Request for Investigation of Non Notice from California Appeals Court

TO:        Beth Robbins

Charles Johnson

Deputy Clerk

First District Court of Appeal
350 McAllister Street

San Francisco CA 94102

FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim

DATE: November 7, 2018 

NO PAGES: 4

RE: Appellant al-Hakim’s Request for Information/Investigation Non-Service of Notice, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim vs. Superior Court, Appeals case: Appeal Case No.A153640, Superior Court case No.: C-811337

Dear Ms. Robbins and Mr. Johnson: 

On October 9, 2018, I sent a two page fax and email to both Beth Robbins and Charles Johnson, Deputy Clerks of the First District Court of Appeal entitled “Request for Information/Investigation Non-Service of Notice, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim vs. Superior Court, Appeals case: Appeal Case No.A153640, Superior Court case No.: C-811337”.

I specifically asked of Ms. Robbins and Mr. Johnson:

I was NEVER served any filing notice of any type from the Appeals Court of any motion to dismiss by CSAA, no briefing schedule, no schedule of motion practice, and this clearly should have been the practice of the courts as it has before with Anne Reasoner and Truefiling. I NEVER received any email, or U. S. postal mail from Reasoner or the appeals court nor any electronic service from TrueFiling, which is the norm, and there is NO RECORD of any type that any of them sent any notice of any type to me! 

How is it possible for this to even happen and the court does NOT acknowledge that it IS a reason for the unopposed motion, and there is NO RECORD of any type that the appeals court EVER sent ANY notices of any type regarding the motion to dismiss to me?!

I respectfully ask the court to conduct and provide an extensive Information/Investigation to explain “what happened?”.

On October 12, 2018, you both sent a reply that merely mentions that the defendants had submitted a proof of service dated June 22, 2018, that was allegedly served via mail and electronically to two different email addresses, 1) one that he has admitted to the courts that he has been blocked from sending email to for years due to his giving that email address to a commercial business without my knowledge or approval and 2) the other email address he knows is not mine. There NEVER was any U.S. mail nor personal service of any documents.

However, what is most notable is they failed and refused to answer the question regarding their inaction in providing ANY proof of their having EVER served ANY notice of any kind of their receiving the motion to dismiss, NOTHING served on plaintiff even remotely noticing the motion, no briefing schedule, no schedule of motion practice and this clearly should have been the practice of the courts as it has before with Anne Reasoner and Truefiling. I NEVER received any email, or U. S. postal mail from Reasoner or the appeals court nor any electronic service from TrueFiling.

I asked that YOU investigate this aspect of this colossal failure and provide the information as to what happened but YOU refused to do that, instead YOU want to ignore it and it cover up!

The Appeals court, Judge Barbara Jones and the court clerks are blocking and providing interference for judge Kim Colwell to make her “end run” and complete her fraud and corruption in her Order for sale of plaintiff’s Dwelling BEFORE his Motion to Vacate the Order, which was uncontested by defendants, was to be heard and has been continued by the court under an illegal Appeals stay since February 2018. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Order granting the sale of plaintiff home is NOT an appealable order and is NOT subject to the automatic stay pending appeals, just as the defendants motion for sale of the dwelling with an undertaking is NOT subject to the automatic stay, which Colwell ruled the sale of dwelling could and did go forward, yet she has continued to delay the resolution to plaintiff’s motion to vacate that was uncontested by defendants! This would reverse the ruling made by Judge Colwell for the sale of the Dwelling!!!

For the last three months Colwell has been begging the Appeals court to expedite the Remitter in the motion to dismiss so she can quickly rule on the motion to vacate with a denial! 

To deny such a serious motion when the appeals court was willfully and intentionally derelict in their NON-SERVICE of ANY notices to al-Hakim and CSAA obvious fraud, there is NO place for this in modern society much less in a courtroom before the people! It is even more enlightening in respects to the calumny deceit and denial of due process employed in it, that al-Hakim have complained of for years. This order in response to al-Hakim’s actions of merely invoking his rights to petition the courts was the very epitome of specious retaliation and heinous denial of due process FORCED on al-Hakim by defendants.

The Appeals courts actions depriving al-Hakim of litigation due him is unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of al-Hakim, caused by the policies and practices of CSAA, which acts described herein have caused damages to al-Hakim with these Constitutional violations of al-Hakim’s rights.

The Appeals courts actions are repressive and has denied al-Hakim’s civil rights and due process, an equal opportunity to participate in unbiased pursuit of his legal claims as if these are still the dark days of American history when Black people had no rights at all!; This conduct and ongoing corruption of CSAA has resulted in Constitutional violations of al-Hakim’s rights, is tantamount to a scheme to hinder, deny and defraud al-Hakim.

The right for a litigant to challenge the fraud and corruption of the court and CSAA is second only to The GREATEST right a litigant has enshrined in the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to a fair trial! al-Hakim will ALWAYS continue the SLAVE DRIVEN FOUR HUNDRED YEAR fight for civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process, equal protection, equal access to an unbiased legal process as is his OBLIGATION AND RIGHT under the U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, VIII, and XIV!

Defendants obtained TWO orders that were the product of their non-service litigation strategy of fraud and deceit when:

  1. they moved the Bankruptcy court and held a hearing on May 16, 2018, when they knew I had served prior notice on ALL the courts 6 weeks earlier that I would be in the annual retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan from May 14, 2018 until June 20, 2018 and unavailable to respond to any litigation and got a judgment without notice nor serving any documents; and
  2. this motion to dismiss that was granted!

On January 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint and it is already outdated.The Complaint concerns the Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Demand for Removal of Judges For Cause; Due to Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); Fraud Upon The Court by Judge Kim Colwell; and to Vacate ALL Rulings and Orders Issued IN THE MATTERS OF: al-Hakim v. EBMUD, al-Hakim v. CSAA; and Miller v. al-Hakim.

On February 9, 2018, I sent Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Associate Justices of the Court and Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS a 117 page complaint concerning the Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Demand for Removal of Judges For Cause; Due to Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); Fraud Upon The Court by Judge Kim Colwell; and to Vacate ALL Rulings and Orders Issued IN THE MATTERS OF: al-Hakim v. EBMUD, al-Hakim v. CSAA; and Miller v. al-Hakim. It is already out dated.

An example of the defendants tactic of non-service of motion papers and conspiring with the court clerks working for them and causing a civil problem is on September 20, 2018 the Dept. 511 court clerks feigned getting any notice of the opposition and the court ruled that since there was no opposition to the tentative ruling thus it is  adopted as “unopposed”. Clearly there were THREE NOTICES filed with the court clerk and this still happened. 

Again on October 11, 2018, Plaintiff was forced to file another Complaint against the court and Department 511 clerks for same with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton- Chief District Judge, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Freedman, Grillo, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse- Director, U. S. Attorney’s Office, Xavier Becerra-Attorney General of California, Martin Hoshino- Director Judicial Council of California, Victoria Henley- Director Chief Counsel Commission on Judicial Performance, Chad Finke- Executive Officer Superior Court of Alameda County and 90 OTHERS, that CSAA- Wellpoint and “Department 511 Still Engaging in Perverting and Obstructing Justice, and Due Administration of the Law in Tentative Ruling issued in two motions of September 20, 2018”!

I implore this court to investigate this matter of the Appeals Court evading the proper response to their refusal to serve any notice of any kind to plaintiff regarding the defendants motion to dismiss and make those finding available to part of the record on appeal as it may explain/prove why the motion was uncontested! 

Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration. 

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim

510-394-4501

Advertisements

PROOF of Judge Kim Colwell Fraud in al-HAKIM VS CSAA; Complaint Department 511 Perverting and Obstructing Justice, and Due Administration of the Law; Judicial Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy

TO:  Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye          Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California               Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments                       350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                                     San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                                Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205             Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Presiding Judge Wynne Carville                  Chad Finke
Supervising Judge Michael Markman         Executive Officer
Judge Stephen Kaus                                    Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Kevin R. Murphy                                1225 Fallon Street Room 209
Judge C. Don Clay                                        Oakland, CA 94612
Judge Jeff Brand                                          Fax: 510-891-6276
Judge Kim Colwell                                        cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Judge Morris Jacobson
Judge Winifred Smith                                 Charles Johnson
Judge Jon Rolefsen                                     Beth Robbins
Judge Yolanda Northridge                          Deputy Clerk
Judge Dennis Hayashi                                 First District Court of Appeal
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee                               350 McAllister Street
Superior Court of Alameda County            San Francisco CA 94102
Departments 1, 6, 511, and 518                   Fax: 415-865-7309, 415-865-7209
René C. Davidson Courthouse                    Beth.Robbins@jud.ca.gov,
1225 Fallon Street                                        Charles.Johnson@jud.ca.gov
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WCarville@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.511@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.518@alameda.courts.ca.gov, SKaus@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KMurphy@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov,YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov, DHayashi@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.19@alameda.courts.ca.gov,RFreedman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Martin Hoshino                                      Victoria B. Henley
Director                                                  Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California               Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue                    455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688         San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586                     FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov               Victoria.Henley@jud.ca.gov
John.Wordlaw@jud.ca.gov
Alex Tse                                                  Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                            Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                          U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                              6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue                     1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102                     Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234                      Fax No.: 415 522-3605
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov                Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                         Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov
Barbara.Valliere@usdoj.gov
sara.Winslow@usdoj.gov
Attorney General of California
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
FAX No.: 916-324-8835
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Sean.McCluskie@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
Laura.Stuber@doj.ca.gov
Kelli.Evans@doj.ca.gov
Marina.Soto@doj.ca.gov
Fax No.: 916-322-4532, 916-323-5341, 916-324-5567, 916-319-9421cc: ; bcc ACLU, LCCR, East Bay Community Law Center, Bay Area Legal Aid, USC Gould School Of Law, Western Center On Law & Poverty, Electronic Frontier Foundation, National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, Equal Justice Society, Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center,
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     October 11, 2018
NO PAGES: 5 plus Exhibits
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s PROOF of Judge Kim Colwell Fraud in al-HAKIM VS CSAA- Wellpoint, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #C811337; Complaint of Department 511 Still Engaging in Perverting and Obstructing Justice, and Due Administration of the Law in Tentative Ruling issued in two motions of September 20, 2018.“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3“The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Freedman, Grillo, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:

I have previously sent you ALL a 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint that was already outdated before I could file it!

This Complaint concerns, exposes and underscores the Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy in the cases of Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim involving Judges Wynne Carvill, Kim Colwell, and Michael Markman with Chad Finke,among others with the Manipulation of the record and Register of Actions; Obstruction of Justice, Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); the continued Fraud Upon The Court by Judges Colwell and Wynne Carvill with Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law!

On September 18, 2018, I previously filed and served notice via fax and email on the court that I had a Standing Opposition to ALL Tentative Rulings made in al-Hakim vs. CSAA, Case: #C-811337,and that I was unavailable for hearing on Thursday, September 20, 2018, and that the court has scheduled that hearing on a date they know I will not be available and requested that they continue the hearing to a date that they KNOW I will.
It is well established with the courts and defendants that plaintiff has a 50 year religious commitments and is unavailable on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, and that hearing was set for Thursday, September 20, 2018, 9:00 a.m., in Department 511, a date I can NOT attend.
For that reason, I requested that the hearings be continued to a Monday or Wednesday thereafter, with the understanding that he has court dates pending on September 26, 2018; October 3, 2018; October 15, 2018; October 22, 2018; and October 24, 2018, while awaiting dates for three other matters.
The court continued the dates, but issued an order that the tentative ruling was “uncontested”. That is NOT TRUE!
As stated, I contacted the court THREE times via fax and email PRIOR to the 4:00 PM deadline, and I have the faxes and emails to prove it!(See attached email from Scott Sanchez department 511 court clerk) In one email exchange on September 19, 2018, the department 511 court clerk replied to the filed opposition with a facetious question of “Do you have a case number?”; to which I replied “It’s in the Subject line, the REFERENCE: line and the body of the letter. Did you miss it somehow?”.
This intentionally erroneous ruling/order must be corrected immediately as clearly department 511 is still engaging in perverting and obstructing justice, and the due administration of the law.
One of the motions is a motion to vacate Colwell’s order granting the sale of my home which she has continued since April 2018, under the guise that it is subject to stay from the appeal, which it is NOT no differently than the motion to sell the home with an undertaking, in her effort to assure the home would be sold BEFORE the motion could be heard!

Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Judge Colwell and her administrative staff is guilty of manipulating the calendar, changing motions and the calendar weekly, without any pleadings nor notice! I have asked before “Why and how did this motion manage to be removed from the calendar, by who and when? This also happened with the recent motions to compel as they were left off the calendar but mysteriously the motion to vacate and set aside the renewed judgment and the motion for terminating sanctions and other relief was placed on the calendar! On both the last two hearing dates the Case Management Conferences were also left off the calendar and tentative rulings! on 12/13/17 hearing the court will decide that motion.
The complaints involve the court Department Clerk’s administration mishandling of motions with them being mis-titled or changing the title of motions as filed, calendared unwanted motions without notice or cause, calendared motions without notice, motions being dropped from the calendar without notice, parties missing from rulings without notice or cause, parties being removed without notice or cause, changing orders, changing tentative rulings, calendaring motions that were NOT requested, posting tentative rulings AFTER the scheduled hearing time, deleting items from the register of actions, and falsifying the record (for appeal), are VERY SERIOUS threats to the Rule of Law as practiced by the acceptable courts in America! Perhaps even MORE dangerous is the silence that pervades the court when asked “Why, How and by Whom?”
I have many unanswered questions for this court and Judges Carvill, Jacobson, Rolefson, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution I, my family, businesses, and communities we serve continue to suffer at your individual and collective gavels.
Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have entered information into the court’s computers to make it appear that the register of actions and record on appeal would not reflect what actually occurred in the cases. In some cases, the fraudulently created/altered records made it appear that certain matters had been dismissed or certain parties were NEVER apart of an action or motion.
The actions of falsifying court records had been complained of to Colwell and the presiding and supervising judges to no avail!
Given that I have had no response from the judges, nor the court administration, including Chad Finke refusing to comply with three subpoenas and request for production of documents and the Judicial Council with the same, I have no choice but to file actions with the responsible agencies to discover this information and resolve the legal concerns expressed for years.

