Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption in California Appeals Court and California Supreme Court

TO:        Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Associate Justices of the Court
Supreme Court of California
350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
San Francisco, CA 94102-4797

FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: May 3, 2019 
NO PAGES: 8
RE: Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption, Annual Retreat for Ramadan, Green Key Investments v. al-Hakim, CASE NO.: RGI8927213, in related California Appeals Court Case NO: 156677, and California Supreme Court Case.

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, and Justices of the Courts:

I am filing this appeal on the last day before I go into my annual retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan from May 3, 2019 until June 14, 2019 and will be unable and unavailable to respond to any litigation. I have previously noticed the Court and I have already notified the parties.

The petition is properly and technically formatted to court specifications and timely filed to prevent any delays and everything is current in the above matter. If there is any defect in the filing, I will be unable to cure it until I return, so I would ask the court to consider, on it’s own motion, a stay in proceedings if that is the case.

As always, I am available on any Monday or Wednesday thereafter.

I want to notify the courts and the parties of my retreat and the need for a continuance or “stay of actions” during this time.

However, I am aware that the Superior Court administration and judges have been working with law enforcement trying to entrap, frame and incriminate me in criminal activity that is fostered by the hearings in these cases that are selectively being recorded by the court reporter whom arbitrarily goes on and off the record at the judges silent instruction, thereby editing the proceedings while in progress!

This is continuing the atmosphere of intolerable TERROR in furtherance of the judges, the courts, and opposing parties corruption and agenda of hate induced persecution and entrapment, with their version of the targeted “al-Hakim Muslim Ban”! 

Targeted “al-Hakim Muslim Ban, ”FIXING CASES” in Furtherance of Corruption Agenda

The judges, clerks and court administration has been and are “fixing” cases against al-Hakim attempting to protect the opposition as they have scheduled proceedings DEMANDING the hearing be on a date al-Hakim can NOT attend due to religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for over 30 years, while REFUSING to have those proceedings on a date al-Hakim can attend, yet!

If it is NOT possible to have litigation with the schedule proposed when the court is open EVERYDAY, the time is free and the court is paid to be there, then bigotry, Islamophobia, and Xenophobia are the specious basis for this continued GRAND CORRUPTION, 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 Judge Brand regarding Motions clearly have a double standard! al-Hakim’s Religion and religious obligations on those days are NOT going to change for judge Brand nor the court.

al-Hakim has had to make multiple requests, once THIRTEEN times, another SEVEN TIMES to have a “Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion and Ex-Parte motion to be heard on the SAME DATE as litigation previously scheduled, yet the requests were IGNORED/DENIED, and one resulted in the issuing of a default against al-Hakim by scheduling dates that the defendants and the court were aware al-Hakim was unavailable to attend.

The court has failed and refused to respond with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda of hate apparent to all! 

The judges and court administration’s continuing criminal harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption in his uniquely applied and enforced court rules summarily denies al-Hakim’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing such a ruling 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 is necessary to prevent this abuse.

The judges mindless denials further expose and demonstrate the courts agenda of 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.

The courts have began a THIRD attempt in six months at deeming al-Hakim a vexatious litigant to foreclose on his civil rights to eliminate any further threat he poses to their “honor” and position, while denying al-Hakim any opportunity for truth, fair relief, and justice against them in the “legal system”! The court has heeded al-Hakim’s intentions to not only litigate his cases but some directly involve the corruption naming judges dating back 35 years and the courts can not afford nor will they allow this to happen! They will shut down al-Hakim at ALL COST!

I have filed multiple complaints for years against Presiding Justice Barbara Jones and Justices Burns, Humes, Bruiniers, Margulies,Kline, and Banke as well as Challenges for Cause against Associate Justice James Richman and Henry Needham, Jr. whom apparently sit in this group but has not openly participated in the decisions.

I have filed multiple complaints for years against California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, former Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Federal Chief District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, and former Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken also. 

In these matters, it has been established and admitted that there has been illicit ex parte collusion and conspiracy between Superior Court judges Wynne Carvill, Kim Colwell, Jeff Brand, Robert Freedman, Frank Roesch, Stephan Kaus, Mike Markman, Don Clay, Stephan Pulido, Ioana Petrou, Yolanda Northridge, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Kevin Murphy, Jo-Lynne Lee, Scott Patton, David Krashna, Jennifer Madden, Sue Alexander,  Glenn Oleon, George Hernandez, Tara Desautels, Leo Dorado, Dennis Hayashi, Julia Spain, several commissioners, and the Superior Court Administration of Chad Finke and the Appeals court with the judges mentioned above. Three of the judges have offered the same unsolicited.

These superior court judges have conspired with the appellant courts to independently take it upon themselves to broadcast their “dog whistle signal to the appeals court” to deny al-Hakim’s petition and issue orders in their support forcing al-Hakim into the “WRIT RACKET”! This is NOT having a trial, this is being “railroaded by the court in a case that is ALREADY fixed against you!”

This action are part of what litigants have come to know as the “WRIT RACKET” instituted by the legal system, judges, courts, the judicial administrative and regulatory agencies, both State and Federal! 

These entities have made such a mockery of justice that now these judges do not hesitate to deny or violate a litigants rights and defy them to file a writ knowing that the Supreme Court, Appeals Court, Superior Court Administration, the Judicial Council, and the Commission on Judicial Performance, will cover up and white-wash their criminal activity! These criminal justices are forcing appellants into the Appeals Court cemetery for civil rights, where the Rule of Law is Overruled and Outlawed, the death of due process, where justice is a miscarriage, the treason of truth, the homicide of human rights, the dumpster for denial, where litigants rights are banished to rot in oppression, and die!

al-Hakim’s legal opponents, CSAA and others are engaged in corruption and conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived and employing this “WRIT RACKET” criminal entrapment defense litigation strategy with third parties, other judicial, governmental, law enforcement and legal entities employees, associates, members, agents, contractors, and informants of the U. S. Attorney General- Northern California, Homeland Security (NSA), F.B.I., U. S. Federal Court- Northern California District, California State Supreme Court, California State Appeals Court, Governor of California, California Attorney General, Alameda County District Attorney, Oakland City Attorney, California State Senator, California Congressperson, Alameda County Supervisors, Mayor of Oakland, Oakland City Councilpersons, Alameda County Superior Court, Judicial Council of California, among others, inciting the courts acrimony, animus, and persecution of al-Hakim with judicial calumny deceit!

To understand the “WRIT RACKET”, one needs to know what a “racket” and “racketeering” mean and depict in the legal community and population at large. The definitions are:

Racket

“A racket is a planned or organized criminal act, usually in which the criminal act is a form of business or a way to earn illegal or extorted money regularly or briefly but repeatedly. A racket is often a repeated or continuous criminal operation.”

Racketeering

“Racketeering, often associated with organized crime, is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a “racket”) to solve a problem that wouldn’t otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service. Racketeering as defined by the RICO act includes a list of 35 crimes.”

Moreover, this is exactly what the judges meant by their “dog whistle” signal/statement at the hearings that they would rely on their “colleagues (in the Appeals Court)” to support their decision to ignore the Rule of Law knowing that the appellate judges would do just as Jones, Burns, Bruiniers, Margulies, Kline, Humes and Banke did, “cover-up for them”.

Government Commandeered and Absconded with Plaintiff’s ENTIRE SERVER

These elements of Government working with al-Hakim’s VPS web host has engaged in censorship while commandeering and absconding with our ENTIRE VPS SERVER inspired by religious bigotry, religious discrimination, Islamophobia, Xenophobia with actions on the part of a defendant and the courts because of our exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, and  Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim  and Black, a Whistleblower!

They are blocking our access to our commercial server WHM and multiple cPanels administration, our VPS web server, our logins to All services, ALL incoming and outgoing email, websites and website traffic in an effort to censor, suppress, conceal, and shut down our exposing the corruption of the courts and others, thereby covering up their criminal acts!

They have destroyed ALL the businesses Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation hosts websites entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth, eX-whY Adventures, CAECAY and their websites: Amwftrust.org, Superstarmanagement.com, Ex-Why.com, Nowtruth.org, Greencleanascene.com, Nobooksnoballsports.org, Steppingto.org, Bawha.com, DrKenya.net, Fightfordrghosh.org, CAECAY.org, Nstrongharmony.org; ALL their email address accounts; propriety email list Futurist, MWBE, Newsalert, NIA, Superstars, Act, Lawaid, Politicos, AMWF, Super Bowl Guest, Entrepreneur, and SJA!

They have shut down ALL our Twitter accounts: @ajalil, @FirstSSM, @Nowtruth1, @EXWHYAD, @griotz, @AMWFND, @electionwin, and @caecay.

They have shut down our social media presence to silence our voice exposing their criminal activity along with that of the Alameda County Superior Court Administration, Alameda County District Attorney, City of Oakland and their City Attorney, California Attorney General, Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Kamala Harris, and others.

Government Covertly Planted SpyWare on al-Hakim’s Company Computer

On June 17, 2018, al-Hakim found SpyWare covertly planted on al-Hakim’s company computer through his web browser when he logged into his Interserver and U. S. Courts account.

SpyWare is programed to take control of your camera and microphone, to spy on their Computer Activities, Instant Message, Chats, Software usage, Take Screenshots Remotely, See File Transfers, Capture Key logs, Spy on Media Files, Spy on Emails, Spy on Browser Activities, monitor your workplace or home remotely, notify them if it detects your computers activities, including an alarm system, a recording system, and sending screengrabs of your PC or mobile phone. The SpyWare can connect to multiple IP cameras and microphones, then automatically starts recording whenever it captures motion and enable live remote viewing from any PC.

It’s a terrifying invasion of privacy that defendants with government agencies like the NSA can take control of the webcam and microphone on your computer and spy on you without your knowledge.

Previously, censorship had been implemented by them by blocking and blacklisting plaintiffs servers IP’s, device IP’s, domain IP’s, email addresses with accomplices SORBS, SpamHaus, RBL, SURBL, Mailchannels, Trouble-Free.net, Barracuda, ABUSE.NET, Exploits Bot List (XBL), AbuseIPDB, Invaluement, MXToolBox, MultiRBL, URIBL, SURBL, Composite Blocking List (CBL), Passive Spam Block List (PSBL), with reverse DNS verifications, DNSBL blocks, surveilled email content, censored email content, blocked or throttled email distribution as Internet filters, firewalls, Internet blocking, DNS poisoning, and Internet zoning.  It is currently used by some organizations and governments to control the content viewed by individuals accessing Web pages over the Internet. The largest complaint about Internet censorship is that it ignores free-speech rights and violates the civil liberties of Internet users.

That censorship along with AMWF’s server and hosted websites being intentionally mis-configured by defendants it is causing the many, many, over 40 years of creating a brand, establishing goodwill, proprietary client email list and email distribution to those lists, clients intellectual property, trade secrets, clients data, content, website service pages, articles, posts, videos, podcasts, features, photos, marketing, promotion, testimonials, social media, email lists, simple inter-company and inter-office email communications, the theft and missing proprietary client email list, the theft and missing clients intellectual property, the theft and missing clients trade secrets, the theft and missing clients data, links to partner websites (blogroll), thousands of broken links prevent access to all these features via website visits, search engines, and by blocking web IP’s, server IP’s, device (computers, phones, tablets, etc.) IP’s, email addresses, ALL INTERNET CONNECTED AND RELATED COMMUNICATIONS AND DEVICES, referrals, from ALL the above mentioned sources, for all intents and purposes, burying the business.

This prevented employees, volunteers, clients, donors, donees, subscribers, users, contributors, and visitors from accessing the site, services, articles, posts, videos, photos, events calendar, information, fundraising efforts, advertising, special events, marketing, promotions, special offers, acknowledgement, individual and group discussion, town hall meetings, online forms for FREE tickets to entertainment events, to join the mail list, to be a subscriber, to become a member, submit a special request for services, for FREE educational opportunities and assistance, for FREE rental assistance, for FREE food, for FREE clothing, for FREE computers, for FREE housing, for FREE medical services, for FREE legal services, for FREE home and cell phones, fundraising donations, for volunteering, Inter-Faith and Multi-Cultural events, for FREE Youth resources, for FREE employment opportunities and assistance, for FREE resources and assistance, for FREE Autism resources and assistance, for FREE homeless resources and assistance, for FREE proprietary videos, CD’s and podcasts, to purchase proprietary videos, CD’s and podcasts, for FREE clinics and health centers, client proprietary videos, partner proprietary videos, selected educational/information proprietary videos, and sharing the above.

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.

Some of those Co-Defendants Equinix and Interserver referenced in their reply, ALL of whom have been complained of or to are, in major part because al-Hakim reported the very obvious agenda of 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.

al-Hakim’s viewpoints, are protected speech under the California Constitution. The court harassed al-Hakim by engaging in a severe and pervasive scheme to suppress his constitutional and statutory right to engage in protected activity, by threatening him with and by executing against him punitive and adverse judicial actions, including delay and termination of his basic rights to due process. The court created, tolerated and condoned a court environment that is pervasively hostile to al-Hakim on account of viewpoints he holds regarding religion, politics and whistleblowing activities. The court failed and refused to remedy this hostile environment, and permitted al-Hakim to be harassed by both administrators and co-workers on account of his viewpoints. The court has engaged in an ongoing and continuous course of harassment based on al-Hakim’s protected rights under the California Constitution.

The conduct of various judges and the court as alleged in this Challenge are sufficiently pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of litigation and the legal, judicial and court environment such that it created a hostile environment, hostile to the al-Hakim.

The unlawful conduct alleged was engaged in by various judges and the court, supervisors and/or managing agents of the judges and the court and/or who were acting at all times relevant within the scope and course of their employment. The court are, therefore, strictly liable for the conduct of said agents and employees.

al-Hakim is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that these judges and the court MUST accept that they have taken a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of California, while some judges has lied and perjured themselves in WRITING, casting off any remote semblance of honor or integrity that anyone present could respect, has enacted his personal agenda to persecute me and deny my rights under the aforementioned Constitutions, whom along with the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and the court acted with malice, criminal corruption and persecution as described herein with reckless disregard for al-Hakim’s rights and/or with the intent to injure, vex, annoy and harass al-Hakim, and subjected al-Hakim to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of al-Hakim’s rights with the intention of causing al-Hakim injury and depriving him of his constitutional rights.

