Jeffrey S. White

[Redaced by Ed.] being a judge in alameda court is a huge breach ,giving powers unjustly to coerce ,forge and commit fraud on and to the state of California. Causing extreme fraudulently obtained court documents . The educational process taught by this man Jeffrey white has been injunction with the rest of Northern California judicial committees formed to defraud ,enslave and cruel punishment citizens in violation of due process, 4th,1st, 14th , 6th,amendments and all of Bill of rights. The fraud and unequivocal, unjust treatment towards low income ,homeless and is a new other fraud by the courts used to harm the state of California, non natural born citizens but moreover the citizens of America who are getting [Redaactd by Ed.] But does not look like his clean slate should be giving knowing he still owes 27 million in fines and fees . [Redacted]

Judge Jeffrey S. White ignored federal rules for restitution and ordered a restitution amount that the government entirely manufactured and provided no evidence to support the amount they requested. Judge White sent first time offenders to prison who other judges would have given probation. He didn’t take mental illness into consideration at all.

Judge White issued a ruling that wholly ignored pertinent portions of the record. It was clear that he made up his mind on the case and wrote an opinion to fit that view. Poor quality opinion; poorly reasoned, sloppy and lazily written. Did not hold oral argument. Poor judge. I have no reason to think he's biased, but rather just doesn't take his job very seriously.

After his clerk told us to submit a request for oral argument on a motion, Judge White denied the same the same day he received it, canceled a status conference, and has now sat on the (relatively simple) motion for six months. He personifies the saying that justice delayed is justice denied.

During a hearing on a motion to dismiss, which was supposed to be based on the pleadings, he asked defense counsel to submit evidence which was not subject to cross examination. On top of that, the evidence submitted was both vague and irrelevant, and he seemed to have no problem with that despite objections. He asked questions indicating that he clearly didn't understand the complex litigation, and his opinion misstated facts. Lawyers representing large corporations love this guy because he goes out of his way to make sure that they win.

Very angry and appears to be over emotional and losses control and forgets during the sentencing process.

Lazy, never has hearings, superficial reader of papers at best, reaches completely incorrect factual conclusions on a regular basis. No bias, but a terrible draw -- results will be random.

Even though he is not one of my preferred judges to be arguing in front of, and he can be very harsh on criminal defendants, I give him credit for his intellectually honest.

He is very active in narrowing down issues and takes the time to separate fact from fiction.