Please Support AMWFT Efforts with Your Secure Paypal Sponsorship Donation

Sponsorship of a Benefit!

Clients & Friends: MJ and Hammer

Hammer- GOD sent me an Angel

"hammer-grammysGOD sent me an ANGEL" - Hammer speaking about Abdul-Jalil

Man Who Turn$ HIt$ Into Million$

Ed Snowden PRISM Whistleblower Part 1

Ed Snowden PRISM Whistleblower Part 1

Shop AMAZON and Help US Help OTHERS

BORP Sponsor Poster

Jalil & AMWFT Sponsor Wheelchair Basketball Tournament

Ed Snowden PRISM Whistleblower Part 2

Ed Snowden PRISM Whistleblower Part 2

Distribution of Wealth in America

Distribution of Wealth in America

KGO Radio Conversation On "OUT. The Glenn Burke Story"

KGO Radio Conversation On "OUT. The Glenn Burke Story"

Oink’Malley & Carson Coontoon

Occupiers Redeem Kings Dream While Keith Carson and His Poverty Pimps are Killers of Kings Dream- Sell It Out

Jalil on ESPN/KNBR Sports Radio

Jalil on ESPN/KNBR Sports Radio

Oakland City Attorney John Russo's Political Suicide

Jalil Enshrined in “Who’s Who”

“Reppin Superstar Pro Athletes & Entertainers”

Superstar Managements Lecture Series "Reppin Superstar Pro Athletes & Entertainers"

Purchase SUPERSTAR MANAGEMENT Lecture Series

Lecture Series Purchase Prices

Adeel Malik Testimonial on Jalil

“"In some religions they honor people who serve like you with SAINTHOOD!”"

Adeel

-Economics Professor Adeel Malik, Oxford University, England-

Speaking about Abdul-Jalil and the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation

 

Oscar Grant's "Fruitvale Station"

Oscar Grant's "Fruitvale Station"

Portrait of Abdul-Jalil by Artist Buford Delaney in Paris, France

Portrait of Abdul-Jalil by Artist Buford Delaney in Paris, France

Santa Fe Elementary School's Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation

Santa Fe Elementary School's Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation

1995 Pizza Hut Commercial with Deion Sanders and Jerry Jones

1995 Pizza Hut Commercial with Deion Sanders and Jerry Jones

Black Sports Leaders Summitt on Civil Rights

Black Sports Leaders Summitt on Civil Rights

Drug Agents Use Vast Phone Trove of AT&T and DEA Surveillance Records

Drug Agents Use Vast Phone Trove of AT&T and DEA Surveillance Records

Previous Posts

Nowtruth Pages

Nowtruth Documents Box

Judge Kim Colwell Departments 511, 507 Continued Fraud Complaint

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
7633 Sunkist Drive
Oakland, CA  94605

TO:

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

Chad Finke                                        Judge Lesley Holland
Executive Officer                             Superior Court of San Joaquin County
Superior Court of California         Departments 31and 12
County of Alameda                         Stockton Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street Room 209      222 E. Weber Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612                        Stockton, California 95202
Fax: 510-891-6276                         Fax: (209) 992-5667
cfinke@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

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

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

Xavier Becerra                                        Matthew A. Brega
Attorney General of California           Director- D C. S. S.
1300 I Street, Suite 125                        Alameda County District Attorney
P.O. Box 944255                                   5669 Gibraltar Drive
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550             Pleasanton, CA 94588-8547
FAX No.: (916) 324-8835                   Fax No.: 925 468-9008
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov                Matthew.Brega@acgov.org
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov            Sue.Eadie@acgov.org
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov                 Ann.Deim@acgov.org

Barbara J. Parker                                   Mayor Libby Schaff
City Attorney                                          City of Oakland
City of Oakland                                      One City Hall Plaza, 3rd Floor
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor         Oakland, CA 94612
Oakland CA 94612                               FAX #: 510 238-4731
FAX #: 510 238-6500                          LSchaff@oaklandnet.com
info@oaklandcityattorney.org            officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com
BJParker@oaklandcityattorney.org        mayor@oaklandnet.com
sli@oaklandcityattorney.org, aflores@oaklandcityattorney.org
DWalther@oaklandcityattorney.org, oaklandcityattorney@gmail.com

Sabrina Landreth                                Nancy O’Malley
Oakland City Administrator             District Attorney
City of Oakland                                   René C. Davidson Courthouse
One City Hall Plaza, 3rd Floor         1225 Fallon Street, Room 900
Oakland, CA 94612                            Oakland, CA 94612
FAX #: 510 238-2223                        FAX #: 510 271-5157
ATodd@oaklandnet.com                 Nancy.OMalley@acgov.org
shom@oaklandnet.com                    Kevin.Dunleavy@acgov.org
slandreth@oaklandnet.com            Michael.OConnor@acgov.org
cityadministrator@oaklandnet.com        David.Stein@acgov.org

Brenda Roberts                                      Whitney Barazoto
City Auditor                                            Executive Director
City of Oakland                                      Public Ethics Commission
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 4th Floor         1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 4th Floor
Oakland CA 94612                                Oakland, CA 94612
FAX #: 510 238-7640                           Fax (510) 238-3315
BRoberts@oaklandnet.com                wbarazoto@oaklandnet.com                 cityauditor@oaklandnet.com                     ethicscommission@oaklandnet.com         slawrence@oaklandnet.com                       MDalju@oaklandnet.com

Jayne W. Williams
Principal
Meyers Nave
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland CA 94607
FAX #: 510 444-1108
jwilliams@meyersnave.com
bcc
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     February 9, 2018
NO PAGES: 14
RE:        Judge Kim Colwell and her Departments 511 and 507 Continued fraud, al-Hakim v. CSAA and in Miller v al-Hakim, Case: #OCV0574030

“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”

In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

This fact is live and well in this complaint as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, 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:

Last week I sent you ALL a 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint and it is already outdated and Judge Colwell TOTALLY BURNED Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye! I will file a Formal Complaint next week!

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.

Well this week I had to file a Writ of Mandate against Judge Colwell when she was served a Peremptory and Challenge for Cause while on the bench, she acknowledged the Challenges, I insisted that she could not hear anything regarding the case as she was challenged and had to answer first, she ignored that discussion of whether she could even hear any matters and proceeded into the case and decided three crucial natters, an OSC, Motion to Quash and sanctions.

She later answered the Peremptory and Challenge for Cause, but chose to eliminate ANY reference to the Peremptory Challenge as if it did not exist!

On January 31, 2018 I sent a faxed and emailed letter to Judge Colwell and defendants counsel in the al-hakim v CSAA case Mr. Bradley stating “ I was informed by the court clerk in Oakland today that there is an order on the Challenge of Colwell, Order to Show Cause and the Motion to Quash Subpoena that was heard on January 22, 2018 in Department 511. I would like to receive a copy of those orders ASAP.”

Colwell allegedly issued order striking the challenge on January 25, 2018 and granting defendants motions for OSC, Quash Subpoena and sanctions on January 26, 2018 yet plaintiff al-Hakim had not received them by January 31, 2018, with the 10 Day limit to file a Writ flying off the calendar! Colwell was in clear violation of the law as it is prejudicial misconduct for a judge, after a valid peremptory challenge and challenge for cause has been made, to continue to decide any contested issue. Wenger v Commission on Judicial Performance (1981) 29 C3d 615, 643, 175 CR 420. This was a gross abuse of discretion!

Courts have held that once a timely challenge is made, the judge loses jurisdiction to proceed and any subsequent orders made in the case are null and void. See, e.g., Solberg v Superior Court (1977) 19 C3d 182, 190, 137 CR 460 (dicta); Ziesmer v Superior Court (2003) 107 CA4th 360, 363– 364, 132 CR2d 130; Zilog, Inc. v Superior Court (2001) 86 CA4th 1309, 1323, 104 CR2d 173; Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v Philo Lumber Co. (1985) 163 CA3d 1212, 1219, 210 CR 368. In Louisiana-Pacific, the court held that because the challenge takes effect instantaneously and irrevocably, later events, such as a dismissal, do not cause a rescission of the challenge even if it operates to the disadvantage of coparties who have remained in the case after the party making the challenge has been dismissed. 163 CA3d at 1219, 1221. See also People v Whitfield (1986) 183 CA3d 299, 303, 228 CR 82 (after disqualification following peremptory challenge, judge immediately loses jurisdiction, and all subsequent orders and judgments are void).

The judge who is subject to a peremptory challenge under CCP §170.6 loses jurisdiction in the case. Thus, a subsequent judgment by that judge is void when the case was tried before another judge and declared a mistrial and then transferred to and tried before the original judge. In re Jenkins (1999) 70 CA4th 1162, 1165–1167, 83 CR2d 232. A judge should accept a challenge with equanimity. Improper reactions to peremptory challenges have been the subject of judicial discipline, as in Wenger v Commission on Judicial Performance (1981) 29 C3d 615, 643, 175 CR 420 where continuing to decide contested issues in a case in which a peremptory challenge had been filed was prejudicial misconduct.

Colwell has willfully and repeatedly abused her discretion and she should never be allowed to pass upon her own disqualification for abusing that discretion. (1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Courts, § 89, p. 362; 1983 supp., § 89, pp. 282-283.)

I ask that the court should forward a copy of it’s opinion to the Commission on Judicial Performance, the body best suited to determine whether Judge Colwell’s actions constitute actionable judicial misconduct. (Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 8, 18; see Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3D(1).).

I raised the issue of the judge’s disqualification in a timely manner BEFORE the judge had completed judicial action in the proceeding and before the judgment was final. Further, his uncontradicted allegations established disqualification under section 170.1, subdivision (a)(2). Because the judgment was rendered by a disqualified judge, the judgment is voidable upon plaintiff’s objection. ( In re Christian J., supra, 155 Cal. App. 3d at p. 280.) 

The acts of a judge subject to disqualification are void or, according to some authorities, voidable. Giometti v Etienne (1934) 219 C 687, 688– 689 (void); Urias v Harris Farms, Inc. (1991) 234 CA3d 415, 424, 285 CR 659 (voidable); Betz v Pankow (1993) 16 CA4th 931, 939–940, 20 CR2d 841 (voidable); Rossco Holdings Inc. v Bank of America (2007) 149 CA4th 1353, 58 CR3d 141 (void); Christie v City of El Centro (2006) 135 CA4th 767, 37 CR3d 718 (void); see also §2.75 for discussion of effect of rulings by judge who was subject of a peremptory challenge.

In this move, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judge Colwell PLAYS YOU LIKE A DRUM!!!

On Monday, January 22, 2018 the hearing scheduled on the Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Renewed Judgment and for Terminating Sanctions and other relief, and Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., in MILLER VS HAKIM, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #OCV0574030 was continued by the Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, to February 8, 2018, in Dept. 511 at 9:00 a.m.

the Chief Justice. She wrote:

“THE HONORABLE JOHN B. ELLIS, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, is hereby assigned to sit as a Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, on the following date(s):
January 8, 2018 To February 8, 2018. and until completion and disposition of any specific open motion or other matter pending in a case before the judge at the time the assignment ends. Any further motions or other matters in the case may be heard only pursuant to a separate appointment order.
Dated: January 8, 2018”

This essentially amounts to a Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County which al-Hakim OPPOSES because it does NOT hold the corruptors and abusers accountable for their continued actions! This is merely a inconvenient way out for them!
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!

However, on January 23, 2018 Judge Colwell issued an Order calendaring the Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment, Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions (See Colwell’s Order under Ex “B”,

page 2) as follows:

“ORDER (1) PLACING MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT BACK ON CALENDAR AND (2) STATING COURT’S UNDERSTANDING OF EFFECT OF ORDER OF 1/11/18.
On 1/31/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion for terminating sanctions. This was set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18. 

On 10/11/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion to compel discovery. These were set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 12/13/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a challenge to Judge Krashna. On 1/8/18, the Chief Justice assigned the challenge to Judge Ellis in Solano County. On 1/18/18, Judge Ellis issued his decision.

ORDER
The court ORDERS that the motion of al-Hakim to vacate and set aside the judgment under CCP 473 is PLACED ON CALENDAR for 2/8/18. It appears that the court somehow dropped the matter and never decided the motion. The court may correct its ministerial errors. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 181, 185; Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1199,1204.)
The court ORDERS that its understanding of the 1/8/18 order of the Chief Justice is that the order assigned the challenge of Judge Krashna to Judge Ellis in Solano County but did not assign all pending motions to Judge Ellis. There was no request to assign all motions to an out of county judge. Judges in the Superior Court, Alameda County, will continue hearing the motions in this case.

The order was dated January 23, 2018 and the proof of service was filed and mailed on January 29, 2018.

Additionally, there were orders issued January 24, 2018 by Colwell both the same day and proof of service was the same day January 29, 2018 calendaring the Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions.” This effort on behalf of Colwell is another “power grab” in an effort to conceal and further cover up that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.

Even though she had NO authority to administer, rule, or decide the case until AFTER February 8, 2018, on February 6, 2018 she issued a tentative ruling in the case, I opposed that tentative ruling the same day, she held my ex-parte hearing February 7, 2018, to continue the matter and I was granted that continuance to February 26, 2018. She totally usurped the power of the Chief Justice and independently determined the outcome of the matters properly before Judge Ellis alone!

The tragedy of how these motions were continuously and mysteriously “dropped” from the calendar even AFTER SEVEN complaints, is subject of the corruption investigation right now and is a reason that the Chief Justice took the case away from Colwell and her court administration to begin with! Judge Ellis upon his review was taken aback when he reviewed this case as there was NO logical reason why this has continually happened in al-Hakim’s cases.

Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have ignored the rule of law, undermined public safety and compromised the justice system by fabricating, altering, manipulating, and tampering with the record have actually prevented the orderly administration of justice. As Faretta recognized, the record can only be read as an attempt to abuse the dignity of the courtroom and impugn the integrity of the rule of law as their actions “deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct” (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46. at pp. 834-835, fn. 46 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581, fn. 46]) that threatens to subvert the core concept of a trial.

Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.

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

Colwell and her Court Administration perverts or obstructs justice, or the due administration of the laws.

Under section 182, subdivision (a)(5), it is a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit any act “to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.” (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
In 1950, the California Supreme Court explained the meaning of an act that perverts or obstructs justice, or the due administration of the laws:

“Generally speaking, conduct which constitutes an offense against public justice, or the administration of law includes both malfeasance and nonfeasance by an officer in connection with the administration of his public duties, and also anything done by a person in hindering or obstructing an officer in the performance of his official obligations. Such an offense was recognized at common law and generally punishable as a misdemeanor. Now, quite generally, it has been made a statutory crime and, under some circumstances, a felony. Section 182, subdivision 5,[7] is a more general section making punishable a conspiracy to commit any offense against public justice. The meaning of the words ‘to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws’ is easily ascertained by reference either to the common law or to the more specific crimes enumerated in part I, title [7]. A conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws is an obstruction of justice and an indictable offense at common law.
The Court of Appeal expanded upon Lorenson in Davis v. Superior Court (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 8 (Davis ).
In Davis, the Court of Appeal held that conduct that perverts or obstructs justice is not necessarily limited to crimes listed in part 1, title 7 of the Penal Code, nor are all crimes in that title necessarily crimes that pervert or obstruct justice:

“The reference [in Lorenson ] to ‘Crimes Against Public Justice’ does not necessarily exclude a crime not defined within the four corners of that part 1, title [7], of the Penal Code. The court’s reference to such crimes was illustrative, rather than exclusionary; the type of conduct with which title [7] principally deals falls within the category of acts ‘to pervert or obstruct justice.’
From Davis, the Attorney General relies on the sentence, “The court’s reference to such crimes [found in part 1, title 7 of the Penal Code] was illustrative, rather than exclusionary; the type of conduct with which title [7] principally deals falls within the category of acts ‘to pervert or obstruct justice.’ ” (Davis, supra, 175 Cal.App. 2d at p. 16.)
The court ruled in Gallegos- Curiel, 681 F.2d at 1169 (“[T]he appearance of vindictiveness results only where, as a practical matter, there is a realistic or reasonable likelihood of prosecutorial conduct that would not have occurred but for hostility or a punitive animus towards the defendant because he has exercised his specific legal rights.) (citing Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 373, 384). The mere appearance of prosecutorial vindictiveness suffices to place the burden on the government because the doctrine of vindictive prosecution “seeks[s] to reduce or eliminate apprehension on the part of an accused” that she may be punished for exercising her rights. Ruesga- Martinez, 534 F.2d at 1369. As the district court noted, the “prophylactic” doctrine is designed, in part, “to prevent chilling the exercise of [legal] rights by other defendants who must make their choices under similar circumstances in the future.” United States v. DeMarco, 550 F.2d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 1977).
Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have ignored the rule of law, undermined public safety and compromised the justice system by tampering with the record have actually prevented the orderly administration of justice. As Faretta recognized, the record can only be read as an attempt to abuse the dignity of the courtroom and impugn the integrity of the rule of law as their actions “deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct” (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46. at pp. 834-835, fn. 46 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581, fn. 46]) that threatens to subvert the core concept of a trial.
This scheme may have affected hundreds of cases and caused havoc in Superior Court – problems that are further complicated if the judge or clerk encouraged others to lie about the scheme.

The DOJ and FBI should investigate this complaint of corruption by the judges, court administration, Colwell, the Dept. 511 court clerks and those with access to this sensitive information and hold them accountable for their actions. There have been a litany of administrative abuses in this matter that is directly attributable to Colwell.

Judge Colwell has Personal Knowledge of Disputed Evidentiary Facts

Judge Colwell, who has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts in proceedings assigned to them must recuse themselves. CCP §170.1(a)(1)(A). A judge is deemed to have “personal knowledge” if the judge knows that the judge, his or her spouse, or a relative within the third degree of kinship to either of them or the spouse of such a person is likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

CCP §170.1(a)(1)(B).
CCP §170.3(b); Cal Rules of Ct 2.818(c)(2)(C) [temporary judge].
b. [§2.12] Former Counsel
A judge is disqualified if the judge served as a lawyer in the proceeding, represented one of the parties in another action that involved the same issues, or gave advice to one of the parties on any matter involved in the present proceeding. CCP §170.1(a)(2)(A). A judge is deemed to have served as a lawyer in the proceeding if, within the past two years:
• A party or an officer, director, or trustee of a party was a client of the judge or of the judge’s former law firm (CCP §170.1(a)(2)(B)(i)); or
• A lawyer in the proceeding was associated in private practice (see CCP §170.5(e)) with the judge (CCP §170.1(a)(2)(B)(ii)).
The judge is also disqualified if he or she was an attorney with a public agency that is a participant in the proceeding and personally advised or represented the agency regarding issues present in the proceeding. CCP §170.1(a)(2)(C).
When the judge has served as an attorney in the matter in controversy, the disqualification may not be waived. CCP §170.3(b)(2)(B); Cal Rules of Ct 2.818(c)(2)(B) [temporary judge].
A judge has a duty to disclose that the judge’s former firm has represented one of the parties. Urias v Harris Farms, Inc. (1991) 234 CA3d 415, 425, 285 CR 659. Although this fact may be common knowledge in the community, it is the judge’s responsibility to disclose this fact and not counsel’s responsibility to uncover and reveal it. 234 CA3d at 425.
c. [§2.13] Financial Interest
A judge who has a financial interest in the proceedings or in a party to the proceedings is disqualified. CCP §170.1(a)(3)(A). The judge is disqualified if the financial interest is held by the judge, the judge’s spouse, or a minor child who is living in the judge’s household, or if it is held by the judge or the judge’s spouse in a fiduciary capacity, i.e., as an executor, trustee, guardian, or administrator. CCP §§170.1(a)(3)(B), 170.5(g). A judge must make reasonable efforts to keep current and informed about all such financial interests so that he or she may make knowledgeable decisions regarding recusal. CCP §170.1(a)(3)(C).

Colwell obtained intimate knowledge and information regarding disputed evidentiary facts known to defense counsel and the judges she represented for years as Colwell served as defense counsel for three retired judges in this CSAA case; participated in their preparation and defense litigation strategy regarding their subpoenas; communicated with plaintiff al-Hakim regarding same; served as defense counsel for those judges while working as a law partners at Myers Nave with managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case files; wherein Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams- while Oakland City Attorney- gave the case files to CSAA lead defense counsel for 18 months; Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case file gave them to then Judge David Lee- Colwell’s client- for the CSAA trial without informing the court that the defendants had custody of the case files for 18 months breaking the chain of custody; Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case file was evidence that related to the contamination of al-Hakim’s home; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware of the fabricated and planted evidence and that it related to the contamination of al-Hakim’s home; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA intervened into the underlying Rescue case in violation of the law AFTER her client Judge Lee had dismissed them when they presented a fabricated order allegedly signed by her client Judge Richard Hodge; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA intervened into the underlying Rescue case in violation of the law AFTER her client Judge Lee had dismissed them when they presented a fabricated order allegedly signed by her client Judge Richard Hodge; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that the fabricated and planted evidence was the ONLY evidence presented at trial by CSAA; participated in CSAA’s preparation and defense litigation strategy regarding their involvement with the fabricated and planted evidence, chain of custody of City of Oakland case files, CSAA fabricated Hodge’s order; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA constructed fraudulent fabricated evidence in 1999 and planted that evidence favorable to the defendants in the files SIX years AFTER the case was closed; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA engaged in spoliation of remaining evidence in the court files from 1991; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA fostered witness testimony based on this planted evidence in the al-Hakim v CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that the fraudulent fabricated evidence was created thru EXTRINSIC FRAUD with accompanying testimony procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious acts; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they engaged in actions to destroy the litigation of al-Hakim’s legal case; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they engaged in actions to coverup their unlawful acts; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they committed, aided and abetted this criminal activity with this unpardonable breach in the chain of custody of the court files to accommodate the defendants litigation strategy in both the CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case.

Colwell’s clients Retired Judges David Lee, Michael Ballachey, and Richard Hodge, though they live in three different counties, all coincidentally hired the same Oakland defense firm, Meyers Nave, run by former Oakland City Attorney Jayne Williams whom was responsible for providing the files to the defendants for 18 months initially, fabricating and planting that evidence in the case files that was then given to Colwell’s client Judge Lee for trial. Judge Colwell, then the partner and attorney at Meyers Nave handled the requested depositions and investigation concerning retired Judges Lee, Ballachey, and Hodge, thereby actively participating in the continued cover up of the admitted crimes of all those involved.

For years al-Hakim had engaged in protracted litigation activities with Colwell, her managing law partner at Myers Nave, Jayne Williams, Kim Drake, and others regarding these herein referenced issues. They are ALL were and are a defense counsel, defendant, percipient eye witness, and conspirator with an irreparable conflict! Colwell had NO defense nor answers to the undisputed, uncontroverted facts and evidence of her involvement in the illicit issues raised in the First and Second Challenge that SHE DOES NOT DENY, JUST WANTS TO IGNORE THEM AWAY as NONE of them are allegations and conclusions unsupported by specific references to evidence!! Colwell is guilty of perjury again, lying by omission! Does she deny working with the three retired judges in this very same CSAA case she has now attempted to rule the final death blow to al-Hakim by granting defendants Order to Show Cause Cause for Sale of Dwelling!
The CSAA defendants, their experts, witnesses, and legal counsels in both the Rescue Rooter and CSAA cases with their perjurious testimony given by the defendants witnesses on the fabricated and planted evidence that was denied at the end of her client retired judge David Lee trial; the fabricated and planted evidence in the City of Oakland case file that fostered the perjurious testimony given by the defendants witnesses that was denied at the end of her client retired judge David Lee’s trial was the ONLY evidence provided at trial by defendants CSAA in their case before judge Jon Tigar? Colwell’s personal involvement in the defense legal strategy, representation and cover up of these ongoing crimes are even more apparent in her most recent efforts to silently dispose of this case with the sale of the home without acknowledgement of any complicit actions on her part. These FACTS and EVIDENCE are a part of the case files and court records so she can not rationalize away her crime stained hands with a “unclean hands” defense.

al-Hakim has always complained in WRITTEN FORM in every contact with the court, over 50 times, of Colwell’s illegal involvement in this and other cases since the first matter arose in Department 511 in June 2016. Plaintiff has filed in EVERY written document, correspondence, motion, answer, request, reply, and oral argument, FROM THE FIRST TO THE LAST, his standing objection to Colwell’s involvement in ANY way, administrative or otherwise, in one of the following forms:
A) “We will file litigation regarding Judge Colwell’s continued improper presence in ANY and ALL matters that concerns US as it is clear her finger prints are all over this case and others while she has been involved in a previous matter that is still outstanding and will be served as a defendant, witness, and conspirator with an irreparable conflict. These concerns will be addressed!”
B) “As we mentioned in ALL our correspondence and filings with the court since we have appeared, we made a formal challenge for cause in the courtroom and stated we also intend to file litigation regarding Judge Colwell’s continued improper presence in ANY and ALL matters that concerns US as it is clear her finger prints are all over this case and others while she has been involved in a previous matter that is still outstanding and will be served as a defendant, witness, and conspirator with an irreparable conflict. These concerns will be addressed!” C) “I am herewith opposing the tentative ruling and further reiterate that I oppose any and every ruling issued by this tainted judge and have a standing objection to her continued obstruction of justice by remaining in this case prohibiting justice as “Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied!”.
The U. S. Attorney General General has ordered that this matter be investigated and ALL the parties have 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 al-Hakim’s memorandum filled with the courts abuses by several judge including Colwell; the Oakland City Attorney’s Office and the parties in both the CSAA and Rescue cases. 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.

For these reasons, and because Judge Colwell would be a material, percipient eye witness concerning her conversations with the judges and others and must be disqualified for cause pursuant to section 170.1, subdivision (a)(1) (the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts) and (a)(6) (a person aware of the facts reasonably might entertain a doubt whether the judge would be able to be impartial). An example of disqualification for personal knowledge is found in People v Avol (1987) 192 CA3d Supp 1, 6, 238 CR 45 (judge’s ex parte inspection of property violated defendant’s right to controvert evidence, but did not violate due process right or require reversal given overwhelming evidence and complete lack of showing of prejudice that might have required recusal).
Litigants may waive this type of disqualification except when the judge is a material witness in the proceeding. CCP §170.3(b); Cal Rules of Ct 2.818(c)(2)(C) [temporary judge].
b. [§2.12] Former Counsel
A judge is disqualified if the judge served as a lawyer in the proceeding, represented one of the parties in another action that involved the same issues, or gave advice to one of the parties on any matter involved in the present proceeding. CCP §170.1(a)(2)(A).

Judge Kimberly Colwell’s Dept. 511 and 507 and Judges Robert Freedman, Ioana Petrou and Evelio Grillo Dept. 1, 15/20 and Chad Finke Superior Court Administrative Abuses

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim has filed several complaints regarding several rather blatant court administrative “errors” that are completely unacceptable in Departments 1, 15, 20, 507, and 511 to former Alameda County Superior Court Presiding Court Judge Morris Jacobson, and Supervising Judge Jon Rolefson, current Presiding Court Judge Wynn Carvill, and Supervising Judge Mark Markham, County Appellate Judges C. Don Clay, Kevin Murphy, Jo-Lynne Lee, Presiding Judge Kim Colwell, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye of the California State Supreme Court- and Chairman of both the Judicial Council of California and the Commission on Judicial Appointments, Martin Hoshino- Director of the Judicial Council of California, Victoria B. Henley- Director-Chief Counsel of the Commission on Judicial Performance, Alex Tse- Director of the No. District U. S. Attorney’s Office, Phyllis J. Hamilton- Chief District Judge of the U. S. District Court- No. Division and Chad Finke of the Alameda County Superior Court Administration.