This appears to be the process enacted by Presiding Judge Barbara J. R. Jones with the 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 that we have complained of for months!

Entire “Illegal” Proceedings are Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption

These entire “illegal proceedings” are solely for the purpose of the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities illegally utilizing the full force and resources of the government in a covert criminal undercover sting operation by fostering, fabricating and manipulating any argument, testimony, documents, word, inference, vague reference, or gesture that they can remotely interpret as evidence of any remote action they seek to advocate to incriminate, charge, try, convict, incarcerate and eliminate al-Hakim!

These are cases that al-Hakim has filed, they are his cases, NOT the courts, nor judges, nor law enforcement, nor government, nor legal entities in power! Yet they have hijacked al-Hakim, his religion, his truth, his family; their home, their lives; their personal, real, and business property; his businesses; his community; those they serve; his cases; his rights; his freedom; his pursuit of happiness; justice; the Constitution; his very existence! 

This Grand corruption is systemic and endemic in ALL al-Hakim cases involves the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in power colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of al-Hakim.

This grand, systemic and endemic corruption is the abuse of power, office, and resources by judicial, political, law enforcement, governmental or legal entities and officials for organizational and personal gain, with and by the herein listed tactics. It also takes the form of these judicial, political, law enforcement, governmental or legal entities office holders maintaining themselves in office by their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution illegally utilizing the full force and resources of the government in a covert criminal undercover sting operation to the detriment and oppression of al-Hakim with use taxpayers’ money.

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which further disqualifies the judge. al-Hakim again renews the request for those affected Judges to disqualify themselves, ALL of them, including ALL those named herein.

Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration.

 

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil

510-394-4501

Advertisements

Bigot Brand Contempt Threat, Disparages al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at May 1, 2019 Hearing!

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
Brent and Sarah Hanson                        Anthony S. Leung, Christopher Leung
Green Key Investments                           Green Key Investments
508 Dimm Street                                    110 Franklin Street, Suite # 2
Richmond, CA 94805                             Oakland, CA 94607
                                                                 mrchrisleung@gmail.comXavier Becerra
Xavier Becerra
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:     May 2, 2019
NO PAGES: 14
RE:        Bigot Brand Contempt Threat, Disparages al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at May 1, 2019 Hearing

“In another religion they honor people who serve like you with Sainthood!”” – Economics Professor Adeel Malik,Oxford University, England and World Renowned News Expert Commentator, speaking about Abdul-Jalil and the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.

GOD sent me an ANGEL” – Hammer, speaking about Abdul-Jalil.

“Jalil, YOU ARE A TZADIK (SAINT)!”– Barry Barkan, Live Oak Institute and
  Ashoka Fellow at Ashoka Foundation:Innovators for the Public

 

“I thank God for you and for bringing you into my life and for the ministry you have been given to help the people of God!”– Pastor L. J. Jennings, Kingdom Builders Christian Fellowship, speaking about Abdul-Jalil and AMWF

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

Bigot Brand OUTRIGHT LIES in Disparaging al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at May 1, 2019 Hearing
At the hearing on May 1, 2019, upon being called, al-Hakim served Brand a Challenge for Cause, upon which he complained that he had filed an answer to the previous challenge served on him just 48 hours ago, but he did NOT provide nor serve that answer on the parties present. He then announced that he would take a brief recess to read the new challenge.
Brand recalls the case, fully intent on jailing al-Hakim for contempt, nods to the the sheriffs deputy seated in the jury box next to al-Hakim, lights into al-Hakim for serving the challenge, affirming that he was going to proceed with the matters at hand regardless of the challenge that he felt could not be any different from the challenge served on him just 48 hours ago! As he is doing so, the sheriffs deputy leaves the jury box and approaches al-Hakim seated at the plaintiff’s table.
al-Hakim responded by illustrating and addressing Brand’s bigotry in his disparagement, denigration, and deprecation of al-Hakim, his religious practice of Islam and Islam had occurred just 48 hours ago at the hearing on April 29, 2019! al-Hakim dramatically argued Brand’s INDEFENSIBLE act of referring to al-Hakim’s weekly religious obligation as “I know that you say you have a religious Holiday every Tuesday and Thursday?!”in Brand’s attempts to cast aspersions on al-Hakim, his religion and it’s practice as frivolous, a Frat party, to impugn, vilify, traduce and portray al-Hakim as a nefarious hypocrite! At this point, the sheriffs deputy is standing arms distance away from al-Hakim seated at the plaintiff’s table.
Defendants then offer that the challenges are a contempt of court, wherein al-Hakim states: “you have held proceedings in this matter while there is a stay in place from the vexatious motion and have asked for a warrant for my arrest, this proceeding is a attempt to provoke and provide an opportunity for an arrest for contempt. This vexatious proceeding is just your defense strategy to prevent further exposure and prosecution of your corruption and bigotry!”. Brand responds that “I could not disagree with you more, the court takes every opportunity to accommodate every religion”.
Brand, now confronted with the clear line of bigotry that he has gone FAR beyond, trips and falls over it as he can NOT in good conscience order al-Hakim arrested for contempt as it would prove al-Hakim’s point of his bigotry!

Brand is NOTHING BUT A MISERABLE, PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, INCAPABLE OF THE TRUTH!
If Brand can make such a statement as “I could not disagree with you more, the court takes every opportunity to accommodate every religion”, then how does that comport that with his actions in the Green Key case where he DID NOT RESPOND to over THIRTEEN (13) communications, contacts, documents, faxes and emails, including TWO phone calls and voicemail messages, and hand delivered documents to him over a three week period requesting a continuance, proceeded despite the notices and issued a default against al-Hakim in favor of Green Key?

Green Key Defaulted, Failure to Appear Three Times
In the Green Key Case, Brand ignored the fact al-Hakim did NOT received any response from the court to his over THIRTEEN (13) communications, contacts, documents, faxes and emails, including TWO phone calls and voicemail messages, and hand delivered the documents with a court filed letter requests to his clerks Scott Sanchez and Cynthia Trinidad over three weeks PRIOR to the January 2, 2019 and January 3, 2019, hearings to request a reservation number to file an ex-parte motion for a continuance of the hearings he was unable to attend as the court and plaintiffs are and have been aware for over 30 years that al-Hakim has religious obligations on Tuesdays and Thursdays that do not allow for his presence in court which included the hearing, and proceeded despite the notices and issued a default against al-Hakim in favor of Green Key. Judge Brand, and Colwell before him, their Department 511 clerks and court administrations continuing fraud, corruption and collusion being solely responsible for this case as filed, NOT Green Key. They have been the sole force behind moving this litigation forward for them, as Green Key has failed to appear THREE TIMES consecutively without notice nor reason submitted to the court nor al-Hakim, have not filed an opposition to the motion to vacate the default writ of execution, and have NOT been issued a default nor al-Hakim being granted his motion to vacate the default taken against him!
Brand, who admitted that the last two continuances given to Green Key had NOTHING to do with the case, attempts to sit in SOLE judgment of his, the Department 511 clerks and court administration’s OWN Continuing Fraud, Corruption and Collusion committed on HIS and their OWN part!
The last Green Key defaulted, failure to appear was at the February 25, 2019, hearing, over two months ago, yet to date Brand has NOT issued an order despite the fact they failed to appear THREE TIMES consecutively without notice, and did not file an opposition to the motion to vacate the default writ of execution! On April 3, April 15, and April 17, 2019, al-Hakim sent two faxes and emails each time to the court and opposing parties requesting the order from the uncontested, defaulted motion. That’s TEN REQUESTED NOTICES and it has yet to be served even though it was unopposed and thrice defaulted for failure to appear.
Due to the illegal eviction from the defaulted Green Key case, al-Hakim was forced out of his home with only two days to move and was unable to take anything! Of note is the fact he left all his personal and business computers, files that are now in the custody and control of the opposition. al-Hakim has NONE of the files he had accumulated over his life of years! Green Key has taken complete and total custody and control of ALL al-Hakim’s entire lifetime possessions, accumulation of ALL personal, family, and business belongings, things, property, goods, personal effects, assets, chattels, movables, valuables, EVERYTHING!! Over $800,000 in value that has been destroyed by Green Key and MUST BE REPLACED!!!
Four times al-Hakim has demanded the return of EVERYTHING, ALL ITEMS LEFT IN THE HOUSE, WITHOUT ANY DAMAGE TO THEM! Green Key has NEVER responded to the demand. We are sure the items of interest are in the control of the courts partners, law enforcement!
This places an intolerable burden on al-Hakim and makes it impossible to present this document in a concise and cogent manner without the necessary documentary support.
THIS BEGS THE QUESTION WHY IS BRAND FAVORING THEM AND NOT ISSUING THE ORDER UNTIL HE HAS SHACKLED AL-HAKIM WITH BEING DEEMED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT UNABLE TO PURSUE ANT LITIGATION AGAINST HIM, THEM OR ANYONE ELSE?!!!

Bigot Brand Disparages al-Hakim’s Religious Practice of Islam at April 29, 2019 Hearing
At the hearing on April 29, 2019, Brand disparaged, denigrated, and deprecated, al-Hakim and his religious practice of Islam by referring to al-Hakim’s weekly religious obligation as “I know that you say you have a religious Holiday every Tuesday and Thursday?!”.
This bigoted, ignorant, thoughtless, irresponsible, caustic remark left al-Hakim shocked, speechless and dumbfounded! al-Hakim, humiliated at the utterance finally stumbled out “I have NEVER said that I have a religious Holiday every Tuesday and Thursday!”Brand says “Well I know you have said something like that”. al-Hakim responds “I have religious obligations every Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, they are NOT Holidays”.
Irate at the fact that he MUST conform with the law to at least a minimum, Brand asks al-Hakim “when will you be available for an appearance”, wherein al-Hakim responded “the first Monday or Wednesday after June 20, 2019”. Brand states that “you will be gone for Ramadan?”and al-Hakim says “yes, I noticed you of that fact a month ago”. Brands retorts in a very snide, rude manner “I know, I was just asking”and al-Hakim responded “I was just answering”. Brand asks “when does it start?”, al-Hakim responds “Sunday”. Brand then orders the parties to appear two days later on May 1, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.
It was clear that Brand has an agenda to move the VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Superior Court Criminal/Civil Vexatious Entrapment Litigation Strategy to completion before al-Hakim takes retreat for Ramadan so that they can gain another uncontested appeals verdict knowing al-Hakim will NOT be able to respond before June 15, 2019!
It MUST be noted that Brand had TWO sheriff’s deputies in the wings of the jury box waiting with orders in hand!
Brand attempts to cast aspersions on al-Hakim’s religion and it’s practice as frivolous, a Frat party, or Rave, to impugn, vilify, traduce and portray al-Hakim as a carouser, party animal, nefarious hypocrite, insincere. This is perhaps the HIGHEST ranking tenet in the pillars of Islam and is mandated, commanded upon ALL muslims! al-Hakim is long established at this, over 60 years, is recognized and honored world wide for his service, is consulted and relied on for his service to the Islamic community and humanity at large!
Brand and the judges have deprive al-Hakim of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law and penalize him because of his religious beliefs! requiring al-Hakim to abandon his religious beliefs and practices in order to receive benefits. discriminates against al-Hakim and Muslims violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
This divisive case highlights the vast difference between the reality and the rhetoric of religious freedom, which is often considered to be the ideal that promotes harmony and equality in the judicial system. But, history suggests that it does lead to more conflict due to the biases and prejudices of those same justices echoing the view that religious freedom brings inequality and disunity so the government and courts systematically enact mainstream practices favoring particular races and faiths for cause and preventing religious freedom and liberty!
Brands prejudice is pathological and projects a personality syndrome linked with racism as well to establish and cultivate his own race, class and religious supremacy based on favoritism towards his own perceived group, their admiration, sympathy, and trust of his ingroup, the “Courtel”.
BRAND CAN NOT SERVE IN ANY CAPACITY IN ANY AL-HAKIM MATTERS!

Repression of al-Hakim and First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion
The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law. In recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution to keep the government out of religion– to guarantee the separation of church and state. This fundamental freedom is a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can’t penalize you because of your religious beliefs.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not require a person to abandon their religious beliefs in order to receive benefits. Sherbert v. Verner, in which a Seventh-day Adventist was fired because she wouldn’t work on Saturdays. The state denied her jobless benefits, saying she was fired for cause. The Supreme Court ruled that disqualifying her from benefits “solely because of her refusal to accept employment in which she would have to work on Saturday contrary to her religious belief, imposes an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion.” She got her benefits.

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb – Congressional Findings and Declaration of Purposes
(a) Findings The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) PurposesThe purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 – Free Exercise of Religion Protected
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
(Pub. L. 103–141, § 3, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488.)

This action is PURELY RETALIATORY
Judge Jeff Brand, other judges listed herein, court clerks and superior court administration, in concert with unscrupulous Federal, Sate County and local judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies (“entities”) have committed over 150 violations under United States and California State Constitutions against Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim that have been graphically detailed and documented over 40 years! (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 PURELY RETALIATORY, unjust, illegal act of revenge, calculated to foreclose on al-Hakim’s civil rights as promised to protect those judges and these underhanded entities known and documented to have repeatedly violated the law for years and just like Brand, they have been, are and will be a defendant and witness in those expected proceedings!! This is their collective legal defense effort to eliminate any possibility of that ever happening!
Brand has a challenge matter still pending, has NOT issued a ruling in Green Key default after their failing and refusing to file an opposition to the motion to vacate the writ of execution awarded to them by default taken against al-Hakim and THREE (3) failures to appear to oppose that motion, unlawfully evicting al-Hakim from his 40 year home, thereby strategically delaying the order to avoid further evidence of fraud on the court and to defeat this alleged vexatious litigant action wherein the judges and courts have acted as defendants CSAA co-counsel and CSAA has acted as judges counsel and government agent/informant for 20 years! BRANDS ACTIONS IN THIS CASE ARE INDEFENSIBLE! THUS THIS VEXATIOUS ACTION.
Brand installed the motion practice schedule to evade evidence of fraud on the court with the long pending six (6) CSAA orders so they could not be presented in this action.
The vexatious motion was filed on February 28, 2019, with opening brief due March 22, 2019, and reply brief due April 5, 2019, and the hearing set for April 19, 2019. Brand finally issued the long pending six (6) orders on March 24, 2019; three days AFTER the submission due date for the opening brief.
al-Hakim waited to receive the orders BEFORE filing the opposition/reply brief to include the orders as further evidence of Brands fraud on the court and exposing THIS frivolous motion as his sole defense for his, the judges, and court administration continuing fraud, corruption and conspiracy.

