NOWTRUTH! is THE platform to organize, strategize, advocate and work for the END of the Grand Systemic and Endemic Corruption, which includes Judicial/Legal Systemic Racism as a subset!

TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

I. INTRODUCTION AND GROUNDS FOR PETITION 

AND STAY OF ACTION 

TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUSTICE AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

Petitioner Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (hereafter, “Plaintiff, Petitioner, AMWF or Foundation), seeks Writ of Mandate, Writ of Review/Prohibition, Extraordinary Writ relief and/or an Order to Show Cause to set aside and vacate a series of trial court orders without public record, not in register of actions (see Exh. G), no filing or service, causing irreparable harm by assigned Judge Joscelyn Jones (see Exh. H) dismissing the Complaint Case No. 25CV108981 (see Exh. A)permanently denying its causes of action, was void ab initio without assignment, no lawful jurisdiction and authority, procedurally defective and an abuse of discretion. Writ relief is necessary because superior court orders are void and ordinary appeal will not provide timely relief.

The trial court orders issued are void as Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon’s, Judge Stephen Kaus and Judge Joscelyn Jones actions as follows: Nixon’s unlawfully and improperly subjecting the Foundation to misapplied vexatious litigant Pre-filing order and procedures where he lacked the power to act when a corporation cannot be a “person” for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure § 391, All their orders, tentative rulings, or judgments entered are void ab initio, for lack of jurisdiction; judges ruling without assignment, lawful jurisdiction and authority including Judge Nixon’s Pre-filing order, Kaus’s July 24, 2025 Tentative Case Management Order (see Exh. B)and Jones’s August 13, 2025 (see Exh. A)affirmation of Kaus order are void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction; judges relied on the MISAPPLIED corporate pro se rule (Merco) without meaningfully addressing the attorney representational, and jurisdictional defects as Petitioner was unable to substitute counsel because it had less than THREE (3) BUSINESS DAYS to retain counsel as Kaus ordered to dismiss the complaint if there was no new counsel by August 6, 2025; Judges and Defendants UNSERVED DOCUMENTS including those referenced herein; judges REFUSAL to read nor considered the evidence and facts of ANY documents filed and served by Plaintiff materially influenced judicial decision making and rulings with deliberate misrepresentations to obtain an advantage and adjudicative action without notice, to strike them and issue adverse perjurious rulings circumscribed in fraud on the court, due process and abuse of discretion violations, concealment, and criminal suppression of evidence; undisclosed, unlawful, private case altering ex parte communications, conduct and improper coordination among Judges Kaus, Jones and Nixon; Judge Jones refusal to accept service of a procedurally proper Statement of Disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 170.1-170.6, then proceeded to dismiss the case without answering the challenge; rewarding defendants’ procedural misconduct and deliberate failure to serve and pursuing the Motion to Dismiss/Strike by defendant Alacrity and thereby permanently denying Petitioner its causes of action and due process was an abuse of discretion.

For these reasons and the authorities stated herein, this Court should grant the requested writs to vacate the dismissal, issue an immediate stay, order reassignment and proper procedure, award sanctions, and set the matter for hearing.

Plaintiff files this petition because (a) the Superior Court’s dismissal was entered in a procedurally defective context rendering the orders void ab initio; (b) immediate judicial relief is necessary to prevent irreparable harm; (c) Article I, § 7 of the California Constitution guarantees due process with the right to present one’s evidence; and (d) the requested relief (vacatur, reassignment, and reinstatement) will restore the Foundation’s rights and permit the Foundation to obtain counsel promptly where necessary. Petitioner respectfully requests the Court’s indulgence to consider this writ in light of the the misapplied Merco limitation exceptional circumstances it presents.

This petition is not merely a procedural objection it is a demand for judicial accountability, for the restoration of due process, and for the protection of every litigant’s right to a fair and impartial tribunal. The Court of Appeal must act to preserve the integrity of California’s judiciary and ensure that justice is not only done, but seen to be done.

Plaintiff petitions for a writ of mandate directing the Alameda County Superior Court to: (1) vacate judge Nixon granting the Notices that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order as void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction; (2) declare void and of no force or effect any substantive orders entered in this action by Judges Stephen Kaus, Joscelyn Jones, and Thomas Nixon including the Amended Tentative Case Management Orders dated July 24, 2025 and Judge Jones’s August 13, 2025 affirmations as void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction; (3) disqualify Judges Stephen Kaus, Joscelyn Jones, and Thomas Nixon from further proceedings in this and any other matters; (4) direct the matter be remanded to the superior court for reassignment to an unbiased judge; (5) refer the matter to the Commission on Judicial Performance for investigation of potential judicial misconduct; and (6) transmit records to and request investigation by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

1. SUMMARY/ISSUES PRESENTED

This petition is based on a) Code of Civil Procedure section 391’s text confines “vexatious litigant” to a person acting in propria persona and defines “plaintiff” as the person who commences or maintains litigation, by its terms and under governing law, the Vexatious Litigant order never applied to Plaintiff, a duly chartered California corporation, because Corporations can not be designated “vexatious litigants”, thus are not subject to the vexatious litigant statutes and makes judges Nixon, Kaus and Jones’s without jurisdiction or authority to act, ALL their orders are Void Ab Initio, and ends the § 391 path for both defendants and the court; b) Judge Kaus ruled the Foundation, not Mr. al-Hakim, is the named plaintiff and defendants’ notices avowing “Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant” were “not accurate” proves Judge Nixon improperly applied and relied upon vexatious litigant filings and Merco issues in a procedurally defective context makes ALL judges Nixon, Kaus and Jones’s orders Void Ab Initio as they are without jurisdiction or authority; c) judge Kaus’s lack of jurisdiction to act without a valid, publicly recorded assignment, makes his orders void (Cal. Rules Jud. Admin. 2.10; d) Judges Kaus, Jones, Nixon, and Defendants, UNSERVED DOCUMENTS materially influenced judicial decision making and rulings about pending matters WITHOUT SERVING or providing Petitioner notice or documents of any actions with deliberate misrepresentations to obtain an advantage or to obtain adjudicative action without notice; e) California Constitution Article I, § 7 constitutional and statutory Due process and abuse of discretion violations when judges Nixon, Kaus and Jones NEVER read nor considered ANY documents filed and served by Plaintiff; f) judges failure to answer Challenge for Cause/Disqualification Code Civ. Proc. §§ 170.1, 170.3 and related authority; g) the appearance of judicial bias and procedural irregularities under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 170.1, 170.3 and related authority; h) improper undisclosed ex parte communications among judges that influenced substantive rulings (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 170.1, 170.3; Cal. Rules of Court), i) judges actionable misconduct in dismissal of corporation appearing pro se without affording meaningful relief or consideration of Petitioner’s responsive filings; and j) the need for appropriate remedies to protect Petitioner’s rights to due process and an impartial tribunal, which warrant vacatur, sanctions, and referral.

2. JURISDICTION AND TIMELINESS

This Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandate, review and prohibition under the California Constitution, Article VI, § 10 and § 11; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085 (mandate) and 1094.5 authorize writs of mandate to compel performance of official duties and to review administrative and judicial actions; and 1102 (prohibition), and Rules of Court, rules 8.480-8.490 set forth procedures for filing petitions for extraordinary writ and for seeking stays and administrative relief; and the Court’s supervisory writ powers related authority. 

No adequate remedy by appeal exists because the orders at issue are void for lack of jurisdiction where trial judges act without valid assignment, their orders are void and may be vacated by writ.

Extraordinary relief:

• This Court may issue an alternative writ commanding respondents to show cause why the requested relief should not be granted and then issue a peremptory writ in mandamus if respondents fail to justify the challenged actions. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1085.)
• Writ relief is especially appropriate where (1) the trial court acted without jurisdiction, (2) the trial court’s errors are legal and subject to review, and (3) harm is imminent and not remediable on appeal. (See authorities cited)

Request for immediate administrative stay:

• Petitioner requests that the Court issue an immediate administrative stay of enforcement of 1) any and all orders of and resulting from Judge Nixon Prefiling Order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 391.7(c) that was NEVER served; 2) Judge Kaus’s July 24, 2025 Tentative Case Management Order we received on July 31, 2025, Judge Jones’s August 13, 2025 affirmation; 3) Jones’s order dismissing the Foundation’s complaint on August 13, 2025, with the postmark on the mailing envelope of August 26, 2025- TWO (2) WEEKS LATER, present an imminent risk of irreparable injury. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.486(i)–(k); rule 8.490.)

This petition is timely filed following the Superior Court’s order dismissing the Foundation’s complaint on August 13, 2025, the date on the proof of service in this NEW Amended 8/14/25 at 10:04 am Alacrity order by Judge Jones states it was served on August 14, 2025, by Amani Amponsah located in a different office/department/city than Angelica Mendola, whom had signed all the previous proofs for this actions and those on the same day, without a new signature nor date for the amended order, yet the postmark on the mailing envelope is August 26, 2025- TWO (2) WEEKS LATER, was delivered and received via postal mail by plaintiff on September 2, 2025!

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petition for Writ of Mandate and Writ of Review/Prohibition

1. Plaintiff/Petitioner, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF, Foundation), a 68 year old California Public Benefit Non-Profit Corporation, founded in 1967 in Richmond, California, is still fulfilling the Mission of the founders Aaron & Margaret Wallace as their Legacy runs STRONG in the FIVE GENERATIONS of HUNDREDS of sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews, great grandfathers and great grandmothers, grandfathers and grandmothers, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and ALL other forms and variations of the Family Tree, that continue to administer and operate the foundation today by “Creating, Innovating and Edvocating Relevant Social Services Programs”
2. January 31, 2025 Plaintiff/Petitioner filed this complaint Case No. 25CV108981, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation v State Farm, et. al.
3. April 2, 2025, Defendants State Farm (State Farm ) filed Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order that was NEVER SERVED ON PLAINTIFF.
4. April 17, 2025, Defendants Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (“Alacrity”) ALLEGEDLY filed Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order that was NEVER SERVED ON PLAINTIFF.
5. Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon WILLFULLY AND MALICIOUSLY granted their Notices of Vexatious Litigant UNLAWFULLY imposing upon and subjecting Plaintiff to the Code of Civil Procedure section 391’s punitive “vexatious litigant” process requiring the Foundation to obtain a prefiling order from the presiding judge within ten (10) days of the filings and automatically stayed this case. HOWEVER THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A PREFILING ORDER SERVED ON PLAINTIFF.
6. A CORPORATION CAN NOT BE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT under CCP section 391 a corporation is a distinct juridical entity; it cannot be a “person” acting in propria persona for purposes of § 391, nor can an officer’s personal status be imputed to the entity makes ALL judges Nixon, Kaus and Jones alleged orders Void Ab Initio, and ends the § 391 path for both defendants, as they are without jurisdiction or authority to act. 
7. Kaus ordered the Foundation, not Mr. al-Hakim, is the named plaintiff; defendants’ notices avowing “Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant” were “not accurate” makes ALL judges Nixon, Kaus and Jones alleged orders Void Ab Initio, as they are without jurisdiction or authority. 
8. Kaus order convicts Nixon beyond reasonable doubt, of a clear, direct, intentional, malicious, and premeditated violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §242, as a Deprivation of rights under color of law liable for this criminal act and prosecution for criminal behavior, with misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance, while this conduct of Nixon, Kaus, and Jones illegally and practically prevents AMWF from having a fair hearing, wherein the findings and award resulting from such misconduct must be annulled, and the matter remanded for further proceedings as in the event of a mistrial.
9. These actions are PROOF AMWF NON-PROFIT FOUNDATION, ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM, THE AL-HAKIM FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES AND BUSINESS PROPERTY, REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, CHARITIES, COMMUNITIES, AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE- PERSONALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, MORALLY, ETHICALLY, AND FINANCIALLY, HAS BEEN TARGETED in this ongoing Entrapment Scheme to disable, destroy, and eliminate them WITH EGREGIOUS, MALICIOUS, SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS, ILLEGAL, CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, Nixon, Kaus, Jones and the court with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while hiding behind their illegal declaration of the Foundation being a Vexatious Litigant imposing upon and subjecting them to an illegal prefiling order to deny and exhaust, any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, or human rights; without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation; without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of these corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies, operatives and litigation opponents WITH THE MALICIOUS INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
10. 10. We have documented AND filed OVER SIXTY (60) Federal, State and Local complaints in cases of those authorities being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities against AMWF and al-Hakim family with their businesses.
11. 11. This order proves Nixon, Kaus, and Jones engaged in criminal collusion, conspiracy, corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff’s of litigation due them contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law and rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528; Fraud Upon The Court, Manipulation, 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)).
12. 12. May 19, 2025, State Farm filed a Motion for An Order for Dismissal for Failing to Timely Obtain a Prefiling Order within Ten (10) Days of the Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order per  CCP section 391.7(c).
13. 13. June 6, 2025, Alacrity allegedly filed a Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay and a Motion to Strike; those motions and supporting papers were never served on Petitioner.
14. 14. July 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed an 88-page Verified Statement/Declaration captioned “Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants Motion for An Order for Dismissal for Failing to Timely Obtain a Prefiling Order within Ten (10) Days of the Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order. per  CCP section 391.7(c); and Cross‐Motion for Filing this Frivolous or Dilatory motion with Monetary Sanctions against Defendants and their counsels under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5, 128.7, and 391.7(f)”, verified under penalty of perjury, in opposition to State Farm’s motion for dismissal. 
15. 15. al-Hakim, signed and filed the Verified Statement believing that, as a non profit corporation representing itself, he could submit factual declarations under CCP § 2015.5.
16. 16. Plaintiff attempted multiple times over weeks to register for an account to access the e-filing system, but NEVER received any confirming email with login password to complete the registration.
17. 17. July 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed and served Judge Nixon a twelve (12) page Declaration/Complaint as “Opposition to Judge Jeff Brand alleged Vexatious Litigant (CCP 391 (b)(3)) Order that was procured through Fraud, Conspiracy, Corruption and with Premeditated Malice Aforethought for Filing Challenges for Cause under CCP 170.1 and 170.3; the alleged Vexatious Order was never served and that it be served” separately notifying Nixon that this prevented Plaintiff’s timely response and Defendants Notices was NEVER SERVED. Plaintiff requested Judge Nixon to serve the alleged orders so they could respond properly and intelligently. To date Nixon has failed and refused service.
18. 18. July 31, 2025, Plaintiff again filed and served the twelve (12) page Declaration/Complaint requesting action regarding: “PRESIDING JUDGE REFUSES TO SERVE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED; PROOF Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice; PROOF KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance”, served on Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero- Supreme Court of California, Chair- Judicial Council of California, Commission on Judicial Appointments; Director Michelle Curran- Judicial Council of California; Director-Chief Counsel Gregory Dresser- Commission on Judicial Performance; Director Craig H. Missakian- U.S. Attorney’s Office; Attorney General of California Rob Bonta; FBI Director Sanjay Virmani- San Francisco Field Office; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez- Alameda County Sheriff; District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson-Alameda County; Director Steve Gordon- Department of Motor Vehicles; Director Kenneth J. Pogue- Office of Administrative Law; Bureau Chief Patrick Dorais- Bureau of Automotive Repair; Commissioner Ricardo Lara- Department of Insurance; et. al., ALL of whom will be, and some have been, subpoenaed as witnesses and to produce documents are involved in the instant case.
19. 19. To date Judge Nixon has failed and refused to serve the alleged Vexatious order and ALL referenced above have ignored the written Complaints and Demands.
20. 20. July 17, 2025 Plaintiff filed and served a Request for Judicial Notice.
21. 21. July 22, 2025, Plaintiff made five (5) calls and left two (2) voicemail messages on three separate Alameda County Superior Court hotlines, seeking to contest the Tentative Rulings on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff also emailed Department 19 at 3:30 pm the same day, expressly notifying the Court of its desire to contest any adverse tentative ruling and requesting the tentative ruling for review (see Exh. D). 
22. 22. In response/reply to Plaintiff email, on July 23, 2025 at 9:15 am, the department 19 clerk, Angelica Mendola, confirmed via email that a tentative ruling had been posted online and advised Plaintiff on how to access it, but NEVER informed that the matters were continued (see Exh. D). This verifies the court received our communication, we contested the ruling and planned to appear to argue the matters even though we did NOT know what the rulings were.
23. 23. al-Hakim appeared for the July 23, 2025 hearing at 3:00 p.m. and was informed by the courtroom bailiff the ruling was posted, the matters were continued as was the Case Management Conference hearing scheduled for July 29, 2025. al-Hakim requested a copy of the Tentative Rulings from the court bailiff but he was unable/unwilling to print a copy from his computer and consulted with the clerk whom also could/would not provide a copy, wherein al-Hakim provided the bailiff and clerk with a filed stamped copy of the Verified Statement/Declaration/Complaint and Demand served on Nixon that the vexatious litigant order was procured through fraud and never served, AND DEMANDING that he serve it ASAP as this has prevented Plaintiff’s timely response to this problem! al-Hakim remained in the courtroom until Judge Jones came out and called her first case to establish that there was NO REASON NOR ISSUE OF HER APPEARING before he left.
24. 24. Friday July 25, 2025 al-Hakim reverted to his personal e-filing account and had to request a new password to activate it, and did so successfully. The requested e-filing account for plaintiff WAS NEVER PROVIDED BY THE COURT!
25. 25. al-Hakim went online and noticed there were MANY issues in the Register of Actions that had NOT been served BY THE DEFENDANTS AND THE COURT including the 7/23/25 Tentative Ruling on Defendants Motion to Dismiss and our Opposition and motion for Sanctions but it was too late to view it.
26. 26. July 28, 2025, al-Hakim sent a letter/complaint to Judge Jones, Nixon, all Defendants, department clerk, and Chad Finke- Executive Officer requesting a reservation number for our Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, Terminating Sanctions, and Monetary Sanctions the Defendants Alacrity allegedly filed, unserved Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay and a Motion to Strike.
27. 27. The letter/complaint documents: those filings were NEVER SERVED ON US BY ANYONE and request a Reservation number for our Motion to Dismiss the above with Prejudice, for Terminating Sanctions, and Monetary Sanctions; our motion will be prepared by tomorrow; and we would like a time on any of the following dates: September 1, 2025, September 3, 2025, September 8, 2025, September 10, 2025, September 15, 2025, September 17, 2025, September 22, 2025, September 24, 2025, September 29, 2025, or  31, 2025. (see Exh. E)
28. 28. The court NEVER responded to the multiple requests over several days for a reservation number to file the motion to dismiss, rather the clerk sent emails WITHOUT a reservation number, so we filed and served our Motion the next day, August 1, 2025. (see Exh. F)
29. 29. July 31, 2025 we received via postal mail a notice entitled “Amended Tentative Case Management Order on July 24, 2025 at 9:42 am.” by Judge Stephen Kaus ordering: 

1. Mr. al‑Hakim is a vexatious litigant, the named Plaintiff is the corporation and the vexatious litigant notices are “not accurate” as to the named plaintiff, and continued defendants’s motion to August 13, 2025,
2. directed the Foundation to obtain counsel by August 6, 2025 or face striking/dismissal and continued Alacrity’s motion to August 13, 2025, and 
3. the court disregards, and did not read or consider and strike Petitioners July 3, 2025, 88 page Verified Statement/Declaration (based SOLEY on defendants brief without verifying the contents or the voracity of defendants reply is irrefutable evidence of Kaus Extreme willful blindness, bias and prejudice)

1. 30. August 6, 2025, Petitioner was unable to substitute counsel because it had less than THREE (3) BUSINESS DAYS to retain counsel as Judge Kaus ordered.
2. 31. August 8, 2025 Plaintiff filed and served Declaration and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Void, Vacate, and Set Aside the Amended Tentative Case Management Order by Judge Stephen Kaus; Relief from Judge Kaus’s Fabricated “Uncontested” Ruling; to Disqualify Judge Joscelyn Jones, and Judge Stephen Kaus from this case as irreparable tainted, biased, and corrupt for engaging in the illegal assignment and Ex-Parte activities; Compel Consideration of Plaintiff’s Verified Statement/Declaration in Opposition filing; Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme With Kaus’ Tortious Interference, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance.
3. 32. August 11, 2025 Plaintiff filed and served a Declaration and Complaint “PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Gross Misconduct in THIS CASE and Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme With HIS Tortious Interference, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance; Alameda County Sheriff’s Tortious Interference.” 
4. 33. August 11, 2025 Plaintiff filed and served Verified Statement/Declaration in Opposition to Judge Jeff Brand alleged Vexatious Litigant (CCP 391 (b)(3)) Order that was procured through Fraud, Conspiracy, Corruption and with Premeditated Malice Aforethought for Filing Challenges for Cause under CCP 170.1 and 170.3; Order was never served and that it be served.
5. 34. August 13, 2025, 3:20 pm hearing Plaintiff timely served Judge Jones the Statement of Disqualification and Declaration in Support of Motion and Demand for Removal and Censure of Jones, Kaus and Nixon for cause pursuant to California CCP §170.6 and under CCP §§170.1-5 et. seq., among others.
6. 35. Jones refused the proper served Disqualification/Challenge stating al-Hakim “was not a lawyer and could not represent the Foundation”. al-Hakim again stated that “you are being served” and Jones responded again ignoring the service. This excuse was fallacious as al-Hakim doesn’t have to be an attorney to serve her, the act of serving a judge with a disqualification statement is not “representation” but a procedural service step.
7. 36. Without considering, answering or ruling on the challenge/disqualification motion, Jones proceeded to reaffirmed prior tentatives by Judge Kaus and struck Petitioner’s Complaint dismissing the case and rewarding Defendant Alacrity’s unserved motion ignoring the Foundation’s properly noticed motion to dismiss for failure of service.
8. 37. al-Hakim again stated that Jones had been “served” and wanted to have the Disqualification/Challenge filed in court. Jones responded stating “you can file it downstairs (in the now closed clerks main office)”. al-Hakim again stated that “you were served and your clerk can file it right here, right now”. Jones and the clerk REFUSED to do so and responded “file it with the clerks office”. By this time it was past 3:30 pm, so their refusing and ignoring the service of the challenge and to file it in court, delayed the filing and service until the next day.
9. 38. Under CCP § 170.3(c)(3), once a statement is served, the challenged judge “shall not further participate in the proceeding” until the disqualification question is resolved, except for ministerial acts.
10. 39. Instead of Jones performing administrative duties until she had answered the challenge/disqualification, she proceeded to illegally and improperly dismiss the matters in total.
11. 40. August 14, 2025 Plaintiff filed the Disqualification/Challenge against Jones.
12. 41. August 15, 2025 Plaintiff again served Judge Jones the Statement of Disqualification and Declaration in Support of Motion and Demand for Removal and Censure of Judges Jones, Kaus and Nixon. NONE OF THOSE SERVED HAVE RESPONDED TO DATE.
13. 42. Petitioner provides a pattern of ADMITTED private ex parte contacts, coordinated rulings, off-the-record agreements, and undisclosed communications among Kaus, Jones, Nixon, Finke and others that materially influence judicial decision making and rulings about pending matters without providing Petitioner notice or an opportunity to be heard on those discussions, offend basic notions of procedural fairness and render rulings void where they alter parties’ substantive rights and Due Process that warrant relief, including vacatur and disqualification. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 170.1-170.3; Canons of Judicial Ethics; Cal. Rules Jud. Admin. 2.10(D).
14. 43. These Ex parte communications was the nexus and source of Kaus, Jones, Nixon, Finke and others engaging in these undisclosed actions including coordinated tentatives and directions to dismiss absent counsel followed a procedurally defective sequence: (1) ordering and subjecting Plaintiff to CCP section 391’s vexatious litigant process with no valid jurisdiction or authority; (2) absence of public reassignment order between Judge Kaus, Jones, and Nixon; (3) granting Alacrity’s unserved motion; (4) the irrefutable evidence of Kaus Extreme willful blindness, bias and prejudice to disregard and strike the July 3, 2025Verified Statement/Declaration based SOLEY on defendants brief without verifying the contents or the voracity of defendants reply; (5) failure to consider Petitioner’s August 1, 2025 motion to Dismiss addressing defendant Alacrity’s unserved motion and procedural misconduct; and (6) refusing to answer the August 13, 2025 Disqualification/Challenge for Jones BEFORE ruling on matters. Under these circumstances, striking the Complaint and dismissing the action was an abuse of discretion. 
15. 44. These ADMITTED communications occurred and influenced case management and substantive rulings without notice to the parties, they give rise and evidence to an appearance of bias and procedural unfairness as Canon and statutory prohibitions bar ex parte communications that affect case disposition; judges must avoid off record, unnoticed decision making that deprives parties of notice and opportunity to be heard. Petitioner therefore alleges any substantive rulings by Kaus are void for lack of assignment. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.10; Williams v. Hayes (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1001, 1007.
16. 45. Alleged Proof of Service for the August 13, 2025 Amended Alacrity order of Judges Jones/Kaus states it was served August 14, 2025, by Amani Amponsah, for “Defendants ORDER re: Hearing on Motion to Strike Motion to Lift Automatic Stay and Motion to Strike Complaint; filed by Alacrity Solutions, LLC (Defendant)”, allegedly signed by Amani Amponsah, Deputy Clerk for Chad Finke- Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court, was delivered to and received by plaintiff September 2, 2025, in an envelope postmarked of August 26, 2025, TWO (2) WEEKS LATER!. (See Proof of Service attached in Exh A)
17. 46. August 13, 2025 dated Alacrity order is signed by Judge Jones the SAME DAY, yet Amended the next day on 8/14/25 at 10:04 am without a new signature nor date for the amended order.
18. 47. August 13, 2025 State Farm order was NOT AMENDED states:

Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al. for an Order of Dismissal for Failing to Obtain a Prefiling Order within 10 Days of Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order is DROPPED from the August 13, 2025 calendar as moot, in light of the Court’s order entered this date granting the motion by Defendant Alacrity Solutions Group LLC, incorrectly sued as Alacrity Solutions LLC, to strike Plaintiffs Complaint and dismissing this entire action

1. 48. These dates of proof of service are fraudulent fabrications for the affirmations of Kaus’ previous tentatives by Jones provides that State Farm’s dismissal was DROPPED from the August 13, 2025 calendar as “moot in light of the Court’s order entered this date granting the motion by Defendant Alacrity Solutions Group LLC, incorrectly sued as Alacrity Solutions LLC, to strike Plaintiffs Complaint and dismissing this entire action” because it claims the Alacrity order was PRIOR TO THE TIME of the State Farm dismissal.
2. 49. Date on the proof of service for State Farm’s dismissal is August 14, 2025, by Angelica Mendola, delivered and received via postal mail by plaintiff on August 22, 2025.
3. 50. Date on the proof of service for the NEW Amended Alacrity order by Jones states it was served on plaintiff on August 14, 2025, by Amani Amponsah who is located in a different office/department/city than Angelica Mendola, whom had singed all the previous proofs for this actions and those on the same day, without a new signature nor date for the amended order, yet the envelope is postmarked, August 26, 2025- TWO (2) WEEKS LATER, was delivered and received via postal mail by plaintiff on September 2, 2025!
4. 51. The dated proofs of service of August 14, 2025 and the envelope postmarked August 26, 2025, TWO (2) WEEKS LATER, received by plaintiff September 2, 2025, PROVES that the State Farm dismissal was entered BEFORE the Amended 8/14/25 at 10:04 am Alacrity order by Jones and IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE the State Farm dismissal was moot at the time the order was issued!
5. 52. These proofs of service with postmarked mailing envelopes established continuing Jones, Kaus, Nixon, Finke, Mendola, Amponsah and Superior Court Administration Corruption with 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 on the Court, Fraud Upon The Court; and Manipulation is an essential element in vacating and voiding any order subject to inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect, or FRAUD (CCP §473(b)); Code Civ. Proc., § 475; and renders the judgment and/or default is void (CCP §473(d)).
6. 53. These orders are ALL void for lack of authority as both Jones and Nixon can not simply adopt and enforce them as this is evidence of Fraud upon the court and the People of the State of California!
7. 54. This new Amended order makes reference to documents filed by “Alacrity Solutions, LLC (Defendant) CRS# 696580079843 filed by on 8/11/2025” yet Petitioner is unaware of any such action and was NEVER served any documents of any type from defendants.
8. 55. This Amended order makes reference to “The Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by Snapsheet (Defendant) +CRS# 841093799305 scheduled for 10/15/2025 is vacated”. Petitioner is unaware of any such action and was NEVER served any documents of any type from defendants Snapsheet.
9. 56. Petitioner has NEVER received any filed and served notices from defendants counsel Sonia Shah/Spencer Fane LLP, NOR THE COURT for ANY of the following actions listed in the court Register of Actions: 

1. June 10, 2025: Hearing on Motion to Strike Motion to Lift Automatic Stay and Motion to Strike Complaint; filed by Alacrity Solutions, LLC (Defendant) scheduled for 07/21/2025 at 03:00 PM in Rene C. Davidson Courthouse at Department 19
2. July 14, 2025: Reply brief in support of defendant alacrity solutions group, llcs (i) motion for temporary lift of automatic stay to grant motion to strike complaint and (ii) motion to strike complaint. Filed by: Alacrity Solutions, LLC (Defendant)
3. Despite this and Petitioner’s motion to dismiss and sanctions on July 25, 2025, the trial court: (a) did not strike the unserved motions; (b) did not sanction defendants for lack of service or for filing without notice; and (c) proceeded to affirming the tentative order of dismissal, as the court’s failure to enforce service requirements and to sanction fraud on the court rewarded procedural misconduct and deprived Petitioner of due process. 
4. Petitioner asserts that no publicly available formal reassignment order, public record, minute order, written order, or docket entry exists transferring Case No. 25CV108981 from Judge Nixon (or any properly assigned judge) to Judge Kaus prior to the issuance of orders attributed to Kaus is unfathomable, heinous, reprehensible, nefarious example of “MALFEASANCE”. Under California Rules of Judicial Administration 2.10 and controlling case law, the presiding judge must issue and record any reassignment; absent such a record, Judge Kaus lacked authority to enter the July 24, 2025 tentative orders and related actions. Petitioner alleges all orders by Judges Kaus or Jones were entered without valid judicial assignment, are void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction.
5. G. The Canon and statutory prohibitions bar unnoticed decision making that deprives parties of notice and opportunity to be heard that affect case disposition as Petitioner was unable to Challenge Judge Kaus WITH Kaus having to properly respond to the TRUTH, issues, facts, evidence, testimony, pleadings and law raised in the challenge advocates the corrupt, morally bankrupt judicial legal strategy to foreclose on plaintiff’s right to a fair and impartial judge/trial for the fraudulent purpose to RAILROADING the case to a speedy spurious end! Kaus finds it abhorrent that plaintiff has the nerve to exercise their constitutional rights to demand fairness, impartiality and the proper administration of justice, as required by law.
6. H. Kaus ADMITTED FRAUD and history of FOUR (4) Disqualification Challenges For Cause over two plus (2+) years in two (2) separate cases, where he later recused for reasons he was aware of ALL those years with his admitted Prejudicial Misconduct, lying and made duplicitous misrepresentations of fact and law concerning his adjudication of the challenges he still ruled for AT&T BEFORE RECUSING despite his owning stock was obvious, KNOWN conflicts of interest, omit disclosing those facts to illegally remain as judge, denying al-Hakim a fair judge, trial, foreclosing on ALL of al-Hakim’s Constitutional rights in his perjury, bias, conspiracy, corruption, collusion, retaliation, bigotry and hate-based agenda of Islamophobia as Kaus admits to the courts acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, there NEVER should have been any assignment/reassignment, IF THERE EVER WAS, to Kaus!
7. Kaus prior challenges are relevant and outcomes bear on the appearance of bias and partiality in the present matter.
8. Kaus admits to further control the evidence of his and the courts corruption, wherein the animus is so thick it chocks you, the incitement of hate permeates the proceedings, and the matters decided in the culmination of the courts calumny deceit!

“Judicial challenges themselves are not, however, evidence a want or delay of prosecution. A party is entitled to challenge a judicial officer for cause or bias.” “The challenges appear to be filed in an earnest belief that the judges of this Court ought to be disqualified from deciding this case and that each successive challenge will overcome the prior’s shortcomings.””the Court hopes and encourages both parties to take this new judicial assignment as a good time to wipe the slate clean, forgive any earlier acrimony, and proceed to resolve and adjudicate the claims raised by the Complaint in normal order and good faith. Al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated.” “Both parties deserve the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law. In short, this case deserves a chance to proceed on its merits, and now is an opportune time as any to do so.”

Judge Stephen Kaus, Tentative Ruling made September 11, 2018.

1. 63. Judge Kaus admits to the COURTEL’S acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with “the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law”! He did just the opposite enacting the agenda of the “COURTEL- ” the COURT CORRUPTION CARTEL!!
2. 64. Kaus then admits AFTER TWO (2) YEARS:

“It came to my attention over the last weekend that sufficient shares of stock in ATT Inc. are attributed to me under Code of Civil Procedure §170.l, subd. (a)(6)(A)(3) to require my recusal in this matter and to have required it at the time the case was assigned to me. Therefore, I am recusing myself from this matter. The Presiding Judge of the Civil Division will make further orders.”

Judge Stephen Kaus- February 25, 2019

Dated: October 1, 2025, at Oakland, California. 

___________________________

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

Petitioner

4. LEGAL ARGUMENT

I. THE COURT OF APPEAL SHOULD ISSUE A WRIT BECAUSE A 68 YEAR OLD PUBLIC BENEFIT NON-PROFIT CORPORATION CAN NOT BE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. 

• Code of Civil Procedure section 391’s text confines “vexatious litigant” to a person acting in propria persona and defines “plaintiff” as the person who commences or maintains litigation, by its terms and under governing law, the Vexatious Litigant order never applied to Plaintiff, a corporation may not be designated “vexatious litigants” for purposes of § 391, thus are not subject to the vexatious litigant statutes (CCP §§ 391 et seq), that ends the entire § 391 path THAT NEVER APPLIED to plaintiff and the court as they are without jurisdiction or authority to act.
• Judge Nixon lacked jurisdiction to enter any orders including granting both defendants “Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order” unlawfully subjecting Plaintiff to CCP section 391’s punitive “vexatious litigant” process, and however Judge Kaus’s assignment/reassignment came about or otherwise exert control over the case. Any orders by Judge Nixon or issued under his direction are void ab initio and must be vacated as a court act is void when the court lacked jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or where the judge lacked the power to act (e.g., no valid assignment) (Thorson v. Western Dev. Corp. (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 206; Williams v. Mulholland (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 888 and may be vacated by writ when no adequate remedy by appeal exists because the orders at issue are void for lack of jurisdiction where trial judges act without valid assignment, their orders are void. (See Williams v. Hayes (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1001, 1007; Alcantar v. City of Long Beach (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 715, 838; Honig v. Super. Ct. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289, 296.) and thus not subject to normal appellate review [Thorson v. Western Dev. Corp. (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 206, 209–210] or because immediate action is required to prevent irreparable harm to the Foundation’s legal rights and operations not adequately remedied on appeal, writ relief is therefore appropriate. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. § 1085; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(1).).
• Kaus ordered the Foundation as the “Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant” were “not accurate” makes ALL judges Nixon, Kaus and Jones’s orders void for lack of jurisdiction, is vacated and set aside, and they can not rule on any matters related to this case as Plaintiff is not subject to the prefiling order convicts Nixon of direct, intentional, malicious, and premeditated violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §242, as a Deprivation of rights under color of law liable for his criminal acts and prosecution for criminal behavior with misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance,
• Any curable defect in these orders must be addressed through measured orders (e.g., short continuance to permit counsel’s appearance), not by granting relief on unserved papers or by misapplying § 391 and clarification is needed to prevent misuse of the representation rule as a cudgel to obtain tactical dismissal while sidestepping service and assignment requirements.
• Review is warranted as the court MUST issue a writ of mandate, writ of review/prohibition, and/or an order to show cause, directing the Court to VACATE AND SET ASIDE ALL actions taken by Judges Nixon, Kaus, and Jones, including All orders, tentative rulings, or judgments entered to confirm that § 391 cannot be used against corporate plaintiffs to secure uniformity on this recurring misuse in orders infected by fraud on the court or by corruption that “destroy the judicial process” are void and subject to vacatur on equitable grounds; fraudulent judicial acts render proceedings void (federal/state “fraud on the court” jurisprudence) and the dismissal of plaintiffs action does not justify rewarding procedural misconduct, defects (erroneous rulings, mistaken fact findings, legal error).

II. THE COURT OF APPEAL SHOULD ISSUE A WRIT BECAUSE ORDERS BY AN UNASSIGNED JUDGE ARE VOID AB INITIO. 

• A judge may act in a pending case only when properly assigned where the presiding judge’s duty to assign cases is non delegable, and judicial assignment must be memorialized in the public record and there is no documented public assignment/reassignment order from Nixon or Jones transferring the matter to Kaus, ANY and ALL actions and orders attributed to them or issued under their direction are are void ab initio and must be vacated as a court act is void when the court lacked jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or where the judge lacked the power to act (e.g., no valid assignment) (Thorson v. Western Dev. Corp. (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 206; Williams v. Mulholland (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 888). A judge without assignment lacks jurisdiction; orders entered by such a judge are void. See Williams v. Hayes (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1001, 1007 (a judge without jurisdiction “cannot validate prior or subsequent acts”); Alcantar v. City of Victorville (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 830, 838; Honig v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289, 296; In re Marriage of Oliverez (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 781. California Rules of Court and the California Rules of Judicial Administration require that reassignments be recorded in the public record; see Cal. Rules Jud. Admin. 2.10(D) (public memorialization of assignments).
• The jurisdictional defect is a threshold legal error that vitiates subsequent rulings, including any actions taken in reliance on unserved motions. Because the defect concerns subject matter jurisdiction created by lack of lawful assignment, immediate administrative relief (stay) is warranted to prevent irreparable prejudice (dismissal, striking of claims, and prejudice to the Foundation’s right to be heard), the August 13, 2025 dismissal is rooted in those defective actions, the dismissal must be vacated. This Court must declare the orders void, issue an alternative writ commanding respondents to show cause, and direct the trial court to vacate any orders entered without proper assignment. If the superior court can produce a lawful reassignment order, the alternative writ should still permit the court to justify the challenged orders on the record; absent such justification, the peremptory writ should issue.

III. THE SUPERIOR COURT VIOLATED DUE PROCESS BY GRANTING MOTIONS NOT SERVED ON PETITIONER.

• Constitutional guaranty of procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to adverse adjudication. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950). Under California law, motions and supporting papers must be served on parties in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and local rules before the court hears or decides them. See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1010-1011 (service of notices and motions); see also California authorities recognizing that a hearing and ruling on unserved papers denies due process and is subject to vacatur. Parties must be served with motions and supporting papers before the court may hear or act on them; lack of service deprives the opposing party of notice and an opportunity to be heard- fundamental due process rights making their orders void upon being challenged to vacate and set aside; which ALL fall under fraud per CCP § 473 and CCP § 1008.
• Petitioner has NEVER received notice of any filed and served documents or order from defendants nor the court imposing upon and subjecting the CCP section 391’s punitive “vexatious litigant” process and Judge Nixon illegally granted both Co-Defendants their April 2025 alleged Notices that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order yet BOTH CO-DEFENDANTS AND THE COURT HAVE FAILED AND REFUSED TO SERVE SAID NOTICES OR ANY OTHER MOTION DOCUMENTS ON PLAINTIFF AND THEY DON’T APPEAR IN THE REGISTER OF ACTIONS.
• Judges Kaus, Jones, Nixon, with Finke and others handling of this matter materially influenced judicial decision making and rulings about pending matters WITHOUT serving or providing Petitioner notice of any actions, to respond to and oppose those actions, or an opportunity to be heard in any manner, including deliberate misrepresentations to obtain an advantage or to obtain adjudicative action without notice, altered case dispositions without notice or process implicate due process and judicial ethics rules violations as Fraud on the court, including the alleged case assignment to Disqualified/Recused judge Kaus, whom certainly would have been challenged and disqualified again where those illegal discussions offend basic notions of procedural fairness and render rulings void where they alter parties’ substantive rights and Due Process require investigation, evidentiary hearing, and warrant relief, including vacatur, disqualification and sanctions. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 170.1-170.3; Canons of Judicial Ethics; Cal. Rules Jud. Admin. 2.10(D); Cal. Rules of Court. 
• Petitioner has NEVER received any notice of any filed and served documents from Alacrity’s alleged June 6, 2025 Motion to Strike where notice and opportunity to be heard are fundamental requisites of due process, while filing and pursuing relief without proper service before hearing violates CCP §128.5 provisions and the rules of civil procedure is fraud on the court and failure to serve papers justify vacatur and sanctions; See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950); Cal. Const. art. I, § 15; CCP § 1010 et seq. case law requiring valid service of motion papers; Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1010–1011 (service of notices and motions), making their orders void upon being challenged to vacate and set aside; which ALL fall under fraud per CCP § 473 and CCP § 1008.
• After court administration and clerk refusing to provide a reservation number to file this action, on August 1, 2025 Petitioner filed a timely Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, Terminating Sanctions, and Monetary Sanctions challenging defendants’ failure to serve Alacrity’s Motion to Strike and all related papers. 
• Trial court denied due process by relying on and rewarding defendants’ counsel unserved motions as fraud on the court despite their documented history of failing to serve in this case, with the dismissal of Petitioner’s Complaint, ignoring the motion challenging that conduct deprived Petitioner of notice and an opportunity to be heard, amounting to denial of due process and equitable grounds for vacatur and sanctions, the order must therefore be set aside.
• Where a party obtains procedural benefits through deliberate non service or misrepresentation, orders procured or advanced without proper service are subject to vacatur, courts may set aside those benefits, vacate resulting orders, impose monetary and terminating sanctions where appropriate. Defendants’ counsels should be sanctioned under § 128.5 and the court’s inherent powers for pursuing relief through non-service and for creating the procedural posture that caused dismissal.
• Petitioner has and will continue to suffer Irreparable Harm with inadequate remedy by appeal per CCP §1085 in cases on writ relief where interlocutory orders produce irreparable harm. The court’s reliance on rulings by judges without jurisdiction and unserved papers with an admitted biased, prejudice, previously disqualified unassigned judge heightens the risk of an irretrievable miscarriage of justice.

IV. DUE PROCESS UNDER CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, § 7 GUARANTEES RIGHT TO PRESENT IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF DISPOSITIVE MEASURES

• California Constitution Article I, § 7 guarantees the right to present one’s irrefutable evidence of dispositive measures that documents these Due process and abuse of discretion violations when this court of judges Nixon, Kaus and Jones has NEVER read nor considered ANY documents filed by Plaintiff in this matter is admitted tortious interference, Extreme willful blindness, criminal suppression of evidence, misrepresentation, fraud, deception, concealment, conduct to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws, conspiracy, collusion, corruption, and fraud upon the people of the great State of California, deprives Plaintiff of fundamental fairness, permanently denying Petitioner its causes of action. It is bias and prejudice to disregard, strike and dismiss ALL facts, evidence and documents Plaintiffs submitted while the court illegally and improperly GRANTED ALL defendants motions, including to dismiss, based SOLEY on defendants documents without verifying the contents or the voracity of defendants documents, then reaffirming dismissal threats and other dispositive measures that documented Nixon, Kaus and Jones’ willful and intentional perjurious orders circumscribed in fraud on the court, ruling on matters without jurisdiction making their orders void upon being challenged to vacate and set aside; which ALL fall under fraud per CCP § 473 and CCP § 1008.
• The Court MUST consider the substance of plaintiff’s arguments rather than dismissing them based on Defendant Alacrity’s unserved motion and technicalities. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (emphasizing the importance of substance over form in legal proceedings) and whether dismissal is appropriate given all circumstances, including irregularities or lack of notice existed, whether plaintiff was afforded opportunity to retain counsel in THREE (3) BUSINESS DAYS and whether any other procedural defects warrant relief. See, e.g., Roberts v. City of Los Angeles, where courts reversed dismissals.

V. THE CORPORATE PRO SE ISSUE (MERCO) DOES NOT CURE THE JURISDICTIONAL AND DUE PROCESS DEFECTS; DISMISSAL WITHOUT MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

• Any orders by Judges Nixon, Kaus and Jones, including Alacrity’s Motion to Strike plaintiff’s action for lack of attorney representation under Merco are ‘moot” for illegally imposing upon and subjecting the Plaintiff to CCP section 391’s vexatious litigant process are void ab initio and must be vacated as a court act is void that lacked jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, or where the judge lacked the power to act (e.g., no valid assignment) (Thorson v. Western Dev. Corp. (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 206; Williams v. Mulholland (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 888) and Defendants unserved legal papers, case related actions and hearings notices of any type on plaintiff is fraud on the court and failure to serve papers justify vacatur and sanctions as per CCP §128.5; Cal. Const. art. I, § 15; CCP § 1010 et seq.; Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1010–1011 (service of notices and motions).
• Plaintiff argues “mandatory” representation by an attorney as “valid” is NOT ABSOLUTE as First Amendment considerations support broader interpretation of representation rights as does California law recognizes there are MANY exceptions to this application for non-profit organizations like plaintiff, other entities and in cases of pro se representation. Thompson v. Murray (1982) 32 Cal.3d 521, Application of Johnson (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 347.
• While California Corporations Code § 1501(a) states corporations be represented by an attorney under Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.App.3d 724, this requirement does not apply to pro se litigants who are acting on behalf of a corporation they own or control. Code § 1501 allows non-profit corporations to be represented by their officers or directors in certain legal proceedings. This section states: “A corporation may be represented in any action or proceeding by an officer or director thereof, or by an attorney at law.” This rule must be balanced against the requirement that courts consider all relevant evidence and arguments presented by the parties and the court’s rigid interpretation improperly conflates corporate identity with meaningful legal representation where dismissal for failure to obtain counsel is a discretionary sanction; courts must exercise discretion reasonably, considering procedural posture and whether the plaintiff was afforded adequate notice and opportunity to retain counsel in less than 3 days.
• Plaintiff Non-profit has a distinct organizational structure that California law recognizes as an exception in cases of pro se representation. People v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 840, Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 105.
• The Court MUST consider the substance of plaintiff’s arguments rather than dismissing them based on Defendant unserved motion and technicalities. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (emphasizing the importance of substance over form in legal proceedings) and whether dismissal is appropriate given all circumstances, including irregularities or lack of notice existed, whether plaintiff was afforded opportunity to retain counsel in THREE (3) BUSINESS DAYS and whether any other procedural defects warrant relief. See, e.g., Roberts v. City of Los Angeles, where courts reversed dismissals.
• Article I, § 7 of California Constitution guarantees the right to present evidence that violated and denied the Foundation’s constitutional and statutory due process protections and deprives Plaintiff of fundamental fairness as this Merco rule must be balanced against the requirement that courts consider all relevant evidence and arguments presented by the parties. The Court must enforce the real, written exceptions the Legislature created to use case management discretion so that cost prohibitive realities do not extinguish charitable advocacy before the merits are ever heard. That is both faithful to the statutes and faithful to justice. Clarification is needed to prevent misuse of the representation rule as a cudgel to obtain tactical dismissal while sidestepping service and assignment requirements. 
• California law recognizes exceptions for non-profit organizations and in cases of “In Forma Pauperis” Petition (IFP), with pro se representation demonstrating financial hardship is COST PROHIBITIVE, our relying on donations and grants, can’t find an attorney willing to represent the Foundation, unduly burdens organizational representation and advocacy as operational costs consume all available funds, leaving no money for legal representation. 
• The Foundation solicited representation from many law firms, all of which declined due to the wrongful prefiling order and vexatious litigant designation, calumny deceit, false light and resulting stigma. This “extraordinary” circumstances under Gov. Code § 68630 justify appointed counsel (Roe v. Superior Court (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 78, 85).

Foundation In Forma Pauperis Petition (IFP): California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 686.10–686.21 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.50(k)

• The Foundation will submit a “In Forma Pauperis” Petition (IFP) which will allow corporate representatives to file without an attorney and simply requires the demonstrated financial hardship and meeting specific court criteria. As mentioned in this case, strict attorney representation requirements WILL unduly burden organizational representation and advocacy and is COST PROHIBITIVE! 

Appointment of Counsel as Extraordinary Remedy Is Warranted Under Gov. Code § 68630

• In the alternate, we ask the court to Appoint counsel under Government Code § 68630 with our approval to represent the Foundation. Gov. Code § 68630 permits appointment of counsel in “extraordinary cases” where denial would cause “gross unfairness.” As in Hendler, appointed counsel is necessary to ensure meaningful access to the courts. Hendler v. Board of Supervisors (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 350, 364: Appointment of counsel warranted in complex civil rights matter involving indigent plaintiff with Public Interest Standing: Walker v. Fair Housing Foundation (9th Cir. 2001) 272 F.3d 1114 affirms nonprofit standing in advocacy-related litigation.

VI. THE COURT SHOULD VACATE ORDERS ENTERED AS A RESULT OF FRAUD ON THE COURT, UNLAWFUL EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, OR IMPROPER CONFERENCES.

• Petitioner provides a pattern of ADMITTED private ex parte contacts, coordinated rulings, off-the-record secret agreements, undisclosed communications and meetings among Judges Kaus, Jones, Nixon, with Finke and others concerning the handling of this matter that materially influence judicial decision making and rulings about pending matters, including deliberate misrepresentations to obtain an advantage or to obtain adjudicative action, where Ex parte communications among these judges altered case dispositions implicate due process and judicial ethics rules violations is Fraud on the court, offend basic notions of procedural fairness and may render rulings voidable where they alter parties’ substantive rights and Due Process require investigation, evidentiary hearing, and can warrant relief, including vacatur, disqualification and sanctions. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 170.1-170.3; Canons of Judicial Ethics; Cal. Rules Jud. Admin. 2.10(D); Cal. Rules of Court; authorities addressing the prohibition on ex parte contacts with judges; general principles in appellate supervisory writ decisions. Canon and statutory prohibitions bar ex parte communications that affect case disposition; judges must avoid off-record, unnoticed decision making that deprives parties of notice and opportunity to be heard therefore any substantive rulings by Kaus are void for lack of assignment. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.10; Williams, supra.
• A judge’s impartiality must not only be real, but appear so to a reasonable observer. Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1 and § 170.3 authorize disqualification to prevent enforcement of void orders where the record demonstrates fraud on the court, defects of erroneous rulings, mistaken fact findings, legal error, and procedural misconduct where these Ex parte communications was the nexus and source of Judges Kaus, Jones, Nixon, Finke and others engaging in these undisclosed actions including coordinated tentatives and directions to dismiss absent counsel followed a procedurally defective sequence. 
• Under these circumstances, striking the Complaint and dismissing the action was an abuse of discretion where ex parte communications produce case altering decisions, mandamus relief is appropriate to restore the parties to a procedurally fair posture and to require reassignment or referral for investigation. See Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 467; In re Curry (1976) 16 Cal.3d 200 (protocols for disqualification and review). Judges Nixon, Kaus and Jones, can not simply ADMIT the errors and then proceed to enforce the errors as if they never existed!
• Judges Kaus, Jones, Nixon, with Finke engaged in these undisclosed communications and mutual decision making affecting the case’s outcome, including directions to dismiss absent counsel and coordinated tentatives, and the absence of reassignment record, the Court should order an evidentiary hearing, stay trial court proceedings, and refer the conduct for investigation. Where ex parte communications produce case altering decisions, mandamus relief is appropriate to restore the parties to a procedurally fair posture and to require reassignment and referral for investigation. See Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 467; In re Curry (1976) 16 Cal.3d 200 (protocols for disqualification and review).

