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\u2019s trust, claiming undue influence and\/or forgery. Later, they claimed Dr. Head lacked capacity.\n<\/p>\n
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.\n<\/p>\n
The evidence presented in the trial regarding Dr. Head\u2019s capacity was not inconclusive, it was extremely conclusive that Dr. Head was of sound mind. During Dr. Head\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.\n<\/p>\n
Bean\u2019s ruling that there was \u201cno credible evidence of forgery\u201d is fraudulent, in that it infers that forgery was, however, was suspected. Dr. Head\u2019s estate planning attorney Elaine Lee testified that she wrote Dr. Head\u2019s 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\u2019s power of attorney and healthcare directive forms and witnessed Dr. Head signing both documents in the presence of her notary. Dr. Head\u2019s notary, Trina E. Jackson testified that she witnessed Dr. Head signing her trust and will in the presence of Dr. Head\u2019s probate attorney and Dr. Head signing her power of attorney and healthcare directive forms in the presence of a Kaiser social worker.\n<\/p>\n
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.\n<\/p>\n
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\u2019s trust. That ruling was fraudulent because throughout the trial none of the 15 witnesses testified to nor was there evidence presented supporting Bean\u2019s 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.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Head\u2019s legally executed trust was invalidated by Judge Bean, based on a charge of dishonesty and subterfuge from\u00a0 Attorney Daniel J. Leahy, a certified specialist in Estate Planning.\n<\/p>\n
In a careful examination of the trial transcript of\u00a0 Bean\u2019s 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.\n<\/p>\n
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 \u2013 all documented in trial transcripts \u2013 including, for example, that Head\u2019s sisters had no legal rights to a probate trial.\n<\/p>\n
During the first remote, pre-trial hearing, Bean concurred that the petitioners, Dr. Head\u2019s 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.\n<\/p>\n
According to the Reporter\u2019s transcript, Aug. 5, 2020, page four, lines 23-27, page five, lines 1-8\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cAnd so, Mr. Leahy, having received all of this information and documents, why shouldn\u2019t the court dismiss this petition for lack of standing?\u201d\n<\/p>\n
MR. LEAHY: \u201cFor lack of standing?\u201d\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cStanding.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
MR. LEAHY: \u201cOK, it seems like the court enumerated a number of issues that they might have concerns with the merit of my client\u2019s claim.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cNo. It is a standing issue. So, Mr. Leahy, your clients are not named in the documents, right?\u201d\n<\/p>\n
MR LEAHY: \u201cThey are not.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cThey are not beneficiaries, so that creates a Barefoot issue.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Despite this, Bean allowed the petitioners to proceed under Probate Code \u00a717200, which strictly applies only to trustees and beneficiaries. This opened the door for their baseless challenge to move forward, illegally.\n<\/p>\n
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.\n<\/p>\n
Reporter\u2019s transcript: May 10, 2021, page three, lines 15-21, page four lines 1-6\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cMr. Leahy, the court still has issues with standing. And here\u2019s the issue that the court has. There is no question that you can file this case in CIVIL.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 It\u2019s not the court\u2019s position that you don\u2019t have a case.\u00a0 You\u2019ve 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?\u201d\n<\/p>\n
MR LEAHY: \u201cSure. 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.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cWell, I am aware of it.\u00a0 I just don\u2019t 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.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
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.\n<\/p>\n
Jendayi was muted by the court during both pre-trial remote hearings. Jendayi\u2019s rights under the Fifth and 14th constitutional amendments were violated repeatedly and blatantly.\u00a0 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.\n<\/p>\n
Below is evidence from the pre-trial remote hearing itself:\n<\/p>\n