Court Scheduled Proceedings to Take Default against al-Hakim in VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their “Muslim Ban”
Brand even had the hearing set for Thursday, April 18, 2019 and then changed it to Friday, April 19, 2019, both dates that Brand knows al-Hakim will NOT be able to attend due to a 40 year religious commitments know to Brand, defendants and the court, in another effort to take a default against al-Hakim. On April 3, April 15, and today, April 17, 2019, al-Hakim sent two faxes and emails each time to the court and opposing parties announcing the fact the court has scheduled these proceedings in furtherance of their VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their Muslim Ban and requesting the hearing date be changed to a Monday or Wednesday. Thats TEN REQUESTED NOTICES FOR A CONTINUANCE and they were NOT answered. Finally, later on April 17, 2019, al-Hakim received an email from the department 511 clerk stating “Abdul-Jalil – Emailing the department is not sufficient notice for a continuance. If you need help obtaining a continuance please feel free to seek counsel or contact the self help center. This email address is only for people seeking reservations.”. (see April 17, 2019 email from Dept 511 under Exhibit 1)
This response clearly establishes their intent to take a default by design! The court can not complain about the cost of litigation in al-Hakim cases when they are responsible for the constant motions to continue, when they would not address the fact THEY chose the date without any input from al-Hakim knowing that he could NOT attend and rather than make a mutual accommodation, they suggest that he seek legal aid in filing a motion to continue! A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY SOLELY TO PERSECUTE AL-HAKIM AND REWARD THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS!
Brand, the judges, the court administrations, and opposing parties actions have altered the course of litigation in scheduling proceedings on dates they know plaintiff can not attend and refusing to schedule proceedings on dates that he can attend, delaying and denying reservation numbers to file motions, failing to file or respond to plaintiff’s filing of oppositions and contesting to rulings and orders, demanding documents they already have or have better access to than al-Hakim, adding and removing proceedings from the docket and register of actions without any proceedings or authority, continuing the atmosphere of intolerable TERROR in furtherance of their corruption and agenda of hate induced persecution and entrapment, with their version of the targeted “al-Hakim Muslim Ban” has irreparably and irretrievably altered the legal outcome of the proceedings herein questioned! (see VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY DECEIT”; and VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption)

VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “MUSLIM BAN” by ”FIXING CASES” in Furtherance of Corruption Agenda, IS PURE RETALIATION
The judges, clerks and court administration has been and are “fixing”cases against al-Hakim attempting to protect the opposition as they have scheduled proceedings DEMANDING the hearing be on a date al-Hakim can NOT attend due to religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for nearly 40 years, while REFUSING to have those proceedings on a date al-Hakim can attend! (see VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM PERSECUTION, “MUSLIM BAN” by ”FIXING CASES”, al-Hakim Declaration at Page 12-14;“Opposition to Case Fixing”, filed April 4, 2018, in al-Hakim v. Interserver Inc., RG18-888371)
On April 3, April 15, and April 17, 2019, al-Hakim sent two faxes and emails each timeto the court and opposing parties announcing the fact the court has scheduled these proceedings Friday, April 19, 2019, a date that Brand knows al-Hakim will NOT be able to attend due to a 40 year religious commitments know to Brand, defendants and the court, in another effort to take a default against al-Hakim in furtherance of their VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their Muslim Ban and al-Hakim requested the hearing date be changed to a Monday or Wednesday. After TEN REQUESTED NOTICES FOR A CONTINUANCE and they were NOT answered. Finally, later on April 17, 2019, al-Hakim received an email from the department 511 clerk stating “Abdul-Jalil – Emailing the department is not sufficient notice for a continuance. If you need help obtaining a continuance please feel free to seek counsel or contact the self help center. This email address is only for people seeking reservations.”.
This response clearly establishes their intent to take a default by design as the court suggest that he seek legal aid in filing a motion to continue! A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY SOLELY TO PERSECUTE AL-HAKIM AND REWARD THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS!
If it is NOT possible to have litigation with the schedule proposed when the court is open EVERYDAY, the time is free and the court is paid to be there, then bigotry, Islamophobia, and Xenophobia are the specious basis for this continued Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption, 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 Judge Brand regarding Motions clearly have a double standard! al-Hakim’s Religion and religious obligations on those days are NOT going to change for judge Brand nor the court.
al-Hakim has had to make multiple requests, once THIRTEEN times, another SEVEN TIMES to have a “Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion and Ex-Parte motion to be heard on the SAME DATE as litigation previously scheduled, yet the requests were IGNORED/DENIED, and one resulted in the issuing of a default against al-Hakim by scheduling dates that the defendants and the court were aware al-Hakim was unavailable to attend.
The court has failed and refused to respond with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda of hate apparent to all!
The judges and court administration’s continuing criminal harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption in his uniquely applied and enforced court rules summarily denies al-Hakim’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing such a ruling 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 is necessary to prevent this abuse.
The judges mindless denials further expose and demonstrate the courts agenda of 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.
Brand has begun the specious vexatious litigant action to foreclose on al-Hakim’s civil rights to eliminate any further threat he poses to their “honor” and position, while denying al-Hakim any opportunity for truth, fair relief, and justice against them in the “legal system”! The court has heeded al-Hakim’s intentions to not only litigate his cases but some directly involve the corruption naming judges dating back nearly 40 years and the courts can not afford nor will they allow this to happen! They will shut down al-Hakim at ALL COST!
The cases and hearings, which involves contested issues of law or fact, and which had been assigned to Judge Brand, should NEVER have been assigned and no matters hereinafter arising should be heard or assigned to Judge Brand, on the ground that he is irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff.
Brand does not provide any answers to the Challenges served on him because he can’t afford to incriminate himself until finally he decided NOT to answer a Green Key challenge until over a month after the Challenge was served, thereby consenting to the Challenge. al-Hakim incorporated those entire challenges therein until such time as he answers the challenges!
VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Aware Superior Court Criminal/Civil Vexatious Entrapment Litigation Strategy
al-Hakim is aware that the Superior Court administration and judges have been working with law enforcement in a covert criminal undercover sting operation trying to entrap, frame and incriminate him in criminal activity that is fostered by the hearings in his cases that are selectively being recorded by the court reporter whom arbitrarily goes on and off the record at the judges silent instruction, thereby editing the proceedings while in progress, to charge, try, convict, incarcerate and eliminate al-Hakim! The main purpose for the courts using this tactic and employing “court observers”, colluding with the opposing parties and the entities mention in the “WRIT RACKET” criminal, civil, vexatious entrapment defense litigation strategy with third parties was to enable the filing of the vexatious motion. These entities colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, co-counsel, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of al-Hakim through the illegal use of public funds!The court costs of addressing the challenges can NOT be a consideration when the courts has deviated far from the norm of standard litigation by employing their own private court observers, reporters, and agents in their cause to fabricate a case against al-Hakim and the vexatious motion.
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! But it took four challenges and multiple rulings challenged for fraud on the court, abuse of discretion, bias, prejudice, perjury, and failing to disclose conflicts of interest for Kaus to finally recuse retroactive to his assignment because he failed and refused to disclose a know conflict in these cases that now have to re-litigated at a heavy cost to the parties and the court!

VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “Illegal” Proceedings are Corruption
Based on the matters contained herein, on the United States and California State Constitutional rights and on this document filed herewith, al-Hakim’s cases, these entire “illegal proceedings” are solely for the purpose of the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities illegally utilizing the full force and resources of the government in a covert criminal undercover sting operation by fostering, fabricating and manipulating any filing, pleading, argument, facts, truth, faxes, emails, phone calls, voicemail messages, letters, hearings, request, reservation numbers, motion practice, motion titles, ex-parte applications, hearings, parties, appearances, continuances, schedules, proceedings, register of actions, Court Domainweb, statements, evidence, testimony, documents, word, inference, vague reference, or gesture that they can remotely interpret as evidence of any remote action they seek to advocate to incriminate, charge, try, convict, incarcerate and eliminate al-Hakim!
These are cases that al-Hakim has filed, they are his cases, NOT the courts, nor judges, nor law enforcement, nor government, nor legal entities in power! Yet they have hijacked al-Hakim, his religion, his truth, his family; their home, their lives; their personal, real, and business property; his businesses; his community; those they serve; his cases; his rights; his freedom; his pursuit of happiness; justice; the Constitution; his very existence! (See Entire “Illegal” Proceedings are Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption at page 138)

VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption
This Grand corruption is systemic and endemic in ALL al-Hakim cases involves the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in power colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, co-counsel, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of al-Hakim through the illegal use of public funds!
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which further disqualifies the judge. al-Hakim again renews the request for those affected Judges to disqualify themselves, ALL of them, including ALL those named herein.
The fact that the trial court, the judges, clerks, and court administration are parties is an insuperable moral, ethical, and legal obstacle since they are more than a nominal party. (People v. Cimarusti, supra, 81 Cal. App.3d 314, 320; U.S. Financial v. Sullivan (1974) 37 Cal. App.3d 5, 12, fn. 6 [112 Cal. Rptr. 18].)

al-Hakim 2005 U. S. A. G., DOJ- and Judge Clay’s 56 Federal Corruption Complaints
“I don’t care about challenges, they don’t mean anything to me, I’m not scared of them!”. “He has said that he files complaints, files challenges to document the actions of the court”. “He filed complaints with me when I was presiding court judge”, “his work is quite good, better than many of the attorney’s that has appeared before me!”, “he’s a litigator in his own way”
Judge C, Don Clay on al-Hakim’s challenges and 56 complaints filed with and against him over the years
In July, 2005, al-Hakim filed a Federal Corruption Complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him during the trial al-Hakim v. CSAA and Rescue, et. al”  in Superior Court of Alameda County, California.
al-Hakim’s initial investigation of his USDOJ demanded a change in this criminal, tactical policy of isolation, victimization, criminalization and the attempted entrapment of al-Hakim as the continuing victim, including the use of government initiated, Nixon era “White House Plumbers” and CoIntelpro style dirty tricks!
This State sponsored persecutory terror and civil conspiracy has brought into play Federal, Sate County and local judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies (“entities”) to further their continued investigation of al-Hakim whom has been surveilled for years and continues today with the compromising of many agents and informants covers due to their sloppiness. These actions of these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies are just one example of the continuing efforts of law enforcement to silence and eliminate al-Hakim, even by death, as their “enemy of the State” adversary when al-Hakim has caught and exposed them as they have been entrapped in their own criminal snares!
The FIFTY SIX (56) complaints listed in the 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE against judge Clay is only a small sample of documentation since 1980, and more recently 2000, al-Hakim has filed and served a variety of letters, formal complaints, legal actions and legal challenges with the United States Attorney General’s Office- Department of Justice; Federal and California State Judges, their ruling bodies and Associations; the Alameda County Superior Court of California, United States Attorney’s Office- Northern District; United States District Court- Northern Division, Attorney General of California, Alameda County District Attorney; City of Oakland and Oakland City Attorney; Federal, State and local law enforcement; Federal, State and local politicians; regarding the many blatant civil rights violations, fraud, criminal activities and corruption of these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities that was widely distributed over the internet and posted on many websites. (see 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE of Judge Clay filed OCTOBER 3, 2018, and “al-Hakim 56 Complaints listed Document Communications with Clay Detail Corruption and Cover UP!”, filed December 19, 2018, both in al-Hakim v. Interserver Inc., RG18-888371)

“WRIT RACKET”
al-Hakim has filed multiple complaints for years against Justices Jones, Burns, James Humes, Terence Bruiniers, Sandra Margulies, Anthony Kline, and Kathleen Banke as well as Challenges for Cause against Associate Justice James Richman and Henry Needham, Jr. whom apparently sit in this group but has not openly participated in the decisions.
al-Hakim has filed multiple complaints for years against California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, former Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Federal Chief District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, and former Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken also.
In these matters, it has been established and admitted that there has been illicit ex parte collusion and conspiracy between Superior Court judges Wynne Carvill, Kim Colwell, Jeff Brand, Robert Freedman, Frank Roesch, Stephan Kaus, Mike Markman, Don Clay, Stephan Pulido, Ioana Petrou, Yolanda Northridge, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Kevin Murphy, Jo-Lynne Lee, Scott Patton, David Krashna, Jennifer Madden, Sue Alexander, Glenn Oleon, George Hernandez, Tara Desautels, Leo Dorado, Dennis Hayashi, Julia Spain, several commissioners, and the Superior Court Administration of Chad Finke and the Appeals court with the judges mentioned above. Three of the judges have offered the same unsolicited.
Additionally, Judges Ronni MacLaren, Frank Roesch and Jo-Lynne Lee issued ORDERS OF SELF DISQUALIFICATION/REFUSAL pursuant to C.C.P. §170.1 (a)(6)(A)(ii) and C.C.P. §170.1 (a)(6)(A)(iii). This fact demonstrates that there has been and continues to be pervasive illegal ex-parte communications between the judges regarding al-Hakim because al-Hakim has NEVER had any contact with some judges that recused.
These superior court judges have conspired with the appellant courts to independently take it upon themselves to broadcast their “dog whistle signal to the appeals court” to deny al-Hakim’s petition and issue orders in their support forcing al-Hakim into the “WRIT RACKET”! This is NOT having a trial, this is being “railroaded by the court in a case that is ALREADY fixed against you!”
This action are part of what litigants have come to know as the “WRIT RACKET” instituted by the legal system, judges, courts, the judicial administrative and regulatory agencies, both State and Federal!
These entities have made such a mockery of justice that now these judges do not hesitate to deny or violate a litigants rights and defy them to file a writ knowing that the Supreme Court, Appeals Court, Superior Court Administration, the Judicial Council, and the Commission on Judicial Performance, will cover up and white-wash their criminal activity! These criminal justices are forcing appellants into the Appeals Court cemetery for civil rights, where the Rule of Law is Overruled and Outlawed, the death of due process, where justice is a miscarriage, the treason of truth, the homicide of human rights, the dumpster for denial, where litigants rights are banished to rot in oppression, and die!
al-Hakim’s legal opponents, CSAA and others are engaged in corruption and conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived and employing this “WRIT RACKET” criminal entrapment defense litigation strategy with third parties, other judicial, governmental, law enforcement and legal entities employees, associates, members, agents, contractors, and informants of the U. S. Attorney General- Northern California, Homeland Security (NSA), F.B.I., U. S. Federal Court- Northern California District, California State Supreme Court, California State Appeals Court, Governor of California, California Attorney General, Alameda County District Attorney, Oakland City Attorney, California State Senator, California Congressperson, Alameda County Supervisors, Mayor of Oakland, Oakland City Councilpersons, Alameda County Superior Court, Judicial Council of California, among others, inciting the courts acrimony, animus, and persecution of al-Hakim with judicial calumny deceit!
To understand the “WRIT RACKET”, one needs to know what a “racket” and “racketeering” mean and depict in the legal community and population at large. The definitions are:
Racket
“A racket is a planned or organized criminal act, usually in which the criminal act is a form of business or a way to earn illegal or extorted money regularly or briefly but repeatedly. A racket is often a repeated or continuous criminal operation.”