VII. STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION

Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1 establishes bases for disqualification. Section 170.3 governs disqualification for cause and procedures for seeking recusal; § 170.6 permits peremptory challenges. The standard for disqualification is whether a reasonable person, aware of all circumstances, would doubt the judge’s impartiality. See People v. Parker (1965) 63 Cal.2d 409; Liteky v. United States (1994) 510 U.S. 540 (federal precedent on bias and judicial remarks). Prior rulings, recusals in other cases, and undisclosed communications that bear materially on the judge’s impartiality are relevant and can demonstrate grounds for disqualification. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Oliverez (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1147 (assignment/publicity requirements and due process concerns).

Plaintiff timely and properly challenged Judges Jones on August 13, 2025 serving a Statement of Disqualification Challenge for Cause and Recusal and Declaration in Support of Motion and Demand for Removal and Censure of Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and presiding Judge Thomas Nixon for cause pursuant to California CCP §170.6 and under CCP §§170.1-5 et. seq.; CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)), (CCP § 170.3 (c) (1)), the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8), 3C, 3D(1), 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2), 4, 4D(1) and 4(E); Due to Criminal Conduct in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §242; Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§182, subd. (a)(5); Fraud On The Court- Federal Code 60; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 60, § 47, § 4541, § 425.16, § 355, 356, 473, 475, § 3523, § 3528 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180; 1st, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment U. S. Constitution; California Constitution by the first clause of Article I, section 13;  Article VI, section 4 1/2; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3). 

Judge Jones refusal to accept the properly served disqualification motion, the issuance of void orders, and the pattern of reassignment without notice or transparency reflect a breakdown in judicial ethics and procedural integrity. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3(c)(1), a judge who fails to disqualify themselves when required may be subject to review and discipline. The Canons of Judicial Ethics, particularly Canons 1, 2, 3B(5), 3E(1), and 3E(2) require judges to avoid even the appearance of bias and to recuse themselves when impartiality is reasonably in question.

Petitioner was unable to Challenge Judge Kaus which certainly was DEMANDED and would have happened. 

 Kaus’ assignment/reassignment WITHOUT having to properly respond to the TRUTH, issues, facts, evidence, testimony, pleadings and law raised in the challenge advocates the corrupt, morally bankrupt judicial legal strategy to foreclose on al-Hakim’s right to a fair and impartial judge for the fraudulent purpose of RAILROADING al-Hakim case to a speedy spurious end as their ruling on matters without jurisdiction making their orders void upon being challenged to vacate and set aside ALL fall under fraud per CCP § 473 and CCP § 1008, proves There NEVER should have been any assignment/reassignment, IF THERE EVER WAS, to Kaus.

Given the history of prior challenges, reassignment irregularities, and adverse rulings without addressing Petitioner’s motions, a reasonable observer would doubt impartiality, satisfying CCP § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii) with the conduct of Jones, Kaus, and Nixon described implicates violations of federal law, including 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), and California Penal Code §§ 182(a)(1), 182(a)(5), and 4570, which prohibit conspiracy to obstruct justice and unauthorized judicial communications. These facts and circumstances heighten the justified appearance of partiality and establish disqualifying bias or appearance thereof require disqualification and reassignment. 

The cumulative pattern of refusing to accept disqualification motions, issuing orders while disqualified, and coordinating rulings across multiple judges without proper assignment or after undisclosed communications that effectively decide substantive matters suggests a systemic abuse of judicial power are subject to disqualification or vacation as void for lack of jurisdiction. See Williams v. Hayes (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1001, 1007; Alcantar v. Dewalt (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 216, 838; Honig v. Super. Ct. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289, 296, also warrants censure and removal proceedings.

VIII. JONES REFUSAL TO ACCEPT SERVICE VIOLATED STATUTORY PROCEDURE AND DUE PROCESS.

Service under CCP § 170.3(c)(1): any party may serve the motion on the judge or the judge’s clerk in chambers, and courts must accept personal service in the courthouse irrespective of party’s bar status.

1. The act of serving a judge with a disqualification statement is not “representation”, not the practice of law, but a procedural service step, any adult may serve papers (CCP § 1013a) as al-Hakim doesn’t have to be an attorney to serve her. Jones’s refusal to accept service violated CCP § 170.3(c)(1), which mandates acceptance and triggers suspension from all judicial functions except administrative matters pending disqualification resolution, was legally baseless and obstructed the statutory right to seek disqualification.
2. Under CCP § 170.3(c)(3), once a statement is served, the challenged judge “shall not further participate in the proceeding”, must refrain from further judicial action until the disqualification is resolved, except for ministerial acts. Proceeding to dismiss the case was in excess of jurisdiction. Such orders are void ab initio. Geddes v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 417, the dismissal was improper and all orders entered by Jones after attempted service are void.
3. The refusal to accept a properly served disqualification motion, the issuance of void orders, and the pattern of reassignment without notice or transparency reflect a breakdown in judicial ethics and procedural integrity. Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3(c)(1), a judge who fails to disqualify themselves when required may be subject to review and discipline. The Canons of Judicial Ethics, particularly Canons 1, 2, 3B(5), 3E(1), and 3E(2) require judges to avoid even the appearance of bias and to recuse themselves when impartiality is reasonably in question.

IX. IRREPARABLE HARM / INADEQUATE REMEDY BY APPEAL

Code Civ. Proc. § 1085 authorizes writs of mandate to compel a lower court to perform its duty; extraordinary writs are appropriate where the trial court exceeds its jurisdiction or where appeal is inadequate. See City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 38; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512 (standards for writ petitions).

Here, the misuse and misapplication of vexatious litigant procedures with orders entered without jurisdiction or authority, without proper assignment and notice, judges failure to answer the Challenge/Statement of Disqualification before ruling, motions that were not served on Petitioner, and based on undisclosed ex-parte communications threaten the integrity of the proceedings and Petitioner’s right to an impartial adjudicator and will suffer irreparable harm if relief is not granted.

1. Mandamus Writ relief is necessary because superior court orders are void and because ordinary appeal will not provide timely relief with this dismissal and loss of claims, with reputational and operational harm, lack of meaningful remedy and therefore necessary to prevent irreparable harm and to secure the orderly and lawful progress of this litigation. 
2. An ordinary appeal is inadequate because (a) the orders are void for lack of jurisdiction and thus not properly the subject of ordinary appellate review alone; (b) delay pending appeal would render relief meaningless (the complaint dismissed or otherwise foreclosed from relief); and (c) the equitable and reputational harms alleged require immediate injunctive protection and corrective orders.
3. Petitioner has and will continue to suffer Irreparable harm with inadequate remedy by appeal per CCP §1085; cases on writ relief where interlocutory orders produce irreparable harm where the court’s reliance on rulings by a judge without jurisdiction and unserved papers with an admitted biased, prejudiced and corrupt unassigned judge heightens the risk of an irretrievable miscarriage of justice.
4. Petitioner faces concrete, irreparable harms if the court’s dismissal/striking of the Foundation’s complaint stands: loss of the Foundation’s capacity to pursue statutory remedies, immediate reputational injury (including mislabeling as a vexatious litigant), operational harm to donor and program relationships, and the practical impossibility of restoring the Foundation’s position by appellate reversal after final judgment. Monetary remedies alone will not cure the deprivation of access to courts and the immediate damage to a non-profit’s reputation and operations.

X. Standards for Extraordinary Writ Relief (Mandamus/Prohibition/Writ of Review)

The Court Should Grant Writ Relief Because Petitioner Lacks an Adequate Remedy by Appeal and Because Important Questions of Judicial Authority and Due Process Are Presented

1. Extraordinary Writ relief (Mandate, Prohibition, or Writ of Review) is warranted in these interlocutory actions where an appeal will not provide an adequate remedy, for example, when orders are void for lack of jurisdiction, when the alleged error would be irreversible, imminent dismissal and forfeiture of its claims, or when interim action (dismissal, striking complaint) would cause irreparable injury to Foundation’s operations, reputation, litigable rights, access to courts, and organizational survival, especially where the trial court’s actions rest on jurisdictional defects and procedural irregularities and remand for reassignment are necessary to restore the integrity of the case and preserve Petitioner’s rights. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1086; D’Amico v. Super. Ct. (1975) 10 Cal.3d 1; City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1309.)
2. Prohibition and Writs of Review (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1102–1107) function to prevent inferior tribunals from exceeding jurisdiction or to annul void proceedings where the trial court actions of Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus are without jurisdiction (e.g., by a judge who lacked lawful assignment), prohibition or writ of review may be appropriate. City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1309; Williams v. Hayes (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1001. Those are classic grounds for mandamus/prohibition because they present clear legal error and a risk of irreparable harm to petitioner’s rights and status.
3. Judge Jones order is void for lack of assignment and subject to disqualification under Code Civ. Proc. § 170.1, mandamus/prohibition may be used to secure immediate relief. See Alcantar v. DeWalt (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 216; Honig v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289.
4. The facts here of jurisdictional defects, deprivation of notice, and prejudicial ex parte coordination, present appropriate circumstances for an alternative writ and eventual peremptory writ to compel the superior court to vacate void orders, reassess the service and sanction issues on the record, and reassign the matter properly. Cases recognizing vacation of orders obtained through ex parte or improper procedure and the availability of mandamus include Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 467 (remedy to correct judicial action taken without proper process) and In re Curry (1976) 16 Cal.3d 200 (remedy where judicial process fails to preserve rights).
5. Extraordinary writ relief (mandate) is appropriate where the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction or where no adequate remedy by appeal exists. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1085; City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez (1998) 17 Cal.4th 38).  

XI. REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF- STAY AND OSC 

Petitioner requests an immediate administrative stay of the Superior Court’s alleged August 13, 2025 minute Alacrity order Amended 08/14/25 at 10:04 am and an order to show cause why an alternative writ should not issue.

The August 13, 2025 dated Alacrity order is signed by Judges Jones the SAME DAY, yet Amended the next day on 8/14/25 at 10:04 am without a new signature nor date for the amended order.

 The alleged Proof of Service for the August 13, 2025 Alacrity order Amended on 08/14/25 at 10:04 am, states it was served on plaintiff on Thursday, August 14, 2025, by Amani Amponsah, Deputy Clerk, yet the postmark on the mailing envelope is Tuesday, August 26, 2025, TWO (2) WEEKS LATER! (See attached in Exh. A)

The date on the proof of service for the affirmation of Kaus’ previous tentative by Jones in State Farm’s dismissal is Thursday, August 14, 2025, by Angelica Mendola, whom had singed all the previous proofs for this actions and those on the same day, was delivered and received via postal mail by plaintiff on Friday, August 22, 2025.

 The date on the proof of service for the affirmation of Kaus’ previous tentative in this NEW Amended 8/14/25 at 10:04 am Alacrity order by Jones states it was served on plaintiff on Thursday, August 14, 2025, by Amani Amponsah, NOT Angelica Mendola, whom is located in a different office/department/city than Mendola, without a new signature nor date for the amended order, yet the postmark on the Amponsah mailing envelope is Tuesday, August 26, 2025- TWO (2) WEEKS LATER, was delivered and received via postal mail by plaintiff on September 2, 2025!

 These orders are ALL void for evidence of this Fraud upon the court, the people and the of State of California!

 These proofs of service with postmarked mailing envelope established, continuing Jones, Kaus, Nixon, Mendola, Amponsah and Superior Court Administration Corruption with 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 on the Court, Fraud Upon The Court; and Manipulation is an essential element in vacating and voiding any order subject to inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect, or FRAUD (CCP §473(b)); Code Civ. Proc., § 475; and renders the judgment and/or default is void (CCP §473(d)).

Without an immediate stay, the dismissal and the irreparable harm it causes to the Foundation’s rights, operations, reputation, and access to judicial process will stand while this Court considers the petition, defeating the purpose of writ relief.

XII. REFERRAL TO THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE IS PROPER WHERE THERE ARE CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER JUDICIAL CONDUCT.

The Court may direct transmittal of records to the Commission on Judicial Performance where the record indicates potential judicial misconduct. Petitioner requests such transmittal for the Commission’s independent review.

PRAYER and RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation prays that this Court:

1. Issue a Writ of Mandate, and/or Writ of Review/Prohibition, and an order to show cause, directing the Alameda County Superior Court to VACATE AND SET ASIDE and declare void and of no force or effect, ALL orders and actions taken and any related subsequent minute orders, tentative rulings, or judgments entered as a result of actions taken by Judges Jones, Kaus, and Nixon as they are without jurisdiction or authority for unlawfully declaring, imposing upon and subjecting Plaintiff to Vexatious Litigant Prefiling Order as void ab initio for lack of lawful assignment and jurisdiction;
2. Issue a Writ of Mandate, and/or Writ of Review/Prohibition, or an order to show cause, directing the Alameda County Superior Court to VACATE AND SET ASIDE and declare void and of no force or effect, ALL orders and actions taken and any related subsequent minute orders, tentative rulings, or judgments entered as a result of actions taken by Judges Jones, Kaus, and Nixon unlawfully ruling on matters without a publicly filed assignment order to Kaus as void ab initio for lack of lawful assignment and jurisdiction that materially affect this case, to issue an order to show cause why an alternative Writ of Mandate or Prohibition should not be issued commanding the court to show cause why the orders should not be vacated unless and until a publicly recorded, filed and served reassignment/minute order is produced showing valid transfer of the case to Judge Kaus, if a valid reassignment occurred, prior to the entry of those orders; if no valid reassignment exists, or respondent does not justify the orders on proper jurisdictional and procedural grounds, issue a peremptory writ commanding vacation and reassignment;
3. Issue an immediate administrative Stay enforcement of ALL ORDERS AND ACTIONS pending the Court of Appeal’s consideration of the concurrently filed Petition for Writ of Mandate and Writ of Review with final resolution of this petition;
4. Declare any actions taken in reliance on defendants and the Courts unserved motions, briefs, supporting authorities, declarations, and any notices, null and void that violated and denied the Foundation constitutional and statutory due process protections against adjudication without notice, or in the alternative, direct the Superior Court to treat the unserved motions as not filed, and hold a noticed hearing on the verified allegations of unserved motions, and declare that defendants and the Courts unserved motions, briefs, supporting authorities, declarations, and any notices are required to properly serve ALL papers with adequate notice in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure and the local rules; 
5. Declare any actions taken in reliance on defendants and the Courts illegal ex-parte communications null and void that violated and denied the Foundation constitutional and statutory due process protections against assignment and adjudication without notice and hold a noticed hearing on the verified allegations in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure and the local rules; 
6. Set aside its actions/order disregarding, failing and refusing to consider ALL of Petitioner’s filed and served documents, reinstate and deem the documents timely and proper, Compel full review and Consider them on its merits with adequate notice, opportunity to be heard, with a full and fair hearing;
7. Reinstate Plaintiff’s Complaint;
8. Order the Superior Court to adjudicate the pending disqualification motions against Judges Jones, Kaus, and Nixon in accordance with CCP §§ 170.1170.6 and others listed, and Disqualify and remove Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus, and Thomas Nixon from all further proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §§ 170.1-170.6 and others as irreparable tainted;
9. Direct the Superior Court to properly assign Case No. 25CV108981 to a new, different, impartial, neutral judge not previously involved in the matter, who has not been implicated in any alleged ex parte communications or who is otherwise impartial, pursuant to Cal. Rules Jud. Admin. 2.10, and require the presiding judge to publicly record any reassignment order and to file that reassignment order with the clerk immediately;
10. Enjoin the Superior Court and any judge purportedly acting in this matter from entering, enforcing, or relying upon any orders, tentative ruling, or judgment issued by Judges Jones, Kaus, and Nixon (or any order issued in relation to an alleged undisclosed reassignment) unless and until the Presiding Judge files a publicly available reassignment order demonstrating lawful transfer of the case to that judge prior to the entry of those orders;
11. Order respondent court to show cause why the relief requested in the alternative writ of mandate and/or writ of review/prohibition, should not be granted and to produce the clerk’s file, assignment records, and any internal reassignment memoranda relevant to the transfer or handling of Case No. 25CV108981;
12. Grant the Application to Allow the Foundation to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with its claims in the interest of justice and public welfare or in the alternate, appoint counsel under Government Code § 68630 to represent the Foundation to ensure a fair adjudication of complex constitutional and defamation claims in pursuit of its meritorious claims;
13. Shorten calendar setting to consider the stay if the clerk deems necessary;
14. Order a noticed evidentiary hearing on the verified allegations of ex parte communications and direct the Alameda County Superior Court to transmit copies of all relevant records and filings concerning assignment and any communications among Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon regarding this case and refer for investigation and censure under Article VI, section 18(d)(3) of the California Constitution by the California Commission on Judicial Performance as appropriate;
15. Censure and direct further disciplinary review of Respondent Judges for willful misconduct in office;
16. Conduct a comprehensive review of case assignment procedures;
17. PRESERVE the Foundation’s access to justice consistent with California law and public policy;
18. Recognize the public interest nature and merits of the claim;
19. Award reasonable professional fees, costs, fees, and sanctions against real parties in interest and counsel who engaged in deliberate misconduct, including engaging in conduct amounting to fraud on the court and by filing unserved motions a): Defendants and counsel tried to enforce a vexatious-litigant order in an improper manner for an improper purpose was egregious, malicious, specious, frivolous and dilatory; b): Award terminating and monetary sanctions against defendants and counsel (including Sonia Shah and Spencer Fane LLP) for filing, pursuing, or relying on unserved motions and for conducting fraud on the court;
20. Waive all filing, service and court fees in this matter;
21. Issue all further orders necessary to effectuate this relief, including expedited consideration in light of ongoing harm to the Foundation and the public interest; and
22. Grant the Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, in the interests of justice and judicial integrity, to pursue appellate review of the superior court’s rulings after these remedial steps are taken, and any further relief necessary to prevent prejudice to Plaintiff.

Executed this 1st day of October, 2025, at Oakland, California.

___________________________

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

for Petitioner

VERIFICATION FOR PETITIONER- PLAINTIFF BY ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM 

AND EMERGENCY STAY REQUESTED

1. I, Abdul Jalil al‑Hakim, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 
2. I am President and CEO of Petitioner Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation and I am authorized to submit this petition and make this verification on its behalf. I appear pro se on behalf of the Foundation for this filing.
3. I am the party principally responsible for all filings, motions, and service in this case, I personally prepared, signed and filed the Complaint in Case No. 25CV108981 on January 31, 2025 on behalf of the Foundation.
4. I have personal knowledge superior to that of anyone else with respect to the facts and matters set forth in the preceding petition, could and would competently testify to them under oath if called as a witness, and therefore make this verification.
5. The statements made in this Declaration are based on the knowledge acquired by me in the performance of my related duties and in conjunction with factual and legal research conducted by others and staff.
6. Petitioner incorporates by reference all paragraphs in ALL documents filed in this matter including Plaintiffs original Complaint filed January 31, 2025, and this original motion as if fully set forth herein.
7. I am personally familiar with this action and have personal knowledge of the pleadings we filed and served in this action including the verified Statement of Disqualification pursuant to CCP §§ 170.1–170.6 to disqualify Judges Stephen Kaus, Joscelyn Jones, and Thomas Nixon. 
8. I am NOT personally familiar with the UNSERVED documents and records described in this petition of Respondents and Defendants State Farm, et al. and the Courts unserved motions, briefs, supporting authorities, declarations, and any notices (including Notices that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order, Alacrity’s Motion to Strike and any Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay); defendants motions in the case, of the Alameda County Superior Court before Judge Stephen Kaus and Joscelyn Jones; and all others described in this petition, at which I appeared. 
9. Petitioner seeks to set aside and void ALL orders, rulings and procedures tainted by fundamental jurisdictional defects as (orders issued by judges without authority nor public reassignment), denial of due process (granting of motions not served on Petitioner) that reward procedural misconduct) is irreparable prejudice, misuse and misapplication of vexatious litigant procedures, and other procedural irregularities causing irreparable harm as the trial court erred when it expressly recognized the Foundation, not Mr. al‑Hakim, is the named plaintiff and defendants’ notices avowing “Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant” were “not accurate”, that ends the CCP § 391 path for both defendants and the court, and NO further orders can be bootstrapped from § 391 and cannot reward defendants’ and court’s misapplication of the statute by: a) imposing upon and subjecting the “Plaintiff”, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation- a Non-Profit Corporation, to the Code of Civil Procedure section 391 ruled on by Disqualified/Recused Judge Stephen Kaus who had NO jurisdiction nor authority to rule on any matters in this case and are therefore subject to writ relief; b) absence of public reassignment order to Kaus; c) Co-Defendants State Farm and Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (“Alacrity”) who allegedly both filed Notices that Plaintiff, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation- a non-profit corporation, is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order; d) Judge Stephen Kaus Amended Tentative Case Management Orders of July 24, 2025 we received on July 31, 2025 (and affirmed by Judge Jones on August 13, 2025) including, 1) Kaus stating “notwithstanding this undisputed record, the “Tentative Case Management Order in this matter was published and was not contested” was Kaus thereby fabricating the record and disregarding all proof of contesting, 2) Defendant State Farm’s Motion to Dismiss that “corporation is a vexatious litigant”, 3) Defendant Alacrity’s unserved Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s complaint predicated on a corporation must be represented by an attorney could not be bootstrapped from § 391, 4) Kaus’ “disregards, and did not read or consider” Plaintiff’s 88 page Verified Statement/Declaration filed on July 3, 2025, 5) violated and denied the Foundation constitutional and statutory due process protections against adjudication without notice by defendants and the Courts unserved motions, briefs, supporting authorities, declarations, and any notices (including Alacrity’s Motion to Strike and any Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay), 6) the irrefutable evidence of Kaus Extreme willful blindness, bias and prejudice to disregard and strike the Verified Statement/Declaration based SOLEY on defendants brief without verifying the contents or the voracity of defendants reply; 7) failure to consider Petitioner’s August 1, 2025 motion addressing defendants’ procedural misconduct; and 8) as a matter of law Kaus violate due process by illegally and improperly threatening to strike or dismiss corporate plaintiff complaint is legally inconsistent and therefore cannot be sustained on vexatious litigant grounds when the court expressly found the notices “not accurate” and with § 391.7’s scope as to the named plaintiff and later striking and dismissing the Foundation’s corporate complaint. 
10. 10. I have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate and Writ of Review/Prohibition and know the contents thereof. The facts stated in the petition are true and correct to the best of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those I believe them to be true.

 Attached to this declaration and incorporated by reference are the following exhibits: Exhibit A: Judge Jones Amended Case Management Order on Alacrity’s motion to dismiss dated August 14, 2025, postmarked August 26, 2025- TWO (2) WEEKS LATER, delivered and received via postal mail on September 2, 2025; Exhibit B: Judge Kaus Amended Tentative Case Management Order dated July 24, 2025 we received on July 31, 2025; Exhibit C: Judge Jones Case Management Order on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Order of Dismissal for Failing to Obtain a Prefiling Order dated August 13, 2025; Exhibit D: emails demonstrating Petitioner’s timely contest of the July 24 tentative ruling; Exhibit E: email Petitioner’s Request Reservation number for Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, Terminating Sanctions, and Monetary Sanctions of Alacrity’s motion to dismiss; Exhibit F: email Petitioner Requesting Reservation Number to file Opposition to Court’s order Disregarding Plaintiff’s 88-page Verified Statement/Declaration in Opposition and Motion to Set Aside Court Order, PROOF of Judge Stephen Kaus’ Gross Misconduct in THIS CASE and Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme With HIS Tortious Interference; Exhibit G: Alameda County Superior Court Register of Actions for Case No. 25CV108981; Exhibit H: Judge Jones assignment.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 1st day of October, 2025, at Oakland, California.

____________________________

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

for Petitioner

Subject: USAG Bondi/FBI Patel: PRESIDING JUDGE REFUSES TO SERVE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED; PROOF Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice; PROOF KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance

From: “A. J.” <ajalil1234@gmail.com>

Date: 11/6/25, 5:59 PM

To: pamela.j.bondi@usdoj.gov, Harmeet.K.Dhillon@usdoj.gov, harmeet@dhillonlaw.com, kbaughman@dhillonlaw.com, gmichael@dhillonlaw.com, Kash.Patel@fbi.gov, Dan.Bongino@fbi.gov, Sanjay.Virmani@fbi.gov

CC: todd.blanche@usdoj.gov, emil.bove@usdoj.gov, chad.mizelle@usdoj.gov, yaakov.m.roth@usdoj.gov, drew.c.ensign@usdoj.gov, flentje@usdoj.gov, erez.reuveni@usdoj.gov, brian.c.ward@usdoj.gov, patrick.glen@usdoj.gov, jay.clayton@usdoj.gov, tara.schwartz@usdoj.gov, lindsay.m.vick@usdoj.gov, james.hurley@usdoj.gov, pamela.bondi@usdoj.gov, brett.a.shumate@usdoj.gov, eric.hamilton@usdoj.gov, alexander.k.haas@usdoj.gov, jacqueline.coleman.snead@usdoj.gov, jacqueline.c.snead@usdoj.gov, jacqueline.snead@usdoj.gov, john.bailey@usdoj.gov, bilal.a.essayli@usdoj.gov, david.m.harris@usdoj.gov, daniel.a.beck@usdoj.gov, joseph.tursi@usdoj.gov, eric.j.hamilton@usdoj.gov, stephen.m.elliott@usdoj.gov, patricia.m.mccarthy@usdoj.gov, claudia.burke@usdoj.gov, sosun.bae@usdoj.gov, justin.r.miller@usdoj.gov, luke.mathers@usdoj.gov, blake.w.cowman@usdoj.gov, collin.t.mathias@usdoj.gov, catherine.m.yang@usdoj.gov, reginald.m.skinner@usdoj.gov, john.b.martin@usdoj.gov, brett.shumate@usdoj.gov, bilal.essayli@usdoj.gov, joseph.h.hunt@usdoj.gov, brinton.lucas@usdoj.gov, john.r.griffiths@usdoj.gov, anthony.j.coppolino@usdoj.gov, andrew.e.carmichael@usdoj.gov, robert.m.norway@usdoj.gov, sarah.wilson@usdoj.gov, devin.barrett@usdoj.gov, malcolm.i.mcdermond@usdoj.gov, alexa.perlmutter@usdoj.gov, jason.k.zubata@usdoj.gov, chad.a.readler@usdoj.gov, jennifer.d.ricketts@usdoj.gov, jean.lin@usdoj.gov, anthony.p.nicastro@usdoj.gov, john.j.w.inkeles@usdoj.gov, hans.h.chen@usdoj.gov, john.j.inkeles@usdoj.gov, john.w.inkeles@usdoj.gov, abhishek.s.kambli@usdoj.gov, lauren.fascett@usdoj.gov, nicole.p.grant@usdoj.gov, luz.m.restrepo@usdoj.gov, aaron.henricks@usdoj.gov, victoria.turcios@usdoj.gov, aysha.iqbal@usdoj.gov, elianis.perez@usdoj.gov, veronica.dragalin@usdoj.gov, brian.faerstein@usdoj.gov, craig@cmlawpartners.com, Kimberly.Hopkins@usdoj.gov, Martha.Boersch@usdoj.gov, Pamela.Johann@usdoj.gov, Michelle.Lo@usdoj.gov, Jeff.Nedrow@usdoj.gov, Tom.Colthurst@usdoj.gov, mcolumbo@dhillonlaw.com, scowles@dhillonlaw.com, mmeuser@dhillonlaw.com, MDhillon@dhillonlaw.com, JDeol@dhillonlaw.com, JPDeol@dhillonlaw.com, NSingh@dhillonlaw.com, MSarelson@dhillonlaw.com, MColumbo@dhillonlaw.com, JShaw@dhillonlaw.com, SCowles@dhillonlaw.com, CRenner@dhillonlaw.com, AMann@dhillonlaw.com, LGoodman@dhillonlaw.com, MHoesly@dhillonlaw.com, MMeuser@dhillonlaw.com

BCC: ajalil@berkeley.edu

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

4200 Park Blvd., Ste. #One16, Oakland CA  94602
Phone  (510) 394-4101

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation

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

Linked In Profile on Abdul-Jalil, Kobe Bryant Supports AMWF

Abdul-Jalil Honored in Port Au-Prince, Haiti and Miami, Fla. for Relief Missions to Haiti ,  Thanks You from Arch Bishop Joel Jeune to Abdul-Jalil

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY HONORS ABDUL-JALIL Receives Certificate-of-Recognition for 2021-22 

Belal Salih Esa receives Posthumous Congressional Proclamation/Resolution for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from California Governor Gavin Newsom and the State Legislature for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from the Mayor, City Council and the Unified School District Board of Supervisors of the City of Albany for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)

Humanitarian Civil and Human Rights Achievements

Articles on Abdul-Jalil:  ABDUL-JALIL GENIUS- BOY WONDER!!MC Hammer Tribute to ABDUL-JALILEmanuel Steward on ABDUL-JALIL
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Maze Featuring Frankie Beverly and Marvin Gaye
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Khalid al-Mansour, President Barack Obama and Prince Al-Waleed
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Destiny and Marvin Gaye

Abdul-Jalil BMI Songwriter/Producer

Abdul-Jalil Wrote/Produced/Adminstered Survey, Poll, Analysis, Song, and Commercials for City of Oakland Image Campaign “I Know You’ll Love Oakland”

Abdul-Jalil Wrote/Produced/Adminstered Mayor Lionel Wilson and City of Oakland “Conference On Urban Economic Development” and Commercials

Abdul-Jalil Hosted the City of Oakland’s “Holiday Season at the Trans Pacific Centre”

Ron Dellums Congressional Acknowledgement to Abdul-Jalil for Bicentennial Basketball Classic

Abdul-Jalil and The Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Fundraiser
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg1
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg2
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg3

ABDUL-JALIL- the First _SUPER AGENT_ Legal Black History Page 1
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 2
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 3
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law, Lecturor, Presenter, Marketing, Branding Page 4

Award for “Distinguished Marketing and Promotional Services” from NFL Super Bowl NFL Experience , Abdul-Jalil Award from NFL Super Bowl, Rihanna SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo , Dr. Dre SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo

SUPER BOWL CELEBRITY PLACEMENT, Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg1,  Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg2 ,  Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg3

The Man Who Turn$ Hit$ Into Million$, One Special Case,

The Historic Jr. Moore Contract pg1, The Historic Jr. Moore Contract pg2,

ESPN Bostock 5th & Jackson TV Special Part 1, and Part 2,  ESPN Bostock Magazine Special, ESPN Magazine- The History and Mystery of The High Five,
the “al-Hakim Tax Code Ruling”, Smart Agent, Busy Agent,
Abdul-Jalil in Harvard University Law School Federal Tax Course Outline
Abdul-Jalil in Yale University Law School Federal Tax Course 13th Ed., Prof. Eric Zolt
Abdul-Jalil in Wake Forest University Law School “Islamic and Jewish Perspective On Interest”
Abdul-Jalil in Washington University Law School Tax CodeAbdul-Jalil in Washington & Lee University Law School Tax Code,Abdul-Jalil in University of Virginia Law School Tax Course

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation-KPFA Promotional Video
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Kids Celebrity Gift BackPacks
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Free Food Program Celebrity Giving Back
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville KPFA Interview Video
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Alameda Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Entourage & Randy Holland in Trader Joe’s Pinole “Tribute to Legends of Jazz” Show
Santa Fe Elementary School’s Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, SemiFreddi’s, Trader Joe’s, Little Ceasar’s Pizza, Marshawn Lynch’s “Fam1ly F1rst” and Leon Powe’s “Fresh Start Oakland”
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 1
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 2

---

You can click on any highlighted word to view or download that itemTo:    Hon. Pamela J. Bondi               Hon. Harmeet K. Dhillon
         U.S. Attorney General              U.S. Attorney General- Civil Rights Division
         950 Pennsylvania Avenue         950 Pennsylvania Avenue
         Washington, DC 20530             Washington, DC 20530
         Phone: (202) 514-2000             Phone: (202) 514-2000

        Kash Patel- Director                      Sanjay Virmani, FBI Director
        FBI Headquarters                          Northern District of California
        935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW     San Francisco Field Office
       Washington, D.C. 20535-0001       450 Golden Gate Ave, 13th Fl
        (202) 324-3000                              San Francisco, CA 94102-9523

       Craig H. Missakian-Director                    Gregory R. Michael
       U. S. Attorney’s Office                              Dhillon Law Group
           Federal Courthouse                                   177 Post Street, Suite 700
       450 Golden Gate Avenue                          San Francisco, California 94108
       San Francisco, CA 94102
       Fax No.: 415-436-7234
sent via: U. S. Mail, Fax, and email                                  
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:    November 6, 2025
NO. PAGES: 6
RE:    PRESIDING JUDGE REFUSES TO SERVE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT
Dear Hon. Pamela J. Bondi, Hon. Harmeet K. Dhillon, Hon. Kash Patel, Special Agent in Charge Sanjay Virmani, Director Craig H. Missakian, Attorney Gregory R. Michael;
    On July 8, 2025, we filed a Declaration in the matter of Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. C-81137 wherein Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, was allegedly deemed a vexatious litigant by Alameda County Superior Court.    I CALLED Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon’s OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES, LEFT VOICEMAIL MESSAGES AND DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE!    I then filed the Declaration and served a copy on Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon the same hour, establishing that THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON ME AND REQUESTED THAT IT BE SERVED SO I COULD PROPERLY RESPOND TO IT.
    ON AT LEAST TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS I WAS CONFRONTED BY PEOPLE THAT ARE KNOWN TO ME AS “SNITCHES”- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS, GOVERNMENT ASSETS, STATING THAT THEY HAD “LOTS” OF MAIL ADDRESSED TO ME AND MOST OF IT WAS FROM THE COURT. THERE WAS A THIRD PERSON OF SIMILAR ILK THAT STATED THEY WERE BEING COERCED TO BE COMPLICIT IN THE “SNITCH” ACTIVITIES OF ONE OF THE OTHERS.
That was THREE (3) weeks ago and as of today, July 31, 2025, Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon has FAILED AND REFUSED TO serve the order on al-Hakim! WHY??!!
    Nixon is obstructing justice in furtherance of the OVERT/COVERT ADMITTED ACTIONS of FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, AND CORRUPTION ON THE PARTS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!    We have filed this complaint with Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero- Supreme Court of California, Chair- Judicial Council of California, Commission on Judicial Appointments; Director Michelle Curran- Judicial Council of California; Director-Chief Counsel Gregory Dresser- Commission on Judicial Performance; Director Craig H. Missakian- U.S. Attorney’s Office; Attorney General of California Rob Bonta; Judge Brian Caruth- Superior Court of Alameda County; Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon- Superior Court of Alameda County; Executive Officer Chad Finke- Superior Court of Alameda County; Judge Stuart Hing- Superior Court of Alameda County; Judge Michael Gaffey- Superior Court of Alameda County; FBI Director Sanjay Virmani- San Francisco Field Office; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez- Alameda County Sheriff; Chief Brian Matthews- Hayward Police Department; Casey Hallinan- Attorney General of California Public Inquiry Unit; Senator Aisha Wahab- California State Senate (SD-10); District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson-Alameda County; Director Steve Gordon- Department of Motor Vehicles; Director Kenneth J. Pogue- Office of Administrative Law; Director Kimberly Kirchmeyer- Department of Consumer Affairs; Bureau Chief Patrick Dorais- Bureau of Automotive Repair; Commissioner Ricardo Lara- Department of Insurance; et. al.,    I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY!!

Respectfully submitted,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff

——– Message ——–

Subject:	VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (CCP 391 (B)(3))) ORDER THAT WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED; PROOF Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice; PROOF KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance
Date:	Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:02:06 -0700
From:	A. J. <ajalil1234@gmail.com>
Reply-To:	ajalil1234@gmail.com
To:	Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov, Marsha.Slough@jud.ca.gov, rbmoises@cjp.ca.gov, charlenedrummer@hotmail.com, coletteabrooks@aol.com, Gregory.Dresser@cjp.ca.gov, GPDresser@cjp.ca.gov, Shawn.Spaulding@cjp.ca.gov, SRSpaulding@cjp.ca.gov, Anne.Hunter@cjp.ca.gov, AMHunter@cjp.ca.gov, mark.lizarraga@cjp.ca.gov, Sonya.smith@cjp.ca.gov, SRsmith@cjp.ca.gov, Emma.Bradford@cjp.ca.gov, mani@sheiklaw.us, rivie@imwlaw.com, rachel@hillmediationservices.com, gnelson@nflawfirm.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, michelle.Curran@jud.ca.gov, robert.Oyung@jud.ca.gov, salena.Chow@jud.ca.gov, Deborah.Brown@jud.ca.gov, Laura.Speed@jud.ca.gov, Deborah.Collier-Tucker@jud.ca.gov, Chio.Saephanh@jud.ca.gov, Heather.Resetarits@jud.ca.gov, Cristina.Resendiz-Johnson@jud.ca.gov, Elizabeth.Tam-Helmuth@jud.ca.gov, amanda.Morris@jud.ca.gov, AccessFairnessComm@jud.ca.gov, civilandsmallclaims@jud.ca.gov, malcumbrac@nemecek-cole.com, pbrownmcgill@pbmlawoffices.com, pdeedon@maire-law.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, crice@dlunited.org, elise@aswtlawyers.com, jt@thigpenlegal.com, saul.bercovitch@calawyers.org, elizabeth.Tam-Helmuth@jud.ca.gov, amanda.Morris@jud.ca.gov, AccessFairnessComm@jud.ca.gov, civilandsmallclaims@jud.ca.gov, malcumbrac@nemecek-cole.com, pbrownmcgill@pbmlawoffices.com, pdeedon@maire-law.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, crice@dlunited.org, elise@aswtlawyers.com, jt@thigpenlegal.com, saul.bercovitch@calawyers.org, jenny.Grantz@jud.ca.gov, collabjusticecomm@jud.ca.gov, Dana.Cruz@jud.ca.gov, Deanna.adams@jud.ca.gov, Carrie.Zoller@jud.ca.gov, CLAC@jud.ca.gov, jenny.wald@jud.ca.gov, bruce.greenlee@jud.ca.gov, kerry.doyle@jud.ca.gov, douglas.denton@jud.ca.gov, sarah.Fleischer-Ihn@jud.ca.gov, Jamie.Schechter@jud.ca.gov, camilla.kieliger@jud.ca.gov, james.barolo@jud.ca.gov, anne.ronan@jud.ca.gov, marsha.Slough@jud.ca.gov, susan.mcmullan@jud.ca.gov, douglasp.miller@jud.ca.gov, sarah.Fleischer-Ihn@jud.ca.gov, anne.ronan@jud.ca.gov, corby.sturges@jud.ca.gov, jenny.grantz@jud.ca.gov, jason.Haas@jud.ca.gov, donna.Newman@jud.ca.gov, jennifer.chappelle@jud.ca.gov, marsha.slough@jud.ca.gov, chris.Belloli@jud.ca.gov, corey.Rada@jud.ca.gov, davidakaiser@earthlink.net, info@caljudges.org, dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov, BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov, cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov, SHing@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MGaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept711@alameda.courts.ca.gov, Dept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov

sent via: U. S. Mail, Fax, and email                                  
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     July 8, 2025
NO. PAGES: 12
TO THOMAS NIXON, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT

ABDUL-JALIL AL-HAKIM DECLARATION/STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO JUDGE JEFF BRAND ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (CCP 391 (B)(3) ORDER THAT WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT FOR FILING CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 AND 170.3; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED. I HAVE CALLED YOUR OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES, LEFT VOICEMAIL MESSAGES AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE!

   THE OATH OF OFFICE
I, ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

“Judicial challenges themselves are not, however, evidence a want or delay of prosecution. A party is entitled to challenge a judicial officer for cause or bias.” “The challenges appear to be filed in an earnest belief that the judges of this Court ought to be disqualified from deciding this case and that each successive challenge will overcome the prior’s shortcomings.””the Court hopes and encourages both parties to take this new judicial assignment as a good time to wipe the slate clean, forgive any earlier acrimony, and proceed to resolve and adjudicate the claims raised by the Complaint in normal order and good faith. Al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated.” “Both parties deserve the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law. In short, this case deserves a chance to proceed on its merits, and now is an opportune time as any to do so.”

Judge Stephen Kaus, Tentative Ruling made September 11, 2018.
Judge Kaus admits to the courts acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law!

        Plaintiff and al-Hakim were NOT aware that there was any finding of GUILT in the matter of Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. C-81137 herein Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, was deemed a vexatious litigant by Alameda County Superior Court.
    As the CEO of Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation we filed an action against Defendants State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Claims and State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Appraisal Team or any of its employees or representatives including but not limited to Mary Weaver, Gary O’Donnell, Madison Ritter, Kaitlin Hampe, Samantha B, Kendra Behrens, Victor Walker, “Neg”, Karena Kelly-Guishard, Lexie Figueroa; Alex Anneker Insurance Agency, and Alex Anneker; Alacrity Solutions, LLC, and employees Jim Pearl, John Hall, Matt Fatheree, Rob Beller; Snapsheet and employees Brad Weisberg, Andy Cohen, Dan Colomb, Brad Weisberg, Jennifer Fagan, Jesse Perrotta, Alexia Bustamante; Up North Towing and Matthew; Blue Star Towing; Shah Sons LLC DBA- East Bay Auto Center, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Nomi Khan, and their Investors; and Does 1 through 200, inclusive.
    It is entitled as same and given Case No: 25CV108981, with a hearing set for July 23, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. at the René C. Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612, in Department 19, before Judge Joscelyn Jones.
    I recently became aware of the alleged order when Defendants filed a Motion for An Order for Dismissal for Failing to Timely Obtain a Prefiling Order within Ten (10) Days of the Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order. per  CCP section 391.7(c).
    Co-Defendants State Farm and Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (“Alacrity”) have alleged they both filed Notices that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order as State Farm filed theirs on April 2, 2025, and Alacrity filed its on April 17, 2025. The Notices of Vexatious Litigant automatically stayed this case and required the Foundation to obtain a prefiling order from the presiding judge of this court within ten (10) days of the filings.
    BOTH CO-DEFENDANTS STATE FARM AND ALACRITY HAVE FAILED AND REFUSED TO SERVE SAID NOTICES ON AARON & MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION (AMWF.)
    We filed our Opposition and Cross‐Motion for Filing this Frivolous or Dilatory motion with Monetary Sanctions against Defendants and their counsels under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5, 128.7, and 391.7(f) on July 3, 2025.
    When I /WE filed the opposition, the clerk said she could NOT find the case by the number nor name. I insisted that both were right and after 5 minutes she asked “it’s NOT al-Hakim?”. I said “NO, it’s the Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.” She repeated her question and I again insisted that it was correct.
    The I to had to sit at the clerks desk for another 20 minutes while she was communicating with someone on the computer regarding the case, typing all the time.
    It was clear that the Defendants actions had succeeded in getting the case title changed to reflect MY name rather than the 68 YEAR OLD, WORLD RENOWNED FOUNDATION!