If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim prays that due to the established Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption; the Manipulation of the Judicial Assignments; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice the relief herein requested be granted:

1) Removal of ALL Judges Challenged For Cause, ALL the Judges, Tigar, Freedman, Petrou, Colwell, Madden, Carvill, and Krashna should have recused themselves to avoid the appearance of impropriety, or if not be disqualified and 2) required to make a full disclosure and cooperate in the investigation involving the Miller, CSAA and Rescue cases, 3) that the court Vacate ALL Rulings and Orders Issued in these cases by those Judges charged herein.

Without the herein referenced answers, responses and results of the ongoing investigations and complaints with the necessary depositions, request production of documents and hearing transcripts, this process will NOT be transparent, not legally, ethically nor morally proper, and only serve the purpose of extinguishing my rights WITHOUT any recourse that was EVER FAIR and impartial while denying the Challenges.

Unless and until these issues can be fairly resolved BEFORE any hearing can be scheduled, I am and will be subject to the continued fraud, corruption and collusion complained of in ALL the aforementioned herein and CAN NOT in good conscience agree to ANY of the conditions referenced in the letters/form!

Further, I request an OPEN hearing on this matter before an impartial judge. This matter may need to be transferred to another county venue on fair trial grounds as provided by CCP  §397(b) where the influence of the Judges, district attorney, city attorney and opposing litigants is not so inextricably intertwined with judicial interests.

____________________________

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

 

Alameda County Judicial and Superior Court Corruption Complaint

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
7633 Sunkist Drive
Oakland, CA  94605
TO:
Judge Michael Markman                       Chad Finke
Judge Wynne Carvill                              Executive Officer
Judge Kim Colwell                                  Superior Court of Alameda County
Superior Court of Alameda County     1225 Fallon Street Room 209
Departments 1, and 511                         Oakland, CA 94612
René C. Davidson Courthouse             Fax: 510-891-6276
1225 Fallon Street                                  cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, (510) 267-1567
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov,     dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.511@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KColwell@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.govChief 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.govAlex Tse                                           Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                   Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                  U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                      6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue             1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102             Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234             FAX No.: 415 522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                     Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov           Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
charles.oconnor@usdoj.govbcc
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     January 29, 2018
NO PAGES: 117
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint

“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 Grillo, Markham and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, and Mr. Hoshino:

Attached please find Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint.

The Complaint is against Judge Jon Tigar, Judge Morris Jacobson, Judge Jon Rolefson, Judge Wynne Carvill, Judge Kimberly Colwell, Judge David Krashna, Judge Scott Patton, Judge Stephen Pulido, Commissioner Glenn Oleon, Commissioner Boydine Hall, Judge Robert Freedman, Judge Ioana Petrou and Judge Evelio Grillo and Superior Court Departments 1, 15, 20, 511, 507, Chad Finke Superior Court Administrative and The California Judicial Council FOR 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

Judge Kimberly Colwell’s Dept. 511 and 507 and Judges Robert Freedman, Ioana Petrou and Evelio Grillo Dept. 1, 15/20 and Chad Finke Superior Court Administrative Abuses

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim has filed several complaints regarding several rather blatant court administrative “errors” that are completely unacceptable in Departments 1, 15, 20, 507, and 511 to former Alameda County Superior Court Presiding Court Judge Morris Jacobson, and Supervising Judge Jon Rolefson, current Presiding Court Judge Wynn Carvill, and Supervising Judge Mark Markham, County Appellate Judges C. Don Clay, Kevin Murphy, Jo-Lynne Lee, Presiding Judge Kim Colwell, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye of the California State Supreme Court- and Chairman of both the Judicial Council of California and the Commission on Judicial Appointments, Martin Hoshino- Director of the Judicial Council of California, Victoria B. Henley- Director-Chief Counsel of the Commission on Judicial Performance, Alex Tse- Director of the No. District U. S. Attorney’s Office, Phyllis J. Hamilton- Chief District Judge of the U. S. District Court- No. Division and Chad Finke of the Alameda County Superior Court Administration.

On Monday, January 22, 2018 the hearing scheduled on the Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Renewed Judgment and for Terminating Sanctions and other relief, and Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., in MILLER VS HAKIM, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #OCV0574030 was continued by the Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, to February 8, 2018, in Dept. 511 at 9:00 a.m.

The matters before the court have been submitted to a different judge in a different venue for adjudication as Alameda County Superior Court judges and administration await direction from the Chief Justice.

This essentially amounts to a Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County which al-Hakim OPPOSES because it does NOT hold the corruptors and abusers accountable for their continued actions! This is merely a inconvenient way out for them!

If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim prays that due to the established Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption; the Manipulation of the Judicial Assignments; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice the relief herein requested be granted.

I Demand for Removal of ALL Judges Challenged For Cause, ALL the Judges, Tigar, Freedman, Petrou, Colwell, Madden, Carvill, and Krashna should have recused themselves to avoid the appearance of impropriety, or if not be disqualified and required to make a full disclosure and cooperate in the investigation involving the Miller, CSAA and Rescue cases. I also request that the court Vacate ALL Rulings and Orders Issued in these cases by those Judges charged herein.

Without the herein referenced answers, responses and results of the ongoing investigations and complaints with the necessary depositions, request production of documents and hearing transcripts, this process will NOT be transparent, not legally, ethically nor morally proper, and only serve the purpose of extinguishing my rights WITHOUT any recourse that was EVER FAIR and impartial while denying the Challenges.

Unless and until these issues can be fairly resolved BEFORE any hearing can be scheduled, I am and will be subject to the continued fraud, corruption and collusion complained of in ALL the aforementioned herein and CAN NOT in good conscience agree to ANY of the conditions referenced in the letters/form!

Further, I request a hearing on this matter before an impartial judge. This matter may need to be transferred to another county venue on fair trial grounds as provided by CCP §397(b) where the influence of the Judges, district attorney, city attorney and opposing litigants is not so inextricably intertwined with judicial interests.

____________________________
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

ADDENDUM TO STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE DAVID KRASHNA

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
7633 Sunkist Drive
Oakland, CA  94605
TO:
Judge Michael Markman                       Chad Finke
Judge Wynne Carvill                              Executive Officer
Judge Kim Colwell                                  Superior Court of Alameda County
Superior Court of Alameda County     1225 Fallon Street Room 209
Departments 1, and 511                          Oakland, CA 94612
René C. Davidson Courthouse              Fax: 510-891-6276
1225 Fallon Street                                    cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, (510) 267-1567
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov,     dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.511@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KColwell@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
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye         Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California     Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments               350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                               San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                         Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205         Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Alex Tse                                             Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                     Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                   U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                       6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue              1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102              Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234               FAX No.: 415 522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                       Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                  Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov             Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov
bcc
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     January 26, 2018
NO PAGES: 20
RE:        DEFENDANT’S ADDENDUM TO STATEMENT  OF DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE DAVID KRASHNADear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Grillo, Markham and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, and Mr. Hoshino:

“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,

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye Orders Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County
On Monday, January 22, 2018 the hearing scheduled on the Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Renewed Judgment and for Terminating Sanctions and other relief, and Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., in MILLER VS HAKIM, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #OCV0574030 was continued by the Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, February 8, 2018, in Dept. 511 at 9:00 a.m.
The matters before the court have been submitted to a different judge, Presiding Judge John B. Ellis, in a different venue, Solano County Superior Court, for adjudication as Alameda County Superior Court judges and administration await direction from the Chief Justice.
This essentially amounts to a Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County which al-Hakim OPPOSES because it does NOT hold the corruptors and abusers accountable for their continued actions! This is merely a inconvenient way out for them!
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!

In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
Research Attorney Phil Abar Tentative Rulings/Orders Judges Knew Nothing about Case
Four different judges, four tentative rulings with the same content, four judges that clearly knew nothing about the case! The clear pattern of abuse of process, denial due process, fraud, perjury, subverted and obstructed justice, perverted and defeated the course of justice, perverted and defeated the due administration of the laws and administration of justice, and willful misconduct while in office, where in doing so Judges Kim Colwell, Scott Patton, David Krashna, Jennifer Madden, and Wynne Carvill have already committed crimes sufficient enough declare a mistrial while committing willful blindness MUST reveal any illegal ex-parte communications and any illegal acts of collusion, and conspiracy in this case and that is under the federal statute the misprision of felony and under 18 U.S.C. Section 4 makes it a federal crime.
The responsibility existed under the Code of Judicial Ethics Rule 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2) and 4D(1) for the judges to tell the County Court about the facts of who wrote the tentative rulings and raised the defenses in the tentative ruling allegedly issued by Judges that the plaintiffs could not and did not raise themselves as a means to avoid having to rule on the issues of their 20 year continuing fraud and Elder Abuse and that is under the federal statute the misprision of a felony and under 18 U.S.C. Section 4 makes it a federal crime.
It’s a federal crime for someone who knows of a crime being committed to not tell a judge about such crime. And State court judges are bound to follow federal law under Article 6 Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.
Alameda County Superior Court officers and the County Court would then be misleading and deceiving the court and the People of the State of California and actually committing obstruction of justice. So if the County Court does not come in and disclose that the County is aware of the illegal acts of the judge, the County has committed obstruction of justice. Now when the County knows that they committed these illegal acts and the judges knows that they committed these illegal acts, the two of them together have committed obstruction of justice and they have precluded al-Hakim, in the lawsuit, from obtaining a fair trial. Now that results in two things. One results in the denial of due process, in addition such action is going to be an obstruction of justice because what the County Court has done means the judiciary has obstructed justice by also denying al-Hakim a fair trial. Third, they’ve committed an extrinsic fraud upon the court and the People of The State of California because what they’ve done by having bought the court in, they’ve prevented al-Hakim from obtaining a fair trial. When together they do what is known as an outside action of stopping a litigant from obtaining a fair trial they’ve committed an extrinsic fraud because that’s something that al-Hakim really can’t find out about and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what his case is about.
If it had something to do with the proof of the case it would be considered an intrinsic fraud and it would be something that al-Hakim could prove within the confines of the case, but this is something totally outside of what is collateral to the case. So it becomes an extrinsic fraud and the cases hold that when one party does something or something happens that is outside of the case and it prevents through any means whatsoever a party getting a fair trial, that’s extrinsic fraud and that actually deprives the court of jurisdiction. And when there is no jurisdiction anything that the court does is void. This is what is happening here.
The County Court, having already displayed fraud and perjury in the service of Patton’s orders is participating in a broad conspiracy to obstruct justice, and blind obedience to a corrupt culture has serious consequences. In their corrupt attempt to shield the judge from scrutiny, these court officials brought scandal and shame to themselves, their office and the Court. These court officials decided to impede any litigation and investigation, and in doing so they should have thrown away their careers and their freedom and now being held accountable for their unlawful actions. Interference with litigation and a federal investigation cannot be tolerated as this will not allow al-Hakim or any other litigant to move forward in an environment of mutual trust with the common goal of delivering justice to litigants in collaboration with trusted partners at the County court.
By the Judge and County Court not disclosing their acts of extrinsic fraud and the cover-up, they all lacked “courage to do what is right” and they are committing obstruction of justice and should be considered for charges of racketeering and prosecuted under the RICO Act.
Judges Kim Colwell, Scott Patton, David Krashna, Jennifer Madden, and Wynne Carvill have ALL issued tentative rulings wherein clearly they did NOT craft their own rulings, in fact they knew nothing about what was in their own rulings with the research attorney writing their rulings without any editing input from them, they didn’t change even a comma from Abar’s drafts! In fact four Judges Scott Patton, David Krashna, Jennifer Madden, and Wynne Carvill have ALL issued tentative rulings with the same content formulated by Phil Abar, wherein the four judges could NOT respond to even the very basic elements of the case and refused to answer any questions regrading ANY aspect of the cases because any answers incriminates them and proves they have perjured themselves! They had NO defense nor answers to the undisputed, uncontroverted facts and evidence of their involvement in these illicit acts DOES NOT DENY THEM, JUST WANTS TO IGNORE THEM AWAY as NONE of them are allegations and conclusions unsupported by specific references to evidence!! They are ALL guilty of perjury and lying by omission!
In this very creepy and elitist legal system, where the judges don’t even read their “own” cases nor issue their “own” rulings— is corruption!
Judges have lost track of what’s in their own rulings and opinions, here’s a passage from Woodward and Armstrong’s “The Brethren”:
[A] clerk once pointed out, “You said that the right to privacy must go further than the home.”
“No,” [Thurgood] Marshall retorted. He had never said that.