Colwell and her Court Administration Perverts or Obstructs Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws
Under section 182, subdivision (a)(5), it is a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit any act “to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.” (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
In 1950, the California Supreme Court explained the meaning of an act that perverts or obstructs justice, or the due administration of the laws:
“Generally speaking, conduct which constitutes an offense against public justice, or the administration of law includes both malfeasance and nonfeasance by an officer in connection with the administration of his public duties, and also anything done by a person in hindering or obstructing an officer in the performance of his official obligations. Such an offense was recognized at common law and generally punishable as a misdemeanor. Now, quite generally, it has been made a statutory crime and, under some circumstances, a felony.
Section 182, subdivision 5,[7] is a more general section making punishable a conspiracy to commit any offense against public justice. The meaning of the words ‘to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws’ is easily ascertained by reference either to the common law or to the more specific crimes enumerated in part I, title [7]. A conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws is an obstruction of justice and an indictable offense at common law.
The Court of Appeal expanded upon Lorenson in Davis v. Superior Court (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 8 (Davis ).
In Davis, the Court of Appeal held that conduct that perverts or obstructs justice is not necessarily limited to crimes listed in part 1, title 7 of the Penal Code, nor are all crimes in that title necessarily crimes that pervert or obstruct justice:
“The reference [in Lorenson ] to ‘Crimes Against Public Justice’ does not necessarily exclude a crime not defined within the four corners of that part 1, title [7], of the Penal Code․  The court’s reference to such crimes was illustrative, rather than exclusionary;  the type of conduct with which title [7] principally deals falls within the category of acts ‘to pervert or obstruct justice.’
From Davis, the Attorney General relies on the sentence, “The court’s reference to such crimes [found in part 1, title 7 of the Penal Code] was illustrative, rather than exclusionary;  the type of conduct with which title [7] principally deals falls within the category of acts ‘to pervert or obstruct justice.’ ”  (Davis, supra, 175 Cal.App.2d at p. 16.)
The court ruled in Gallegos- Curiel, 681 F.2d at 1169 (“[T]he appearance of vindictiveness results only where, as a practical matter, there is a realistic or reasonable likelihood of prosecutorial conduct that would not have occurred but for hostility or a punitive animus towards the defendant because he has exercised his specific legal rights.) (citing Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 373, 384). The mere appearance of prosecutorial vindictiveness suffices to place the burden on the government because the doctrine of vindictive prosecution “seeks[s] to reduce or eliminate apprehension on the part of an accused” that she may be punished for exercising her rights. Ruesga-Martinez, 534 F.2d at 1369. As the district court noted, the “prophylactic” doctrine is designed, in part, “to prevent chilling the exercise of [legal] rights by other defendants who must make their choices under similar circumstances in the future.” United States v. DeMarco, 550 F.2d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 1977).
Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have ignored the rule of law, undermined public safety and compromised the justice system by tampering with the record have actually prevented the orderly administration of justice. As Faretta recognized, the record can only be read as an attempt to abuse the dignity of the courtroom and impugn the integrity of the rule of law as their actions “deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct” (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46. at pp. 834-835, fn. 46 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581, fn. 46]) that threatens to subvert the core concept of a trial.
This scheme may have affected hundreds of cases and caused havoc in Superior Court – problems that are further complicated if the judge or clerk encouraged others to lie about the scheme.
The FBI should investigate this complaint of corruption by the judges, court administration, Colwell, the Dept. 511 court clerks and those with access to this sensitive information and hold them accountable for their actions.
There have been a litany of administrative abuses in these matters that is directly attributable to Colwell. This matter may need to be transferred to another county venue on fair trial grounds as provided by CCP §397(b) where the influence of the Judges, district attorney, city attorney and opposing litigants is not so inextricably intertwined with judicial interests.
Something must be done about this immediately!

Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.

Respectfully,

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501

Request for Information/Investigation Non-Service of Notice California Appeals Court

TO:        Beth Robbins
Charles Johnson
Deputy Clerk
First District Court of Appeal
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco CA 94102

FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim

DATE: October 9, 2018 

NO PAGES: 2

RE: Appellant al-Hakim’s Request for Information/Investigation Non-Service of Notice, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim vs. Superior Court, Appeals case: Appeal Case No.A153640, Superior Court case No.: C-811337

Dear Ms. Robbins and Mr. Johnson: 

On July 27, 2018, I received an Order from the Appeals Court dated July 16, 2018, dismissing the above action due to an “unopposed” June 22, 2018, motion to dismiss filed by Defendant-Respondent, CSAA- Wellpoint Asset Recovery LLC. The order is stamped  by P J Jones (Presiding Judge Barbara J. R. Jones) and filed by Charles D. Johnson, Clerk, on the same date.

I was NEVER served any motion to dismiss by CSAA, nor any motion to compel discovery by CSAA, and this is clearly a well established patterned litigation practice employed by them and I have brought this fact to the attention of the courts many, many times before as well as they historically NEVER have any supporting proof of service that is legally and properly executed, is always unsigned so that they are NOT under the penalty of perjury. The order is the unsavory product of CSAA’s unscrupulous, immoral fraud and that immorality has been drastically redefined in recent times, arguably the boundaries of what is judicially acceptable remain publicly policed!

I was NEVER served any filing notice of any type from the Appeals Court of any motion to dismiss by CSAA, no briefing schedule, no schedule of motion practice, and this clearly should have been the practice of the courts as it has before with Anne Reasoner and Truefiling. I NEVER received any email, or U. S. postal mail from Reasoner or the appeals court nor any electronic service from TrueFiling, which is the norm, and there is NO RECORD of any type that any of them sent any notice of any type to me! 

How is it possible for this to even happen and the court does NOT acknowledge that it IS a reason for the unopposed motion, and there is NO RECORD of any type that the appeals court EVER sent ANY notices of any type regarding the motion to dismiss to me?!

I respectfully ask the court to conduct and provide an extensive Information/Investigation to explain “what happened?”.

Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration. 

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim

510-394-4501

Judge Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR; Complaint for Judicial Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy

TO:  Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye          Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California               Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments                       350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                                     San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                                Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205             Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Presiding Judge Wynne Carville                  Chad Finke
Supervising Judge Michael Markman         Executive Officer
Judge Stephen Kaus                                    Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Kevin R. Murphy                                1225 Fallon Street Room 209
Judge C. Don Clay                                        Oakland, CA 94612
Judge Jeff Brand                                          Fax: 510-891-6276
Judge Kim Colwell                                        cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Judge Morris Jacobson
Judge Winifred Smith                                 Charles Johnson
Judge Jon Rolefsen                                     Beth Robbins
Judge Yolanda Northridge                          Deputy Clerk
Judge Dennis Hayashi                                 First District Court of Appeal
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee                               350 McAllister Street
Superior Court of Alameda County            San Francisco CA 94102
Departments 1, 6, 511, and 518                   Fax: 415-865-7309, 415-865-7209
René C. Davidson Courthouse                    Beth.Robbins@jud.ca.gov,
1225 Fallon Street                                        Charles.Johnson@jud.ca.gov
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WCarville@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.511@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.518@alameda.courts.ca.gov, SKaus@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KMurphy@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov,YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov, DHayashi@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.19@alameda.courts.ca.gov,RFreedman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Martin Hoshino                                      Victoria B. Henley
Director                                                  Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California               Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue                    455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688         San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586                     FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov               Victoria.Henley@jud.ca.gov
John.Wordlaw@jud.ca.gov
Alex Tse                                                  Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                            Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                          U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                              6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue                     1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102                     Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234                      Fax No.: 415 522-3605
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov                Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                         Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov
Barbara.Valliere@usdoj.gov
sara.Winslow@usdoj.gov
Attorney General of California
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
FAX No.: 916-324-8835
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Sean.McCluskie@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
Laura.Stuber@doj.ca.gov
Kelli.Evans@doj.ca.gov
Marina.Soto@doj.ca.gov
Fax No.: 916-322-4532, 916-323-5341, 916-324-5567, 916-319-9421cc: ; bcc ACLU, LCCR, East Bay Community Law Center, Bay Area Legal Aid, USC Gould School Of Law, Western Center On Law & Poverty, Electronic Frontier Foundation, National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, Equal Justice Society, Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center,
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     September 24, 2018
NO PAGES: 14
RE:        Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness; and Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy in al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371; al-Hakim vs. EBMUD, Alameda County Case No. RG 14-740943; Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim VS. AT&T Corporation, RG17-788130

“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3 “The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Freedman, Grillo, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:

I have previously sent you ALL a 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint that was already outdated before I could file it!

This Complaint concerns, exposes and underscores the Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy in the cases of Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim involving Judges C. Don Clay, Stephen Kaus, Robert Freedman, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Ioana Petrou, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Jo-Lynne Lee, Paul Herbert, Kim Colwell, Kevin Murphy, and Michael Markman with Chad Finke,among others with the Manipulation of the record and Register of Actions; Obstruction of Justice, Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); the continued Fraud Upon The Court by Judges C. Don Clay and Wynne Carvill with Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law!

Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness is Contempt
But first I MUST address the reign of State sponsored TERROR I was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM!
The July 11, 2018, Hearing
At the recent July 11, 2018, hearing in the matters of al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371, al-Hakim entered the alcove leading into the courtroom and was stopped by the Sheriffs deputy and asked “who are you and where are  you going?”. al-Hakim responded with his name and that he was there for a 3:00 p.m. hearing, and asked “aren’t you expecting us?”. The deputy responded “yeah, and inspecting you too!”al-Hakim thought that he had misheard him and asked “I didn’t hear you, what did you say?”, The deputy repeated “yeah, and inspecting you too!”. Still not understanding the need for such response, al-Hakim said “I’m sorry, could you repeat that?”The deputy again repeated “yeah, and inspecting you too!” in a very brash and challenging manner.
al-Hakim entered the courtroom and took a seat in the front row behind the railing of the court as there was already someone sitting at the defendants place at the hearing table, the clerk at her desk and the deputy sat at his desk near the front row of seats in the courtroom.
The deputy informs al-Hakim “you can’t sit in the first row, you have to move!”where upon al-Hakim moves across the courtroom to the second row of seats.
Judge Clay comes out of chambers and asks if they are ready to proceed, returns and takes the bench.
He calls for appearances of the parties and upon calling al-Hakim, while still standing, al-Hakim announces that“I have a challenge for you (Clay).”
Clay responds that he wants to go on with the matters, and asks if al-Hakim wants to be heard on the matters. al-Hakim, still standing holding the document in his hand extended toward Clay, responds that“you have been served a challenge and you must respond to it.”
The deputy blurts out “sit down and don’t interrupt the judge”, as if al-Hakim’s serving the challenge was somehow interrupting Clay and al-Hakim had NO RIGHT to do so.
Clay says “we have already started”
al-Hakim, while still standing holding the document in his hand extended toward Clay, reiterates that “there’s is no reporter so you can make the record anyway you choose, we haven’t done anything yet and I have challenged you (Clay) and you must answer it before you can proceed.”
Clay again responds that he wants to go on with the matters, and asks if al-Hakim wants to be heard on the matter of the subpoena and the vexatious litigant motion. al-Hakim, now sitting still holding the document in his hand extended toward the clerk, responds that “you have been served a challenge are you refusing to accept it?”
Clay angrily responds “I will deal with it later!” and nods approval to the deputy. al-Hakim handed the document to the deputy whom gave it to the clerk.
Clay asks al-Hakim how he viewed “the motion to compel the subpoena with the stay pending vexatious litigant motion?”
al-Hakim again stated that “you have been challenged you, you can only perform administrative duties and you must answer it before you can proceed in this case. I am NOT waiving any rights and insist that since I was NEVER served the motion by defendants, I have been prejudiced by appearing here and will NOT waive that prejudice”
Further, al-Hakim answered that “the Subpoena and Request for Production of Documents where supposed to have been answered by the defendants before February 12, 2018 and they failed and refused to do so, have defaulted by failing and refusing to answer the summons and complaint, and our motion to compel was unopposed.”
al-Hakim noticed a horrendous odor from behind him and turned is his seat to find the deputy standing over his left shoulder two feet away!
Clay asks if al-Hakim agreed that the vexatious motion stay the proceedings?” wherein al-Hakim answers that the motion was allegedly filed on February 16, 2018, and still has NEVER been served despite numerous requests for it and the the answers were due before February 12, 2018. They were in default already and you do not have the authority to retroactively grant them a stay after the fact”
With the unmerciful stench emanating from his vaginal region and his sweat seemingly dropping on al-Hakim’s back, al-Hakim turned is his seat facing the deputy standing over his left shoulder two feet away whom appeared to be trying to read al-Hakim’s documents at the table. al-Hakim asked the deputy “would you like a seat”as he pulled out the seat next to him and offered it to the deputy. Clay makes the comment “you don’t want to do that!”, where upon the deputy is now standing over al-Hakim where he can’t move at all!
al-Hakim responded “do what, what are you thinking I want to do? I want to know why he has to stand over me behind my back. I don’t believe that that is normal in any courtroom”Clay responds “well, yes it is”.al-Hakim states “you are saying that he stands in this same position, two feet behind the plaintiff, in every case that you have?”
Clay says “well”
The odor now is at “hold your breath level!!” and al-Hakim doesn’t want to say that.
al-Hakim says “I don’t believe that, I have been in your courtroom over 20 times, I am familiar with the courts attempts at intimidation and this most certainly is one!”
Again Clay nods to the deputy and he retreats a few steps but stays in striking range of al-Hakim who is seated 40 feet away and 3 feet below Clay sitting on the bench.
This was clearly planned prior to al-Hakim appearing in court and was choreographed by Clay to provoke and instill terror and fear in al-Hakim during the hearing!!
Clay’s actions in this manner along with the deputy’s deadly pungent mix from his crotch-rot on that hot day, left more than a lingering quality, impression, and feeling of stench warfare attaching to Clay an odor of terror and suspicion.
This use of these heinous tactics to incite violence that apparently already in the forefront of Clay’s mind with the comment “you don’t want to do that!”, with the highly offensive odors to sicken, immobilize, and drive al-Hakim away from the courtroom as an enemy of the State was in and of itself utterly odious and wicked.
The deputy took his seat, wrote a note to Clay and delivered it to him.
Clay then announces that “I am going to deny the motion to compel”.
Clay’s own extraordinary, forced rendition, his own government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial holding of al-Hakim as a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly being interrogated UNDER DURESS carried out by the sheriffs, government with the consent of the court!
al-Hakim felt the threat of being hit in the back of the head at all times, for any comment or slight movement, or signal from Clay, to provoke violence to result with injury or death to al-Hakim! The expected harm was made to compel al-Hakim to do something against his will or to be considered wrong in Clay’s sole judgment to “sic his attack dog” on al-Hakim; especially this wrongful threat made by Clay and his deputy to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by al-Hakim to Clay’s mercy without real volition. With this oppression and persecution indelibly etched in his mind, heart and soul, al-Hakim now KNOWS the smell of TERROR!!

Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness is Contempt
It must be stipulated that Judge Clay’s actions fraud violated canons 1, 2A, and 2B(2), and constituted prejudicial misconduct at the very least and treated al-Hakim in a manner in violation of canons 1, 2A, and 3B(4) and reflected a prejudgment of him and a lack of impartiality, contrary to canon 3B(5).  Judges Clay’s abusive conduct must draw harsh criticism from the Judicial Regulators in a decision arising out of these charges of the “atmosphere of unfairness” created by the judge’s denial of plaintiff’s civil rights, right to due process, biased administration of justice, erroneous rulings, lies, deception, threats, retaliation, and caustic, condescending remarks of the plaintiff. (People v. Urias (July 31, 2006, G035179 [2006 WL 2128631] [nonpub. opn.]).)
Judge Clay purported to exercise his authority at that hearing in which he violated al-Hakim’s civil rights, has admittedly acting with personal interest in the outcome under the color of law 18 USC §242. The Judges willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability she would continue her unethical behavior if she were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future. That judge Clay, before whom the hearing aforesaid action was pending is prejudiced against al-Hakim or the interest of the party so that affiant cannot or believes that he cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before this judge. al-Hakim request and have a standing objection to ANY involvement of Judge Clay in this and ANY other matter.
Given the FABRICATED PRIOR VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER in the Denial of the Request Fee Waiver dated March 5, 2018 that does NOT exist, AND the TWO FABRICATED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDERSof July 23, 2018, and August 3, 2018, Clay issued proclaiming that the EBMUD action was dismissed for al-Hakim filing Challenges against the judges, YET THAT HAD NOT HAPPENED, is irrefutable evidence of the continued Fraud Upon The Court by Judges C. Don Clay and Wynne Carvill with Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law!

The Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy
At a recent July 18, 2018, hearing in the matters of al-Hakim v. EBMUD, al-Hakim v. AT&T, judge Grillo revealed the obvious conspiracy of Carvill, Markman, Kaus and himself in the very first minute of the hearing stating he had read in al-Hakim’s opposition to his OSC that he was dismissed for failure to answer the challenge within 10 days.That issues was NOT in al-Hakim’s opposition and was the nexus for Grillo’s fabricating his story for recusal which was intended to be an ambush of al-Hakim.
Perhaps more astonishing, within days of that hearing, on July 23, 2018, Clay issues TWO ORDERS proclaiming that the EBMUD action was dismissed for al-Hakim filing Challenges against the judges, YET THAT HAD NOT HAPPENED!!
This is at least the FOURTH time Clay has engineered, authored and endorsed fabricated orders as evidence of his fraud on the court and unbridled disregard and disrespect for the Rule of Law!

Grillo’s July 18, 2018 Filed Answer Adventure a Complete Fabrication!”
Prior to the cases being called, Grillo consulted with the court reporter regarding her services and she confirmed that she was there to transcribe the “al-Hakim criminal case”. Grillo suggested again that the case she was there for included three parties and he would give her notice when to go on the record, wherein again she stated that she was there for the “al-Hakim criminal case”.
Grillo called both cases, and upon announcing my appearance, I announced I was serving a challenge on Grillo wherein he announced “I know what you are going to do, but I have something that will make it unnecessary. I noticed in your opposition somewhere that you had raised the fact that I had failed to file and serve an answer striking your challenge for cause within the 10 day limit, I am accepting the dismissal and al-Hakim is right, all my orders and rulings are voided.. I did file an answer but somehow it was not posted or served, there was no proof of service”.
al-Hakim stated that “I am serving this challenge”, Grillo stated “I know that, but it will not be necessary, I am accepting (170.3 non-answer) dismissal”. He says “I checked the register of actions and didn’t see your challenge posted”, al-Hakim answered “neither is your answer striking it”.
Grillo claims his non answer and 170.3 dismissal is based on the fact he read that in al-Hakim’s opposition to the Order to Show Cause and realized he had NOT filed and served a timely answer striking the challenge, and was accepting the dismissal and al-Hakim is right wherein all his orders and rulings are voided.
Grillo says “I know that, that’s why I’m asking if you have a filed copy of the challenge?” al- Hakim said “I do”. Grillo asks “can I see it?” al-Hakim responded “I don’t have it with me”.
Grillo asks “can you get a copy of it?”, I responded “I would have to go get it”. Grillo asks “when can you get it?”
al-Hakim responded “I can get it and be back in an hour, before noon”. Grillo said “I did file an answer on July 9, 2018” and al-Hakim said “it would not be timely as it would have to be filed by July 6, 2018”.
Grillo insisted and required that al-Hakim provide a filed stamped copy of the challenge of June 27, 2018 stating that “I don’t want this to happen again and I don’t have a filed copy.”
al-Hakim said that “I’ve filled challenges in the courtroom and received a copy filed stamped by the clerk, all I have to do is serve it” “you aren’t denying being served the challenge, you got your copy?” Grillo admits “No, I did get it”.
al-Hakim returned to the court wherein Grillo announced that he had received the filed copy of the challenge from al-Hakim filed via email and it was filed in the AT&T case. Grillo admitted he concluded AT&T matter with defendants in al-Hakim’s absence, recounted the preposterous story of his answer being filed in the AT&T case but not in the EBMUD case. Clearly he had second thoughts about leaving the AT&T case and contrived a means to stay in it by filing an alleged answer in that case while I was away getting the filed copy of the challenge.
Grillo then claimed that there was clerical error in filing the challenge in the AT&T case not EBMUD, so by law he can correct the error and continue in AT&T case because he only needs to file the answer striking order by July 9, 2018, not serve it. al-Hakim corrected him that in fact if he filed the answer July 9, 2018, it would not be timely as it would have to be filed by July 6, 2018, and it MUST be served or al-Hakim wouldn’t know about it. al-Hakim reiterates that once he was served the new challenge it was inappropriate to proceed in any capacity beyond administrative duties and he was served the challenge.
Grillo says “I did file an answer but somehow it was not posted or served, there was no proof of service”. He asks his clerk to check the court register of actions for the pdf of the answer and she responded that there was an answer filed but no proof of service- just filed blank pages beyond his alleged answer. al-Hakim requested to see and get a copy of the alleged answer, Grillo did not respond. al-Hakim reminded Grillo that “you have been served a new challenge” and Grillo tried to evade service by accepting non-answer dismissal, then tried to change to acceptance in only the EBMUD case. Grillo continued the case to later at 1:30 p.m.
Where upon return al-Hakim appeared and Grillo informs him that he is going to recuse himself in both cases and has been in contact with Presiding Judge Carvill and Supervising Judge Markman all morning regarding transferring this case to Judge Kaus and he was going to file a complaint regarding the clerks office not properly filing or serving the challenge and answer striking challenge.
al-Hakim asked him “whom are you going to file the complaint with” he responded “judge Markman, and if you want to file a complaint you can do so as well” I asked whom should I file a complaint with and he said “Markman”. al-Hakim stated “this story is a complete fabrication!”
al-Hakim stated that his complaint wasn’t just going to be against the clerks office as as he stated to Grillo “you noticed in my opposition somewhere that I had raised the fact that you had failed to file and serve an answer striking your challenge for cause within the 10 day limit.” Grillo said yes, I did, that’s what prompted this dismissal”.
al-Hakim stated “there is no reference to the dismissal for not timely filing an answer in the opposition!” This is a complete fabrication!
Grillo said that “well that’s not what we are talking about, I have accepted the recusal, the issue is moot and all the confusion regarding the answer and service, I will address it with judge Markman”. al-Hakim again stated that “the entire reason that prompted this dismissal was because you noticed in my opposition somewhere that I had raised the fact that you had failed to file and serve an answer striking your challenge for cause within the 10 day limit but there is no reference to the dismissal for non answer in the opposition!”
al-Hakim reminded Grillo that “you have been served a new challenge” and Grillo tried to evade service by accepting non-answer dismissal, stating it was moot” and al-Hakim said the issues addressed in this challenge will endure far beyond today and I’ve served you”.
We have witnessed at least five times where the register of actions and record were altered even after the fact by the judges and clerks in al-Hakim’s cases.
His entire sham of filing an answer and 170.3 dismissal was a fabrication based on the fact he read that in opposition and realized he had NOT filed and served a timely answer striking the challenge, that was NOT in the opposition!
Grillo admitted that he had spoken with both Judges Carvill and Markman regarding his “Adventure” with the answer and it begs the answers to how were they involved in this matter, from it’s inception to it’s assignment to Kaus; to the alleged complaint against the clerks office that Grillo said he was going to file to asking al-Hakim to file his complaint, that al-Hakim will file against them ALL. There is clearly a case of fraud on the court, fabricating what is now evidence given the time and IP of the device that uploaded the alleged answer, fabricating the record and register of actions, and conspiracy, among others!
Carvill has been uniquely involved in this and other matters of al-Hakim’s and is still subject to the ongoing appeal and investigation of the criminal activities of him, judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others. As it regards the ongoing appeal, the underlying case that rendered the appeal was decided in al-Hakim’s favor after 22 years of litigation and found to declare Carvill and the other five judges that sat in the case without knowing anything about it while ruling in it solely on the script prepared by law clerk Phil Abar, ALL TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN FRAUD ON THE COURT AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE!!! SINCE THIS SCRIPT WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE JUDGE TO ANOTHER THERE WAS OBVIOUS COLLUSION, ILLEGAL EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, CORRUPTION, CONSPIRACY, AMONG OTHERS, and grounds for disqualification under CALIFORNIA CCP §170.6, CCP §§170.1-5 et. seq.; CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)), (CCP § 170.3 (c) (1)), the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8), 3C, 3D(1), 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2), 4, 4D(1) and 4(E); DUE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §242; Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§182, subd. (a)(5); Fraud On The Court- Federal Code 60; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 60, § 47, § 4541, § 425.16, § 355, 356, 473, 475, § 3523, § 3528 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180; First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment U. S. Constitution; California Constitution by the first clause of Article I, section 13;  Article VI, section 4 1/2; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3)

Kaus Discrepancies Clearly Indicate He was Being Untruthful
In my effort to “trust, but verify!”, I have established above some startling revelations regarding what Kaus knew or should have known that disprove his many “I don’t know anything about that” comments to the questions al-Hakim put to him at the August 29, 2018 hearing.
With ALL the communications wherein EACH one discussed Judge Grillo’s July 18, 2018 “Filed Answer Adventure was a Complete Fabrication!”, he could NOT be unaware of what happened and he had to read the many documents because they also addressed the fact al-Hakim would be unavailable for two scheduled hearings due to Eid al-Adha. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM NOT TO KNOW THESE THINGS!
His being told he was being assigned the case in the afternoon when Grillo said it at the 9:00am hearing is very shocking as well and smacks of the same corruption, collusion, and conspiracy al-Hakim has referenced for years and makes the afternoon assignment hearing appear to be an ambush! This has happened with Carvill in the past.
Most recently in the al-Hakim v. Interserver Equinix, Case: #RG18888371 matter that was initially assigned on January 11, 2018 to Judge Stephen Kaus yet without any notice, appearances, rulings, or recusals, it was reassigned to judge Clay, he issued an vexatious litigant order on July 23, 2018 and again on August 3, 2018, that orders: “However, given the order dismissing the case in Alameda County Case No. RG 14-740943” and “as well as the recent and numerous challenges filed in this case at issue, the court continues the hearing on this motion for the parties to address the import of these decisions and to explain (with evidence and/or request for judicial notice in support) whether plaintiff should be declared vexatious given the circumstances.”
The order was with an extended 60 day briefing schedule when the vexatious litigant motion was to be heard. The scheduling was the product of judge Clay trying to extend the motion practice to allow for the verification of his information in his order includes “secret evidence” of the dismissal of the al-Hakim vs. EBMUD action, Alameda County Case No. RG 14-740943. This matter has NOT been dismissed so it begs the question “what does Clay know?, how he knows it?, when did he find this out?, who he discussed this with?”
Further it underscores the corruption, collusion, and conspiracy of in the case of al-Hakim involving Judges Clay, Stephen Kaus, Robert Freedman, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Ioana Petrou, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Jo-Lynne Lee, Paul Herbert, Kim Colwell, Kevin Murphy, Michael Markman, among others and their “handling of the EBMUD matter that has NOT been dismissed!

In further defiance of Clay’s orders regarding the dismissal of the EBMUD action, the Tentative Ruling made September 11, 2018 by Judge Stephen Kaus, he states that “Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim has engaged in a practice of filing peremptory challenges and challenges for cause to the case’s judicial assignment on the day of a hearing. In response, the judicial officers have had to postpone the hearing in order to address Al-Hakim’s objections first. EBMUD’s demurrer and this motion have been set and re-set for hearing as a result of Al-Hakim’s judicial challenges. Judicial challenges themselves are not, however, evidence a want or delay of prosecution. A party is entitled to challenge a judicial officer for cause or bias. Nor has EBMUD has not offered evidence that Al-Hakim’s peremptory challenges were offered in bad faith. The challenges appear to be filed in an earnest belief that the judges of this Court ought to be disqualified from deciding this case and that each successive challenge will overcome the prior’s shortcomings. The result of this may be considered “delay” under CCP section 583.410 and Rule of Court 3.1342. EBMUD has offered no evidence that this delay has resulted in significant or material prejudice. On the other hand, the Court hopes and encourages both parties to take this new judicial assignment as a good time to wipe the slate clean, forgive any earlier acrimony, and proceed to resolve and adjudicate the claims raised by the Complaint in normal order and good faith. Al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated. EBMUD deserves a chance to develop and present its defense. Both parties deserve the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law. In short, this case deserves a chance to proceed on its merits, and now is an opportune time as any to do so.”