“SNITCHES” HAD AL-HAKIM MAIL, ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER NEVER SERVED
    From February 2019 when my family, our businesses, and I was illegally forced from our home of over 40 years WITH TWO DAYS NOTICE, due to the continuing fraud of the “COURTEL” and “SHADOW COURT” with judges Jeff Brand, Kim Cowell, Wynne Carvill, Robert Freedman, Frank Roesch, C. Don Clay, court administrator Chad Finke and others in the appeals court, we were ALL homeless!
    I had a very meager form of communication until May 2019 when I lost the remaining support I had for even that!
    From that time I never received any communications from the courts even though I filed change of addresses with the court master file and each department that I had a case in including the State and Federal Appeals courts.
    However, on at least two separate occasions I was confronted by two people that are known to me as “snitches”- confidential informants, government assets, stating that they had “lots” of mail addressed to me and most of it was from the court. There was a third person of similar ilk that stated they were being coerced to be complicit in the “snitch” activities of one of the others, and that they felt/knew there was government involvement! I will elaborate more in the actual “Request to be Removed from the Vexatious Litigant list.
    I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY!
    The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Abdul-Jalil HAVE LIVED THE EXPERIENCE OF THE “COURTEL” and “SHADOW COURT” and the alleged order of being deemed a vexatious litigant by the Alameda County Superior Court order on June 11, 2019, YET IT HAS NEVER SERVED AND MORE INEXPLICABLE, on March 19, 2018, MORE THAN 16 MONTHS EARLIER THAN THE ALLEGED ORDER, al-Hakim received a notice/order of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant”! (see Exh. A)
    THE “COURTEL”, this Black Robed Society Conceived in Sin, Born of Corruption, Covered Up with Collusion, protected by the System itself- the COURTEL! A litany of Law Lords, Demonically Dealing Decisions for Dominance, DOLLAR$!
    This Judicial Cult of Immoral Dishonor, this “COURTEL”, with no accountability grievously disintegrates in “a monumentally moral descent into the very exclusive JUDGES CHAMBERS in HELL for Criminal Justices who swear others to GOD but themselves are sworn to Judicial Purgatory as Satan’s Slaves!” They want the WORLD to believe they are GOD’S vicegerents on earth and pledge allegiance to THEM- then GOD, to honor their dishonor, to gracefully ignore their disgrace, to hold them in reverence ABOVE GOD while they do the Devils work!!
    THEY ENGAGED IN FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, JUDICIAL/LEGAL GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION exposing these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing legal parties; assuring the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, enacting government sponsored terror, with the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
    This Defendants Motion is frivolous and was filed for an improper purpose— aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise the court as their “butt puppet” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
    Defendants push the COURTEL Command to activate and commence the TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY action to their Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court Corruptocrats and Kleptocrats in the Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Scheme and Litigation Strategy in their “Shadow Court” Operation.
    The concept and reality of this “Shadow Court” raises concerns about the rule of law, fairness, and the protection of individual rights within the legal system.
    The COURTEL “Shadow Court” is the legal, court or judicial system that operates outside the official legal framework or established judicial system that has several interpretations depending on the factors and context including:
Informal or Extrajudicial Courts: Shadow courts refer to “formal and extrajudicial” bodies of unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities engaged in GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION that furtively create, provoke, and frame aggrieved civil and criminal disputes to illegally administer justice without constitutional authority as one of their tactics in their TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY for these parties to advance their “COURTEL” Campaign of JUDICIAL CORRUPTION against a TARGETED PARTY. The objective of the “shadow court” is to facilitate the COURTEL’s continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy with “Target, Engagement, Harassment, Provocation, Litigation” tactics is designed to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGETED PARTY, their family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially in the shadow courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives. The very nature and inherent structure/operation of this Civil/Criminal Entrapment Sting and Litigation Strategy- actively employs the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court systems at ALL levels (Judges are Politicians= elected officials by the Public, to serve the public) makes it diabolically impossible to journey from the Constitution to the Institution “Of The People, For The People, By The People!” that places them in this evil “criminal and civil rights/litigation meat grinder”. The parties are Governmental and Quasi-governmental employees, agents, entities, associates, members, and contractors of their companies, the U. S. Federal Government, State of California, County, and City agencies, among others, have engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act. Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance by and with unethical and criminal means, instigated and encouraged said acts, which gives rise to fraudulent, corruption as they conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived, employed and enacted the criminal, tactical, torture inspired policy of TARGETED HATE CRIME, Terror, Civil Conspiracy, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced Bigotry, Vindictive Retaliation, Oppression, Harassment, Racism, Discrimination, Bias, Prejudice, Unfairness, Persecution, AND GRAND CORRUPTION, victimization, inciting acrimony, animus, in the continued persecution with calumny deceit and the attempted entrapment of us as the continuing “TARGET”. These parties ADMITTEDLY engage in corruption and conspiracy, while consorting, colluding, conceiving and enacting this Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Sting and Litigation Strategy- actively employ the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court systems at ALL levels, including other judicial, governmental and political officials, their handlers, their contractors, agents, associates, proxies, sycophants, employees, the experts, witnesses, representatives, operatives, unnamed third parties, allies, political handlers and consultants (including their attorneys), the TARGETED PARTY’s litigation opponents and and others, to act out their VENDETTA, CREATING CRIME, FIXING CASES in furtherance of their Corruption Agenda with the FULL FORCE OF THE LAW to destroy the TARGETED PARTY. These “Shadow courts” arise in situations where the official judicial system is ineffective, corrupt, or inaccessible, as they have compromised to create their own mechanisms for their own desired justice. The litigation is commenced by agreement or at the direction of the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court and opposing counsel, is pursued to a legal termination in their favor, was brought without probable cause, was initiated with malice with the motive to obtain a collateral advantage and provide a legal defense for them because they have been, are and will be a defendants and witnesses needing protection with finding against the TARGETED PARTY.
Political Context: In the Law Enforcement, Judicial/Political/Social context, the “shadow court” is a governmental design engineered judicial system set up and controlled by Federal/State/County/Local/ law enforcement, political, and legal/judicial groups to secretly control and covertly co-opt the legitimacy of the “official” legal/judicial system they designed engineered to support and foster those parties acts to achieve their desired ruling government interests. This entrapment scheme strategy is employed in their authoritarian capacity where the official courts are used but these actions are surreptitious, back channel, social club- Inn of Courts and judicial chambers operations not visible to the public so they can not be seen as biased or controlled by the government. This group of Federal/State/County/Local/ law enforcement, political, and legal/judicial groups have its own corrupt leaders and policies, effectively taking over the legal and judicial governance authority whenever the need and opportunity arises.
Conspiracy Theories: In conspiracy theory circles, the shadow court is often described as a clandestine Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court agencies and organizations that manipulate or controls the actual process. This includes Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial groups and their secret societies, intelligence agencies, and other powerful entities that operate behind the scenes to influence and control political/legal/judicial/social decisions and public policy.
Historical Context: The term has also been used historically to describe Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court agencies and organizations or alternative administrations that claim legitimacy but operate outside the recognized government legal/judicial framework, especially during times of conflict or political/legal/judicial/social upheaval.
Secret or Covert Judicial Processes: The term can also describe secretive judicial processes that lack transparency and due process, often associated with human and civil rights abuses. These courts operate without proper legal procedures, leading to arbitrary decisions.
    This COURTEL has acculturated a Guantanomo Bay style system of the worst aspects of an evil society- grounded in Grand Endemic and Systemic corruption, violence, fraud, exploitation, racism, bigotry, and persecution, into their State sponsored terror operation of protected government endemically corrupt legal system to perpetuate their own criminal judicial/legal/financial/psychological/ violence upon innocent minorities, Muslims, immigrants, WITH common people being captured in their special illegal rendition into Civil Rights/Familial/Financial/Social/Psychological/Emotional TORTURE- OBLITERATING ANY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AND THE GREAT AMERICAN DREAM!
    Their tactics are more extreme than muckraking or character assassination, disinformation/misinformation, or defamation, wherein the COURTEL: DOJ, FBI, Court systems, Law Enforcement at ALL levels, and opposing parties anxiously track TARGETED PARTY’s movements, business and social activity, writings, speeches, phone and text conversations, internet activity, social media, personal and sexual relationships/endeavors to fabricate and gather negative, embarrassing or compromising information about the TARGETED PARTY, to publish and disperse that information as widely as possible, “NEUTRALIZING YOU!”, DESTROYING INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, and THEIR BUSINESSES BY ILLEGALLY TARGETING and FRAMING INNOCENT, UNAWARE, COMMON, EVERYDAY CIVILIANS!
    The COURTEL and Shadow Court Recent Acts in Underlying East Bay Auto Center Case that Impact The Other Case
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD
    IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND PROVEN THAT THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER, IF TRUE, WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, AND CORRUPTION BY THE VERY SAME ENTITIES DEFENDANTS REFERENCES IN THIER PLEADING!
    AS ADMITTED AND SHOWN JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE PUBLISHED THEY HAD AN ORDER DECLARING AL-HAKIM A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT THAT DID NOT EXIST!
    THEY DECLARED THEIR COLLECTIVE INTENT, THIS GAVE RISE TO THEIR MOTIVE, AND THEY CREATED THEIR OPPORTUNITY!
    ABDUL-JALIL AL-HAKIM HAD TO FILE OPPOSITIONS TO THREE ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE IN THIS ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT PROCEEDING CCP 391(B)(3) IN SIX MONTHS!
    On March 19, 2018, MORE THAN 16 MONTHS EARLIER THAN THE ALLEGED ORDER, al-Hakim received a notice/order of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” by JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE by the Alameda County Superior Court order on June 11, 2019, YET IT HAS NEVER SERVED! (see order as Exh. A).
    This alleged vexatious litigant order was taken as a crime, the parties JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE committed with “malice aforethought,” as the crime was premeditated, and the perpetrators held malice for the victim al-Hakim. AS PROVEN MY THEIR ORDER issued on June 11, 2019, there clearly was malice aforethought that is defined as a crime being planned in advance, with the intention to kill or grievously harm another individual, al-Hakim. This is proof of JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE malice aforethought as a requirement to convict someone of first-degree murder!
    They, JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE clearly established intention to commit a crime without just cause or provocation, specifically in this cases involving exposing their collective first-degree murder of the al-Hakim’s HUMAN and CIVIL RIGHTS, further exposes the COURTEL AND SHADOW COURTS full blown attack of the al-Hakim family! THIS IS AN EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT OF AN ONGOING TARGETED ATTEMPT TO DESTROY- EVEN KILL, A FAMILY HERE IN AMERICA- REAL LIVES, IN REAL LIFE, RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES, IN REAL TIME with expressed Malice or a “depraved” or “malignant” heart with the “Intent to kill”, mens rea!
    THEY ENGAGED IN FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, JUDICIAL/LEGAL GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION exposing these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing legal parties; assuring the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, enacting government sponsored terror, with the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
    COURTEL Command to activate and commence the TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY action to their Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court Corruptocrats and Kleptocrats in the Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Scheme and Litigation Strategy in their “Shadow Court” Operation.
    Judges Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke issued an order that claimed they had a prior order which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant. We have asked for that order and ALL have remained silent and claim not to be responsible for it, yet it is in an ORDER FROM THE COURT!
    al-Hakim is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges Defendants, with and through their counsel, has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise “Good White Way” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
(see “Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke Vexatious Litigant Strategy Fraud on th Court”, Challenge
for Cause of Judge Kaus filed December 4, 2018, at Page 24-27)
    Alameda County Superior Court allegedly issued this order on June 11, 2019, YET HAVE NEVER SERVED IT ON AL-HAKIM. PERHAPS EVEN MORE INEXPLICABLE, on March 19, 2018, al-Hakim received a notice of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” and a court motion pending for an alleged Vexatious Litigant proceeding.
    al-Hakim couldn’t tell from the signature who endorsed the denied waiver but it may be judge Carvill or Chad Finke because the judge in the case, C. Don Clay said he didn’t know anything about!
    Neither Carvill nor Finke EVER admitted it was them who issued the alleged “order”.
I have NEVER been deemed as such, NEVER received any such notice and was unaware of this pending alleged process which needless to say was without ANY merit!
    We repeatedly asked “Who filed this alleged motion, when, and what proof of service have they filed?” and “When is this motion being heard, in what department and by whom?”.
    We requested ANSWERS to “What prior orders does the court have regarding that case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on the case when NOTHING had been filed in that case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants defaulted on?”
    That was admittedly a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on al-Hakim’s litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in his cases.
    How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So are we to understand that YOUR system is guilty before a hearing on this meritless motion is even heard?
    A determination of vexatious litigant status specifically under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §391(b)(3) requires somewhat more than a retaliatory judge conspiring with the defendant to complain that they perceive al-Hakim vexed to their mutual motive, interest, benefit, and opportunity is a reoccurring theme over the 50 years of this case where the defendants have represented the judges in this case against al-Hakim and the judges have likewise defended the defendants as “sitting judge for the defense” and “deputy defense counsel”! There are simply no meritorious grounds for this motion at all. The statutory criteria are clearly stated and easily understood. And in this case, Plaintiff show they are as far removed from meeting the statutory criteria as possible, which Brand either knew or should have known before filing this motion out of retaliation and desperation.
CONCLUSION
I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY AND THAT CO-DEFENDANTS STATE FARM AND ALACRITY BOTH FILED ILLEGAL NOTICES THAT PLAINTIFF IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT SUBJECT TO PREFILING ORDER HAD SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THE CASE TITLE CHANGED TO REFLECT MY NAME RATHER THAN THE 68 YEAR OLD, WORLD RENOWNED FOUNDATION!!

Respectfully submitted,


Date: July 8, 2025Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff

********
RE:        A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Misrepresentation, Concealment of Material Facts with Intent to Induce Court’s Act or Reliance; VIDEO ADMISSIONS, PROOF Sheriff’s Deputy MARKITA SAYLES COMMITTED FRAUD, FIXING THE CASE; ADMITTED SHE WAS INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES; PERJURY; FILING AN ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT”; WILLFULLY FABRICATED EVIDENCE; COMMITTED MISCONDUCT; CONCEALMENT; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto

Dear Sheriff Sanchez, Chief Chaplin, A. G. Ramsey, A. G. Bonta, Director Tripp, Steve Gordon- DMV, Ricardo Lara- DOI, Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA , Patrick Dorais- BAR, Kenneth J. Pogue- OAL, A. G. Hallinan, Senator Wahab, D. A. Price, State Farm Claims, East Bay Auto Center, et. al.,

Law Enforcement Fraud, Misrepresentation, Concealment of Material Facts with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACE

Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan
              Superior Court of Alameda County                  East Bay Auto Center         
              Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                21099 Mission Blvd.
              Department 105                                                 Hayward, CA 94541
              661 Washington St.                                            Email: EastBayAuto6@gmail.com
              Oakland, CA 94607                                           Ph:510‐690‐2728
              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov
BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov

             Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer
             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County
             René C. Davidson Courthouse                           René C. Davidson Courthouse
             Department 1                                                      1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
             Oakland, CA 94612                                           Oakland, CA 94612
             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                    Fax: 510-891-6276
TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov

cc: Judges Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711
U.S. Postal Mail and Emailed
FROM:     Defendant Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     June 5, 2025
NO PAGES:     1
RE:        Declaration for finding Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Leandro Police, Hayward Police, Alameda County District Attorney, Chad Finke and Clerks in Superior Court Administration with support from U. S. Attorney- Northern District, FBI, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, engaged in GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme complete with Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance.

“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 at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew,

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, Plaintiffs, et. al.,

Attached please find our Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Declaration and Legal Argument in Support of Order finding Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Leandro Police, Hayward Police, Alameda County District Attorney, Chad Finke and Clerks in Superior Court Administration with support from U. S. Attorney- Northern District, FBI, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, engaged in GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme complete with Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance; Fixing the Case against Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation behind their declaration the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing police crime reports AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court actions; Judges, Court Administration, Clerks Obstructed, Perverted Course, Due Administration of Justice.

THE OATH OF OFFICE

I, ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance!
   Below is a recent email exchange with the California Registry of Charities and Fundraisers operating under the auspicious of Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Dear Registry of Charities and Fundraisers,

    Attached hereto please find the AG’s summary receipt for the filing of the requested 2022-23 YE filed documents that MUST be properly completed and confirmed BEFORE any electronic payment for the fee can be processed and accepted! Again, there never was any unspecified “deficiencies” for 2022-23 nor 2023-24 YE!!
    Again, we filed the forms, submitted the documents and paid, for which we presented the receipts for, online at the AG’s website.
    As we stated earlier. we had NOT received ANY RESPONSE to our multiple 2 emails, a fax and letters to your offices since May 14, 2025 regrading a notice that our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation non-profit 2024 YE filing has been rejected for unspecified “deficiencies”. You probably would NOT have responded if it were NOT for the intervention of Alicia Xiong in RegCompliance <RegCompliance@doj.ca.gov>!
    AGAIN, we ALWAYS DISAGREED WITH THIS FINDING and requested you PLEASE provide specifically what the 2024 YE filing unspecified “deficiencies” are?
    We filed the forms, submitted the documents and paid, for which we have the receipts for, online at the AG’s website.
    AFTER we provided the copies of the requested filings AS PROOF there was never any alleged “deficiencies”, you responded that you had the 2024 YE filings BUT the 2023 YE was missing!
    THAT ALSO WAS A FALSE STATEMENT! We provided the filed documents AND the AG’s completed summary for the filing that MUST be completed properly BEFORE the system will electronically allow for the processing and acceptance of the fee, for which we also had the receipts for!!
    As stated before, we find the “timing and non-responses suspicious” as the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation have ongoing litigation that this action may impact!
   This ENTIRE “DEFICIENCIES” ACTION WAS A COMPLETE FABRICATION TO PROVOKE AND ENTRAP US INTO AN INDEFENSIBLE LEGAL POSITION as if our our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation would be “suspended” for the alleged non-filing of the “deficiencies” for 2022-23 nor 2023-24 YE, THEY ARE/WOULD THEN Not be currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, thus they are NOT authorized to do business in the State of California and don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit. They DO NOT have legal standing to exist, if they may be suspended for some reason.
 A suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court.
 A corporation may be suspended for at least one of the following reasons:
    •    Failure to file one or more tax returns. Cal Rev. & Tax Code Sec. 23301.
    •    Failure to pay the business’ tax balance due. This can include the penalty for failing to file the annual Statement of Information with the Secretary of State. California Corporations Code Section 2205.
Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani, (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 1361.(Stating a suspended corporation is disqualified from exercising any right, power, or privilege, including prosecuting or defending an action, or appealing a judgment).
A suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court. (Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Superior Court [54 Cal.App.4th 1366] (1922) 188 Cal. 393, 396-397 [205 P. 446]; Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 46, 50-51 [317 P.2d 649].)
    Nor may a suspended corporation appeal from an adverse judgment (Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co. (1937) 9 Cal.2d 16, 20-21 [68 P.2d 968]; Gar-Lo, Inc. v. Prudential Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 242, 245 [116 Cal.Rptr. 389]), or seek a writ of mandate (Brown v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 519, 635 [51 Cal.Rptr. 633]).
    Given this heinous, blatant attempt to eliminate our status as a current Corporation with Secretary of State and State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, we will file another Complaint with the Alameda County Judges Brian Caruth, Tom Nixon, Michael Gaffey, Stuart Hing, Joscelyn Jones, and Superior Court administrator Chad Finke, Alameda County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, Hayward Police Chief Brian Matthews, U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, F.B.I. Northern District Director Robert Tripp, California Attorney General Casey Hallinan, California State Senator Aisha Wahab, Alameda County District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson, Director of California Department of Motor Vehicles Steve Gordon, California Department of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, California Director Department of Consumer Affairs Kimberly Kirchmeyer, California Bureau of Automotive Repair Chief Patrick Dorais, Director California Office of Administrative Law Kenneth J. Pogue, California Attorney General Hallinan- Public Inquiry Unit, and several Federal government offices.
    We consider this further PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance!
    As we have always maintained and is proven by their bad faith fact pattern, this was ALWAYS an entrapment scheme designed to take possession of the truck with it’s contents and trigger civil/criminal actions knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. They are not acting alone!
    IT IS CLEAR THAT OUR NON-PROFIT AARON & MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION, ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM, THE AL-HAKIM FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES AND BUSINESS PROPERTY, THEIR REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, THEIR CHARITIES, THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE- PERSONALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, MORALLY, ETHICALLY, AND FINANCIALLY, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
    WE HAVE PRESENTED further PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme and Hate Crimes. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the legal, judicial and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    The Entrapment Strategy is disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
    We have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties!
    We will respond further in mass with the affect that our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation non-profit business has been actually and potentially DAMAGED by your agency, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and ALL those referenced herein.
    THIS NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED!
We continue this section herewith below for argument and law:
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS, LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO IN TARGETED ENTRAPMENT, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE, FRUAD, MISREPRESENTATION WITH THE INTENT TO INDUCE THE COURT’S ACT OR RELIANCE
Law Enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hayward Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; San Leandro Police Chiefs Abdul Pridgen/Angela Averiett; U. S. Attorneys Stephanie Hinds/Ismail Ramsey; F.B.I. NorCal Directors Craig Fair/Robert Tripp; with support from the Court, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, and associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Further, they committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing this case; they were instructed by and with special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report” OR NONE AT ALL; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to covering for their “asset” co-conspirators; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, Law Enforcement with associated third parties continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence; as they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence was founded to take the responsibility, accountability, and liability off the Sheriff’s to have performed their investigation and filing a legitimate police crime report by destroying the evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO CENTER as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED MAY 28, 2024 PHONE CALL TO AL-HAKIM, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM.
The Plaintiffs, Sheriffs and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the Civil Rights Act”.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, Law Enforcement and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET! We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!! This established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
The April and May 2024 videos PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves, Plaintiff’s, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company and Law Enforcement in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
East Bay Auto Center is the ONLY suspects that could have stolen, burglarized, vandalized, and damaged the truck as it was not stolen by anyone else!
AMWF’s truck was “STOLEN” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with an associated third party while there for the insurance repair estimate. BUT NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!!
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroying the evidence and chain of custody!
On October 2, 2024, Plaintiffs EBAC FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S WHERE TO AND WHEN EBAC MOVED THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S Deputies Sean Sullivan #2137 and Collin Lenahan #2453 as Percipient Eye Witnesses.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in unsolicited emails to the court and Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, the Clerks of Dept. 1, and 105, and Superior Court Administrator Chad Finke that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Then East Bay Auto Center attempt’s to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to an unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
AGAIN, this was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE and was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and to destroy the chain of custody!
But Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company are NOT acting alone, but with governmental entities and their associates!
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: 1) they were fully aware at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence.
The County Sheriff’s coercive, malicious, intentional tortious interference are a violation of our rights under the California Constitution is a deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process and their police actions are inherently coercive due to their societal trust. For a Civil Code Section 52.1 cause of action, two elements must be established: (1) intentional interference with a constitutional or legal right, and (2) that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The courts, in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, it was determined that relief is granted under Civil Code Section 52.1 if coercive actions are present. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement Intentional Spoliation of Evidence can be viewed through Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court, California. 1998-05-11 and Penal Code section 135 establishes criminal penalties for spoliation, defining it as the willful destruction or concealment of evidence intended to prevent its production in legal proceedings, classifying such acts as misdemeanors.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfere with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.
Under Coprich v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, California. 2000-05-19 , the court allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint, because the officers were responsible for gathering or preserving evidence or for preventing her from doing so. However, the court did not determine that remedies monetary and contempt sanctions, with criminal sanctions for intentional destruction of evidence, and disciplinary measures against attorneys/law enforcement involved in suppressing evidence.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement intentionally failed to preserve evidence of the truck burglary is tortious interference due to spoliation of evidence and intentional interference with defendant’s prospective economic advantage, emphasizing defendants’ right to their injury claims are a valuable expectancy.
On November 2, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been returned to Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward with additional damage. Upon investigation, the truck has been further BURGLARIZED by the breach of the lock on the roll up door and the roll up door itself! THE DAMAGES ARE UNKOWN AND YET TO BE INVESTIGATED!
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Irrefutable evidence shows that Plaintiff’s and the Alameda County Sheriff’s acted with the intent to disrupt Defendants contractual relationship and deny defendants civil rights.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement had knowledge of this contract and intentionally interfered with it AND violated the defendants civil rights (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134 establishes the elements of tortious interference with contractual relations, emphasizing that the defendant must have knowledge of the contract and intentionally interfere with it) by deputy SAYLES whom ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE FALSE POLICE REPORT, willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, failed and refused to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, AS IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY AUTO TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET IN FIXING THIS CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM.
As a direct result of Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcements actions, Defendant has suffered losses and damages including but not limited to loss of business, personal, and real property, lost use of the truck, loss of services to the communities that they serve, loss of revenue, reputational harm, and emotional distress. Defendant also suffered damages, that need to be determined by the order ASAP for the truck be made available to us to get vital information from the engine, body, cab, under body, exhaust, etc., and a complete video investigation, analysis and documentation of the condition of the truck and the contents; to search, inspect, process and document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, finger printing, and clues for the damage, theft, vandalism, and missing/stolen business and personal property to ascertain the total vehicle costs, loss, damages as well as the theft costs, loss and damages. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802. This case highlights the requirement that the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was independently wrongful, which can include unlawful actions by law enforcement.
Defendant argues that the actions of Plaintiff’s and the Alameda County Sheriff’s violated the defendants civil rights and contends that the interference was not justified and was willful, intentional and conducted with malice. Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 1990, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507. This case discusses the necessity of proving that the interference was wrongful and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.
Defendant had a valid and enforceable contract with State Farm insurance company and Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement had knowledge of this contract. Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal. 4th 1140 (2004): This case illustrates intentional interference and the knowledge of the contract by the defendant and they acted with the intent to interfere.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were intentional and wrongful, constituting tortious interference with Defendants contractual relations. Burden v. County of Santa Clara, 81 Cal. App. 4th 244 (2000): This case highlights the limitations of tortious interference claims against government entities, noting that while government entities may have certain immunities, intentional and wrongful conduct still lead to liability.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company and Law Enforcement coercive, malicious, intentional tortious interference are a violation of our rights under the California Constitution is a deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process and their police actions are inherently coercive due to their societal trust. For a Civil Code Section 52.1 cause of action, two elements must be established: (1) intentional interference with a constitutional or legal right, and (2) that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The courts, in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, it was determined that relief is granted under Civil Code Section 52.1 if coercive actions are present. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10. Plaintiff’s and the County Sheriff’s actions were the actual and proximate cause of the interference.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfere with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement intentionally failed to preserve evidence of the truck burglary is tortious interference due to spoliation of evidence and intentional interference with defendant’s prospective economic advantage, emphasizing defendants’ right to their injury claims are a valuable expectancy.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
This Grand corruption is systemic and endemic in ALL al-Hakim cases involves the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of AMWF, al-Hakim, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve.
This Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement ill advised strategy with actions to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence was founded to take the responsibility, accountability, and liability off the Sheriff’s to have performed their investigation and filing a legitimate police crime report by destroying the evidence!
Defendants expressed concern over the Sheriffs officers intentionally mishandling of the crime scene, bad faith failure to investigate and collect incriminating evidence, noting the significant stakes given the involvement of the Plaintiffs and their admissions implicating and incriminating police, that they worked with law enforcement, the police are accomplishes, collaborators, and Plaintiffs are under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist AMWF or Abdul-Jalil.
The courts has established that the government must investigate, detect, collect, and preserve evidence relevant to guilt or innocence as ministerial actions. The critical issue in this ministerial action of evidence collection by the Sheriffs is without discretion, leaving them solely responsible for evidence collection, and the failure to investigate and seize material evidence convicts them of their failure of duty to preserve it. Hence, Sheriffs DO NOT have unchecked discretion to investigate, detect, collect, and preserve evidence; AND given that Plaintiffs are admitted government assets, with court’s prior rulings on informant disclosure suggest that police should exert reasonable efforts to locate material witnesses, reflecting a similar duty to seize material evidence. Sheriffs were aware of the materiality of evidence and this understanding should have compelled them to act to preserve such evidence, aligning with the principle favoring the state in ministerial actions.
Case law indicates that while police officers have liability and they can be held accountable for negligent execution of decisions of issues that involve distinguishing between discretionary and ministerial actions.
The objective of the continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy with “Target, Engagement, Harassment, Provocation, Litigation” tactics is designed to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- AMWF, Abdul-Jalil, al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives. The very nature and inherent structure/operation of the Political/Judicial Institution (Judges are Politicians= elected officials by the Public, to serve for the public) makes it diabolically impossible to journey from the Constitution to the Institution “Of The People, For The People, By The People!” that places them in this evil “criminal and civil rights/litigation meat grinder”.
This East Bay action is one of AMWF and Abdul-Jalil being forced into a small claims action that is both oppressive and coercive by limiting the money awards and the depravation of ones rights as the court decision is non-appealable.
This means that as a litigant, AMWF and Abdul-Jalil waives their most basic Civil and Human Right to a fair trial without recourse to appeal an intentionally wrongful decision that may be by design! This is unlawful, offends public policy, common law and an established concept of unfairness, is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes substantial injury as a part of the larger planned “judgment peonage”, an activity to take bankrupting judgments against us, causing SEVER economic legal damages, non-economic damages, and punitive damages sentencing us to LIFE in “debtors prison”!
Over the last 50+ years al-Hakim’s “court activities” has documented, with filed and served court actions, filed and served complaints, and filed and served correspondence memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
al-Hakim proves where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate his rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528.
Some of those litigation opponents referenced these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in their filings, ALL of whom have been complained of or to are, in major part because al-Hakim reported the very obvious agenda of parties by memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities corruption and persecution and their involvement in the cover-up of that criminal corruption.
The parties are Governmental and Quasi-governmental employees, agents, contractors, entities, associates, members, and contractors of their companies, the U. S. Federal Government, State of California, County, and City agencies, among others, have engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance by and with unethical and criminal means, instigated and encouraged said acts, which gives rise to fraudulent, corruption as they conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived, employed and enacted the criminal, tactical, torture inspired policy of TARGETED HATE CRIME, Terror, Civil Conspiracy, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced Bigotry, Vindictive Retaliation, Oppression, Harassment, Racism, Discrimination, Bias, Prejudice, Unfairness, Persecution, AND GRAND CORRUPTION, victimization, inciting acrimony, animus, in the continued persecution with calumny deceit and the attempted entrapment of us as the continuing “TARGET”.
ALL the DOCUMENTED actions alleged with cite relevant legal case authority to support arguments and assertions for a FORMAL COMPLAINT and Request for Investigation for Hate Crimes include violations of California Law including violations of the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts Civil Code section 51.7, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Acts, Civil Code section 52.1, Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983; California Government Code sections 11135 et seq., 12900 et seq., California Penal Code section 13023, California Penal Code section 422.55 and California Civil Code sections 51, 51.7, 52.5, and 54 et seq.; the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; California Constitution, Article VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475, 3523, and 3528, and for Harassment, Censorship, Fraud, Negligence, Misrepresentation, Abuse of Process, Abuse of Power, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Contract/Common Law Warranty, Deceptive Trade Practices, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud by Concealment, California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 17200 et seq, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Discrimination in Violation of the Unruh Act, Nuisance, Abuse of Process, Fraud by Concealment, Violation of California False Advertising Law, Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceit-(California Civil Code § 1710), Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices, Unconscionability (UDAP), Elder Abuse.
The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, provides protection against interference or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any constitutional or statutory rights. Remedies for violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act or the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act include restraining orders, injunctive relief, equitable relief to secure constitutional and statutory rights, actual damages, exemplary or punitive damages, a civil penalty of $25,000, and attorney’s fees. An action may be brought by the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, or by the individual harmed.
California Penal Code section 13023. California Penal Code section 422.55 defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.”
The California Attorney General DEMANDS an Investigation for Hate Crimes in violation of California Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts; the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983, California Penal Code sections 13519.6, Penal Code section 13023 and Penal Code 422.55 which defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.” Cite relevant legal case authority to support arguments and assertions. Depending on the circumstances of each case, bias motivation may include, but is not limited to, hatred, animosity, discriminatory selection of victims, resentment, revulsion, contempt, unreasonable fear, paranoia, callousness, thrill-seeking, desire for social dominance, desire for social bonding with those of one’s “own kind,” or a perception of the vulnerability of the victim due to the victim being perceived as being weak, worthless, or fair game because of a protected characteristic, including, but not limited to, disability, gender, Age, Ancestry, Anti-Islamic, Anti-black or African American, Anti-other ethnicity/national origin, association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics of a protected class, Citizenship, Color Disability (physical, intellectual/developmental, mental health/psychiatric), Medical Condition (cancer or genetic characteristic), National Origin (includes language restrictions), Political Affiliation, Race (includes hairstyle and hair texture), Religious creed (includes dress and grooming practices), and aggrieve in their entrapment strategy with the use of confidential informants, snitches, government operatives can provide a number of conditions under which “an inducement to an individual to engage in crime is authorized.” This could apply to any or all of the actions taken in and of their services agency acting in their clients name and stead.


JUDGES THOMAS NIXON, BRIAN CARUTH, STUART HING, MICHAEL GAFFEY, CLERKS OF DEPT. 1, 105, 605, 711, PLAINTIFFS, AND CHAD FINKE ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES

On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in an unsolicited email to the court with Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent! 

    In that email East Bay wrote:

Hello Abdul jalil.
This is EAST BAY AUTO CENTER.  I spoken last time with you to pick up your truck. Also I send email and text messages to pick up the truck.
We have no space for keep your truck that long. We small parking lot. This is Michanic shop not storage for your truck.
We send the truck back to storage yard. We not touched any things for your truck.
The truck is locked from the back of the truck. It’s still the same locked 🔒.

If you still want to pick up your truck please let me know we will pick it up from storage yard. Paying the storage money.
You have to pay me for the storage fee.
Please call for schedule to pick up the car.

If you have any questions please call me. Thanks
510-940-8675
Eastbayauto6@gmail.com

These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to a unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
EBAC’s unsolicited admissions and confessions to the court and judges makes them all percipient eye witnesses. Further, in your/their fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!? Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., failure to perform your ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon EBAC unsolicited admissions and confessions with defendant’s NOTICED pleading constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and  Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice is a denial of access to the courts, in violation of defendant’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments! Thus as Judges and court administrators, you have rules governing the disposition of the such actions and pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, YOU ALL have been forever silent regarding this; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4
THIS SECTION ABOVE APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

The Matters of the December 20, 2024 Hearing
At the December 20, 2024 Hearing, the court had appointed Cabral Bonner an attorney, in accordance with Article 6, section 21 of the Constitution of the State of California, to act as the Temporary Judge in this matters before the Court in this department on this date. The Defendant informs the court that he objects to having a pro- tem preside over the matter AND THAT THIS MATTER HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO JUDGE CARUTH AFTER BEING REASSIGNED FROM A PRO-TEM COMMISSIONER FICKLES. If the court was aware of this fact, it should have continued the matter BEFORE we appeared in court, as this was a complete waste of time!
Yet, Plaintiff’s East Bay Auto Center (EBAC) DID NOT appear and there was NO reason given for same. However, Mr. Bonner admits in court that EBAC had contacted the court earlier stating they would NOT appear, BUT NO ONE CONTACTED US, the DEFENDANTS! Here we have the court ADMITTING to having illegal ex-parte communications with the plaintiff’s WITHOUT informing defendants when a matter of a pro-tem was ALREADY DECIDED! As a hypothetical, what would have happened if defendants had agreed to having the matter heard by Bonner and the plaintiff’s FAILED TO APPEAR?! Would a default have been entered?! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!
THE ENTIRE “HEARING” WAS JUST AN ILLEGAL, PRETENTIOUS CHARADE BY THE COURT!

Conspiracy to Subvert, Pervert, Obstruct, or Defeat the Course of Justice
Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
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.”
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.  [Citation.]

“In California, the statutes relating to ‘Crimes Against Public Justice’ are found in part I, title [7], of the Penal Code. Bribery, escapes, rescues, perjury, falsifying evidence, and other acts which would have been considered offenses against the administration of justice at common law are made criminal by legislative enactment. 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. [Citation.]In the same category is a conspiracy to obtain the release of a person charged with a felony by presenting a worthless and void bail bond. Such a conspiracy has been held to be a perversion of the due administration of the law, and an offense within the meaning of subdivision [ (a) ]5 of section 182 of the Penal Code. [Citation.]” (Lorenson v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 49, 59–60, italics added (Lorenson ).)
In Lorenson, the defendant was a police captain in the Los Angeles Police Department indicted for conspiracy to commit robbery, to commit assault with a deadly weapon, and to pervert or obstruct justice. (Lorenson, supra, 35 Cal.2d at pp. 50–51.) In rejecting a claim of insufficient evidence to support the indictment, the court concluded that one could infer from the evidence that there was agreement among the defendant, other members of the police department, and criminal associates of Mickey Cohen to assault and rob the victim, Pearson. The court further noted that there was evidence from which one could infer that the defendant and other police officers “were to furnish protection to the participants in the conspiracy by refusing to disclose the identity of Pearson’s attackers, if they were arrested, and to effect their release from custody.”(Id. at p. 57.) After the robbery and assault, Cohen’s associates were arrested (apparently by officers not involved in the conspiracy), but they were immediately released from the police station before Pearson could arrive to identify any of them, and the arresting officers were instructed not to talk about the incident. (Id. at p. 54.) Lorenson is an example of “[a] conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws,” an indictable offense at common law. (Id. at pp. 59–60.)
THIS SECTION ABOVE APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

A “RAT” in Court Administration and Clerks Obstructed, Perverted the Course and Due Administration of Justice
   On June 11, 2024, Abdul-Jalil appeared at window 12 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and filed our “Defendants Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court”. I was waited on by a young lady that appeared to be of Latin/Asian descent.
We had a discussion regarding my listing my name as the CEO and Person of Interest as it relates to the “defendants” filed in the East Bay Auto Center claim. As this conversation directly addressed MY NAME, she laughingly kept referring to me as “Mr. Wallace”, CLEARLY taunting, being disrespectful, antagonistic and provocative! I corrected her INTENTIONALLY calling me out of my name 3 times by responding softly with “Mr. al-Hakim” the first 3 times! At her fourth lashing out, I corrected her with a chuckle that let her know that I acknowledged she was being childish and petty trying to provoke me! When she grasped it, she got up and said “I’m going to lunch!”. She left and another clerk came over, Jamie J. Thomas, and took her place to complete the filing. While she left several times as I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she met with different people at a computer discussing something.
   On June 13, 2024, I appeared at window 9 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants Small Claim and Order, and a letter to Commissioner Fickles and East Bay Auto Center that we OPPOSED the case being heard by and Request reassignment of the Case from a Judge Pro Team or Commissioner and Requesting a Court Reporter for the July 8, 2024 hearing. The clerk filed the letter but questioned the proof of service (attached as Exh. B), so she said she would talk to her supervisor. I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she spoke with someone (others) before she returned with clerk Jamie J. Thomas whom preceded to say that she could NOT accept the proof of service BECAUSE the ONLY one that they could accept was the standard form that comes with the SC-120 form. I informed her that this proof of service was the same as the standard form and is used more commonly in court filings and I have used them over 20 years without any problem. She said that I would have to serve the claim again or have the server to sign a new proof. But more alarming, she said I could fill out the proof to be signed by the process server, but I could NOT serve it because I’m listed as the agent for the service of process. NOW, just how did she know that and why did she need to know that? She obviously conducted her own investigation. She issued her ORDER and refused to accept the proof!
   She read the letter then said that she could NOT give the letter to the Commissioner because she would be engaging in illegal ex-parte communications. I again stated that I have filed over 100 letters in the same fashion and never had a problem with them before as long as there was a filing cover page. (Attached as Exh. C)
   Not wanting to argue with her also early trying to harass and inconvenience me, I said that I would file both with the presiding court judge whom I was going to file the Request for Reassignment with anyway, and I left.
   On June 18, 2024, I appeared at window 4 in the Clerks General Office in the Rene Davidson of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants Continuance and Reassignment, a female clerk- “T. Hayle?” came out on 2 occasions, the first after a 15 minute wait, addressed me as Mr. Wallace, questioned the proof of service, debated the motion vs. declaration and need to refile with a reservation number. She made the RIDICULOUS argument that the “electronic filing system does not recognize documents on pleading paper” thus, I had to have the documents served again!
   On December 19, 2024, I appeared at window 9 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants EBAC Subpoena, Request for Production of Documents and Video Taped Depositions, and Order Shortening Time and was told by the clerk- “Malen Jih MSG?” that the server should have signed in Sheriff’s location on the proof of service. While she left as I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she met with different people discussing something. She returned and repeated her statement and accepted the proof. Clearly that was NOT the case nor had the documents been signed in the wrong place! This statement exposes the fact that the court has had some interaction with third parties that has informed them that the documents WERE signed in the wrong place on the proof.
   As we have EXTENSIVE documentation on the MANY egregious, unscrupulous, heinous illegal activities of court administrator Chadrat Finke and the employees with the District Attorneys office, WE ARE SURE THAT THEY HAVE EMPLOYED THE FULL FORCE OF THEIR OFFICES AND THOSE OF THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS TO AFFACT AND DIRECT THE COURSE AND OUTCOME OF THIS AND ALL RELATED MATTERS!

Dept. 105 Clerk Sergio Lopez subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
   On May 8, 2025 we sent the following email to Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke in response to the Continuing FAILED compliance from Dept. 105 Clerk Sergio Lopez.
That email is as follows:

CLERKS USUAL NON-RESPONSE TO EMAIL: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACEDear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,    After NOT getting a response from Mr. Lopez, the Clerk of department 105, for THREE (3) MONTHS, we still have NOT gotten a response to our email just a week ago! WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES! HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED HEREIN? We are requesting clarity on the issues below as follows:A) Does the reservation number provides for the motion to compel response to subpoenas and production of documents which are already listed, INCLUDE our demand for Videotape Depositions for each of 1) Plaintiffs, 2) California Department of Motor Vehicles, 3) Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 4) California Bureau of Automotive Repair, 5) California Department of Insurance, 6) State Farm Insurance, and 7) Alameda County Business Tax Collector as needed? Are we to use the same number for each separately?B) We want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAPC) Does the hearing on 6/10/2025, 9AM calendar INCLUDE an order on our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion and our motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025?D) IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S EBAC’S UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES. Further, in your fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!??E) OUR UNRESOLVED concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. What is the court going to do about this? Why is the date not changed to the very NEXT DAY,  JUNE 11, 2025??!!??   Again, we will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served AND MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

——– Message ——–Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,
    So I’m very confused Mr. Lopez, just how does your attempted missed phone call to us this morning, May 1, 2025 at 7:58am, JUSTIFY YOUR THREE MONTHS OF WILLFUL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE SINCE FEBRUARY 4, 2025??!!??    The requests are very plain and does NOT take three months of your deliberation to understand, (or maybe it does!) and if they were THAT confusing, WHY DID YOU WAIT 3 MONTHS TO CALL AND HANG UP WITHOUT LEAVING A MESSAGE??!!?? Therefore, if you had NO idea of what we wanted in my EXTENSIVE emails and voicemails messages I left for you, WHY DIDN’T YOU JUST CALL to get clarity THREE MONTHS AGO??!!??    Your reservation number provides for the motion to compel response to subpoenas and production of documents which are already listed, BUT as written, excludes our demand for Videotape Depositions for each.    It also does NOT address the fact we want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAP. You, Mr. Lopez have told us and written to us “Please be advised that Department 105 does not conduct ex-parte hearings”, yet, AS PART OF THE AUDIO RECORDING INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC IN THE COURTS ANNOUNCEMENT, YOU EXPRESSLY STATE THAT LITIGANTS CAN REQUEST EX-PARTE HEARINGS AND THE PROCEDURE FOR SAME!    WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES! HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED HEREIN?    You note that the following is scheduled for hearing on 6/10/2025 9AM:Hearing on Motion – Other Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.    For clarity, WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER to does this INCLUDE our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion and our motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025?    The court should have ruled on these matters as summary judgment before now!    Also shown on the schedule is “Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.” We had Requested an IMMEDIATE Ex-Parte Hearing on Wednesday, October 9, 2024 or Friday, October 11, 2024 for Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck and to Compel Videotape Depositions, Production of Documents.    We had requested the order ASAP for the truck be made available to us to get vital information from the engine, body, cab, under body, exhaust, etc., and video the condition of the truck and the contents to search, inspect, process and document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, finger printing, and clues for the damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property.

    On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroy the chain of custody!    We called the County Sheriff’s and made arrangements to meet them there for a truck theft/missing report on October 2, 2024. Once we met there, Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S THE LOCATION OF THE TRUCK, OR WETHER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AGAIN AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!    As you are aware from our previous filings, in April 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As a result, we do not have a total value of the scope of loss and damage to the truck therefrom. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago!    As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
    We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
    The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.    IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED PHONE CALL TO ME, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM
    This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.    As witnessed, in April 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!    East Bay Auto Center is the ONLY suspects that could have stolen, burglarized, vandalized, and damaged the truck as it was not stolen by anyone else!    AMWF’s truck was “STOLEN” from East Bay Auto Center while there for the insurance repair estimate, BUT NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!!    The information as to the causes are stated herein AND THE IMMEDIACY WAS OBVIOUS.     On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in an unsolicited email to the court with Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!    In that email East Bay wrote:

Hello Abdul jalil.This is EAST BAY AUTO CENTER.  I spoken last time with you to pick up your truck. Also I send email and text messages to pick up the truck.We have no space for keep your truck that long. We small parking lot. This is Michanic shop not storage for your truck.We send the truck back to storage yard. We not touched any things for your truck.The truck is locked from the back of the truck. It’s still the same locked 🔒.
If you still want to pick up your truck please let me know we will pick it up from storage yard. Paying the storage money.You have to pay me for the storage fee.Please call for schedule to pick up the car.
If you have any questions please call me. Thanks510-940-8675Eastbayauto6@gmail.com

    These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!    They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.    Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to a unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!    IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES. Further, in your fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!??    Since you, Mr. Lopez, failed to respond, I will reiterate that we still have OUR UNRESOLVED concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend.    Previously, we received notice that the above entitled case has been reassigned from Commissioner Fickles to Judge Caruth in Department 105 as per Judge Nixon’s order and also received separate notice that the court date has been changed to Tuesday, July 9, 2024, in Department 105, at 9:00 a.m. It is well documented with the court over 40 years, AND MR. FINKE CAN VERIFY THAT, I have religious commitments on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and unavailable on those dates. The new date falls on one of those days I am unavailable. The matter was continued to present. How is this possible and what is the court going to do about this? Why is the date not changed to the very NEXT DAY,  JUNE 11, 2025??!!??    Again, we will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served AND MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

On 5/1/25 8:00 AM, Dept. 105, Superior Court wrote:

Please be advised that the court was attempting to understand the nature of your motions.The court had also attempted to call you to no answer (510-394-4501).A reservation number has been generated for the following:A-67622-003
Hearing on Motion – Other Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents.
The following is scheduled for hearing on 6/10/2025 9AM24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER VS AARON & MARGARET WALLACE
Small Claims Trial
Hearing on Motion – Other Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.
Hearing on Motion – Other Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents.
Thank you,Mr. LopezDepartment 105 – Courtroom ClerkWiley W. Manuel Courthouse661 Washington StreetOakland, CA 94607(510) 627-4712

From: A. J. <ajalil1234@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 8:50 PM
To: Dept. 105, Superior Court <dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept. 711, Superior Court <dept711@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept .1, Superior Court <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept. 605, Superior Court <dept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Nixon, Judge Thomas, Superior Court <tnixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Finke, Chad, Superior Court <cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept .1, Superior Court <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Caruth, Judge Brian, Superior Court <bcaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Gaffey, Judge Michael, Superior Court <mgaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Hing, Judge Stuart, Superior Court <shing@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; eastbayauto6@gmail.com<eastbayauto6@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACE

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,    So I guess you, Mr. Lopez, et. al., DID NOT receive the emails below and therefore had NO idea of what I wanted in my EXTENSIVE voicemail messages I left for you either??!!??    We requested a hearing date and a reservation number(s) for our Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the 1) Plaintiffs, 2) California Department of Motor Vehicles, 3) Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 4) California Bureau of Automotive Repair, 5) California Department of Insurance, 6) State Farm Insurance, and 7) Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions for each. This matter MUST be heard in ANY Law and Motion judge including Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711 as soon as possible after the date above. We have yet to find ANY legal experts that can confirm that Small Claims Court DOES NOT ALLOW Ex-Parte motions.    PLEASE PROVIDE THE SAME SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THIS MATTER FORWARD AS IT IS TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT THIS WOULD TAKE THREE MONTHS FOR MR. LOPEZ TO DO!! THIS IS NOT JUST INCOMPETENCE, IT IS OBSTRUCTION IN IT’S MOST BLATANTLY PURIST FORM!! We want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAP.    Additionally, attached is a copy of the filed proofs of service of our motions that the court allegedly ruled was NOT filed without disclosing “what motion(s)”? This may be a result of the proofs being filed a day before the hearing.    On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion AND our Motion to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum AND the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents against Plaintiffs. They failed and refused to respond. The motion was personally served on November 20, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025 is attached.    The motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025 is attached.    We also have a concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. How is this possible and what is the court going to do about this?    We will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served ASAP.    This seems Mr. Lopez NOT receiving OUR emails is a reoccurring theme with you AND NEEDS TO STOP IMMEDIATELY as I reference my previous last TWO (2) voicemails and emails of February 4, 2025 and March 3, 2025 as follows:
1) ——– February 4, 2025 Message ——–Dear Mr. Lopez,    I called you today at 1:47 pm and left you a message regarding my latest email to you on January 27, 2025 requesting a copy of the Courts order continuing the December 20, 2024 hearing and any rulings on our motions; Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum, Compel Videotape Depositions and Production of Documents, Entry of Default Order, Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction, Order Striking Complaint, Tortious Interference, Spoliation of Evidence, Intentional Misrepresentation, Grand Larceny, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Intentional Misrepresentation, Property Damage, and Extortion.    Amazingly you replied to that message with this email at 1:56 pm.    Thanks so much!    But, why have you NOT responded to my emails regarding same, if in fact you respond to emails much quicker than phone calls/voice mails? You even remind the callers to your department 105 that the clerks may take up to 5 days to reply to phone calls/voicemails.    I’m a little confused as to whether or not you are even getting my emails as there is NO indication that they have NOT been delivered to you as well as the others, Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 1605, 711, and Chad Finke.    If there is a problem with the email delivery to you, PLEASE let me know, as it would ascertain just where the real problem is.Thanks again,AJ

2) ——– March 3, 2025 Message ——–TO:        Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan              Superior Court of Alameda County                  East Bay Auto Center                       Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                21099 Mission Blvd.              Department 105                                                 Hayward, CA 94541              661 Washington St.                                          Email:                                                         EastBayAuto6@gmail.com              Oakland, CA 94607                                           Ph:510‐690‐2728              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.govBCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov             Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County             René C. Davidson Courthouse                           René C. Davidson Courthouse             Department 1                                                      1225 Fallon Street, Room 209             Oakland, CA 94612                                           Oakland, CA 94612             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                    Fax: 510-891-6276             TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.govcfinke@alameda.courts.ca.govdept1@alameda.courts.ca.govcc: Judges Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711U.S. Postal Mail and EmailedFROM:     Defendant Aaron & Margaret Wallace FoundationDATE:     March 3, 2025NO PAGES:     1RE:        Annual Retreat for Ramadan and Request Reservation number for Defendants Motion to Compel Compliance with Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions.“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 7:1-3The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew,

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, Plaintiffs, et. al.,This notice is to inform the Court and parties that I will be in annual retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan until April 5, 2025 and unavailable to respond to any litigation.We also want to request a hearing date and a reservation number for our Motion to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the Plaintiffs, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions for each. This matter MUST be heard in ANY Law and Motion judge including Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711 as soon as possible after the date above. We have yet to find ANY legal experts that can confirm that Small Claims Court DOES NOT ALLOW Ex-Parte motions.As referenced in our December 19, 2024, email to the court that the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents were filed and served on the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector that THEY ALL did not respond wherein we would file Motions to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Videotape Depositions and Production of Documents for ALL of them. Hence this request.As previously mentioned, I KNOW the court is aware, as is everyone else, that this matter CAN NOT BE HEARD IN FIFTEEN (15) MINUTE SMALL CLAIMS HEARING. OUR LITIGATION WITH WITNESSES ALONE WILL BE AT LEAST TWO (2) DAYS!!On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion AND our Motion to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum AND the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents against Plaintiffs. They failed and refused to respond.As mentioned, we waited over a month for the courts to respond to our last requests via email and there was NO RESPONSE, thus the earlier motion for an order shortening time.AGAIN, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS by the Plaintiffs to the court and Judges makes YOU ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES.Thanks,Abdul-Jalil al-Hakimajalil1234@gmail.com510-394-4501    In closing, these and other issues MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

On 4/7/25 4:13 PM, Dept. 105, Superior Court wrote:

Hello,Please specify what kind of motions you are attempting to file for the subjected case.Please list each motion numerically.Thank you,Mr. LopezDepartment 105 – Courtroom ClerkWiley W. Manuel Courthouse661 Washington StreetOakland, CA 94607(510) 627-4712

   I consider the actions of ALL the clerks on those days to undermining and compromising the justice system and 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.
The court clerks staff could be viewed as having subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
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)).