Yes, the clerk insisted.
No, never, Marshall was sure. “Show me.”
The clerk brought the bound opinions.
Marshall read the relevant section.
“That’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion of [a clerk from the prior term],” he declared. Opening the volume flat, he tore the page out. “There. It’s not there now, is it?”A judge is only as good as the research attorney or law clerk, and the same is true of the opinions that come out of the judge!
These research attorneys or law clerks are NOT elite legal minds yet they are in charge of the lives of the most vulnerable of society, yet the research attorney or law clerk, was NOT elected on merit!
There is an absolute denial of justice when the person(s) passing on the merits of cases are not the judges/justices, but unappointed, unconfirmed, inexperienced, some newly-graduated people who never practiced law a day in their life.
Research attorneys and law clerks, which is essentially post-doctorate legal researchers, should NOT write court opinions, the writing and analysis should be left to the judge. It seems a massive amount of authority, power, and unfettered responsibility to be given to the, by definition, least experienced members of the profession. Even if they’re the best and brightest of the least experienced.
It suggests that court opinions involve more gamesmanship in law than applied legal knowledge gained over the course of a long career. Unfortunately that also describes the judges and their selection criteria and process!
The four judges with the same tentative ruling did NOT craft their own rulings/opinions, in fact they were clueless as to what was in their rulings with the research attorney or law clerk writing their rulings/opinions without any editing input from them, didn’t change even a comma of the clerk’s drafts! They merely FOLLOWED PHIL ABARS “SCRIPT”, read them for the first time as THEIR adopted tentative rulings on the morning of the hearings! The research attorney decided what the result would be and, what the principal ground for the rulings/opinion would be!
Today’s research attorney or law clerk only has to prove to they are “bien pensant,” and know  how to functionally use “The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation.” That’s why the opinions read like homogenized law review student notes – they were written by research attorneys or law clerks whose entire legal experience consisted of writing law review notes.
Someone once estimated that if a Judge read all of the petitions filed it would take him or her more than the number of waking hours in the year just to complete this task leaving no time at all for deliberating on the merits or writing opinions (or convincing other justices of the merits of the proposed opinions).
Having some secretarial help or someone to help proofread for your work is fine. Having people to read the material for you, ”make up” your opinions for you and all you do is rubber stamp the work! If it isn’t your personal work and personal opinion based on your personal qualifications to be a Judge is not acceptable.
These research attorney or law clerk are NOT writing bench memos. The bench memo itself does NOT decide the case; it is not a brief by counsel or a judicial opinion. Rather, the bench memo simply advises a judge by offering an objective review of both sides of the case. As opposed to a brief, which explores only one side’s arguments (with brief discussion of counterarguments), the bench memo summarizes and develops both sides’ arguments, recognizes the merits and drawbacks of those arguments, and recommends a course of action.
When writing a bench memo, it is important to remember to focus on the best interests of justice. The bench memo must help judges get past the advocacy of the parties’ briefs so that they can reach independent decisions.
By having these research attorney or law clerk issue rulings without the benefit of having heard any arguments in court nor observed the litigants, it lacks the appearance of fairness and voids the entire concept for a litigant who seeks to be heard by a judge whose impartiality and fairness toward him cannot reasonably be questioned.
The biases of the research attorney or law clerk is NOT available to the litigant to respond to directly as at a hearing.
In this case that fact becomes even more important as the tentative rulings issued in this case are ALL the same in a ridiculous display of ignorance and bias.
The tentative rulings states:
SUBSTANCE On 10/30/96 judgment was entered, on 8/11/06 judgment was renewed, on 7/31/07 Hakim sent a letter to the court in this case objecting to a warrant arising from an order of examination and stating “I am unfamiliar with the plaintiff and know nothing of this matter,” and on 8/1/16 the judgment was re-renewed. A party must file a motion under CCP 473(b) in 6 months, a party must generally seek relief under CCP 473(d) within two years, and a party must file a motion under CCP 473.5 within two years. This motion is well outside the permissible time frame. In addition, defendant Hakim was aware of the lawsuit as of 7/31/07 (less than one year after the judgment) but did not promptly investigate the matter and file a motion for relief. (Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 180.)
Had the research attorney (Phil Abar) whom issued the rulings had the benefit of having heard any arguments in court he would have known that his tentative rulings has made willfully, deceptive statements on the record in attempting to deceive the public in support of the rulings; implied in his tentative ruling that al-Hakim was a liar without any substance; publicly criticizing al-Hakim on the record; made knowingly false statements on the record in an effort to demean, humiliate and provoke al-Hakim; willful and prejudicial misconduct; abuse of discretion; negligence; bias; prejudice; misrepresentation; incompetence; conflict of interest; bad faith; collusion; denial of due process; obstruction of justice; racism; bigotry; has exhibited, expressed and shown a fixed opinion of al-Hakim; displayed favoritism towards the plaintiffs; made false accusations; harassed al-Hakim; has willfully, deceitfully and recklessly indulged in a series of offensive acts and statements against al-Hakim and has displayed disdain, malice, and a mental attitude or disposition toward al-Hakim that prohibits the right to a fair hearing or trial; conduct prejudicial; and advocated a judicial imprimatur of the plaintiff’s position are grounds for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc. §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); 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; and Cal. Code Jud. Conduct Cannons 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5) and 3B(8). Research attorney (Phil Abar) has assumed the position and authority of Judge Patton whom had to follow his script and vicariously has exhibited persistent willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, promised retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability he would continue his unethical behavior if he were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future violates and strikes at the heart of 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)Abar and Judge David Krashna
He states in his alleged tentative ruling “The motion of defendant Al-Hakim to compel discovery from third party JP Morgan is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”, “JP Morgan is not required to respond to Al-Hakim’s discovery requests. If, however, the debt that underlies the judgment was originally owed to JP Morgan, then Al-Hakim may serve limited and focused discovery requests to JP Morgan directly related to the existence and amount of the underlying credit card account and/or debt.”
He does NOT know that Plaintiff Bank One IS now JP Morgan Chase and there are THREE ACTIVE COURT ORDERS for them to produce the documents!
This ruling is problematic in what is the value of awarding al-Hakim the right to “serve limited and focused discovery” on Chase if the case has already been decided and there is NO need for it?
He states “The discovery sought from JP Morgan arguably relates to the claims and defenses in this case if it concerns the debt that underlies the complaint in this case.”
In saying this on one hand he acknowledges that Chase IS Bank One, yet on the other denies it IS!
He states “The following third parties have filed opposition papers: Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley (10/25/17); JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA (10/25/17); Google, LLC (10/26/17); Twitter, Inc. (11/22/17).
He DID NOT KNOW there were NO timely responses to the motion to compel discovery from ANY of third party respondents and the third party that did respond only did so AFTER the motion was filed and served, AND the unopposed reply was filed weeks later. The third parties never filed any opposition to the motion nor any privilege logs of documents they considered privileged.
Once the third parties failed and refused to respond to the motion to compel they have no right to opposed it later and MUST comply with the request.
Krashna states “The motions of defendant Al-Hakim to compel discovery from third parties are DENIED as to the Alameda County District Attorney, Google, and Twitter.”
He further states “Al-Hakim has not shown how the discovery sought from the Alameda County District Attorney, Google, and Twitter relates to the claims and defenses in this case”.
Krashna did not know this matter and the discovery sought lies at the heart of the appeal and the challenges in this case as presented by Judge Holland in his sworn affidavit. These documents ARE FOR THE APPEAL and can NOT be obtained in any other fashion.
Krashna states “The discovery sought is disproportional to the amount at issue and the importance of the issues at stake. The responding third parties have demonstrated that the discovery is unduly burdensome in light of the fact that they are third parties with no interest in the litigation.”
He thought there was ONLY four third parties and DID NOT KNOW there are NINE (9) third party respondents, most of them chose NOT to respond and Krashna has NO documents to support a decision of whether the requests are ANYTHING like described in respondents untimely responses! There are 1,752 requests and he DID NOT review ONE, SINGLE requests, NO Subpoena’s nor Request for Production of Documents so HE CAN NOT POSSIBLY KNOW THAT FACT WHICH IS THE SOLE, ABSOLUTE BASIS FOR HIS DECISION!
The third parties never filed any opposition to the motion nor any privilege logs of documents they considered privileged.
The Request for Production of Documents were as follows:
Chase Request for Production of Documents is 38 pages long and contains 51 Requests;
Equinix Request for Production of Documents is 50 pages long and contains 75 Requests;
Superior Courts Request for Production of Documents is 66 pages long and contains 65 Requests;
Google Request for Production of Documents is 82 pages long and contains 146 Requests;
Judicial Council Request for Production of Documents is 67 pages long and contains 65 Requests;
Interserver Request for Production of Documents is 299 pages long and contains 152 Requests;
Alameda County District Attorney Request for Production of Documents is 251 pages long and contains 331 Requests;
Alameda County Department of Child Support Services Request for Production of Documents is 251 pages long and contains 331 Requests;
Oakland City Attorney Request for Production of Documents is 207 pages long and contains 390 Requests;
Twitter Request for Production of Documents is 87 pages long and contains 146 Requests;
As with the other three judges before him,  it was quickly very clear that Judge Krashna was totally unfamiliar with case file and could not have issued the tentative ruling.
Judge Krashna didn’t know anything about case nor that it was based on plaintiff 20 years of going into court to win uncontested orders with their non-service of documents on me!
Judge Krashna didn’t know the history of non-service by plaintiffs is on record in June 2007 when the court found the service was defective yet they still went to the Sheriffs and obtained a warrant for arrest issued for my failure to appear.
Judge Krashna is trying to hide the fact he had totally exposed the fact that he did not know the existence of the one most critical motion that the entire case hinges on.
This is undeniable proof that Judge Krashna didn’t know history of this case and is simply following the order as written by research attorney Phil Abar rehashing the old “sleight of hand escape card” of “Defendant Hakim can at any time file a separate action making a collateral attack on the judgment based on lack of jurisdiction in this case and he can file an action seeking damages under federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 USC 1692 et seq) and California’s Rosenthal Act (Civil Code 1788 et seq). The court expresses no opinion on the possible validity of any such action.”.
This and ALL the other issues mentioned in this declaration would have been common knowledge to any trier of fact that had even casually perused the pleadings and file! HE CLEARLY DID NOT DO SO!!!Abar and Krashna December 13, 2017, Hearing
At the hearing on December 13, 2017, Krashna admitted that he did NOT know of the third parties in the case whom he was ruling on!
The matter was called and Krashna digressed to ask whom the other two people were that were seated in the gallery wherein they responded they were “observers”.
al-Hakim then served him the Challenge wherein he responded “Me?” I responded “yes”. He asked where we had any previous matters and what did he do? I responded “in February 1999 you had some indiscretions that threatened my life”. He stated “that was when I was a commissioner? I said “yes”.
He began to read the challenge and commented that “it’s 22 pages so I’ll read it now”. He remained on the bench for 20 minutes reading and commented again “you are not using the 107.6 challenge are you?” I said “it may not apply to you, but it is plead, so you should respond
He remained there for a few minutes more than said he would go to chambers to review further and asked the clerk to “get Phil up here!
Later a sheriffs deputy enters the courtroom and Phil follows.
It was clear that Krashna was on a mission, attempting to file an answer to the challenge so that he could achieve his agenda to dispose of the case while all the parties waited, including those attending via phone. One of the parties appearing via phone interrupted the silence to question what was going on since he had been on the phone for over 30 minutes and had NOT heard anything being said.
Krashna returned 15 minutes later.
He again asked “if the 107.6 Challenge was being made” and I responded “yes, I only mentioned it may not apply because of the 10-15 day rule, but I don’t think it applies because I have not appeared before you since 1999 and I just found out you were involved in this case late yesterday.” Krashna says “from the tentative ruling?”. I said “Yes. You might argue “timing” but I don’t think it applies because I had no earlier notice”.
He admits that he “must answer the challenge addressing several sections of the CCP and the cannons”, so he needs to continue the matter to do so. We agreed on the January 24, 2018 date.
Several third parties appeared and AFTER he had conclude the hearing, wherein one, Equinix, asked “why they were omitted from the tentative ruing?” and Krashna admitted that “he did NOT know they were involved in the case.” The ruling only mentioned three third parties when there are NINE!
He further allowed arguments both on and off the record AFTER he was served the challenge, set a new hearing date and had concluded the hearing.
He entertained specific arguments regarding al-Hakim’s “challenging judges as a litigation strategy” and third party Twitter made the requests that “the judge order al-Hakim to advise the third parties beforehand if he planned to challenge the judge that are to hear any cases.” al-Hakim objected to the continued hearing and comments as inappropriate and that the judge “should NOT be entertaining any further arguments as the hearing is concluded”.
She further asked Krashna to “have al-Hakim to just pick a judge that would be acceptable to him and the parties can agree to have the case heard before them”.
Krashna fumbles with words as he says “I don’t know about that, there shouldn’t be any discussion” but he continues as he tries to dodge the bullet by going off and on the record.
She raised the allegation that “every time they appear he challenges the judge!” al-Hakim responded again “this is inappropriate, the hearing is over, a new hearing date set, this is in violation of the law”. Krashna says that “al-Hakim did not know I was involved in the matter until he got the tentative ruling”. al-Hakim responded again “this is inappropriate and is in violation of the law!” Krashna says that “I am agreeing with you”. al-Hakim says “I know that, my complaint is that her comments and this discussion is inappropriate, the hearing is over. She has appeared on two occasions, the first we appeared in court and found Judge Madden had the case and she was already recused from the case, and today we appear before you.” On both occasions I did not know whom the judges were before appearing”. Krashna says “I agree with you”, when al-Hakim says “this is NOT a litigation strategy
She again asked to have al-Hakim pick a judge that would be acceptable to him and the parties can agree to have the case heard before them.