Reporter\u2019s transcript, Aug. 5, 2020, page two, lines 7-14\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cAlright. And who else do I have appearing this morning? It looks like I have Ms. Jendayi.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
MS. JENDAYI: \u201cZakiya Jendayi.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cMs. Jendayi, I\u2019m going to put you on mute because this is Mr. Leahy\u2019s petition and I have some questions for him. And when it\u2019s your turn to talk, you can unmute yourself.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Note: The court placed Ms. Jendayi on mute so she never had the ability to unmute herself.\n<\/p>\n
Reporter\u2019s transcript, May 10, 2021, page two, lines 11-15\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cAlright. And the respondent?\u201d\n<\/p>\n
MS. JENDAYI: \u201cZakiya Jendayi.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cI am getting a lot of feedback from Miss Jendayi\u2019s microphone. I am going to keep your mic on mute until it is your time to speak.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Reporter\u2019s transcript, May 10, 2021, page six, lines 20-28\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cAnd let me hear from Ms. Jendayi as far as whether she agrees with the trial time estimates.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
MS. JENDAYI: \u201cGreetings, your honor.\u00a0 Zakiya Jendayi here.\u00a0 I completely object to the fact that again there\u2019s no standing.\u00a0 They were never in the original trust or will.\u00a0 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.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 After Ms. Jendayi is allowed to state her name, the judge puts her on mute and never unmutes her or invites her to speak.\u00a0 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.\n<\/p>\n
Fraud on the court refers to actions that undermine the integrity of the judicial process, typically involving deceitful conduct that affects the court\u2019s 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.\n<\/p>\n
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.\n<\/p>\n
Following are examples of evidence from the first pre-trial remote hearing, the trial, and statement of decision transcripts.\n<\/p>\n
During the first pretrial remote hearing on Aug. 5, 2020, the judge read a declaration written and signed by Dr. Head\u2019s estate planning attorney, Elaine Lee, on July 22, 2020.\u00a0 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.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
According to the Reporter\u2019s transcript, Aug. 5, 2020, page four, lines 19-22\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cAnd then the last sentence before the declaration under penalty of perjury, \u2018I met with Dr. Dean Head alone, as well as with Ms. Jendayi, and I did not find her to be a victim of fraud.\u2019\u201d\n<\/p>\n
The declaration actually states: \u201cI 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.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Reporter\u2019s transcript, Aug. 5, 2020, page three, lines 18-19\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: \u201cAnd there\u2019s another sentence that I don\u2019t think is relevant.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Judge Bean is referring to a statement made by Dr. Head\u2019s hospice nurse, Kristen Brady, made on July 18, 2013.\u00a0 The sentence is very relevant, considering Judge Bean ruled that Jendayi unduly influenced Dr. Head.\u00a0 The last sentence reads \u201cMs. Jendayi kept excellent records of the care she gave to Ms. Head and was a guardian who carried out her wishes.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Reporter\u2019s transcript, Aug. 5, 2020, page two, last paragraph:\n<\/p>\n
Judge Bean excludes the entire second paragraph of a statement made by Dr. Derethia DuVal, Dr. Head\u2019s friend and colleague of more than 20 years on July 20, 2020.\u00a0 The paragraph that is excluded is as follows: \u201cAs I am a psychologist and therapist through training and experience, I have professional knowledge when a person is of sound mind, if not body.\u00a0 Dr. Head was a rational, cognitive, functioning individual until she transitioned.\u00a0 I was with her the day she expired.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
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.\n<\/p>\n
Reporter\u2019s Transcript May 10, 2021, page seven, lines 1-2:\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: That\u2019s what we\u2019re talking about, Miss Jendayi. He\u2019s not bringing the petition under 17200.\n<\/p>\n
Reporter\u2019s Transcript, Oct. 12, 2022\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