Racketeering
“Racketeering, often associated with organized crime, is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a “racket”) to solve a problem that wouldn’t otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service. Racketeering as defined by the RICO act includes a list of 35 crimes.”

Moreover, this is exactly what the judges meant by their “dog whistle” signal/statement at the hearings that they would rely on their “colleagues (in the Appeals Court)” to support their decision to ignore the Rule of Law knowing that the appellate judges would do just as Jones, Burns, Bruiniers, Margulies, Kline, Humes and Banke did, “cover-up for him”.
Brand and the courts actions are a content- and viewpoint- based restriction on speech and lacks any objective criteria for suppressing speech and censorship of constitutionally protected free speech, engage in discriminatory business practices with impunity in violation of the U. S. Constitution First Amendment and California Civil Code § 51, and Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution for Violations of Free Speech, provides: “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.” when Plaintiff‟s viewpoints, are protected speech under the California Constitution, where the court harassed Plaintiff by engaging in a severe and pervasive scheme to suppress his constitutional and statutory right to engage in protected activity, by executing against him punitive and adverse judicial actions, and termination of his basic rights to due process?
By operation and application of judges restrictions set forth herein has unlawfully deprived Plaintiff of their full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in violation of CCP §51 and abused its discretion and improperly prejudice al-Hakim, under color of law, the Judges sought to deprive him of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
These Constitutional violations of Plaintiff’s rights and prejudices Plaintiff suffered herein, when the judges denied his civil rights and due process, an equal opportunity to participate in unbiased pursuit of his legal claims, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, religion, whistleblowing activities, bias, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, prejudice, favoritism, bigotry and racism; 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; illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim; denied the appeal 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, Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Under Color Of State Law; Section 1983, Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts, and the Bane Acts.
When the conduct of the Judges was unreasonable and undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others, plaintiff’s injuries and the violations of his constitutional rights were directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of the Appeals Court, which were the moving force behind the acts described herein caused damages to plaintiff, and will continue to cause damage to plaintiff in violation of his civil rights, and due process and equal protection of the laws under the U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV by this denial of equal access to an unbiased legal process.
Given the principle involved in this case is not merely one of fairness to al-Hakim but also one of maintaining respect for the law and promoting confidence in the administration of justice. (As the United States Supreme Court stated in In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 [99 L. Ed. 942, 946, 75 S. Ct. 623, 625]: “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. … Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 [75 S. Ct. 11, 13].”)
Where the court acted as described herein with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights with the intent to injure, vex, annoy and harass Plaintiff, subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intention of causing Plaintiff injury and depriving him of his constitutional rights when in these circumstances, there was denial of a substantial right rendered the ensuing commitment illegal because it is impossible for this or a reviewing court not to conclude that “a different result would have been probable if such error … or defect had not occurred or existed.”? (CCP § 475.)
Faced with the imminent threat of having to publicly confront the legal, professional, social, political and financial consequences of their twenty (20) years of GRAND CORRUPTION, filed this polemic nearly bare of supported facts or authorities, in this completely meritless motion, in a last ditch attempt to BAR al-Hakim from “coming for them” in proceedings which are finally approaching on the outstanding grand corruption matters by Brand enacting their entrapment strategy to declare al-Hakim a “vexatious litigant” in a matter brought by Brand, to heard by Brand, and judged by Brand and BRAND ALONE!!!
A determination of vexatious litigant status specifically under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §391(b)(3) requires somewhat more than a retaliatory judge conspiring with the defendant to complain that they perceive al-Hakim vexed to their mutual motive, interest, benefit, and opportunity is a reoccurring theme over the 20 years of this case where the defendants have represented the judges in this case against al-Hakim and the judges have likewise defended the defendants as “sitting judge for the defense” and “deputy defense counsel”! There are simply no meritorious grounds for this motion at all. The statutory criteria are clearly stated and easily understood. And in this case, Plaintiff show they are as far removed from meeting the statutory criteria as possible, which Brand either knew or should have known before filing this motion out of retaliation and desperation.
The court can best decide upon the merits of the plaintiffs’ motions by reviewing them on the law, not by relying entirely upon the opinion of Brand and the entities. Even a cursory review can only lead to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs’ claims are potentially meritorious.  And that in fact the tactics of the defendants, including Brand and the entities, are harassing and delaying the court and wasting its judicial resources, by preventing his actions from proceeding to due process and discovery.

VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY DECEIT”
al-Hakim has long been targeted by United States Attorney General’s Office- Department of Justice; Federal and California State Judges, their ruling bodies and Associations; the Alameda County Superior Court of California, United States Attorney’s Office- Northern District; United States District Court- Northern Division, Attorney General of California, Alameda County District Attorney; City of Oakland and Oakland City Attorney; Federal, State and local law enforcement; Federal, State and local politicians.
The targeting by Brand, the judges, Alameda County Superior Court Administration, Alameda County District Attorney, City of Oakland and their City Attorney, California Attorney General, Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Kamala Harris, CSAA, Wellpoint, EBMUD, AT&T, Equinix, Interserver, and others, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in their VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM PERSECUTION, “MUSLIM BAN” by ”FIXING CASES” in Furtherance of their Corruption Agenda, IS PURE RETALIATION, with an aggressive campaign of calumny deceit, encouraged opposing parties to do all that they can to cause the ruin of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, their business, real and personal property, his community and the clients they serve. Their tactics are more extreme than muckraking or character assassination, wherein the court and opposing parties fabricate and gathered negative, embarrassing or compromising information about al-Hakim, publish and disperse that information as widely as possible.
In the legal context, Brand, the judges and court administration, CSAA, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities are encouraged to use the process of litigation to “harass, deny and win using all tactics””The Law can be used very easily to harass and enough harassment on someone will simply push them to the thin edge, well knowing that he is not privileged, will generally be sufficient to cause their professional if not physical death, possible to annihilate him by destroying his credibility and moral character in all contexts leaving him a social and legal “pariah” in society incapable of being associated with or represented, and utterly ruin him.
One of the many things they did to al-Hakim was to offer compensation to bribe members of his family in an effort to take his real, personal and business property from him and to cause him great pain and suffering in hopes that he would perish. Ultimately, the court and CSAA proceeded to bludgeon Mr. al-Hakim with over-burdensome litigation tactics, as well as communicating with and intimidating his partners into abandoning him, leaving al-Hakim standing alone.
The court and CSAA intimidated, coerced, bribed, and otherwise elicited perjurious, slanderous, libelous and false statements from various people about al-Hakim and implied prurient activities. What al-Hakim did not know at that time, however, was the fact that agents, informants, and contractors acted for and on behalf of Brand, the judges and court administration, CSAA, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities by unethical and criminal means, instigated the acts, which gave, rise to the fraudulent, corrupt orders in underlying cases.
In doing so, Brand, the judges and court administration, CSAA, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities actions precluded Mr. al-Hakim from ever having a fair opportunity in any of his cases, and makes it explicitly clear that he is anything but a vexatious litigant in that the unanswered challenges and orders replete with perjurious, incriminating statements were not only false but obtained through criminal conduct. In short the court instigated and committed criminal acts with these entire “illegal proceedings” solely for the purpose of the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities illegally utilizing the full force and resources of the government in a covert criminal undercover sting operation by fostering, fabricating and manipulating any filing, pleading, argument, facts, truth, faxes, emails, phone calls, voicemail messages, letters, hearings, request, reservation numbers, motion practice, motion titles, ex-parte applications, hearings, parties, appearances, continuances, schedules, proceedings, register of actions, Court Domainweb, statements, evidence, testimony, documents, word, inference, vague reference, or gesture that they can remotely interpret as evidence of any remote action they seek to advocate to incriminate, charge, try, convict, incarcerate and eliminate al-Hakim, that DESTROYED his legitimate suits and then sought to have Mr. al-Hakim declared a vexatious litigant for seeking relief based on those criminal and civil violations of the law! (see VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY DECEIT”)

Respectfully,

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501

Bigot Brand Disparages al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at April 29, 2019 Hearing!

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
Brent and Sarah Hanson                        Anthony S. Leung, Christopher Leung
Green Key Investments                           Green Key Investments
508 Dimm Street                                    110 Franklin Street, Suite # 2
Richmond, CA 94805                             Oakland, CA 94607
                                                                  mrchrisleung@gmail.comXavier Becerra
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:     May 1, 2019
NO PAGES: 3
RE:        Bigot Brand Disparages al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at April 29, 2019 Hearing

“In another religion they honor people who serve like you with Sainthood!”” – Economics Professor Adeel Malik,Oxford University, England and World Renowned News Expert Commentator, speaking about Abdul-Jalil and the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.

GOD sent me an ANGEL” – Hammer, speaking about Abdul-Jalil.

“Jalil, YOU ARE A TZADIK (SAINT)!”– Barry Barkan, Live Oak Institute and
  Ashoka Fellow at Ashoka Foundation:Innovators for the Public

 

“I thank God for you and for bringing you into my life and for the ministry you have been given to help the people of God!”– Pastor L. J. Jennings, Kingdom Builders Christian Fellowship, speaking about Abdul-Jalil and AMWF

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

Bigot Brand Disparages al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at April 29, 2019 Hearing
At the hearing on April 29, 2019, Brand disparaged, denigrated, and deprecated, al-Hakim and his religious practice of Islam by referring to al-Hakim’s weekly religious obligation as “I know that you say you have a religious Holiday every Tuesday and Thursday?!”.
This bigoted, ignorant, thoughtless, irresponsible, caustic remark left al-Hakim shocked, speechless and dumbfounded! al-Hakim, humiliated at the utterance finally stumbled out “I have NEVER said that I have a religious Holiday every Tuesday and Thursday!”Brand says “Well I know you have said something like that”. al-Hakim responds “I have religious obligations every Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, they are NOT Holidays”.
Irate at the fact that he MUST conform with the law to at least a minimum, Brand asks al-Hakim “when will you be available for an appearance”, wherein al-Hakim responded “the first Monday or Wednesday after June 20, 2019”. Brand states that “you will be gone for Ramadan?”and al-Hakim says “yes, I noticed you of that fact a month ago”. Brands retorts in a very snide, rude manner “I know, I was just asking”and al-Hakim responded “I was just answering”. Brand asks “when does it start?”, al-Hakim responds “Sunday”. Brand then orders the parties to appear two days later on May 1, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.
It was clear that Brand has an agenda to move the VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Superior Court Criminal/Civil Vexatious Entrapment Litigation Strategy to completion before al-Hakim takes retreat for Ramadan so that they can gain another uncontested appeals verdict knowing al-Hakim will NOT be able to respond before June 15, 2019!
It MUST be noted that Brand had TWO sheriff’s deputies in the wings of the jury box waiting with orders in hand!
Brand attempts to cast aspersions on al-Hakim’s religion and it’s practice as frivolous, a Frat party, or Rave, to impugn, vilify, traduce and portray al-Hakim as a carouser, party animal, nefarious hypocrite, insincere. This is perhaps the HIGHEST ranking tenet in the pillars of Islam and is mandated, commanded upon ALL muslims! al-Hakim is long established at this, over 60 years, is recognized and honored world wide for his service, is consulted and relied on for his service to the Islamic community and humanity at large!
Brand and the judges have deprive al-Hakim of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law and penalize him because of his religious beliefs! requiring al-Hakim to abandon his religious beliefs and practices in order to receive benefits. discriminates against al-Hakim and Muslims violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
This divisive case highlights the vast difference between the reality and the rhetoric of religious freedom, which is often considered to be the ideal that promotes harmony and equality in the judicial system. But, history suggests that it does lead to more conflict due to the biases and prejudices of those same justices echoing the view that religious freedom brings inequality and disunity so the government and courts systematically enact mainstream practices favoring particular races and faiths for cause and preventing religious freedom and liberty!
Brands prejudice is pathological and projects a personality syndrome linked with racism as well to establish and cultivate his own race, class and religious supremacy based on favoritism towards his own perceived group, their admiration, sympathy, and trust of his ingroup, the “Courtel”.
BRAND CAN NOT SERVE IN ANY CAPACITY IN ANY AL-HAKIM MATTERS!

Repression of al-Hakim and First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion
The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law. In recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution to keep the government out of religion– to guarantee the separation of church and state. This fundamental freedom is a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can’t penalize you because of your religious beliefs.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not require a person to abandon their religious beliefs in order to receive benefits. Sherbert v. Verner, in which a Seventh-day Adventist was fired because she wouldn’t work on Saturdays. The state denied her jobless benefits, saying she was fired for cause. The Supreme Court ruled that disqualifying her from benefits “solely because of her refusal to accept employment in which she would have to work on Saturday contrary to her religious belief, imposes an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion.” She got her benefits.

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb – Congressional Findings and Declaration of Purposes
(a) Findings The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) PurposesThe purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 – Free Exercise of Religion Protected
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
(Pub. L. 103–141, § 3, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488.)