Abar and Judges Criminal Acts Under the Color of Law and Authority
Abar and the judges has exhibited clear and gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, favoritism, bigotry and racism; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the plaintiffs litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of al-Hakim; portrayed al-Hakim a liar in the tentative ruling and when he could not prove it he tried to create the lie that in his sole judgment is a lie in order to justify his calling al-Hakim a “liar”; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim even through third parties; highjacked the hearings with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the Unruh and Bane Acts. These efforts of Abar and the judges can qualify as a Hate Crime under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts, while they are clear acts of religious bigotry and intolerance for which al-Hakim will not allow. There’s no way Abar and the judges can claim to be unbiased and impartial.
Grave ethical issues are raised by the court in various forms al-Hakim has not shown any actual bias or prejudice in his treatment. 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. [4] 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].”
The appearance of justice is not satisfied where the court behind closed doors have been the moving force in the transfer of this case from the assigned judge and where they have made ex parte statements which are adverse to the defendant’s interest. Due process requires that this matter be heard by a new judge.
Judge Krashna’s de facto revocation of the defendant’s right affording him due process was predicated upon the judge’s disregard of the defendant’s fundamental rights.
Judge Krashna abdicated his responsibility to protect the statutory and constitutional rights of al-Hakim in certain respects. As a matter of routine practice, the judge failed to exercise his judicial
discretion to afford him due process.
Judge Colwell and Administrative Staff Subverted, Obstructed, Perverted and Defeated Course of Justice
Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Judge Colwell and her administrative staff is guilty of manipulating the calendar, changing motions and the calendar weekly, without any pleadings nor notice! I have asked before “Why and how did this motion manage to be removed from the calendar, by who and when? This also happened with the recent motions to compel as they were left off the calendar but mysteriously the motion to vacate and set aside the renewed judgment and the motion for terminating sanctions and other relief was placed on the calendar! On both the last two hearing dates the Case Management Conferences were also left off the calendar and tentative rulings! on 12/13/17 hearing the court will decide that motion.
The complaints involve the court Department Clerk’s administration mishandling of motions with them being mis-titled or changing the title of motions as filed, calendared unwanted motions without notice or cause, calendared motions without notice, motions being dropped from the calendar without notice, parties missing from rulings without notice or cause, parties being removed without notice or cause, changing orders, changing tentative rulings, calendaring motions that were NOT requested, posting tentative rulings AFTER the scheduled hearing time, deleting items from the register of actions, and falsifying the record (for appeal), are VERY SERIOUS threats to the Rule of Law as practiced by the acceptable courts in America! Perhaps even MORE dangerous is the silence that pervades the court when asked “Why, How and by Whom?”
I have many unanswered questions for this court and Judges Carvill, Jacobson, Rolefson, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution I, my family, businesses, and communities we serve continue to suffer at your individual and collective gavels.
Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have entered information into the court’s computers to make it appear that the register of actions and record on appeal would not reflect what actually occurred in the cases. In some cases, the fraudulently created/altered records made it appear that certain matters had been dismissed or certain parties were NEVER apart of an action or motion.
The actions of falsifying court records had been complained of to Colwell and the presiding and supervising judges to no avail!
Given that I have had no response from the judges, nor the court administration, including Chad Finke refusing to comply with three subpoenas and request for production of documents and the Judicial Council with the same, I have no choice but to file actions with the responsible agencies to discover this information and resolve the legal concerns expressed for years.
Colwell and her Court Administration perverts or obstructs justice, or the due administration of the laws
Under section 182, subdivision (a)(5), it is a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit any act “to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.” (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
In 1950, the California Supreme Court explained the meaning of an act that perverts or obstructs justice, or the due administration of the laws:
“Generally speaking, conduct which constitutes an offense against public justice, or the administration of law includes both malfeasance and nonfeasance by an officer in connection with the administration of his public duties, and also anything done by a person in hindering or obstructing an officer in the performance of his official obligations. Such an offense was recognized at common law and generally punishable as a misdemeanor. Now, quite generally, it has been made a statutory crime and, under some circumstances, a felony.
Section 182, subdivision 5,[7] is a more general section making punishable a conspiracy to commit any offense against public justice. The meaning of the words ‘to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws’ is easily ascertained by reference either to the common law or to the more specific crimes enumerated in part I, title [7]. A conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws is an obstruction of justice and an indictable offense at common law.
The Court of Appeal expanded upon Lorenson in Davis v. Superior Court (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 8 (Davis ).
In Davis, the Court of Appeal held that conduct that perverts or obstructs justice is not necessarily limited to crimes listed in part 1, title 7 of the Penal Code, nor are all crimes in that title necessarily crimes that pervert or obstruct justice:
“The reference [in Lorenson ] to ‘Crimes Against Public Justice’ does not necessarily exclude a crime not defined within the four corners of that part 1, title [7], of the Penal Code․  The court’s reference to such crimes was illustrative, rather than exclusionary;  the type of conduct with which title [7] principally deals falls within the category of acts ‘to pervert or obstruct justice.’
From Davis, the Attorney General relies on the sentence, “The court’s reference to such crimes [found in part 1, title 7 of the Penal Code] was illustrative, rather than exclusionary;  the type of conduct with which title [7] principally deals falls within the category of acts ‘to pervert or obstruct justice.’ ”  (Davis, supra, 175 Cal.App.2d at p. 16.)
The court ruled in Gallegos- Curiel, 681 F.2d at 1169 (“[T]he appearance of vindictiveness results only where, as a practical matter, there is a realistic or reasonable likelihood of prosecutorial conduct that would not have occurred but for hostility or a punitive animus towards the defendant because he has exercised his specific legal rights.) (citing Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 373, 384). The mere appearance of prosecutorial vindictiveness suffices to place the burden on the government because the doctrine of vindictive prosecution “seeks[s] to reduce or eliminate apprehension on the part of an accused” that she may be punished for exercising her rights. Ruesga-Martinez, 534 F.2d at 1369. As the district court noted, the “prophylactic” doctrine is designed, in part, “to prevent chilling the exercise of [legal] rights by other defendants who must make their choices under similar circumstances in the future.” United States v. DeMarco, 550 F.2d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 1977).
Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have ignored the rule of law, undermined public safety and compromised the justice system by tampering with the record have actually prevented the orderly administration of justice. As Faretta recognized, the record can only be read as an attempt to abuse the dignity of the courtroom and impugn the integrity of the rule of law as their actions “deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct” (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46. at pp. 834-835, fn. 46 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581, fn. 46]) that threatens to subvert the core concept of a trial.
This scheme may have affected hundreds of cases and caused havoc in Superior Court – problems that are further complicated if the judge or clerk encouraged others to lie about the scheme.
The FBI should investigate this complaint of corruption by the judges, court administration, Colwell, the Dept. 511 court clerks and those with access to this sensitive information and hold them accountable for their actions.
There have been a litany of administrative abuses in this matter that is directly attributable to
Judge Colwell and her administrative staff, altered court records to resolve an apparent inconsistency in the record, with results adverse to al-Hakim.
Colwell with administrative responsibilities adopted procedures for filings by al-Hakim that raised an appearance that he received unequal treatment based on his repeated disclosure of criminal acts by her.
Judicial Council should investigate this matter and ALL those involved should be prosecuted! There needs to be monitoring of those involved, with the publishing of the outcome of the complaint, and a report filed on the integrity of the courts adjudicatory process.
By contrast, state court judges are judicial officers, appointed by the governor or elected. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 16.) They are subject to discipline by the Commission on Judicial Performance (Commission). (Id., § 18.) The Commission consists of 11 members: 3 judges, appointed by the Supreme Court; 2 members of the state bar, appointed by the governor; and 6 members of the public, 2 appointed by the governor, 2 by the Senate Committee of Rules, and 2 by the Speaker of the Assembly. (Id., § 8.)
Under the Commission rules, when a written complaint is received by the Commission, the Commission may dismiss the proceeding, make an inquiry to determine whether a preliminary investigation is warranted, or make a preliminary investigation to determine whether to institute formal proceedings and hold a hearing. (Rules of Com. on Jud. Performance, rule 109(a).) If an inquiry or a preliminary investigation is commenced, the judge must be notified and be given the opportunity to respond. (Id., rules 110(a), 111(a).) If the results of the inquiry or preliminary investigation warrant it, the Commission may terminate the inquiry or preliminary investigation. (Id., rules 110(b), 111(b).) The Commission also may defer termination of the preliminary investigation in order to monitor the judge’s conduct. (Id., rule 112.) The judge has the right to be represented by counsel during all proceedings. (Id., rule 106.)
Based upon the results of the preliminary investigation, the Commission may issue the judge a notice of intended private or public admonishment. (Rules of Com. on Jud. Performance, rules 113, 115.) The judge has the opportunity to accept the intended admonishment, to object, appear before the Commission and contest the intended action, or to demand formal proceedings. (Id., rules 114, 116.) [97 Cal. App. 4th 219]
Formal proceedings must be noticed. (Rules of Com. on Jud. Performance, rule 118.) The judge is given the opportunity to file an answer. (Id., rule 119.) Discovery is permitted. (Id., rule 122.) The Commission may hear the matter itself or request that the Supreme Court appoint special masters to hear the matter and report to the Commission. (Id., rule 121.) At the hearing, the rules of evidence apply (id., rule 125), witnesses may be subpoenaed and the judge may cross-examine witnesses (id., rule 126(a)). Following the hearing, the Commission may vote to impose discipline–from private admonishment to removal of the judge. (Id., rule 134.)
The judge may petition the Supreme Court to review the Commission’s determination. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 18, subd. (d).) The Supreme Court may grant review of the determination or it may let the determination stand. (Ibid.)
Judge Krashna and Judge Colwell violate Canons 2 and 3 of Code of Judicial Conduct
Judge Krashna’s actions along with Judge Colwell violate Canons 2 and 3 of the California Code of Judicial Conduct, which provide that a “judge should perform the duties of judicial office impartially…”
“Statutes governing disqualification for cause are intended to ensure public confidence in the judiciary and to protect the right of litigants to a fair and impartial adjudicator – not to safeguard an asserted right, privilege or preference of a judge to try or hear a particular dispute.”  (Curle v. Superior Court (Gleason) (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 103.
Slanders al-Hakim to Law Enforcement
As shown above, Krashna committed prejudicial misconduct during the traffic case by expressing prejudgment of al-Hakim’s credibility. Indeed, he made the statements to the CHP officer, not simply to fulfill some ethical or judicial duty but to demean, embarrass and humiliate al-Hakim. Krashna must acknowledge that there is no excuse for his putting the unsubstantiated allegations and his opinions of al-Hakim, and that this was done in his further attempt to influence the reviewers of these documents handling of the case. By disclosing his bias against al-Hakim and his prejudgment of his credibility constituted prejudicial misconduct. (See Dodds, supra, 12 Cal. 4th at p. 176 [judge’s “prejudgment in the handling of cases . . . constituted prejudicial conduct”]; Roberts v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 739, 744-745, 748 [190 Cal. Rptr. 910, 661 P.2d 1064]; McCartney, supra, 12 Cal. 3d at p. 533 [in examining witness, judge “may not . . . become an advocate for either party or cast aspersions or ridicule upon a witness”].)
Krashna’s Deceit Under The Color of Law and Authority In Violation Of The Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts
Krashna has obviously depicted al-Hakim in statements in such a way as his fears of police misconduct and the threat for his life would be believed and as such was taken seriously.  Krashna, in his effort to slaughter al-Hakim’s character, integrity, reputation and persona, convinced others of al-Hakim’s potential violence; put them on notice of his expectation of a violent outburst; then set out to provoke that outburst. This latest act of Krashna’s continued deceit as he tried to frame al-Hakim’s argument of the facts regarding the motion open discovery, “stay”, the motion to compel as burdensome without ever having seen any, not knowing if the main motion the he is supposed to be deciding is even on the calendar; exhibit bad faith and deceit; deny al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; there’s no way Krashna can claim to be unbiased and impartial.
He’s exhibited clear and gross examples of privileged bias, prejudice, favoritism, bigotry and racism; engaged in nullification of the case; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the plaintiffs litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of al-Hakim; portrayed al-Hakim a dead beat dad; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim even through third parties; and highjacked the hearing with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the Unruh and Bane Acts. These efforts of Krashna can qualify as a Hate Crime under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts, while they are clear acts of religious bigotry and intolerance for which al-Hakim will not allow.
Krashna has made knowingly false statements in an effort to demean, humiliate and slander defendant; dishonesty; fraudulent deception; calumny deceit; willful and prejudicial misconduct; abuse of discretion; negligence; bias; prejudice; misrepresentation; incompetence; conflict of interest; bad faith; collusion; denial of due process; obstruction of justice; racism; bigotry; has exhibited, expressed and shown a fixed opinion of al-Hakim; displayed favoritism towards the plaintiffs; made false accusations; caused harassment of al-Hakim; has willfully, deceitfully and recklessly indulged in a series of offensive statements against defendant and has displayed disdain, malice, and a mental attitude or disposition toward al-Hakim that prohibits the right to a fair hearing or trial; failed and refused to respond to the allegations contained in the challenges for cause; conduct prejudicial; and advocated a judicial imprimatur of the defense’s position are grounds for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc. §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); 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; and Cal. Code Jud. Conduct Cannons 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5) and 3B(8). Judge Krashna’s persistent willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, promised retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability he would continue his unethical behavior if he were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future violates and strikes at the heart of 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). al-Hakim is convinced that a fair and impartial trial could not be had before this judge now or in the future!
Krashna is incapable of truth, has no respect for justice, is morally bankrupt, and he will offend again.
II. CONCLUSION
    Judge Krashna SHOULD DISQUALIFY  HIMSELF
    When the herein named judge fails to disqualify himself after service of this motion and after he has repeatedly lied, failed and refused to respond to the allegations contained in the challenge for cause, acted with misconduct; conduct prejudicial; racism; bias; prejudice; bad faith; suggested denial of due process; suggested obstruction of justice; preference, and favoritism displayed towards certain parties; disdain exhibited toward a party by said judge and as such; impress on those their fixed opinion and a judicial imprimatur of the defense’s position; again expressing his fixed opinion and establishing a blatant hostility and willful misconduct are grounds for removal.[re Kreling v. Superior Court (1944) 25 Cal. 2d 305, 312-313, 153 P.2d 734, Keating v. Superior Court (1955) 45 Cal. 2d 440, 444, 289 P.2d 209; Briggs v. Superior Court (1932) 215 Cal. 336, 343, 10 P.2d 1103, Evans v. Superior Court (1930) 107 Cal. App. 372,
VERIFICATION
I, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, am the Defendant in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing written statement for the disqualification for cause of the Honorable Judge David Krashna as judge and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.Executed this 26th day of January 2018, at Oakland, California.                                                                                                              ____________________________
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

Concern for Judge Evelio Grillo’s and VERY SERIOUS Court Administrative ERRORS

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
7633 Sunkist Drive
Oakland, CA  94605

TO:

Judge Michael Markman                       Chad Finke
Judge Wynne Carvill                               Executive Officer
Judge Evelio Grillo                                  Superior Court of Alameda County
Superior Court of Alameda County     1225 Fallon Street Room 209
Departments 1, 15 and 16                       Oakland, CA 94612
René C. Davidson Courthouse               Fax: 510-891-6276
1225 Fallon Street                                    cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, (510) 267-1567
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov,     dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.16@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.15@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

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

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

bcc
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     January 19, 2018
NO PAGES: 3
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Ongoing Concern for Judge Evelio Grillo’s Sitting in the matters of al-Hakim v. EBMUD, Case: #RG14740943, and al-Hakim v. AT&T Inc., Case: #RGl7881130; and VERY SERIOUS blatant court administrative “errors”.