Judge Kaus admits to the courts acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law!

Clay’s Own Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding
Clay’s July 23, 2018 and August 3, 2018, vexatious litigant order is an unlawful attempt to force al-Hakim to endure a SECOND motion and hearing, now CLAY’S OWN MOTION, yet the same defendants motion, by adding Clay’s OWN information gained through his investigation, corruption, collusion, and conspiracy with other judicial, governmental, and legal entities sources. It is established law that a litigant can NOT be forced to undertake more than one vexatious litigant proceeding in any 12 month period.
Clay has independently taken it upon himself to grant defendants a “do over” with his August 3, 2018 vexatious litigant order “continuing the matter”, the second motion on the matter, is now a second bite at the apple for CLAY and CARVILL, when the original motion was DENIED JULY 11, 2018, NOT CONTINUED!!
The illegal order issued 23 DAYS LATER, subjects al-Hakim to double jeopardy in this matter being tried again, now CLAY’S OWN MOTION, yet the same defendants motion, by adding Clay’s OWN information gained through his investigation, corruption, collusion, and conspiracy with other judicial, governmental, and legal entities sources at Clay’s direction, Clay’s instruction, and before Clay again as the trier of fact, that is alleged “fact” solely in his opinion, fact that he has personally provided defendants! The law is established and clear in that a litigant CAN NOT be forced to endure more than one vexatious litigant motion in a 12 month period and this is the COURTS motion now, NOT the defendants.
Now Clay is representing Carvill’s and his own interests in this matter BEFORE HIMSELF as judge makes Clay a litigant, and his asking defendants to defend his being challenged as part of their do over, at his direction and instruction is specious, larcenous!
The most important result of that hearing is that Clay has officially made himself a defendant and fourth element in this case. Though currently sitting as the judge in this matter he is now a witness, defendant, co-defense counsel and deputy defense judge ruling in matters that he has lied, committed several instances of fraud on the court and has been deceitful about and is personally involved in with Carvill, in this action that was brought by the defendants BEFORE HIM and now has appointed defendants counsel as his own counsel to defend his Challenges for Peremptory and Cause with Striking Orders to establish HIS right to sit and rule in the same matters that HE and Carvill are personally involved in and HE sits in judgment of HIMSELF and Carvill BEFORE HIMSELF against his challenges for removal that HE WILL RULE ON! His actions has the unfortunate consequence of making the judge a litigant, obliged to the defense counsel providing this opportunity to defend himself as the sitting judge of the litigants appearing before him in the case. ( Kerr v. United States District Court, supra, 426 U.S. at pp. 402-403 [48 L.Ed.2d at p. 732].) Judges should be umpires rather than players. This is a travesty and a mockery of justice with clear conflict while it wreaks of corruption and collusion!
Clay does NOT employ nor enforce the Interest of Justice, but the Interest of Judges!
Clay does NOT employ the rule of law, rather his law of the ruler!
Clay thinks he IS the RULER OF LAW!
Further, this brings under scrutiny what else Clay knew or should have known, what he did that he should not have done, what he didn’t do that he should have done.
Given the corruption, collusion, and conspiracy of in these cases of al-Hakim involving Judges Clay, Stephen Kaus, Robert Freedman, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Ioana Petrou, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Jo-Lynne Lee, Paul Herbert, Kim Colwell, Kevin Murphy, Michael Markman, among others and their “handling of the EBMUD matter that has NOT been dismissed and Judge Grillo’s July 18, 2018 “Filed Answer Adventure was a Complete Fabrication!” and al-Hakim’s complaint against the superior court and clerks offices for their continuing fraud on the court, was one of the reasons for this assignment to Kaus entails a dramatic sequence of events and ex-parte communications that are not and have not been made public that have an immeasurable impact on these and other cases that now involve the on going actions of Judges Robert Freedman, Ioana Petrou, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Wynne Carvill, Kim Colwell, Mark Markman, Evelio Grillo, C. Don Clay, Chad Finke and Superior Court Clerks and administration among others.

Alleged Prior Vexatious Litigant Order and Proceeding
a) On March 3, 2018, al-Hakim filed a form FW-003, Request Fee Waiver for Additional Superior Court Fees and Costs for a peace officer to testify in court, Court-appointed interpreter fees for a witness, jury fees and expenses, fees for court-appointed experts, and Other fees per (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.56.)
b) al-Hakim received a denial of the FW-003, Request Fee Waiver for Additional Superior Court Fees and Costs dated March 5, 2018, with reason given as follows:
“(2) The court denies your request because the information you provided on the request shows that you are not eligible for the fee waiver you requested (spec reasons):
Other (specify reasons): Plaintiff has been deemed a vexatious litigant. The Court has a motion set to address this issue pursuant prior Orders issued related to this litigation. The request is denied without prejudice.”
At the July 11, 2018, hearing Clay denied he issued the Fee Waiver denial order including the clause: “Plaintiff has been deemed a vexatious litigant. The Court has a motion set to address this issue pursuant prior Orders issued related to this litigation”as he stated at the hearing as follows:
al-Hakim says “and I want to know where is this prior order of the court finding me as a vexatious litigant, I don’t know if it came from them (defendants) or you (Clay)”. Clay shakes his head and says“I don’t know anything about it”,wherein al-Hakim says “it needs to be produced or this court is engaged in Fraud on the Court”, Clay again shakes his head and says “I don’t know anything about it”, wherein al-Hakim says “it’s yours, or Carvill or Finke’s signed order, I have presented that fact too many times for you NOT to know anything about it. Who issued the order if you didn’t?”. Clay again shakes his head and says “It’s not mine”. The order clearly bears his signature!!

Clay and Administrative staff Fraud on the Court
a) Clay, judges Carville and Markman and his administrative staff has committed Fraud on the Court in violation of Federal Code 60 and Code of Civil Procedure § 60, § 47, § 4541 § 425.16, Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180.
Fraud on the Court, or Fraud upon the Court, is where a material misrepresentation has been made to the court, or by the court itself. The main requirement is that the impartiality of the court has been so disrupted that it can’t perform its tasks without bias or prejudice.
Some examples of fraud on the court include:
•    Fraud in the service of court summons (such as withholding a court summons from a party)
•    Corruption or influence of a court member or official
•    Judicial fraud
•    Intentionally failing to inform the parties of necessary appointments or requirements, in efforts to obstruct the judicial process
•    “Unconscionable” schemes to deceive or make misrepresentations through the court system
It’s important to note that fraud on the court only involves court officials or officers of the court, such as judges or court-appointed attorneys. The fraud must be directed at the “judicial machinery” itself. Fraud on the court generally does NOT mean:
•    Fraud between the two opposing parties
•    Submission of fraudulent documents
•    Perjury or false statements by witnesses

Fraud on the court is one of the most serious violations that can occur in a court of law. If fraud on the court occurs, the effect is that the entire case is voided or cancelled. Any ruling or judgment that the court has issued will be void. The case will usually need to be retried with different court officials, often in an entirely different venue.
For the official who acted in fraud upon the court, they may very well be required to step down from their position and may even be subjected to criminal consequences like a fine or a jail sentence. It could also result in other serious consequences, such as an attorney being disbarred, or a judge being removed from service.
If a court official is found to be biased or prejudiced even before fraud occurs, they are required to excuse themselves from the case, and a different official must be appointed. In some jurisidictions, a trial tainted by fraud on the court will be vacated or set aside for a certain time period (such as two years), to be “reopened” at a later date.

Given the FABRICATED PRIOR VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER in the Denial of the Request Fee Waiver dated March 5, 2018 that does NOT exist, AND the TWO FABRICATED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDERSof July 23, 2018, and August 3, 2018, Clay issued proclaiming that the EBMUD action was dismissed for al-Hakim filing Challenges against the judges, YET THAT HAD NOT HAPPENED, is irrefutable evidence ofthe continued Fraud Upon The Court by Judges C. Don Clay and Wynne Carvill with Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law! Again, this is at least the FOURTH time Clay has engineered, authored and endorsed fabricated orders as evidence of his fraud on the court and unbridled disregard and disrespect for the Rule of Law!

Clay’s Total Disregard for The Rule of Law in Challenges
In Total Disregard for The Rule of Law, On Two Occasions Clay Failed and Refused to Timely File an Answer Striking both Challenges on Peremptory Bias Grounds Pursuant to California Civil Code §170.6 and otherwise “For Cause” Pursuant to California Civil Code §§170.1-170.5 Before Ruling on The Matters.
At the July 11, 2018, hearing, I filed a Challenge for Cause against Judge Clay while on the bench and he tried to evade the service and move into the case. I insisted that upon being served the challenge, he could only perform administrative duties relative to the case, that he could not hear anything regarding the case as he was challenged and had to answer first. He ignored that discussion of whether he could only perform administrative duties or he could even hear any matters and again tried to proceeded into the case. al-Hakim remained resolute and insisted that he accept service unless he was refusing service, wherein he acknowledged the Challenges, and still moved into decided crucial matters WITHOUT referring the case answering.

Judge Clay’s Conduct and Actions
A. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 170-170.4
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 170-170.4 reads as follows:
170.1.  (a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true:
(1) (A) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.
(6) (A) For any reason:
(i) The judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice.
(ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial.
(iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.
(B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification.
170.3.  (a) (1) If a judge determines himself or herself to be disqualified, the judge shall notify the presiding judge of the court of his or her recusal and shall not further participate in the proceeding, except as provided in Section 170.4, unless his or her disqualification is waived by the parties as provided in subdivision (b).
(2) There shall be no waiver of disqualification if the basis therefor is either of the following:
(A) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.
(4) If grounds for disqualification are first learned of or arise after the judge has made one or more rulings in a proceeding, but before the judge has completed judicial action in a proceeding, the judge shall, unless the disqualification be waived, disqualify himself or herself, but in the absence of good cause the rulings he or she has made up to that time shall not be set aside by the judge who replaces the disqualified judge.
(c) (1) If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or fails to do so, any party may file with the clerk a written verified statement objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of the judge. The statement shall be presented at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification. Copies of the statement shall be served on each party or his or her attorney who has appeared and shall be personally served on the judge alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers.
(5) A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible. No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may be made against the judge selected to decide the question of disqualification.

170.4.  (a) A disqualified judge, notwithstanding his or her disqualification may do any of the following:
(3) A party may file no more than one statement of disqualification against a judge unless facts suggesting new grounds for disqualification are first learned of or arise after the first statement of disqualification was filed.  Repetitive statements of disqualification not alleging facts suggesting new grounds for disqualification shall be stricken by the judge against whom they are filed.
This petition convincingly presents the case for all and judicial recusal under Code of Civil Procedure sections 170.1- 170.4 above, specifically 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(C). n1 (Stats. 1984, ch. 1555.) This proceeding touches upon the core of the judicial process — the appearance of objectivity of the decision maker — requiring a careful balancing of the affected interests. The court must consider both the public’s right to be assured of the fair, but yet efficient, resolution of disputes and the parties’ right to a decision based upon the court’s objective evaluation of the facts and law. (See In re United States (1st Cir. 1981) 666 F.2d 690, 694.) The tension between the appearance of fairness and efficiency should be self-evident. The difference between the appearance of fairness generally and the perception of fairness as seen by a party or his or her counsel should also be self-evident. With ever mounting litigation, judicial disqualification has and will undoubtedly continue to increase as will those of judicial disqualification during trial. This case is ripe for such ruling as you must understand judge Clay has repeatedly avoided, failed and refused to file and serve a written answer striking to the Challenges before he ruled on the matters heard that day and remained in the case over al-Hakim’s objections; continued to make critical rulings that negatively impacted al-Hakim’s case causing irreparable harm, far beyond simple administrative duties; he admitted striking the Second Challenge filed and served on July 11, 2018; he avoided, failed and refused to abide by the law wherein he did NOT recuse himself from hearing the motions that day; he avoided, failed and refused to abide by the law established that he could ONLY perform basic administrative duties until the challenge was heard by a judge; and this resulted in the granting of al-Hakim’s Motion to Compel . Judge Clay did not review the issues as plead by al-Hakim in those motions nor the Challenges as required by law or he would have discovered both legal authority and supporting evidence for the court to rule in plaintiff’s favor and such conduct, actions and personality “make a world of difference when it comes to rulings on evidence, the temper of the courtroom, the tolerance for a proffered defense, and the like.” ( Chandler v. Judicial Council (1970) 398 U.S. 74, 137 [26 L.Ed.2d 100, 137-138, 90 S.Ct. 1648] (dis. opn. of Douglas, J.).) Nonetheless the proper performance of judicial duties does require a judge to withdraw from a matter every time an advocate positively asserts the objective and fair judge appears to be biased. The duty of a judge to sit where not disqualified is equally as strong as the duty not to sit when disqualified. (See Laird v. Tatum (1972) 409 U.S. 824 [34 L.Ed.2d 50, 93 S.Ct. 7] On the facts of this case, you must grant this writ.