Brand Holds Proceedings in Violation of Stay Due to His Vexatious Litigant Motion
CCP 391.6 reads: “Except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 391.3, when a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is filed prior to trial the litigation is stayed, and the moving defendant need not plead, until 10 days after the motion shall have been denied, or if granted, until 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the moving defendant given written notice thereof. When a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is made at any time thereafter, the litigation shall be stayed for such period after the denial of the motion or the furnishing of the required security as the court shall determine.”
Thus, this litigation is STAYED until the court issues a ruling on the merits of the motion for vexatious litigant. After the court rules on the vexatious litigant motion, the parties may pursue litigation.
Brand has attempted to hold proceedings and Defendants have filed order for an appearance and examination and a civil subpoena duces tecum and bench warrant set for April 8, 2019, before Brand when the court and defendants are aware that there is a stay in place during the pendency of a vexatious proceeding.
Defendants claim in the Background of their ex-parte application:
“The order and a civil subpoena duces tecum were served personally on the judgment debtor on February 25, 2019. The judgment debtor attempted to decline service and discarded the papers. See Exhibit 3. The judgment debtor has previously claimed a religious obligation precluding his attendance at court on days other than Mondays or Wednesdays. Wellpoint seeks an order re setting the order for appearance and examination proceeding to April 8th or 10th 2019 or the next available Monday or Wednesday as may be convenient to the court.”
Defendants claim in their ex-parte application Points and Authorities at ¶ 3:
Judgment debtor al-Hakim has been difficult to serve and even tried to refuse personal service twice in this proceeding within the last year. Bradley Dec. ~ 8 and Exhibit 3”
Defendants then claim in their ex-parte application Declaration at ¶ 5:
“The order for appearance and examination and a civil subpoena duces tecum for records was personally served on judgment debtor al-Hakim, although he attempted to refuse service and left the papers in the court’s stairwell.”
Defendants then claim in their ex-parte application Declaration at ¶ 8:
“I believe judgment debtor al-Hakim has been difficult to personally serve. Service has been a problem in this case with judgment debtor al-Hakim claiming that he does not receive documents served on him by mail (after complaining about receiving unsigned proofs of service) or even posted on the real property he used to own. I personally served judgment debtor al- Hakim with written discovery requests. He tried to refuse service. He later claimed he was not served. The process server who personally served the order for appearance and examination and civil subpoena reported similar problems with an attempt to refuse service. To maintain jurisdiction over the judgment debtor if he were to fail to appear for the continued hearing date, I ask that the court order a bench warrant but stay issuance pending the re-set hearing date.”
Defendants contention of an admitted failed attempt to serve al-Hakim with an “announced service” and leaving the alleged service “in the stairwell”.         According to their proof of service, the server SCOTT M. FEELY of SWIFT ATTORNEY SERVICE admits in his attached proof:
“THE SUBJECT WAS SERVED IN THE STAIRWELL – REFUSED TO TAKE THE DOCUMENTS. THE SUBJECT DID NOT WANT TO ACCEPT, SERVER ANNOUNCED SERVICE AND DROPPED THE DOCUMENTS ON THE FLOOR OF THE STAIRWELL. THE SUBJECT WAS POSITIVELY ID’D BY JOHN BRADLEY. Attempt made by: SCOTT M. FEELY. Attempt at: ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERlOR CT., DEPT. 511 24405 AMADOR STREET Hayward, CA 94544.”
This DOES NOT constitute proper service, quite the contrary, it’s admission of failing and refusing to do so! I was NEVER served anything, NEVER had anyone come up to me attempting to, NEVER saw anyone, and if anything occurred behind me as I went up the stairs, I NEVER looked back from the time I left the courtroom!
The imaginary service game of lies and deceit by defendants is constantly on FULL display in his racist, Islamophobic, Xenophobic specious vitriol  that are NOT covered under any litigation privilege! He volleys back and forth between lying as a lawyer and lying as a debt collector, which he does all the time. He dodges back and forth claiming he served al-Hakim then admits three times in the same document that he has problems doing so and has failed to, yet asks Brand to support him with a warrant for al-Hakim’s arrest!
It should be noted by the court that the proceedings that Brand has conducted since February 28, 2019, are ALL moot as there is a stay that accompanies your now THIRD ordered vexatious litigant motion. As such al-Hakim will not be attending the proposed April 8, 2019 hearing that is subject to the stay.

Reason for Late Submission of Opposition to Vexatious Litigant OSC
Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s (Plaintiff, al-Hakim) filed Brief in Opposition to the THIRD Order to Show Cause in the Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding CCP 391(b)(3) in six months. The opposition is supported by the Memorandum, al-Hakim Declaration and Appendix attached in support of the brief. The opposition was submitted the last week of the hearing not out of neglect nor al-Hakim being remise, but for two reasons:
1)     a. because he waited to receive the orders from the February 25, 2019 hearings from the court on the six motions pending in the CSAA case. The six orders where served March 26, 2019, well AFTER the scheduled filing of the initial opening brief in this matter of March 21, 2019, so that they would evade being included in same,
b.  and the order from the February 25, 2019 hearing, unopposed, uncontested, three times failed to appear, defaulted motion to vacate the unlawful detainer/writ of execution in the Green Key case. On April 3, April 15, and April 17, 2019, al-Hakim sent two faxes and emails each time to the court and opposing parties requesting the order from the uncontested, defaulted motion. Thats TEN REQUESTED NOTICES and it has yet to be served even though it was unopposed and thrice defaulted for failure to appear.
2) Due to the illegal eviction from the defaulted Green Key case, al-Hakim was forced out of his home with only two days to move and was unable to take anything! Of note is the fact he left all his personal and business computers, files that are now in the custody and control of the opposition. al-Hakim has NONE of the files he had accumulated over his life of years! Green Key has total possession and control of ALL al-Hakim’s possessions, Four times al-Hakim has demanded the return of EVERYTHING, ALL ITEMS LEFT IN THE HOUSE, WITHOUT ANY DAMAGE TO THEM! Green Key has NEVER responded to the demand. We are sure the items of interest are in the control of the courts partners, law enforcement!
This places an intolerable burden on al-Hakim and makes it impossible to present this document in a concise and cogent manner without the necessary documentary support.

Green Key Defaulted, Failure to Appear Three Times
In the Green Key Case, Brand ignored the fact al-Hakim did NOT received any response from the court to his over THIRTEEN (13) communications, contacts, documents, faxes and emails, including TWO phone calls and voicemail messages, and hand delivered the documents with a court filed letter requests to his clerks Scott Sanchez and Cynthia Trinidad over three weeks PRIOR to the January 2, 2019 and January 3, 2019, hearings to request a reservation number to file an ex-parte motion for a continuance of the hearings he was unable to attend as the court and plaintiffs are and have been aware for over 30 years that al-Hakim has religious obligations on Tuesdays and Thursdays that do not allow for his presence in court which included the hearing, and proceeded despite the notices and issued a default against al-Hakim in favor of Green Key. Judge Brand, and Colwell before him, their Department 511 clerks and court administrations continuing fraud, corruption and collusion being solely responsible for this case as filed, NOT Green Key. They have been the sole force behind moving this litigation forward for them, as Green Key has failed to appear THREE TIMES consecutively without notice nor reason submitted to the court nor al-Hakim, have not filed an opposition to the motion to vacate the default writ of execution, and have NOT been issued a default nor al-Hakim being granted his motion to vacate the default taken against him!
Brand, who admitted that the last two continuances given to Green Key had NOTHING to do with the case, attempts to sit in SOLE judgment of his, the Department 511 clerks and court administration’s OWN Continuing Fraud, Corruption and Collusion committed on HIS and their OWN part!
The last Green Key defaulted, failure to appear was at the February 25, 2019, hearing, over two months ago, yet to date Brand has NOT issued an order despite the fact they failed to appear THREE TIMES consecutively without notice, and did not file an opposition to the motion to vacate the default writ of execution! Green Key has taken complete and total custody and control of ALL al-Hakim’s entire lifetime possessions, accumulation of ALL personal, family, and business belongings, things, property, goods, personal effects, assets, chattels, movables, valuables, EVERYTHING!! Over $800,000 in value that has been destroyed by Green Key and MUST BE REPLACED!!!
THIS BEGS THE QUESTION WHY IS BRAND FAVORING THEM AND NOT ISSUING THE ORDER UNTIL HE HAS SHACKLED AL-HAKIM WITH BEING DEEMED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT UNABLE TO PURSUE ANT LITIGATION AGAINST HIM, THEM OR ANYONE ELSE?!!!
Defendant has not met their burden to show that al-Hakim is a “vexatious litigant” Under Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 39I(b)(2), or 391(b)(3).

This action is PURELY RETALIATORY
Judge Jeff Brand, other judges listed herein, court clerks and superior court administration, in concert with unscrupulous Federal, Sate County and local judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies (“entities”) have committed over 150 violations under United States and California State Constitutions against Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim that have been graphically detailed and documented over 40 years! (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 PURELY RETALIATORY, unjust, illegal act of revenge, calculated to foreclose on al-Hakim’s civil rights as promised to protect those judges and these underhanded entities known and documented to have repeatedly violated the law for years and just like Brand, they have been, are and will be a defendant and witness in those expected proceedings!! This is their collective legal defense effort to eliminate any possibility of that ever happening!
Brand has a challenge matter still pending, has NOT issued a ruling in Green Key default after their failing and refusing to file an opposition to the motion to vacate the writ of execution awarded to them by default taken against al-Hakim and THREE (3) failures to appear to oppose that motion, unlawfully evicting al-Hakim from his 40 year home, thereby strategically delaying the order to avoid further evidence of fraud on the court and to defeat this alleged vexatious litigant action wherein the judges and courts have acted as defendants CSAA co-counsel and CSAA has acted as judges counsel and government agent/informant for 20 years! BRANDS ACTIONS IN THIS CASE ARE INDEFENSIBLE! THUS THIS VEXATIOUS ACTION.
Brand installed the motion practice schedule to evade evidence of fraud on the court with the long pending six (6) CSAA orders so they could not be presented in this action.
The vexatious motion was filed on February 28, 2019, with opening brief due March 22, 2019, and reply brief due April 5, 2019, and the hearing set for April 19, 2019. Brand finally issued the long pending six (6) orders on March 24, 2019; three days AFTER the submission due date for the opening brief.
al-Hakim waited to receive the orders BEFORE filing the opposition/reply brief to include the orders as further evidence of Brands fraud on the court and exposing THIS frivolous motion as his sole defense for his, the judges, and court administration continuing fraud, corruption and conspiracy.

Court Scheduled Proceedings to Take Default against al-Hakim in VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their “Muslim Ban”
Brand even had the hearing set for Thursday, April 18, 2019 and then changed it to Friday, April 19, 2019, both dates that Brand knows al-Hakim will NOT be able to attend due to a 40 year religious commitments know to Brand, defendants and the court, in another effort to take a default against al-Hakim. On April 3, April 15, and today, April 17, 2019, al-Hakim sent two faxes and emails each time to the court and opposing parties announcing the fact the court has scheduled these proceedings in furtherance of their VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their Muslim Ban and requesting the hearing date be changed to a Monday or Wednesday. Thats TEN REQUESTED NOTICES FOR A CONTINUANCE and they were NOT answered. Finally, later on April 17, 2019, al-Hakim received an email from the department 511 clerk stating “Abdul-Jalil – Emailing the department is not sufficient notice for a continuance. If you need help obtaining a continuance please feel free to seek counsel or contact the self help center. This email address is only for people seeking reservations.”. (see April 17, 2019 email from Dept 511 under Exhibit 1)
This response clearly establishes their intent to take a default by design! The court can not complain about the cost of litigation in al-Hakim cases when they are responsible for the constant motions to continue, when they would not address the fact THEY chose the date without any input from al-Hakim knowing that he could NOT attend and rather than make a mutual accommodation, they suggest that he seek legal aid in filing a motion to continue! A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY SOLELY TO PERSECUTE AL-HAKIM AND REWARD THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS!

Brand, the judges, the court administrations, and opposing parties actions have altered the course of litigation in scheduling proceedings on dates they know plaintiff can not attend and refusing to schedule proceedings on dates that he can attend, delaying and denying reservation numbers to file motions, failing to file or respond to plaintiff’s filing of oppositions and contesting to rulings and orders, demanding documents they already have or have better access to than al-Hakim, adding and removing proceedings from the docket and register of actions without any proceedings or authority, continuing the atmosphere of intolerable TERROR in furtherance of their corruption and agenda of hate induced persecution and entrapment, with their version of the targeted “al-Hakim Muslim Ban” has irreparably and irretrievably altered the legal outcome of the proceedings herein questioned! (see VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY DECEIT”; and VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption)

VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY DECEIT”
al-Hakim has long been targeted by United States Attorney General’s Office- Department of Justice; Federal and California State Judges, their ruling bodies and Associations; the Alameda County Superior Court of California, United States Attorney’s Office- Northern District; United States District Court- Northern Division, Attorney General of California, Alameda County District Attorney; City of Oakland and Oakland City Attorney; Federal, State and local law enforcement; Federal, State and local politicians.
The targeting by Brand, the judges, Alameda County Superior Court Administration, Alameda County District Attorney, City of Oakland and their City Attorney, California Attorney General, Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Kamala Harris, CSAA, Wellpoint, EBMUD, AT&T, Equinix, Interserver, and others, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in their VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM PERSECUTION, “MUSLIM BAN” by ”FIXING CASES” in Furtherance of their Corruption Agenda, IS PURE RETALIATION, with an aggressive campaign of calumny deceit, encouraged opposing parties to do all that they can to cause the ruin of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, their business, real and personal property, his community and the clients they serve. Their tactics are more extreme than muckraking or character assassination, wherein the court and opposing parties fabricate and gathered negative, embarrassing or compromising information about al-Hakim, publish and disperse that information as widely as possible.
In the legal context, Brand, the judges and court administration, CSAA, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities are encouraged to use the process of litigation to “harass, deny and win using all tactics””The Law can be used very easily to harass and enough harassment on someone will simply push them to the thin edge, well knowing that he is not privileged, will generally be sufficient to cause their professional if not physical death, possible to annihilate him by destroying his credibility and moral character in all contexts leaving him a social and legal “pariah” in society incapable of being associated with or represented, and utterly ruin him.
One of the many things they did to al-Hakim was to offer compensation to bribe members of his family in an effort to take his real, personal and business property from him and to cause him great pain and suffering in hopes that he would perish. Ultimately, the court and CSAA proceeded to bludgeon Mr. al-Hakim with over-burdensome litigation tactics, as well as communicating with and intimidating his partners into abandoning him, leaving al-Hakim standing alone.
The court and CSAA intimidated, coerced, bribed, and otherwise elicited perjurious, slanderous, libelous and false statements from various people about al-Hakim and implied prurient activities. What al-Hakim did not know at that time, however, was the fact that agents, informants, and contractors acted for and on behalf of Brand, the judges and court administration, CSAA, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities by unethical and criminal means, instigated the acts, which gave, rise to the fraudulent, corrupt orders in underlying cases.
In doing so, Brand, the judges and court administration, CSAA, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities actions precluded Mr. al-Hakim from ever having a fair opportunity in any of his cases, and makes it explicitly clear that he is anything but a vexatious litigant in that the unanswered challenges and orders replete with perjurious, incriminating statements were not only false but obtained through criminal conduct. In short the court instigated and committed criminal acts with these entire “illegal proceedings” solely for the purpose of the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities illegally utilizing the full force and resources of the government in a covert criminal undercover sting operation by fostering, fabricating and manipulating any filing, pleading, argument, facts, truth, faxes, emails, phone calls, voicemail messages, letters, hearings, request, reservation numbers, motion practice, motion titles, ex-parte applications, hearings, parties, appearances, continuances, schedules, proceedings, register of actions, Court Domainweb, statements, evidence, testimony, documents, word, inference, vague reference, or gesture that they can remotely interpret as evidence of any remote action they seek to advocate to incriminate, charge, try, convict, incarcerate and eliminate al-Hakim, that DESTROYED his legitimate suits and then sought to have Mr. al-Hakim declared a vexatious litigant for seeking relief based on those criminal and civil violations of the law! (see VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY DECEIT”)

Respectfully,

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501

RE: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

TO: Phyllis J. Hamilton- Chief District Judge
Claudia Wilken- District Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rodgers- Judge
U. S. District Court- No. Division
4th Floor Oakland Courthouse
1301 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612
FAX No.: 510-637-3545, 415-522-3605
Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
Claudia_Wilken@cand.uscourts.gov
Yvonne_Rodgers@cand.uscourts.gov

cc: Susan Y. Soong ; bcc
Faxed and Emailed
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: March 13, 2019 
NO PAGES: 3
RE: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Green Key Investments L.L.C., Case: #C19-0303 JSC,

Dear Chief Justice Phyllis Hamilton, Judge Claudia Wilken, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rodgers:

On March 11, 2019, I received a second order from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rodgers 

regrading the filing of another “revised application” as follows:

The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs four-page letter dated February 27, 2019. (Dkt. No 14.) Therein, plaintiff appears to complain that the Court is requesting confirmation of his status with respect to his application to proceed in forma pauperis. While the Court is quite aware of the financial circumstances of many in this District, that does not mean that the Court can ignore its duty to ensure that those asking for financial relief provide an explanation, under penalty of perjury, regarding their financial situation. Judge Corley appropriately described the gaps with respect to the information provided, which this Court reiterated in its subsequent order. (See Dkt. No.6, 13.) It is not clear why plaintiff refuses to respond substantively. Plaintiff may submit the information confidentially if that is the concern.” 

It goes on to state:

All parties are required to comply with Court orders and rules. Accordingly, the Court will EXTEND, one last time, plaintiff’s deadline to Tuesday, April 2, 2019 to submit a revised application, or enough supplemental information to explain the information gaps set forth in Judge Corley’s and this Court’s orders.’ If plaintiff does not use the Court’s application itself but provides further information in a different form, he is reminded to include the following: “I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and understand that a false statement herein may result in the dismissal of my claims.”
Failure to provide the Court with the information requested will result in the denial of plaintiff s application. 

IT Is So ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2019 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

It provides as a footnote the “relevant” paragraph from Judge Corley’s order:

Although Plaintiff has listed himself as self-employed, he appears to have listed his income as 00. Further, although he does not list any other income nor any savings nor debt, he identifies his monthly expenditures as $300.00 for utilities. Plaintiff does not indicate any monthly expenses for rent, food, or clothing. Thus, there appear to be several information gaps on Plaintiffs in forma pauperis application. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall submit a revised application by February 7, 2019. If Plaintiff fails to submit a revised application by this date, his application to proceed in forma pauperis may be denied. 

(Order re: IFP Application at ECF p. 1 (emphasis supplied).) To date, plaintiff has failed to comply with Judge Corley’s order, and the “information gaps” in his in forma pauperis application remain.

Accordingly, the Court EXTENDS plaintiffs deadline to submit a revised application to Tuesday, March 5, 2019. Failure to submit a revised application by this date may result in the denial of his application.

IT Is So ORDERED. 

Dated: February 19, 2019 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE  

The original form was submitted under the penalty of perjury, if that was/is the concern, and to be absolutely clear, so is this second letter addressing the same issues raised in the first order, the “flagging” of certain alleged deficiencies as “information gaps” in plaintiffs pending application to proceed in forma pauperis is without any merit and the responses remain the same.

I reiterate in use of your language “Plaintiff listed his income as 00, does not list any other income nor any savings nor debt, he identifies his monthly expenditures as $300.00 for utilities, and does not indicate any monthly expenses for rent, food, or clothing” because that is true and correct and will not change simply because you do not like the answer fishing for another.

These statements ARE sworn under the penalty of perjury, and are NOT impeached because you threaten to dismiss the matter in search of some fraudulent or perjurious information that you could be considered “forcing” upon plaintiff under that “one last time” threat and the accompanying duress.

There is NO need nor requirement, beside the one fabricated here to induce a “revised application, or enough supplemental information” solely for that purpose.

The only legal question is “does plaintiff meet that criterion that is ruled by the financial requirements for IFP status of 28 U.S.C. § 1915?

The esoteric blather about the Legal Help Center, which I have contacted and they can not and do not assist in these matters, is just that.

Again, how does this means of obtaining a filing fee waiver REALLY impact ones ability to represent themselves which is suppose to be the purpose of the form?

It is very disconcerting that the court has taken the approach to this case that it has at present and clearly was embarked upon an agenda that reeks of implicit bias and prejudice, at the very least, already!

As previously mentioned, I will address the previous assignment of this matter by the alleged Executive Committee to Judge Tigar in a following letter as it is unfathomable, heinous, reprehensible, disgraceful, inexcusable, unconscionable, outrageous, nefarious example of “MALFEASANCE”

Who comprises this alleged Executive Committee?

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,

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and understand that a false  statement herein may result in the dismissal of my claims.

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim

510-394-4501

Immediate Preliminary and Permanent Injunction Unlawful, Illegal Eviction!

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
Brent and Sarah Hanson                        Anthony S. Leung, Christopher Leung
Green Key Investments                           Green Key Investments
508 Dimm Street                                    110 Franklin Street, Suite # 2
Richmond, CA 94805                             Oakland, CA 94607
                                                                  mrchrisleung@gmail.comXavier Becerra
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, 916-319-9421

cc: ; 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:     January 30, 2019
NO PAGES: 3
RE:        Immediate Preliminary and Permanent Injunction preventing underlying Defendants Green Key Investments L.L.C. and CSAA-Wellpoint Unlawful, Illegal Eviction!

cc: ; 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:     November 30, 2018
NO PAGES: 16
RE:        Clay’s Denial Hearing Dates, Reservation Numbers, 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

“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, Hayashi, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Brand, Freedman, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:

I have NOTreceived any correspondence from the courts even though I filed a formal change of Address with the U.S. Postal Service. If you have sent any correspondence since January 12, 2019, it is a good likelihood that I have NOTreceived it and should be sent again to the new address above.

ALL correspondence as well as ALL our forty years of business and personal property, inventory, supplies, etc., is now in the hands of the defendants Green Key Investments L.L.C. and CSAA-Wellpoint as we had two (2) days to move!

This includes ALL personal and business effects, computers and accessories, jewelry, artwork, audio and video recorder equipment and tapes, chandeliers, silver and china ware, valuables, clothing, household goods, bedroom goods, kitchen ware, ALL food goods, supplies, gardening and pool supplies, tools, our non-profit inventory, accessories and supplies, among other things

I filed therein, seeking an immediate preliminary and permanent injunctionpreventing underlying Defendants Green Key Investments L.L.C. and CSAA-Wellpoint from enforcing the sale of my home and my being evicted from same. This aspect of the case demands immediate attention.

Respectfully,

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501

Requesting Results of Supreme Court Investigation of California Appeals Court Action

TO:
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye            Beth Robbins
Supreme Court of California                     Charles Johnson
350 McAllister Street, Room 1295           Deputy Clerk
San Francisco, CA 94102-4797               First District Court of Appeal
Fax: 415-865-4205, 415-865-7181,       350 McAllister Street
415-865-4391, 415-865-4586                San Francisco CA 94102
Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov              Fax: 415-865-7309, 415-865-7209
Beth.Robbins@jud.ca.gov, Charles.Johnson@jud.ca.gov

Faxed and Emailed
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: January 7, 2019 
NO PAGES: 5
RE: Appellant al-Hakim’s Letter Requesting Results from Supreme Court Investigation of the Court of Appeal’s Action in, al-HAKIM VS CSAA- Wellpoint, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #C811337, California Appeals Court Case# 153640, California Supreme Court Case# S-250997.

“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 and Associate Justices of the Court, Beth Robbins, and Charles Johnson: 

On November 7, 2018, Pursuant to Rule 28(g) of the California Rules of Court, WE, the The AARON AND MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION, NOWTRUTH, my family, our businesses, my community, those we serve, and I, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, submitted a letter requesting an investigation of and urging both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal to grant review of the Court of Appeal’s decision in al-HAKIM VS CSAA- Wellpoint (2018) California Appeals Court Case# 153510, and now California Supreme Court Case# S-250997.

We have received NO response from either of you and your response and the admissions of the facts, evidence, testimony, and proof from your findings of what happened in this incident has a drastic effect on this case as it will NOT “go away” merely because you chose to ignore it! We DEMAND ANSWERS TO THIS CONTINUING CRIME!

This is my THIRD letter and the Appeals Court has 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 Anne Reasoner or the appeals court nor any electronic service from TrueFiling as I usually would.

On October 9, 2018, I sent a two page fax and email to 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, they 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 the Appeals Court has 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 have refused to do that, instead you want to ignore it and covered it 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 my Dwelling BEFORE the 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. 

My 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 Six 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, I 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 you 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 their 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

ajalil1234@gmail.com

Judge “Con Don” Clay’s Denial Hearing Dates,Reservation Numbers;State Sponsored TERROR,Oppression,Persecution and Unfairness

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:     November 30, 2018
NO PAGES: 16
RE:        Clay’s Denial Hearing Dates, Reservation Numbers, 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
“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:

On January 29, 2018, 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 and filed another on February 9, 2018, February 22, 2018, March 1, 2018, March 12, 2018, and April 2, 2018.
On August 24, 2018, I sent you all a 125 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint against 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!
On September 24, 2018, I sent you all a 14 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint against Judge C. Don “Con Don” Clay detailing his State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness in his courtroom at a July 11, 2018 hearing using his Sheriffs deputy.
Today, I am attaching herewith a new 140 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint against Judge C. Don Clay detailing his State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness in his courtroom as he TRIPLED DOWN WITH THREE Sheriffs deputy’s and the denial of requested hearing dates and reservation numbers to file any litigation
Con Don’s reign of State sponsored TERROR al-Hakim was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM, has expanded!
Clay is refusing to provide reservation numbers for al-Hakim to file and to hear ANY litigation of ANY type on a Monday or Wednesday. If it is NOT possible to have litigation with the schedule proposed when the court is open EVERYDAY, the time is free and the court is paid to be there, then bigotry, Islamophobia, and Xenophobia are the specious basis for this continued harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption as the uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules regarding Motions clearly have a double standard!
al-Hakim’s Religion and religious obligations on those days are NOT going to change for judge Clay. If it is NOT possible to have litigation with the schedule proposed when the court is open EVERYDAY, the time is free and the court is paid to be there, then bigotry, Islamophobia, and Xenophobia are the specious basis for this continued harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption as the uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules regarding Motions clearly have a double standard!
Clay’s continuing criminal harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption in his uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules summarily denies al-Hakim’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing such a ruling 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 from this Court is necessary to prevent this abuse.
Clay’s mindless denials further expose and demonstrate the courts agenda of 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.

1. Clay, the Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness in 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!!
OCTOBER 3, 2018, CLAY WAS SERVED A 140 COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE (see attached) DETAILING WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN ANY MATTER CONCERNING ME, AND SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED!!