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Grillo, Markham and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, and Mr. Hoshino:

On several occasions I have expressed my ongoing concern for Judge Evelio Grillo’s sitting in the matters referenced above to Judges Markham and Carvill as well as several rather blatant court administrative “errors” that are completely unacceptable in Departments 15, 20, 507, and 511 to former Presiding Court Judge Morris Jacobson, and Supervising Judge Jon Rolefson.
Changing orders, issuing orders after removal from a case, changing tentative rulings, changing the title of motions, calendaring motions that were NOT requested, removing motions from the calendar without notice, calendaring motions without notice, deleting items from the register of actions, and falsifying the record (for appeal), are VERY SERIOUS threats to the Rule of Law as practiced by the acceptable courts in America! Perhaps even MORE dangerous is the silence that pervades the court when asked “Why, How and by Whom?”
As the matter pertains to Judge Grillo sitting in the al-Hakim v. EBMUD, the courts assigned him to this case wherein after 3 court days of having the matter he reads, reviews, research’s, and writes a tentative ruling that is IDENTICAL to the 7 page ruling issued by tainted Judge Robert Freedman AFTER his second challenge for cause! What happened to Freedman’s first tentative ruling that was a few sentences on a page, and what happened in between the fists ruling and the fourth that caused the change????!!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT THE CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE!!!
In his vindictive retaliation against me and his depraved agenda of persecution, Freedman appointed himself “deputy defense counsel” and attacked al-Hakim’s complaint in support of the defenses demurrer that the defense did not and could not raise themselves!
So how does judge Grillo manage to come to the same wording in his 7 page tentative ruling after only 3 court days with the case as Freedman did after 2 years with it??!!! Even more upsetting is the fact that the same 7 page tentative ruling was issued by judge Ioana Petrou in her independent review of the case as well. Three different judges, a tentative ruling that was a few sentences on a page to 7 pages, the same 7 page ruling issued by those three different judges without the benefit of a single letter from the alphabet, not a single word being added to the pleadings, testimony, evidence, argument, nor any legally approved open communications regarding the issues raised herein. Or has there been some illegal, unapproved secret communications regarding the issues raised herein?
Clearly I am unwilling to move forward with judge Griilo sitting in this as well as any other case given that he’s merely judge Freedman’s stooge adopting his racist, islamophobic, xenaphobic, hate induced agenda (Freedman made comments in open court regarding al-Hakim being Muslim at a hearing!) to deny al-Hakim his human and civil rights, and due process under the law. I do not feel that the process of my having to exhaust my rights to a fair and impartial hearing should be used up on peremptory challenges nor challenges for cause of judges that are tainted and conflicted in these matters due to their previous involvement, i.e., judges Freedman, Rolefson, Colwell, Krashna, Herbert, Petrou!
You can accept this letter as a peremptory challenge and a challenge for cause of judge Grillio because his tainted and conflicted status as advocate judge sitting in name face, place and stead for judge Freedman is unacceptable and a clear violation of the law and cannons as it pertains to impartiality, bias, prejudice, collusion, corruption, civil rights and due process.
Given that I have had no response from the judges, nor the court administration, including Chad Finke refusing to comply with three subpoenas and request for production of documents and the Judicial Council with the same, I have no choice but to file actions with the responsible agencies to discover this information and resolve the legal concerns expressed for years.
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim

al-Hakim’s Reply to Judicial Council Request for Judges in Judicial Review

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
7633 Sunkist Drive
Oakland, CA  94605
Tel: (510) 394-4501
Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

Alliance Credit/Bank One, T. Miller,
Plaintiff,

vs.

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim,
Defendant,

Case No.:OCV0574030
Defendant Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Reply to Judicial Council Request for Judges in Judicial Review as per CCP 170.3(c)(5) Challenges of Judge David Krashna (CCP § 170.3 (c) (1))
CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE, CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)), MOTION AND DEMAND FOR REMOVAL ON PEREMPTORY BIAS OR FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CCP §170.6 and FOR CAUSE UNDER CCP §§170.1-5

Reservation Number:
Hearing Date: January 24, 2018
Time: 9:00 AM
Location: Hayward Hall of Justice
24405 Amador Street
Hayward, CA 94544
Department 511

Defendant Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Reply to Judicial Council Request for Judges in Judicial Review as per CCP 170.3(c)(5) Challenge of Judge David Krashna.

I, Defendant Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, as in the cases of Judges Wynne Carvill and Jennifer Madden,  I recently received a letter from Chad Finke, Executive Officer of the Superior Court regarding the Judicial Council Request for nominating Judges in the Judicial Review process as per CCP 170.3(c)(5) in my Challenge of Judge David Krashna.

The letters state:
“Code of Civil Procedure sec. 170.3( c)(5) provides: “In every case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the
judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson.”

It further states to:
“Please check one of the boxes and return this form to the court at the above address.”

The boxes are:
1) I want to have this matter heard by the following Judge(s):
2) I want this matter heard by a judge appointed by the Judicial Council.

The letter ask that the form be returned to Jasmine Polar of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, Judicial Services Unit, 1225 Fallon St., Ste. 209, Oakland, CA 94612.
I have also received the verified answers from the judge in question.
I will file this reply with the court, serve it on the plaintiff’s and give a copy to the Judicial Services Unit as requested.

The Judicial Council and Commission on Judicial Performance
For the reasons cited herein Defendant will NOT agree to ANYONE from the Council serving in this matter unless and until such time as they and the Commission on Judicial Performance answer the MANY filed complaints against them that include corruption, collusion, and conspiracy within their ranks with Superior Court judges.

In August 2017 and December 2017 I had served Subpoena’s and Requests for Production of Documents on the Judicial Council and Superior Court; FOIA/ Brown Act Request filed and served on YOU and YOUR OFFICE on April 7, 2014; 99 page request Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. and pursuant to the California Public Records Act § 6250 et seq. filed and served on YOU and YOUR OFFICE on May 1, 2014; Corruption Complaint filed and served on YOU and YOUR OFFICE, on May 5, 2010; 200 page Corruption, Extrinsic Fraud, Criminal Misconduct, Ethics and “Whistle-Blower” Complaint complete with audio CD filed and served on YOU and YOUR OFFICE  on June 7, 2010;in March and in March and April, 2008 al-Hakim filed complaints against embattled Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar.

Judge Jon Tigar

On several occasions he had attempted to provoke Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim with comments and made one during a side bar at the testimony on behalf of al-Hakim by fellow Judge Leo Dorado in al-Hakim’s bad faith insurance case.

As a result of this and Tigar’s continuing misconduct, al-Hakim had to take the extraordinary measure of filing another complaint with Victoria Henley and the Judicial Council; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; Alameda County Superior Court Presiding Judge Yolanda Northridge and former Presiding Judge George Hernandez demanding that all side bars and proceedings be recorded for his own security. The complaint also addresses some of the concerns of Congress with this matter.

al-Hakim filed another complaint that involved Tigar using the Judicial Council to investigate him with Yvette Trevino and Bernadette Torivio that included phone calls. When they denied their actions, al-Hakim produced a photo of their calls from his caller ID clearly showing where the calls came from and listing the Judicial Council as the source!

Additionally, I would like to know what other options exist to explore from the pool of “judges” to select from, if there are any other professionals that can serve as opposed to ANY judge, especially from the local area? Can an administrator, arbitrator, commissioner, or any other professional serve in the stead of any judge in this matter?

al-Hakim KNOWS that unless this process is transparent and ALL the herein mentioned judicial officials are impartial and unbiased, former Presiding Alameda County Superior Court Judges Yolanda Northridge, Barbara J. Miller, George Hernandez, Winifred Smith, C. Don Clay, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Paul Herbert and Judge Jon Rolefson, with Stephen Brick, Kim Colwell, and retired Judges David Lee, Richard Hodge and Michael Ballachey; former U.S. Attorneys Joe Russoniello, Melinda Haag; the U. S. and California State Attorney Generals, the U. S. Federal District Courts Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken, Thelton E. Henderson, Jon Tigar; California Court of Appeal -First District, Presiding Judge Barbara J. R. Jones, Judges Kennedy, James Richman, Henry Needham, Susan Graham, Mary Quilez, Diana Herbert, Dick Sandvick; the California Courts of Appeal -First District, Alameda Superior Court Appeals Division- Mrs. Johnson-Cannon Appeals Clerk, Nancy Adams, Anita Lippman, Ruby Atwall, and ALL former and current employees; The California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; Victoria Henley, Chad Finke, Yvette Trevino, Bernadette Torivio and; The California Judges Association, Ronald G. Overholt, these judges and their colleagues in the Courts will assure that retaliation occurs in al-Hakim’s cases in an attempt to extend their cover-up of discriminatory animus against him.

Perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.

These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.

The Judicial disciplinary bodies handed judge Tigar a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If I somehow think my civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how am I going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give me a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Am I suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?

Judge Robert Freedman, Leah Wilson and Chad Finke Obstruction of Justice
Freedman Orders a “Stay” in Proceedings

At the March 5, 2015 Case Management Conference Freedman says that plaintiff filing the Challenges for Cause against him amounts to a stay in the proceedings so he is going to order an extensive delay in the proceedings with a nine month continuance! This was retaliatory, punitive and done to provoke an outrage from plaintiff for asserting is right to a fair and impartial legal action unimpregnated with his continued corruption.

Freedman Orders after Hearing signed under penalty of Perjury by both Alameda County Superior Court officers Leah T. Wilson, Executive Officer, and Chad Finke, General Counsel, with the SAME signature!

1. Freedman signed the “ORDER re: CASE MANAGEMENT FURTHER CONFERENCE 03/05/2015 continued to 12/04/2015 at 02:00 PM in Dept. 20.” It included the order that “ Any delay in the trial, caused by non-compliance with any order contained herein, shall be the subject of sanctions pursuant to CCP 177.5.” That proof of service for this order is signed under penalty of perjury by Leah T. Wilson, Executive Officer/Clerk of Superior Court dated 3/25/2015 and includes the declaration:

“DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I certify that I am not a party to this cause and that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was mailed first class, postage prepaid, in a sealed envelope, addressed as shown on the foregoing document or on the attached, and that the mailing of the foregoing and execution of this certificate occurred at
1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, California.”

Oddly, the ORDER re: CASE MANAGEMENT FURTHER CONFERENCE 1/30/2015 continued to 03/05/2015 at 02:00 PM in Dept. 20. was also signed under the penalty of perjury by Mrs. Wilson.

2. Freedman signed the ORDER re: CASE MANAGEMENT FURTHER CONFERENCE 12/04/2015 continued to 12/11/2015 at 02:00 PM in Dept. 20.
His order states” Without the benefit of a formal hearing the 12/4/15 CMC and hearing was continued by Freedman to 12/11/15 with reference to uncontested ruling on the Demurrer. Court orders parties to obtain order from domainweb.”

3. Freedman signed the ORDER re: CASE MANAGEMENT FURTHER CONFERENCE 12/11/2015 continued to 2/11/2016 at 10:00 AM in Dept. 20. Courts says that order will be served on all parties, not just posted on the domainweb. Again without the benefit of a formal hearing the 12/11/15 CMC and hearing was continued to 2/5/16 with reference to the uncontested ruling on Demurrer that plaintiff subsequently contested when informed of the courts web filed ruling.
That proof of service for this order is signed under penalty of perjury by Chad Finke, Executive Officer/Clerk of Superior Court dated 12/21/2015 and includes the declaration:
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I certify that I am not a party to this cause and that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was mailed first class, postage prepaid, in a sealed envelope, addressed as shown on the foregoing document or on the attached, and that the mailing of the foregoing and execution of this certificate occurred at 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, California.
Again, the CASE MANAGEMENT FURTHER CONFERENCE Order of 2/10/2016 continued to 7/14/2016 at 2:00 PM in Dept. 20 is signed by Chad Finke as well.
The orders signed under penalty of Perjury by both Alameda County Superior Court officers Leah T. Wilson, Executive Officer, and Chad Finke, General Counsel, both Executive Officer/Clerk of Superior Court, are signed with exact same electronic stamp. They can NOT possible have the exact same signature so this fact alone should cause those orders to be set aside on their face.
Both Leah Wilson and Chad Finke are actual Real Parties of Interest in this and other al-Hakim matters and both have been legally served as recently as February 2015 regarding Freedman’s presence in this case and in several matters involving the continuing corruption in the al-Hakim matters and both have failed and refused to respond to any of the legal demands served and will be subpoenaed to testify in this and those matters that should lead to federal charges, civil and criminal, against them for their complicity in those crimes and their cover up.