Prejudicial Misconduct in continuing to Preside over the Case
Clay committed prejudicial misconduct in continuing to preside over the case, conduct hearings,conducted his own investigation; colluded, conspired and issued an order  and make substantive rulings, not just administrative rulings, without having filed a written verified answer to al-Hakim’s challenge despite her personal knowledge of the relevant facts, evidence, testimony and circumstances for his disqualification and recusal that he failed and refused to answer.
al-Hakim had contested his continued sitting in the case and indicated his intent to file an appeal for same. These facts indicate that Clay’s purported concern about his failure to file a response and al-Hakim’s intent to file an appeal for Clay’s many failures was merely a pretext for his decision to independently take it upon himself to grant his own vexatious litigant order “continuing the matter”, the second motion on the matter, is now a second bite at the apple for CLAY and CARVILL, when the original motion was DENIED JULY 11, 2018, NOT CONTINUED!!
The illegal order issued 20 DAYS LATER, subjects al-Hakim to double jeopardy in this matter being tried again, now CLAY’S OWN MOTION, yet the same defendants motion, by adding Clay’s OWN information gained through his investigation, corruption, collusion, and conspiracy with other judicial, governmental, and legal entities sources at Clay’s direction, Clay’s instruction, continue in the case to frustrate al-Hakim’s attempt to disqualify him. In so retaliating against al-Hakim, Colwell committed prejudicial misconduct. (See In re Rasmussen (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 536, 538 [236 Cal. Rptr. 152, 734 P.2d 988] [judge committed misconduct in “displaying a lack of impartiality to, and petty harassment of attorneys who filed affidavits of prejudice against him,” and in “discouraging the exercise of peremptory disqualification rights by inappropriate means”].)
The courts have generally held that a judgment or order rendered by a disqualified judge is void whenever brought into question. (See Giometti v. Etienne (1934) 219 Cal. 687, 689 [28 P.2d 913] [justice related to petitioner’s counsel]; Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 567 [6 P.2d 944] [judge owned stock in bank]; Lindsay-Strathmore I. Dist. v. Superior Court (1920) 182 Cal. 315, 333 [187 P. 1056] [judge had remote interest in subject matter]; T.P.B. v. Superior Court (1977) 66 Cal. App. 3d 881, 885-886 [136 Cal. Rptr. 311].)
Clay abused and misused the judicial process unlawfully in violation of [section 170.4, subdivision (d)].
Section 170.4, subdivision (d) provides that “[e]xcept as provided in this section, a disqualified judge shall have no power to act in any proceeding after his or her disqualification or after the filing of a statement of disqualification until the question of his or her disqualification has been determined.”

Section 170.4, subdivision (a) provides as follows: “A disqualified judge, notwithstanding his or her disqualification may do any of the following: [P] (1) Take any action or issue any order necessary to maintain the jurisdiction of the court pending the assignment of a judge not disqualified. [P] (2) Request any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in his or her place. [P] (3) Hear and determine purely default matters. [P] (4) Issue an order for possession prior to judgment in eminent domain proceedings. [P] (5) Set proceedings for trial or hearing. [P] (6) Conduct settlement conferences.”
Clay was disqualified to preside at any further proceedings because he failed and refused to file a written order striking the challenge for cause while knowing that he is prohibited from hearing such motions and had no jurisdiction to enter the orders at and after the hearing.”

Clay Did Not Answer Second Challenge BEFORE Ruling on Matters Passed upon His own Disqualification
Clay never had standing in this case to rule by virtue of not having timely answered, filed and served properly any acceptable answer to the Second Challenge BEFORE he ruled on the matters at the hearing July 11, 2018.
His actions proved every point al-Hakim has made in every one of the documents, motions, answers, replies, correspondence, and challenges filed with, for, and against Clay over the years, that he can not afford to answer any of the charges leveled against him because it will incriminate him and establish that Clay IS GUILTY OF ALL THE CHARGES al-Hakim has made.
al-Hakim immediately realized that under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§170.1(a)(4), 170.1(a)(8)(b)(ii) Judge Clay had a conflict of interest and was disqualified from acting, has a direct and unwaivable conflict of interest.
Judge Clay then proceeded to hear, took under submission, and decided the matters before the Court, those rulings could be dispositive of the entire case, which he apparently intends to preside in spite of his disqualification.
Judge Clay therefore “pass[ed] upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party” violating CCP 170.3(c)(5). “A judge may not pass on his own disqualification”, Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie 475 U.S. 813 (1986), Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988).

Clay Did NOT Timely Answer the Challenge, Consenting to the Challenge
On July 11, 2018, Clay was challenged pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 and for cause pursuant to sections 170.1 and 170.3. Upon being issued the Challenges Clay could only preform administrative duties yet, Clay did NOT refer the case out to another judge as required nor timely answer the Challenge at all, thereby consenting to the Challenge per CCP §170.3(c)(4) for failure to file an order striking the Challenge within 10 days.

Judge Clay Disqualified Per CCP §170.3(c)(4) for NOT Answering nor Striking Challenge and Statement of Disqualification Within Ten-Day Time Limit
Clay failed to answer or strike the July 11, 2018, Challenges wherein if the judge whose disqualification has been sought has made no answer within ten days, he or she is considered to have consented to the disqualification. CCP §170.3(c)(4); People v Superior Court (Mudge) (1997) 54 CA4th 407, 411, 62 CR2d 721.
A judge who does not strike the statement of disqualification within this ten-day time limit is deemed disqualified. Lewis v Superior Court (1988) 198 CA3d 1101, 1104, 244 CR 328. Once a judge strikes a statement of disqualification, the aggrieved party may seek a writ immediately without waiting for the ten-day period to elapse. Hollingsworth v Superior Court (1987) 191 CA3d 22, 26, 236 CR 193.

In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”This fact is live and well in this complaint as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!

Unless and until these issues can be fairly resolved BEFORE the hearing scheduled on SEPTEMBER 26, 2018, AT 3:00 P.M. IN DEPARTMENT 6, BEFORE JUDGE CLAY, I CAN NOT in good conscience OUT OF FEAR agree to APPEAR with ANY of the continuing outstanding conditions referenced in this complaint regrading Clay’s State sponsored TERROR I was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM!
I am and will be subject to the continued fraud, corruption and collusion complained of in ALL the aforementioned herein and further, I request an OPEN hearing on these matters before an impartial judge.
This matter may need to be transferred to another county venue on fair trial grounds as provided by CCP §397(b) where the influence of the Judges, district attorney, city attorney and opposing litigants is not so inextricably intertwined with judicial interests.

Respectfully,

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501

Complaint against Trustees Tracy Hope Davis and Martha Bronitsky,Violation of the 1, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14h Amend U. S. Constitution; California Constitution

TO:  CLIFFORD J. WHITE III, DIRECTOR
RAMONA D. ELLIOTT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR/GENERAL COUNSEL
LISA A. TRACY, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
WILLIAM T. NEARY, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR FIELD OPERATIONS
TIFFANY CARROLL, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR OVERSIGHT
THOMAS E. BAIR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ADMINISTRATION
441 G STREET, NW, SUITE 6150
WASHINGTON, DC 20530
Fax: 202-307-0672, Fax: 202-307-2397, Fax: 202-616-4576, Fax: 202-307-3960

Tracy Hope Davis                                        Xavier Becerra
Office of the United States Trustee          Attorney General of California
450 Golden Gate Ave,Ste #05-0153        1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255                                         Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
San Francisco, CA 94102                           FAX No.: 916-324-8835
Fax: 415-705-3379, 705-3367                 Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Tracy.Davis@usdoj.gov                              Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Tracy.Davis2@usdoj.gov                           Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov

Alex Tse                                         Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                    Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                  U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                      6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue             1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102             Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: 415-436-7234                FAX No.: 415-522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                              Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                         Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov                      Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov

Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky                  Martha G. Bronitsky
Office of the United States Trustee          Trustee
1301 Clay Street, Room 690N                    P.O. Box 5004
Oakland, CA 94612                                      Hayward, CA 94540
Fax: 510-637-3220                                      Fax: 510-266-5589
Roger_Efrensky@cand.uscourts.gov          vsilveira@oak13.com

Travis Poole                                          Mick Mulvaney
Travelling Mailbox.com                        Director
500 Westover Dr.                                 The Office of Management and Budget
Sanford, NC 27330                              725 17th Street, NW
Fax: 800-991-2996                             Washington, DC 20503
support@travellingmailbox.com         Fax: 202-395-3888, John.M.Mulvaney@omb.eop.gov

Wendy Kamenshine
Ombudsman
Consumer Finance Protection Bureau
1700 G St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20552
Fax: 855-237-2392
CFPBOmbudsman@cfpb.gov

Tom Pahl                                                   Alex Padilla
Director                                                     California Secretary of State
Bureau of Consumer Protection            1500 11th St., Room 390
Federal Trade Commission                     Sacramento CA 95814
600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW                    Fax: 916-653-4795
Washington, DC 20580                           alex.padilla@sos.ca.gov
Fax: 202-326-3799
tpahl@ftc.gov, RMazer@ftc.gov

Selvi Stanislaus                                            David J. Gau
Executive Officer                                          Executive Director
Franchise Tax Board                                    Board of Equalization
PO Box 115                                                    450 N St., Room 2322, MIC:73
Rancho Cordova CA 95741-0115               Sacramento CA 95814
Fax: 916-845-9048, 916-843-6022,        Fax No. 916-324-2586,
916-845-6614, 916-843-2060                 David.Gau@boe.ca.gov
Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB)                           Brenda.Fleming@boe.ca.gov
Fax: 916-227-2798
cc: Clerk Edward J. Emmons ; bcc
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     August 24, 2018
NO PAGES: 22
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Complaint against Trustees Tracy Hope Davis and Martha Bronitsky, Bankruptcy Case: #18-41048 RLE in violation of the rights guaranteed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4); Fraud On The Court- Federal Code 60 (Code Civ. Proc. §473 et seq. and §594 et seq.); Violation of the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment U. S. Constitution; California Constitution by the first clause of Article I, section 13;  Article VI, section 4 1/2; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3.) and under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts.

Dear Clifford J. White III, Ramona D. Elliott, Lisa A. Tracy, William T. Neary, Tiffany Carroll, Thomas E. Bair, Tracy Hope Davis, Chief District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky, Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra, and Martha Bronitsky:

Herein is Debtor Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim Formal Complaint against Trustees Tracy Hope Davis and Martha Bronitsky.

I recently filed a Motion to Vacate and Set Aside the In Rem Order of Judge William Lafferty, Case No.:18-41048, of May 21, 2018, per 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(4); Fraud On The Court- Federal Code 60 (Code Civ. Proc. §473 et seq. and §594 et seq.); Violation of the First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment U. S. Constitution; California Constitution by the first clause of Article I, section 13;  Article VI, section 4 1/2; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3.) and under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts.

I am the Debtor in this case and filed a Voluntary Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition on July 26, 2018, Case No.:18-41718, and it was assigned to Martha Bronitsky as Trustee.
On May 3, 2018, I filed a petition with Case No.:18-41048 wherein there was the In Rem hearing on May 16, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. before Judge William Lafferty. The In Rem Order was granted on May 21, 2018, and case was dismissed hours later on May 22, 2018.

I had previously filed on March 8, 2018, Case: #18-40567 and was assigned Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky. That case was dismissed on March 23, 2018.

Each time I filed the Chapter 13, it was assigned to Martha Bronitsky whom I have filed and served six (6) letters and complaints in the last few months alone addressing the fact that Ms. Bronitsky’s presence in this case is prohibitive and I have resolved that since she has embezzled money from me and previously issued me checks drawn on her business account that have bounced for insufficient funds and others that had stopped payments applied to them of $9,889.04, I do not feel comfortable going forward with her as a trustee.

Again, we want ALL of you served with this attached 22 page complaint against against Trustees Tracy Hope Davis and Martha Bronitsky and for an investigation request related to the existence and collection of the alleged debt by Wellpoint, counsel Bradley with Hammett and Lanni that the government has found was illegal and may void the alleged debt. Lanni has admitted that he tried for years to recover on an illegal alleged debt that included his attempt to sell the home in question several times as an alleged “foreclosure” on the Oakland courthouse steps and as part of this strategy to bring value to the illegal alleged debt, he offered a predatory loan to attempt to move into “first position” with a new mortgage to cover the alleged $300,000 CSAA debt and $130,000 for the illegal alleged debt. He did this even AFTER he was aware that the government agencies were trying to apprehend him for these illegal activities.

This complaint and investigation request include the fraud upon the court that defendants CSAA-Wellpoint committed when they failed and refused to reveal the fact that they were aware of the Homestead on the property, the value of the District Attorney liens on the property, and the contamination in the home TWENTY YEARS BEFORE their alleged home appraisal yet there is NO reference to any contamination in it as if it would NOT have any value in determining the fair market value of that appraisal. This fraud upon the court is very clear when they knew that their own experts testified that it would cost over $350,000 to remediate just the lower level of the home in 1997! CSAA’s costs for the entire home was $700,000.

You are ALL being served and I will file this letter with the courts.

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501

125 Page Complaint against Judge Evelio Grillo, Charges of Impropriety with Judges Carvill, Markman, Kaus

TO:   Judge Michael Markman        Judge Kim Colwell
Judge Wynne Carvill                       Judge Jeff Brand
Judge Kim Colwell                           Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Jon Rolefsen                         Departments 511 and 507
Judge Evelio Grillo                           Hayward Hall of Justice
Judge Morris Jacobson                  24405 Amador Street
Judge C. Don Clay                           Hayward, CA 94544
Judge Winifred Smith                      FAX #: 510-690-2824
Judge Yolanda Northridge
Judge Stephen Pulido
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee
Judge Kevin R. Murphy
Superior Court of Alameda County
Departments 1, and 511
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.507@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KMurphyalameda.courts.ca.gov, JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov, YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov,

Chad Finke                                      Xavier Becerra
Executive Officer                            Attorney General of California
Superior Court of California          1300 I Street, Suite 125
County of Alameda                         P.O. Box 944255
1225 Fallon Street Room 209       Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Oakland, CA 94612                        FAX No.: (916) 324-8835
Fax: 510-891-6276                        Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov    Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov

Martin Hoshino                                Victoria B. Henley
Director                                             Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California          Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue                455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688    San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586                 FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov           Victoria.Henley@jud.ca.gov
John.Wordlaw@jud.ca.gov

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye           Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California         Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments                 350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                               San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                          Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205        Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov

Alex Tse                                          Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                     Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                   U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                       6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue             1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102             Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234              FAX No.: 415 522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                       Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                  Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov

“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3 “The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”

bcc
Mailed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     August 24, 2018
NO PAGES: 125 attachment
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Charges of Impropriety with Judge Evelio Grillo in the matters of al-Hakim v. EBMUD, Case: #RG14740943, and al-Hakim v. AT&T Inc., Case: #RGl7881130; and VERY SERIOUS blatant court administrative “errors”.