Conclusion
Defendant has provided uncontroverted, uncontested, irrefutable PROOF of:
1) Proof Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., failure to perform your ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon EBAC unsolicited admissions and confessions with defendant’s NOTICED pleading constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice is a denial of access to the courts, in violation of defendant’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments! Thus as Judges and court administrators, you have rules governing the disposition of the such actions and pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, YOU ALL have been forever silent regarding this; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4
2) PROOF Pro Tem Mr. Bonner admits at December 20, 2024 hearing that EBAC had contacted the court earlier stating they would NOT appear, BUT NO ONE CONTACTED US, the DEFENDANTS! Here we have the court ADMITTING to having illegal ex-parte communications with the plaintiff’s WITHOUT informing defendants when a matter of a pro-tem was ALREADY DECIDED! As a hypothetical, what would have happened if defendants had agreed to having the matter heard by Bonner and the plaintiff’s FAILED TO APPEAR?! Would a default have been entered?! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!,
3) PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance,
4) PROOF of Alameda County Sheriffs, Law Enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hayward Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; San Leandro Police Chiefs Abdul Pridgen/Angela Averiett; U. S. Attorneys Stephanie Hinds/Ismail Ramsey; F.B.I. NorCal Directors Craig Fair/Robert Tripp; with support from the Court, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, and associated third parties implicated by East Bay Auto engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of targeted entrapment, tortious interference, fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act
5) Proof a “RAT” in Court Administration, Judges and Clerks actions constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice

Respectfully submitted.
Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******
Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, attached hereto please find a CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things in response to the court order (attached) for production of documents in the above referenced matter. You were served this subpoena for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles today, December 11, 2024 and should respond immediately.
Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, as the Custodian of Records you are NOT required to appear in person if within ten (10) days from the date of the serving of this request upon you, you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the “DEFINITIONS” Section as part of this attached affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271. (1) Place a copy of the records in an envelope (or other wrapper) where Documents produced shall be Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially. Enclose the original declaration of the custodian with the records. Seal the envelope. (2) Attach a copy of this subpoena to the envelope or write on the envelope the case name and number; your name; and the date, time, and place. (3) Place this first envelope in an outer envelope, seal it, and mail it to me at the address or email address (ajalil1234@gmail.com ) above. (4) The written response shall be served within ten (10) days of the service of this request.
SUBPOENA REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on Responding Party: Custodian of Records and Person Most Knowledgeable is used herein to refer to, and includes Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles, AND YOU are NOT required to appear in person if you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the declaration on page two or the attached declaration or affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with.As might be YOUR custom, you may provide responsive records in electronic format (i.e., text files that can be opened with any word processing software such as Word or TextEdit) or a searchable portable document file (PDF).
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS
ALL the Defendants, Requestors and Propounders seek disclosure of any and all records created which were prepared, received, transmitted, collected and/or maintained by the Plaintiffs, Responding Parties, ALL Government Related Parties, and ALL Government Related Third Parties, including but not limited to those listed in those sections herein.
YOU are requested to produce for inspection and copying, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031), the DOCUMENTS in the below-numbered categories.  The production shall take place on December 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., at 4200 Park Blvd., Oakland, California, 94602.
This is a request for an opportunity to inspect and/or obtain copies of records of any and all documents, files, correspondence, audio and video files, or other records of yours and various National, State, County of Alameda and City of Oakland Offices under the provisions of CCP 2031 on behalf of the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders.
YOU are required to serve a written response, under oath, responding to each item or category as provided by Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031).
The written response shall be served within seven (7) days of the service of this request.
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.
This is a request for an opportunity to inspect and/or obtain copies of records of any and all documents, files, correspondence, audio and video files, or other records of yours and various offices under the provisions of Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on behalf of the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, family members Harun al-Hakim-Miller, Jalil Omar al-Hakim, Bari al-Hakim-Williams, and their siblings; and the entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth.org, eX-whY Adventures, their real, personal and business property (all herein after referred to as “ALL the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders and/or Defendant/Requestors and Propounders”)
Please process this request for ALL SECTION Requests under ALL statutes herein to release the maximum number of documents and records in the interests of justice and achieving full compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031). Please search ALL your automated indices to the Central Records System, the older general (manual) indices, all Field Offices, other facilities that are separate from the office processing the request, or with another agency or agencies having a substantial interest in the determination of the request, or among two or more components of the agency or agencies having substantial subject matter interest therein needed to coordinate the response with different sections in the department that have responsibility for the requested records. This search is essential to collect and appropriately examine the separate and distinct records which are demanded so that copies of the following documents containing the following information be provided to us by Responding Parties and ALL Related Parties seek disclosure of any records for the Plaintiff/Responding Party.East Bay Auto filed a Small claims action to try to collect $3,400 in back storage fees BUT their status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, they may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto Center, their owners, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto Center, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) As the defendant, we filed a cross complaint and may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.We asked that the court award ALL costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, other losses and damages, and monetary sanctions in an amount according to proof. The costs are well over $20,000 at present.
As we have always maintained and is proven by their bad faith fact pattern, this was ALWAYS an entrapment scheme designed to take possession of the truck with it’s contents and trigger civil/criminal actions knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. They are not acting alone!These requests are deemed to be continuing insofar as if any of the above is secured subsequent to the date herein for the production of same, said documents are to be provided to Defendant’s consistent within the applicable Rule of Civil Procedure.
This subpoena is not intended as a full or complete statement of all relevant demands, claims, facts or applicable law, and nothing herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my rights, remedies, claims or causes of action, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Please provide the records in an electronic format to: ajalil1234@gmail.com. Documents not in electronic format should be forwarded Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim below on or before the return date of this subpoena if you wish to comply voluntarily rather than appearing before the court.The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
Defendants the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Claims
Defendants/Requesting Party’s, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Harun al-Hakim-Miller, Patty Flenory, Jalil Omar al-Hakim, Bari al-Hakim-Williams, Joette al-Hakim-Hall, and their siblings; their affected entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth.org, eX-whY Adventures, their real and personal property, their real property including but not limited to 7633 Sunkist Drive, Oakland, CA  94605, their businesses and business property, their charities, their communities, the communities they serve, those that they serve, HAVE an on going claim against the Responding Parties Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles and Plaintiffs Shah Sons LLC,  DOING BUSINESS AS (DBA) East Bay Auto Center and Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, their alleged Asian investors, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Claims, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Appraisal Team (“State Farm”), Gary O’Donnell, or any of its employees or representatives including but not limited to Mary Weaver, Gary O’Donnell, Madison Ritter, Kaitlin Hampe, Samantha B, Lex, Kendra Behrens, Victor Walker, “Neg”, Karena Kelly-Guishard, Lexie Figueroa, each of their contractors Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, with each of their investors, their predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, divisions, each of their past or present officers, their previous and current directors, previous and current employees, agents, consultants, independent contractors, representatives, lobbyist, experts, private investigators, private security, past and current attorneys, partners, associates, investigators, witnesses, litigation opponents, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, others unnamed as Does One through One Hundred, et. at.
On January 30, 2024, at 3:25 pm I went to East Bay Auto at 21099 Mission Blvd., Hayward, CA 94541 for a Alameda County Sheriff’s Civil Stand By observed by Deputies Joshua Chavez #2287 and Collin Lenahan #2453 to pick up our truck and East Bay Auto Center REFUSED to release it claiming they are owed storage.
East Bay admitted in the presence of the two (2) Deputies, whom are percipient eye witnesses, 1) that they DO NOT have a contract with us in any capacity, 2) that they were paid $1,050 by the insurance company for storage, 3) that East Bay has had many other communications and agreements with the insurance company and their agents, 4) they have had communications and agreements which we were NOT privy to and do not have copies of, 5) East Bay had previously told me that they had an agreement with the insurance company for the storage, BUT revealed that they actually have a check and displayed it before the deputies, 6) they referred to their hand written policy posted on the wall that they charge storage 2 days AFTER the completion of any work performed.
They have NOT and will NOT perform any work on the truck and I will never sign any work order for same nor have we singed a release for them to be paid!
I am the person for the Service Process in this Plaintiff’s fraudulent claim and named as the Person of Interest in this fraudulent alleged Lien Sale denied on February 7, 2024 by the Department of Motor Vehicle filed by these same Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center.
Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center filed this claim March 13, 2024, and allegedly served it via U. S. postal mail from Hayward, California with postage meter dated Monday, May 20, 2024.
We received the mailed letter claim on Friday, May 31, 2024. Yet only FIVE (5) DAYS LATER, on March 19, 2024, plaintiff’s contacted AMWF and Abdul-Jalil by phone and reply email dated March 25, 2024 with invoice dated March 19, 2024 DISAVOWING AND REJECTING their claim and REQUESTING that we come and retrieve the truck AT NO COSTS!
On April 22, 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As a result, we do not have a total value of the scope of loss and damage to the truck therefrom. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago!
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroy the chain of custody!
We called the County Sheriff’s and made arrangements to meet them there for a truck theft/missing report on October 2, 2024. Once we met there, Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S THE LOCATION OF THE TRUCK, OR WETHER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AGAIN AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in several unsolicited emails to the court and Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey; Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711; and court administrator Chad Finke that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
Plaintiffs and Sheriffs have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to an unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
On November 2, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been returned to Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward with additional damage. Upon investigation, the truck has been further BURGLARIZED by the breach of the lock on the roll up door and the roll up door itself! THE DAMAGES ARE UNKOWN AND YET TO BE INVESTIGATED!
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION.
As reported of this date, East Bay STILL has the truck and REFUSES to release it to us unless and until we indemnify them from ALL liability for their civil and criminal charges of larceny, fraud, theft, damage, if the vehicle is stolen from them, etc., so they may be able to do or have done anything they choose to the vehicle and it’s contents without any possible consequences!
The truck was supposed to have been returned to defendants by March 7, 2024, BUT that DID NOT HAPPEN.
Now, the truck has been STOLEN, was burglarized, vandalized, is damaged, and East Bay has refused to allow the COUNTY SHERIFFS nor us to inspect the truck for a complete analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages, UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SIGN A WAIVER OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR SAME! We will NOT ever do that.
As you have been advised, East Bay Auto Center filed a Small Claims action against us for an additional $3,400 storage fees beyond the amount they settled with State Farm for. We have filed a Cross Complaint against them for undetermined costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, and other losses and damages, has cab damage that is 57 inches long stretching from the rear passenger side to start of the cab damage that is 6-8 inches wide through the corporate lettering, the truck is currently lodged 2 inches within and against the fence and CAN NOT be moved without causing MORE significant damage!
The truck was NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!
East Bay Auto Center is NOT currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair nor the Alameda County Business License AS A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY, thus they are NOT authorized to do business in the State of California and don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit. They, East Bay Auto Center, may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer.
We discovered that the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) has Shah Sons LLC, listed as the “owner” of East Bay Auto Center. That is also true for the Alameda County Business License although their license is invalid for failure to file and pay taxes and comply with a mandatory audit.
HOWEVER, Shah Sons LLC, HAS NOT REGISTERED NOR ARE THEY USING A DBA (DOING BUSINESS AS) for East Bay Auto Center with any Federal, State, or County governmental agency, NOT the IRS, California Secretary of State State, California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair nor the Alameda County Business License.
In order for East Bay Auto Center to legally exist AS A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY, they would have to file the proper documents with the IRS, California Secretary of State State, California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair and the Alameda County Business License, establishing Shah Sons LLC,  DOING BUSINESS AS (DBA) East Bay Auto Center. They have NOT done that even though they filed a Fictitious Business Name Statement with Alameda County.
Additionally, there are NO other REQUIRED means, NO INVOICES, NO ADVERTISEMENTS, NOTHING ON THEIR WEBSITE, that they comply with for the use of the legal name of the LLC- Shah Sons LLC, followed by the DBA- doing business as East Bay Auto Center. This practice clarifies the legal entity involved and maintain the LLC’s limited liability status. This ensures that the contracts are enforceable and that the LLC is recognized as the party to these endeavors.
If an LLC does not properly use its DBA, it operates under a DBA without using its legal name, it intentionally breaches the line between personal and business activities and loses the limited liability protection typically afforded to LLC members.This leads to “piercing the corporate veil,” where courts hold members personally liable for business debts and obligations, negating the primary benefit of forming an LLC. Courts have determined that the LLC is not a separate entity if it does not clearly identify itself, leading to personal liability for members.
Contracts should include clear liability clauses that outline the responsibilities and limitations of liability for the LLC. This can help protect the LLC from claims that may arise from business activities conducted under the DBA.
To maintain the limited liability protection of SHAH SONS LLC, it is crucial to keep personal and business finances separate. This includes using a dedicated business bank account and credit cards for all transactions related to the DBA- “Shah Sons LLC, doing business as East Bay Auto Center”. Open a dedicated business bank account for the LLC- Shah Sons LLC, that uses the legal name- “Shah Sons LLC, doing business as East Bay Auto Center”. This separation helps maintain the SHAH SONS LLC’s limited liability protection and simplifies financial management.
Given that EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) The defendant may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.
East Bay Auto has suspensions with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
We will ask the court to transfer the Small Claims action to Court of Competent Jurisdiction because we have no projected total of the costs, losses and damages to the truck that exceed the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to a court of competent jurisdiction.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
However, co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm are not acting alone as the ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s officers. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Sheriff’s Deputy Markita Sayles that she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES is PROOF of how POLICE FILE FALSE REPORTS, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, FIX THE CASE, COMMIT FRAUD to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto AFTER she:
1) admitted she talked with Law Enforcement Special Services resources twice to ascertain that she was proceeding in the correct manner according to their plan and her instructions. WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO CONSULT WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES TO TAKE AND FILE A SIMPLE, COMMON POLICE REPORT?,
2) East Bay Auto incriminated police admitting that they worked with police, are accomplishes, collaborators, were under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation or Abdul-Jalil,
3) The vehicle was ADMITTED stolen, burglarized, vandalized, fraud, larceny and damaged, BUT, BOTH policemen said “this is NOT a criminal matter, truck was not stolen”,
4) Dep. Sayles said she can’t inspect/process nor document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property, nor can Abdul-Jalil without the approval of their asset East Bay Auto,
5) Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times,
6) Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras,
7) Dep. Sayles said Abdul-Jalil didn’t answers her questions, BUT she NEVER asked basic questions as: Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, nothing on damage, suspects, the truck registration or VIN,
Dep. Sayles said Abdul-Jalil needed to go to court in order to get a police report, REFUSING TO TAKE A REPORT!, and
9) Dep. Sayles said it’s a civil matter 8 Times! NOT a criminal matter.
THIS VIDEO PROVIDES PROOF THAT SHERIFF’S DEPT. MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! Sayles “event/police report” states:

“RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”

Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, AND Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras! SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE!
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
The Entrapment Strategy is disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Abdul-Jalil, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties, the threats/demands for Payment of Storage, refusal to pay for a Rental vehicle, mitigating the continuing Loss of Use and Damages, and their illegal clandestine efforts to gain ownership of our truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US with the FRAUDULENT attempted East Bay Auto Lien Sale and REFUSAL to release our truck to defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.
Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation is going forward with Civil and Criminal Charges/Claims for Grand Larceny, Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Property Theft, Burglary, Vandalism, Extortion, Phone (Terrorist) Threats, Deception, attempted Grand Theft, Costs, Damages, Mitigating the Continuing Loss of Use, and Monetary Sanctions, among others with Federal and State Complaints filed against East Bay Auto and State Farm Insurance and served them both with Preservation-of-Evidence Demand Letter.
Additionally, with respect to any and all business operation regarding the defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation insurance policy and claim, and THE FACT that State Farm, their employees, their referenced agents, sub-agents, contractors, State Farm Claims, State Farm Appraisal Team, Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, and ALL known and unknown Third Parties have clearly “targeted” defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and using recognizable government entrapment tactics the latest of which was the refusal to release the truck and “lien sale” to gain ownership of their truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US! As a direct and proximate result of State Farm and their co-conspirators East Bay’s continuing actions, defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation is FORCED to make long term arrangements for the storage of the truck UNTIL STATE FARM PAYS FOR THE REPAIR AS AMWF PURSUES ALL OTHER REMEDIES!
Some Requests for Documents include:
61. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof of MARKITA SAYLES FILED A FALSE REPORT, LIED ABOUT ENTIRE POLICE REPORT, see: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
62. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof of MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! as Sayles her “event/police report” states “ RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
63. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof that Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
64. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof that Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
101. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED PHONE CALL TO DEFENDANTS, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
102. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Sheriff failure and refusal to investigate and file a report established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
103. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Sheriff failure and refusal to investigate and file a report established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
104. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
105. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
110. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfer with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
111. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfer with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
273. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to June 26, 2012, 50 page complaint regarding al-Hakim being accosted by the Sheriffs deputy stating “I have recently called and left messages as well as speaking to your clerk Elaine just last week regarding my desire to file several law suits as well as answering other matters that require the ability to file those required documents without the fear of being ambushed by the District Attorney’s office enforcers or the County Sheriff’s Department acting in their place and stead for other judicial entities. I have been precluded from any legal rights by virtue of this illegal, repressive censorship enacted by the DA’s office. This has gone on far too long and the legal consequences continue to mount as I am forbidden to pursue my civil rights in court without the oppression of the system by those in control of it. I want to and will file my law suits and go forward to resolution of these unprecedented matters in this public forum.” filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay.
274. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to January 7, 2014, 11 page letter, fax and email complaint in (ACDCSS) case number #0010274454-01 (previously listed as FSD #274454A) regarding “Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim being profiled, surveilled, identified, and targeted by the District Attorney and Sheriff’s Deputy, al-Hakim being accosted by Sheriffs Deputies and prevented from entering the Alameda Family Law Courthouse by County Sheriff’s who informed defendant that he must go to Judge Pulido’s courtroom to file the letter, that he would be handling this matter in Probate Court and defendants requesting security” filed with Winifred Smith- Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California; C. Don Clay- Supervising Judge, Superior Court of California; Stephen Pulido- Presiding Judge Family Law Court, Superior Court of California; and Judge Sandra Bean- Alameda Family Law Court, Superior Court of California.
289.  ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to plaintiffs July 11, 2018 hearing in the matters of al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371 and resultant complaint filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced in RE: “al-Hakim states “I have been in your courtroom over 20 times and I have never seen a deputy standing right behind the party during a hearing.” and you have THREE deputies in the courtroom right now!”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
290. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to the October 3, 2018 hearing, the resultant letter, fax and email Complaint filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced in RE: “Clay says “that’s normal, I may even have more!” al-Hakim says “for a civil ex-parte motion at 3:00 p.m.? I don’t believe that! Clay says ” It’s true”
297. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to the April 14, 2008 Complaint with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced therein the request for security against Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar RE: “when al-Hakim entered the courthouse building, the deputy at the metal detector called upstairs to the courtroom, Department 21 to inform them of his arrival in the building” filed with Victoria B. Henley, Director-Chief Counsel of the Sate of California Commission on Judicial Performance, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye- Supreme Court of California and Chair, Judicial Council of California, and Commission Judicial Appointments; Judge Phyllis Hamilton- Chief District Judge, U. S. District Court- No. Division; Alex Tse- Director, U. S. Attorney’s Office; Xavier Becerra- Attorney General of California; Victoria Henley-Director-Chief Counsel, Commission on Judicial Performance;  Martin Hoshino- Director, Judicial Council of California, Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge, former Presiding Court Judge George Hernandez and Alameda County Superior Court Administration.

These torts exposes the Responding Parties to the full array of tort remedies, including punitive damages on top of regular tort damages, for an insurance company’s unreasonable breach of an insurance contract.
Responding Parties engaging in the herein referenced Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” persecution to the detriment and oppression of Defendants, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, the communities they serve, and those they serve was both covert and overt, consisting of both actions and inactions of subterfuges and evasions that violated the obligation of good faith in performance with their continuing evasion of the spirit of the bargain, lack of diligence and slacking off, willful rendering of imperfect performance, abuse of a power to specify terms, and interference with or failure to cooperate in the other party’s performance.” (R. J. Kuhl Corp. v. Sullivan (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1589, 1602 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 425].)
As a direct and proximate result of Responding Parties actions, Defendant’s has suffered losses and damages, including but not limited to: 1) repair of their vehicle, 2) loss of use of the vehicle during the repair period, measured by the rental value of a similar vehicle, 3) loss of income due to the inability to use the vehicle for business purposes, 4) additional expenses incurred due to the inability to use the vehicle for personal and business purposes, emotional distress and inconvenience caused by the loss of use. As this matter is part of an ongoing action, defendants also has claims for 1) general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 2) for costs of suit incurred herein; and 3) for any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim at:
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation 
4200 Park Blvd., Suite 116 
Oakland, CA 94602 
Tel: 510-394-4501Respectfully, Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******     We received a voicemail for someone named Mary from State Farm claims inquiring into our moving the Truck from East Bay Auto Center.
    As reported of this date, East Bay STILL has the truck and REFUSES to release it to us unless and until we indemnify them from ALL liability for their civil and criminal charges of larceny, fraud, theft, damage, if the vehicle is stolen from them, etc., so they may be able to do or have done anything they choose to the vehicle and it’s contents without any possible consequences!
     The truck was supposed to have been returned to us by March 7, 2024, BUT that DID NOT HAPPEN.
      Now, the truck has been STOLEN, was burglarized, vandalized, is damaged, and East Bay has refused to allow the COUNTY SHERIFFS nor us to inspect the truck for a complete analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages,UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SIGN A WAIVER OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR SAME! We will NOT ever do that.
    As you ALL have been advised, East Bay Auto Center filed a Small Claims action against us for an additional $3,400 storage fees beyond the amount they settled with State Farm for. We have filed a Cross Complaint against them for undetermined costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, and other losses and damages, has cab damage that is 57 inches long stretching from the rear passenger side to start of the cab damage that is 6-8 inches wide through the corporate lettering, the truck is currently lodged 2 inches within and against the fence and CAN NOT be moved without causing MORE significant damage!
    The truck was NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!
    East Bay Auto Center is Not currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, thus they don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit.
    EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California. They may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer.
    Given that EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) The defendant may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.
    East Bay Auto has suspensions with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
    We will ask the court to transfer the Small Claims action to Court of Competent Jurisdiction because we have no projected total of the costs, losses and damages. losses and damages to the truck that may exceed the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and if so, request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to a court of competent jurisdiction.
    I base my request for the imposition of a sanction on the basis that it took me over 47 hours to research and locate the correct Plaintiff’s personnel, many phone calls, letters, emails and faxes in communication with the parties referenced herein, to research and prepare this motion, costs, and expenses according to proof. My discounted hourly wage is $350 per hour (from regular posted fee of $550/hour) for the 47 hours spent on this matter equals $16,450 alone.
    As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
    The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.    A FORMAL COMPLAINT WILL FOLLOW UNDER SEPARATE COVER.
    Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
    IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
    However, co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm are not acting alone as the ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s officers.
    This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Sheriff’s Deputy Markita Sayles that she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES is PROOF of how POLICE FILE FALSE REPORTS, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, FIX THE CASE, COMMIT FRAUD to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto AFTER she:
1) admitted she talked with Law Enforcement Special Services resources twice to ascertain that she was proceeding in the correct manner according to their plan and her instructions. WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO CONSULT WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES TO TAKE AND FILE A SIMPLE, COMMON POLICE REPORT?,
2) East Bay Auto incriminated police admitting that they worked with police, are accomplishes, collaborators, were under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist AMWF and Abdul-Jalil,
3) The vehicle was ADMITTED stolen, burglarized, vandalized, fraud, larceny and damaged, BUT, BOTH policemen said “this is NOT a criminal matter, truck was not stolen”,
4) Dep. Sayles said she can’t inspect/process nor document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property, nor can Jalil without the approval of their asset East Bay Auto,
5) Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times,
6) Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras,
7) Dep. Sayles said Jalil didn’t answers her questions, BUT she NEVER asked basic questions as: Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, nothing on damage, suspects, the truck registration or VIN,
Dep. Sayles said Jalil needed to go to court in order to get a police report, REFUSING TO TAKE A REPORT!, and
9) Dep. Sayles said it’s a civil matter 8 Times! NOT a criminal matter.
    THIS VIDEO PROVIDES PROOF THAT SHERIFF’S DEPT. MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! Sayles “event/police report” states:

“RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”

    Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, AND Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras! SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE!
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    The Entrapment Strategy is to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- AMWF and Abdul-Jalil, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have PREPARED SUBPOENAS TO BE SERVED THIS WEEK ON ALL THE PARTIES REFERRENCED HEREIN that we have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties, the threats/demands for Payment of Storage, refusal to pay for a Rental vehicle, mitigating the continuing Loss of Use and Damages, and their illegal clandestine efforts to gain ownership of our truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US with the FRAUDULENT attempted East Bay Auto Lien Sale and REFUSAL to release our truck to AMWF.
    AMWF is going forward with Civil and Criminal Charges/Claims for Grand Larceny, Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Property Theft, Burglary, Vandalism, Extortion, Phone (Terrorist) Threats, Deception, attempted Grand Theft, Costs, Damages, Mitigating the Continuing Loss of Use, and Monetary Sanctions, among others with Federal and State Complaints filed against East Bay Auto and State Farm Insurance and served them both with Preservation-of-Evidence Demand Letter.
   Additionally, with respect to any and all business operation regarding the AMWF insurance policy and claim, and THE FACT that State Farm, their employees, their referenced agents, sub-agents, contractors, State Farm Claims, State Farm Appraisal Team, Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, and ALL known and unknown Third Parties have clearly “targeted” AMWF and using recognizable government entrapment tactics the latest of which was the refusal to release the truck and “lien sale” to gain ownership of their truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US! As a direct and proximate result of State Farm and their co-conspirators East Bay’s continuing actions, AMWF is FORCED to make long term arrangements for the storage of the truck UNTIL STATE FARM PAYS FOR THE REPAIR AS AMWF PURSUES ALL OTHER REMEDIES!     ALL THE PARTIES HEREIN ARE DEMANDED TO LODGE AND FILE THE REQUISITE COMPLAINT AND BEGAN THE MANDATORY INVESTIGATION PROCESS!

Respectfully,


Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******
Anti-SPAM Policy Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary to our company that is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.
This e-mail message was sent to you because you have previously corresponded with us and/or are subscribed to one of our emailing lists.
If you have received this communication in error, or this e-mail is unsolicited, please accept our apologies and at any time you would like to remove yourself from our mailings, please feel free to do so by clicking on “Unsubscribe“, or you can also notify the sender immediately and we shall delete your address, or replying to this message and type “Unsubscribe” in the subject line to remove yourself from our mailing list.
If you’ve received unsolicited email from one of our users, or if you suspect a user of abusing email services (or have any questions regarding our policies), please do not hesitate to contact us. Under Bill 1618 Title III passed by the 105th U. S. Congress, email cannot be considered Spam as long as it includes contact information and a remove link for removal from the mailing list.
We prohibit users from sending unsolicited email, and do not allow the use of third-party, purchased, rented, or harvested mailing lists. Anyone found abusing such email is banned from the use of our service.
Every complaint is investigated, and you will receive a response from our abuse team detailing the action we’re taking to deal with the issue.
Thanks in advance for you time.

—
Creating and Edvocating Relevant Social Service Programs

—
Creating and Edvocating Relevant Social Service Programs Attachments:

al-Hakim Decl:State Non-Svc Brand Vexatious Litigant List 7:8:25.pages.pdf

146 KB

Subject: Demand for Removal and Censure of KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon

From: “A. J.” <ajalil1234@gmail.com>

Date: 8/18/25, 12:20 PM

To: SWiles@mercuryllc.com, KAllen@cwdc.com, LChen@mercuryllc.com, CBustos@mercuryllc.com, TGordon@mercuryllc.com, MHardaway@mercuryllc.com, JHartmann@mercuryllc.com, HKnoch@mercuryllc.com, BLanza@mercuryllc.com, JLonergan@mercuryllc.com, MMcSherry@mercuryllc.com, JMessner@mercuryllc.com, CMiddleton@mercuryllc.com, JMoffett@mercuryllc.com, ARoyster@mercuryllc.com, MSoliman@mercuryllc.com, KTesta@mercuryllc.com, AVargas@mercuryllc.com, DVitter@mercuryllc.com, MButler@mercuryllc.com, VWeber@mercuryllc.com, DWilson@mercuryllc.com

BCC: ajalil@berkeley.edu

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

4200 Park Blvd., Ste. #One16, Oakland CA  94602
Phone  (510) 394-4101

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation

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

Linked In Profile on Abdul-Jalil, Kobe Bryant Supports AMWF

Abdul-Jalil Honored in Port Au-Prince, Haiti and Miami, Fla. for Relief Missions to Haiti ,  Thanks You from Arch Bishop Joel Jeune to Abdul-Jalil

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY HONORS ABDUL-JALIL Receives Certificate-of-Recognition for 2021-22 

Belal Salih Esa receives Posthumous Congressional Proclamation/Resolution for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from California Governor Gavin Newsom and the State Legislature for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from the Mayor, City Council and the Unified School District Board of Supervisors of the City of Albany for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)

Humanitarian Civil and Human Rights Achievements

Articles on Abdul-Jalil:  ABDUL-JALIL GENIUS- BOY WONDER!!MC Hammer Tribute to ABDUL-JALILEmanuel Steward on ABDUL-JALIL
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Maze Featuring Frankie Beverly and Marvin Gaye
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Khalid al-Mansour, President Barack Obama and Prince Al-Waleed
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Destiny and Marvin Gaye

Abdul-Jalil BMI Songwriter/Producer

Abdul-Jalil Wrote/Produced/Adminstered Survey, Poll, Analysis, Song, and Commercials for City of Oakland Image Campaign “I Know You’ll Love Oakland”

Abdul-Jalil Wrote/Produced/Adminstered Mayor Lionel Wilson and City of Oakland “Conference On Urban Economic Development” and Commercials

Abdul-Jalil Hosted the City of Oakland’s “Holiday Season at the Trans Pacific Centre”

Ron Dellums Congressional Acknowledgement to Abdul-Jalil for Bicentennial Basketball Classic

Abdul-Jalil and The Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Fundraiser
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg1
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg2
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg3

ABDUL-JALIL- the First _SUPER AGENT_ Legal Black History Page 1
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 2
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 3
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law, Lecturor, Presenter, Marketing, Branding Page 4

Award for “Distinguished Marketing and Promotional Services” from NFL Super Bowl NFL Experience , Abdul-Jalil Award from NFL Super Bowl, Rihanna SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo , Dr. Dre SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo

SUPER BOWL CELEBRITY PLACEMENT, Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg1,  Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg2 ,  Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg3

The Man Who Turn$ Hit$ Into Million$, One Special Case,

The Historic Jr. Moore Contract pg1, The Historic Jr. Moore Contract pg2,

ESPN Bostock 5th & Jackson TV Special Part 1, and Part 2,  ESPN Bostock Magazine Special, ESPN Magazine- The History and Mystery of The High Five,
the “al-Hakim Tax Code Ruling”, Smart Agent, Busy Agent,
Abdul-Jalil in Harvard University Law School Federal Tax Course Outline
Abdul-Jalil in Yale University Law School Federal Tax Course 13th Ed., Prof. Eric Zolt
Abdul-Jalil in Wake Forest University Law School “Islamic and Jewish Perspective On Interest”
Abdul-Jalil in Washington University Law School Tax CodeAbdul-Jalil in Washington & Lee University Law School Tax Code,Abdul-Jalil in University of Virginia Law School Tax Course

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation-KPFA Promotional Video
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Kids Celebrity Gift BackPacks
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Free Food Program Celebrity Giving Back
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville KPFA Interview Video
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Alameda Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Entourage & Randy Holland in Trader Joe’s Pinole “Tribute to Legends of Jazz” Show
Santa Fe Elementary School’s Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, SemiFreddi’s, Trader Joe’s, Little Ceasar’s Pizza, Marshawn Lynch’s “Fam1ly F1rst” and Leon Powe’s “Fresh Start Oakland”
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 1
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 2

---

You can click on any highlighted word to view or download that itemTo:    Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero                    Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero
         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: 415-865-4391,415-865-4205               Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov

        Michelle Curran                                            Gregory Dresser           
        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
Michelle.Curran@jud.ca.govGregory.Dresser@jud.ca.gov


            Craig H. Missakian-Director                Rob Bonta
            U. S. Attorney’s Office                         Attorney General of California
            Federal Courthouse                              1300 I Street, Suite 125
            450 Golden Gate Avenue                     P.O. Box 944255           
            San Francisco, CA 94102                    Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
            Fax No.: 415-436-7234                        Fax: 916-324-8835
              Judge Brian Caruth                                           Judge Joscelyn Jones
              Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County
              Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                 René C. Davidson Courthouse
              1225 Fallon Street, Department 105                 1225 Fallon Street, Department 19
              661 Washington St.                                          Oakland, CA 94612
              Oakland, CA 94607                                          dept.19@alameda.courts.ca.gov
              Email: dept.105@alameda.courts.ca.gov
BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov

             Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer
             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County
             René C. Davidson Courthouse                          René C. Davidson Courthouse
             1225 Fallon Street, Department 1                     1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
             Oakland, CA 94612                                           Oakland, CA 94612
             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                    Fax: 510-891-6276
TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.govcfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov
            Judge Stuart Hing                                                 Judge Michael Gaffey
            East County Hall of Justice                                  Fremont Hall of Justice
            Fremont Law & Motion, Dept 711                       Fremont Law & Motion, Dept. 605
            5151 Gleason Drive                                              39439 Paseo Padre Parkway
            Dublin, CA 94568                                                Fremont, CA 94538
            SHing@alameda.courts.ca.gov                            MGaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept.711@alameda.courts.ca.govDept.605@alameda.courts.ca.gov
            925-227-6711                                                        510-818-7510
            Sanjay Virmani, FBI Director                              Yesenia Sanchez             Northern District of California                            Alameda County Sheriff
            San Francisco Field Office                                  1401 Lakeside Drive, 12th Floor
            450 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor                  Oakland, CA 94612-4305
            San Francisco, CA 94102-9523                           Fax: (510) 272-6811

            Chief Brian Matthews                                         Casey Hallinan             Hayward Police Department                               Attorney General of California             300 W. Winton Ave.                                            Attn: Public Inquiry Unit             Hayward, CA 94544                                            P.O. Box 944255             Fax: 510-293-7183                                              Sacramento, CA 94244-2550Fax: (916) 323-5341

           Senator Aisha Wahab (SD-10)                Ursula Jones Dickson
           California State Senate                            District Attorney
           39510 Paseo Padre Pkwy, Ste 280          René C. Davidson Courthouse
           Fremont, CA 94538                                1225 Fallon Street, Room 900
           Fax: 916-319-2125                                  Oakland CA 94612
                                                                           Fax: 510-452-5625, 510-271-5157

           Steve Gordon- Director                            Kenneth J. Pogue- Director
           Department of Motor Vehicles                 Office of Administrative Law
           2415 1st Ave., Mail Station F101             300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250
           Sacramento, CA 95818-2606                   Sacramento, CA 95814-4339
           Fax:                                                           Fax: 916-323-6826
Steve.Gordon@dmv.ca.govKenneth.Pogue@oai.ca.gov

           Kimberly Kirchmeyer- Director                Patrick Dorais- Bureau Chief
           Department of Consumer Affairs              Bureau of Automotive Repair
          1625 North Market Blvd., Suite N 112      Complaint Intake Unit
           Sacramento, CA 95834                             10949 N. Mather Blvd.
           Fax: (916) 574-8623                                  Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Kimberly.Kirchmeyer@dca.ca.gov           Fax: (916) 464-3405
Patrick_Dorais@dca.ca.gov

          Ricardo Lara- Commissioner                    Alex Anneker           Department of Insurance                           State Farm Insurance Agent          300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700                     5301 Claremont Ave          Sacramento, CA 95814                              Oakland, CA 94618          Fax: 916-445-5276                                    alex.anneker.vadygn@statefarm.com,          Ricardo.Lara@insurance.ca.gov
         Custodian of Records
         State Farm Claims
         PO Box 52250
         Phoenix, AZ 85072-2250
        Alacrity Fax: 985-345-4400, 800-952-5371sent via: U. S. Mail, Fax, and email                                  
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     August 18, 2025
NO. PAGES: 12
RE: PRESIDING JUDGE REFUSES TO SERVE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!

Dear Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero- Supreme Court of California, Chair- Judicial Council of California, Commission on Judicial Appointments; Director Michelle Curran- Judicial Council of California; Director-Chief Counsel Gregory Dresser- Commission on Judicial Performance; Director Craig H. Missakian- U.S. Attorney’s Office; Attorney General of California Rob Bonta; Judge Brian Caruth- Superior Court of Alameda County; Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon- Superior Court of Alameda County; Executive Officer Chad Finke- Superior Court of Alameda County; Judge Stuart Hing- Superior Court of Alameda County; Judge Michael Gaffey- Superior Court of Alameda County; FBI Director Sanjay Virmani- San Francisco Field Office; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez- Alameda County Sheriff; Chief Brian Matthews- Hayward Police Department; Casey Hallinan- Attorney General of California Public Inquiry Unit; Senator Aisha Wahab- California State Senate (SD-10); District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson-Alameda County; Director Steve Gordon- Department of Motor Vehicles; Director Kenneth J. Pogue- Office of Administrative Law; Director Kimberly Kirchmeyer- Department of Consumer Affairs; Bureau Chief Patrick Dorais- Bureau of Automotive Repair; Commissioner Ricardo Lara- Department of Insurance; et. al.,
COME NOW THE PLAINTIFF Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, CEO/President Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim with this Statement of Disqualification and Declaration in Support of Motion and Demand for Removal and Censure of Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and presiding Judge Thomas Nixon for for cause pursuant to California CCP §170.6 and under CCP §§170.1-5 et. seq.; CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)), (CCP § 170.3 (c) (1)), the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8), 3C, 3D(1), 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2), 4, 4D(1) and 4(E); Due to Criminal Conduct in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §242; Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§182, subd. (a)(5); Fraud On The Court- Federal Code 60; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 60, § 47, § 4541, § 425.16, § 355, 356, 473, 475, § 3523, § 3528 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180; 1st, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment U. S. Constitution; California Constitution by the first clause of Article I, section 13;  Article VI, section 4 1/2; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3).
Pursuant to current California law, two methods exist for seeking to disqualify a judge(s). A party may either move to disqualify the judge(s) for cause pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 170.1 through 170.5, or they may file a peremptory challenge in accordance with Cal. Civ. Proc. §170.6. This motion is based on the matters contained herein, on Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1-170.6 and on the supporting Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury of Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, CEO/President Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim attached hereto and filed herewith.
The PLAINTIFF Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, CEO/President Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim in the above-entitled matter hereby moves that the case and hearing, which involves a contested issue of law or fact, and which has been assigned to Joscelyn Jones yet allegedly reassigned without notice to Stephen Kaus, Judges of the above-entitled Court, be reassigned from these Judges, and that no matters hereinafter arising in this cause be heard or assigned to these Judges, on the ground that said judges are irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and  prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action and any other action given the manner and actions that resulted in his assignment is suspect and wreaks of conspiracy.
We do not feel that this case should have these same judges because as has been proven in this case, if they are biased in one case, it can only lead to an appealable adjudication! Given the history of ongoing corruption in these and other al-Hakim cases, several that involve Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and presiding Judge Thomas Nixon, it would NOT be wise of the court to do so unless it plans to effect their continuing corruption.
Given that Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and presiding Judge Thomas Nixon has NOT answered the challenge, al-Hakim reserves ALL issues from this and the previous FOUR (4) challenges against Kaus and incorporates them herein.

BACKGROUND AND LEGAL ARGUMENT WITH GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION
Plaintiff Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, CEO/President Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim files this action seeking relief from Judge Kaus’s July 24, 2025 Amended Tentative Case Management Order and Judge Jones August 8, 2025 Tentative Case Management Order order reaffirming Kaus’ order and Dismissing the case in the Alameda County Superior Court before Judges Jones/Kaus in Department 19. Jones issued the exact same ruling as Kaus and plaintiff’s have filed the Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Kaus’s Order and Jones order because Defendants failed to serve their motion.
The gravamen of plaintiff’s petition is simply Jones, Nixon and Kaus’ willful and intentional perjurious orders circumscribed in fraud on the court, Kaus ruling on matters before him without jurisdiction making his order void upon being challenged to vacate and set aside; which ALL fall under fraud per CCP § 473 and CCP § 1008. This willful blindness on the part of Jones, Nixon and Kaus is further evidence of why they can not serve in this matter as we can not find any justice in his inhumanity.
Plaintiff argues the established, continuing Jones, Nixon and Kaus, Superior Court Administration Corruption; 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 on the Court, Fraud Upon The Court; and Manipulation is an essential element in vacating and voiding any order subject to inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect, or FRAUD (CCP §473(b)); Code Civ. Proc., § 475; and renders the judgment and/or default is void (CCP §473(d)).
Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the “Court”) does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. The Court is an unbiased, but methodical “creature” which is governed by the Rule of Law… that is, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional law. The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and “just” if it is allowed to function as the laws proscribe. The sad fact is that judges are violating their oath of office and are NOT properly following these rules, are playing a revised legal game with their own created rules and THIS is a Fraud upon the Court, immediately removing jurisdiction from that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective – invalidates) every decision from that point on. Any judge who does such a thing is under mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse himself or herself from the case, and this rarely happens unless someone can force them to do so with the evidence of violations of procedure and threat of losing half their pensions for life which is what can take place. In any case, it is illegal, and EVERY case which has had fraud involved can be re-opened AT ANY TIME, because there is no statutes of limitations on fraud.
Fraud on the Court, or Fraud upon the Court, is where a material misrepresentation has been made to the court, or by the court itself. The main requirement is that the impartiality of the court has been so disrupted that it can’t perform its tasks without bias or prejudice.
Some examples of fraud on the court include:

a. Fraud in the service of court summons (such as withholding a court summons from a party)b. Corruption or influence of a court member or officialc. Judicial fraudd. Intentionally failing to inform the parties of necessary appointments or requirements, in efforts to obstruct the judicial processe. “Unconscionable” schemes to deceive or make misrepresentations through the court system

It’s important to note that fraud on the court only involves court officials or officers of the court, such as judges or court-appointed attorneys. The fraud must be directed at the “judicial machinery” itself.
The complaint will be amended upon receipt of the responses to the Interrogatories, Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things AND the and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.
Additionally, Defendants failed to Meet and Confer per Code of Civil Procedure Section 435.5 before filing a demurrer.
Jones, Nixon and Kaus’ Tentative Ruling/Orders IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE of Crime
When the tentative ruling/order of the court is proof of corruption, conspiracy, fraud upon the court, denial of due process, obstruction of justice, and a violation of a litigants civil rights, that tentative ruling/order becomes IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE of these crimes.
Jones, Nixon and Kaus here attempts to rule on their own perjury and fraud in these rulings/orders denying al-Hakim’s rights to a fair, unbiased legal proceeding.
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, filed an action seeking to: VACATE AND SET ASIDE Judge Kaus’s July 24, 2025 Disregard Order as void for lack of assignment and jurisdiction; Disqualify Judge Joscelyn Jones, Presiding Court Judge Thomas Nixon and Judge Stephen Kaus from this case as irreparable tainted; Set aside its order disregarding Plaintiff’s 88-page Verified Statement/Declaration in opposition, Vacate its order of July 24, 2025; Deem Plaintiff’s five-page memorandum and eighty-three-page declaration timely and proper; Reinstate and Compel full review and Consider the Verified Statement/Declaration in opposition on its merits; Provide an opportunity for full and fair hearing; Conduct a comprehensive review of case assignment procedures; Refer allegations of judicial misconduct to appropriate oversight bodies; and Grant the Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, Grant any further relief necessary to prevent prejudice to Plaintiff.
On January 31, 2025, this case was originally assigned to Judge Joscelyn Jones by public court order.
Presiding Court Judge Thomas Nixon has never issued a publicly available order formally reassigning this case to anyone, including Judge Stephen Kaus. No public or private order has ever reassigned this matter to any other judge, including Judge Stephen Kaus from Judge Jones to Judge Kaus.
The fact that no formal reassignment order exists transferring the case to Judge Stephen Kaus, renders any subsequent orders by Judge Kaus void.
On April 2, 2025, Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., served a notice under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7(c) that Plaintiff’s purported CEO, Abdul Jalil al-Hakim, is an alleged vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order.
Mr. al-Hakim, CEO/President of Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, a non-profit corporation in California, filed an 88-page Verified Statement/Declaration captioned “Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants Motion for An Order for Dismissal for Failing to Timely Obtain a Prefiling Order within Ten (10) Days of the Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order. per  CCP section 391.7(c); and Cross‐Motion for Filing this Frivolous or Dilatory motion with Monetary Sanctions against Defendants and their counsels under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5, 128.7, and 391.7(f)”, verified under penalty of perjury, in opposition to State Farm’s motion for dismissal.
That filing consisted of: 1) A five-page memorandum of points and authorities; and 2) An eighty-three-page Verified Statement/Declaration addressing separate factual issues.
Fourteen pages (17%) of the Verified Statement was factual and legal evidence of judicial misconduct, tortious interference, fraud, collusion, and conspiracy involving Judge Kaus.
Plaintiff’s CEO & President, Abdul Jalil al-Hakim, signed and filed that Verified Statement believing that, as a non‐profit corporation representing itself, he could submit factual declarations under CCP § 2015.5.
On July 8 and July 31, 2025, Mr. al-Hakim separately notified Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon that an alleged vexatious‐litigant order, was procured through fraud and never served, prevented Plaintiff’s timely response. Plaintiff requested Judge Nixon to serve the alleged order so he and Plaintiff could respond properly and intelligently and Nixon has failed and refused service.
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, CEO/President of Plaintiff Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation sent a twelve (12) page letter/complaint that was filed and served on Judge Thomas Nixon, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT in Opposition to Judge Jeff Brand alleged Vexatious Litigant (CCP 391 (b)(3)) Order that was procured through Fraud, Conspiracy, Corruption and with Premeditated Malice Aforethought for Filing Challenges for Cause under CCP 170.1 and 170.3; the alleged Vexatious Order was never served and that it be served, requesting action regarding: “PRESIDING JUDGE REFUSES TO SERVE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED; PROOF Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice; PROOF KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance”. That letter/complaint was served on Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero- Supreme Court of California, Chair- Judicial Council of California, Commission on Judicial Appointments; Director Michelle Curran- Judicial Council of California; Director-Chief Counsel Gregory Dresser- Commission on Judicial Performance; Director Craig H. Missakian- U.S. Attorney’s Office; Attorney General of California Rob Bonta; FBI Director Sanjay Virmani- San Francisco Field Office; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez- Alameda County Sheriff; District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson-Alameda County; Director Steve Gordon- Department of Motor Vehicles; Director Kenneth J. Pogue- Office of Administrative Law; Bureau Chief Patrick Dorais- Bureau of Automotive Repair; Commissioner Ricardo Lara- Department of Insurance; et. al., ALL of whom have been subpoenaed as witnesses and to produce documents are involved in the instant case.
To date Judge Nixon has failed and refused service and ignored the written Complaints and Demands.
On July 22, 2025, Plaintiff made five (5) calls and left two (2) voicemail messages on three separate Alameda County Superior Court hotlines, persistently seeking to contest the Tentative Rulings on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff also emailed Department 19 at 3:30 pm the same day, expressly notifying the Court of its desire to contest any adverse tentative ruling and requesting the tentative ruling for review (Exh. B).
In response/reply to Plaintiff email, on July 23, 2025 at 9:15 am, the clerk, Angelica Mendola, confirmed by email that a tentative ruling had been posted online and advised Plaintiff on how to access it (Exh. C).
So this verifies that the court received our communication that we contested the ruling and planned to appear to argue the matters even though we did NOT know what the rulings were.
CEO al-Hakim appeared for Plaintiff in person as normal for the July 23, 2025 hearing at 3:00 pm. and was then informed by the court bailiff that the matters were continued as was the Case Management Conference hearing scheduled for July 29, 2025. He remained in the courtroom until Judge Jones came out and called her first case and provided her with a filed stamped copy of the Complaint and Demand served on Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon that an alleged vexatious‐litigant order, was procured through fraud and never served, AND DEMANDING that he serve it ASAP! This has prevented Plaintiff’s timely response to this problem.
Plaintiff finally got clearance Friday July 25, 2025 to access the courts e-filing and I noticed there was issues in the Register of Actions that we had NOT been served.
On July 28, 2025, CEO al-Hakim sent a letter/complaint to Judge Joscelyn Jones, Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon, Defendant agent Sonia Shah- Spencer Fane LLP, Defendant agent Adriana Valenzo- Hayes Scott, Defendant Brad Weisberg- Snapsheet, Defendant agent Muhammad Khan- East Bay Auto Center and Defendant agent Chad Finke Executive Officer requesting a reservation number for our Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, Terminating Sanctions, and Monetary Sanctions the MOTION FOR TEMPORARY LIFT OF AUTOMATIC STAY TO GRANT MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND (ii) MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT filed by Defendant agent Sonia Shah on June 6, 2025:

These filings were NEVER SERVED ON US BY ANYONE and therefore we request a Reservation number for our Motion to Dismiss the above with Prejudice, for Terminating Sanctions, and Monetary Sanctions!
Our motion will be prepared by tomorrow and we would like a time on any of the following dates: September 1, 2025, September 3, 2025, September 8, 2025, September 10, 2025, September 15, 2025, September 17, 2025, September 22, 2025, September 24, 2025, September 29, 2025, or  31, 2025.
Also, by the time were approved to access the e-filing, I went online to view the 7/23/25 Tentative Ruling in Defendants Motion to Dismiss and our Opposition and motion for Sanctions but was unsuccessful because it was too late.

He informed those listed above that we did not get clearance to access the courts e-filing before the scheduled July 23, 2025 hearing so he appeared there as normal.
The court NEVER responded to the multiple requests for for a reservation number to file a motion to dismiss, so we filed and served it the next day.
We filed the motion to Dismiss for Defendants Failure to Serve Motion and in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay to grant Motion to Strike Complaint and (ii) Motion to Strike complaint filed by Defendant Alacrity Solutions, LLC through Defendant agent Sonia Shah- Spencer Fane LLP (“Defendant, Defendant agent”) on June 6, 2025.
From the date of filing until the present, Defendant agent Shah has never served its Motion, supporting points and authorities, declarations, or proposed orders on Plaintiff’s despite numerous opportunities to do so.
Defendant agent counsel Shah has a documented this history of failing and refusing to effect service in this case before this Court.
Defendant agent Shah’s unilateral filing without notice constitutes a deliberate fraud on this Court and on Plaintiff in violation of procedural rules and due process.
Unless this Court dismisses the Unserved Motion with prejudice and imposes terminating and monetary sanctions, Defendant will continue to reap the procedural benefits of its misconduct.
On July 31, 2025 we received a notice entitled “Amended Tentative Case Management Order on July 24, 2025 at 9:42 am.” by Judge Stephen Kaus.
Kaus has a very disturbing and dishonest history that is well documented and since he was NEVER assigned/reassigned this case it raises many questions of what his role is and more importantly why? Where’s the original ruling and who ordered it?
Kaus orders:

Defendant Alacrity Solutions Group LLC (“Alacrity”) has filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s Complaint, based (in part) on the fact that Plaintiff “Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation” is identified as a corporation, but it is not represented by an attorney duly licensed by the California State Bar. (See, e.g., Merco Const. Engineers Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.App.3d 724.) This request is valid, but the defect that Alacrity raises can potentially be cured if Plaintiff obtains licensed counsel to represent it in this case.
Alacrity’s motion has been continued to August 13, 2025. By no later than August 6, 2025, Plaintiff may file a substitution of attorney or notice of appearance, signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice in California who will represent Plaintiff in this case. If Plaintiff fails to file such a notice by August 6, 2025, the Court intends to strike Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismiss this case on August 13, 2025.

and

The Court disregards, and did not read or consider, Plaintiff’s 88 page opposition brief filed on July 3, 2025. First, as noted above, Plaintiff is identified in the Complaint as a corporation, and therefore it must be represented by an attorney duly licensed by the-California State Bar. Plaintiff’s opposition brief was prepared and filed by Mr. al-Hakim, who is not an attorney. Second, the opposition brief is longer (by a factor of over 500%) than the maximum length of an opposition brief permitted by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113( d).) The Court refuses to consider the opposition brief on that basis. (See Rules 3.11 B(g) and 3.1300(d).)

In his order of July 24, 2025, Judge Stephen Kaus issued an “Amended Tentative Case Management Order,” and on July 31, 2025, a notice affixed that Order. The Court declared that:

• notwithstanding this undisputed record, the “Tentative Case Management Order in this matter was published and was not contested,” thereby fabricating the record and disregarding all proof of contest,
• it would not read or consider Plaintiff’s Verified Statement/Declaration in opposition because (a) a corporation must be represented by counsel, and its brief was filed by a non-attorney, and (b) the brief exceeded by over 500% the page limit in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).

