get help anonymously by calling 833-8-NO-HATE (833-866-4283), Monday to Friday, 9 a.m.–6 p.m. PT, or online at any time. Anonymous. Confidential. No Police. No ICE.This story was produced in partnership with CA vs Hate. Join them for the first-ever CA Civil Rights Summit on May 11, 2026. More information at www.cavshate.org/summit.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Mayor Barbara Lee Proclaims April 9 as ‘100 Black Men of the Bay Area Day’

“Today, the 100th day of the year, I proclaim 100 Black Men Day,” said Mayor Barbara Lee standing with newly appointed Oakland Port Commissioner Derek Mohammad, a 100 Black Men member. “Whereas the 100 Black Men of the Bay Area has demonstrated decades of unwavering commitment to uplifting youth and strengthening families and advancing opportunity and access in Oakland and the greater Bay Area with their signature programs…the chapter has impacted thousands of young people and contributed thousands of hours of community service…”

Published

1 day ago

April 19, 2026

Oakland Post

At D. Monaghan’s on the Hill, a resolution declaring April 9 ‘100 Black Men of the Bay Area Day’ was witnessed by (l.-r.) 100 Black Men leaders Maurice Harold, Marco T. Lindsey, Danny Lee Williams, Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee, Oakland City Council President Kevin Jenkins, Port of Oakland Commissioner Derek Mohammad, and Oakland Councilmember Janani Ramachandran. Photo by Carla Thomas.

By Carla Thomas

When Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee announced that she would proclaim Thursday, April 9, as “100 Black Men of the Bay Area Day,” the organization’s board chairman and owner of D. Monaghan’s on the Hill, Danny Lee Williams knew he wanted to mark the historic moment with fanfare his community could share.

Standing at the podium on the patio of his restaurant in the Oakland Hills, he welcomed about 150 members of the organization and the broader community who gathered to celebrate.

“This is a special day, and we are in the midst of our Economic Empowerment week,” he said. Williams also welcomed four vendors to sell their gifts and accessories during the event free of charge.

Lee shared how as a single parent of two boys, she was grateful to have the organization’s support in mentoring her sons.

“Today, my adult son is a member in Illinois, and I thank the organization for supporting so many Black boys.”

The idea for the proclamation originated with Oakland City Councilmember Kevin Jenkins, who praised the organization for its leadership and contributions to Oakland and the greater Bay Area.

“This work that we do would not be possible without partnerships with organizations like the 100 Black Men,” said Jenkins. “We’re saving lives, restoring communities, and giving people hope and opportunities.”

“This is Oakland,” said Mayor Lee. “This is what we’re about. It’s about new ideas, thinking outside the box and being who we are. It’s about bringing joy. This is our holiday.”

The mayor also thanked the organization for volunteering during Oakland Cleanup days.

Councilmember Janani Ramachandran added that while many complain about problems in the city, “the 100” put in the work.

“It’s hard to be in the community and do the work, but that is exactly what the 100 Black Men does,” she said.

The organization’s economic chair and associate director of Diversity Equity and Inclusion at the University of California Berkeley’s Business School, Marco T. Lindsey, shared his enthusiasm for change.

“Today is the culmination of our work and something special is happening in our organization and our city,” he said. “We have a special opportunity to show up for our community now in ways that we haven’t had in the past. We have a mayor that supports us and it’s important that each and every one of us do our part. We all need our fingerprints on whatever we want to see in our city.”

Lindsey also expressed that if underserved youth and their parents had access to the resources needed for success, “Our youth wouldn’t be breaking windows and joining gangs if they had a pathway to earn $75k to $100k a year.”

The 100 Black Men were hosts of an Economic Empowerment Forum at McClymonds High School on April 11 educating students on entrepreneurship and financial literacy. On Sat., April 18, they will hold their fifth annual Career Expo at Contra Costa College 2600 Mission Bell Drive (G225) in San Pablo from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. The 100 Black Men chapter of the Bay Area was established in 1988, one of the earliest in the nation.

For more information visit 100blackmenba.org

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Alameda County

Stanford Health Care Collaborates with Alameda Health System Affiliate, Expanding Access to Care in East Bay

Introduced at a community event hosted at St. Rose Hospital in Hayward, an AHS affiliate, the partnership will enhance care for nearly 400,000 residents and solidify St. Rose’s position as a cornerstone of health and healing in the East Bay.

Published

1 day ago

April 19, 2026

Oakland Post

At St. Rose Hospital in Hayward, Alameda Health System and Stanford Announce Partnership.(L-R) Mark Fratzke, COO Alameda Health System (AHS), James Jackson, CEO AHS, Richard Espinoza, chief administrative officer AHS, California Assemblymember Liz Ortega (D-San Leandro), Rick Shumway, COO Stanford Health Care (SHC), Alameda County Supervisor Elisa Márquez, and Hayward Mayor Mark Salinas. Photo by Carla Thomas.

By Carla Thomas

On April 9, Alameda Health System (AHS) and Stanford Health Care announced a new collaboration to expand access to specialized medical services across central and southern Alameda County.

The initiative marks a milestone for the region, uniting two leading institutions in a shared mission to deliver high-quality, patient-centered care closer to home. Through this collaboration, AHS and Stanford Health Care will expand rehabilitative and behavioral health services, increase use of St. Rose’s operating rooms for advanced procedures, and enhance inpatient medical-surgical units managed by Stanford Health Care physicians.

The partnership will also support the AHS/St. Rose Foundation to advance local health programs that directly benefit East Bay residents.

Alameda County Supervisor Elisa Márquez praised the collaboration’s impact on local stability.

“This hospital was on the brink of closing, and saving it became my top priority,” Márquez said. “With continued collaboration, we’ll not only strengthen St. Rose but restore vital services like labor and delivery so babies can be born in Hayward again.

“When Stanford Health Care in Santa Clara stepped up, it was a pivotal moment,” she said. Keeping St. Rose open protects the entire regional health care ecosystem.”

James Jackson, chief executive officer of Alameda Health System, highlighted how the effort builds on recent progress at St. Rose.

“In just two years, AHS has made St. Rose financially stable and thriving,” Jackson said. “We want to make sure patients no longer need to drive miles down the highway to get care.

“Our mission; caring, healing, teaching, and serving all, remains at the heart of this collaboration. While HR1 presents real challenges for health care funding nationwide, it also offers an opportunity to reimagine how we deliver care. I’m confident that, through innovation and partnership, we’ll emerge stronger than before.”

For Rick Shumway, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Stanford Health Care, the alignment between the two organizations is crucial.

“This partnership reflects exactly who we are and who we aspire to be,” he said. “Working alongside AHS and St. Rose allows us to better understand community needs and respond meaningfully. Partnerships like this will carry us forward. We’re stronger together.”

AHS Chief Operating Officer Mark Fratzke echoed the same sentiment.

“I’m excited that the communities of Hayward and S. Alameda have access to care like this, he said. “Never underestimate the power of collaborations and partnerships.”

For nearly six decades, St. Rose Hospital has served Alameda County as a community-based safety-net hospital. One of Hayward’s largest employers, it provides more than 800 jobs and 300 skilled physicians and is designated by Alameda County as a ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction STEMI Receiving Center for heart attack care.