In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
This fact is live and well in this complaint as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markham and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, and Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:

PLAINTIFF ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM’S 125 page STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THIS COMPLAINT AGAINST HONORABLE JUDGE EVELIO GRILLO AND OTHERS  FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL AND SATE LAWS FOR PEREMPTORY BIAS CHALLENGE and FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CCP §170.6 and UNDER CCP §§170.1-5 et. seq.; CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)), (CCP § 170.3 (c) (1)), the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8), 3C, 3D(1), 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2), 4, 4D(1) and 4(E); DUE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §242; Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§182, subd. (a)(5); Fraud On The Court- Federal Code 60; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 60, § 47, § 4541, § 425.16, § 355, 356, 473, 475, § 3523, § 3528 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180; First, Fifth, Sixth, Eight and Fourteenth Amendment U. S. Constitution; California Constitution by the first clause of Article I, section 13;  Article VI, section 4 1/2; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3);

TO THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL:
COME NOW THE PLAINTIFF with his 125 page complaint against Judge Evelio Grillo and others listed herein, pursuant to the herein referenced 68 violations under United States and California State Constitution (United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, VIII, XIV, For Violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Under Color Of State Law; Section 1983).
This action is based on the matters contained herein, on the United States and California State Constitutional rights and on this document of plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim and filed herewith.
The cases and hearings, which involves a contested issues of law or fact, and which had been assigned to Evelio Grillo, Judge of the above-entitled Court, should NEVER have been assigned and no matters hereinafter arising be heard or assigned to Judge Evelio Grillo, on the ground that said judge is irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff.
Grillo does not provide any answers to the First Six (6) Challenges served on him because he can’t afford to incriminate himself until finally he has decided NOT to answer the fifth Challenge at all, thereby consenting to the Challenge. I incorporate that entire challenge herein until such time as he answers the challenge!
The above-entitled matters which has been reassigned to Stephen Kaus, Judge of the above-entitled Court, wherein plaintiff requested that at least one of the cases be reassigned from that Judge, and that no other matters hereinafter arising in that case or cause be heard or assigned to Judge Kaus, on the ground that said judge is already irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and  prejudiced against the plaintiff in this and any other action given the manner and actions that resulted in his assignment is suspect and wreaks of conspiracy.
I do not feel that these cases should have the same judge because as has been proven in this case, if he is biased in one case, he is prejudiced in both, and can only lead to an appealable adjudication! Given the history of ongoing corruption in these and other al-Hakim cases, several that involve Presiding Judge Wynne Carvill, it would NOT be wise of the court to do so unless it plans to effect their continuing corruption.
Given Judge Grillo’s July 18, 2018 “Filed Answer Adventure was a Complete Fabrication!” and his complaint against the superior court and clerks offices for their continuing fraud on the court, was one of the reasons for this assignment to Kaus entails a dramatic sequence of events and ex-parte communications that are not and have not been made public that have an immeasurable impact on these and other cases that now involve the on going actions of Judges Robert Freedman, Ioana Petrou, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Wynne Carvill, Kim Colwell, Mark Markman, Evelio Grillo, C. Don Clay, Chad Finke and Superior Court Clerks and administration among others.
In his recently filed July 16, 2018 Opposition to the Order to Show Cause and Challenge, al-Hakim demonstrated criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Freedman, Petrou, and Grillo in their 68 Constitutional Violations of plaintiff’s rights, which plaintiff will NOT waive, as the reason for the delay in the case that has made it Impossible, Impracticable, and Futile to Proceed.
Grillo’s or anyone else’s “protracted and unexplained delay in prosecution” argument is mindless as there is no reason greater than plaintiff’s basic right to pursue litigation at all, where Freedman, Petrou, and Grillo have denied plaintiff’s civil rights and due process, an equal opportunity to participate in unbiased pursuit of his legal claims as if these are still the dark days of american history when Black people had no rights at all!; This is the reason for the delay in the case that Grillo and the judges before has made it Impossible, Impracticable, and Futile to Proceed.

al-Hakim’s Complaint for Fixing Cases against him because He’s Muslim, Black,Whistleblower
As a DIRECT result of the criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Freedman, Petrou, and Grillo in their 68 Constitutional Violations of plaintiff’s rights, which plaintiff will NOT waive, this is the reason for the delay in the case that has made it Impossible, Impracticable, and Futile to Proceed, Plaintiff complained of the harassment he continues to experience and the courts retaliation against plaintiff by harassing him and taking adverse judicial actions against him, in major part because he reported the very obvious agenda of Grillo and other judges Fixing Cases against him because he is Muslim  and Black, a Whistleblower exposing their criminal corruption; their appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, islamophobia, xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism.
Plaintiff has filed this action that is a simple matter of the EBMUD water main collapsing and causing over $1.5 million dollars damage to his home, business and personal property with over $900,000 damage to the foundation and exterior grounds of the home, wherein they have accepted their fault and liability in this matter yet he is being FORCED to walk away from the suit because he WILL NOT FOREGO HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL???!!!
THIS IS PLAINTIFF’S action that is being stymied by Grillo and the previous judges adopting Freedman’s racist, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, hate induced agenda (Freedman made comments in open court regarding al-Hakim being Muslim at a hearing!) to deny al-Hakim his human and civil rights, and due process under the law. al-Hakim does not feel that the process of having to exhaust his rights to a fair and impartial hearing should be used up on peremptory challenges nor challenges for cause of judges that are tainted and conflicted in these matters due to their previous involvement, i.e., Judges Carvill, Jacobson, Rolefson, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution I, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels!
Grillo’s July 18, 2018 Filed Answer Adventure a Complete Fabrication!”
Prior to the cases being called, Grillo consulted with the court reporter regarding her services and she confirmed that she was there to transcribe the “al-Hakim criminal case”. Grillo suggested again that the case she was there for included three parties and he would give her notice when to go on the record, wherein again she stated that she was there for the “al-Hakim criminal case”.
Grillo called both cases, and upon announcing my appearance, I announced I was serving a challenge on Grillo wherein he announced “I know what you are going to do, but I have something that will make it unnecessary. I noticed in your opposition somewhere that you had raised the fact that I had failed to file and serve an answer striking your challenge for cause within the 10 day limit, I am accepting the dismissal and al-Hakim is right, all my orders and rulings are voided.. I did file an answer but somehow it was not posted or served, there was no proof of service”.
al-Hakim stated that “I am serving this challenge”, Grillo stated “I know that, but it will not be necessary, I am accepting (170.3 non-answer) dismissal”. He says “I checked the register of actions and didn’t see your challenge posted”, al-Hakim answered “neither is your answer striking it”.
Grillo claims his non answer and 170.3 dismissal is based on the fact he read that in al-Hakim’s opposition to the Order to Show Cause and realized he had NOT filed and served a timely answer striking the challenge, and was accepting the dismissal and al-Hakim is right wherein all his orders and rulings are voided.
Grillo says “I know that, that’s why I’m asking if you have a filed copy of the challenge?” al- Hakim said “I do”. Grillo asks “can I see it?” al-Hakim responded “I don’t have it with me”.
Grillo asks “can you get a copy of it?”, I responded “I would have to go get it”. Grillo asks “when can you get it?”
al-Hakim responded “I can get it and be back in an hour, before noon”. Grillo said “I did file an answer on July 9, 2018” and al-Hakim said “it would not be timely as it would have to be filed by July 6, 2018”.
Grillo insisted and required that al-Hakim provide a filed stamped copy of the challenge of June 27, 2018 stating that “I don’t want this to happen again and I don’t have a filed copy.”
al-Hakim said that “I’ve filled challenges in the courtroom and received a copy filed stamped by the clerk, all I have to do is serve it” “you aren’t denying being served the challenge, you got your copy?” Grillo admits “No, I did get it”.

al-Hakim returned to the court wherein Grillo announced that he had received the filed copy of the challenge from al-Hakim filed via email and it was filed in the AT&T case. Grillo admitted he concluded AT&T matter with defendants in al-Hakim’s absence, recounted the preposterous story of his answer being filed in the AT&T case but not in the EBMUD case. Clearly he had second thoughts about leaving the AT&T case and contrived a means to stay in it by filing an alleged answer in that case while I was away getting the filed copy of the challenge.
Grillo then claimed that there was clerical error in filing the challenge in the AT&T case not EBMUD, so by law he can correct the error and continue in AT&T case because he only needs to file the answer striking order by July 9, 2018, not serve it. al-Hakim corrected him that in fact if he filed the answer July 9, 2018, it would not be timely as it would have to be filed by July 6, 2018, and it MUST be served or al-Hakim wouldn’t know about it. al-Hakim reiterates that once he was served the new challenge it was inappropriate to proceed in any capacity beyond administrative duties and he was served the challenge.
Grillo says “I did file an answer but somehow it was not posted or served, there was no proof of service”. He asks his clerk to check the court register of actions for the pdf of the answer and she responded that there was an answer filed but no proof of service- just filed blank pages beyond his alleged answer. al-Hakim requested to see and get a copy of the alleged answer, Grillo did not respond. al-Hakim reminded Grillo that “you have been served a new challenge” and Grillo tried to evade service by accepting non-answer dismissal, then tried to change to acceptance in only the EBMUD case. Grillo continued the case to later at 1:30 p.m.

Where upon return al-Hakim appeared and Grillo informs him that he is going to recuse himself in both cases and has been in contact with Presiding Judge Carvill and Supervising Judge Markman all morning regarding transferring this case to Judge Kaus and he was going to file a complaint regarding the clerks office not properly filing or serving the challenge and answer striking challenge.
al-Hakim asked him “whom are you going to file the complaint with” he responded “judge Markman, and if you want to file a complaint you can do so as well” I asked whom should I file a complaint with and he said “Markman”. al-Hakim stated “this story is a complete fabrication!”
al-Hakim stated that his complaint wasn’t just going to be against the clerks office as as he stated to Grillo “you noticed in my opposition somewhere that I had raised the fact that you had failed to file and serve an answer striking your challenge for cause within the 10 day limit.” Grillo said yes, I did, that’s what prompted this dismissal”.
al-Hakim stated “there is no reference to the dismissal for not timely filing an answer in the opposition!” This is a complete fabrication!
Grillo said that “well that’s not what we are talking about, I have accepted the recusal, the issue is moot and all the confusion regarding the answer and service, I will address it with judge Markman”. al-Hakim again stated that “the entire reason that prompted this dismissal was because you noticed in my opposition somewhere that I had raised the fact that you had failed to file and serve an answer striking your challenge for cause within the 10 day limit but there is no reference to the dismissal for non answer in the opposition!”
al-Hakim reminded Grillo that “you have been served a new challenge” and Grillo tried to evade service by accepting non-answer dismissal, stating it was moot” and al-Hakim said the issues addressed in this challenge will endure far beyond today and I’ve served you”.
We have witnessed at least five times where the register of actions and record were altered even after the fact by the judges and clerks in al-Hakim’s cases.
His entire sham of filing an answer and 170.3 dismissal was a fabrication based on the fact he read that in opposition and realized he had NOT filed and served a timely answer striking the challenge, that was NOT in the opposition!
Grillo admitted that he had spoken with both Judges Carvill and Markman regarding his “Adventure” with the answer and it begs the answers to how were they involved in this matter, from it’s inception to it’s assignment to Kaus; to the alleged complaint against the clerks office that Grillo said he was going to file to asking al-Hakim to file his complaint, that al-Hakim will file against them ALL. There is clearly a case of fraud on the court, fabricating what is now evidence given the time and IP of the device that uploaded the alleged answer, fabricating the record and register of actions, and conspiracy, among others!
Carvill has been uniquely involved in this and other matters of al-Hakim’s and is still subject to the ongoing appeal and investigation of the criminal activities of him, judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others. As it regards the ongoing appeal, the underlying case that rendered the appeal was decided in al-Hakim’s favor after 22 years of litigation and found to declare Carvill and the other five judges that sat in the case without knowing anything about it while ruling in it solely on the script prepared by law clerk Phil Abar, ALL TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN FRAUD ON THE COURT AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE!!! SINCE THIS SCRIPT WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE JUDGE TO ANOTHER THERE WAS OBVIOUS COLLUSION, ILLEGAL EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, CORRUPTION, CONSPIRACY, AMONG OTHERS, and grounds for disqualification under CALIFORNIA CCP §170.6, CCP §§170.1-5 et. seq.; CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)), (CCP § 170.3 (c) (1)), the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8), 3C, 3D(1), 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2), 4, 4D(1) and 4(E); DUE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §242; Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§182, subd. (a)(5); Fraud On The Court- Federal Code 60; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 60, § 47, § 4541, § 425.16, § 355, 356, 473, 475, § 3523, § 3528 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180; First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment U. S. Constitution; California Constitution by the first clause of Article I, section 13;  Article VI, section 4 1/2; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3).

Kaus Order does not mention Motion to Vacate AT&T Demurrer and Current Interpretation of Previously Filed Judicial Notice
Kaus’ order states:
ORDER SETTING HEARING ON DEMURRERS AND MOTION TO DISMISS
These two matters were assigned to this Department following the disqualification of Judge Grillo. There are demurrers pending in both matters and a motion to dismiss pending in Case RG14 740943.
The demurrers, which are fully briefed, and the motion to dismiss are hereby set for hearing on August 20, 2018 at 3 p.m. in Department 19
Because of the amount of litigation that has occurred since the motion to motion was filed on October 25,2017, either party may file a request for judicial notice of subsequent materials by August 6, 2018. Any opposition to that request shall be filed by August 13,2018.
July 27, 2018

The order requires clarity in regards to:
1) Kaus’ order does NOT address the fact that there is a motion to vacate the order on the AT&T demurrer that was filed, served, and an uncontested reply filed and served.
2) I have previously filed a request for judicial notice in the EBMUD case and only request that since it requests notice of all documents filed that is should be inclusive of all subsequent materials since the notice does not eliminate documents by date. There should be no need to amend nor file a new notice by August 6, 2018, as specified in the order. However, I want to specifically include the recently filed Opposition to the Order to Show Cause on July 16, 2018 and the accompanying Challenge for Cause of Judge Grillo on July 18, 2018.