Plaintiff’s Verified Statement/Declaration consisted of a 5-page Memorandum of Points and Authorities and an 83-page Verified Statement/Declaration covered three substantive areas:

• Foundation’s organizational structure
• Objective of alleged “Targeted Entrapment Scheme”
• Case-specific impacts

By contrast the Defendants’ Memorandum was 6 pages, with 80 pages of exhibits.
Plaintiff Verified Statement/Declaration addressed factual and legal evidence of judicial misconduct, tortious interference, fraud, collusion, and conspiracy involving Judge Kaus, signed and filed that Verified Statement pro se, believing that, as a non‐profit corporation representing itself, we could submit factual declarations under CCP § 2015.5.
Plaintiff’s CEO was unaware that the tentative Order was issued by Judge Kaus, who was never assigned to the matter. Plaintiff timely contests both the substantive refusal to consider its filing and the judge’s authority.
Plaintiff has proven that Judge Kaus has a history of corruption, manipulation, obstruction of justice, misconduct and bias, and that his involvement in this case is suspect and raises questions of conspiracy.
Judge Kaus ignored the procedural and substantive defects in the assignment and failed to consider the verified evidence of his own misconduct that he was aware of.
Judge Stephen Kaus chose to be willfully blind by not reading the verified statement, despite the fact that 14 pages of the 83 pages (17%) Verified Statement/Declaration addresses factual evidence that Judge Kaus admitted tortious interference, misrepresentation, fraud, deception, concealment, conduct to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws, conspiracy, collusion, and corruption.
On August 8, 2025, Judge Jones/Kaus issued a “Tentative Case Management Order” reaffirming the previous order of Kaus and Dismissing the case as per Kaus: “Alacrity’s motion has been continued to August 13, 2025. By no later than August 6, 2025, Plaintiff may file a substitution of attorney or notice of appearance, signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice in California who will represent Plaintiff in this case. If Plaintiff fails to file such a notice by August 6, 2025, the Court intends to strike Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismiss this case on August 13, 2025.”
Judges Jones/Kaus/Nixon failed and refused to consider plaintiff’s motion to Dismiss for Defendants Failure to Serve Motion and in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay to grant Motion to Strike Complaint and (ii) Motion to Strike complaint filed by Defendant Alacrity Solutions, LLC through Defendant agent Sonia Shah- Spencer Fane LLP (“Defendant, Defendant agent”)
The court dismisses our motion and REWARDS the Unserved Motion as Defendant reap the procedural benefits of its misconduct.
It is clear from this order, Judges Jones/Kaus/Nixon has failed and refused to read and consider ANY of plaintiff’s filings- motions or declarations filed in this action:

• Plaintiff’s 88-page Verified Statement/Declaration in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss,
• Plaintiff’s Amended Verified Statement/Declaration and Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss,
• Motion to Dismiss for Defendants Failure to Serve Motion and in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay to grant Motion to Strike Complaint and (ii) Motion to Strike complaint filed by Defendant Alacrity Solutions, LLC,
• Motion of Vacate and Set Aside Judges Jones/Kaus/Nixon “Amended Tentative Case Management Order”,
• Plaintiff’s Verified Statement/Declaration and PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Gross Misconduct in THIS CASE and Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme With HIS Tortious Interference, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance; Alameda County Sheriff’s Tortious Interference,
• Plaintiff’s Verified Statement/Declaration in Opposition to Judge Jeff Brand alleged Vexatious Litigant (CCP 391 (b)(3))) Order that was procured through Fraud, Conspiracy, Corruption and with Premeditated Malice Aforethought for Filing Challenges for Cause under CCP 170.1 and 170.3; Order was never served and that it be served,
• Plaintiff’s Verified Statement/Declaration

The illegal Ex Parte Communications of Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon having had a meeting the minds and made case altering decisions that were NOT noticed is evidence of illegal ex-parte communications, secretive and unpublished agreements, misrepresentation, fraud, deception, concealment, conduct to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws, conspiracy, collusion, and corruption involving Judges Joslyn Jones, Stephen Kaus, and Presiding Court Judge Thomas Nixon.
No Valid Assignment to Judge Kaus—Order Void Ab Initio
A presiding judge must issue a publicly‐available reassignment order. (Cal. Rules Jud. Admin. 2.10(D); Williams, supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at 1007.) Here, none exists transferring Case No. 25CV108981 from Judge Thomas Nixon to Judge Kaus. Any ruling by a judge without assignment is void for lack of jurisdiction.
Absence of Valid Reassignment Order Renders Order Void
The presiding judge has a non‐delegable duty on to assign judges. Because no reassignment is publicly recorded, Judge Kaus lacked jurisdiction to enter the July 24 Order. Alcantar, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 838: “A judge without jurisdiction cannot validate prior or subsequent acts.” Honig, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 296: “All orders entered after a disqualification are void.”
Absent a reassignment order, Judge Kaus lacked jurisdiction to issue orders and are Void Ab Initio for Lack of Valid Assignment. Thus the Amended Tentative Case Management Order is void ab initio.
The order is void because the presiding judge must reassign cases requiring a publicly-available assignment order, and no such order exists transferring this case to Judge Kaus. This is a fundamental requirement of due process and fairness, and Judge Kaus’ order must be set aside.
Procedural Irregularity of Case Assignment
The absence of a publicly available reassignment order from Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon renders Judge Kaus’s order void. In re Marriage of Oliverez (2005) establishes that proper judicial assignment is fundamental to due process. Judicial Assignment
Presiding Court Judge Thomas Nixon has never issued a publicly-available order formally reassigning this case to anyone, including Judge Stephen Kaus. No public or private order has ever reassigned this matter to any other judge, including Judge Stephen Kaus from Judge Jones to Judge Kaus. A judicial assignment is ineffective unless memorialized by a publicly‐available minute or order (Cal. Rules Jud. Admin. 2.10).
However, no formal reassignment order exists transferring the case to Judge Stephen Kaus, rendering any subsequent orders by Judge Kaus potentially void. A court lacks jurisdiction to act without a valid assignment (Williams v. Hayes (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1001, 1007).
Judicial Bias and Misconduct
California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1 allows for the disqualification of a judge based on bias or prejudice. The standard for disqualification is whether a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.
The illegal Ex Parte Communications of  Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon having had a meeting the minds and made case altering decisions that were NOT noticed. Judge Kaus’s history of misconduct and bias, as alleged by the Plaintiff, raises serious questions about his impartiality.
The Plaintiff has a right to a fair and impartial hearing, and Judge Kaus’s involvement in this case undermines that right. The Plaintiff’s allegations of conspiracy and targeted entrapment further support the need for disqualification and investigation given the illegal Ex Parte Communications of  Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon.
Ex Parte Communications and Misconduct
No public or private order has ever reassigned this matter to any other judge, including Judge Stephen Kaus from Judge Jones to Judge Kaus. Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon have had a meeting the minds and made case altering decisions the were NOT noticed. California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1 prohibits ex parte communications between judges and parties.
The allegations of illegal ex parte communications and misconduct by Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus, and Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon violate this statute.
Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon Engaged in Misconduct
The illegal Ex Parte Communications of Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon proves they engaged in misconduct, including illegal ex-parte communications, secretive and unpublished agreements, tortious interference misrepresentation, fraud, deception, concealment, conduct to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws, conspiracy, collusion, and corruption. This misconduct requires that the Court set aside Judge Kaus’ order and consider Plaintiff’s 88-page Verified Statement/Declaration.
Judicial misconduct warrant thorough investigation and potential referral to the Commission on Judicial Performance.
Kaus Ruling was Contested, Willfully Blindness Must Be Addressed, Not Ignored
Kaus ruled “Tentative Case Management Order in this matter was published and was not contested,” thereby fabricating the record and disregarding all proof of contest.
Kaus intentionally fabricates this order despite our July 22, 2025 email verifies that the court received our communication that we contested the ruling, planned to appear to argue the matters and did even though we did NOT know what the rulings were.
The order is a material fabrication, issued in bad faith, and in direct contravention of undisputed evidence that the Foundation timely and repeatedly contested the tentative ruling. This Court should grant relief under California Code of Civil Procedure § 473 and related authorities.
Judge Kaus ignored the procedural and substantive defects in the assignment and failed to consider the verified evidence of his own misconduct that he was aware of.
Judge Stephen Kaus chose to be willfully blind by not reading the verified statement, despite the fact that 14 pages of the 83 pages (17%) Verified Statement/Declaration addresses factual evidence that Judge Kaus admitted tortious interference, misrepresentation, fraud, deception, concealment, conduct to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws, conspiracy, collusion, and corruption involving Judge Kaus and others. Chief Justice directives (CRC 10.500 et seq.) mandate reporting and adjudication of judicial misconduct. A judge cannot simply “choose to be willfully blind.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 170.3(b).).
Vexatious Litigant Order
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that parties be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. The failure to serve the vexatious litigant order and the alleged misconduct by the judges constitute a violation of Plaintiff’s and al-Hakim’s due process rights. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. Fairness and Due Process Require Consideration of Plaintiff’s Evidence. Reyes v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 477, 483 [holding that a court must consider a party’s right to due process]
Due process under article I, § 7 of the California Constitution guarantees the right to present one’s evidence. Striking the entire opposition without considering factual declarations deprives Plaintiff of fundamental fairness.
Presiding Judge Nixon Must Serve the Alleged Vexatious Litigant Order
Presiding Judge Nixon must serve the alleged Vexatious Litigant order that was procured through fraud, conspiracy, corruption, and with premeditated malice aforethought on al-Hakim. The failure to do so is a further example of the misconduct engaged in by the judges. The failure to serve the vexatious litigant order and the alleged misconduct by the judges constitute a violation of al-Hakim’s due process rights. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. Fairness and Due Process Require Consideration of Plaintiff’s Evidence. Reyes v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 477, 483 [holding that a court must consider a party’s right to due process]PROOF of Kaus’ Gross Misconduct in Continuing Targeted Entrapment SchemeThis is PROOF of Judge Stephen Kaus’ Gross Misconduct in THIS CASE and Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme With HIS Tortious Interference, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance! The PLAINTIFF and Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim in the above-entitled matter will move that the “Amended Tentative Case Management Order on July 24, 2025 at 9:42 am.” by Judge Stephen Kaus, the case and hearing, which involves a contested issue of law or fact, and which has NOT been assigned to Judge Stephen Kaus, of the above-entitled Court, be set aside.
 And if the case is or has been assigned to him, it be reassigned from that Judge, and that no matters hereinafter arising in this cause be heard or assigned to Judge Stephen Kaus, on the ground that said judge is and was already irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and  prejudiced against the plaintiff in this and any other action given the manner and actions that resulted in his assignment is suspect and wreaks of conspiracy.
We do not feel that this case should have the same judge that has been proven in this case, if he is disqualified for his admitted CONFLICT in one case AFTER a fourth Challenge for Cause, he is biased in another case AFTER a fourth Challenge for Cause, he is prejudiced in ALL, and can only lead to an appealable adjudication! Given the history of ongoing corruption in these and other al-Hakim cases, several that involve these county judges, it would NOT be wise of the court to do so unless it plans to effect their continuing corruption.
 Plaintiff is contesting his continued sitting in ANY case and now indicate our intent to file a disqualification, motion to set aside the “Amended Tentative Case Management Order on July 24, 2025 at 9:42 am.” by Judge Stephen Kaus and an appeal for same.
 These facts are very much the same as previously indicated in matters that Kaus’s purported concern about his failure to file a timely response and al-Hakim’s intent to file an appeal for Kaus’s failure was merely a pretext for his decision to independently take it upon himself to deny al-Hakim’s civil right to a fair, impartial judge and in order to deny his civil right to a fair hearing and trial, ALL IN THE ACTION forcing al-Hakim into the “WRIT RACKET”! This is NOT having a trial, this is being “railroaded by the court in a case that is ALREADY fixed against you!”
Judge Kaus Admits to Courts Conspiracy, Collusion, Corruption, Acrimony and Animus toward al-Hakim
 Kaus admits to further control the evidence of his and the courts corruption, wherein the animus is so thick it chocks you, the incitement of hate permeates the proceedings, and the matters decided in the culmination of the courts calumny deceit!

“Judicial challenges themselves are not, however, evidence a want or delay of prosecution. A party is entitled to challenge a judicial officer for cause or bias.” “The challenges appear to be filed in an earnest belief that the judges of this Court ought to be disqualified from deciding this case and that each successive challenge will overcome the prior’s shortcomings.””the Court hopes and encourages both parties to take this new judicial assignment as a good time to wipe the slate clean, forgive any earlier acrimony, and proceed to resolve and adjudicate the claims raised by the Complaint in normal order and good faith. Al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated.” “Both parties deserve the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law. In short, this case deserves a chance to proceed on its merits, and now is an opportune time as any to do so.”

Judge Stephen Kaus, Tentative Ruling made September 11, 2018.
 Judge Kaus admits to the COURTEL’S acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with “the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law”! He did just the opposite enacting the agenda of the “COURTEL- ” the COURT CORRUPTION CARTEL!!
 Kaus then admits:

“It came to my attention over the last weekend that sufficient shares of stock in ATT Inc. are attributed to me under Code of Civil Procedure §170.l, subd. (a)(6)(A)(3) to require my recusal in this matter and to have required it at the time the case was assigned to me. Therefore, I am recusing myself from this matter. The Presiding Judge of the Civil Division will make further orders.”

Judge Stephen Kaus
Judge Kaus ADMITTED FRAUD, was Disqualified IN TWO CASES after TWO YEARS where al-Hakim filed FOUR (4) Disqualification Challenges For Cause against him and he still ruled for ATT BEFORE RECUSING despite this obvious, KNOWN conflict of interest that stands today due to the “COURTEL- ” the COURT CORRUPTION CARTEL!!
 Plaintiff Verified Statement/Declaration addressed factual and legal evidence of judicial misconduct, tortious interference, fraud, collusion, and conspiracy involving Judge Kaus, signed and filed that Verified Statement pro se, believing that, as a non‐profit corporation representing itself, we could submit factual declarations under CCP § 2015.5.
 Plaintiff’s CEO was unaware that the tentative Order was issued by Judge Kaus, who was never assigned to the matter. Plaintiff timely contests both the substantive refusal to consider its filing and the judge’s authority.
 Plaintiff has proven that Judge Kaus has a history of corruption, manipulation, obstruction of justice, misconduct and bias, and that his involvement in this case is suspect and raises questions of conspiracy.
 Judge Kaus acted contrary to his assurances and has admitted his and the Courts history of acrimony, animus, fraud, conspiracy, and corruption, as documented in previous cases. Judge Kaus has a history of admitted conflict of interest, bias, and corrupt conduct, including:

• Admitting to acrimony and animus toward Plaintiff’s CEO, Abdul Jalil al-Hakim.
• Filing a recusal statement due to a conflict of interest in a related case.
• Being disqualified and removed from a previous case FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CCP §170.6 and UNDER CCP §§170.1-5 et seq., which has been widely publicized worldwide.
• Judge Kaus admitted to a conflict of interest and recused himself from that previous case but continued to rule in favor of AT&T before recusing AFTER FOUR (4) timely Challenges for Cause OVER TWO (2) YEARS culminating in Judge Kaus’s admitted recusal due to ownership of ATT, Inc. stock he had since the beginning of the case in which al-Hakim was suing AT&T.

 Judge Kaus ignored the procedural and substantive defects in the assignment and failed to consider the verified evidence of his own misconduct that he was aware of.
 Judge Stephen Kaus chose to be willfully blind by not reading the verified statement, despite the fact that 14 pages of the 83 pages (17%) Verified Statement/Declaration addresses factual evidence that Judge Kaus admitted tortious interference, misrepresentation, fraud, deception, concealment, conduct to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws, conspiracy, collusion, and corruption.
 In May 2022 Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced the Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act to overhaul our nation’s judicial ethics laws and restore public faith in our court system. This legislation is cosponsored by Representatives Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee; André Carson (D-Ind.); Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas.); Katie Porter (D-Calif.); Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.); Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.); Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.); Veronica Escobar (D-Texas); Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.); Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.); Andy Levin (D-Mich.); Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.); Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.); Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.).
“We can no longer stand by while our judges and justices take advantage of our system to build wealth and power at the expense of our country’s most marginalized. A system without basic ethics is a corrupt system,” said Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. “People deserve impartial judges and justices who aren’t beholden to special interests or to their personal agenda. Nobody is above the law. Not even a Supreme Court Justice. My bill with Senator Warren will reinstate the checks and balances needed to ensure a fair and balanced judicial system that fulfills its promise of equal justice under the law.”
 “I’ve been fighting to reform our judicial ethics system for years. At a time when public trust in the Supreme Court has collapsed to historic lows, it’s critical that we enact legislation to reform this broken system. From banning federal judges from owning individual stocks to overhauling the broken judicial recusal process, my bill would help root out corruption and restore public trust in the federal judiciary – something that Chief Justice Roberts has simply failed to do,” wrote Senator Elizabeth Warren.
 Ethics scandals have plagued our federal courts for decades. Clerks accuse federal judges of sexual misconduct with little to no recourse. Supreme Court Justices accept lavish international trips and fail to file basic financial disclosure reports. Judges and justices alike sit in cases in which they own individual stock in the parties—and in cases that could directly affect their spouses, 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!
 Again, this “COURTEL” has been able to THRIVE, because the Federal, State, County and Local Governments Judicial and Law Enforcement Agencies, the Judicial Councils, the Commissions on Judicial Performance, the Disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action are PARTNERS, inextricably placed in the legal paradox where everyone having been involved in committing these crimes!
“Ethics reform is neither partisan nor personal: The American people deserve courts, and especially a Supreme Court, that they know follow strong ethics rules. The Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act will help accomplish that, by ensuring judges and justices act ethically, transparently, and accountably. We applaud Senator Warren and Representative Jayapal for their leadership in this effort,” said David Janovsky, Program Manager and Analyst at The Constitution Project of the Project On Government Oversight.
“This is exactly the kind of approach needed to tackle the culture of corruption and impunity that has infected America’s courts,” said Christopher Kang, Chief Counsel at Demand Justice.
“As Justice Thomas’ recent scandal shows, judges and justices at all levels routinely ride roughshod over basic ethical principles and face no consequences. The courts have failed to police themselves, and Congress must respond with comprehensive reform to tackle the many ethical crises facing the judiciary. Sen. Warren and Rep. Jayapal have put together the kind of multi-faceted package needed, and House and Senate leadership should advance this bill without delay.”
“Like every other court in America, the Supreme Court should be governed by a code of ethics. Our highest court should be held to the highest standards,” said Lisa Gilbert, Executive Vice President at Public Citizen. “The reforms found in Senator Warren and Representative Jayapal’s new legislation are critical for restoring the faith of the American people in the judiciary branch.”
“Americans’ faith in government is rapidly declining as politicians and judges use their positions of power to line their own pockets – often behind closed doors – while corporate special interests capture the courts with hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money. Senator Warren and Representative Jayapal’s new Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act would begin to reverse this troubling trend and add much-needed transparency and accountability to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary system. We applaud their leadership and commitment to fighting corruption and ensuring our courts protect all of us, not just the wealthy and well connected,” said Tiffany Muller, President of End Citizens United / Let America Vote Action Fund.
 In TWO letters to the Supreme Court Judiciary, more than 50 legislators filed complaints about ethics violations within the Court and the Federal Court system following a Wall Street Journal investigation report!
A WALL STREET JOURNAL INVESTIGATION FOUND MORE THAN 130 FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE VIOLATED U.S. LAW AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BY IMPROPERLY FAILING TO DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES FROM 685 COURT CASES AROUND THE NATION INVOLVING COMPANIES IN WHICH THEY OR THEIR FAMILY OWNED STOCK. ONLY 56 OF THE JUDGES HAVE DIRECTED COURT CLERKS TO NOTIFY PARTIES IN 329 LAWSUITS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE RECUSED THEMSELVES!
 The legislators wrote:
We write seeking information regarding an alarming report that over 130 federal judges have violated federal law and the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges by“overseeing court cases involving companies in which they or their family owned [individual] stock.”
These actions raise questions about the judgment and integrity of these individuals and will justifiably reduce public confidence in the justice system. Likewise, they raise questions about whether you have done enough in your role as the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States to establish and enforce ethics rules and uphold the integrity of the federal judiciary.
The scope of the ethics violations by dozens of federal judges—as reported by the Wall Street Journal—is stunning. Judges must “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”Both 28 U.S.C. § 455 and Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct require that judges disqualify themselves from proceedings when the judge, their spouses, or their minor children have a “financial interest in … a party to the proceeding … , however small.”But the Journal revealed that 131 federal judges—appointed by presidents spanning from Lyndon Johnson to Donald Trump and involved in hundreds of cases across the country—failed to properly recuse themselves in violation of these provisions between 2010 and 2018.These conflicts of interest have affected hundreds of cases and the integrity of the justice system. Already, “56 of the judges have directed court clerks to notify parties in 329 lawsuits that they should have recused themselves,” potentially leading to new assignments of judges and upending rulings.Judges ruled for parties in which they had a financial interest in two-thirds of contested motions.Furthermore, current Supreme Court Justices have similarly failed to recuse themselves from cases in recent years when they have had financial interests in parties before the Court, including through ownership of individual stock.It would be surprising if even a single judge or Justice was unaware of or ignored these important ethics protections; the fact that dozens did so represents a systemic failure that requires accountability.
Signed by Authors:
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)
Signed by Senators: Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee;
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet; and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights.
The letter was also signed by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.); Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.); Ron Wyden (D-Ore.); Cory Booker (D-N.J.); Alex Padilla (D-Calif.); Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii); Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.); and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.);
Signed by Congressman: Cori Bush (D-Mo.); Karen Bass (D-Calif.); David Cicilline (D-R.I.); Steven Cohen (D-Tenn.); Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.); Veronica Escobar (D-Texas); Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas); Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.); Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas); Ted Lieu (D-Calif.); and Deborah Ross (D-N.C.)
The ethics code for judges “requires recusal when a judge has a financial conflict, regardless of the substance of the judge’s actual involvement in the case,” the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct wrote in a letter to a judge this month.
When judges participated in such cases, about two-thirds of their rulings on motions that were contested came down in favor of their or their family’s financial interests.
 The hundreds of recusal violations found by the Journal breach a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence: No one should be a judge of his or her own cause. Congress first laid out that principle in 1792 to guarantee litigants an impartial judge and reassure the public that courts could be trusted.
 The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said:

“The Wall Street Journal’s report on instances where conflicts inadvertently were not identified before a case was resolved or transferred is troubling, and the Administrative Office is carefully reviewing the matter.”

 It said the federal judiciary “takes very seriously its obligations to preclude any financial conflicts of interest” and has taken steps, such as conflict-screening software and ethics training, to prevent violations. “We have in place a number of safeguards and are looking for ways to improve,” the office said.
 Chief Justice John Roberts, who heads the federal judiciary, didn’t respond to requests for comment.
 The nation’s roughly 600 full-time federal trial judges, supplemented by about 460 semiretired jurists called senior judges, wield enormous power. Holding lifetime appointments, they preside over hundreds of thousands of civil and criminal cases each year in 94 court districts.
 They have soup-to-nuts control over all elements of their courtrooms, from pretrial process and trial to criminal pleas, judgments and sentencing. Judges have wide latitude for fact findings and evidentiary rulings, most of which can be overturned only for abuse of discretion, a high hurdle.
Violations of the 1974 law almost never become public. Judges’ financial disclosures aren’t online, are cumbersome to request and sometimes take years to access.
The Free Law Project, a nonpartisan legal-research nonprofit that is planning to post judicial disclosure forms online found their findings amount to a pervasive disregard for the judicial conflict-of-interest laws, legal experts said.
A recusal violation in isolation could be viewed as an oversight, but the Journal’s investigation “raises a more systemic problem of judges chronically neglecting their duty to disqualify in such cases,” said Charles Geyh, a law professor at Indiana University, who specializes in judicial conduct, ethics and accountability.
The findings “are both surprising and disappointing,” said Timothy Batten Sr., chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and a member of the Committee on Codes of Conduct for the Judicial Conference of the U.S.
Yet Judge Batten himself owned shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. while he heard 11 lawsuits involving the bank, most of which ended in the bank’s favor, the Journal’s analysis shows.
“I am mortified,” Judge Batten said in a phone interview when notified about his violations, which occurred in 2010 and 2011, before he joined the Codes of Conduct committee in 2019. “I had no idea that I had an interest in any of these companies in what was a most modest retirement account” managed by a broker.
“I just blew it. I regret any question that I’ve created or appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest,” he said.
The Journal analyzed cases to determine whether judges made rulings on contested motions, such as those seeking dismissal or summary judgment. Judges ruled on contested motions in 21% of the nearly 700 cases in question.
 Those rulings favored the judges’ financial interests in 94 cases, went against the judges’ interest in 27 cases and had mixed outcomes in 24 cases.
 The Judicial Conference of the U.S. requires courts to use conflict-checking software to help identify cases where judges should bow out.
 Judge Janis Sammartino of California traded in stocks of Bank of America Corp., CVS Health Corp., Deutsche Bank AG, Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., HSBC Holdings PLC, JPMorgan, Pfizer Inc., Public Storage, Wells Fargo & Co. and Microsoft Corp. while hearing 18 lawsuits involving one or more of those companies, the Journal found. In all, she heard 54 cases involving companies held in her family’s trusts. In her Microsoft case, had a class been approved, the case could potentially have cost Microsoft more than $45 million, according to court filings by the plaintiff.
 Judge Sammartino disqualified herself in at least 10 other cases involving companies whose stocks were listed on her disclosure forms, a review of her cases shows.
 Judge Sammartino’s 54 conflicts were the second-most recusal violations. Brian Martinotti in New Jersey ranked third, handling 44 cases involving companies in which he had invested.
 Judge Rodney Gilstrap, chief of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, had the largest number of conflicts in the Journal’s analysis: 138 cases assigned to him involving companies in which he or his wife held an interest.
 In at least 18 instances, judges disqualified themselves over conflicts, only to have the case reassigned to a judge who also had a conflict but didn’t recuse.
“Amended Tentative Case Management Order on July 23, 2025 at 9:42 am.” by Judge Stephen Kaus
 Kaus’ presence in this case is unfortunate and retaliatory as he has been disqualified from other al-Hakim cases after ADMITTING to DISHONESTY AFTER A FOURTH CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE in the same department while he just appeared out of nowhere to make these rulings allegedly on July 24, 2025 at 9:42 am. We will address this issue under separate cover.
 Kaus sole purpose of espousing defendants vitriol of Trump-esq hate induced 50+ year strategy of FRAUD, DECIET, RACISM, RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY, INTOLERANCE, AND PREJUDICE, DESIGNED ENGINEERED to stir the animus of the court to provoke acrimony toward al-Hakim, fostering calumny deceit and denial of al-Hakim’s civil rights and immunity from takings of property without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law is objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of al-Hakim in lieu of proper litigation (see “Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke Vexatious Litigant Strategy Fraud on th Court”, Challenge for Cause of Judge Kaus filed December 4, 2018, at Page 24-27).
Tentative Case Management Order on August 8, 2025 allegedly by Judge Joscelyn Jones
 Given that Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and presiding Judge Thomas Nixon has NOT answered the challenge, al-Hakim reserves ALL issues from this and the previous FOUR (4) challenges against Kaus and incorporates them herein.
 On August 8, 2025, Judge Jones issued a Tentative Case Management Order simply reaffirming Kaus’ order and Dismissing the case in it’s entirety.
 She repeated Kaus cry of :

The Motion re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN SUPPORT OF (i) MOTION FOR TEMPORARY LIFT OF AUTOMATIC STAY TO GRANT MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND (ii) MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT filed by Alacrity Solutions, LLC on 06/06/2025 is Granted.Alacrity’s motion makes an alternative request to strike the Complaint on the grounds that a corporation cannot represent itself in Court but instead must be represented by an attorney duly licensed by the California State Bar. (See, e.g., Merco Const. Engineers Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.App.3d 724.) This request is meritorious.This motion was continued from its prior hearing date of July 21, 2025. Plaintiff was directed to file a substitution of attorney or notice of appearance, signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice in California who will represent Plaintiff in this case, by no later than August 6, 2025. Plaintiff was advised that if it failed to file such a notice by August 6, 2025, the Court would strike Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismiss this case on August 13, 2025.Plaintiff did not file a substitution of attorney or notice of appearance signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice in California by August 6, 2025, as directed. Plaintiff’s Complaint is therefore STRICKEN, and this entire action is DISMISSED.Alacrity’s request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(a) is DENIED. The named Plaintiff in this case is a (self-described) corporation, not a vexatious litigant. Therefore, section 391.7(a) does not apply to this case as pled.All future scheduled hearing dates in this case are VACATED.
The Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for 09/23/2025 is vacated .The Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by Snapsheet (Defendant) + CRS# 841093799305 scheduled for 10/15/2025 is vacated .

 JONES DID SO KNOWING THAT 1) THE MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT ALACRITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, WAS NEVER SERVED ON PLAINTIFF, 2) THAT IT WAS VOID AS BEING ISSUED BY KAUS WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ORDER IT, 3) PLAINTIFF’S FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT ALACRITY BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER SERVED AS WELL AS, 4) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE BOTH KAUS’S AND JONES ORDERS!
 This is Jones, Nixon and Kaus’ willful and intentional perjurious orders circumscribed in fraud on the court, Kaus ruling on matters before him without jurisdiction making his order void upon being challenged to vacate and set aside; which ALL fall under fraud per CCP § 473 and CCP § 1008. This willful blindness on the part of Jones, Nixon and Kaus is further evidence of why they can not serve in this matter as we can not find any justice in his inhumanity.
 Jones, Nixon and Kaus has no respect for the constitutionally guaranteed “impartial and unbiased judicial proceeding” instead advocates the corrupt, morally bankrupt judicial legal strategy to foreclose on plaintiff’s right to a fair and impartial judge for the fraudulent purpose to RAILROADING this case to a speedy spurious end!
 Jones, Nixon and Kaus finds it abhorrent that plaintiff has the nerve to exercise their constitutional rights to demand fairness, impartiality and the proper administration of justice, as required by law, NOT the attempts of the judicial “sleight- of-hand” and tricknology implored by the court.
 As Kaus has expressed in the past, he knows his colleagues in the Appeals Court will cover-up this corruption as his actions entrap and force al-Hakim into the “Writ Racket” to deny and bury any appeals.
Jones, Nixon and Kaus, Superior Court Administration Corruption, Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice
 al-Hakim argues the established, continuing Jones, Nixon and Kaus, Superior Court Administration Corruption; 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 on the Court, Fraud Upon The Court; and Manipulation is an essential element in vacating and voiding any order subject to inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect, or FRAUD (CCP §473(b)); Code Civ. Proc., § 475; and renders the judgment and/or default is void (CCP §473(d)).
 Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the “Court”) does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. The Court is an unbiased, but methodical “creature” which is governed by the Rule of Law… that is, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional law. The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and “just” if it is allowed to function as the laws proscribe. The sad fact is that judges are violating their oath of office and are NOT properly following these rules, are playing a revised legal game with their own created rules and THIS is a Fraud upon the Court, immediately removing jurisdiction from that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective – invalidates) every decision from that point on. Any judge who does such a thing is under mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse himself or herself from the case, and this rarely happens unless someone can force them to do so with the evidence of violations of procedure and threat of losing half their pensions for life which is what can take place. In any case, it is illegal, and EVERY case which has had fraud involved can be re-opened AT ANY TIME, because there is no statutes of limitations on fraud.
 Fraud on the Court, or Fraud upon the Court, is where a material misrepresentation has been made to the court, or by the court itself. The main requirement is that the impartiality of the court has been so disrupted that it can’t perform its tasks without bias or prejudice.
 Some examples of fraud on the court include:

• a. Fraud in the service of court summons (such as withholding a court summons from a party)
• b. Corruption or influence of a court member or official
• c. Judicial fraud
• d. Intentionally failing to inform the parties of necessary appointments or requirements, in efforts to obstruct the judicial process
• e. “Unconscionable” schemes to deceive or make misrepresentations through the court system

 It’s important to note that fraud on the court only involves court officials or officers of the court, such as judges or court-appointed attorneys. The fraud must be directed at the “judicial machinery” itself.
 “Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court as it is also clear and well-settled law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”
 When any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court,”the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
 The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
 Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
 Fraud on the court is limited to fraud that does, or at least attempts to, “defile the court itself,” or that is perpetrated by officers of the court “so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudicating cases.” Moore’s Federal Practice 3d ¶ 60.21[4][a] (3d ed. 2003). Thus, a “fraud on the court” is a fraud designed not simply to cheat an opposing litigant, but to “corrupt the judicial process” or “subvert the integrity of the court.” Oxxford Clothes XX, Inc. v. Expeditors Int’l, Inc., 127 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1997); Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted); Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457, 460 (2d Cir. 1994). It is marked by an “unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decisions,” Dixon v. Commissioner, No. 00-70858, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831, at *11-12 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2003), amending 316 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003), or by “egregious misconduct directed to the court itself.” Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
 Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court.”
Jones, Nixon and Kaus’ Willful Blindness
 As previously presented, this willful blindness on the part of Jones, Nixon and Kaus is further evidence of why they can not serve in this matter as they can not find any justice when their actions are clear examples of negligence, mistake, carelessness as willful blindness since he was aware of the facts, evidence, actions, documents, and testimony in question and deliberately avoided confirming them. The sole way Jones, Nixon and Kaus could not have known about the facts, evidence, actions, documents, and testimony is by avoiding knowledge of it so as NOT to have to rule on them. (U.S. v. Aulicino, 44 F.3d 1102 (2nd Cir. 1995); U.S. v. Tanner, 628 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Svoboda, 347 F.3d 471 (2nd Cir. 2003);US v. Mitrano, 658 F. 3d 117 (1st Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Malewicka, 664 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2011).)
Orders Voidable Under Civ. Code §473
 Code of Civil Procedure section 473 allowing relief from entry of order/judgment are limited to applications made within six months of the date of judgment. Plaintiff cites the well–known case of United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65–66 [25 L.Ed. 93, 95], in which the court said: “. . . ‘Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponents, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or where an attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client’s interest to the other side, —- these and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case;’ such are, in the view of the tribunal, instances of extrinsic fraud.” (Italics added.)
 Plaintiff was kept away from court due to the continuing Superior Court Administration Corruption; 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; and Manipulation.
Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus’s Rulings are Void or Voidable
 Except in very limited circumstances not applicable here, when a judge fails and refuses to answer a Peremptory and Challenges for Cause, a disqualified judge has no power to act in any proceedings after his or her disqualification. (CCP §170.4(c)) Christie v. City of El Centro (App. 4 Dist. 2006) 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 718, 135 Cal.App.4th 767.
 The acts of a judge subject to disqualification are void or, according to some authorities, voidable. (Giometti v. Etienne (1934) 219 Cal. 687, 688-689, 28 P.2d 913 (Giometti); Urias, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at p. 424, 285 Cal.Rptr. 659; Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931, 939-940, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 (Betz).)
 Relief is available to a party who, with due diligence, discovers the grounds for disqualification only after judgment is entered or appeal filed. (Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc. 234 Cal.App.3d 415, 424-425)
 The clearly deceptive practices of Jones, Nixon and Kaus is a slap in the face of the Rule of Law, proving a sham proceeding and bogus orders that flow therefrom are void where Kaus has entered tentative rulings and orders in these cases that are void and voidable upon contesting, which plaintiff will do!
Jones, Nixon and Kaus’s Judicial Imprimatur of Defense’s Case From the Bench
 Clearly from Jones, Nixon and Kaus orders, they are merely continuing the corruption as the other judges has shown they are intemperate and has stepped outside the boundaries of what can be characterized as proper and reflects the judge’s intent to intimidate, taunt, infer, and influence the outcome of this case, and as such, impress on the case his judicial imprimatur of the defense’s position; is retaliatory, punitive and places an intolerable burden on plaintiff.
 Again, they have stooped so low as to “weaponize” the rulings in such a way that plaintiff IS NOT litigating their case against the defendants, they are defending themselves against the assault from the court! Jones, Nixon and Kaus has deputized themselves co-defense counsel in an effort to deny plaintiff any rights to a fair trial. These extrajudicial punitive measures being taken by Jones, Nixon and Kaus is a prime, irrefutable example of EXTREME BIAS AND PREJUDICE AND MISCONDUCT, AMONG OTHERS!!!
 Jones, Nixon and Kaus and other judges have exhibited clear and gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the plaintiffs litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of plaintiff and al-Hakim; portrayed al-Hakim a liar and when they could not prove it they tried to create the lie that in their sole judgment is a lie in order to justify Jones, Nixon and Kaus calling al-Hakim a “liar”; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied plaintiffs and al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim even through third parties; highjacked the hearings with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the Unruh and Bane Acts. These efforts of the judges can qualify as a Hate Crime under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts, while they are clear acts of religious bigotry and intolerance for which plaintiff and al-Hakim will not allow.
 Jones, Nixon and Kaus and other judges have made such a mockery of justice that now these judges do not hesitate to deny or violate your rights and defy you to file a writ knowing that the Appeals Court, Superior Court Administration and the Judicial Council will cover up and white-wash their criminal activity! Plaintiff and al-Hakim had contested their continued sitting in the case and indicated the intent to file an appeal for same. These facts indicate that Jones, Nixon and Kaus’s purported orders was merely a pretext for their decision to independently take it upon themselves to deny plaintiff’s civil right to a fair, impartial judge and in order to deny their civil right to a fair hearing and trial, ALL IN THE ACTION forcing plaintiff into the “WRIT RACKET”! This is NOT having a trial, this is being “railroaded by the court in a case that is ALREADY fixed against you!”
Complaint for Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because He’s Muslim, Black, Whistleblower
 al-Hakim filed a complaint with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, U. S. DOJ Chief Alex Tse, AG Xavier Becerra, District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, Victoria Henley, Chad Finke, Martin Hoshino and OTHERS, to address the very obvious agenda of Grillo and other judges Fixing Cases against me because I am Muslim  and Black, a Whistleblower exposing their criminal corruption; their appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of current defendant, and REFUSING to have a hearing on a date I can attend, yet DEMANDING the hearing be on a date I can NOT attend due to religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for over 30 years!
 Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim opposes ANY and ALL rulings, orders, notes, testimony, or other evidence from Judge Kaus, and judges Grillo Carvill, Markman, Jacobson, Clay, Rolefson, Petrou and Freedman where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these Judges sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528.
 Jones, Nixon and Kaus MUST accept that he has taken a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of California, NOT enact his personal agenda to persecute me and deny my rights under the aforementioned Constitutions!
 Kaus has continuously lied and perjured himself in open court, casting off any remote semblance of honor or integrity that anyone present could respect.
 Jones, Nixon and Kaus and other judges doesn’t accept that” judges should be umpires, NOT PLAYERS”. They have assigned themselves designated hitter and starting pitcher for the defense, while still umpiring the game!
 As we have shown, Kaus attempted to offer to “re-set” the litigation and asks al-Hakim to go forward in trust that he will be fair and impartial.
 That is a lot to ask of someone that has been FORCED to withstand al-Hakim’s “court activities”, in the last 45 years al-Hakim has documented, filed and served court actions, filed and served complaints and filed and served correspondence memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim  and Black, a Whistleblower!; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
 Kaus wants al-Hakim to forget ALL this and TRUST him???!! As president Reagan said “trust, but verify!”
March 1, 2018, Letter Complaint to Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Grillo, Markham and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Victoria Henley, Mr. Chad Finke, and Mr. Martin Hoshino
 On March 1, 2018, al-Hakim sent a three page letter complaint as follows:

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Grillo, Markham and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Victoria Henley, Mr. Chad Finke, and Mr. Martin 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.    Just yesterday I had a hearing before Judge Grillo in the al-Hakim v. EBMUD and totally out of the dark, he also calls the al-Hakim v. AT&T Inc case that was NOT on the calendar!I was shocked because there was NEVER any notice of the proceeding to the parties which is probably why the defendants did not appear and did NOT contest the tentative ruling none of us knew about!    How does this continue to happen on a bi-weekly basis in this court?    He blatantly perjured himself in open court to the extent I was embarrassed for him!    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-Hakim510-394-4501ajalil1234@gmail.com