Judge Freedman, Leah Wilson and Chad Finke Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of justice is a criminal offense of interfering with the (1) administration or process of law, (2) withholding material information or giving false testimony, or (3) harming or intimidating a juror, witness, or officer of law.
The crime of obstruction of justice generally includes crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials.  It is considered as a misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance in the conduct of the office.  However, prosecutors and attorneys commit obstruction of justice when they fail to prosecute judges and other government officials for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office.
The principal statutes in this area contained in chapter 73 of United States Code Title 18 are:

Section 1503 offers broad protection to the “due administration of justice” by stating that a person who “corruptly or by threats of force, or by threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice” is guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice.
The government must prove that there was a pending federal judicial proceeding, the defendant knew of the proceeding, and the defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding, in order to obtain a conviction under section 1503.  Under the statute, actual obstruction is not necessary as an element of proof to sustain a conviction.  The party’s endeavor to obstruct justice is sufficient.  The courts define “endeavor” as an effort to accomplish the purpose the statute was enacted to prevent.
Here it appear to be very serious violations by Judge Freedman, Alameda County Superior Court officers Leah T. Wilson, Executive Officer, and Chad Finke, General Counsel, of, among other things,  Obstruction of Justice, Government Code section 6200, CA Penal Code sections 182 and 96.5, and Federal RICO statutes.
This is being done with the knowledge and assistance of other Court Officers even after  having been notified of the falsification of records. The actions of Judge Freedman, Leah Wilson and Chad Finke have irreparably harmed Petitioner herein, and undermined any confidence the public or others (including the Court of Appeal) could or should have with respect to the integrity of the County Superior Court and it’s Orders, perhaps, but not necessarily, especially those involving Judge Freedman, Leah Wilson and Chad Finke, with the oversight of the Presiding Court Judge.
The Presiding Judge is responsible for upholding the impartiality and integrity of the judicial process in the court to which he/she is/was appointed to.
The judge is responsible, for leading the court, establishing policies, and allocating resources in a manner that promotes access to justice for all members of the public, provides a forum for the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes, maximizes the use of judicial and other resources, increases efficiency in court operations, and enhances service to the public.
That is not the reality in the Alameda County Superior Court where the court has taken on this malicious and malevolent tone directed at al-Hakim.
The public who is served by the court has the right to expect that the court abides by the law and adheres to the equal protection and procedural and substantive due process requirements that are defined in the legislature. Not the belief standard that this Freedman and the court has allocated to rules and procedures. The public has the right to expect a respectful judicial and administrative processes. The public deserves a judge and court that actually cares and does not use it to further his own bias, prejudice/malicious vendetta and personal gain against certain litigants and is capable of applying the law in a fair and ethical manner. The CONDUCT of Judge Freedman, Leah Wilson and Chad Finke with the court violates all applicable judicial canon of ethics, undermines the judge’s independence, integrity, impartiality and FAILS to promote the public’s confidence in the integrity* and impartiality* of the judiciary.
“Law is the legal system, or the administration of justice.” When a judge engages in an activity that relates to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, the judge should also consider factors such as whether the activity upholds the integrity, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary (Canons 1 and 2A), whether it impairs public confidence in the judiciary (Canon 2), whether the judge is allowing the activity to take precedence over judicial duties (Canon 3A), and whether engaging in the activity would cause the judge to be disqualified (Canon 4A(4)). Judge Freedman, Leah Wilson and Chad Finke with the court has violated ALL of the above!

Defendant Demand for Depositions, Documents and Transcripts
Defendant has an approved fee waiver on file for Superior and Appeal Courts for transcripts and demands to take necessary depositions, request production of documents and hearing transcripts from:

1) al-Hakim filed a Federal Complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him by Judge David C. Lee during the Rescue Industries trial in Superior Court of Alameda County, California;

2) the two 20 year ongoing legal fraud cases of Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau. et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 811337-3, and Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 821885-2 and under investigation by the U. S. and California State Attorney Generals involving the defendants, Oakland City Attorney, ALL former and current employees, agents, and contractors fraud that Judge Kim Colwell is also named in as a defendant, and witnesses while serving as a defense attorney at Meyers Nave. The Rescue case ended with Judge Lee explaining to the jury that this should be a mistrial because ALL the defense witnesses and evidence had to be purged because of their perjurious testimony and the use of fabricated evidence but he was retiring and there would be no new trial!
The CSAA case ended when al-Hakim was away on a court approved leave to attend a funeral and Judge Tigar proceeded without al-Hakim, dismissed the jury and concluded the case in two days in his absence;

3) the results and pending outcome of Judge Robert Freedman’ alleged investigation of Judge Jon Tigar by order of then Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge. The complaints documented Judge Tigar’s many, many violations of Local Court Rules and the Canons and al-Hakim is entitled to know those results as they affected his trial and Judge Freedman should not be allowed to ignore nor  “rubber stamp” a defense of Judge Tigar while aiding the unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains of Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave. To date Judge Freedman has failed and refused to provide his response, if any, to al-Hakim’s request for the results of his nearly 20 year investigation or cause the complaint to be investigated as requested by then Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge;

4) ongoing case of ADMITTED FRAUD by the Alameda County District Attorney (DA), Department of Child Support Service (DCSS), and Attorney General of the State of California (AG), Alameda County Family Court Case No. 511339-2 and 511488-1; Alameda County Department of Child Support Services(ACDCSS) case number #0010274454-01(previously listed as FSD #274454A; Alameda County Family Court Case No. C-556643; Alameda County Department of Child Support Services(ACDCSS) Case# 00100044308-01) (previously listed as FSD # 044308A; where they have suspended al-Hakim’s drivers license and revoked his passport since 2007 as an extortionate measure to force him to pay the fraudulent arrearage, and Alameda County Traffic Court Case No. 51109206;

5) all documents and related papers filed in Alameda County Superior Court with the Statements of Disqualification for Judges James Richman, Henry Needham, Judith Ford, Frank Roesch, Stephen Brick, Robert Freedman, Paul Herbert, Wynne Carvill, Jennifer Madden and Jon Tigar listed herein filed by al-Hakim, the Answers filed by those Judges and al-Hakim’s Reply to their Answers including on July 29, 2005 and August 29, 2005;

6) Appeals Court case numbers A 118042, A101832, A108728, A112089 A-119006, A116369, A116222, A112691, and A111712 with ALL their Superior Court pleadings and papers on file in these referenced Appeals actions in support of this motion and request specific attention to the Appellate Motions for Reconsideration, to Augment the Record on Appeal, to Unseal the Complete Transcript, to Dismiss the Appeal on Challenge for Cause, Appellant’s Petitions for Review filed January 3, 2006, and February 10, 2006 and all related papers filed by Defendant in the Court of Appeals with these facts and evidence, along with the admissions of testimony and applicable law cited by appellant;

7) those related papers filed with the Motion to Appoint a Discovery Referee as ordered on January 17, 2002;

8) those related papers filed September 8, 2005 with Motion for Injunction and Protective Order Disqualifying Tim Schmal;

9) those related papers filed with Motion to Vacate heard on February 27, 2003;

10) those related papers filed on October 26, 2005 with Motion to Vacate;

11) those related papers filed on June 17, 2005, July 13, 2005 and August 25, 2005 with Motion for Stay;

12) those related papers filed with defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss heard on January 3, 2003 and August 24, 2004;

13) related papers those filed with defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on December 20, 2005; and

14) all pleadings and papers on file in the California State Supreme Court referenced actions, Case Nos. S130203, S138090, and S140264.

Defendant Demand for Answers, Responses and Results of Ongoing Investigations and Complaints

Defendant demands the answers, responses and results of the ongoing investigations and complaints and to take necessary depositions, request production of documents and hearing transcripts from:

1) al-Hakim’s Federal Complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him by Judge David C. Lee during the Rescue Industries trial in Superior Court of Alameda County, California, and  the investigation by the United States and California State Attorney Generals involving the Oakland City Attorney fraud that Judge Kim Colwell is also directly involved and named in. On August 1, 2007 al-Hakim had the court issuance of trial subpoenas served on Kim Colwell for Retired Judges David Lee, Michael Ballachey, and Richard Hodge, John Russo, Janie Wong and Anita Hong to submit to trial testimony beginning September 7, 2007 regarding the handling of the City file. The requested depositions and investigation concerns trial Judge David C. Lee’s allowance of the illegal product of fabricated and planted evidence, spoliated evidence by defendant/hostile intervener CSAA Insurance; 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 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 CSAA as the hostile intervener, that were missing, altered, or incomplete. Retired Judges Lee, Michael Ballachey, and Richard Hodge, though they live in three different counties, all coincidentally hired the same Oakland defense firm run by former Oakland and current San Leandro City Attorney Jayne Williams whom was responsible for providing the files to the defendants initially that was then given to her client Judge Lee for trial by John Russo. Judge Colwell, then a partner and attorney at  Meyers Nave handled the requested depositions and investigation concerning retired Judges David Lee, Michael Ballachey, and Richard Hodge, thereby actively participating in the continued cover up of the admitted crimes of all those involved;

2) an ongoing investigation with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request and Request for Production of Documents served on the Attorney General of State of California regarding the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, Alameda County Child Support Services, Oakland City Attorney, Superior Court fraud in the herein named matters;

3) the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California from 2004 until 2010 with former U.S. Attorneys Joe Russoniello, Melinda Haag, current U.S. Attorneys Brian Stretch, Jack Gillund, Charles O’Connor, Alex Tse, Joan Swanson, Joshua Eaton, J. Douglas Wilson, Barbara Valliere, Stacey Putnam Geis, Mark Argarin, Kim A. Berger, Hallie M. Hoffman, Jeffrey R. Finigan, William Frentzen, Susan Badger, Katherine Burke Dowling, and ALL former and current employees that was served petitions several times for an ongoing investigation that involves the ongoing legal cases and investigation by the U. S. and California State Attorney Generals involving the DA, DCSS and the Oakland City Attorney fraud that Judge Kim Colwell is also named in. al-Hakim has included the U. S. Federal District Courts Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken, Thelton E. Henderson, Jon Tigar, Pat Talley-Linnhart, Diana Pasadori, Tracie Williams, Ernestina Lee, Linda Ekstrom-Stanley and ALL former and current employees; California Court of Appeal -First District, Presiding Judge  Barbara J. R. Jones, Judges Kennedy, James Richman, Henry Needham, Susan Graham, Mary Quilez, Diana Herbert, Dick Sandvick, Rosa, Joy Washington and ALL former and current employees; the California Courts of Appeal -First District, Alameda Superior Court Appeals Division- Mrs. Johnson-Cannon Appeals Clerk, Nancy Adams, Anita Lippman, Ruby Atwall, and ALL former and current employees; The California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George and ALL former and current employees; The California Commission on Judicial Performance and ALL former and current employees; the Commission on Judicial Performance, Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and ALL former and current employees; The Judicial Council and Victoria Henley, Yvette Trevino, Bernadette Torivio and ALL former and current employees; The California Judges Association, Ronald G. Overholt and ALL former and current employees;

4) an ongoing investigation with a 99 page Ethics Complaint served on the City of Oakland’s Ethics Office including former Mayors Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown, Jacque Barzaghi Ron Dellums, Trina Barton, Diane Boyd, Miguel Bustos, Kitty Kelly Epstein, VaShone Huff, Earl Johnson, Cheryal Kidd, Marisol Lopez, Vincent Mackey, Paul Rose, Daniel Boggan Jr., Karen Stevenson, and ALL former and current employees, Mayor Jean Quan, Rich Cowan, Lewis Cohen, Karen Boyd, Anne Campbell Washington, Reygan Harmon, Susan Piper, and ALL former and current employees; former Oakland City Administrators Deanna J. Santana, Dan Lindhiem, Fred Blackwell, Kathy Kessler, Barbara B. Killey, Marjo R. Keller, Amber Todd, Ann Campbell-Washington, Winnie Woo, Gia Casteel-Brown, and ALL former and current employees; regarding the ongoing legal cases and investigations of City of Oakland and Alameda County Child Support Services fraud of two then minor girls;

5) an ongoing investigation with a 99 page Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request and Request for Production of Documents served on the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office regarding their and Alameda County Child Support Services fraud of two then minor girls, including but not limited to former Director Maureen K. Lenahan, Director Matthew Brega, Charlene Perry, Sue Eadie, Valgeria Harvey, Yolanda Smith, counselors L. Lavagetto, Ms. K. Pendergrass, Ms. Adler, Kris Ferre, accountant Mr. Lovelady, Mrs. Reese, Mrs. Remelton, Ms. Alder, Mrs. Carlilse, Mrs. Ricca Alcantara, Terry Simmons-Booker, B. Hoffmann, Mr. Williams and others unnamed in the DA’s and ACDCSS’ offices; ALL their former and current employees, agents, and contractors; Judge Stephen Pulido, Judge Sandra Bean, Judge Tara DeSautels, Judge Yolanda Northridge, Commissioners Thomas Nixon, Sue Alexander, Boydine Hall, and Glenn Oleon;  Alameda County Superior Court Administration, Chad Finke, Giza Lewis, Pat Sweeten, Chad Finke, Leah Wilson, Adrianne Forshay, Angela-Law Clerk, Dan Croyle, Phil Abar, Robbie McIntoshs, Pam Drummond-Williams, Michelle Escerra, Tanisha V. Jones, court reporter Adrienne Peretti, ALL former and current employees, and others unnamed in the Superior Court’s Family Law Clerk’s office in these criminal acts.;
6) Judicial employees, Alameda County, and the Alameda County Superior Court, and Meyers Nave, and Keker Van Nest Law firms, among other corporate judicial political handler/investors, influence peddlers and bag men, relationship that has enriched themselves financially, professionally, socially and politically.

CONCLUSION
Without the herein referenced answers, responses and results of the ongoing investigations and complaints with the necessary depositions, request production of documents and hearing transcripts, this process will NOT be transparent, not legally, ethically nor morally proper, and only serve the purpose of extinguishing my rights WITHOUT any recourse that was EVER FAIR and impartial while denying the Challenges.
Unless and until these issues can be fairly resolved BEFORE any hearing can be scheduled, I am and will be subject to the continued fraud, corruption and collusion complained of in ALL the aforementioned herein and CAN NOT in good conscience agree to ANY of the conditions referenced in the letters/form!

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of January 2018, at Oakland, CA
________________________
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim

Continue reading al-Hakim’s Reply to Judicial Council Request for Judges in Judicial Review

#BLACKLIVESMATTER CLAPS BACK!! TWITTER, GOOGLE MUST Appear in Court!

MEDIA ADVISORY
November 6, 2017,  Oakland, CA:
Contact: Toussaint LeToure, Editor
Martin Silverman, Chief Correspondent
(510) 394-4701
nowtruth@nowtruth.org;

To post to our Nowtruth email distribution list of over 21 million subscribers just email your Black Lives Matter content post to us at: blacklivesmatter@nowtruth.org.

We are Forming a Legal Coalition for Victory Over Corruption! and ask your organizations to register/join our coalition at: http://nowtruth.org/forming-a-legal-coalition-for-victory-over-corruption/. Please share this proposal with EVERYONE that you think might or should be interested in winning justice and respect for ALL childern, responsile parents and people in general!