Della Hamlin Page 34, lines 14\u201317:\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: Alright. So, Exhibit 1, that\u2019s gonna be in \u2013 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.\n<\/p>\n
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.\n<\/p>\n
It was fraudulent for the Judge to hear the case in probate court.\n<\/p>\n
The court fraudulently excluded key evidence from the statement of decision:\n<\/p>\n
Statement of decision by Judge Sandra Bean: March 28, 2023\n<\/p>\n
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\u2019 allegations against her. Additionally, exhibits 90 and 91 were key evidence supporting Jendayi and were admitted into evidence, but excluded from Bean\u2019s Statement of Decision.\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit 90 is a letter attributed to Kaiser physician, Dr. Sarafian concerning Dr. Head\u2019s mental capacity. The letter had the wrong day, wrong month, wrong year and refers to Dr. Head as a male. Sarafian\u2019s 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.\n<\/p>\n
Despite the obvious fraud in Dr. Sarafian\u2019s letter on Oct. 3, 2022, the court stated that \u201cThe Court will receive Exhibit 90 in its entirety,\u201d but it was excluded from the statement of decision.\n<\/p>\n
The trial transcript below shows that there was court on Oct. 3, 2022, when Exhibit 90 was presented and admitted into evidence.\n<\/p>\n
Court Reporter\u2019s Trial Transcript on Oct. 3, 2022. \u00a0 Zakiya Jendayi Page eight, lines 23-28:\n<\/p>\n
Ms. Jendayi: Greetings. My name is Zakiya Jendayi. I\u2019m 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.\n<\/p>\n
Page nine, lines 1-7:\n<\/p>\n
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.\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Any response, counsel?\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Leahy: No, your honor.\n<\/p>\n
The court fraudulently ruled that Jendayi gave attorney Lee the names of the beneficiaries. Jendayi\u2019s 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.\n<\/p>\n
Statement of Decision: March 28, 2023, Page three, paragraph seven, eigth sentence:\n<\/p>\n
The court ruled that \u201cthe Respondent gave Attorney Lee the information as to the beneficiaries of the Trust based on her conversation with Laura Dean Head\u201d\n<\/p>\n
(Exhibit 27, Deposition of Zakiya Jendayi, page 89 lines 5\u201315).\n<\/p>\n
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\n<\/p>\n
Leahy: You\u2019ll see at the top we see writing that says \u201cprimary beneficiaries?\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Lee: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Leahy: And do you see how it says: \u201cI 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.\u201d do you see that?\n<\/p>\n
Lee: I do.\n<\/p>\n
Leahy: OK. Does that refresh your recollection then that indeed Ms. Jendayi is the exclusive beneficiary of the Laura Dean Head Trust?\n<\/p>\n
Lee: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Page 263, lines 12\u201315:\n<\/p>\n
Jendayi: Did I, Zakiya Jendayi, take any part in creating Dr. Head\u2019s estate plan?\n<\/p>\n
Lee: Other than giving me the list of assets, no.\n<\/p>\n
Page 266, line 24\u201325: Page 267, lines 1-10:\n<\/p>\n
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?\n<\/p>\n
Lee: We certainly discussed it.\n<\/p>\n
Jendayi: Was it Dr. Head who informed you that she was leaving me her Estate?\n<\/p>\n
Lee: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Jendayi: So, she clearly communicated with you herself?\n<\/p>\n
Lee: Yes, she did.\n<\/p>\n
Jendayi: Appeared to be lucid and of clear mind?\n<\/p>\n
Lee: Yes. And she was adamant about not leaving anything to her sisters.\n<\/p>\n
Trial Proceeding Aug. 3, 2022\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\n<\/p>\n
Zakiya Jendayi, Page 397, lines 14\u201317:\u00a0 Page 398, Line 8\u201313:\n<\/p>\n
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?\n<\/p>\n
Jendayi: No, that is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
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?\n<\/p>\n
Jendayi: No, that is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
Page 401, line 17\u201324:\n<\/p>\n
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?\n<\/p>\n
Jendayi: That\u2019s incorrect. And if you recall, you were very aggressive and verbally abusive, and I felt uncomfortable. That\u2019s a very persuasive question, and it\u2019s incorrect.\n<\/p>\n
Page 493, Line 15\u201320:\n<\/p>\n
Leahy: It was Ms. Jendayi who told Elaine Lee to make Ms. Jendayi a hundred-percent beneficiary.\n<\/p>\n
Jendayi: Objection, your honor. That\u2019s false information. I never \u2013\n<\/p>\n
THE COURT: It\u2019s just argument. You can give me your argument. OK.\n<\/p>\n
Court Reporter\u2019s Trial Transcript, Oct. 5, 2022. Social Worker Jenna Noe, Page 17, lines 3\u20136\n<\/p>\n