The October 3, 2018, Hearing
Rather than conduct the October 3, 2018 hearing in a manner that is routinely expected in civil society, Clay triples down on the terror and has THREE Sheriffs Deputies in the courtroom and then proclaims that it is “normal” for him to have that many in his courtroom, and further, that one is positioned behind the plaintiff’s seat!
At the October 3, 2018, hearing, al-Hakim entered the courtroom and took a seat to the right side of the room. There was deputy C. Arnold seated at his normal desk. Shortly after another deputy enters the courtroom, walks over to the seated deputy says “I got a call” and asks “is everything alright?” He replies yes in a solemn way. The deputy then retreats to the back of the courtroom and sits adjacent to al-Hakim on the other side.
Shortly after a third deputy enters the courtroom, walks over to the seated deputy and speaks with him then retreats to the back of the courtroom and sits behind al-Hakim.
The defendants were seated at their position at the table, and the plaintiff’s side had a bag with a keyboard, and some devices plugged into the audio system hanging out of/attached to the microphone. It appeared to be a covert recording device made to appear as if someone had left their stuff on the table.
Clay comes out and the parties make their appearance, wherein al-Hakim serves the challenge.
Clay asks “did you see my tentative ruling?” I am going to deny the motion to continue” “when I set a deadline, I mean it”,
After an extensive discussion with Defendant pleading “He has filed numerous challenges, including against you. That’s enough to declare him a vexatious litigant”, “he has sued the DA, Attorney General,City Attorney and filed appeals”
Clay says regarding their deficient moving papers “I don’t care about challenges, they don’t mean anything to me, I’m not scared of them!” He has said that he files complaints, files challenges to document the actions of the court” “you are going to have to work harder”,
“He filed complaints with me when I was presiding court judge” “he’s a litigator in his own way”
“you didn’t read the orders” “you haven’t carried your burden to declare him a vexatious litigant” , “you haven’t proven he’s a vexatious litigant”, “you just haven’t done enough to declare him a vexatious litigant”
Clay asked al-Hakim “do you want to be heard?”, wherein al-Hakim replied “no, I will not waive the prejudice, misconduct and abuse of the court and the defendants in their default and failed answer to the order” “anything I would say would just be under duress given the previous and current conditions in the courtroom with your three security guards”. Clay exclaims “they are not security, they’re sheriffs!”
al-Hakim states “I have been in your courtroom over 20 times and I have never seen a deputy standing right behind the party during a hearing.” and you have THREE deputies in the courtroom right now!”
Clay says “that’s normal, I may even have more!” al-Hakim says “for a civil ex-parte motion at 3:00 p.m.? I don’t believe that! Clay says ” It’s true”
THAT IS A BLATANT, BOLD FACED LIE!!!As a consequence, I would like to have the records from the Superior Court and Sheriffs offices detailing the number of deputies assigned to and in attendance in his courtroom daily for the last 10 years to substantiate his personal testimony of these facts!
al-Hakim hereby moves that the case and hearing, which involves a contested issue of law or fact, and which has been assigned to C. Don Clay, Judge of the above-entitled Court, be reassigned from that Judge, and that no matters hereinafter arising in this cause be heard or assigned to Judge C. Don Clay, on the ground that said judge is irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and  prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action where unless and until these issues can of Judge Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness with Courtroom Security can be fairly resolved BEFORE the next hearing scheduled 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!
Clay has subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, committed fraud on the court, harassment and retaliation, where these actions, including Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness with Courtroom Security, violates his right to due process and civil rights. In light of its history and application, it is a violation of § 51 of the California Civil Code for a business establishment to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation, religious affiliation, or political or religious beliefs, including speech expressing those beliefs.
This action precludes plaintiff from retaining his unbiased rights pending the resolution of his claims as he battles 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 Clay and other judges Fixing Cases against him because he is Muslim  and Black, a Whistleblowerexposing their criminal corruption; 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.
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.

2. Clay FIXING CASES in Furtherance of Corruption Agenda
Judge Clay has been and is “fixing”this case against al-Hakim attempting to protect the defendants as he has scheduled proceedings DEMANDING the hearing be on a date al-Hakim can NOT attend due to religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for over 30 years, while REFUSING to have those proceedings on a date al-Hakim can attend, yet!
There is currently a CMC scheduled on December 12, 2018, and al-Hakim had requested THREE times to have a “Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion to Vacate Orders made by Judge Clay” on the SAME DATE, yet the requests were DENIED by deflecting the requests to his own rule Department 6 Information.
Defendants new counsel substituted in, and filed Motions to Strike and a Demurrer without the required Meet and Confer per Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 and did so without any court delay and scheduled to be heard on Friday, December 7, 2018, a date that the defendants and the court is aware al-Hakim unavailable to attend. Clay REFUSED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO DATE the CMC is scheduled on December 12, 2018, so that all motions could be heard.
Clay’s mindless denials further expose and demonstrate the courts agenda of 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.
al-Hakim Denied Litigation Right in Violation of Civil Right to Due Process, Duplicitous Double Standard
On April 25, 2018 al-Hakim sent an 8 page notice to Judges Clay, Carvill, Markman, Department 6, and Defendants requesting a Reservation for Ex-Parte Motion to Continue Hearings set for May 4, 2018, May 24, 2018, and June 14, 2018 during the Holy Month of Ramadan. al-Hakim requested that Ex-Parte hearing on a Monday or Wednesday PRIOR to May 10, 2018.
The court has failed and refused to respond, and with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda of finding me a vexatious litigant in this matter, where I have NEVER been served ANY motion papers, apparent to all!
al-Hakim requested “If the court will not honor this request, I would like an Ex-Parte hearing for a continuance for any Monday or Wednesday PRIOR to May 10, 2018.”
After THREE requests, Clay agreed to hear the Ex-Parte matter on Wednesday, May 2, 2018.
At that May 2, 2018, hearing Clay asked al-Hakim about his religious obligations wherein al-Hakim responded that they are “every Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays due to religious commitments, and this is a permanent obligation, as the obligation does not vary.
On August 13, 2018, al-Hakim sent notice to Judges Clay, Carvill, Markman, Department 6, and Defendants requesting a Reservation for Ex-Parte Motion for Return of Property, Server AMWFTRUST.ORG, al-HAKIM v. Interserver Equinix, Case: #RG18888371. FOUR request were ignored by Clay directing al-Hakim to Clay’s ExParte rule in the Department 6 Information which states:
ExParte Schedule:
Applications are considered only on moving papers and any written response. Email Dept. 6 to advise when papers will be filed and give notice to other side and advise same that written opposition must be filed in 24 hours.
Plaintiff reminded the court that he had previously had an ex-parte motion heard on Wednesday, May 2, 2018. Clay again ignored the request an al-Hakim had to file his ex-parte motion, submit it for Clay’s review for a month, and it was denied WITHOUT REASON NOR EXPLANATION
Yet, the defendants were able to have an instant ex-parte hearing October 3, 2018 on their failure to comply with the courts ordered vexatious litigant motion without any requirements.
On October 24, 2018, al-Hakim sent a 3 page notice to Judges Clay, Carvill, Markman, Department 6, and Defendants requesting a “Reservation Number to File Noticed Motion to Vacate Orders made by Judge Clay, Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness in Courtroom, al-HAKIM v. Interserver Equinix, Case: #RG18888371” to file a noticed motion to vacate the orders made by Judge Clay and would like the hearing to be held on December 3, or 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. to accommodate the court.
al-Hakim received an email from Kristi Hereth, Department 6 Courtroom Clerk stating “Motions are heard on the 1st and 3rd Friday of the Month. Previously the Court agreed to accommodate your request to have the matter heard mid-week due to your religious obligations that month. Please provide a few good dates on a 1st or 3rd Friday and I will notify you of the reservation number.”
al-Hakim responded “As the court is aware I am unavailable on Fridays which is why I proposed the Monday or Wednesday dates. I have now scheduled a matter for December 3, 2018 at 3:00 p.m, so that would leave December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter.
    As previously discussed, this is a permanent obligation,it was NEVER a one month accommodation made by the court and that fact has been established several times before and since, as the obligation does not vary, which is why we have had ALL our proceedings, hearings, ex-parte and otherwise on one of those days, usually a Wednesday at 3:00 p.m. to accommodate the court. So can you please just issue a reservation number and date on a Monday or Wednesday?
    I would appreciate it if we could move beyond the constant fabricated “conflict” and harassment with the dates each time I make a request and have to reaffirm the same issue with dates.”
On October 29, 2018, al-Hakim received an email from Kristi Hereth, Dept.6 Clerk stating “Please see Dept. 6’s rules regarding Motions.”
Department 6 Information which states:
L&M Schedule:
SJ are heard at 9 AM on 2nd Fri. & other mtns at 10 AM on 1st/3rd Fri. Email Dept. 6 for reservations. Include case name & no., title of motion and identity of moving party. Courtesy copies of all L&M pleadings are to be submitted directly to Dept 6.
al-Hakim responded “I am aware of the uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules regarding Motions, just as the court is aware I am unavailable on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays which is why I proposed the Monday or Wednesday dates.
Additionally, Defendants new counsel have filed Motions to Strike and a Demurrer scheduled to be heard on Friday, December 7, 2018, that the court is aware I am unavailable to attend and I request December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter to hear ALL the motions.
I am requesting to scheduled the motion on December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or December 10, 2018, December 12, 2018 or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter.
Is the court refusing to provide a reservation number to hear the motion on ANY of those date or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter?
My Religion and religious obligations on those days are NOT going to change for judge Clay.If it is NOT possible to have litigation with the schedule proposed when the court is open EVERYDAY, the time is free and the court is paid to be there, then bigotry, Islamophobia, and Xenophobia are the specious basis for this continued harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption as the uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules regarding Motions clearly have a double standard!
Again, I am requesting to schedule ALL the motions on December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or December 10, 2018, December 12, 2018 or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter.
I remain very, very concerned about Clay’s heightening TERROR TACTICS in the courtroom and unless and until this issue can be fairly resolved BEFORE the next hearing scheduled 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 that 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!”
THREE request were ignored by Clay directing al-Hakim to Clay’s Law and Motion rule and Plaintiff has NEVER had any response from Clay regarding his “Request for a Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion to Vacate Orders made by Judge Clay”!
On October 28, 2018, Defendants new counsel substituted in, and filed Motions to Strike and a Demurrer without the required Meet and Conferper Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 and did so without any court delay and scheduled to be heard on Friday, December 7, 2018, a date that the defendants and the court is aware I am unavailable to attend.
If defendants had met and conferred they would have been advised of the fact they are aware that plaintiff is unavailable to attend any proceedings on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays due to religious commitments, and as previously discussed, this is a permanent obligation, as the obligation does not vary, which is why we have had ALL our proceedings, hearings, ex-parte and otherwise on one of those days, usually a Wednesday at 3:00 p.m. to accommodate the court.
al-Hakim filed FOUR “Request for a Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion to Vacate Orders made by Judge Clay” and request December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter to hear ALL the motions. The court ignored al-Hakim’s request again.
There should have been NO further delay on the part of the court or the judges mentioned herein to prevent al-Hakim from being made whole since the defendants haven stolen their server server and absconded with 10 years of corporate data of the business we serve including Intellectual Property, Proprietary Data, and Trade Secrets.
Plaintiff had made over TEN requests for defendants to transfer/migrate our entire server AMWFTRUST.ORG, including ALL intellectual property, ALL proprietary property, Trade Secrets, ALL financial property and data, ALL email, email list, media, data, and websites for ALL our clients to another host and need full access to it for that purpose. The costs associated with building the sites is over $150,000, some media can NOT be reproduced, the data CAN NOT be reproduced and the costs are impossible to calculate at this time, and increasing every moment!
Clay is engaging in censorship, concealment, suppression of evidence, obstruction of justice, among other charges, in their agenda to silence our efforts in exposing their corruption and cover up!
al-Hakim has notified Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, U. S. DOJ Chief Alex Tse, AG Xavier Becerra, District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, Victoria Henley, Chad Finke, Martin Hoshino and OTHERS, while also filing and serving THREE formal notices on Judges Carvill, and Clay, Chad Finke and the Superior Court Administration via personal service, fax and email each; and the defendants that I will attend to my religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for over 30 years! I have requested that the court continue those dates while I am available on any Monday or Wednesday. The court has failed and refused to respond, and with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda apparent to all!
Clay’s agenda is effectively “banning” al-Hakim from pursuing ANY litigation he is rightfully entitled to that the corrupt judges do not want exposed!
This Issue Presents An Actual Controversy
al-Hakim argues that the issues raised in this motion presents an actual controversy. The court ordered that this matter be investigated and both Judges Rolefson and Freedman has refused, and engaged now the courts attempt to cover up their transgressions when they are exposed for being guilty of willful corrupt misconduct, they refused to acknowledged plaintiff’s memorandum filled with the courts abuses by Petrou and ALL those referenced herein with that of Meyers Nave and Ropers in both the CSAA and Rescue cases and by Judges Jacobson and Rolefson and previously Freedman. 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. This is a clear denial of al-Hakim Family’s rights under the United States and California State Constitution.
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. The court has 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 Judge Petrou is violating this tenant of fairness and further SHE CAN NOT SERVE IN THIS MATTER.
Judge Clays presence in this case, summarily denies plaintiff’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing such a ruling 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 from this Court is necessary to prevent this abuse.
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).
It has come to the attention of Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim that Judge Clay in adopting and invoking his present modus operandi and agenda has deep conflicts of interest regarding the herein cited matters, requiring his recusal or disqualification, on grounds of conflict of interest, bias, prejudice, a minimum appearance of impropriety and other grounds, 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.