TWITTER SUBPOENAED!  CLOSED ACCOUNTS FOR #BLACKLIVESMATTER TWEETS! ENGAGED IN CENSORSHIP AND COVER UP OF CRIMES OF GOV. JERRY BROWN, KAMALA HARRIS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY NANCY O’MALLEY AND OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY BARBARA PARKER!!

Twitter and Google has been subpoenaed and MUST appear in court Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 9 am, for closing the accounts ajalil, FirstSSM, Nowtruth1, EXWHYAD, griotz, AMWFND, electionwin, and caecay for tweeting and retweeting posts that disclosed criminal corruption of the “COURTEL- Superior Court CARTEL conceived in sin, born of corruption, protected by guard dogs of Hell!” with Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Kamala Harris, California Judges, California Judicial Council, District Attorney Nancy O’Malley and Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker!!

They opposed the motions ONLY AFTER the replies had been served on them, which makes the oppositions invalid. But worst by offering the lamest excuses to conceal their collusion in the corruption case that involves ALL the parties mentioned above!

Twitter completely lied in their opposition saying they just received the subpoena at the same time they have to reply to the motion to compel, the November 8 hearing date! They received the subpoena on August 8, 2017 and were to have their reply back to us by September 8, 2017!! We have received nothing from them until now.

Google claimed in their opposition to the motion to compel they would have to hire techs just to search their own files for the documents and that research would be too expensive to perform!!! GOOGLE, THE WORLDS LEADER IN SEARCH CAPABILITY AND WORTH OVER $500 BILLION!!! What a joke! They also make reference to the FBI, possible illegal surveillance, data mining and gathering of information on Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities.

The District Attorney, NAZI NAnZI O’inkMalley filed a completely perjurious document that would indict her, but they “forgot” to sign it! Hummm? They claim they NEVER received the subpoena but have revealed they have 286 page document that was also filed with the court!

The “COURTEL” – the Superior Court Corruption CARTEL, California Judicial Council, and Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker ALL failed and refused to file ANY opposition to the subpoenas and I am sure they will NOT show up in court. Their motions are below for your pleasure.

You MUST read these motions and oppositions as you will NOT believe them!!

You can download or view the subpoenas, oppositions and trial notices here:

Motion to Compel Google Subpoena and Request for Production
https://app.box.com/s/k3nflq6e3h4si950z3mkl23kpalbf8y8

Google Opposition to Motion to Compel Subpoena and Request for Production
https://app.box.com/s/9kxio9lia2tqnvz2nkgg5e4ypqel585b

Motion to Compel O’Malley Subpoena and Request for Production
https://app.box.com/s/y7xbnead5tf0r4cqqp5xqm2cluh1abob

O’Malley Opposition to Motion to Compel Subpoena and Request for Production
https://app.box.com/s/3ra9yspmu8c3935mwpmfnl40cppo69yh

Twitter Opposition to Motion to Compel Subpoena and Request for Production
https://app.box.com/s/milnerzx4yholsnrh3fxl6romq5pfn6c

Twitter Filed Subpoena and Request for Production.pdf:
https://app.box.com/s/vx0ucnc0awfzv0fvzi0fryem34qlgkwz

Twitter Filed Motion to Compel Subpoena and Request for Production.pdf
https://app.box.com/s/8ajqihs2l0ba9wahpwjapnx1uil40luq

Some of the tweets to Shaun King, Deray, Uncle Bobby, and many others.

 


 

Effectively NONE of their reasons for the alleged “suspension” are applicable and seem to have an agenda established by those opposed to the retweets and mentions!

It seems that their selective Persecution and prosecution is clearly motivated by their attempt to silence and censor us, deny our freedom of speech and cover up the corruption of those mentioned in the posts that is directly supported with THEIR OWN ADMISSIONS and the EVIDENCE thereto!

Twitters demonstrated extreme bias and prejudice is clearly intended to cause harm to those accounts you have selectively chosen to “close” to the benefit of those with something to lose by the publicity of the tweets/retweets!

Superior Court Motion to Compel Subpoena and Request for Production
https://app.box.com/s/7hfxqpida76i13ks5g6dv16t4sje9rbz

Judicial Council Motion to Compel Subpoena and Request for Production
https://app.box.com/s/dtawn68ghmmq3vfrkvb6ci6eisvt7wmk

City of Oakland Motion to Compel Subpoena and Request for Production
https://app.box.com/s/hbgemcgmocb6lwsqde8ziiyw9elu5b9x

PLEASE CIRCULATE AND TWEET WIDELY! STAY TUNED FOR MORE TO COME!!! STAY WOKE!!!

The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: “Black Identity Extremists”

EXCLUSIVE

The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: “Black Identity Extremists”

Law enforcement calls it a violent movement. Critics call it racist. The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: ‘Black Identity Extremists’ – Foreign Policy Read it here!

FERGUSON, MO – AUGUST 19: Police point to a demonstrator who has his arms raised before moving in to arrest him on August 19, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. Violent outbreaks have taken place in Ferguson since the shooting death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer on August 9th. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

As white supremacists prepared to descend on Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, the FBI warned about a new movement that was violent, growing, and racially motivated. Only it wasn’t white supremacists; it was “black identity extremists.”

Amid a rancorous debate over whether the Trump administration has downplayedthe threat posed by white supremacist groups, the FBI’s counterterrorism division has declared that black identity extremists pose a growing threat of premeditated violence against law enforcement.

“The FBI assesses it is very likely Black Identity Extremist (BIE) perceptions of police brutality against African Americans spurred an increase in premeditated, retaliatory lethal violence against law enforcement and will very likely serve as justification for such violence,” reads the report, marked for official use only and obtained by Foreign Policy.

The August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was the catalyst for widespread anger and violence, the FBI report says, concluding that continued “alleged” police abuses have fueled more violence.

“The FBI assesses it is very likely incidents of alleged police abuse against African Americans since then have continued to feed the resurgence in ideologically motivated, violent criminal activity within the BIE movement,” the report states.

Some 748 people have been shot and killed by police so far in 2017, including at least 168 African-Americans.

The report, dated Aug. 3 — just nine days before the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville turned deadly — appears to be the first known reference to “black identity extremists” as a movement. But former government officials and legal experts said no such movement exists, and some expressed concern that the term is part of a politically motivated effort to find an equivalent threat to white supremacists.

A former senior counterterrorism and intelligence official from the Department of Homeland Security who reviewed the document at FP’s request expressed shock at the language.

“This is a new umbrella designation that has no basis,” the former official said. “There are civil rights and privacy issues all over this.”

The concept of “black identity extremists” appears to be entirely new. FP found only five references to the term in a Google search; all were to law enforcement documents about domestic terrorism from the last two months. One of those online references is to law enforcement training on identifying “domestic terror groups and criminally subversive subcultures which are encountered by law enforcement professionals on a daily basis.”

Among the six acts of premeditated violence linked to black identity extremists — it excludes violence toward police carried out in the normal course of their duties — the reports cites the July 2016 shooting of 11 police officers in Dallas. The shooter, Micah Johnson, was reportedly angry at police violence.

“Based on Johnson’s journal writings and statements to police, he appeared to have been influenced by BIE ideology,” the FBI report states. The attack took place during a Black Lives Matter protest of police shootings, though the BLM movement is not mentioned by name in the report.

Yet those involved in the Black Lives Matter movement have voiced concerns about FBI surveillance.

DeRay McKesson, an activist involved in the Black Lives Matter movement, told FP that the FBI visited his house in the run-up to the Republican National Convention. “I spoke about the FBI visit to my house and the houses of other activists in our final meeting with [President Barack] Obama,” he said.

“There is a long tradition of the FBI targeting black activists and this is not surprising,” McKesson said.

The FBI declined to comment on the report itself and did not respond to specific questions, but in an emailed statement to FP, the bureau defended its tracking of “black identity extremists,” saying that “the FBI cannot initiate an investigation based solely on an individual’s race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or the exercise of First Amendment rights.”

In its August report, the FBI said it expects further attacks by black identity extremists, driven by both the perception and the reality of unfair treatment at the hands of police officers.

“The FBI further assesses it is very likely additional controversial police shootings of African Americans and the associated legal proceedings will continue to serve as drivers for violence against law enforcement,” the report says.

Some experts and former government officials said the FBI seemed to be trying to paint disparate groups and individuals as sharing a radical, defined ideology. And in the phrase “black identity extremist” they hear echoes of the FBI’s decades-long targeting of black activists as potential radicals, a legacy that only recently began to change.

“They are grouping together Black Panthers, black nationalists, and Washitaw Nation,” said the former homeland security official. “Imagine lumping together white nationals, white supremacists, militias, neo-Nazis, and calling it ‘white identity extremists.’”

The FBI is linking the people discussed in the report based only on them being black, rather than on any sort of larger ideological connection, the official said. “The race card is being played here deliberately.”

“The race card is being played here deliberately.”

The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: ‘Black Identity Extremists’ – Foreign Policy Read it here!

Michael German, a former FBI agent and now a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice’s liberty and national security program, said manufacturing this type of threat was not new. He has criticized earlier FBI reports on “black separatists,” arguing that they conflated radical groups operating in the 1970s with attacks in 2010 and later, even though there was no obvious connection.

The use of terms like “black identity extremists” is part of a long-standing FBI attempt to define a movement where none exists. “Basically, it’s black people who scare them,” German said.

Even former officials who view the government’s concerns about black separatists as legitimate balked at the term “black identity extremist,” and point out that the threat from individuals or groups who want to establish their own homeland is much less than from the far right.

In 2009, Daryl Johnson, then a Department of Homeland Security intelligence analyst, warned of the rise of right-wing extremism, setting off a firestorm among congressional critics. Johnson, who left the department in 2010, said he could think of no reason why the FBI would create a new category for so-called black identity extremists. “I’m at a loss,” he replied, when asked about the term.

“I have no idea of why they would come up with a new term.”

There have been concerns about rising violence among black separatist groups in recent years, he said, but it does not approach the threat of right-wing extremism. “When talking about white supremacists versus black supremacists, there are way more white supremacists,” Johnson said.

For historians and academics who have looked at the history of FBI surveillance of black Americans, the report also smacks of the sort of blatant racism the bureau has worked hard to leave behind. From the time J. Edgar Hoover took over the anti-radical division in the FBI at the height of the first “red scare” in 1919, the bureau began systematically surveilling black activists.

Read more from FP:

“Black protests get conflated for the bureau [with communism], and it begins there,” said William Maxwell, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, who has researched the FBI’s monitoring of black writers in the 20th century.

What followed, according to Maxwell, was decades of FBI pursuit of black radicals in the belief, often mistaken, that they were part of a larger subversive movement. “It’s deep in the bureau’s DNA,” he said.

Lately, that seemed to be changing. As FBI director, James Comey famously kept a copy of the Martin Luther King Jr. wiretap order on his desk as a reminder of the bureau’s past abuses and made new agents learn the history of the FBI’s pursuit of the civil rights leader.

The FBI also appeared to be focusing more attention on the threat of white supremacists. In May, the FBI warned that white supremacist violence was growing, according to a report obtained and published by FP. That same report noted that white supremacists were responsible for more attacks in the United States than any other extremist group, including Islamic extremists.

Critics, however, accuse President Donald Trump of shifting attention away from right-wing violence. This year, the Trump administration decided to focus the Department of Homeland Security’s “countering violent extremism” program on Islamic terrorism and deprioritized funding to counter white supremacist groups.

The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: ‘Black Identity Extremists’ – Foreign Policy Read it here!

“To hear there is a new initiative targeting black identity extremists is surprising given that shift,” said Alvaro Bedoya, the executive director of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law.

Maxwell, the Washington University professor, had an even darker view. “It’s classic Hoover-style labeling with little bit of maliciousness and euphemism wrapped up together,” he said. “The language — black identity extremist — strikes me as weird and really a continuation of the worst of Hoover’s past.”

“The language — black identity extremist — strikes me as weird and really a continuation of the worst of Hoover’s past.”

In a sense, the FBI’s desire to identify a unifying ideological underpinning to what are often individual violent acts is not surprising, said David Garrow, a historian who wrote a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of MLK. “Security agencies want to perceive a threat that is political, a threat that ideological,” Garrow said, “but what we’re actually witnessing is men, almost entirely men, acting out in violent criminal ways and grasping at some chimera of political justification.”

But the document itself smacks of incompetence more than conspiracy, according to Garrow, who reviewed a copy of the report provided by FP. “The immediate instinct is to think [the FBI] are a threat,” he said. “My immediate instinct is to wonder whether they are minimally competent.”

Garrow, who has reviewed decades’ worth of FBI documents for his work, warned against seeing this report as proof that the FBI is illegally targeting black Americans.

“They are often so clueless,” he said of the FBI. “I don’t find them a threat.”

But the former homeland security official said the report’s tendency to lump together different groups that have no obvious connection will make it harder for law enforcement to identify real threats. “It’s so convoluted — it’s compromising officer safety,” the former official said.

And even though the report mentions in a footnote that “political activism” and “strong rhetoric” by themselves don’t amount to extremism and “may be constitutionally protected,” it identifies anger with police or “anti-white rhetoric” as indicators of a potential “violent threat.”

“Just the term ‘black identity extremist’ is protected,” the former official said. “You can identify all you want.”

The FBI, however, defended the classification in its statement to FP.

“Domestic terrorism groups differ from traditional criminal groups in that they take action for a different purpose, to bring attention to a social or political cause,” the FBI wrote. “Therefore, their existence as a group has a legitimate purpose, at least in part. Their legitimate activity may include acts of protest, advocacy, and civil disobedience.”

The FBI says there are “nine persistent extremist movements” in the United States at present. Those include “white supremacy, black identities, militia, sovereign citizens, anarchists, abortion, animal rights, environmental rights, and Puerto Rican Nationalism.”