68 Constitutional Violations of Plaintiff’s Rights
 al-Hakim has previously demonstrated criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Judges Freedman, Petrou, and Grillo in their 68 Constitutional Violations of plaintiff al-Hakim’s rights, which plaintiff will NOT waive, as the reason for the delay in the case that has made it Impossible, Impracticable, and Futile to Proceed.
 Grillo’s or anyone else’s “protracted and unexplained delay in prosecution” argument is mindless as there is no reason greater than plaintiff’s basic right to pursue litigation at all, where Freedman, Petrou, and Grillo have denied plaintiff’s civil rights and due process, an equal opportunity to participate in unbiased pursuit of his legal claims as if these are still the dark days of american history when Black people had no rights at all!; This is the reason for the delay in the case that Grillo and the judges before has made it Impossible, Impracticable, and Futile to Proceed.
al-Hakim’s Complaint for Fixing Cases against him because He’s Muslim, Black,Whistleblower
 As a DIRECT result of the criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Freedman, Petrou, and Grillo in their 68 Constitutional Violations of plaintiff’s rights, which plaintiff will NOT waive, this is the reason for the delay in the case that has made it Impossible, Impracticable, and Futile to Proceed, al-Hakim complained of the harassment he continues to experience and the courts retaliation against plaintiff by harassing him and taking adverse judicial actions against him, in major part because he reported the very obvious agenda of Grillo and other judges Fixing Cases against him because he is Muslim  and Black, a Whistleblower exposing their criminal corruption; their appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, islamophobia, xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism.
 Plaintiff filed an action that is a simple matter of the EBMUD water main collapsing and causing over $1.5 million dollars damage to his home, business and personal property with over $900,000 damage to the foundation and exterior grounds of the home, wherein they have accepted their fault and liability in this matter yet he is being FORCED to walk away from the suit because he WILL NOT FOREGO HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL???!!!
 THIS WAS al-Hakim’s action that is being stymied by Kaus and the previous judges adopting Freedman’s racist, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, hate induced agenda (Freedman made comments in open court regarding al-Hakim being Muslim at a hearing!) to deny al-Hakim his human and civil rights, and due process under the law. al-Hakim does not feel that the process of having to exhaust his rights to a fair and impartial hearing should be used up on peremptory challenges nor challenges for cause of judges that are tainted and conflicted in these matters due to their previous involvement, i.e., Judges Carvill, Jacobson, Rolefson, Grillo, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels!
The “Good White Way”, White Class Privilege
 Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others is guilty of clear and gross white class and white privileged bias, prejudice, religious hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda and racism with the practice of the “Good White Way”.
 This is an old practice affirming that a Black person is guilty of a crime BEFORE he knows there ever was a crime, that he could NOT have possible committed and harkens back to a time when lynching was the law!
 In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
 This fact is live and well in this motion as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!
 Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, employ the “Good White Way” through reward and cover up the crimes for the “good white man”, reward and cover up the crimes for the “good white woman” who is a friend and co-worker, and victimize the poor black victim with the loss of his money, property, and life!
 They enjoy financial gains while flaunting their impunity from prosecution in the culture of Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, the “Courtel”, to covered up these criminal activities of each other! They offer NO attempt at even alluding to any transparent action being taken, quite the contrary, it totally avoids holding anyone accountable, even pending this charade of an “investigation”. THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, DISCIPLINARY ACTION MUST BE TAKEN ON THE RECORD!
 Times have changed dramatically from the days when corruption, specially government enforced corruption, could be “covered-up and hushed-up”, in this new-world of open government, whistleblowers, activist, and demands of accountability are celebrated! You can’t get away with it!!
al-Hakim’s Complaints for Fixing Cases against him because He’s Muslim, Black, Whistleblower
 al-Hakim is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower has engaged in constitutionally protected speech, namely, holding and expressing viewpoints exposing corruption by defendants and their retaliating actions due to plaintiffs race, religion, whistleblowing activities, white class and privileged bias, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, prejudice, favoritism, bigotry and racism; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the opposing parties litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of al-Hakim; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim even through third parties; highjacked the hearings with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the rights guaranteed by U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV, Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts, and the Bane Acts.
 By treating al-Hakim differently from similarly situated people, organizations, and members of the public because they are Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower exposing corruption by defendants and because of their beliefs, among other things, Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration, acting under color of state law and according to policy and practice, have engaged in actions that retaliate against al-Hakim for holding and expressing disfavored views, and in so retaliating, have engaged in conduct that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected speech activity.
 al-Hakim’ actions in holding and expressing disfavored views was a substantial and motivating factor in Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration’ retaliation against them by imposing unlawful restrictions on Plaintiff and al-Hakim’s Federal civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment, causing Plaintiff and al-Hakim to suffer and continue in the future to suffer irreparable injury that cannot be fully compensated by an award of monetary damages.
Case of fairness to Plaintiff and al-Hakim Maintaining Respect for Law and Promoting Confidence in the Administration of Justice
 The principle involved in this case is not merely one of fairness to plaintiff and 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, Judges Jones, Nixon, and Kaus have been the moving force in the transfer of this case from the assigned judge and where they have had and made ex-parte communications and statements which are adverse to a parties interest. Due process requires that this matter be heard by a new judge.
 The record discloses, however, that al-Hakim at no time engaged in the kind of personal attack on the judge that, regardless of their reaction or lack of it, he would be unlikely “to maintain that calm detachment necessary for fair adjudication.” (Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, supra, 400 U.S. at p. 465 [27 L.Ed.2d at p. 540]; Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at p. 501 [41 L.Ed.2d at p. 909].) In Taylor v. Hayes, supra, however, it was held that “contemptuous conduct, though short of personal attack, may still provoke a trial judge and so embroil him in controversy that he cannot ‘hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused ….’ Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927).” The court stated that “In making this ultimate judgment, the inquiry must be not only whether there was actual bias on respondent’s part, but also whether there was ‘such a likelihood of bias or an appearance of bias that the judge was unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of the accused.’Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 588 (1964). ‘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 due process of law requires no less. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955).” (418 U.S. at p. 501 [41 L.Ed.2d at p. 909].) We note that in Taylor v. Hayes it was not petitioner’s conduct, considered alone, that required recusal; rather, the critical factor was the character of respondent’s response to misbehavior during the course of the trial. (418 U.S. at p. 503, fn. 10 [41 L.Ed.2d at p. 910].)
 Plaintiff is also concerned and:
1) opposes ANY and ALL rulings, orders, notes, testimony, or other evidence from Judges Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, charges and has shown that previously, under color of law, Judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, the other judges, court administration and the clerk’s sought to deprive plaintiff and al-Hakim of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution while aiding their unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains. In so doing Judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s acted with malicious intent to favor opposing litigants and the court by unlawful exercise of discretion. Judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s conduct, possibly by agreement or conspiracy between these parties in violation of 18 U.S.C. §241, constituted an egregious crime within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §242, quoted below.
2) Plaintiff and al-Hakim further charge and has shown that this conduct on behalf of Judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s part constituted, beyond reasonable doubt, a clear, direct, intentional, knowing, and premeditated violation of 18 U.S.C. §242, which states as follows:
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
3) Plaintiff and al-Hakim, proclaims that Judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s is irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and  prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action.
 The U. S. Attorney General General has ordered that this matter be investigated and ALL the parties and has refused, and engaged now the courts attempt to cover up their transgressions when they are exposed for being guilty of willful corrupt misconduct, they refused to acknowledged al-Hakim’s memorandum filled with the courts abuses by judges referenced herein, 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 plaintiff’s and al-Hakim Family’s rights under the United States and California State Constitution.
 Plaintiff and al-Hakim, states that Judges Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s purported to exercise their authority at hearings in which they violated plaintiff’s civil rights, has admittedly acting with personal interest in the outcome under the color of law 18 USC §242. The Judges willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability she would continue her unethical behavior if she were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future. That judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, before whom the hearing aforesaid action was pending is prejudiced against the party or the interest of the party so that affiant cannot or believes that they cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before these judges. Plaintiff and al-Hakim request and have a standing objection to ANY involvement of Judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus in this and ANY other matter.
Kaus’s Assignment Violate Canons 2 and 3 of the California Code of Judicial Conduct
 Judge Kaus’s assignment to this case coupled with judge Jones and Nixon’s actions 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.
 “‘When the record clearly demonstrates what the trial court did, we will not presume it did something different’… we are confident that if that is what Judge Golden meant, he knew how to say it.”  (Paterno v. State of California (2003) Cal.App.4th)  There is a clear pattern of discriminatory conduct, which Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus are attempting to cover up this conduct, which have no basis in fact or law.
Violating Tenant of Fairness
 There is no question that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus are violating this tenant of fairness as there are also grounds for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085; on the ground of misconduct, prejudicial misconduct, bias, and prejudice in violations of Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.0-170.5; specifically 170, subd. (a)(5); 170, subd. (e); 170.1, subdivision (a)(2); 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(C); 170.3, subd. (c)(1); 170.3, subd. (c)(5); 170.3, subd. (d); 170.l(a)(6), §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8) and 3C( a corresponding Federal Statute, 28 United States Code section 455(a) adopted by Congress in 1974); Business and Professions Code sections 6068, subdivisions (b) and (f), 6103 and 6106 and former rule 7-105(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 8, 18; see Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3D(1).); and violates al-Hakim’s fundamental civil rights and due process under the law guaranteed by the United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, and XIV, and as applicable to this state of California Constitution by the first clause of Section 13 of Article I; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3).
Judge Kaus’s presence in this case, with Judges Jones and Nixon involvement summarily denies plaintiff’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing their rulings and places an intolerable burden on them, denying their legitimate and undeniable rights and strikes at the heart of his fundamental civil rights and due process under the law, guaranteed by the United States Constitution and California Constitution. No statute in California authorizes the court to deny a right that is uncontroverted while in the process denying such precious fundamental rights of due process and justice. The use of judicial power to permit such injustice raises significant legal questions, and an order denying the motion to dismiss from this Court is necessary to prevent this continued abuse.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 6068 Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus’ Moral Turpitude
 Section 6068 obliges a judge and attorney to “support the Constitution and laws” (subd. (a)) and “maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers” (subd. (b)). Under section 6106, “any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, . . . constitutes a cause for [a lawyer’s] disbarment or suspension.” (Italics added.) The courts conclude that, under certain circumstances, an attorney’s disobedience, even when he acts in a nonprofessional or personal capacity, violates section 6068, subdivisions (a) and (b), and constitutes “moral turpitude” within the meaning of section 6106.
 Multiple acts of misconduct involving moral turpitude and dishonesty warrant disbarment. (See std. 2.3, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, div. V, Rules Proc. of State Bar; compare Dixon v. State Bar (1982) 32 Cal.3d 728, 739, 740 [187 Cal.Rptr. 30, 653 P.2d 321].) Patton’s pattern of serious, recurrent misconduct is a factor in aggravation. ( Garlow v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 689, 711 [244 Cal.Rptr. 452, 749 P.2d 1307].)
 It is evident that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus has no appreciation for the fair, just and proper administration of justice, nor equity under the law and is totally at odds with the judicial and legal professional standards of this state and country. Disqualification as a judge and disbarment as an attorney would thus be necessary to protect the public, and preserve confidence in the profession, and maintain high professional standards. ( Ainsworth v. State Bar (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1218, 1235 [252 Cal.Rptr. 267, 762 P.2d 431].)
 Dishonest acts in court are a basic violation of a judge or attorney’s role, oath, and duties. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subds. (a), (b), (d); State Bar Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 7-105.) We have condemned such conduct in the strongest terms. (E.g., Davis v. State Bar (1983) 33 Cal.3d 231, 239-240 [188 Cal. Rptr. 441, 655 P.2d 1276]; Olguin v. State Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 195, 199-200 [167 Cal. Rptr. 876, 616 P.2d 858].)
The Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct
 In the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Although these canons do not have the force of law or regulation, “they reflect a judicial consensus regarding appropriate behavior” for California judges. ( Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 826, 838, fn. 6 [264 Cal. Rptr. 100, 782 P.2d 239, 89 A.L.R.4th 235]; see Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 707, fn. 22 [122 Cal. Rptr. 778, 537 P.2d 898].) The failure of a judge to comply with the canons “suggests performance below the minimum level necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.” ( Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 49 Cal. 3d at p. 838, fn. 6.)
 An impartial and independent judiciary is indispensable to our legal system. Of equal importance is public confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary, because the effective functioning of our legal system is dependent upon the public’s willingness to accept the judgments and rulings of the courts. (Cal. Code Jud. Conduct, com. to canon 1.) Plaintiff argues that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus’s conduct and actions described herein violate Cannons 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8), 3C, 3D(1), 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2), 4, 4D(1) and 4(E) and the court can not allow this type of willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (moral turpitude, corruption, and dishonesty) that brings the judicial office into disrepute. (Art. VI, § 18, subd. (c).)
 The responsibility existed under the Code of Judicial Ethics Rule 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2) and 4D(1) for Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus to tell the County Court about the facts of 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. 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 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 Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus, the County has committed obstruction of justice. Now when the County knows that they committed these illegal acts and the Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus knows that they committed these illegal acts, the two of them together have committed obstruction of justice and they have precluded plaintiff, 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 plaintiff a fair hearing. 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 hearing. 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 plaintiff and al-Hakim really can’t find out about and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what this 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 plaintiff 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 Kaus and Jones 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 plaintiff, 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 Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus 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.
Attacks al-Hakim in Open Court
 As shown herein, Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s committed prejudicial misconduct by expressing prejudgment of plaintiff and al-Hakim’s credibility. Indeed, Kaus and Freedman made statements in open court, not simply to fulfill some ethical or judicial duty but to demean, embarrass and humiliate al-Hakim. Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s must acknowledge that by disclosing their bias against al-Hakim and their 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”].)
Contempt
 Viewing these matters in their entirety, one will conclude that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s behavior in this matter.” constituted prejudicial misconduct. (See Dodds, supra, 12 Cal. 4th at p. 176 [judge committed prejudicial misconduct by “interrupting and yelling loudly and angrily at counsel and a litigant”]; Wenger, supra, 29 Cal. 3d at p. 629 [judge entitled to take remedial steps in response to counsel’s intemperate language committed willful misconduct by misusing contempt power]; Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 706 [122 Cal. Rptr. 778, 537 P.2d 898] [judge improperly used punitive action as first, rather than last, “means of controlling proceedings”].)
Atmosphere of Unfairness and Contempt Charge
 It must be stipulated that Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s fraud violated canons 1, 2A, and 2B(2), and constituted prejudicial misconduct at the very least. Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s treated al-Hakim in a manner in violation of canons 1, 2A, and 3B(4).  Their actions and improper references of plaintiff and al-Hakim reflected a prejudgment of him and a lack of impartiality, contrary to canon 3B(5).  Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, abusive conduct must draw harsh criticism from the Court of Appeal in this decisions arising out of these charges of the “atmosphere of unfairness” created by the judge’s denial of plaintiff’s civil rights, right to due process, biased administration of justice, erroneous rulings, lies, deception, threats, retaliation, and caustic, condescending remarks of the plaintiff and al-Hakim. (People v. Urias (July 31, 2006, G035179 [2006 WL 2128631] [nonpub. opn.]).)
Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus Deceit Under The Color of Law and Authority In Violation Of The Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts
 Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus adopting and invoking the courts modus operandi and agenda has threatened plaintiff and al-Hakim in their effort to slaughter plaintiff and al-Hakim’s character, integrity, reputation and persona, 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 Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s can claim to be unbiased and impartial.
 Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus would be exhibiting clear and gross examples of bias, prejudice, favoritism, bigotry and racism; advocated imprimaturs of the plaintiffs litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of plaintiff and al-Hakim; portrayed plaintiff and al-Hakim as disruptive and when they could not prove it they tried to create the disruption; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding plaintiff and 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 Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s 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 plaintiff and al-Hakim will not allow.
 Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s have made knowingly false statements; 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 plaintiff and al-Hakim; displayed favoritism towards the plaintiff’s; made false accusations; harassed plaintiff and al-Hakim; has willfully, deceitfully and recklessly indulged in a series of offensive acts and statements against plaintiff and al-Hakim and has displayed disdain, malice, and a mental attitude or disposition toward plaintiff and 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). Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s persistent willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, promised retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability she would continue her unethical behavior if she were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future violates and strikes at the heart of plaintiff and 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). Plaintiff and al-Hakim are convinced that a fair and impartial trial could not be had before this judge now or in the future! Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus are incompetent, has no respect for justice, is morally bankrupt, and she will offend again.
Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus are Tainted With Inadmissible Evidence and are Disqualified   
 California law requires that a judge be honest, unbiased and competent. Plaintiff has presented evidence that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus are not impartial, unbiased, nor therefore competent and does not meet any of these requirements. Additionally, they are tainted, lack disinterestedness, are biased and prejudiced as plaintiff has informed Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus of the many transgressions of the respective judges, court administration, and clerks in this case, the defendants, and defense counsels and as a matter of law Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus cannot be impartial due to this information.
 Plaintiff’s direct charges to Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus, court administration, and clerks exposed, corrupted and impregnated Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus by the interjecting and introduction of illegal, inadmissible, irrelevant and prejudicial evidence in the complaints, the pleadings, and obvious ex-parte communications even through a third party that will improperly influence Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus and they can not expect to be unblemished, to serve as a disinterested third party, fair, impartial and without bias after this exposure. Again, plaintiff’s opposing litigants, knowing that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus will retaliate against plaintiff and al-Hakim, want to retain Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus in their continuing effort to curry the courts favor, to seek and establish an illegal, unfair advantage, thus further establishing this need for Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus to recuse from this case.
 It is beyond dispute that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus has personal knowledge of evidentiary facts crucial to this complaint and must be disqualified.  (Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1(a)(1) [mandatory disqualification of judge who has personal knowledge of evidentiary facts]; Catchpole v. Brannon (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 237, 249-253 [advocacy for a party is judicial misconduct]
 These conflicts are a direct pecuniary interest and clear evidence which casts considerable doubt on Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus’s ability to act impartially and that they can never be allowed to be considered as the judge now. Plaintiff’s uncontradicted evidence on this point is more than ample to satisfy the “impression of possible bias” test. ( Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 919, 924 [20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834] and decisions cited.)
 Knowing this makes it very difficult for any objective person to contemplate how Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus can serve in this matter and smacks of collusion and corruption! As a matter of law, if Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus does not recuse themselves, plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order disqualifying Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus from acting as the judge in this matter rather than proceeding to trial in a matter that would surely be appealed and be vacated. Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus will surely fail to admit or deny plaintiff’s allegations as required by § 170.3, subd. (c)(3). Plaintiff request that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus recuse themselves in the interest of justice as per Code of Civil Procedure §170.1(a)(6)(A), and (B) in violation of the law and/or must be disqualified.
Plaintiff and al-Hakim were NOT aware that there was any finding of GUILT in the matter of Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. C-81137 herein Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, was deemed a vexatious litigant by Alameda County Superior Court.
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD
 IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND PROVEN THAT THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER, IF TRUE, WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, AND CORRUPTION BY THE VERY SAME ENTITIES DEFENDANTS REFERENCES IN THIER PLEADING!
 AS ADMITTED AND SHOWN JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE PUBLISHED THEY HAD AN ORDER DECLARING AL-HAKIM A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT THAT DID NOT EXIST!
 THEY DECLARED THEIR COLLECTIVE INTENT, THIS GAVE RISE TO THEIR MOTIVE, AND THEY CREATED THEIR OPPORTUNITY!
 On March 19, 2018, MORE THAN 16 MONTHS EARLIER THAN THE ALLEGED ORDER, al-Hakim received a notice/order of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” by JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE by the Alameda County Superior Court order on June 11, 2019, YET IT HAS NEVER SERVED! (see order as Exh. A).
 This alleged vexatious litigant order was taken as a crime, the parties JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE committed with “malice aforethought,” as the crime was premeditated, and the perpetrators held malice for the victim al-Hakim. AS PROVEN MY THEIR ORDER issued on June 11, 2019, there clearly was malice aforethought that is defined as a crime being planned in advance, with the intention to kill or grievously harm another individual, al-Hakim. This is proof of JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE malice aforethought as a requirement to convict someone of first-degree murder!
 They, JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE clearly established intention to commit a crime without just cause or provocation, specifically in this cases involving exposing their collective first-degree murder of the al-Hakim’s HUMAN and CIVIL RIGHTS, further exposes the COURTEL AND SHADOW COURTS full blown attack of the al-Hakim family! THIS IS AN EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT OF AN ONGOING TARGETED ATTEMPT TO DESTROY- EVEN KILL, A FAMILY HERE IN AMERICA- REAL LIVES, IN REAL LIFE, RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES, IN REAL TIME with expressed Malice or a “depraved” or “malignant” heart with the “Intent to kill”, mens rea!
 THEY ENGAGED IN FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, JUDICIAL/LEGAL GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION exposing these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing legal parties; assuring the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, enacting government sponsored terror, with the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
 COURTEL Command to activate and commence the TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY action to their Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court Corruptocrats and Kleptocrats in the Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Scheme and Litigation Strategy in their “Shadow Court” Operation.
 Judges Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke issued an order that claimed they had a prior order which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant. We have asked for that order and ALL have remained silent and claim not to be responsible for it, yet it is in an ORDER FROM THE COURT!
 al-Hakim is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges Defendants, with and through their counsel, has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise “Good White Way” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else! (see “Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke Vexatious Litigant Strategy Fraud on th Court”, Challenge for Cause of Judge Kaus filed December 4, 2018, at Page 24-27)
 Alameda County Superior Court allegedly issued this order on June 11, 2019, YET HAVE NEVER SERVED IT ON AL-HAKIM. PERHAPS EVEN MORE INEXPLICABLE, on March 19, 2018, al-Hakim received a notice of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” and a court motion pending for an alleged Vexatious Litigant proceeding.
 al-Hakim couldn’t tell from the signature who endorsed the denied waiver but it may be judge Carvill or Chad Finke because the judge in the case, C. Don Clay said he didn’t know anything about!
 Neither Carvill nor Finke EVER admitted it was them who issued the alleged “order”.
 I have NEVER been deemed as such, NEVER received any such notice and was unaware of this pending alleged process which needless to say was without ANY merit!
 We repeatedly asked “Who filed this alleged motion, when, and what proof of service have they filed?” and “When is this motion being heard, in what department and by whom?”.
  We requested ANSWERS to “What prior orders does the court have regarding that case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on the case when NOTHING had been filed in that case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants defaulted on?”
 That was admittedly a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on al-Hakim’s litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in his cases.
 How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So are we to understand that YOUR system is guilty before a hearing on this meritless motion is even heard?
 Is that NOT a major violation of the Constitution and my basic civil right to innocence before PROVEN guilty??!!!
Given the above, we Demand Removal and Censure of Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and presiding Judge Thomas Nixon for for cause pursuant to California CCP §170.6 and under CCP §§170.1-5 et. seq.; CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)), (CCP § 170.3 (c) (1)), the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8), 3C, 3D(1), 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2), 4, 4D(1) and 4(E); Due to Criminal Conduct in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §242; Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§182, subd. (a)(5); Fraud On The Court- Federal Code 60; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 60, § 47, § 4541, § 425.16, § 355, 356, 473, 475, § 3523, § 3528 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180; 1st, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment U. S. Constitution; California Constitution by the first clause of Article I, section 13;  Article VI, section 4 1/2; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3)
Respectfully submitted August 12, 2025, at Oakland, CA
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim

——– Message ——–

Subject:	PRESIDING JUDGE REFUSES TO SERVE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED; PROOF Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice; PROOF KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance
Date:	Wed, 30 Jul 2025 21:19:56 -0700
From:	A. J. <ajalil1234@gmail.com>

    As you ALL are aware, on July 8, 2025, we filed a Declaration in the matter of Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. C-81137 wherein Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, was allegedly deemed a vexatious litigant by Alameda County Superior Court.    I CALLED Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon’s OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES, LEFT VOICEMAIL MESSAGES AND DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE!    I then filed the Declaration and served a copy on Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon the same hour, establishing that THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON ME AND REQUESTED THAT IT BE SERVED SO I COULD PROPERLY RESPOND TO IT.
    ON AT LEAST TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS I WAS CONFRONTED BY PEOPLE THAT ARE KNOWN TO ME AS “SNITCHES”- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS, GOVERNMENT ASSETS, STATING THAT THEY HAD “LOTS” OF MAIL ADDRESSED TO ME AND MOST OF IT WAS FROM THE COURT. THERE WAS A THIRD PERSON OF SIMILAR ILK THAT STATED THEY WERE BEING COERCED TO BE COMPLICIT IN THE “SNITCH” ACTIVITIES OF ONE OF THE OTHERS.
That was THREE (3) weeks ago and as of today, July 31, 2025, Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon has FAILED AND REFUSED TO serve the order on al-Hakim! WHY??!!
    Nixon is obstructing justice in furtherance of the OVERT/COVERT ADMITTED ACTIONS of FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, AND CORRUPTION ON THE PARTS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!    I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY!!

Respectfully submitted,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff

——– Message ——–

Subject:	VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (CCP 391 (B)(3))) ORDER THAT WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED; PROOF Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice; PROOF KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance
Date:	Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:02:06 -0700
From:	A. J. <ajalil1234@gmail.com>
Reply-To:	ajalil1234@gmail.com
To:	Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov, Marsha.Slough@jud.ca.gov, rbmoises@cjp.ca.gov, charlenedrummer@hotmail.com, coletteabrooks@aol.com, Gregory.Dresser@cjp.ca.gov, GPDresser@cjp.ca.gov, Shawn.Spaulding@cjp.ca.gov, SRSpaulding@cjp.ca.gov, Anne.Hunter@cjp.ca.gov, AMHunter@cjp.ca.gov, mark.lizarraga@cjp.ca.gov, Sonya.smith@cjp.ca.gov, SRsmith@cjp.ca.gov, Emma.Bradford@cjp.ca.gov, mani@sheiklaw.us, rivie@imwlaw.com, rachel@hillmediationservices.com, gnelson@nflawfirm.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, michelle.Curran@jud.ca.gov, robert.Oyung@jud.ca.gov, salena.Chow@jud.ca.gov, Deborah.Brown@jud.ca.gov, Laura.Speed@jud.ca.gov, Deborah.Collier-Tucker@jud.ca.gov, Chio.Saephanh@jud.ca.gov, Heather.Resetarits@jud.ca.gov, Cristina.Resendiz-Johnson@jud.ca.gov, Elizabeth.Tam-Helmuth@jud.ca.gov, amanda.Morris@jud.ca.gov, AccessFairnessComm@jud.ca.gov, civilandsmallclaims@jud.ca.gov, malcumbrac@nemecek-cole.com, pbrownmcgill@pbmlawoffices.com, pdeedon@maire-law.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, crice@dlunited.org, elise@aswtlawyers.com, jt@thigpenlegal.com, saul.bercovitch@calawyers.org, elizabeth.Tam-Helmuth@jud.ca.gov, amanda.Morris@jud.ca.gov, AccessFairnessComm@jud.ca.gov, civilandsmallclaims@jud.ca.gov, malcumbrac@nemecek-cole.com, pbrownmcgill@pbmlawoffices.com, pdeedon@maire-law.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, crice@dlunited.org, elise@aswtlawyers.com, jt@thigpenlegal.com, saul.bercovitch@calawyers.org, jenny.Grantz@jud.ca.gov, collabjusticecomm@jud.ca.gov, Dana.Cruz@jud.ca.gov, Deanna.adams@jud.ca.gov, Carrie.Zoller@jud.ca.gov, CLAC@jud.ca.gov, jenny.wald@jud.ca.gov, bruce.greenlee@jud.ca.gov, kerry.doyle@jud.ca.gov, douglas.denton@jud.ca.gov, sarah.Fleischer-Ihn@jud.ca.gov, Jamie.Schechter@jud.ca.gov, camilla.kieliger@jud.ca.gov, james.barolo@jud.ca.gov, anne.ronan@jud.ca.gov, marsha.Slough@jud.ca.gov, susan.mcmullan@jud.ca.gov, douglasp.miller@jud.ca.gov, sarah.Fleischer-Ihn@jud.ca.gov, anne.ronan@jud.ca.gov, corby.sturges@jud.ca.gov, jenny.grantz@jud.ca.gov, jason.Haas@jud.ca.gov, donna.Newman@jud.ca.gov, jennifer.chappelle@jud.ca.gov, marsha.slough@jud.ca.gov, chris.Belloli@jud.ca.gov, corey.Rada@jud.ca.gov, davidakaiser@earthlink.net, info@caljudges.org, dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov, BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov, cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov, SHing@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MGaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept711@alameda.courts.ca.gov, Dept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov

sent via: U. S. Mail, Fax, and email                                  
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     July 8, 2025
NO. PAGES: 12
TO THOMAS NIXON, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT

ABDUL-JALIL AL-HAKIM DECLARATION/STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO JUDGE JEFF BRAND ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (CCP 391 (B)(3) ORDER THAT WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT FOR FILING CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 AND 170.3; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED. I HAVE CALLED YOUR OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES, LEFT VOICEMAIL MESSAGES AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE!

   THE OATH OF OFFICE
I, ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

“Judicial challenges themselves are not, however, evidence a want or delay of prosecution. A party is entitled to challenge a judicial officer for cause or bias.” “The challenges appear to be filed in an earnest belief that the judges of this Court ought to be disqualified from deciding this case and that each successive challenge will overcome the prior’s shortcomings.””the Court hopes and encourages both parties to take this new judicial assignment as a good time to wipe the slate clean, forgive any earlier acrimony, and proceed to resolve and adjudicate the claims raised by the Complaint in normal order and good faith. Al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated.” “Both parties deserve the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law. In short, this case deserves a chance to proceed on its merits, and now is an opportune time as any to do so.”

Judge Stephen Kaus, Tentative Ruling made September 11, 2018.
Judge Kaus admits to the courts acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law!

        Plaintiff and al-Hakim were NOT aware that there was any finding of GUILT in the matter of Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. C-81137 herein Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, was deemed a vexatious litigant by Alameda County Superior Court.
    As the CEO of Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation we filed an action against Defendants State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Claims and State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Appraisal Team or any of its employees or representatives including but not limited to Mary Weaver, Gary O’Donnell, Madison Ritter, Kaitlin Hampe, Samantha B, Kendra Behrens, Victor Walker, “Neg”, Karena Kelly-Guishard, Lexie Figueroa; Alex Anneker Insurance Agency, and Alex Anneker; Alacrity Solutions, LLC, and employees Jim Pearl, John Hall, Matt Fatheree, Rob Beller; Snapsheet and employees Brad Weisberg, Andy Cohen, Dan Colomb, Brad Weisberg, Jennifer Fagan, Jesse Perrotta, Alexia Bustamante; Up North Towing and Matthew; Blue Star Towing; Shah Sons LLC DBA- East Bay Auto Center, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Nomi Khan, and their Investors; and Does 1 through 200, inclusive.
    It is entitled as same and given Case No: 25CV108981, with a hearing set for July 23, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. at the René C. Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612, in Department 19, before Judge Joscelyn Jones.
    I recently became aware of the alleged order when Defendants filed a Motion for An Order for Dismissal for Failing to Timely Obtain a Prefiling Order within Ten (10) Days of the Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order. per  CCP section 391.7(c).
    Co-Defendants State Farm and Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (“Alacrity”) have alleged they both filed Notices that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order as State Farm filed theirs on April 2, 2025, and Alacrity filed its on April 17, 2025. The Notices of Vexatious Litigant automatically stayed this case and required the Foundation to obtain a prefiling order from the presiding judge of this court within ten (10) days of the filings.
    BOTH CO-DEFENDANTS STATE FARM AND ALACRITY HAVE FAILED AND REFUSED TO SERVE SAID NOTICES ON AARON & MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION (AMWF.)
    We filed our Opposition and Cross‐Motion for Filing this Frivolous or Dilatory motion with Monetary Sanctions against Defendants and their counsels under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5, 128.7, and 391.7(f) on July 3, 2025.
    When I /WE filed the opposition, the clerk said she could NOT find the case by the number nor name. I insisted that both were right and after 5 minutes she asked “it’s NOT al-Hakim?”. I said “NO, it’s the Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.” She repeated her question and I again insisted that it was correct.
    The I to had to sit at the clerks desk for another 20 minutes while she was communicating with someone on the computer regarding the case, typing all the time.
    It was clear that the Defendants actions had succeeded in getting the case title changed to reflect MY name rather than the 68 YEAR OLD, WORLD RENOWNED FOUNDATION!

“SNITCHES” HAD AL-HAKIM MAIL, ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER NEVER SERVED
    From February 2019 when my family, our businesses, and I was illegally forced from our home of over 40 years WITH TWO DAYS NOTICE, due to the continuing fraud of the “COURTEL” and “SHADOW COURT” with judges Jeff Brand, Kim Cowell, Wynne Carvill, Robert Freedman, Frank Roesch, C. Don Clay, court administrator Chad Finke and others in the appeals court, we were ALL homeless!
    I had a very meager form of communication until May 2019 when I lost the remaining support I had for even that!
    From that time I never received any communications from the courts even though I filed change of addresses with the court master file and each department that I had a case in including the State and Federal Appeals courts.
    However, on at least two separate occasions I was confronted by two people that are known to me as “snitches”- confidential informants, government assets, stating that they had “lots” of mail addressed to me and most of it was from the court. There was a third person of similar ilk that stated they were being coerced to be complicit in the “snitch” activities of one of the others, and that they felt/knew there was government involvement! I will elaborate more in the actual “Request to be Removed from the Vexatious Litigant list.
    I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY!
    The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Abdul-Jalil HAVE LIVED THE EXPERIENCE OF THE “COURTEL” and “SHADOW COURT” and the alleged order of being deemed a vexatious litigant by the Alameda County Superior Court order on June 11, 2019, YET IT HAS NEVER SERVED AND MORE INEXPLICABLE, on March 19, 2018, MORE THAN 16 MONTHS EARLIER THAN THE ALLEGED ORDER, al-Hakim received a notice/order of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant”! (see Exh. A)
    THE “COURTEL”, this Black Robed Society Conceived in Sin, Born of Corruption, Covered Up with Collusion, protected by the System itself- the COURTEL! A litany of Law Lords, Demonically Dealing Decisions for Dominance, DOLLAR$!
    This Judicial Cult of Immoral Dishonor, this “COURTEL”, with no accountability grievously disintegrates in “a monumentally moral descent into the very exclusive JUDGES CHAMBERS in HELL for Criminal Justices who swear others to GOD but themselves are sworn to Judicial Purgatory as Satan’s Slaves!” They want the WORLD to believe they are GOD’S vicegerents on earth and pledge allegiance to THEM- then GOD, to honor their dishonor, to gracefully ignore their disgrace, to hold them in reverence ABOVE GOD while they do the Devils work!!
    THEY ENGAGED IN FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, JUDICIAL/LEGAL GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION exposing these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing legal parties; assuring the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, enacting government sponsored terror, with the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
    This Defendants Motion is frivolous and was filed for an improper purpose— aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise the court as their “butt puppet” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
    Defendants push the COURTEL Command to activate and commence the TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY action to their Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court Corruptocrats and Kleptocrats in the Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Scheme and Litigation Strategy in their “Shadow Court” Operation.
    The concept and reality of this “Shadow Court” raises concerns about the rule of law, fairness, and the protection of individual rights within the legal system.
    The COURTEL “Shadow Court” is the legal, court or judicial system that operates outside the official legal framework or established judicial system that has several interpretations depending on the factors and context including:
Informal or Extrajudicial Courts: Shadow courts refer to “formal and extrajudicial” bodies of unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities engaged in GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION that furtively create, provoke, and frame aggrieved civil and criminal disputes to illegally administer justice without constitutional authority as one of their tactics in their TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY for these parties to advance their “COURTEL” Campaign of JUDICIAL CORRUPTION against a TARGETED PARTY. The objective of the “shadow court” is to facilitate the COURTEL’s continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy with “Target, Engagement, Harassment, Provocation, Litigation” tactics is designed to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGETED PARTY, their family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially in the shadow courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives. The very nature and inherent structure/operation of this Civil/Criminal Entrapment Sting and Litigation Strategy- actively employs the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court systems at ALL levels (Judges are Politicians= elected officials by the Public, to serve the public) makes it diabolically impossible to journey from the Constitution to the Institution “Of The People, For The People, By The People!” that places them in this evil “criminal and civil rights/litigation meat grinder”. The parties are Governmental and Quasi-governmental employees, agents, entities, associates, members, and contractors of their companies, the U. S. Federal Government, State of California, County, and City agencies, among others, have engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act. Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance by and with unethical and criminal means, instigated and encouraged said acts, which gives rise to fraudulent, corruption as they conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived, employed and enacted the criminal, tactical, torture inspired policy of TARGETED HATE CRIME, Terror, Civil Conspiracy, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced Bigotry, Vindictive Retaliation, Oppression, Harassment, Racism, Discrimination, Bias, Prejudice, Unfairness, Persecution, AND GRAND CORRUPTION, victimization, inciting acrimony, animus, in the continued persecution with calumny deceit and the attempted entrapment of us as the continuing “TARGET”. These parties ADMITTEDLY engage in corruption and conspiracy, while consorting, colluding, conceiving and enacting this Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Sting and Litigation Strategy- actively employ the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court systems at ALL levels, including other judicial, governmental and political officials, their handlers, their contractors, agents, associates, proxies, sycophants, employees, the experts, witnesses, representatives, operatives, unnamed third parties, allies, political handlers and consultants (including their attorneys), the TARGETED PARTY’s litigation opponents and and others, to act out their VENDETTA, CREATING CRIME, FIXING CASES in furtherance of their Corruption Agenda with the FULL FORCE OF THE LAW to destroy the TARGETED PARTY. These “Shadow courts” arise in situations where the official judicial system is ineffective, corrupt, or inaccessible, as they have compromised to create their own mechanisms for their own desired justice. The litigation is commenced by agreement or at the direction of the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court and opposing counsel, is pursued to a legal termination in their favor, was brought without probable cause, was initiated with malice with the motive to obtain a collateral advantage and provide a legal defense for them because they have been, are and will be a defendants and witnesses needing protection with finding against the TARGETED PARTY.
Political Context: In the Law Enforcement, Judicial/Political/Social context, the “shadow court” is a governmental design engineered judicial system set up and controlled by Federal/State/County/Local/ law enforcement, political, and legal/judicial groups to secretly control and covertly co-opt the legitimacy of the “official” legal/judicial system they designed engineered to support and foster those parties acts to achieve their desired ruling government interests. This entrapment scheme strategy is employed in their authoritarian capacity where the official courts are used but these actions are surreptitious, back channel, social club- Inn of Courts and judicial chambers operations not visible to the public so they can not be seen as biased or controlled by the government. This group of Federal/State/County/Local/ law enforcement, political, and legal/judicial groups have its own corrupt leaders and policies, effectively taking over the legal and judicial governance authority whenever the need and opportunity arises.
Conspiracy Theories: In conspiracy theory circles, the shadow court is often described as a clandestine Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court agencies and organizations that manipulate or controls the actual process. This includes Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial groups and their secret societies, intelligence agencies, and other powerful entities that operate behind the scenes to influence and control political/legal/judicial/social decisions and public policy.
Historical Context: The term has also been used historically to describe Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court agencies and organizations or alternative administrations that claim legitimacy but operate outside the recognized government legal/judicial framework, especially during times of conflict or political/legal/judicial/social upheaval.
Secret or Covert Judicial Processes: The term can also describe secretive judicial processes that lack transparency and due process, often associated with human and civil rights abuses. These courts operate without proper legal procedures, leading to arbitrary decisions.
    This COURTEL has acculturated a Guantanomo Bay style system of the worst aspects of an evil society- grounded in Grand Endemic and Systemic corruption, violence, fraud, exploitation, racism, bigotry, and persecution, into their State sponsored terror operation of protected government endemically corrupt legal system to perpetuate their own criminal judicial/legal/financial/psychological/ violence upon innocent minorities, Muslims, immigrants, WITH common people being captured in their special illegal rendition into Civil Rights/Familial/Financial/Social/Psychological/Emotional TORTURE- OBLITERATING ANY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AND THE GREAT AMERICAN DREAM!
    Their tactics are more extreme than muckraking or character assassination, disinformation/misinformation, or defamation, wherein the COURTEL: DOJ, FBI, Court systems, Law Enforcement at ALL levels, and opposing parties anxiously track TARGETED PARTY’s movements, business and social activity, writings, speeches, phone and text conversations, internet activity, social media, personal and sexual relationships/endeavors to fabricate and gather negative, embarrassing or compromising information about the TARGETED PARTY, to publish and disperse that information as widely as possible, “NEUTRALIZING YOU!”, DESTROYING INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, and THEIR BUSINESSES BY ILLEGALLY TARGETING and FRAMING INNOCENT, UNAWARE, COMMON, EVERYDAY CIVILIANS!
    The COURTEL and Shadow Court Recent Acts in Underlying East Bay Auto Center Case that Impact The Other Case
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD
    IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND PROVEN THAT THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER, IF TRUE, WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, AND CORRUPTION BY THE VERY SAME ENTITIES DEFENDANTS REFERENCES IN THIER PLEADING!
    AS ADMITTED AND SHOWN JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE PUBLISHED THEY HAD AN ORDER DECLARING AL-HAKIM A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT THAT DID NOT EXIST!
    THEY DECLARED THEIR COLLECTIVE INTENT, THIS GAVE RISE TO THEIR MOTIVE, AND THEY CREATED THEIR OPPORTUNITY!
    ABDUL-JALIL AL-HAKIM HAD TO FILE OPPOSITIONS TO THREE ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE IN THIS ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT PROCEEDING CCP 391(B)(3) IN SIX MONTHS!
    On March 19, 2018, MORE THAN 16 MONTHS EARLIER THAN THE ALLEGED ORDER, al-Hakim received a notice/order of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” by JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE by the Alameda County Superior Court order on June 11, 2019, YET IT HAS NEVER SERVED! (see order as Exh. A).
    This alleged vexatious litigant order was taken as a crime, the parties JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE committed with “malice aforethought,” as the crime was premeditated, and the perpetrators held malice for the victim al-Hakim. AS PROVEN MY THEIR ORDER issued on June 11, 2019, there clearly was malice aforethought that is defined as a crime being planned in advance, with the intention to kill or grievously harm another individual, al-Hakim. This is proof of JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE malice aforethought as a requirement to convict someone of first-degree murder!
    They, JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE clearly established intention to commit a crime without just cause or provocation, specifically in this cases involving exposing their collective first-degree murder of the al-Hakim’s HUMAN and CIVIL RIGHTS, further exposes the COURTEL AND SHADOW COURTS full blown attack of the al-Hakim family! THIS IS AN EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT OF AN ONGOING TARGETED ATTEMPT TO DESTROY- EVEN KILL, A FAMILY HERE IN AMERICA- REAL LIVES, IN REAL LIFE, RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES, IN REAL TIME with expressed Malice or a “depraved” or “malignant” heart with the “Intent to kill”, mens rea!
    THEY ENGAGED IN FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, JUDICIAL/LEGAL GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION exposing these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing legal parties; assuring the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, enacting government sponsored terror, with the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
    COURTEL Command to activate and commence the TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY action to their Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court Corruptocrats and Kleptocrats in the Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Scheme and Litigation Strategy in their “Shadow Court” Operation.
    Judges Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke issued an order that claimed they had a prior order which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant. We have asked for that order and ALL have remained silent and claim not to be responsible for it, yet it is in an ORDER FROM THE COURT!
    al-Hakim is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges Defendants, with and through their counsel, has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise “Good White Way” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
(see “Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke Vexatious Litigant Strategy Fraud on th Court”, Challenge
for Cause of Judge Kaus filed December 4, 2018, at Page 24-27)
    Alameda County Superior Court allegedly issued this order on June 11, 2019, YET HAVE NEVER SERVED IT ON AL-HAKIM. PERHAPS EVEN MORE INEXPLICABLE, on March 19, 2018, al-Hakim received a notice of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” and a court motion pending for an alleged Vexatious Litigant proceeding.
    al-Hakim couldn’t tell from the signature who endorsed the denied waiver but it may be judge Carvill or Chad Finke because the judge in the case, C. Don Clay said he didn’t know anything about!
    Neither Carvill nor Finke EVER admitted it was them who issued the alleged “order”.
I have NEVER been deemed as such, NEVER received any such notice and was unaware of this pending alleged process which needless to say was without ANY merit!
    We repeatedly asked “Who filed this alleged motion, when, and what proof of service have they filed?” and “When is this motion being heard, in what department and by whom?”.
    We requested ANSWERS to “What prior orders does the court have regarding that case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on the case when NOTHING had been filed in that case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants defaulted on?”
    That was admittedly a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on al-Hakim’s litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in his cases.
    How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So are we to understand that YOUR system is guilty before a hearing on this meritless motion is even heard?
    A determination of vexatious litigant status specifically under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §391(b)(3) requires somewhat more than a retaliatory judge conspiring with the defendant to complain that they perceive al-Hakim vexed to their mutual motive, interest, benefit, and opportunity is a reoccurring theme over the 50 years of this case where the defendants have represented the judges in this case against al-Hakim and the judges have likewise defended the defendants as “sitting judge for the defense” and “deputy defense counsel”! There are simply no meritorious grounds for this motion at all. The statutory criteria are clearly stated and easily understood. And in this case, Plaintiff show they are as far removed from meeting the statutory criteria as possible, which Brand either knew or should have known before filing this motion out of retaliation and desperation.
CONCLUSION
I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY AND THAT CO-DEFENDANTS STATE FARM AND ALACRITY BOTH FILED ILLEGAL NOTICES THAT PLAINTIFF IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT SUBJECT TO PREFILING ORDER HAD SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THE CASE TITLE CHANGED TO REFLECT MY NAME RATHER THAN THE 68 YEAR OLD, WORLD RENOWNED FOUNDATION!!

Respectfully submitted,


Date: July 8, 2025Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff

********
RE:        A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Misrepresentation, Concealment of Material Facts with Intent to Induce Court’s Act or Reliance; VIDEO ADMISSIONS, PROOF Sheriff’s Deputy MARKITA SAYLES COMMITTED FRAUD, FIXING THE CASE; ADMITTED SHE WAS INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES; PERJURY; FILING AN ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT”; WILLFULLY FABRICATED EVIDENCE; COMMITTED MISCONDUCT; CONCEALMENT; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto

Dear Sheriff Sanchez, Chief Chaplin, A. G. Ramsey, A. G. Bonta, Director Tripp, Steve Gordon- DMV, Ricardo Lara- DOI, Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA , Patrick Dorais- BAR, Kenneth J. Pogue- OAL, A. G. Hallinan, Senator Wahab, D. A. Price, State Farm Claims, East Bay Auto Center, et. al.,

Law Enforcement Fraud, Misrepresentation, Concealment of Material Facts with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACE

Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan
              Superior Court of Alameda County                  East Bay Auto Center         
              Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                21099 Mission Blvd.
              Department 105                                                 Hayward, CA 94541
              661 Washington St.                                            Email: EastBayAuto6@gmail.com
              Oakland, CA 94607                                           Ph:510‐690‐2728
              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov
BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov

             Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer
             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County
             René C. Davidson Courthouse                           René C. Davidson Courthouse
             Department 1                                                      1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
             Oakland, CA 94612                                           Oakland, CA 94612
             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                    Fax: 510-891-6276
TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov

cc: Judges Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711
U.S. Postal Mail and Emailed
FROM:     Defendant Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     June 5, 2025
NO PAGES:     1
RE:        Declaration for finding Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Leandro Police, Hayward Police, Alameda County District Attorney, Chad Finke and Clerks in Superior Court Administration with support from U. S. Attorney- Northern District, FBI, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, engaged in GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme complete with Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance.

“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 at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew,

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, Plaintiffs, et. al.,

Attached please find our Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Declaration and Legal Argument in Support of Order finding Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Leandro Police, Hayward Police, Alameda County District Attorney, Chad Finke and Clerks in Superior Court Administration with support from U. S. Attorney- Northern District, FBI, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, engaged in GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme complete with Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance; Fixing the Case against Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation behind their declaration the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing police crime reports AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court actions; Judges, Court Administration, Clerks Obstructed, Perverted Course, Due Administration of Justice.

THE OATH OF OFFICE

I, ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance!
   Below is a recent email exchange with the California Registry of Charities and Fundraisers operating under the auspicious of Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Dear Registry of Charities and Fundraisers,

    Attached hereto please find the AG’s summary receipt for the filing of the requested 2022-23 YE filed documents that MUST be properly completed and confirmed BEFORE any electronic payment for the fee can be processed and accepted! Again, there never was any unspecified “deficiencies” for 2022-23 nor 2023-24 YE!!
    Again, we filed the forms, submitted the documents and paid, for which we presented the receipts for, online at the AG’s website.
    As we stated earlier. we had NOT received ANY RESPONSE to our multiple 2 emails, a fax and letters to your offices since May 14, 2025 regrading a notice that our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation non-profit 2024 YE filing has been rejected for unspecified “deficiencies”. You probably would NOT have responded if it were NOT for the intervention of Alicia Xiong in RegCompliance <RegCompliance@doj.ca.gov>!
    AGAIN, we ALWAYS DISAGREED WITH THIS FINDING and requested you PLEASE provide specifically what the 2024 YE filing unspecified “deficiencies” are?
    We filed the forms, submitted the documents and paid, for which we have the receipts for, online at the AG’s website.
    AFTER we provided the copies of the requested filings AS PROOF there was never any alleged “deficiencies”, you responded that you had the 2024 YE filings BUT the 2023 YE was missing!
    THAT ALSO WAS A FALSE STATEMENT! We provided the filed documents AND the AG’s completed summary for the filing that MUST be completed properly BEFORE the system will electronically allow for the processing and acceptance of the fee, for which we also had the receipts for!!
    As stated before, we find the “timing and non-responses suspicious” as the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation have ongoing litigation that this action may impact!
   This ENTIRE “DEFICIENCIES” ACTION WAS A COMPLETE FABRICATION TO PROVOKE AND ENTRAP US INTO AN INDEFENSIBLE LEGAL POSITION as if our our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation would be “suspended” for the alleged non-filing of the “deficiencies” for 2022-23 nor 2023-24 YE, THEY ARE/WOULD THEN Not be currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, thus they are NOT authorized to do business in the State of California and don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit. They DO NOT have legal standing to exist, if they may be suspended for some reason.
 A suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court.
 A corporation may be suspended for at least one of the following reasons:
    •    Failure to file one or more tax returns. Cal Rev. & Tax Code Sec. 23301.
    •    Failure to pay the business’ tax balance due. This can include the penalty for failing to file the annual Statement of Information with the Secretary of State. California Corporations Code Section 2205.
Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani, (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 1361.(Stating a suspended corporation is disqualified from exercising any right, power, or privilege, including prosecuting or defending an action, or appealing a judgment).
A suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court. (Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Superior Court [54 Cal.App.4th 1366] (1922) 188 Cal. 393, 396-397 [205 P. 446]; Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 46, 50-51 [317 P.2d 649].)
    Nor may a suspended corporation appeal from an adverse judgment (Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co. (1937) 9 Cal.2d 16, 20-21 [68 P.2d 968]; Gar-Lo, Inc. v. Prudential Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 242, 245 [116 Cal.Rptr. 389]), or seek a writ of mandate (Brown v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 519, 635 [51 Cal.Rptr. 633]).
    Given this heinous, blatant attempt to eliminate our status as a current Corporation with Secretary of State and State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, we will file another Complaint with the Alameda County Judges Brian Caruth, Tom Nixon, Michael Gaffey, Stuart Hing, Joscelyn Jones, and Superior Court administrator Chad Finke, Alameda County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, Hayward Police Chief Brian Matthews, U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, F.B.I. Northern District Director Robert Tripp, California Attorney General Casey Hallinan, California State Senator Aisha Wahab, Alameda County District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson, Director of California Department of Motor Vehicles Steve Gordon, California Department of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, California Director Department of Consumer Affairs Kimberly Kirchmeyer, California Bureau of Automotive Repair Chief Patrick Dorais, Director California Office of Administrative Law Kenneth J. Pogue, California Attorney General Hallinan- Public Inquiry Unit, and several Federal government offices.
    We consider this further PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance!
    As we have always maintained and is proven by their bad faith fact pattern, this was ALWAYS an entrapment scheme designed to take possession of the truck with it’s contents and trigger civil/criminal actions knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. They are not acting alone!
    IT IS CLEAR THAT OUR NON-PROFIT AARON & MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION, ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM, THE AL-HAKIM FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES AND BUSINESS PROPERTY, THEIR REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, THEIR CHARITIES, THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE- PERSONALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, MORALLY, ETHICALLY, AND FINANCIALLY, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
    WE HAVE PRESENTED further PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme and Hate Crimes. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the legal, judicial and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    The Entrapment Strategy is disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
    We have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties!
    We will respond further in mass with the affect that our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation non-profit business has been actually and potentially DAMAGED by your agency, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and ALL those referenced herein.
    THIS NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED!
We continue this section herewith below for argument and law:
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS, LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO IN TARGETED ENTRAPMENT, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE, FRUAD, MISREPRESENTATION WITH THE INTENT TO INDUCE THE COURT’S ACT OR RELIANCE
Law Enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hayward Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; San Leandro Police Chiefs Abdul Pridgen/Angela Averiett; U. S. Attorneys Stephanie Hinds/Ismail Ramsey; F.B.I. NorCal Directors Craig Fair/Robert Tripp; with support from the Court, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, and associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Further, they committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing this case; they were instructed by and with special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report” OR NONE AT ALL; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to covering for their “asset” co-conspirators; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, Law Enforcement with associated third parties continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence; as they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence was founded to take the responsibility, accountability, and liability off the Sheriff’s to have performed their investigation and filing a legitimate police crime report by destroying the evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO CENTER as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED MAY 28, 2024 PHONE CALL TO AL-HAKIM, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM.
The Plaintiffs, Sheriffs and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the Civil Rights Act”.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, Law Enforcement and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET! We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!! This established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
The April and May 2024 videos PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves, Plaintiff’s, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company and Law Enforcement in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
East Bay Auto Center is the ONLY suspects that could have stolen, burglarized, vandalized, and damaged the truck as it was not stolen by anyone else!
AMWF’s truck was “STOLEN” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with an associated third party while there for the insurance repair estimate. BUT NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!!
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroying the evidence and chain of custody!
On October 2, 2024, Plaintiffs EBAC FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S WHERE TO AND WHEN EBAC MOVED THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S Deputies Sean Sullivan #2137 and Collin Lenahan #2453 as Percipient Eye Witnesses.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in unsolicited emails to the court and Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, the Clerks of Dept. 1, and 105, and Superior Court Administrator Chad Finke that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Then East Bay Auto Center attempt’s to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to an unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
AGAIN, this was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE and was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and to destroy the chain of custody!
But Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company are NOT acting alone, but with governmental entities and their associates!
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: 1) they were fully aware at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence.
The County Sheriff’s coercive, malicious, intentional tortious interference are a violation of our rights under the California Constitution is a deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process and their police actions are inherently coercive due to their societal trust. For a Civil Code Section 52.1 cause of action, two elements must be established: (1) intentional interference with a constitutional or legal right, and (2) that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The courts, in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, it was determined that relief is granted under Civil Code Section 52.1 if coercive actions are present. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement Intentional Spoliation of Evidence can be viewed through Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court, California. 1998-05-11 and Penal Code section 135 establishes criminal penalties for spoliation, defining it as the willful destruction or concealment of evidence intended to prevent its production in legal proceedings, classifying such acts as misdemeanors.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfere with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.
Under Coprich v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, California. 2000-05-19 , the court allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint, because the officers were responsible for gathering or preserving evidence or for preventing her from doing so. However, the court did not determine that remedies monetary and contempt sanctions, with criminal sanctions for intentional destruction of evidence, and disciplinary measures against attorneys/law enforcement involved in suppressing evidence.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement intentionally failed to preserve evidence of the truck burglary is tortious interference due to spoliation of evidence and intentional interference with defendant’s prospective economic advantage, emphasizing defendants’ right to their injury claims are a valuable expectancy.
On November 2, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been returned to Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward with additional damage. Upon investigation, the truck has been further BURGLARIZED by the breach of the lock on the roll up door and the roll up door itself! THE DAMAGES ARE UNKOWN AND YET TO BE INVESTIGATED!
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Irrefutable evidence shows that Plaintiff’s and the Alameda County Sheriff’s acted with the intent to disrupt Defendants contractual relationship and deny defendants civil rights.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement had knowledge of this contract and intentionally interfered with it AND violated the defendants civil rights (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134 establishes the elements of tortious interference with contractual relations, emphasizing that the defendant must have knowledge of the contract and intentionally interfere with it) by deputy SAYLES whom ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE FALSE POLICE REPORT, willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, failed and refused to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, AS IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY AUTO TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET IN FIXING THIS CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM.
As a direct result of Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcements actions, Defendant has suffered losses and damages including but not limited to loss of business, personal, and real property, lost use of the truck, loss of services to the communities that they serve, loss of revenue, reputational harm, and emotional distress. Defendant also suffered damages, that need to be determined by the order ASAP for the truck be made available to us to get vital information from the engine, body, cab, under body, exhaust, etc., and a complete video investigation, analysis and documentation of the condition of the truck and the contents; to search, inspect, process and document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, finger printing, and clues for the damage, theft, vandalism, and missing/stolen business and personal property to ascertain the total vehicle costs, loss, damages as well as the theft costs, loss and damages. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802. This case highlights the requirement that the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was independently wrongful, which can include unlawful actions by law enforcement.
Defendant argues that the actions of Plaintiff’s and the Alameda County Sheriff’s violated the defendants civil rights and contends that the interference was not justified and was willful, intentional and conducted with malice. Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 1990, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507. This case discusses the necessity of proving that the interference was wrongful and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.
Defendant had a valid and enforceable contract with State Farm insurance company and Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement had knowledge of this contract. Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal. 4th 1140 (2004): This case illustrates intentional interference and the knowledge of the contract by the defendant and they acted with the intent to interfere.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were intentional and wrongful, constituting tortious interference with Defendants contractual relations. Burden v. County of Santa Clara, 81 Cal. App. 4th 244 (2000): This case highlights the limitations of tortious interference claims against government entities, noting that while government entities may have certain immunities, intentional and wrongful conduct still lead to liability.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company and Law Enforcement coercive, malicious, intentional tortious interference are a violation of our rights under the California Constitution is a deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process and their police actions are inherently coercive due to their societal trust. For a Civil Code Section 52.1 cause of action, two elements must be established: (1) intentional interference with a constitutional or legal right, and (2) that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The courts, in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, it was determined that relief is granted under Civil Code Section 52.1 if coercive actions are present. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10. Plaintiff’s and the County Sheriff’s actions were the actual and proximate cause of the interference.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfere with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement intentionally failed to preserve evidence of the truck burglary is tortious interference due to spoliation of evidence and intentional interference with defendant’s prospective economic advantage, emphasizing defendants’ right to their injury claims are a valuable expectancy.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
This Grand corruption is systemic and endemic in ALL al-Hakim cases involves the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of AMWF, al-Hakim, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve.
This Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement ill advised strategy with actions to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence was founded to take the responsibility, accountability, and liability off the Sheriff’s to have performed their investigation and filing a legitimate police crime report by destroying the evidence!
Defendants expressed concern over the Sheriffs officers intentionally mishandling of the crime scene, bad faith failure to investigate and collect incriminating evidence, noting the significant stakes given the involvement of the Plaintiffs and their admissions implicating and incriminating police, that they worked with law enforcement, the police are accomplishes, collaborators, and Plaintiffs are under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist AMWF or Abdul-Jalil.
The courts has established that the government must investigate, detect, collect, and preserve evidence relevant to guilt or innocence as ministerial actions. The critical issue in this ministerial action of evidence collection by the Sheriffs is without discretion, leaving them solely responsible for evidence collection, and the failure to investigate and seize material evidence convicts them of their failure of duty to preserve it. Hence, Sheriffs DO NOT have unchecked discretion to investigate, detect, collect, and preserve evidence; AND given that Plaintiffs are admitted government assets, with court’s prior rulings on informant disclosure suggest that police should exert reasonable efforts to locate material witnesses, reflecting a similar duty to seize material evidence. Sheriffs were aware of the materiality of evidence and this understanding should have compelled them to act to preserve such evidence, aligning with the principle favoring the state in ministerial actions.
Case law indicates that while police officers have liability and they can be held accountable for negligent execution of decisions of issues that involve distinguishing between discretionary and ministerial actions.
The objective of the continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy with “Target, Engagement, Harassment, Provocation, Litigation” tactics is designed to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- AMWF, Abdul-Jalil, al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives. The very nature and inherent structure/operation of the Political/Judicial Institution (Judges are Politicians= elected officials by the Public, to serve for the public) makes it diabolically impossible to journey from the Constitution to the Institution “Of The People, For The People, By The People!” that places them in this evil “criminal and civil rights/litigation meat grinder”.
This East Bay action is one of AMWF and Abdul-Jalil being forced into a small claims action that is both oppressive and coercive by limiting the money awards and the depravation of ones rights as the court decision is non-appealable.
This means that as a litigant, AMWF and Abdul-Jalil waives their most basic Civil and Human Right to a fair trial without recourse to appeal an intentionally wrongful decision that may be by design! This is unlawful, offends public policy, common law and an established concept of unfairness, is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes substantial injury as a part of the larger planned “judgment peonage”, an activity to take bankrupting judgments against us, causing SEVER economic legal damages, non-economic damages, and punitive damages sentencing us to LIFE in “debtors prison”!
Over the last 50+ years al-Hakim’s “court activities” has documented, with filed and served court actions, filed and served complaints, and filed and served correspondence memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
al-Hakim proves where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate his rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528.
Some of those litigation opponents referenced these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in their filings, ALL of whom have been complained of or to are, in major part because al-Hakim reported the very obvious agenda of parties by memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities corruption and persecution and their involvement in the cover-up of that criminal corruption.
The parties are Governmental and Quasi-governmental employees, agents, contractors, entities, associates, members, and contractors of their companies, the U. S. Federal Government, State of California, County, and City agencies, among others, have engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance by and with unethical and criminal means, instigated and encouraged said acts, which gives rise to fraudulent, corruption as they conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived, employed and enacted the criminal, tactical, torture inspired policy of TARGETED HATE CRIME, Terror, Civil Conspiracy, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced Bigotry, Vindictive Retaliation, Oppression, Harassment, Racism, Discrimination, Bias, Prejudice, Unfairness, Persecution, AND GRAND CORRUPTION, victimization, inciting acrimony, animus, in the continued persecution with calumny deceit and the attempted entrapment of us as the continuing “TARGET”.
ALL the DOCUMENTED actions alleged with cite relevant legal case authority to support arguments and assertions for a FORMAL COMPLAINT and Request for Investigation for Hate Crimes include violations of California Law including violations of the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts Civil Code section 51.7, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Acts, Civil Code section 52.1, Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983; California Government Code sections 11135 et seq., 12900 et seq., California Penal Code section 13023, California Penal Code section 422.55 and California Civil Code sections 51, 51.7, 52.5, and 54 et seq.; the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; California Constitution, Article VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475, 3523, and 3528, and for Harassment, Censorship, Fraud, Negligence, Misrepresentation, Abuse of Process, Abuse of Power, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Contract/Common Law Warranty, Deceptive Trade Practices, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud by Concealment, California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 17200 et seq, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Discrimination in Violation of the Unruh Act, Nuisance, Abuse of Process, Fraud by Concealment, Violation of California False Advertising Law, Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceit-(California Civil Code § 1710), Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices, Unconscionability (UDAP), Elder Abuse.
The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, provides protection against interference or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any constitutional or statutory rights. Remedies for violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act or the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act include restraining orders, injunctive relief, equitable relief to secure constitutional and statutory rights, actual damages, exemplary or punitive damages, a civil penalty of $25,000, and attorney’s fees. An action may be brought by the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, or by the individual harmed.
California Penal Code section 13023. California Penal Code section 422.55 defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.”
The California Attorney General DEMANDS an Investigation for Hate Crimes in violation of California Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts; the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983, California Penal Code sections 13519.6, Penal Code section 13023 and Penal Code 422.55 which defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.” Cite relevant legal case authority to support arguments and assertions. Depending on the circumstances of each case, bias motivation may include, but is not limited to, hatred, animosity, discriminatory selection of victims, resentment, revulsion, contempt, unreasonable fear, paranoia, callousness, thrill-seeking, desire for social dominance, desire for social bonding with those of one’s “own kind,” or a perception of the vulnerability of the victim due to the victim being perceived as being weak, worthless, or fair game because of a protected characteristic, including, but not limited to, disability, gender, Age, Ancestry, Anti-Islamic, Anti-black or African American, Anti-other ethnicity/national origin, association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics of a protected class, Citizenship, Color Disability (physical, intellectual/developmental, mental health/psychiatric), Medical Condition (cancer or genetic characteristic), National Origin (includes language restrictions), Political Affiliation, Race (includes hairstyle and hair texture), Religious creed (includes dress and grooming practices), and aggrieve in their entrapment strategy with the use of confidential informants, snitches, government operatives can provide a number of conditions under which “an inducement to an individual to engage in crime is authorized.” This could apply to any or all of the actions taken in and of their services agency acting in their clients name and stead.