Jendayi: And it states, \u201cShe wants to leave her things to her friend, Zakiya.\u201d Is that something she shared with you?\n<\/p>\n
Noe: Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Court Reporter\u2019s Trial Transcript, July 20, 2020.\n<\/p>\n
Excerpt from testimony by Dr. Derethia DuVal, Dr. Head\u2019s friend and colleague of over 20 years, which Bean read in the first remote pre-trial hearing.\n<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen she was diagnosed terminal, she discussed with me, she wanted Zakiya Jendayi to inherit her property and belongings.\u201d\n<\/p>\n
Bean\u2019s denial of this statement on the record, which proves that Jendayi did not name herself beneficiary, amounts to judicial tampering.\n<\/p>\n
Obstruction of Justice. Perjury. Due Process Violation.\n<\/p>\n
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\u2019s home, car, the Laura Dean Head Living Trust bank account, all estate assets, Jendayi\u2019s rights, and Dr. Head\u2019s final wishes. Bean weaponized her robe to serve a false narrative.\n<\/p>\n
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\u2019s mental clarity and her desire for Jendayi to inherit Dr. Head\u2019s estate.\n<\/p>\n
Enough is enough, we must stop the \u201cjustice system\u201d 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.\n<\/p>\n
Jendayi has completed a thorough and precise complaint on Bean\u2019s 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\u2019s fraudulent ruling directly from the trial transcripts and Kaiser medical records.\n<\/p>\n
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.\n<\/p>\n
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. \u201cI 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!\u201d\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Documented court transcripts reveal that justice was denied by Judge Sandra K. Bean\u2019s ruling that invalidated a Black…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":72768,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[42581,42582,184,42583,42584,42585,42586,42587,3785,3760,42588,963,12871,5343,964,179,42589,27475,42590,723,42591,42592,42593,42594,93,405,20694,2955,42595,42596,42597,11436,42598,42599,42600,42601,42602,2126,42603,13141,42604,974,5349,100,42605,42606,143,42607,145,22534,144,42608,957,42609,42610,1086,42611,236,42612,42613,13,958,42614,42615,42616,42617,42618,42619,42620,101,16150,15774,42621,42622,42623,42624,42625,42626,5995,42627,42628,42629,42630,42631,42632,42633,1689,18060,42634],"class_list":["post-72767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-oakland","tag-80-thieves","tag-armed-individuals","tag-bay-area","tag-bay-area-cites","tag-bloomingdales","tag-burberry","tag-cannabis-dispensaries","tag-cannabis-operations","tag-ceasefire","tag-challenge","tag-chief-armstrongs-call-for-help","tag-city-government","tag-city-of-oakland","tag-city-officials","tag-commentary","tag-community","tag-councilmember-at-large-rebecca-kaplan","tag-councilmembers","tag-cracking-down","tag-crime","tag-district-1-councilmember-dan-kalb","tag-district-2-councilmember-sheng-thao","tag-elected-officials","tag-extended-staffing","tag-featured","tag-government","tag-gunfire","tag-hayward","tag-hayward-mall","tag-heavily-armed","tag-high-end-stores","tag-holiday-weekend","tag-home-invasions","tag-homicides","tag-illegal-guns","tag-increase-funding","tag-increase-safety","tag-jewelry-store","tag-kgo","tag-louis-vuitton","tag-muggings","tag-national","tag-new-laws","tag-news","tag-nordstrom","tag-northern-california-region","tag-oakland","tag-oakland-city-councilmembers","tag-oakland-headlines","tag-oakland-mayor-libby-schaaf","tag-oakland-news","tag-oakland-police-chief-leronne-armstrong","tag-oakland-post","tag-organized-groups-of-thieves","tag-organized-smash-and-grab-robberies","tag-pandemic","tag-pharmacies","tag-police","tag-police-chiefs-boss","tag-police-force","tag-politics","tag-post-news-group","tag-post-staff","tag-post-pandemic-crime-wave","tag-random-drive-by-shootings","tag-retail-shops","tag-roving-caravans","tag-roving-gangs","tag-roving-robbery-caravans","tag-san-francisco","tag-security-guards","tag-shootings","tag-shootouts","tag-stopping-the-violence","tag-tactical-teams","tag-target-communities","tag-tracing","tag-two-dozen-businesses","tag-union-square","tag-unprecedented","tag-valuables","tag-video-interview","tag-violence-interrupters","tag-violence-prevention-measures","tag-violence-reduction-program","tag-violent-crime-wave","tag-walnut-creek","tag-wave","tag-yves-saint-laurent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72767\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/72768"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}