Thomas Jackson’s favorite part about being a Black business owner in Minnesota is the ability to create community, perspective, autonomy and authentic experiences.

On this episode of MSR On the Radar, Jackson joins host Damenica Ellis to talk about discovering golf during the COVID-19 pandemic and how that hobby became Par365, an indoor golf simulator, bar, restaurant and event space in Roseville that he and his wife opened in December 2023. Their mission was to make golf more accessible, more affordable and more approachable.

Jackson shares how breaking into the industry took marketing, local partnerships and social events, why intimidated newcomers needed extra encouragement, and the programming Par365 built in response, including Golf 101 sessions and a speaker series for middle and high school students. He also talks about moving from a corporate product development career to full-time entrepreneurship, balancing the business with family life, and his advice for aspiring entrepreneurs: compress your vision into a minimum viable product and grow at a reasonable pace.

Listen to the full conversation.

Terresa Hardaway says her favorite part of being a business owner is the chance to intentionally build community. In 2017, she co-founded Blackbird Revolt, a design studio focused on social justice, anti-racism and abolition. In 2024, she acquired Black Garnet Books.

Blackbird Revolt helps government agencies, nonprofits and grassroots organizations with branding, animation, video and audio production, fabrication and other creative work. At Black Garnet Books, Hardaway uses storytelling to show what Black liberation looks like, curating Black and Brown authors and hosting events that center community.

She also shares how she adapted her bookstore during Operation Metro Surge, how her network gave her the confidence to become an entrepreneur, and her advice for anyone starting a business: have a plan, know who you are, and surround yourself with people who will remind you when you forget.

Hardaway is an associate professor of graphic design and director of design justice at the University of Minnesota’s College of Design.

🗳️🚨 Don’t let the headlines distract you from what matters! Dr. Warren urges voters to stay focused, look beyond the political scandals, and make their voices count at the polls this November. Watch the full From the Desk of the Editor episode now!

#StayFocused #Election2026 #FromtheDeskoftheEditor #VoiceAndViewpoint

Visit Our Website

Home – updated

Read more stories by our team
https://defendernetwork.com/category/news/opinion/

Sign-up for the Top 5 newsletter

Defender Newsletters

Donate/ Support Our Work

Contribute to the Defender Network

Visit Our Website

Home – updated

Read more stories by our team
https://defendernetwork.com/category/news/opinion/

Sign-up for the Top 5 newsletter

Defender Newsletters

Donate/ Support Our Work

Contribute to the Defender Network

By Quintella Griffin, Legal Writer

Opinion and documentary analysis | Part 2 of 2

A tentative ruling found that Oakland property occupant Zakiya Jendayi had not received notice before a judge ordered its transfer into an estate.

The ruling was not final. Attention shifted to the assigned judge.

The estate’s special administrator, Phillip Campbell, invoked California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 to disqualify Judge Stephanie Sato. The trial court granted the challenge Sept. 9, 2026.

Five days later, Campbell requested reassignment specifically to Judge Sandra Bean, who had signed the property order Jendayi sought to overturn.

The sequence raises questions about procedural fairness.

A Challenge After an Unfavorable Ruling

Sato’s Sept. 8 tentative ruling concluded that California’s notice requirement protected Jendayi as an occupant, regardless of whether Jendayi held a valid ownership interest.

Her proposed decision would have vacated Bean’s Oct. 8, 2025, order.

Section 170.6 permits challenges under certain circumstances. Whether Campbell’s challenge was timely was disputed.

On Sept. 14, Campbell sought Bean’s reassignment, citing her familiarity with related trust litigation, judicial economy and consistency. Jendayi opposed the request the following day.

The timing invites serious public scrutiny but does not establish misconduct.

The Appellate Court Intervenes

In Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (1987), a California appellate court examined the danger of allowing litigants to learn a judge’s likely decision before seeking disqualification.

The decision also recognized that changed assignments and insufficient notice can affect when a challenge is permissible.

On Sept. 17, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal stayed the order granting Campbell’s challenge and requested briefing addressing Kaiser.

That intervention did not vacate Bean’s property order, restore the invalidated trust or conclusively decide whether Campbell’s challenge was improper.

It did place the reassignment dispute under appellate review.

Questions in the Docket

Two versions of the court docket present another unresolved issue.

A printout preserved through Sept. 15 lacked reassignment entries that appeared in a later version. The later docket listed reassignment to Bean and a clerk’s notice under Sept. 9.

The difference warrants an explanation of when the entries were created, entered and made publicly accessible.

It does not establish deliberate backdating.

Accountability Beyond an Order

Judges generally enjoy immunity from damages claims arising from judicial acts, even when serious error is alleged. That protection does not make their decisions immune from review.

Appellate courts can correct legal errors; California’s Commission on Judicial Performance can investigate misconduct but cannot reverse judgments.

For Jendayi, the central concern remains practical: How much litigation must an occupant undertake to enforce a notice requirement intended to protect participation before property rights are adjudicated?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. underscores the importance of meaningful notice and an opportunity to object.

The record establishes contested filings, a tentative ruling and appellate intervention, not anyone’s private motives.

The public deserves a transparent, documented explanation of this consequential judicial process.

A judge’s signature should resolve a lawful dispute, not silence legitimate questions about how the decision was reached.

The case is Estate of Laura Dean Head, Alameda County Superior Court case RP20066047. Records are available through the court’s eCourt Public Portal.