JUDGES THOMAS NIXON, BRIAN CARUTH, STUART HING, MICHAEL GAFFEY, CLERKS OF DEPT. 1, 105, 605, 711, PLAINTIFFS, AND CHAD FINKE ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES

On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in an unsolicited email to the court with Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent! 

    In that email East Bay wrote:

Hello Abdul jalil.
This is EAST BAY AUTO CENTER.  I spoken last time with you to pick up your truck. Also I send email and text messages to pick up the truck.
We have no space for keep your truck that long. We small parking lot. This is Michanic shop not storage for your truck.
We send the truck back to storage yard. We not touched any things for your truck.
The truck is locked from the back of the truck. It’s still the same locked 🔒.

If you still want to pick up your truck please let me know we will pick it up from storage yard. Paying the storage money.
You have to pay me for the storage fee.
Please call for schedule to pick up the car.

If you have any questions please call me. Thanks
510-940-8675
Eastbayauto6@gmail.com

These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to a unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
EBAC’s unsolicited admissions and confessions to the court and judges makes them all percipient eye witnesses. Further, in your/their fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!? Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., failure to perform your ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon EBAC unsolicited admissions and confessions with defendant’s NOTICED pleading constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and  Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice is a denial of access to the courts, in violation of defendant’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments! Thus as Judges and court administrators, you have rules governing the disposition of the such actions and pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, YOU ALL have been forever silent regarding this; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4
THIS SECTION ABOVE APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

The Matters of the December 20, 2024 Hearing
At the December 20, 2024 Hearing, the court had appointed Cabral Bonner an attorney, in accordance with Article 6, section 21 of the Constitution of the State of California, to act as the Temporary Judge in this matters before the Court in this department on this date. The Defendant informs the court that he objects to having a pro- tem preside over the matter AND THAT THIS MATTER HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO JUDGE CARUTH AFTER BEING REASSIGNED FROM A PRO-TEM COMMISSIONER FICKLES. If the court was aware of this fact, it should have continued the matter BEFORE we appeared in court, as this was a complete waste of time!
Yet, Plaintiff’s East Bay Auto Center (EBAC) DID NOT appear and there was NO reason given for same. However, Mr. Bonner admits in court that EBAC had contacted the court earlier stating they would NOT appear, BUT NO ONE CONTACTED US, the DEFENDANTS! Here we have the court ADMITTING to having illegal ex-parte communications with the plaintiff’s WITHOUT informing defendants when a matter of a pro-tem was ALREADY DECIDED! As a hypothetical, what would have happened if defendants had agreed to having the matter heard by Bonner and the plaintiff’s FAILED TO APPEAR?! Would a default have been entered?! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!
THE ENTIRE “HEARING” WAS JUST AN ILLEGAL, PRETENTIOUS CHARADE BY THE COURT!

Conspiracy to Subvert, Pervert, Obstruct, or Defeat the Course of Justice
Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
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.”
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.  [Citation.]

“In California, the statutes relating to ‘Crimes Against Public Justice’ are found in part I, title [7], of the Penal Code. Bribery, escapes, rescues, perjury, falsifying evidence, and other acts which would have been considered offenses against the administration of justice at common law are made criminal by legislative enactment. 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. [Citation.]In the same category is a conspiracy to obtain the release of a person charged with a felony by presenting a worthless and void bail bond. Such a conspiracy has been held to be a perversion of the due administration of the law, and an offense within the meaning of subdivision [ (a) ]5 of section 182 of the Penal Code. [Citation.]” (Lorenson v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 49, 59–60, italics added (Lorenson ).)
In Lorenson, the defendant was a police captain in the Los Angeles Police Department indicted for conspiracy to commit robbery, to commit assault with a deadly weapon, and to pervert or obstruct justice. (Lorenson, supra, 35 Cal.2d at pp. 50–51.) In rejecting a claim of insufficient evidence to support the indictment, the court concluded that one could infer from the evidence that there was agreement among the defendant, other members of the police department, and criminal associates of Mickey Cohen to assault and rob the victim, Pearson. The court further noted that there was evidence from which one could infer that the defendant and other police officers “were to furnish protection to the participants in the conspiracy by refusing to disclose the identity of Pearson’s attackers, if they were arrested, and to effect their release from custody.”(Id. at p. 57.) After the robbery and assault, Cohen’s associates were arrested (apparently by officers not involved in the conspiracy), but they were immediately released from the police station before Pearson could arrive to identify any of them, and the arresting officers were instructed not to talk about the incident. (Id. at p. 54.) Lorenson is an example of “[a] conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws,” an indictable offense at common law. (Id. at pp. 59–60.)
THIS SECTION ABOVE APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

A “RAT” in Court Administration and Clerks Obstructed, Perverted the Course and Due Administration of Justice
   On June 11, 2024, Abdul-Jalil appeared at window 12 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and filed our “Defendants Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court”. I was waited on by a young lady that appeared to be of Latin/Asian descent.
We had a discussion regarding my listing my name as the CEO and Person of Interest as it relates to the “defendants” filed in the East Bay Auto Center claim. As this conversation directly addressed MY NAME, she laughingly kept referring to me as “Mr. Wallace”, CLEARLY taunting, being disrespectful, antagonistic and provocative! I corrected her INTENTIONALLY calling me out of my name 3 times by responding softly with “Mr. al-Hakim” the first 3 times! At her fourth lashing out, I corrected her with a chuckle that let her know that I acknowledged she was being childish and petty trying to provoke me! When she grasped it, she got up and said “I’m going to lunch!”. She left and another clerk came over, Jamie J. Thomas, and took her place to complete the filing. While she left several times as I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she met with different people at a computer discussing something.
   On June 13, 2024, I appeared at window 9 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants Small Claim and Order, and a letter to Commissioner Fickles and East Bay Auto Center that we OPPOSED the case being heard by and Request reassignment of the Case from a Judge Pro Team or Commissioner and Requesting a Court Reporter for the July 8, 2024 hearing. The clerk filed the letter but questioned the proof of service (attached as Exh. B), so she said she would talk to her supervisor. I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she spoke with someone (others) before she returned with clerk Jamie J. Thomas whom preceded to say that she could NOT accept the proof of service BECAUSE the ONLY one that they could accept was the standard form that comes with the SC-120 form. I informed her that this proof of service was the same as the standard form and is used more commonly in court filings and I have used them over 20 years without any problem. She said that I would have to serve the claim again or have the server to sign a new proof. But more alarming, she said I could fill out the proof to be signed by the process server, but I could NOT serve it because I’m listed as the agent for the service of process. NOW, just how did she know that and why did she need to know that? She obviously conducted her own investigation. She issued her ORDER and refused to accept the proof!
   She read the letter then said that she could NOT give the letter to the Commissioner because she would be engaging in illegal ex-parte communications. I again stated that I have filed over 100 letters in the same fashion and never had a problem with them before as long as there was a filing cover page. (Attached as Exh. C)
   Not wanting to argue with her also early trying to harass and inconvenience me, I said that I would file both with the presiding court judge whom I was going to file the Request for Reassignment with anyway, and I left.
   On June 18, 2024, I appeared at window 4 in the Clerks General Office in the Rene Davidson of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants Continuance and Reassignment, a female clerk- “T. Hayle?” came out on 2 occasions, the first after a 15 minute wait, addressed me as Mr. Wallace, questioned the proof of service, debated the motion vs. declaration and need to refile with a reservation number. She made the RIDICULOUS argument that the “electronic filing system does not recognize documents on pleading paper” thus, I had to have the documents served again!
   On December 19, 2024, I appeared at window 9 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants EBAC Subpoena, Request for Production of Documents and Video Taped Depositions, and Order Shortening Time and was told by the clerk- “Malen Jih MSG?” that the server should have signed in Sheriff’s location on the proof of service. While she left as I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she met with different people discussing something. She returned and repeated her statement and accepted the proof. Clearly that was NOT the case nor had the documents been signed in the wrong place! This statement exposes the fact that the court has had some interaction with third parties that has informed them that the documents WERE signed in the wrong place on the proof.
   As we have EXTENSIVE documentation on the MANY egregious, unscrupulous, heinous illegal activities of court administrator Chadrat Finke and the employees with the District Attorneys office, WE ARE SURE THAT THEY HAVE EMPLOYED THE FULL FORCE OF THEIR OFFICES AND THOSE OF THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS TO AFFACT AND DIRECT THE COURSE AND OUTCOME OF THIS AND ALL RELATED MATTERS!

Dept. 105 Clerk Sergio Lopez subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
   On May 8, 2025 we sent the following email to Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke in response to the Continuing FAILED compliance from Dept. 105 Clerk Sergio Lopez.
That email is as follows:

CLERKS USUAL NON-RESPONSE TO EMAIL: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACEDear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,    After NOT getting a response from Mr. Lopez, the Clerk of department 105, for THREE (3) MONTHS, we still have NOT gotten a response to our email just a week ago! WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES! HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED HEREIN? We are requesting clarity on the issues below as follows:A) Does the reservation number provides for the motion to compel response to subpoenas and production of documents which are already listed, INCLUDE our demand for Videotape Depositions for each of 1) Plaintiffs, 2) California Department of Motor Vehicles, 3) Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 4) California Bureau of Automotive Repair, 5) California Department of Insurance, 6) State Farm Insurance, and 7) Alameda County Business Tax Collector as needed? Are we to use the same number for each separately?B) We want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAPC) Does the hearing on 6/10/2025, 9AM calendar INCLUDE an order on our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion and our motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025?D) IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S EBAC’S UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES. Further, in your fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!??E) OUR UNRESOLVED concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. What is the court going to do about this? Why is the date not changed to the very NEXT DAY,  JUNE 11, 2025??!!??   Again, we will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served AND MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

——– Message ——–Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,
    So I’m very confused Mr. Lopez, just how does your attempted missed phone call to us this morning, May 1, 2025 at 7:58am, JUSTIFY YOUR THREE MONTHS OF WILLFUL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE SINCE FEBRUARY 4, 2025??!!??    The requests are very plain and does NOT take three months of your deliberation to understand, (or maybe it does!) and if they were THAT confusing, WHY DID YOU WAIT 3 MONTHS TO CALL AND HANG UP WITHOUT LEAVING A MESSAGE??!!?? Therefore, if you had NO idea of what we wanted in my EXTENSIVE emails and voicemails messages I left for you, WHY DIDN’T YOU JUST CALL to get clarity THREE MONTHS AGO??!!??    Your reservation number provides for the motion to compel response to subpoenas and production of documents which are already listed, BUT as written, excludes our demand for Videotape Depositions for each.    It also does NOT address the fact we want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAP. You, Mr. Lopez have told us and written to us “Please be advised that Department 105 does not conduct ex-parte hearings”, yet, AS PART OF THE AUDIO RECORDING INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC IN THE COURTS ANNOUNCEMENT, YOU EXPRESSLY STATE THAT LITIGANTS CAN REQUEST EX-PARTE HEARINGS AND THE PROCEDURE FOR SAME!    WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES! HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED HEREIN?    You note that the following is scheduled for hearing on 6/10/2025 9AM:Hearing on Motion – Other Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.    For clarity, WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER to does this INCLUDE our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion and our motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025?    The court should have ruled on these matters as summary judgment before now!    Also shown on the schedule is “Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.” We had Requested an IMMEDIATE Ex-Parte Hearing on Wednesday, October 9, 2024 or Friday, October 11, 2024 for Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck and to Compel Videotape Depositions, Production of Documents.    We had requested the order ASAP for the truck be made available to us to get vital information from the engine, body, cab, under body, exhaust, etc., and video the condition of the truck and the contents to search, inspect, process and document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, finger printing, and clues for the damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property.

    On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroy the chain of custody!    We called the County Sheriff’s and made arrangements to meet them there for a truck theft/missing report on October 2, 2024. Once we met there, Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S THE LOCATION OF THE TRUCK, OR WETHER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AGAIN AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!    As you are aware from our previous filings, in April 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As a result, we do not have a total value of the scope of loss and damage to the truck therefrom. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago!    As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
    We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
    The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.    IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED PHONE CALL TO ME, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM
    This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.    As witnessed, in April 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!    East Bay Auto Center is the ONLY suspects that could have stolen, burglarized, vandalized, and damaged the truck as it was not stolen by anyone else!    AMWF’s truck was “STOLEN” from East Bay Auto Center while there for the insurance repair estimate, BUT NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!!    The information as to the causes are stated herein AND THE IMMEDIACY WAS OBVIOUS.     On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in an unsolicited email to the court with Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!    In that email East Bay wrote:

Hello Abdul jalil.This is EAST BAY AUTO CENTER.  I spoken last time with you to pick up your truck. Also I send email and text messages to pick up the truck.We have no space for keep your truck that long. We small parking lot. This is Michanic shop not storage for your truck.We send the truck back to storage yard. We not touched any things for your truck.The truck is locked from the back of the truck. It’s still the same locked 🔒.
If you still want to pick up your truck please let me know we will pick it up from storage yard. Paying the storage money.You have to pay me for the storage fee.Please call for schedule to pick up the car.
If you have any questions please call me. Thanks510-940-8675Eastbayauto6@gmail.com

    These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!    They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.    Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to a unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!    IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES. Further, in your fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!??    Since you, Mr. Lopez, failed to respond, I will reiterate that we still have OUR UNRESOLVED concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend.    Previously, we received notice that the above entitled case has been reassigned from Commissioner Fickles to Judge Caruth in Department 105 as per Judge Nixon’s order and also received separate notice that the court date has been changed to Tuesday, July 9, 2024, in Department 105, at 9:00 a.m. It is well documented with the court over 40 years, AND MR. FINKE CAN VERIFY THAT, I have religious commitments on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and unavailable on those dates. The new date falls on one of those days I am unavailable. The matter was continued to present. How is this possible and what is the court going to do about this? Why is the date not changed to the very NEXT DAY,  JUNE 11, 2025??!!??    Again, we will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served AND MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

On 5/1/25 8:00 AM, Dept. 105, Superior Court wrote:

Please be advised that the court was attempting to understand the nature of your motions.The court had also attempted to call you to no answer (510-394-4501).A reservation number has been generated for the following:A-67622-003
Hearing on Motion – Other Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents.
The following is scheduled for hearing on 6/10/2025 9AM24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER VS AARON & MARGARET WALLACE
Small Claims Trial
Hearing on Motion – Other Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.
Hearing on Motion – Other Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents.
Thank you,Mr. LopezDepartment 105 – Courtroom ClerkWiley W. Manuel Courthouse661 Washington StreetOakland, CA 94607(510) 627-4712

From: A. J. <ajalil1234@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 8:50 PM
To: Dept. 105, Superior Court <dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept. 711, Superior Court <dept711@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept .1, Superior Court <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept. 605, Superior Court <dept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Nixon, Judge Thomas, Superior Court <tnixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Finke, Chad, Superior Court <cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept .1, Superior Court <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Caruth, Judge Brian, Superior Court <bcaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Gaffey, Judge Michael, Superior Court <mgaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Hing, Judge Stuart, Superior Court <shing@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; eastbayauto6@gmail.com<eastbayauto6@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACE

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,    So I guess you, Mr. Lopez, et. al., DID NOT receive the emails below and therefore had NO idea of what I wanted in my EXTENSIVE voicemail messages I left for you either??!!??    We requested a hearing date and a reservation number(s) for our Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the 1) Plaintiffs, 2) California Department of Motor Vehicles, 3) Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 4) California Bureau of Automotive Repair, 5) California Department of Insurance, 6) State Farm Insurance, and 7) Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions for each. This matter MUST be heard in ANY Law and Motion judge including Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711 as soon as possible after the date above. We have yet to find ANY legal experts that can confirm that Small Claims Court DOES NOT ALLOW Ex-Parte motions.    PLEASE PROVIDE THE SAME SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THIS MATTER FORWARD AS IT IS TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT THIS WOULD TAKE THREE MONTHS FOR MR. LOPEZ TO DO!! THIS IS NOT JUST INCOMPETENCE, IT IS OBSTRUCTION IN IT’S MOST BLATANTLY PURIST FORM!! We want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAP.    Additionally, attached is a copy of the filed proofs of service of our motions that the court allegedly ruled was NOT filed without disclosing “what motion(s)”? This may be a result of the proofs being filed a day before the hearing.    On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion AND our Motion to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum AND the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents against Plaintiffs. They failed and refused to respond. The motion was personally served on November 20, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025 is attached.    The motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025 is attached.    We also have a concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. How is this possible and what is the court going to do about this?    We will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served ASAP.    This seems Mr. Lopez NOT receiving OUR emails is a reoccurring theme with you AND NEEDS TO STOP IMMEDIATELY as I reference my previous last TWO (2) voicemails and emails of February 4, 2025 and March 3, 2025 as follows:
1) ——– February 4, 2025 Message ——–Dear Mr. Lopez,    I called you today at 1:47 pm and left you a message regarding my latest email to you on January 27, 2025 requesting a copy of the Courts order continuing the December 20, 2024 hearing and any rulings on our motions; Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum, Compel Videotape Depositions and Production of Documents, Entry of Default Order, Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction, Order Striking Complaint, Tortious Interference, Spoliation of Evidence, Intentional Misrepresentation, Grand Larceny, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Intentional Misrepresentation, Property Damage, and Extortion.    Amazingly you replied to that message with this email at 1:56 pm.    Thanks so much!    But, why have you NOT responded to my emails regarding same, if in fact you respond to emails much quicker than phone calls/voice mails? You even remind the callers to your department 105 that the clerks may take up to 5 days to reply to phone calls/voicemails.    I’m a little confused as to whether or not you are even getting my emails as there is NO indication that they have NOT been delivered to you as well as the others, Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 1605, 711, and Chad Finke.    If there is a problem with the email delivery to you, PLEASE let me know, as it would ascertain just where the real problem is.Thanks again,AJ

2) ——– March 3, 2025 Message ——–TO:        Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan              Superior Court of Alameda County                  East Bay Auto Center                       Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                21099 Mission Blvd.              Department 105                                                 Hayward, CA 94541              661 Washington St.                                          Email:                                                         EastBayAuto6@gmail.com              Oakland, CA 94607                                           Ph:510‐690‐2728              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.govBCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov             Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County             René C. Davidson Courthouse                           René C. Davidson Courthouse             Department 1                                                      1225 Fallon Street, Room 209             Oakland, CA 94612                                           Oakland, CA 94612             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                    Fax: 510-891-6276             TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.govcfinke@alameda.courts.ca.govdept1@alameda.courts.ca.govcc: Judges Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711U.S. Postal Mail and EmailedFROM:     Defendant Aaron & Margaret Wallace FoundationDATE:     March 3, 2025NO PAGES:     1RE:        Annual Retreat for Ramadan and Request Reservation number for Defendants Motion to Compel Compliance with Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions.“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 7:1-3The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew,

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, Plaintiffs, et. al.,This notice is to inform the Court and parties that I will be in annual retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan until April 5, 2025 and unavailable to respond to any litigation.We also want to request a hearing date and a reservation number for our Motion to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the Plaintiffs, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions for each. This matter MUST be heard in ANY Law and Motion judge including Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711 as soon as possible after the date above. We have yet to find ANY legal experts that can confirm that Small Claims Court DOES NOT ALLOW Ex-Parte motions.As referenced in our December 19, 2024, email to the court that the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents were filed and served on the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector that THEY ALL did not respond wherein we would file Motions to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Videotape Depositions and Production of Documents for ALL of them. Hence this request.As previously mentioned, I KNOW the court is aware, as is everyone else, that this matter CAN NOT BE HEARD IN FIFTEEN (15) MINUTE SMALL CLAIMS HEARING. OUR LITIGATION WITH WITNESSES ALONE WILL BE AT LEAST TWO (2) DAYS!!On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion AND our Motion to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum AND the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents against Plaintiffs. They failed and refused to respond.As mentioned, we waited over a month for the courts to respond to our last requests via email and there was NO RESPONSE, thus the earlier motion for an order shortening time.AGAIN, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS by the Plaintiffs to the court and Judges makes YOU ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES.Thanks,Abdul-Jalil al-Hakimajalil1234@gmail.com510-394-4501    In closing, these and other issues MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

On 4/7/25 4:13 PM, Dept. 105, Superior Court wrote:

Hello,Please specify what kind of motions you are attempting to file for the subjected case.Please list each motion numerically.Thank you,Mr. LopezDepartment 105 – Courtroom ClerkWiley W. Manuel Courthouse661 Washington StreetOakland, CA 94607(510) 627-4712

   I consider the actions of ALL the clerks on those days to undermining and compromising the justice system and 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.
The court clerks staff could be viewed as having subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
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)).

Conclusion
Defendant has provided uncontroverted, uncontested, irrefutable PROOF of:
1) Proof Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., failure to perform your ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon EBAC unsolicited admissions and confessions with defendant’s NOTICED pleading constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice is a denial of access to the courts, in violation of defendant’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments! Thus as Judges and court administrators, you have rules governing the disposition of the such actions and pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, YOU ALL have been forever silent regarding this; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4
2) PROOF Pro Tem Mr. Bonner admits at December 20, 2024 hearing that EBAC had contacted the court earlier stating they would NOT appear, BUT NO ONE CONTACTED US, the DEFENDANTS! Here we have the court ADMITTING to having illegal ex-parte communications with the plaintiff’s WITHOUT informing defendants when a matter of a pro-tem was ALREADY DECIDED! As a hypothetical, what would have happened if defendants had agreed to having the matter heard by Bonner and the plaintiff’s FAILED TO APPEAR?! Would a default have been entered?! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!,
3) PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance,
4) PROOF of Alameda County Sheriffs, Law Enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hayward Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; San Leandro Police Chiefs Abdul Pridgen/Angela Averiett; U. S. Attorneys Stephanie Hinds/Ismail Ramsey; F.B.I. NorCal Directors Craig Fair/Robert Tripp; with support from the Court, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, and associated third parties implicated by East Bay Auto engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of targeted entrapment, tortious interference, fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act
5) Proof a “RAT” in Court Administration, Judges and Clerks actions constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice

Respectfully submitted.
Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******
Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, attached hereto please find a CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things in response to the court order (attached) for production of documents in the above referenced matter. You were served this subpoena for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles today, December 11, 2024 and should respond immediately.
Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, as the Custodian of Records you are NOT required to appear in person if within ten (10) days from the date of the serving of this request upon you, you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the “DEFINITIONS” Section as part of this attached affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271. (1) Place a copy of the records in an envelope (or other wrapper) where Documents produced shall be Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially. Enclose the original declaration of the custodian with the records. Seal the envelope. (2) Attach a copy of this subpoena to the envelope or write on the envelope the case name and number; your name; and the date, time, and place. (3) Place this first envelope in an outer envelope, seal it, and mail it to me at the address or email address (ajalil1234@gmail.com ) above. (4) The written response shall be served within ten (10) days of the service of this request.
SUBPOENA REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on Responding Party: Custodian of Records and Person Most Knowledgeable is used herein to refer to, and includes Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles, AND YOU are NOT required to appear in person if you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the declaration on page two or the attached declaration or affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with.As might be YOUR custom, you may provide responsive records in electronic format (i.e., text files that can be opened with any word processing software such as Word or TextEdit) or a searchable portable document file (PDF).
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS
ALL the Defendants, Requestors and Propounders seek disclosure of any and all records created which were prepared, received, transmitted, collected and/or maintained by the Plaintiffs, Responding Parties, ALL Government Related Parties, and ALL Government Related Third Parties, including but not limited to those listed in those sections herein.
YOU are requested to produce for inspection and copying, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031), the DOCUMENTS in the below-numbered categories.  The production shall take place on December 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., at 4200 Park Blvd., Oakland, California, 94602.
This is a request for an opportunity to inspect and/or obtain copies of records of any and all documents, files, correspondence, audio and video files, or other records of yours and various National, State, County of Alameda and City of Oakland Offices under the provisions of CCP 2031 on behalf of the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders.
YOU are required to serve a written response, under oath, responding to each item or category as provided by Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031).
The written response shall be served within seven (7) days of the service of this request.
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.
This is a request for an opportunity to inspect and/or obtain copies of records of any and all documents, files, correspondence, audio and video files, or other records of yours and various offices under the provisions of Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on behalf of the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, family members Harun al-Hakim-Miller, Jalil Omar al-Hakim, Bari al-Hakim-Williams, and their siblings; and the entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth.org, eX-whY Adventures, their real, personal and business property (all herein after referred to as “ALL the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders and/or Defendant/Requestors and Propounders”)
Please process this request for ALL SECTION Requests under ALL statutes herein to release the maximum number of documents and records in the interests of justice and achieving full compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031). Please search ALL your automated indices to the Central Records System, the older general (manual) indices, all Field Offices, other facilities that are separate from the office processing the request, or with another agency or agencies having a substantial interest in the determination of the request, or among two or more components of the agency or agencies having substantial subject matter interest therein needed to coordinate the response with different sections in the department that have responsibility for the requested records. This search is essential to collect and appropriately examine the separate and distinct records which are demanded so that copies of the following documents containing the following information be provided to us by Responding Parties and ALL Related Parties seek disclosure of any records for the Plaintiff/Responding Party.East Bay Auto filed a Small claims action to try to collect $3,400 in back storage fees BUT their status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, they may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto Center, their owners, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto Center, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) As the defendant, we filed a cross complaint and may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.We asked that the court award ALL costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, other losses and damages, and monetary sanctions in an amount according to proof. The costs are well over $20,000 at present.
As we have always maintained and is proven by their bad faith fact pattern, this was ALWAYS an entrapment scheme designed to take possession of the truck with it’s contents and trigger civil/criminal actions knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. They are not acting alone!These requests are deemed to be continuing insofar as if any of the above is secured subsequent to the date herein for the production of same, said documents are to be provided to Defendant’s consistent within the applicable Rule of Civil Procedure.
This subpoena is not intended as a full or complete statement of all relevant demands, claims, facts or applicable law, and nothing herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my rights, remedies, claims or causes of action, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Please provide the records in an electronic format to: ajalil1234@gmail.com. Documents not in electronic format should be forwarded Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim below on or before the return date of this subpoena if you wish to comply voluntarily rather than appearing before the court.The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
Defendants the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Claims
Defendants/Requesting Party’s, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Harun al-Hakim-Miller, Patty Flenory, Jalil Omar al-Hakim, Bari al-Hakim-Williams, Joette al-Hakim-Hall, and their siblings; their affected entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth.org, eX-whY Adventures, their real and personal property, their real property including but not limited to 7633 Sunkist Drive, Oakland, CA  94605, their businesses and business property, their charities, their communities, the communities they serve, those that they serve, HAVE an on going claim against the Responding Parties Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles and Plaintiffs Shah Sons LLC,  DOING BUSINESS AS (DBA) East Bay Auto Center and Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, their alleged Asian investors, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Claims, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Appraisal Team (“State Farm”), Gary O’Donnell, or any of its employees or representatives including but not limited to Mary Weaver, Gary O’Donnell, Madison Ritter, Kaitlin Hampe, Samantha B, Lex, Kendra Behrens, Victor Walker, “Neg”, Karena Kelly-Guishard, Lexie Figueroa, each of their contractors Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, with each of their investors, their predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, divisions, each of their past or present officers, their previous and current directors, previous and current employees, agents, consultants, independent contractors, representatives, lobbyist, experts, private investigators, private security, past and current attorneys, partners, associates, investigators, witnesses, litigation opponents, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, others unnamed as Does One through One Hundred, et. at.
On January 30, 2024, at 3:25 pm I went to East Bay Auto at 21099 Mission Blvd., Hayward, CA 94541 for a Alameda County Sheriff’s Civil Stand By observed by Deputies Joshua Chavez #2287 and Collin Lenahan #2453 to pick up our truck and East Bay Auto Center REFUSED to release it claiming they are owed storage.
East Bay admitted in the presence of the two (2) Deputies, whom are percipient eye witnesses, 1) that they DO NOT have a contract with us in any capacity, 2) that they were paid $1,050 by the insurance company for storage, 3) that East Bay has had many other communications and agreements with the insurance company and their agents, 4) they have had communications and agreements which we were NOT privy to and do not have copies of, 5) East Bay had previously told me that they had an agreement with the insurance company for the storage, BUT revealed that they actually have a check and displayed it before the deputies, 6) they referred to their hand written policy posted on the wall that they charge storage 2 days AFTER the completion of any work performed.
They have NOT and will NOT perform any work on the truck and I will never sign any work order for same nor have we singed a release for them to be paid!
I am the person for the Service Process in this Plaintiff’s fraudulent claim and named as the Person of Interest in this fraudulent alleged Lien Sale denied on February 7, 2024 by the Department of Motor Vehicle filed by these same Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center.
Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center filed this claim March 13, 2024, and allegedly served it via U. S. postal mail from Hayward, California with postage meter dated Monday, May 20, 2024.
We received the mailed letter claim on Friday, May 31, 2024. Yet only FIVE (5) DAYS LATER, on March 19, 2024, plaintiff’s contacted AMWF and Abdul-Jalil by phone and reply email dated March 25, 2024 with invoice dated March 19, 2024 DISAVOWING AND REJECTING their claim and REQUESTING that we come and retrieve the truck AT NO COSTS!
On April 22, 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As a result, we do not have a total value of the scope of loss and damage to the truck therefrom. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago!
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroy the chain of custody!
We called the County Sheriff’s and made arrangements to meet them there for a truck theft/missing report on October 2, 2024. Once we met there, Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S THE LOCATION OF THE TRUCK, OR WETHER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AGAIN AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in several unsolicited emails to the court and Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey; Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711; and court administrator Chad Finke that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
Plaintiffs and Sheriffs have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to an unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
On November 2, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been returned to Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward with additional damage. Upon investigation, the truck has been further BURGLARIZED by the breach of the lock on the roll up door and the roll up door itself! THE DAMAGES ARE UNKOWN AND YET TO BE INVESTIGATED!
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION.
As reported of this date, East Bay STILL has the truck and REFUSES to release it to us unless and until we indemnify them from ALL liability for their civil and criminal charges of larceny, fraud, theft, damage, if the vehicle is stolen from them, etc., so they may be able to do or have done anything they choose to the vehicle and it’s contents without any possible consequences!
The truck was supposed to have been returned to defendants by March 7, 2024, BUT that DID NOT HAPPEN.
Now, the truck has been STOLEN, was burglarized, vandalized, is damaged, and East Bay has refused to allow the COUNTY SHERIFFS nor us to inspect the truck for a complete analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages, UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SIGN A WAIVER OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR SAME! We will NOT ever do that.
As you have been advised, East Bay Auto Center filed a Small Claims action against us for an additional $3,400 storage fees beyond the amount they settled with State Farm for. We have filed a Cross Complaint against them for undetermined costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, and other losses and damages, has cab damage that is 57 inches long stretching from the rear passenger side to start of the cab damage that is 6-8 inches wide through the corporate lettering, the truck is currently lodged 2 inches within and against the fence and CAN NOT be moved without causing MORE significant damage!
The truck was NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!
East Bay Auto Center is NOT currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair nor the Alameda County Business License AS A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY, thus they are NOT authorized to do business in the State of California and don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit. They, East Bay Auto Center, may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer.
We discovered that the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) has Shah Sons LLC, listed as the “owner” of East Bay Auto Center. That is also true for the Alameda County Business License although their license is invalid for failure to file and pay taxes and comply with a mandatory audit.
HOWEVER, Shah Sons LLC, HAS NOT REGISTERED NOR ARE THEY USING A DBA (DOING BUSINESS AS) for East Bay Auto Center with any Federal, State, or County governmental agency, NOT the IRS, California Secretary of State State, California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair nor the Alameda County Business License.
In order for East Bay Auto Center to legally exist AS A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY, they would have to file the proper documents with the IRS, California Secretary of State State, California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair and the Alameda County Business License, establishing Shah Sons LLC,  DOING BUSINESS AS (DBA) East Bay Auto Center. They have NOT done that even though they filed a Fictitious Business Name Statement with Alameda County.
Additionally, there are NO other REQUIRED means, NO INVOICES, NO ADVERTISEMENTS, NOTHING ON THEIR WEBSITE, that they comply with for the use of the legal name of the LLC- Shah Sons LLC, followed by the DBA- doing business as East Bay Auto Center. This practice clarifies the legal entity involved and maintain the LLC’s limited liability status. This ensures that the contracts are enforceable and that the LLC is recognized as the party to these endeavors.
If an LLC does not properly use its DBA, it operates under a DBA without using its legal name, it intentionally breaches the line between personal and business activities and loses the limited liability protection typically afforded to LLC members.This leads to “piercing the corporate veil,” where courts hold members personally liable for business debts and obligations, negating the primary benefit of forming an LLC. Courts have determined that the LLC is not a separate entity if it does not clearly identify itself, leading to personal liability for members.
Contracts should include clear liability clauses that outline the responsibilities and limitations of liability for the LLC. This can help protect the LLC from claims that may arise from business activities conducted under the DBA.
To maintain the limited liability protection of SHAH SONS LLC, it is crucial to keep personal and business finances separate. This includes using a dedicated business bank account and credit cards for all transactions related to the DBA- “Shah Sons LLC, doing business as East Bay Auto Center”. Open a dedicated business bank account for the LLC- Shah Sons LLC, that uses the legal name- “Shah Sons LLC, doing business as East Bay Auto Center”. This separation helps maintain the SHAH SONS LLC’s limited liability protection and simplifies financial management.
Given that EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) The defendant may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.
East Bay Auto has suspensions with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
We will ask the court to transfer the Small Claims action to Court of Competent Jurisdiction because we have no projected total of the costs, losses and damages to the truck that exceed the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to a court of competent jurisdiction.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
However, co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm are not acting alone as the ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s officers. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Sheriff’s Deputy Markita Sayles that she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES is PROOF of how POLICE FILE FALSE REPORTS, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, FIX THE CASE, COMMIT FRAUD to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto AFTER she:
1) admitted she talked with Law Enforcement Special Services resources twice to ascertain that she was proceeding in the correct manner according to their plan and her instructions. WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO CONSULT WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES TO TAKE AND FILE A SIMPLE, COMMON POLICE REPORT?,
2) East Bay Auto incriminated police admitting that they worked with police, are accomplishes, collaborators, were under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation or Abdul-Jalil,
3) The vehicle was ADMITTED stolen, burglarized, vandalized, fraud, larceny and damaged, BUT, BOTH policemen said “this is NOT a criminal matter, truck was not stolen”,
4) Dep. Sayles said she can’t inspect/process nor document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property, nor can Abdul-Jalil without the approval of their asset East Bay Auto,
5) Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times,
6) Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras,
7) Dep. Sayles said Abdul-Jalil didn’t answers her questions, BUT she NEVER asked basic questions as: Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, nothing on damage, suspects, the truck registration or VIN,
Dep. Sayles said Abdul-Jalil needed to go to court in order to get a police report, REFUSING TO TAKE A REPORT!, and
9) Dep. Sayles said it’s a civil matter 8 Times! NOT a criminal matter.
THIS VIDEO PROVIDES PROOF THAT SHERIFF’S DEPT. MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! Sayles “event/police report” states:

“RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”

Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, AND Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras! SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE!
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
The Entrapment Strategy is disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Abdul-Jalil, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties, the threats/demands for Payment of Storage, refusal to pay for a Rental vehicle, mitigating the continuing Loss of Use and Damages, and their illegal clandestine efforts to gain ownership of our truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US with the FRAUDULENT attempted East Bay Auto Lien Sale and REFUSAL to release our truck to defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.
Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation is going forward with Civil and Criminal Charges/Claims for Grand Larceny, Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Property Theft, Burglary, Vandalism, Extortion, Phone (Terrorist) Threats, Deception, attempted Grand Theft, Costs, Damages, Mitigating the Continuing Loss of Use, and Monetary Sanctions, among others with Federal and State Complaints filed against East Bay Auto and State Farm Insurance and served them both with Preservation-of-Evidence Demand Letter.
Additionally, with respect to any and all business operation regarding the defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation insurance policy and claim, and THE FACT that State Farm, their employees, their referenced agents, sub-agents, contractors, State Farm Claims, State Farm Appraisal Team, Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, and ALL known and unknown Third Parties have clearly “targeted” defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and using recognizable government entrapment tactics the latest of which was the refusal to release the truck and “lien sale” to gain ownership of their truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US! As a direct and proximate result of State Farm and their co-conspirators East Bay’s continuing actions, defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation is FORCED to make long term arrangements for the storage of the truck UNTIL STATE FARM PAYS FOR THE REPAIR AS AMWF PURSUES ALL OTHER REMEDIES!
Some Requests for Documents include:
61. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof of MARKITA SAYLES FILED A FALSE REPORT, LIED ABOUT ENTIRE POLICE REPORT, see: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
62. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof of MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! as Sayles her “event/police report” states “ RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
63. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof that Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
64. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof that Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
101. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED PHONE CALL TO DEFENDANTS, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
102. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Sheriff failure and refusal to investigate and file a report established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
103. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Sheriff failure and refusal to investigate and file a report established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
104. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
105. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
110. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfer with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
111. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfer with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
273. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to June 26, 2012, 50 page complaint regarding al-Hakim being accosted by the Sheriffs deputy stating “I have recently called and left messages as well as speaking to your clerk Elaine just last week regarding my desire to file several law suits as well as answering other matters that require the ability to file those required documents without the fear of being ambushed by the District Attorney’s office enforcers or the County Sheriff’s Department acting in their place and stead for other judicial entities. I have been precluded from any legal rights by virtue of this illegal, repressive censorship enacted by the DA’s office. This has gone on far too long and the legal consequences continue to mount as I am forbidden to pursue my civil rights in court without the oppression of the system by those in control of it. I want to and will file my law suits and go forward to resolution of these unprecedented matters in this public forum.” filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay.
274. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to January 7, 2014, 11 page letter, fax and email complaint in (ACDCSS) case number #0010274454-01 (previously listed as FSD #274454A) regarding “Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim being profiled, surveilled, identified, and targeted by the District Attorney and Sheriff’s Deputy, al-Hakim being accosted by Sheriffs Deputies and prevented from entering the Alameda Family Law Courthouse by County Sheriff’s who informed defendant that he must go to Judge Pulido’s courtroom to file the letter, that he would be handling this matter in Probate Court and defendants requesting security” filed with Winifred Smith- Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California; C. Don Clay- Supervising Judge, Superior Court of California; Stephen Pulido- Presiding Judge Family Law Court, Superior Court of California; and Judge Sandra Bean- Alameda Family Law Court, Superior Court of California.
289.  ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to plaintiffs July 11, 2018 hearing in the matters of al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371 and resultant complaint filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced in RE: “al-Hakim states “I have been in your courtroom over 20 times and I have never seen a deputy standing right behind the party during a hearing.” and you have THREE deputies in the courtroom right now!”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
290. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to the October 3, 2018 hearing, the resultant letter, fax and email Complaint filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced in RE: “Clay says “that’s normal, I may even have more!” al-Hakim says “for a civil ex-parte motion at 3:00 p.m.? I don’t believe that! Clay says ” It’s true”
297. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to the April 14, 2008 Complaint with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced therein the request for security against Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar RE: “when al-Hakim entered the courthouse building, the deputy at the metal detector called upstairs to the courtroom, Department 21 to inform them of his arrival in the building” filed with Victoria B. Henley, Director-Chief Counsel of the Sate of California Commission on Judicial Performance, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye- Supreme Court of California and Chair, Judicial Council of California, and Commission Judicial Appointments; Judge Phyllis Hamilton- Chief District Judge, U. S. District Court- No. Division; Alex Tse- Director, U. S. Attorney’s Office; Xavier Becerra- Attorney General of California; Victoria Henley-Director-Chief Counsel, Commission on Judicial Performance;  Martin Hoshino- Director, Judicial Council of California, Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge, former Presiding Court Judge George Hernandez and Alameda County Superior Court Administration.

These torts exposes the Responding Parties to the full array of tort remedies, including punitive damages on top of regular tort damages, for an insurance company’s unreasonable breach of an insurance contract.
Responding Parties engaging in the herein referenced Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” persecution to the detriment and oppression of Defendants, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, the communities they serve, and those they serve was both covert and overt, consisting of both actions and inactions of subterfuges and evasions that violated the obligation of good faith in performance with their continuing evasion of the spirit of the bargain, lack of diligence and slacking off, willful rendering of imperfect performance, abuse of a power to specify terms, and interference with or failure to cooperate in the other party’s performance.” (R. J. Kuhl Corp. v. Sullivan (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1589, 1602 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 425].)
As a direct and proximate result of Responding Parties actions, Defendant’s has suffered losses and damages, including but not limited to: 1) repair of their vehicle, 2) loss of use of the vehicle during the repair period, measured by the rental value of a similar vehicle, 3) loss of income due to the inability to use the vehicle for business purposes, 4) additional expenses incurred due to the inability to use the vehicle for personal and business purposes, emotional distress and inconvenience caused by the loss of use. As this matter is part of an ongoing action, defendants also has claims for 1) general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 2) for costs of suit incurred herein; and 3) for any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim at:
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation 
4200 Park Blvd., Suite 116 
Oakland, CA 94602 
Tel: 510-394-4501Respectfully, Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******     We received a voicemail for someone named Mary from State Farm claims inquiring into our moving the Truck from East Bay Auto Center.
    As reported of this date, East Bay STILL has the truck and REFUSES to release it to us unless and until we indemnify them from ALL liability for their civil and criminal charges of larceny, fraud, theft, damage, if the vehicle is stolen from them, etc., so they may be able to do or have done anything they choose to the vehicle and it’s contents without any possible consequences!
     The truck was supposed to have been returned to us by March 7, 2024, BUT that DID NOT HAPPEN.
      Now, the truck has been STOLEN, was burglarized, vandalized, is damaged, and East Bay has refused to allow the COUNTY SHERIFFS nor us to inspect the truck for a complete analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages,UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SIGN A WAIVER OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR SAME! We will NOT ever do that.
    As you ALL have been advised, East Bay Auto Center filed a Small Claims action against us for an additional $3,400 storage fees beyond the amount they settled with State Farm for. We have filed a Cross Complaint against them for undetermined costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, and other losses and damages, has cab damage that is 57 inches long stretching from the rear passenger side to start of the cab damage that is 6-8 inches wide through the corporate lettering, the truck is currently lodged 2 inches within and against the fence and CAN NOT be moved without causing MORE significant damage!
    The truck was NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!
    East Bay Auto Center is Not currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, thus they don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit.
    EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California. They may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer.
    Given that EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) The defendant may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.
    East Bay Auto has suspensions with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
    We will ask the court to transfer the Small Claims action to Court of Competent Jurisdiction because we have no projected total of the costs, losses and damages. losses and damages to the truck that may exceed the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and if so, request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to a court of competent jurisdiction.
    I base my request for the imposition of a sanction on the basis that it took me over 47 hours to research and locate the correct Plaintiff’s personnel, many phone calls, letters, emails and faxes in communication with the parties referenced herein, to research and prepare this motion, costs, and expenses according to proof. My discounted hourly wage is $350 per hour (from regular posted fee of $550/hour) for the 47 hours spent on this matter equals $16,450 alone.
    As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
    The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.    A FORMAL COMPLAINT WILL FOLLOW UNDER SEPARATE COVER.
    Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
    IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
    However, co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm are not acting alone as the ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s officers.
    This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Sheriff’s Deputy Markita Sayles that she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES is PROOF of how POLICE FILE FALSE REPORTS, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, FIX THE CASE, COMMIT FRAUD to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto AFTER she:
1) admitted she talked with Law Enforcement Special Services resources twice to ascertain that she was proceeding in the correct manner according to their plan and her instructions. WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO CONSULT WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES TO TAKE AND FILE A SIMPLE, COMMON POLICE REPORT?,
2) East Bay Auto incriminated police admitting that they worked with police, are accomplishes, collaborators, were under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist AMWF and Abdul-Jalil,
3) The vehicle was ADMITTED stolen, burglarized, vandalized, fraud, larceny and damaged, BUT, BOTH policemen said “this is NOT a criminal matter, truck was not stolen”,
4) Dep. Sayles said she can’t inspect/process nor document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property, nor can Jalil without the approval of their asset East Bay Auto,
5) Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times,
6) Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras,
7) Dep. Sayles said Jalil didn’t answers her questions, BUT she NEVER asked basic questions as: Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, nothing on damage, suspects, the truck registration or VIN,
Dep. Sayles said Jalil needed to go to court in order to get a police report, REFUSING TO TAKE A REPORT!, and
9) Dep. Sayles said it’s a civil matter 8 Times! NOT a criminal matter.
    THIS VIDEO PROVIDES PROOF THAT SHERIFF’S DEPT. MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! Sayles “event/police report” states:

“RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”

    Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, AND Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras! SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE!
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    The Entrapment Strategy is to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- AMWF and Abdul-Jalil, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have PREPARED SUBPOENAS TO BE SERVED THIS WEEK ON ALL THE PARTIES REFERRENCED HEREIN that we have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties, the threats/demands for Payment of Storage, refusal to pay for a Rental vehicle, mitigating the continuing Loss of Use and Damages, and their illegal clandestine efforts to gain ownership of our truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US with the FRAUDULENT attempted East Bay Auto Lien Sale and REFUSAL to release our truck to AMWF.
    AMWF is going forward with Civil and Criminal Charges/Claims for Grand Larceny, Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Property Theft, Burglary, Vandalism, Extortion, Phone (Terrorist) Threats, Deception, attempted Grand Theft, Costs, Damages, Mitigating the Continuing Loss of Use, and Monetary Sanctions, among others with Federal and State Complaints filed against East Bay Auto and State Farm Insurance and served them both with Preservation-of-Evidence Demand Letter.
   Additionally, with respect to any and all business operation regarding the AMWF insurance policy and claim, and THE FACT that State Farm, their employees, their referenced agents, sub-agents, contractors, State Farm Claims, State Farm Appraisal Team, Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, and ALL known and unknown Third Parties have clearly “targeted” AMWF and using recognizable government entrapment tactics the latest of which was the refusal to release the truck and “lien sale” to gain ownership of their truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US! As a direct and proximate result of State Farm and their co-conspirators East Bay’s continuing actions, AMWF is FORCED to make long term arrangements for the storage of the truck UNTIL STATE FARM PAYS FOR THE REPAIR AS AMWF PURSUES ALL OTHER REMEDIES!     ALL THE PARTIES HEREIN ARE DEMANDED TO LODGE AND FILE THE REQUISITE COMPLAINT AND BEGAN THE MANDATORY INVESTIGATION PROCESS!

Respectfully,


Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******
Anti-SPAM Policy Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary to our company that is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.
This e-mail message was sent to you because you have previously corresponded with us and/or are subscribed to one of our emailing lists.
If you have received this communication in error, or this e-mail is unsolicited, please accept our apologies and at any time you would like to remove yourself from our mailings, please feel free to do so by clicking on “Unsubscribe“, or you can also notify the sender immediately and we shall delete your address, or replying to this message and type “Unsubscribe” in the subject line to remove yourself from our mailing list.
If you’ve received unsolicited email from one of our users, or if you suspect a user of abusing email services (or have any questions regarding our policies), please do not hesitate to contact us. Under Bill 1618 Title III passed by the 105th U. S. Congress, email cannot be considered Spam as long as it includes contact information and a remove link for removal from the mailing list.
We prohibit users from sending unsolicited email, and do not allow the use of third-party, purchased, rented, or harvested mailing lists. Anyone found abusing such email is banned from the use of our service.
Every complaint is investigated, and you will receive a response from our abuse team detailing the action we’re taking to deal with the issue.
Thanks in advance for you time.