3. al-Hakim 56 Complaints listed in OCTOBER 3, 2018, 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE Document Communications with Clay Detail Corruption and Cover UP!
al-Hakim has pointed out to Clay that he has been addressing the misgivings of Clay, the court, and others for over 40 years, before the time that Clay has been serving as a judge and there have been many, many complaints, 56 complaints listed in the 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE (see attached), that al-Hakim has made to and about him and the July, 2005, al-Hakim filed Federal Corruption Complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him during the trial al-Hakim v. CSAA and Rescue, et. al”  in Superior Court of Alameda County, California.
al-Hakim has had many contacts, conversations, exchanged voice mail messages, faxes, emails, filed and served documents with and on Clay and his clerk Elaine Kabling on April 18, 2012; April 19, 2012; May 1, 2012, May 15, 2012; August 22, 2012; September 4, 2012, regarding a personal meeting on the open fraud investigation involving the Oakland City Attorney, various Judges, the District Attorney’s Office, their producing documents, resolving the many outstanding issues, that al-Hakim had previously spoke with Rich Cowan, met with Dan Lindhiem, the City Administrator regarding some of these issues.
That includes a matter where Clay was involved where al-Hakim was returned $280 by the clerk for a transcript that he paid $320, but lost the appeal because the court did not have the transcript! *(This was a case where the DA admitted that hey had misappropriated funds paid to them in trust for al-Hakim’s daughter that were diverted to someone else and other monies unaccounted for. The case was turned over to the State Attorney General due to conflict of interest with the DA and in the interest of justice.)
At the July hearing, al-Hakim stated that he is NOT a “deal maker” and will ALWAYS defend himself and fight for his rights that so many others of his race, and religion have died in this 400 year struggle and still die for on a daily basis. al-Hakim stated that defendants have defaulted in answering the summons, complaint, subpoena and request for production, they say they have no relationship with al-Hakim but they do not disclose their relationship with their co-defendants, they do not have a defense and it’s too late to mount one on the heels of a vexatious litigant motion that is untimely, after the fact.
al-Hakim, knowing Clay’s background and reputation as a lawyer who was NOT a litigator nor a formidable defender of truth, justice or civil rights, but instead as a “colored boy who could play the game in Black-Face for the “MAN”, the White Man’s system”, a “Coon”, a “deal maker” and “bag man” for judges; his work with “settling/buying off” cases for guilty drug dealers, hustlers and enterprising criminals with the street handle of “Con Don”; and his brief, failed attempt at being an entertainment and sports agent while at the same time al-Hakim was established as the FIRST SUPER AGENT representing many of the worlds greatest athletes and entertainers, and the founder of sports and entertainment marketing industry. Clay’s former law partner Clinton White, a former judge that was brought onto the bench under the auspices of judge Stan Golde, was a friend of al-Hakim’s and a big interest in Oakland baseball. al-Hakim was an friend of judge Golde and his sons Matt and Ivan as well as judge White and his son Bennie. Judge Golde was Clay’s entrée into the bench as with judge White. William G. “Billy” Hunter, a personal friend, confidant, partner and co-worker of Clay’s, tried to force al-Hakim to take him under his wing and teach him the art of sports and entertainment representation at the request of then mayor Lionel Wilson- a friend of al-Hakim’s, and when al-Hakim refused, at Hunters insistence, al-Hakim was investigated by the IRS that lead to al-Hakim’s victory over them and a tax code being named after him, wherein al-Hakim made Law Review and his contracts classes being taught in most leading major Graduate Business and Law Schools in the nation. al-Hakim later had to “bailout” Hunter in a contract that he had negotiated with M. C. Hammer for Patrick Bates with the Oakland Raiders that was a disaster! al-Hakim not only represented Hammer, but established his sports and entertainment production, management and boxing promotion firms. Had this blunder by Hunter been known to the public and NBA Players Association, Hunter would NOT have gotten that job and that fact is still a major consideration in his law suit against the NBA Players Association in Hunter’s firing. Oddly enough when Hunter sued the NBAPA, he chose to file that suit in Alameda County and guess who the judge was that was assigned the case?, Yeah, CLAY!! But we are NOT supposed to think that there was no collusion, conspiracy or ex-parte communications! Well, here is an email exchange between Clay and Hunter. In an exhibit filed with the motion, Andrew Kassof presented a record of emails exchanged between Hunter and C. Don Clay, the presiding judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, where Hunter filed his lawsuit. The emails in April 2012 indicated a friendly, sympathetic relationship between Hunter and the judge.
In one email, Clay wrote to Hunter, in an apparent reference to Fisher: “This guy and his advisors still think that they can out think you! They will never give up! You know always to be on the alert! Keep up the fight! We will continue to pray for you!”
Hunter responded:“C Don thanks so much for the support. I now know how Obama feels, since he has to contend with this bs on a daily basis. I have urged the [board] to conduct an extensive audit to shutdown Derek Fisher. Keep me in your prayers.”
Further, al-Hakim represented Dean Hodges and 75 Girls Records, Jive Records, Zomba Music, Dangerous Music, Oaktown Records, the record company, producers and publishing companies that owned the rights to an artist that Clay represented, Too $hort. al-Hakim was a driving force in the Oscar Grant activities including formulating and enacting the Anniversary Memorial that brought BART to the event as a sponsor and to the speakers podium in unison and harmony that is universally credited with being the movement that established peace in the streets and lead to the settlement of the two claims of the family. Clay was a judge in that case.
The 56 complaints listed in the 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE is only a small sample, but since 1980, and more recently 2000, as a matter of documentation, al-Hakim has filed and served a variety of letters, formal complaints, legal actions and legal challenges with the United States Attorney General’s Office- Department of Justice; Federal and California State Judges their ruling bodies and Associations; the Alameda County Superior Court of California, United States Attorney’s Office- Northern District; United States District Court- Northern Division, Attorney General of California, Alameda County District Attorney; City of Oakland and Oakland City Attorney; Federal, State and local law enforcement; Federal, State and local politicians; regarding the many blatant civil rights violations, fraud, criminal activities and corruption of these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities that was widely distributed over the internet and posted on many websites.
In July, 2005, al-Hakim filed a Federal Corruption Complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him during the trial al-Hakim v. CSAA and Rescue, et. al”  in Superior Court of Alameda County, California.
al-Hakim’s initial investigation of his USDOJ demanded a change in this criminal, tactical policy of isolation, victimization, criminalization and the attempted entrapment of al-Hakim as the continuing victim, including the use of government initiated, Nixon era “White House Plumbers” and CoIntelpro style dirty tricks!
This State sponsored persecutory terror and civil conspiracy has brought into play Federal, Sate County and local judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies to further their continued investigation of al-Hakim whom has been surveilled for years and continues today with the compromising of many agents and informants covers due to their sloppiness. These actions of these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies are just one example of the continuing efforts of law enforcement to silence and eliminate al-Hakim, even by death, as their “enemy of the State” adversary when al-Hakim has caught and exposed them as they have been entrapped in their own criminal snares!
The complaint, drafted and filed by al-Hakim in pro per, has broad based support from Democrats and Republicans, was submitted by Congresswoman Barbara Lee with the offices of Congressmen John Conyers, and Charles Rangel, reviewed by several legal experts, with advocacy by former Republican Senator J. C. Watts, a client of al-Hakim’s, is moving forward with the investigation and charges of criminal extrinsic fraud upon the court of the State of California, fabricating and planting fabricated evidence, spoliation of evidence against defendants/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Ron Cook and the law firm of Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; defense counsel Steve Barber and the law firm of Ropers Majeski; and many others.
The complaint addresses the concern that a Superior Court Judges’ conduct rose to the level of consideration for a Federal Crime and a Civil Rights violation because the bench upon which the judge rules is “under the color of law” and certainly the violation of anyone’s civil rights is a federal crime. “Muslims, just as any other group, can not be afraid to speak up when their rights have been abridged. If one does not speak up, then the transgressions goes unreported and the perpetrator goes on to harm again unchecked, it does not matter whom the transgressor is”said al-Hakim. The complaint, perhaps even more importantly, not only requested Merrily Friedlander, Chief of the Civil Rights Division, to make an investigation of a judicial hate crime, but also the many other civil rights and due process violations of judicial misconduct, and attorney extrinsic fraud upon the court and law that are themselves directly the matters complained. J. C. Watts in asking “What does a supposed terrorist act in Russia have to do with the negligent contamination of a home in America?”posed the argument that there must be consideration of and a response to the many issues in the complaint.
The investigation concerns trial Judge David C. Lee’s allowance of the illegal product of the spoliated evidence and unclean hands by defendant/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Cook and Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; and the Oakland City Attorney’s Office run by John Russo to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony, and fostered it’s use to prejudice the jury. During the trial, testimony revealed that there were numerous documents and photos of a very damning nature to the defense and AAA as the hostile intervener, that were missing, altered, or incomplete.
The complaint against then Oakland City Attorney John Russo and the City Attorney’s staff including Mark Morodomi, Randy Hall, Janie Wong, Anita Hong, Sophia Li, Demetruis Shelton, Elizabeth Allen, Erica Harrold and Michele Abbey; former Oakland and current San Leandro City Attorney Jane Williams and former employee Pat Smith; was for their fraudulently fabricating evidence in 1999 and planting that evidence favorable to the defendants in the case files SIX years AFTER the case was closed, engaged in spoliation of remaining evidence in the court files from 1991, fostering Rescue trial Judge David C. Lee’s allowance of the illegal product of fabricated and planted evidence, spoiliated evidence and unclean hands by defendant/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Ron Cook and Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; defense counsel Steve Barber and the law firm of Ropers Majeski; the other underlying defendants; and the Oakland City Attorney’s Office; to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony based on this planted evidence in the al-Hakim v CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case that was created thru EXTRINSIC FRAUD with accompanying testimony procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious acts and fostered it’s use to prejudice the jury. During the Rescue trial, testimony revealed that there were numerous documents and photos of a very damning nature to the defense and AAA as the hostile intervener, that were missing, altered, or incomplete, and providing the case file to defendants Stephan Barber and Ron Cook for nearly a year, Russo and your office failed to notify the court of this unpardonable illegal breach in the chain of custody of the file, and engaged in actions to destroy the litigation of my legal case; Russo and your office engaged in actions to coverup your unlawful acts; as you committed, aided and abetted this criminal activity.
After review in the U. S. Attorney General Office, the case was thought of as being so egregious that even the infamous Bradley Schlozman, whom is now fired and facing Federal indictment with resigned former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez for removing Democratic attorneys from the U. S. Attorneys Generals offices nationwide, sent al-Hakim a letter referring the matter (because of jurisdictional limitations) to then California State Attorney General- now Governor Jerry Brown, California State Bar Association, the California State Judicial Council, and California State Insurance Commissioner for investigation and prosecution. And these were Republican Judges and attorney’s being complained of!
Full Story with Videos and Documents at http://tinyurl.com/ljk8av
The Alameda County District Attorney (DA), the Attorney General of The State of California (AG) and the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) and their judicial team of covert illicit participants the putative accounting expert that created and complied the entire presumptively inadmissible product and evidence of admitted fraud and bribery, the accounting report used as the sole basis for the judgment by Commissioner Glenn Oleon despite the fact he knew it was the product of fraud.
al-Hakim and Family assert that good cause exists to question the legality of the standing of ALL the Parties including the Attorney General of The State of California (AG), Kamala Harris, whom substituted in as Attorney of Record allegedly representing The People of The State of California, et. al., In The Interest of Justice in this case for the Alameda County District Attorney (DA) and the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) as they exercised a clearly illegal conflict of interest in misrepresenting the family, conducting a complete trial to defend their illegal actions and evidence before admitting the conflict AFTER the trial was completed. This act makes them ALL a co-conspirator in the DCSSs continuing fraud upon The People of The Sate of California, the Superior Court and the al-Hakim Family, continuing their persecution of our family. They did not have standing then and CAN NOT NOW!
Then California Attorney General and now Governor Jerry Brown, responsible for carrying out the investigation of Oakland City Attorney John Russo, former Oakland and current San Leandro City Attorney Jayne Williams, former District Attorney Tom Orloff, current District Attorney Nancy E. O’Malley, Alameda County Superior Court, the State Appeals and Supreme Court judges, and various corporate defendants in this case is himself defending some of the criminals and covering up the very same corruption he is supposed to be investigating and prosecuting! Once served with the complaint, he denied rejecting it for investigation and NEVER moved forward with it.
In addition to the 56 listed complaints served on Clay over the years, al-Hakim has had many contacts, conversations, exchanged voice mail messages, faxes, emails, filed and served documents with and on Clay and his clerk Elaine Kabling on April 18, 2012; April 19, 2012; May 1, 2012, May 15, 2012; August 22, 2012; September 4, 2012, regarding a personal meeting on the open fraud investigation involving the Oakland City Attorney, various Judges, the District Attorney’s Office, their producing documents, resolving the many outstanding issues, that al-Hakim had previously spoke with Rich Cowan, met with Dan Lindhiem, the City Administrator regarding some of these issues.
Clay’s current directive from Carvill is to preemptively obliterate, destroy ANY and ALL remaining legal options for al-Hakim to pursue his rightful truth and justice that will expose ALL his and Carvill’s many years of criminal corruption and cover up of those denials of his inherent civil rights, human rights, and basic decency afforded to anyone, everyone, in his effort to please the MAN!
Now Clay is representing Carvill’s and his own interests in this matter BEFORE HIMSELFas judge makes Clay a litigant.
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 and has been deceitful about and is personally involved in with Carvill, in an action that was brought by the defendants BEFORE HIM to establish HIS right to sit and rule in the same matter that HE and Carvill are personally involved in and HE sits in judgment of HIMSELF and Carvill BEFORE HIMSELF! 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!

4. Defendants has Conspired, Consorted, Colluded and Conceived Litigation Strategy with Judicial, Law Enforcement, Governmental and Legal Entities.
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.
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through counsel Anna Hsia has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived their vexatious litigation strategy with third parties, Twitter and their law firm Perkins Coie LLP with counsel Winnie Hung; Google and their law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. with counsel Kelly M. Knoll; JP Morgan Chase Bank and their law firm Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, with counsel William E. Ireland, Brett G. Moore; Alameda County Superior Court Administration and Chad Finke; Alameda County District Attorney and Nancy O’Malley; Office of the Oakland City Attorney and Barbara J. Parker; Department of Child Support Services and director Matthew A. Brega; Judicial Council of California with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Victoria B. Henley, Martin Hoshino, Marshall Grossman.
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with other parties that in open court announced themselves as “court observers” when questioned “who are you and why are you here (in court)?”. The two that were there at that time refused to give their names or whom they worked for.
There were/are at least these three, two whom announced themselves as “court observers” that attended at least four hearings and openly consorted with the conspirators before and in court and at all times refused to give their names or whom they worked for.
There were/are at least these three other third party governmental authority “court observers” that has attended hearings in other al-Hakim matters that consorted with the opposing party conspirators.
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with third party governmental authorities.
On at least two occasions Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia, with their third party co-conspirators began to affect this vexatious litigation strategy by asking the court to order that plaintiff reveal his litigation strategy.
On at least two occasions Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia, with their third party co-conspirators began to affect this vexatious litigation strategy by asking plaintiff to reveal his litigation strategy and openly opined that this was a “corruption investigation”.
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia 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 Hsia attempts to exercise “White Class Privilege” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsai has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities.
Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsai ADMITTED in open court at the October 3, 2018, hearing that she has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, and they were willing to file declarations and documents in support of the motion, accepted as including but not limited to Twitter and their law firm Perkins Coie LLP with counsel Winnie Hung; Google and their law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. with counsel Kelly M. Knoll; JP Morgan Chase Bank and their law firm Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, with counsel William E. Ireland, Brett G. Moore; Alameda County Superior Court Administration and Chad Finke (Judicial Council of California with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Victoria B. Henley, Martin Hoshino, Marshall Grossman); Alameda County District Attorney and Nancy O’Malley; Office of the Oakland City Attorney and Barbara J. Parker; and defendant Wellpoint-CSAA.
I remain very, very concerned about Clay’s heightening TERROR TACTICS in the courtroom and unless and until this issue can be fairly resolved BEFORE the next hearing scheduled 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 that 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

  • 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