The “Good White Way”, White Class Privilege
Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others is guilty of clear and gross white class and white privileged bias, prejudice, religious hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda and racism with the practice of the “Good White Way”.
This is an old practice affirming that a Black person is guilty of a crime BEFORE he knows there ever was a crime, that he could NOT have possible committed and harkens back to a time when lynching was the law!
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
This fact is live and well in this motion as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!
Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, employ the “Good White Way” through reward and cover up the crimes for the “good white man”, reward and cover up the crimes for the “good white woman” who is a friend and co-worker, and victimize the poor black victim with the loss of his money, property, and life!
They enjoy financial gains while flaunting their impunity from prosecution in the culture of Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, the “Courtel”, to covered up these criminal activities of each other! They offer NO attempt at even alluding to any transparent action being taken, quite the contrary, it totally avoids holding anyone accountable, even pending this charade of an “investigation”. THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, DISCIPLINARY ACTION MUST BE TAKEN ON THE RECORD!
Times have changed dramatically from the days when corruption, specially government enforced corruption, could be “covered-up and hushed-up”, in this new-world of open government, whistleblowers, activist, and demands of accountability are celebrated! You can’t get away with it!!

al-Hakim’s Complaint for Fixing Cases against him because He’s Muslim, Black,Whistleblower
Plaintiff is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower has engaged in constitutionally protected speech, namely, holding and expressing viewpoints exposing corruption by defendants and their retaliating actions due to plaintiffs race, religion, whistleblowing activities, white class and privileged bias, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, prejudice, favoritism, bigotry and racism; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the opposing parties litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of al-Hakim; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim even through third parties; highjacked the hearings with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the rights guaranteed by U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV, Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts, and the Bane Acts
By treating Plaintiff differently from similarly situated people, organizations, and members of the public because they are Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower exposing corruption by defendants and because of their beliefs, among other things, Clay, acting under color of state law and according to policy and practice, have engaged in actions that retaliate against Plaintiff for holding and expressing disfavored views, and in so retaliating, have engaged in conduct that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected speech activity.
Plaintiff’ actions in holding and expressing disfavored views was a substantial and motivating factor in Clays’ retaliation against them by imposing unlawful restrictions on Plaintiff’ federal civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment, causing Plaintiff to suffer and continue in the future to suffer irreparable injury that cannot be fully compensated by an award of monetary damages.

Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke Vexatious Litigant Strategy Fraud on th Court
Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke issued an order that claimed they had a prior order which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant. We have asked for that order and ALL have remained silent and claim not to be responsible for it, yet it is in an ORDER FROM THE COURT!
al-Hakim is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges Defendants, with and through their counsel, has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise “Good White Way” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges Defendants and third parties, with and through their counsel, has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities.
As far back as beginning in 1971, al-Hakim has been informed, believes, and based thereon alleges he has been targeted by these same judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities with the 1972 burglary/home invasion of his apartment by federal law enforcement and governmental entities whom he caught while at home when it occurred!
In 1998 Defendants in the CSAA and Rescue cases admitted that they had surveilled al-Hakim and was working with law enforcement and governmental entities investigating him. This included a court ordered “inspection” of al-Hakim’s home in which illegal destructive testing was done to his home and “evidence” covertly gathered. One comment made after one of the “inspections” was “that house is wired (bugged)!”
al-Hakim’s “court activities”, in the last 40 years al-Hakim has documented, filed and served court actions, filed and served complaints and filed and served correspondence memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim  and Black, a Whistleblower!; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
al-Hakim proves where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528.
These defendants and third parties, ALL of whom have been complained of or to are, in major part because al-Hakim reported the very obvious agenda of these parties by memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal  entities corruption and persecution and their involvement in the cover-up of that criminal corruption.
Judge C. Don Clay, Presiding Judge Wynne Carvill, nor Chad Finke have any pre-filing order per C.C.P. §391which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant, thus in ruling that it has a prior order which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant and now have ruled that because al-Hakim has been deemed as a vexatious litigant they denied his request for an Additional Fee Waiver and on the pending motion to deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant, they and their court administrative staff has committed Fraud on the Court in violation of Federal Code 60 and Code of Civil Procedure § 60, § 47, § 4541 § 425.16, Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180.
Fraud on the Court, or Fraud upon the Court, is where a material misrepresentation has been made to the court, or by the court itself. The main requirement is that the impartiality of the court has been so disrupted that it can’t perform its tasks without bias or prejudice.
It is clear from al-Hakim’s recent experience and treatment with/from Judge Grillo and his Dept. 15 administrative staff, that judges C. Don Clay, Presiding Judge Wynne Carvill, and Chad Finke have initiated a covert pre-filing order per C.C.P. §391which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant.

Kaus May Need to Recuse In the Interest of Justice
Judges Freedman, Petrou, Grillo, Finke and other judges have exhibited clear and gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the plaintiffs litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of al-Hakim; portrayed al-Hakim a liar and when he could not prove it he tried to create the lie that in his sole judgment is a lie in order to justify his calling al-Hakim a “liar”; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim even through third parties; highjacked the hearings with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the Unruh and Bane Acts. These efforts of the judges can 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 for which al-Hakim will not allow.
al-Hakim says that in the past Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, purported to exercise their authority in which they violated his civil rights, has admittedly acting with personal interest in the outcome under the color of law 18 USC §242. Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, persistent willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability they would continue their unethical behavior if they were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future. That those judges before whom the hearing aforesaid actions were pending is prejudiced against him or the interest of the party so that affiant cannot or believes that he cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before this judge. al-Hakim requested and had a standing objection to ANY involvement of Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, and Finke among others in this and ANY other matter.
Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim alleges that due to the on going actions of Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, has established Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption; the Manipulation of the Judicial Assignments; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice and the relief herein requested must be granted.
Judge Kaus made need to recuse himself in the interest of justice to avoid the appearance of impropriety, or if not be disqualified and required to make a full disclosure and cooperate in the investigation involving Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, and the AT&T, EBMUD, Interserver, Miller, CSAA and Rescue cases.
Further, al-Hakim request a hearing on this matter before an impartial judge.  This matter may need to be transferred to another county venue on fair trial grounds as provided by CCP §397(b) where the influence of the Judges, district attorney, city attorney and opposing litigants is not so inextricably intertwined with judicial interests.

Grillo Decided NOT to Answer Fifth Challenge at All, Consenting to the Challenge
On June 27, 2018, Grillo was challenged peremptorily pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 and for cause pursuant to sections 170.1 and 170.3. Grillo decided NOT to answer the fifth Challenge at all, thereby consenting to the Challenge per CCP §170.3(c)(4) for failure to file an order striking the Challenge within 10 days.
Judge Grillo Disqualified Per CCP §170.3(c)(4) for NOT Answering nor Striking Peremptory Challenge and Statement of Disqualification Within Ten-Day Time Limit
To date Grillo failed to answer or strike the June 27, 2018, Challenges wherein if the judge whose disqualification has been sought has made no answer within ten days, he or she is considered to have consented to the disqualification. CCP §170.3(c)(4); People v Superior Court (Mudge) (1997) 54 CA4th 407, 411, 62 CR2d 721.
A judge who does not strike the statement of disqualification within this ten-day time limit is deemed disqualified. Lewis v Superior Court (1988) 198 CA3d 1101, 1104, 244 CR 328. Once a judge strikes a statement of disqualification, the aggrieved party may seek a writ immediately without waiting for the ten-day period to elapse. Hollingsworth v Superior Court (1987) 191 CA3d 22, 26, 236 CR 193.

Second Time Grillo Disqualified for NOT Answering nor Striking Peremptory Challenge and Statement of Disqualification Within Ten-Day Time Limit
At the February 28, 2018 hearing on EBMUD Demurrer, I was in court when the “al-Hakim vs AT&T” case was called. Stunned, I raise my hand to check in and looked around to see if anyone was there from AT&T. No one responded.
Grillo called the cases and I presented him with a Challenge and requested that it be submitted for both cases since I was unaware of the AT&T matter being on the calendar. He said “the peremptory challenge?” I said “yes, for both cases”. He said he would look at the challenge and get back to us and called his next case.
I received the order denying the challenge as per EBMUD and order after the hearing wherein he does not mention the peremptory challenge in the AT&T case nor both orders in the cases.
I am left to assume that he ignored the AT&T peremptory challenge and for cause or independently decided it did NOT exist to the extent he could ignore it away!
Grillo failed to answer or strike the February 28, 2018, Challenges wherein if the judge whose disqualification has been sought has made no answer within ten days, he or she is considered to have consented to the disqualification.

Grillo Issues an Order to Show Cause (OSC)
At the June 27, 2018, hearing Grillo ordered plaintiff to answer his OSC why the motion should not be dismissed given the delay in prosecution for filing of the challenges against him. As a DIRECT result of the criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Grillo in his 68 Constitutional Violations of plaintiff’s rights, which plaintiff will NOT waive, this is the reason for the delay in the case that has made it Impossible, Impracticable, and Futile to Proceed.
Grillo’s clear denial of al-Hakim’s basic civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom under the United States and California State Constitution as this matter is of the character which the principles of U.S. Const. amend. I, V, VI, and XIV, as adopted by the Due Process Clause, protect, when the records and files in plaintiff’s case prove an unprecedented, covert policy of “JURISPREJUDICE” in the California courts.
The court’s denying plaintiff’s rights thereto in defiance of the law implicates the fundamental issues of violating plaintiff’s right to due process and civil rights AND CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO HIS CASE bringing judicial charges for committing Extrinsic Fraud Upon the Court, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Willful Misconduct, Prejudicial Conduct, Bias, Prejudice, Retaliation, Discriminatory Animus, Willful and Malicious Prosecution, Conflict of Interest, Obstruction of Justice, Denial of Due Process, Willful and Intentional Fabrication and Authoring False Evidence; Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts, among others, as demanded. The court has conceal and covered up illegal activity as it pertains to any possible taint with these illegal activities, with a minimum appearance of impropriety, obstruction of justice, denial of due process, denial of civil rights, bias, prejudice, conflict of interest, abuse of discretion, retaliation, making it likely that a person aware of the facts could reasonably entertain a doubt as to the ability of the judge to be impartial, and have let their personal convictions interfere with the duty to be scrupulously fair as the exclusive trier of fact. ( People v. Cook, (1983), 33 Cal.3d at p. 408; People v. Friend, (1958), 50 Cal.2d at pp. 577-578.)
There is no question that the Judges are violating this tenant of fairness as there are also grounds for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085; on the ground of misconduct, prejudicial misconduct, bias, and prejudice in violations of Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.0-170.5; specifically 170, subd. (a)(5); 170, subd. (e); 170.1, subdivision (a)(2); 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(C); 170.3, subd. (c)(1); 170.3, subd. (c)(5); 170.3, subd. (d); 170.l(a)(6), §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8) and 3C( a corresponding Federal Statute, 28 United States Code section 455(a) adopted by Congress in 1974); Business and Professions Code sections 6068, subdivisions (b) and (f), 6103 and 6106 and former rule 7-105(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 8, 18; see Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3D(1).); and violates al-Hakim’s fundamental civil rights and due process under the law guaranteed by the United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, and XIV, and as applicable to this state of California Constitution by the first clause of Section 13 of Article I; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3).
Judge Grillo presence in this case, with Judges Jacobson, Ioana Petrou, Jon Rolefson, Paul Herbert and Robert Freedman before him, summarily denies plaintiff’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing their rulings and places an intolerable burden on him, denying his legitimate and undeniable rights and strikes at the heart of his fundamental civil rights and due process under the law, guaranteed by the United States Constitution and California Constitution. No statute in California authorizes the court to deny a right that is uncontroverted while in the process denying such precious fundamental rights of due process and justice. The use of judicial power to permit such injustice raises significant legal questions, and an order denying the motion to dismiss from this Court is necessary to prevent this continued abuse.

The Serving of the Order to Show Cause (OSC)
The order was signed by Grillo on June 27, 2018, with proof of service signed by Chad Finke on June 29, 2018 and mailed in an envelope postmarked July 2, 2018. As July 4, 2018, was a national holiday with many people taking off work the next days, the order was NOT received by al-Hakim until July 6, 2018 in the regular U. S. mail. Plaintiff’s answer to the Order, after given his five (5) court days to respond would place the due date at July 16, 2018, just two days BEFORE the hearing! That does NOT leave time for any cogent review of the answer before any tentative ruling is issued nor proper hearing on the matter.
This is objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of plaintiff, causes plaintiff injuries and this violation of his constitutional rights are directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Grillo, and which are the moving force behind the OSC, and same as the acts described herein have caused damages to plaintiff.

Grillo’s Bias, Prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced, Vindictive, Retaliatory, Bigoted and Racist June 27, 2018 Ruling
The ruling states:
a. “The Motion to Dismiss was set for hearing on 06/27/2018 at 09:00:00 in Department 15 before the Honorable Evelio Grillo. The Tentative Ruling was published and has not been contested.”

The Tentative Ruling was contested, via email and fax to the court and defendants on June 25, 2018. This is just another instance where Grillo has sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law and the Fourteenth Amendment, is objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of plaintiff, causes plaintiff injuries and this violation of his constitutional rights are directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Grillo, and which are the moving force behind the OSC, and same as the acts described herein have caused damages to plaintiff.
b. “Additionally, Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil aI-Hakim is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on July 18,2018 as to why the case should not be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410. Specifically, the serial challenges to one judge after another assigned to the case that does not serve a legitimate purpose and appears to be an attempt to stymie the prosecution of the case. Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 provides that “[t]he court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to its own motion … if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case.” Code of Civil Procedures section 583 .420(a)(2), allows for dismissal based on a failure to bring the case to trial within two years after the action has commenced is discretionary. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 583.410, 583.420(a)(2).)”

Grillo is GOD!
Grillo feels he is above the law, should not be inconvenienced, charged, dismissed or removed from his agenda with the truth of his corruption filed within the Challenges!
Grillo’s comments are the very epitome of specious retaliation and heinous denial of due process FORCED on plaintiff because he is Muslim and Black, and a Whistleblower who has engaged in constitutionally protected speech, namely, holding and expressing viewpoints exposing corruption by defendants and their retaliating actions due to plaintiffs race, religion, whistleblowing activities, white class and privileged bias, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, prejudice, favoritism, bigotry and racism; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the opposing parties litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of al-Hakim; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim even through third parties; highjacked the hearings with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the rights guaranteed by U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV, Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts, and the Bane Acts.
This is just another instance where Grillo has sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law is objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of plaintiff, causes plaintiff injuries and this violation of his constitutional rights are directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Grillo, and which are the moving force behind the OSC, and same as the acts described herein have caused damages to plaintiff. As a DIRECT result of the criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Grillo in his 68 Constitutional Violations of plaintiff’s rights, which plaintiff will NOT waive, this is the reason for the delay in the case that has made it Impossible, Impracticable, and Futile to Proceed.
c. “the serial challenges to one judge after another assigned to the case that does not serve a legitimate purpose”
The right for a litigant to challenge a judge is second only to The GREATEST right a litigant has enshrined in the United States Constitution, most notably the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to a fair trial! al-Hakim will ALWAYS continue the SLAVE DRIVEN FOUR HUNDRED YEAR fight for civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process, equal protection, equal access to an unbiased legal process as is his OBLIGATION AND RIGHT under the U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV!
Solely because al-Hakim FLATLY REFUSES to waive the conflicts and criminal corruption of these tainted judges whom have ALL followed the whim and authority of convicted judge Robert Freedman, under color of law, Grillo and these Judges have sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law and the Fourteenth Amendment! If it is established that as a practical matter a litigant CAN NOT have a fair trial due to the obvious racist, vindictive, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, hate induced, retaliatory, depraved agenda of persecution against him and his family, community and religion; then there is in fact NO TRIAL, just an exercise in the exhausting of the litigants rights to a fair one!
Grillo PROVES he is just an “uncle Tom” carrying water for Freedman in his place and stead while exhibiting the sings of insanity by “committing the same “serial“ corruption over and over while sitting in this case and expecting that al-Hakim is going to let it go, and get a different result!”

Grillo’s Signs of “Insanity” and Ultimate Act of Corruption!
It is popularly accepted by the saying that “the first sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result!”. That fact becomes infinitely pronounced when viewed through al-Hakim’s written opposition to Grillo being in tis case from the very beginning. It states:
“Clearly I am unwilling to move forward with judge Grillo sitting in this as well as any other case given that he’s merely judge Freedman’s stooge adopting his racist, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, hate induced agenda (Freedman made comments in open court regarding al-Hakim being Muslim at a hearing!) to deny al-Hakim his human and civil rights, and due process under the law. I do not feel that the process of my having to exhaust my rights to a fair and impartial hearing should be used up on peremptory challenges nor challenges for cause of judges that are tainted and conflicted in these matters due to their previous involvement, i.e., judges Freedman, Rolefson, Colwell, Krashna, Herbert, Petrou!”
Grillo somehow feels he can force or persuade al-Hakim to change his stance and succumb to Grillo’s demands as put forth in his “cut and paste” Freedman ruling! NOT A CHANCE as al-Hakim will ALWAYS continue the SLAVE DRIVEN FOUR HUNDRED YEAR fight for civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process, equal protection, equal access to an unbiased legal process as is his OBLIGATION AND RIGHT under the U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV!
Grillo PROVES he KNOWS he is above the law by demanding al-Hakim answer the OSC when the answer for the delay in prosecution lay firmly in his OWN actions! al-Hakim has merely documented the many legal transgressions of Grillo and enshrined them in the challenges that Grillo has NOT, can NOT and will NOT answer as required by law!
He has committed GREATER, more blatant criminal indiscretions than Freedman having adopted his obvious agenda to persecute al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve! NO ONE KNOWS BETTER THAN GRILLO THAT THE ULTIMATE EMPIRICAL REASONS FOR THIS OSC AND THAT THEY ARE THE SAME AS WHAT HAS MADE THIS CASE IMPOSSIBLE, IMPRACTICABLE AND FUTILE TO PROCEED, NONE OTHER THAN JUDGE GRILLO HIMSELF!!
Judge Grillo issues the OSC knowing that the reasons the answer is based on are HIS OWN impropriety, and having issued that OSC, will also sit in judgement of his own offenses sins while passing on his own bias and prejudice as he ignores away and covers it up! Judges can not rule on their own bias, neither can judge Grillo.

Grillo’s ”Fraud upon the court
Further, Grillo attempts to rule on his own corruption, bias and standing to make just such a determination by issuing the order for the OSC after denying the same issues in the motion to dismiss just six months ago and disposing of the matter, his actions are commiserate with ”Fraud upon the court” as has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968).
“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court. Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
In his vindictive retaliation against al-Hakim and his depraved agenda of persecution, Grillo’s actions were committed with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the Unruh and Bane Acts. These efforts of Grillo can 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.
Grillo’s or anyone else’s “protracted and unexplained delay in prosecution” argument is mindless as there is no reason greater than plaintiff’s basic right to pursue litigation at all, where Grillo has denied plaintiff’s civil rights and due process, an equal opportunity to participate in unbiased pursuit of his legal claims as if these are still the dark days of american history when Black people had no rights at all!; As a DIRECT result of the criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Grillo in his 68 Constitutional Violations of plaintiff’s rights, which plaintiff will NOT waive, this is the reason for the delay in the case that has made it Impossible, Impracticable, and Futile to Proceed.

d. “appears to be an attempt to stymie the prosecution of the case”
Plaintiff has filed this action that is a simple matter of the EBMUD water main collapsing and causing over $1.5 million dollars damage to my home, business and personal property with over $900,000 damage to the foundation and exterior grounds of the home! They have accepted their fault and liability in this matter yet he is being FORCED to walk away from the suit because he WILL NOT FOREGO HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL???!!!
IT IS HIS action that is being stymied by Grillo and the previous judges adopting Freedman’s racist, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, hate induced agenda (Freedman made comments in open court regarding al-Hakim being Muslim at a hearing!) to deny al-Hakim his human and civil rights, and due process under the law. al-Hakim does not feel that the process of having to exhaust his rights to a fair and impartial hearing should be used up on peremptory challenges nor challenges for cause of judges that are tainted and conflicted in these matters due to their previous involvement, i.e., Judges Carvill, Jacobson, Rolefson, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution I, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels!
Grillo is in denial and attempts to deflect the scrutiny that he is under from the indicting charges in filing of the challenges that he refuses to answer because they would incriminate him!

PLEASE CONTINUE READING FROM THE ATTACHED 125 PAGE COMPLAINT

Given that I have had no response from the judges, nor the court administration, including Chad Finke refusing to comply with three subpoenas and request for production of documents and the Judicial Council with the same, I have no choice but to file actions with the responsible agencies to discover this information and resolve the legal concerns expressed for years.

Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.

Respectfully,

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501

Opposition to Bronitsky Trustee Assignment, Motion to Vacate In Rem order and Wellpoint Judgment, New Bankruptcy Case: #18-41718

TO:        Alex Tse                           Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                    Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                  U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                     6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue            1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102             Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: 415-436-7234                FAX No.: 415-522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                       Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                  Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov

Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky               Martha G. Bronitsky
William Lafferty                                        Trustee
Office of the United States Trustee       P.O. Box 5004
1301 Clay Street, Room 690N                Hayward, CA 94540
Oakland, CA 94612                                  Fax: 510-266-5589
Fax: 510-637-3220                                 vsilveira@oak13.com
Roger_Efrensky@cand.uscourts.gov
William_Lafferty@cand.uscourts.gov

Xavier Becerra                                           Tracy Hope Davis
Attorney General of California                 Office of the United States Trustee
1300 I Street, Suite 125                            450 Golden Gate Ave,Ste #05-0153
P.O. Box 944255                                       San Francisco, CA 94102
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550                 Fax: 415-705-3379
FAX No.: 916-324-8835                          Tracy_Davis@cand.uscourts.gov
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov

cc: ; bcc
cc: Clerk Edward J. Emmons ; bcc
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     July 31, 2018
NO PAGES: 34
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Opposition to Bronitsky Trustee Assignment, Motion to Vacate In Rem order and Wellpoint Judgment, New Bankruptcy Case: #18-41718

Dear Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky, William Lafferty, Martha Bronitsky, Alex Tse, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Xavier Becerra, and Tracy Hope Davis:

I am the Debtor in this case and filed a Voluntary Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petition on July 26, 2018, Case No.:18-41718, and it has been assigned to Martha Bronitsky as Trustee.

On May 3, 2018, I filed a petition with Case No.:18-41048 wherein there was a hearing date of May 16, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. before Judge William Lafferty on CSAA’s motion for IN REM relief from the stay. That In Rem order was granted and the case was dismissed hours later on May 21, 2018.

For the reason therein stated, I requested you halt the auction for the property sale on Friday, July 27, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. on the Alameda County courthouse steps in Oakland, California by the County Sheriffs as CSAA-Wellpoint Asset Recovery, a $600,000 creditor has sold my home at Sheriff’s auction, wherein they can buy it for a fraction of the value, obtain the asset, and still be owed the debt!

I had previously filed on March 8, 2018, Case: #18-40567 and was assigned Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky where he declined CSAA’s motion for IN REM relief from the stay. That case was dismissed on March 23, 2018.

Each time I filed the Chapter 13, it was assigned to Martha Bronitsky whom I have filed and served six (6) letters and complaints in the last few months alone addressing the fact that Ms. Bronitsky’s presence in this case is prohibitive and I have resolved that since she has embezzled money from me and previously issued me checks drawn on her business account that have bounced for insufficient funds and others that had stopped payments applied to them of $9,889.04, I do not feel comfortable going forward with her as a trustee.

On May 8, 2018, I sent a letter to all above formally requesting a re-assignment to another trustee ASAP as I will be gone May 12, 2018.

I also called and left a lengthy message for Ms. Tracy Hope Davis the same day regarding the same request and the urgency of shortness of time due to my retreat. I have received no response and I filed that letter with the court.

As promised, on May 9, 2018, I sent all above the follow up letter with an updated complaint on the ongoing fraud by creditor Wellpoint Asset Recovery and their attorney John Bradley as this alleged debt was procured through fraud that is continuing!

Lafferty’s Denial of Universally Accepted Stay for Holy Month of Ramadan Scheme to Delay, Hinder or Defraud Debtor al-Hakim
On May 8, and May 14, 2018, I noticed this Court, while on April 10, 2018, I noticed the Superior, Appeals, and Supreme Courts, that I will be in the annual retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan from May 14, 2018 until June 20, 2018 and unavailable to respond to any litigation. The creditor parties, including CSAA, had already been noticed in April as well. These letters are on file with the courts as well as filed and served on Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky-Office of the United States Trustee; Alex Tse, Director- U. S. Attorney’s Office No. District; Phyllis J. Hamilton- Chief District Judge- U. S. District Court- No. Division; Xavier Becerra- Attorney General of California, Tracy Hope Davis- Director Office of the United States Trustee; Edward J. Emmons- Clerk Office of the United States Trustee and Martha Bronitsky- Trustee.

ALL of the courts and parties acknowledged and stipulated to the stay for the annual retreat that I have observed for nearly 50 years, except CSAA, yet only in this case.

On May 8, 2018, I filed and served a letter and complaint and also called and left a lengthy message for Ms. Tracy Hope Davis the same day regarding the assignment of Bronitsky and CSAA- Wellpoint, whom was advised of my annual retreat OVER A MONTH BEFORE, was attempting to hold litigation while I am in retreat, and the urgency of shortness of time due to my retreat. I have received no response and I filed that letter with the court.

That was to be expected of CSAA- Wellpoint.

However Lafferty, in a show of EXTREME intolerance, bigotry, Islamophobia, Xenophobia and favoritism, proceeds to hear the matter on March 16, 2018 knowing I would NOT be able to attend due to religious reasons and denies the stay!

Lafferty is guilty of clear and gross white class and white privileged bias, prejudice, religious hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda and racism!

The attached is a complete copy of the 34 page Opposition with exhibits filed and served with the court of July 26, 2018.

As a result of this, I will file a motion to vacate the In Rem order this week, and file a motion to vacate the CSAA judgment for their continuing fraud.

Again, I simply want to reiterate and make plain that I have every intention of completing my bankruptcy petition and discharging the debt and I will file everything beforehand.

Again, I ask the court/trustee/authorities MUST review the theft of my money in the Wong case, have her compensate me for my loses, and change it’s assignment of this case to Bronitsky and make a more proper assignment.

You are ALL being served and I will file this letter with the courts.

Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501

  • Calendar of Posts

    July 2019
    S M T W T F S
    « May    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Purchase SUPERSTAR MANAGEMENT Lecture Series

    Lecture Series Purchase Prices
    Lecture Series Discount Offer $50.00 USD Lecture Series CD Special $99.00 USD Lecture Series DVD Special $149.00 USD Lecture Series CD Standard Discount $199.00 USD Lecture Series DVD Standard Discount $399.00 USD Lecture Series CD Standard $450.00 USD Lecture Series DVD Standard $750.00 USD
  • RSS Abdul-Jalil Lecture Series

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Please Support AMWFT Efforts with Your Secure Paypal Sponsorship Donation

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 3 other followers

  • SUPERSTARMANAGEMENT’S iTUNES Podcast’s

  • ABC-TV Breaking News

    [clearspring_widget title="abc7news.com: news, weather & video" wid="4921ce44d2cc0f1e" pid="4a4c63c6d26c3e46" width="304" height="254" domain="widgets.clearspring.com"]
  • Now Truth! Twitter Roll

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.