—
Creating and Edvocating Relevant Social Service Programs

—
Creating and Edvocating Relevant Social Service Programs Attachments:

al-Hakim Decl:State Non-Svc Brand Vexatious Litigant List 7:8:25.pages.pdf	146 KB
Kaus:Jones:Nixon DQ Decl AMWF v SF 8:12:25.pdf	415 KB

Subject: PRESIDING JUDGE REFUSES TO SERVE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED; PROOF Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice; PROOF KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance

From: “A. J.” <ajalil1234@gmail.com>

Date: 7/30/25, 9:19 PM

To: Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov, Marsha.Slough@jud.ca.gov, charlenedrummer@hotmail.com, coletteabrooks@aol.com, Gregory.Dresser@cjp.ca.gov, Shawn.Spaulding@cjp.ca.gov, Anne.Hunter@cjp.ca.gov, mark.lizarraga@cjp.ca.gov, Sonya.smith@cjp.ca.gov, SRsmith@cjp.ca.gov, Emma.Bradford@cjp.ca.gov, mani@sheiklaw.us, rivie@imwlaw.com, rachel@hillmediationservices.com, gnelson@nflawfirm.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, michelle.Curran@jud.ca.gov, robert.Oyung@jud.ca.gov, salena.Chow@jud.ca.gov, Deborah.Brown@jud.ca.gov, Laura.Speed@jud.ca.gov, Deborah.Collier-Tucker@jud.ca.gov, Chio.Saephanh@jud.ca.gov, Heather.Resetarits@jud.ca.gov, Cristina.Resendiz-Johnson@jud.ca.gov, Elizabeth.Tam-Helmuth@jud.ca.gov, amanda.Morris@jud.ca.gov, AccessFairnessComm@jud.ca.gov, civilandsmallclaims@jud.ca.gov, malcumbrac@nemecek-cole.com, pbrownmcgill@pbmlawoffices.com, pdeedon@maire-law.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, crice@dlunited.org, elise@aswtlawyers.com, jt@thigpenlegal.com, saul.bercovitch@calawyers.org, elizabeth.Tam-Helmuth@jud.ca.gov, amanda.Morris@jud.ca.gov, AccessFairnessComm@jud.ca.gov, civilandsmallclaims@jud.ca.gov, malcumbrac@nemecek-cole.com, pbrownmcgill@pbmlawoffices.com, pdeedon@maire-law.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, crice@dlunited.org, elise@aswtlawyers.com, jt@thigpenlegal.com, saul.bercovitch@calawyers.org, jenny.Grantz@jud.ca.gov, collabjusticecomm@jud.ca.gov, Dana.Cruz@jud.ca.gov, Deanna.adams@jud.ca.gov, Carrie.Zoller@jud.ca.gov, CLAC@jud.ca.gov, jenny.wald@jud.ca.gov, bruce.greenlee@jud.ca.gov, kerry.doyle@jud.ca.gov, douglas.denton@jud.ca.gov, sarah.Fleischer-Ihn@jud.ca.gov, Jamie.Schechter@jud.ca.gov, camilla.kieliger@jud.ca.gov, james.barolo@jud.ca.gov, anne.ronan@jud.ca.gov, marsha.Slough@jud.ca.gov, susan.mcmullan@jud.ca.gov, douglasp.miller@jud.ca.gov, sarah.Fleischer-Ihn@jud.ca.gov, anne.ronan@jud.ca.gov, corby.sturges@jud.ca.gov, jenny.grantz@jud.ca.gov, jason.Haas@jud.ca.gov, donna.Newman@jud.ca.gov, jennifer.chappelle@jud.ca.gov, marsha.slough@jud.ca.gov, chris.Belloli@jud.ca.gov, corey.Rada@jud.ca.gov, davidakaiser@earthlink.net, info@caljudges.org, dept.105@alameda.courts.ca.gov, BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov, cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov, SHing@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MGaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.711@alameda.courts.ca.gov, Dept.605@alameda.courts.ca.gov, patrick.robbins@usdoj.gov, Craig.Missakian@usdoj.gov, craig@cmlawpartners.com, Kimberly.Hopkins@usdoj.gov, Martha.Boersch@usdoj.gov, Pamela.Johann@usdoj.gov, Rob.Bonta@doj.ca.gov, san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov, Bertram.Fairries@ic.fbi.gov, media.sf@fbi.gov, Sanjay.Virmani@fbi.gov, piu@doj.ca.gov, Kimberly.Kirchmeyer@dca.ca.gov, ethan.Quinn@ic.fbi.gov, shaina.Witter@fbi.gov, agustin.Lopez@fbi.gov, bryan.Stevens@fbi.gov, Venus.Johnson@doj.ca.gov, Michelle.Lo@usdoj.gov, Jeff.Nedrow@usdoj.gov, Tom.Colthurst@usdoj.gov, Victoria.Sawyer@doj.ca.gov, Maheen.Ahmed@doj.ca.gov, Elvis.Chan@ic.fbi.gov, Jeff.Fields@ic.fbi.gov

BCC: ajalil@berkeley.edu

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

4200 Park Blvd., Ste. #One16, Oakland CA  94602
Phone  (510) 394-4101

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation

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

Linked In Profile on Abdul-Jalil, Kobe Bryant Supports AMWF

Abdul-Jalil Honored in Port Au-Prince, Haiti and Miami, Fla. for Relief Missions to Haiti ,  Thanks You from Arch Bishop Joel Jeune to Abdul-Jalil

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY HONORS ABDUL-JALIL Receives Certificate-of-Recognition for 2021-22 

Belal Salih Esa receives Posthumous Congressional Proclamation/Resolution for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from California Governor Gavin Newsom and the State Legislature for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from the Mayor, City Council and the Unified School District Board of Supervisors of the City of Albany for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)

Humanitarian Civil and Human Rights Achievements

Articles on Abdul-Jalil:  ABDUL-JALIL GENIUS- BOY WONDER!!MC Hammer Tribute to ABDUL-JALILEmanuel Steward on ABDUL-JALIL
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Maze Featuring Frankie Beverly and Marvin Gaye
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Khalid al-Mansour, President Barack Obama and Prince Al-Waleed
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Destiny and Marvin Gaye

Abdul-Jalil BMI Songwriter/Producer

Abdul-Jalil Wrote/Produced/Adminstered Survey, Poll, Analysis, Song, and Commercials for City of Oakland Image Campaign “I Know You’ll Love Oakland”

Abdul-Jalil Wrote/Produced/Adminstered Mayor Lionel Wilson and City of Oakland “Conference On Urban Economic Development” and Commercials

Abdul-Jalil Hosted the City of Oakland’s “Holiday Season at the Trans Pacific Centre”

Ron Dellums Congressional Acknowledgement to Abdul-Jalil for Bicentennial Basketball Classic

Abdul-Jalil and The Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Fundraiser
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg1
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg2
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg3

ABDUL-JALIL- the First _SUPER AGENT_ Legal Black History Page 1
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 2
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 3
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law, Lecturor, Presenter, Marketing, Branding Page 4

Award for “Distinguished Marketing and Promotional Services” from NFL Super Bowl NFL Experience , Abdul-Jalil Award from NFL Super Bowl, Rihanna SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo , Dr. Dre SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo

SUPER BOWL CELEBRITY PLACEMENT, Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg1,  Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg2 ,  Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg3

The Man Who Turn$ Hit$ Into Million$, One Special Case,

The Historic Jr. Moore Contract pg1, The Historic Jr. Moore Contract pg2,

ESPN Bostock 5th & Jackson TV Special Part 1, and Part 2,  ESPN Bostock Magazine Special, ESPN Magazine- The History and Mystery of The High Five,
the “al-Hakim Tax Code Ruling”, Smart Agent, Busy Agent,
Abdul-Jalil in Harvard University Law School Federal Tax Course Outline
Abdul-Jalil in Yale University Law School Federal Tax Course 13th Ed., Prof. Eric Zolt
Abdul-Jalil in Wake Forest University Law School “Islamic and Jewish Perspective On Interest”
Abdul-Jalil in Washington University Law School Tax CodeAbdul-Jalil in Washington & Lee University Law School Tax Code,Abdul-Jalil in University of Virginia Law School Tax Course

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation-KPFA Promotional Video
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Kids Celebrity Gift BackPacks
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Free Food Program Celebrity Giving Back
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville KPFA Interview Video
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Alameda Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Entourage & Randy Holland in Trader Joe’s Pinole “Tribute to Legends of Jazz” Show
Santa Fe Elementary School’s Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, SemiFreddi’s, Trader Joe’s, Little Ceasar’s Pizza, Marshawn Lynch’s “Fam1ly F1rst” and Leon Powe’s “Fresh Start Oakland”
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 1
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 2

---

You can click on any highlighted word to view or download that itemTo:    Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero                    Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero
         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: 415-865-4391,415-865-4205               Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov

        Michelle Curran                                            Gregory Dresser           
        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
Michelle.Curran@jud.ca.govGregory.Dresser@jud.ca.gov


            Craig H. Missakian-Director                Rob Bonta
            U. S. Attorney’s Office                         Attorney General of California
            Federal Courthouse                              1300 I Street, Suite 125
            450 Golden Gate Avenue                     P.O. Box 944255           
            San Francisco, CA 94102                    Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
            Fax No.: 415-436-7234                        Fax: 916-324-8835

Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan
              Superior Court of Alameda County                   East Bay Auto Center         
              Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                 21099 Mission Blvd.
              Department 105                                               Hayward, CA 94541
              661 Washington St.                                          Email: EastBayAuto6@gmail.com
              Oakland, CA 94607                                          Ph:510‐690‐2728
              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov
BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov

Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer
             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County
             René C. Davidson Courthouse                          René C. Davidson Courthouse
             Department 1                                                  1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
             Oakland, CA 94612                                          Oakland, CA 94612
             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                Fax: 510-891-6276
TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.govcfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov
            Judge Stuart Hing                                                 Judge Michael Gaffey
            East County Hall of Justice                                  Fremont Hall of Justice
            Fremont Law & Motion, Dept 711                       Fremont Law & Motion, Dept. 605
            5151 Gleason Drive                                              39439 Paseo Padre Parkway
            Dublin, CA 94568                                                Fremont, CA 94538
            SHing@alameda.courts.ca.gov                            MGaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept711@alameda.courts.ca.govDept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov
            925-227-6711                                                        510-818-7510
            Sanjay Virmani, FBI Director                              Yesenia Sanchez             Northern District of California                            Alameda County Sheriff
            San Francisco Field Office                                  1401 Lakeside Drive, 12th Floor
            450 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor                  Oakland, CA 94612-4305
            San Francisco, CA 94102-9523                           Fax: (510) 272-6811

            Chief Brian Matthews                                         Casey Hallinan             Hayward Police Department                               Attorney General of California             300 W. Winton Ave.                                            Attn: Public Inquiry Unit             Hayward, CA 94544                                            P.O. Box 944255             Fax: 510-293-7183                                              Sacramento, CA 94244-2550Fax: (916) 323-5341

           Senator Aisha Wahab (SD-10)                Ursula Jones Dickson
           California State Senate                            District Attorney
           39510 Paseo Padre Pkwy, Ste 280          René C. Davidson Courthouse
           Fremont, CA 94538                                1225 Fallon Street, Room 900
           Fax: 916-319-2125                                  Oakland CA 94612
                                                                           Fax: 510-452-5625, 510-271-5157

           Steve Gordon- Director                            Kenneth J. Pogue- Director
           Department of Motor Vehicles                 Office of Administrative Law
           2415 1st Ave., Mail Station F101             300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250
           Sacramento, CA 95818-2606                   Sacramento, CA 95814-4339
           Fax:                                                           Fax: 916-323-6826
Steve.Gordon@dmv.ca.govKenneth.Pogue@oai.ca.gov

           Kimberly Kirchmeyer- Director                Patrick Dorais- Bureau Chief
           Department of Consumer Affairs              Bureau of Automotive Repair
          1625 North Market Blvd., Suite N 112      Complaint Intake Unit
           Sacramento, CA 95834                             10949 N. Mather Blvd.
           Fax: (916) 574-8623                                  Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Kimberly.Kirchmeyer@dca.ca.gov           Fax: (916) 464-3405
Patrick_Dorais@dca.ca.gov

          Ricardo Lara- Commissioner                    Alex Anneker           Department of Insurance                           State Farm Insurance Agent          300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700                     5301 Claremont Ave          Sacramento, CA 95814                              Oakland, CA 94618          Fax: 916-445-5276                                    alex.anneker.vadygn@statefarm.com,          Ricardo.Lara@insurance.ca.gov
         Custodian of Records
         State Farm Claims
         PO Box 52250
         Phoenix, AZ 85072-2250
        Alacrity Fax: 985-345-4400, 800-952-5371sent via: U. S. Mail, Fax, and email                                  
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     July 31, 2025
NO. PAGES: 12
RE: PRESIDING JUDGE REFUSES TO SERVE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!

Dear Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero- Supreme Court of California, Chair- Judicial Council of California, Commission on Judicial Appointments; Director Michelle Curran- Judicial Council of California; Director-Chief Counsel Gregory Dresser- Commission on Judicial Performance; Director Craig H. Missakian- U.S. Attorney’s Office; Attorney General of California Rob Bonta; Judge Brian Caruth- Superior Court of Alameda County; Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon- Superior Court of Alameda County; Executive Officer Chad Finke- Superior Court of Alameda County; Judge Stuart Hing- Superior Court of Alameda County; Judge Michael Gaffey- Superior Court of Alameda County; FBI Director Sanjay Virmani- San Francisco Field Office; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez- Alameda County Sheriff; Chief Brian Matthews- Hayward Police Department; Casey Hallinan- Attorney General of California Public Inquiry Unit; Senator Aisha Wahab- California State Senate (SD-10); District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson-Alameda County; Director Steve Gordon- Department of Motor Vehicles; Director Kenneth J. Pogue- Office of Administrative Law; Director Kimberly Kirchmeyer- Department of Consumer Affairs; Bureau Chief Patrick Dorais- Bureau of Automotive Repair; Commissioner Ricardo Lara- Department of Insurance; et. al.,
    As you ALL are aware, on July 8, 2025, we filed a Declaration in the matter of Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. C-81137 wherein Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, was allegedly deemed a vexatious litigant by Alameda County Superior Court.    I CALLED Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon’s OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES, LEFT VOICEMAIL MESSAGES AND DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE!    I then filed the Declaration and served a copy on Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon the same hour, establishing that THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON ME AND REQUESTED THAT IT BE SERVED SO I COULD PROPERLY RESPOND TO IT.
    ON AT LEAST TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS I WAS CONFRONTED BY PEOPLE THAT ARE KNOWN TO ME AS “SNITCHES”- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS, GOVERNMENT ASSETS, STATING THAT THEY HAD “LOTS” OF MAIL ADDRESSED TO ME AND MOST OF IT WAS FROM THE COURT. THERE WAS A THIRD PERSON OF SIMILAR ILK THAT STATED THEY WERE BEING COERCED TO BE COMPLICIT IN THE “SNITCH” ACTIVITIES OF ONE OF THE OTHERS.
That was THREE (3) weeks ago and as of today, July 31, 2025, Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon has FAILED AND REFUSED TO serve the order on al-Hakim! WHY??!!
    Nixon is obstructing justice in furtherance of the OVERT/COVERT ADMITTED ACTIONS of FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, AND CORRUPTION ON THE PARTS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!    I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY!!

Respectfully submitted,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff

——– Message ——–

Subject:	VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (CCP 391 (B)(3))) ORDER THAT WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED; PROOF Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice; PROOF KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance
Date:	Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:02:06 -0700
From:	A. J. <ajalil1234@gmail.com>
Reply-To:	ajalil1234@gmail.com
To:	Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov, Marsha.Slough@jud.ca.gov, rbmoises@cjp.ca.gov, charlenedrummer@hotmail.com, coletteabrooks@aol.com, Gregory.Dresser@cjp.ca.gov, GPDresser@cjp.ca.gov, Shawn.Spaulding@cjp.ca.gov, SRSpaulding@cjp.ca.gov, Anne.Hunter@cjp.ca.gov, AMHunter@cjp.ca.gov, mark.lizarraga@cjp.ca.gov, Sonya.smith@cjp.ca.gov, SRsmith@cjp.ca.gov, Emma.Bradford@cjp.ca.gov, mani@sheiklaw.us, rivie@imwlaw.com, rachel@hillmediationservices.com, gnelson@nflawfirm.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, michelle.Curran@jud.ca.gov, robert.Oyung@jud.ca.gov, salena.Chow@jud.ca.gov, Deborah.Brown@jud.ca.gov, Laura.Speed@jud.ca.gov, Deborah.Collier-Tucker@jud.ca.gov, Chio.Saephanh@jud.ca.gov, Heather.Resetarits@jud.ca.gov, Cristina.Resendiz-Johnson@jud.ca.gov, Elizabeth.Tam-Helmuth@jud.ca.gov, amanda.Morris@jud.ca.gov, AccessFairnessComm@jud.ca.gov, civilandsmallclaims@jud.ca.gov, malcumbrac@nemecek-cole.com, pbrownmcgill@pbmlawoffices.com, pdeedon@maire-law.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, crice@dlunited.org, elise@aswtlawyers.com, jt@thigpenlegal.com, saul.bercovitch@calawyers.org, elizabeth.Tam-Helmuth@jud.ca.gov, amanda.Morris@jud.ca.gov, AccessFairnessComm@jud.ca.gov, civilandsmallclaims@jud.ca.gov, malcumbrac@nemecek-cole.com, pbrownmcgill@pbmlawoffices.com, pdeedon@maire-law.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, crice@dlunited.org, elise@aswtlawyers.com, jt@thigpenlegal.com, saul.bercovitch@calawyers.org, jenny.Grantz@jud.ca.gov, collabjusticecomm@jud.ca.gov, Dana.Cruz@jud.ca.gov, Deanna.adams@jud.ca.gov, Carrie.Zoller@jud.ca.gov, CLAC@jud.ca.gov, jenny.wald@jud.ca.gov, bruce.greenlee@jud.ca.gov, kerry.doyle@jud.ca.gov, douglas.denton@jud.ca.gov, sarah.Fleischer-Ihn@jud.ca.gov, Jamie.Schechter@jud.ca.gov, camilla.kieliger@jud.ca.gov, james.barolo@jud.ca.gov, anne.ronan@jud.ca.gov, marsha.Slough@jud.ca.gov, susan.mcmullan@jud.ca.gov, douglasp.miller@jud.ca.gov, sarah.Fleischer-Ihn@jud.ca.gov, anne.ronan@jud.ca.gov, corby.sturges@jud.ca.gov, jenny.grantz@jud.ca.gov, jason.Haas@jud.ca.gov, donna.Newman@jud.ca.gov, jennifer.chappelle@jud.ca.gov, marsha.slough@jud.ca.gov, chris.Belloli@jud.ca.gov, corey.Rada@jud.ca.gov, davidakaiser@earthlink.net, info@caljudges.org, dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov, BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov, cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov, SHing@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MGaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept711@alameda.courts.ca.gov, Dept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov

sent via: U. S. Mail, Fax, and email                                  
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     July 8, 2025
NO. PAGES: 12
TO THOMAS NIXON, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT

ABDUL-JALIL AL-HAKIM DECLARATION/STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO JUDGE JEFF BRAND ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (CCP 391 (B)(3) ORDER THAT WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT FOR FILING CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 AND 170.3; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED. I HAVE CALLED YOUR OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES, LEFT VOICEMAIL MESSAGES AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE!

   THE OATH OF OFFICE
I, ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

“Judicial challenges themselves are not, however, evidence a want or delay of prosecution. A party is entitled to challenge a judicial officer for cause or bias.” “The challenges appear to be filed in an earnest belief that the judges of this Court ought to be disqualified from deciding this case and that each successive challenge will overcome the prior’s shortcomings.””the Court hopes and encourages both parties to take this new judicial assignment as a good time to wipe the slate clean, forgive any earlier acrimony, and proceed to resolve and adjudicate the claims raised by the Complaint in normal order and good faith. Al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated.” “Both parties deserve the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law. In short, this case deserves a chance to proceed on its merits, and now is an opportune time as any to do so.”

Judge Stephen Kaus, Tentative Ruling made September 11, 2018.
Judge Kaus admits to the courts acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law!

        Plaintiff and al-Hakim were NOT aware that there was any finding of GUILT in the matter of Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. C-81137 herein Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, was deemed a vexatious litigant by Alameda County Superior Court.
    As the CEO of Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation we filed an action against Defendants State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Claims and State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Appraisal Team or any of its employees or representatives including but not limited to Mary Weaver, Gary O’Donnell, Madison Ritter, Kaitlin Hampe, Samantha B, Kendra Behrens, Victor Walker, “Neg”, Karena Kelly-Guishard, Lexie Figueroa; Alex Anneker Insurance Agency, and Alex Anneker; Alacrity Solutions, LLC, and employees Jim Pearl, John Hall, Matt Fatheree, Rob Beller; Snapsheet and employees Brad Weisberg, Andy Cohen, Dan Colomb, Brad Weisberg, Jennifer Fagan, Jesse Perrotta, Alexia Bustamante; Up North Towing and Matthew; Blue Star Towing; Shah Sons LLC DBA- East Bay Auto Center, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Nomi Khan, and their Investors; and Does 1 through 200, inclusive.
    It is entitled as same and given Case No: 25CV108981, with a hearing set for July 23, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. at the René C. Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612, in Department 19, before Judge Joscelyn Jones.
    I recently became aware of the alleged order when Defendants filed a Motion for An Order for Dismissal for Failing to Timely Obtain a Prefiling Order within Ten (10) Days of the Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order. per  CCP section 391.7(c).
    Co-Defendants State Farm and Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (“Alacrity”) have alleged they both filed Notices that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order as State Farm filed theirs on April 2, 2025, and Alacrity filed its on April 17, 2025. The Notices of Vexatious Litigant automatically stayed this case and required the Foundation to obtain a prefiling order from the presiding judge of this court within ten (10) days of the filings.
    BOTH CO-DEFENDANTS STATE FARM AND ALACRITY HAVE FAILED AND REFUSED TO SERVE SAID NOTICES ON AARON & MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION (AMWF.)
    We filed our Opposition and Cross‐Motion for Filing this Frivolous or Dilatory motion with Monetary Sanctions against Defendants and their counsels under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5, 128.7, and 391.7(f) on July 3, 2025.
    When I /WE filed the opposition, the clerk said she could NOT find the case by the number nor name. I insisted that both were right and after 5 minutes she asked “it’s NOT al-Hakim?”. I said “NO, it’s the Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.” She repeated her question and I again insisted that it was correct.
    The I to had to sit at the clerks desk for another 20 minutes while she was communicating with someone on the computer regarding the case, typing all the time.
    It was clear that the Defendants actions had succeeded in getting the case title changed to reflect MY name rather than the 68 YEAR OLD, WORLD RENOWNED FOUNDATION!

“SNITCHES” HAD AL-HAKIM MAIL, ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER NEVER SERVED
    From February 2019 when my family, our businesses, and I was illegally forced from our home of over 40 years WITH TWO DAYS NOTICE, due to the continuing fraud of the “COURTEL” and “SHADOW COURT” with judges Jeff Brand, Kim Cowell, Wynne Carvill, Robert Freedman, Frank Roesch, C. Don Clay, court administrator Chad Finke and others in the appeals court, we were ALL homeless!
    I had a very meager form of communication until May 2019 when I lost the remaining support I had for even that!
    From that time I never received any communications from the courts even though I filed change of addresses with the court master file and each department that I had a case in including the State and Federal Appeals courts.
    However, on at least two separate occasions I was confronted by two people that are known to me as “snitches”- confidential informants, government assets, stating that they had “lots” of mail addressed to me and most of it was from the court. There was a third person of similar ilk that stated they were being coerced to be complicit in the “snitch” activities of one of the others, and that they felt/knew there was government involvement! I will elaborate more in the actual “Request to be Removed from the Vexatious Litigant list.
    I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY!
    The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Abdul-Jalil HAVE LIVED THE EXPERIENCE OF THE “COURTEL” and “SHADOW COURT” and the alleged order of being deemed a vexatious litigant by the Alameda County Superior Court order on June 11, 2019, YET IT HAS NEVER SERVED AND MORE INEXPLICABLE, on March 19, 2018, MORE THAN 16 MONTHS EARLIER THAN THE ALLEGED ORDER, al-Hakim received a notice/order of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant”! (see Exh. A)
    THE “COURTEL”, this Black Robed Society Conceived in Sin, Born of Corruption, Covered Up with Collusion, protected by the System itself- the COURTEL! A litany of Law Lords, Demonically Dealing Decisions for Dominance, DOLLAR$!
    This Judicial Cult of Immoral Dishonor, this “COURTEL”, with no accountability grievously disintegrates in “a monumentally moral descent into the very exclusive JUDGES CHAMBERS in HELL for Criminal Justices who swear others to GOD but themselves are sworn to Judicial Purgatory as Satan’s Slaves!” They want the WORLD to believe they are GOD’S vicegerents on earth and pledge allegiance to THEM- then GOD, to honor their dishonor, to gracefully ignore their disgrace, to hold them in reverence ABOVE GOD while they do the Devils work!!
    THEY ENGAGED IN FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, JUDICIAL/LEGAL GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION exposing these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing legal parties; assuring the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, enacting government sponsored terror, with the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
    This Defendants Motion is frivolous and was filed for an improper purpose— aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise the court as their “butt puppet” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
    Defendants push the COURTEL Command to activate and commence the TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY action to their Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court Corruptocrats and Kleptocrats in the Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Scheme and Litigation Strategy in their “Shadow Court” Operation.
    The concept and reality of this “Shadow Court” raises concerns about the rule of law, fairness, and the protection of individual rights within the legal system.
    The COURTEL “Shadow Court” is the legal, court or judicial system that operates outside the official legal framework or established judicial system that has several interpretations depending on the factors and context including:
Informal or Extrajudicial Courts: Shadow courts refer to “formal and extrajudicial” bodies of unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities engaged in GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION that furtively create, provoke, and frame aggrieved civil and criminal disputes to illegally administer justice without constitutional authority as one of their tactics in their TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY for these parties to advance their “COURTEL” Campaign of JUDICIAL CORRUPTION against a TARGETED PARTY. The objective of the “shadow court” is to facilitate the COURTEL’s continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy with “Target, Engagement, Harassment, Provocation, Litigation” tactics is designed to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGETED PARTY, their family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially in the shadow courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives. The very nature and inherent structure/operation of this Civil/Criminal Entrapment Sting and Litigation Strategy- actively employs the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court systems at ALL levels (Judges are Politicians= elected officials by the Public, to serve the public) makes it diabolically impossible to journey from the Constitution to the Institution “Of The People, For The People, By The People!” that places them in this evil “criminal and civil rights/litigation meat grinder”. The parties are Governmental and Quasi-governmental employees, agents, entities, associates, members, and contractors of their companies, the U. S. Federal Government, State of California, County, and City agencies, among others, have engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act. Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance by and with unethical and criminal means, instigated and encouraged said acts, which gives rise to fraudulent, corruption as they conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived, employed and enacted the criminal, tactical, torture inspired policy of TARGETED HATE CRIME, Terror, Civil Conspiracy, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced Bigotry, Vindictive Retaliation, Oppression, Harassment, Racism, Discrimination, Bias, Prejudice, Unfairness, Persecution, AND GRAND CORRUPTION, victimization, inciting acrimony, animus, in the continued persecution with calumny deceit and the attempted entrapment of us as the continuing “TARGET”. These parties ADMITTEDLY engage in corruption and conspiracy, while consorting, colluding, conceiving and enacting this Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Sting and Litigation Strategy- actively employ the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court systems at ALL levels, including other judicial, governmental and political officials, their handlers, their contractors, agents, associates, proxies, sycophants, employees, the experts, witnesses, representatives, operatives, unnamed third parties, allies, political handlers and consultants (including their attorneys), the TARGETED PARTY’s litigation opponents and and others, to act out their VENDETTA, CREATING CRIME, FIXING CASES in furtherance of their Corruption Agenda with the FULL FORCE OF THE LAW to destroy the TARGETED PARTY. These “Shadow courts” arise in situations where the official judicial system is ineffective, corrupt, or inaccessible, as they have compromised to create their own mechanisms for their own desired justice. The litigation is commenced by agreement or at the direction of the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court and opposing counsel, is pursued to a legal termination in their favor, was brought without probable cause, was initiated with malice with the motive to obtain a collateral advantage and provide a legal defense for them because they have been, are and will be a defendants and witnesses needing protection with finding against the TARGETED PARTY.
Political Context: In the Law Enforcement, Judicial/Political/Social context, the “shadow court” is a governmental design engineered judicial system set up and controlled by Federal/State/County/Local/ law enforcement, political, and legal/judicial groups to secretly control and covertly co-opt the legitimacy of the “official” legal/judicial system they designed engineered to support and foster those parties acts to achieve their desired ruling government interests. This entrapment scheme strategy is employed in their authoritarian capacity where the official courts are used but these actions are surreptitious, back channel, social club- Inn of Courts and judicial chambers operations not visible to the public so they can not be seen as biased or controlled by the government. This group of Federal/State/County/Local/ law enforcement, political, and legal/judicial groups have its own corrupt leaders and policies, effectively taking over the legal and judicial governance authority whenever the need and opportunity arises.
Conspiracy Theories: In conspiracy theory circles, the shadow court is often described as a clandestine Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court agencies and organizations that manipulate or controls the actual process. This includes Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial groups and their secret societies, intelligence agencies, and other powerful entities that operate behind the scenes to influence and control political/legal/judicial/social decisions and public policy.
Historical Context: The term has also been used historically to describe Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court agencies and organizations or alternative administrations that claim legitimacy but operate outside the recognized government legal/judicial framework, especially during times of conflict or political/legal/judicial/social upheaval.
Secret or Covert Judicial Processes: The term can also describe secretive judicial processes that lack transparency and due process, often associated with human and civil rights abuses. These courts operate without proper legal procedures, leading to arbitrary decisions.
    This COURTEL has acculturated a Guantanomo Bay style system of the worst aspects of an evil society- grounded in Grand Endemic and Systemic corruption, violence, fraud, exploitation, racism, bigotry, and persecution, into their State sponsored terror operation of protected government endemically corrupt legal system to perpetuate their own criminal judicial/legal/financial/psychological/ violence upon innocent minorities, Muslims, immigrants, WITH common people being captured in their special illegal rendition into Civil Rights/Familial/Financial/Social/Psychological/Emotional TORTURE- OBLITERATING ANY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AND THE GREAT AMERICAN DREAM!
    Their tactics are more extreme than muckraking or character assassination, disinformation/misinformation, or defamation, wherein the COURTEL: DOJ, FBI, Court systems, Law Enforcement at ALL levels, and opposing parties anxiously track TARGETED PARTY’s movements, business and social activity, writings, speeches, phone and text conversations, internet activity, social media, personal and sexual relationships/endeavors to fabricate and gather negative, embarrassing or compromising information about the TARGETED PARTY, to publish and disperse that information as widely as possible, “NEUTRALIZING YOU!”, DESTROYING INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, and THEIR BUSINESSES BY ILLEGALLY TARGETING and FRAMING INNOCENT, UNAWARE, COMMON, EVERYDAY CIVILIANS!
    The COURTEL and Shadow Court Recent Acts in Underlying East Bay Auto Center Case that Impact The Other Case
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD
    IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND PROVEN THAT THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER, IF TRUE, WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, AND CORRUPTION BY THE VERY SAME ENTITIES DEFENDANTS REFERENCES IN THIER PLEADING!
    AS ADMITTED AND SHOWN JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE PUBLISHED THEY HAD AN ORDER DECLARING AL-HAKIM A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT THAT DID NOT EXIST!
    THEY DECLARED THEIR COLLECTIVE INTENT, THIS GAVE RISE TO THEIR MOTIVE, AND THEY CREATED THEIR OPPORTUNITY!
    ABDUL-JALIL AL-HAKIM HAD TO FILE OPPOSITIONS TO THREE ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE IN THIS ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT PROCEEDING CCP 391(B)(3) IN SIX MONTHS!
    On March 19, 2018, MORE THAN 16 MONTHS EARLIER THAN THE ALLEGED ORDER, al-Hakim received a notice/order of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” by JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE by the Alameda County Superior Court order on June 11, 2019, YET IT HAS NEVER SERVED! (see order as Exh. A).
    This alleged vexatious litigant order was taken as a crime, the parties JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE committed with “malice aforethought,” as the crime was premeditated, and the perpetrators held malice for the victim al-Hakim. AS PROVEN MY THEIR ORDER issued on June 11, 2019, there clearly was malice aforethought that is defined as a crime being planned in advance, with the intention to kill or grievously harm another individual, al-Hakim. This is proof of JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE malice aforethought as a requirement to convict someone of first-degree murder!
    They, JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE clearly established intention to commit a crime without just cause or provocation, specifically in this cases involving exposing their collective first-degree murder of the al-Hakim’s HUMAN and CIVIL RIGHTS, further exposes the COURTEL AND SHADOW COURTS full blown attack of the al-Hakim family! THIS IS AN EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT OF AN ONGOING TARGETED ATTEMPT TO DESTROY- EVEN KILL, A FAMILY HERE IN AMERICA- REAL LIVES, IN REAL LIFE, RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES, IN REAL TIME with expressed Malice or a “depraved” or “malignant” heart with the “Intent to kill”, mens rea!
    THEY ENGAGED IN FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, JUDICIAL/LEGAL GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION exposing these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing legal parties; assuring the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, enacting government sponsored terror, with the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
    COURTEL Command to activate and commence the TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY action to their Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court Corruptocrats and Kleptocrats in the Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Scheme and Litigation Strategy in their “Shadow Court” Operation.
    Judges Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke issued an order that claimed they had a prior order which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant. We have asked for that order and ALL have remained silent and claim not to be responsible for it, yet it is in an ORDER FROM THE COURT!
    al-Hakim is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges Defendants, with and through their counsel, has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise “Good White Way” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
(see “Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke Vexatious Litigant Strategy Fraud on th Court”, Challenge
for Cause of Judge Kaus filed December 4, 2018, at Page 24-27)
    Alameda County Superior Court allegedly issued this order on June 11, 2019, YET HAVE NEVER SERVED IT ON AL-HAKIM. PERHAPS EVEN MORE INEXPLICABLE, on March 19, 2018, al-Hakim received a notice of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” and a court motion pending for an alleged Vexatious Litigant proceeding.
    al-Hakim couldn’t tell from the signature who endorsed the denied waiver but it may be judge Carvill or Chad Finke because the judge in the case, C. Don Clay said he didn’t know anything about!
    Neither Carvill nor Finke EVER admitted it was them who issued the alleged “order”.
I have NEVER been deemed as such, NEVER received any such notice and was unaware of this pending alleged process which needless to say was without ANY merit!
    We repeatedly asked “Who filed this alleged motion, when, and what proof of service have they filed?” and “When is this motion being heard, in what department and by whom?”.
    We requested ANSWERS to “What prior orders does the court have regarding that case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on the case when NOTHING had been filed in that case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants defaulted on?”
    That was admittedly a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on al-Hakim’s litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in his cases.
    How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So are we to understand that YOUR system is guilty before a hearing on this meritless motion is even heard?
    A determination of vexatious litigant status specifically under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §391(b)(3) requires somewhat more than a retaliatory judge conspiring with the defendant to complain that they perceive al-Hakim vexed to their mutual motive, interest, benefit, and opportunity is a reoccurring theme over the 50 years of this case where the defendants have represented the judges in this case against al-Hakim and the judges have likewise defended the defendants as “sitting judge for the defense” and “deputy defense counsel”! There are simply no meritorious grounds for this motion at all. The statutory criteria are clearly stated and easily understood. And in this case, Plaintiff show they are as far removed from meeting the statutory criteria as possible, which Brand either knew or should have known before filing this motion out of retaliation and desperation.
CONCLUSION
I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY AND THAT CO-DEFENDANTS STATE FARM AND ALACRITY BOTH FILED ILLEGAL NOTICES THAT PLAINTIFF IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT SUBJECT TO PREFILING ORDER HAD SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THE CASE TITLE CHANGED TO REFLECT MY NAME RATHER THAN THE 68 YEAR OLD, WORLD RENOWNED FOUNDATION!!

Respectfully submitted,


Date: July 8, 2025Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff

********
RE:        A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Misrepresentation, Concealment of Material Facts with Intent to Induce Court’s Act or Reliance; VIDEO ADMISSIONS, PROOF Sheriff’s Deputy MARKITA SAYLES COMMITTED FRAUD, FIXING THE CASE; ADMITTED SHE WAS INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES; PERJURY; FILING AN ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT”; WILLFULLY FABRICATED EVIDENCE; COMMITTED MISCONDUCT; CONCEALMENT; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto

Dear Sheriff Sanchez, Chief Chaplin, A. G. Ramsey, A. G. Bonta, Director Tripp, Steve Gordon- DMV, Ricardo Lara- DOI, Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA , Patrick Dorais- BAR, Kenneth J. Pogue- OAL, A. G. Hallinan, Senator Wahab, D. A. Price, State Farm Claims, East Bay Auto Center, et. al.,

Law Enforcement Fraud, Misrepresentation, Concealment of Material Facts with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACE

Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan
              Superior Court of Alameda County                  East Bay Auto Center         
              Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                21099 Mission Blvd.
              Department 105                                                 Hayward, CA 94541
              661 Washington St.                                            Email: EastBayAuto6@gmail.com
              Oakland, CA 94607                                           Ph:510‐690‐2728
              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov
BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov

             Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer
             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County
             René C. Davidson Courthouse                           René C. Davidson Courthouse
             Department 1                                                      1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
             Oakland, CA 94612                                           Oakland, CA 94612
             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                    Fax: 510-891-6276
TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov

cc: Judges Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711
U.S. Postal Mail and Emailed
FROM:     Defendant Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     June 5, 2025
NO PAGES:     1
RE:        Declaration for finding Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Leandro Police, Hayward Police, Alameda County District Attorney, Chad Finke and Clerks in Superior Court Administration with support from U. S. Attorney- Northern District, FBI, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, engaged in GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme complete with Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance.

“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 at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew,

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, Plaintiffs, et. al.,

Attached please find our Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Declaration and Legal Argument in Support of Order finding Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Leandro Police, Hayward Police, Alameda County District Attorney, Chad Finke and Clerks in Superior Court Administration with support from U. S. Attorney- Northern District, FBI, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, engaged in GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme complete with Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance; Fixing the Case against Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation behind their declaration the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing police crime reports AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court actions; Judges, Court Administration, Clerks Obstructed, Perverted Course, Due Administration of Justice.

THE OATH OF OFFICE

I, ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance!
   Below is a recent email exchange with the California Registry of Charities and Fundraisers operating under the auspicious of Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Dear Registry of Charities and Fundraisers,

    Attached hereto please find the AG’s summary receipt for the filing of the requested 2022-23 YE filed documents that MUST be properly completed and confirmed BEFORE any electronic payment for the fee can be processed and accepted! Again, there never was any unspecified “deficiencies” for 2022-23 nor 2023-24 YE!!
    Again, we filed the forms, submitted the documents and paid, for which we presented the receipts for, online at the AG’s website.
    As we stated earlier. we had NOT received ANY RESPONSE to our multiple 2 emails, a fax and letters to your offices since May 14, 2025 regrading a notice that our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation non-profit 2024 YE filing has been rejected for unspecified “deficiencies”. You probably would NOT have responded if it were NOT for the intervention of Alicia Xiong in RegCompliance <RegCompliance@doj.ca.gov>!
    AGAIN, we ALWAYS DISAGREED WITH THIS FINDING and requested you PLEASE provide specifically what the 2024 YE filing unspecified “deficiencies” are?
    We filed the forms, submitted the documents and paid, for which we have the receipts for, online at the AG’s website.
    AFTER we provided the copies of the requested filings AS PROOF there was never any alleged “deficiencies”, you responded that you had the 2024 YE filings BUT the 2023 YE was missing!
    THAT ALSO WAS A FALSE STATEMENT! We provided the filed documents AND the AG’s completed summary for the filing that MUST be completed properly BEFORE the system will electronically allow for the processing and acceptance of the fee, for which we also had the receipts for!!
    As stated before, we find the “timing and non-responses suspicious” as the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation have ongoing litigation that this action may impact!
   This ENTIRE “DEFICIENCIES” ACTION WAS A COMPLETE FABRICATION TO PROVOKE AND ENTRAP US INTO AN INDEFENSIBLE LEGAL POSITION as if our our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation would be “suspended” for the alleged non-filing of the “deficiencies” for 2022-23 nor 2023-24 YE, THEY ARE/WOULD THEN Not be currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, thus they are NOT authorized to do business in the State of California and don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit. They DO NOT have legal standing to exist, if they may be suspended for some reason.
 A suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court.
 A corporation may be suspended for at least one of the following reasons:
    •    Failure to file one or more tax returns. Cal Rev. & Tax Code Sec. 23301.
    •    Failure to pay the business’ tax balance due. This can include the penalty for failing to file the annual Statement of Information with the Secretary of State. California Corporations Code Section 2205.
Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani, (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 1361.(Stating a suspended corporation is disqualified from exercising any right, power, or privilege, including prosecuting or defending an action, or appealing a judgment).
A suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court. (Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Superior Court [54 Cal.App.4th 1366] (1922) 188 Cal. 393, 396-397 [205 P. 446]; Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 46, 50-51 [317 P.2d 649].)
    Nor may a suspended corporation appeal from an adverse judgment (Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co. (1937) 9 Cal.2d 16, 20-21 [68 P.2d 968]; Gar-Lo, Inc. v. Prudential Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 242, 245 [116 Cal.Rptr. 389]), or seek a writ of mandate (Brown v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 519, 635 [51 Cal.Rptr. 633]).
    Given this heinous, blatant attempt to eliminate our status as a current Corporation with Secretary of State and State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, we will file another Complaint with the Alameda County Judges Brian Caruth, Tom Nixon, Michael Gaffey, Stuart Hing, Joscelyn Jones, and Superior Court administrator Chad Finke, Alameda County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, Hayward Police Chief Brian Matthews, U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, F.B.I. Northern District Director Robert Tripp, California Attorney General Casey Hallinan, California State Senator Aisha Wahab, Alameda County District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson, Director of California Department of Motor Vehicles Steve Gordon, California Department of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, California Director Department of Consumer Affairs Kimberly Kirchmeyer, California Bureau of Automotive Repair Chief Patrick Dorais, Director California Office of Administrative Law Kenneth J. Pogue, California Attorney General Hallinan- Public Inquiry Unit, and several Federal government offices.
    We consider this further PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance!
    As we have always maintained and is proven by their bad faith fact pattern, this was ALWAYS an entrapment scheme designed to take possession of the truck with it’s contents and trigger civil/criminal actions knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. They are not acting alone!
    IT IS CLEAR THAT OUR NON-PROFIT AARON & MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION, ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM, THE AL-HAKIM FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES AND BUSINESS PROPERTY, THEIR REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, THEIR CHARITIES, THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE- PERSONALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, MORALLY, ETHICALLY, AND FINANCIALLY, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
    WE HAVE PRESENTED further PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme and Hate Crimes. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the legal, judicial and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    The Entrapment Strategy is disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
    We have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties!
    We will respond further in mass with the affect that our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation non-profit business has been actually and potentially DAMAGED by your agency, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and ALL those referenced herein.
    THIS NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED!
We continue this section herewith below for argument and law:
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS, LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO IN TARGETED ENTRAPMENT, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE, FRUAD, MISREPRESENTATION WITH THE INTENT TO INDUCE THE COURT’S ACT OR RELIANCE
Law Enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hayward Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; San Leandro Police Chiefs Abdul Pridgen/Angela Averiett; U. S. Attorneys Stephanie Hinds/Ismail Ramsey; F.B.I. NorCal Directors Craig Fair/Robert Tripp; with support from the Court, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, and associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Further, they committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing this case; they were instructed by and with special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report” OR NONE AT ALL; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to covering for their “asset” co-conspirators; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, Law Enforcement with associated third parties continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence; as they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence was founded to take the responsibility, accountability, and liability off the Sheriff’s to have performed their investigation and filing a legitimate police crime report by destroying the evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO CENTER as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED MAY 28, 2024 PHONE CALL TO AL-HAKIM, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM.
The Plaintiffs, Sheriffs and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the Civil Rights Act”.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, Law Enforcement and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET! We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!! This established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
The April and May 2024 videos PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves, Plaintiff’s, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company and Law Enforcement in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
East Bay Auto Center is the ONLY suspects that could have stolen, burglarized, vandalized, and damaged the truck as it was not stolen by anyone else!
AMWF’s truck was “STOLEN” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with an associated third party while there for the insurance repair estimate. BUT NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!!
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroying the evidence and chain of custody!
On October 2, 2024, Plaintiffs EBAC FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S WHERE TO AND WHEN EBAC MOVED THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S Deputies Sean Sullivan #2137 and Collin Lenahan #2453 as Percipient Eye Witnesses.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in unsolicited emails to the court and Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, the Clerks of Dept. 1, and 105, and Superior Court Administrator Chad Finke that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Then East Bay Auto Center attempt’s to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to an unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
AGAIN, this was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE and was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and to destroy the chain of custody!
But Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company are NOT acting alone, but with governmental entities and their associates!
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: 1) they were fully aware at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence.
The County Sheriff’s coercive, malicious, intentional tortious interference are a violation of our rights under the California Constitution is a deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process and their police actions are inherently coercive due to their societal trust. For a Civil Code Section 52.1 cause of action, two elements must be established: (1) intentional interference with a constitutional or legal right, and (2) that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The courts, in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, it was determined that relief is granted under Civil Code Section 52.1 if coercive actions are present. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement Intentional Spoliation of Evidence can be viewed through Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court, California. 1998-05-11 and Penal Code section 135 establishes criminal penalties for spoliation, defining it as the willful destruction or concealment of evidence intended to prevent its production in legal proceedings, classifying such acts as misdemeanors.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfere with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.
Under Coprich v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, California. 2000-05-19 , the court allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint, because the officers were responsible for gathering or preserving evidence or for preventing her from doing so. However, the court did not determine that remedies monetary and contempt sanctions, with criminal sanctions for intentional destruction of evidence, and disciplinary measures against attorneys/law enforcement involved in suppressing evidence.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement intentionally failed to preserve evidence of the truck burglary is tortious interference due to spoliation of evidence and intentional interference with defendant’s prospective economic advantage, emphasizing defendants’ right to their injury claims are a valuable expectancy.
On November 2, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been returned to Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward with additional damage. Upon investigation, the truck has been further BURGLARIZED by the breach of the lock on the roll up door and the roll up door itself! THE DAMAGES ARE UNKOWN AND YET TO BE INVESTIGATED!
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Irrefutable evidence shows that Plaintiff’s and the Alameda County Sheriff’s acted with the intent to disrupt Defendants contractual relationship and deny defendants civil rights.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement had knowledge of this contract and intentionally interfered with it AND violated the defendants civil rights (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134 establishes the elements of tortious interference with contractual relations, emphasizing that the defendant must have knowledge of the contract and intentionally interfere with it) by deputy SAYLES whom ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE FALSE POLICE REPORT, willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, failed and refused to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, AS IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY AUTO TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET IN FIXING THIS CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM.
As a direct result of Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcements actions, Defendant has suffered losses and damages including but not limited to loss of business, personal, and real property, lost use of the truck, loss of services to the communities that they serve, loss of revenue, reputational harm, and emotional distress. Defendant also suffered damages, that need to be determined by the order ASAP for the truck be made available to us to get vital information from the engine, body, cab, under body, exhaust, etc., and a complete video investigation, analysis and documentation of the condition of the truck and the contents; to search, inspect, process and document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, finger printing, and clues for the damage, theft, vandalism, and missing/stolen business and personal property to ascertain the total vehicle costs, loss, damages as well as the theft costs, loss and damages. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802. This case highlights the requirement that the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was independently wrongful, which can include unlawful actions by law enforcement.
Defendant argues that the actions of Plaintiff’s and the Alameda County Sheriff’s violated the defendants civil rights and contends that the interference was not justified and was willful, intentional and conducted with malice. Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 1990, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507. This case discusses the necessity of proving that the interference was wrongful and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.
Defendant had a valid and enforceable contract with State Farm insurance company and Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement had knowledge of this contract. Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal. 4th 1140 (2004): This case illustrates intentional interference and the knowledge of the contract by the defendant and they acted with the intent to interfere.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were intentional and wrongful, constituting tortious interference with Defendants contractual relations. Burden v. County of Santa Clara, 81 Cal. App. 4th 244 (2000): This case highlights the limitations of tortious interference claims against government entities, noting that while government entities may have certain immunities, intentional and wrongful conduct still lead to liability.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company and Law Enforcement coercive, malicious, intentional tortious interference are a violation of our rights under the California Constitution is a deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process and their police actions are inherently coercive due to their societal trust. For a Civil Code Section 52.1 cause of action, two elements must be established: (1) intentional interference with a constitutional or legal right, and (2) that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The courts, in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, it was determined that relief is granted under Civil Code Section 52.1 if coercive actions are present. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10. Plaintiff’s and the County Sheriff’s actions were the actual and proximate cause of the interference.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfere with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement intentionally failed to preserve evidence of the truck burglary is tortious interference due to spoliation of evidence and intentional interference with defendant’s prospective economic advantage, emphasizing defendants’ right to their injury claims are a valuable expectancy.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
This Grand corruption is systemic and endemic in ALL al-Hakim cases involves the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of AMWF, al-Hakim, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve.
This Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement ill advised strategy with actions to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence was founded to take the responsibility, accountability, and liability off the Sheriff’s to have performed their investigation and filing a legitimate police crime report by destroying the evidence!
Defendants expressed concern over the Sheriffs officers intentionally mishandling of the crime scene, bad faith failure to investigate and collect incriminating evidence, noting the significant stakes given the involvement of the Plaintiffs and their admissions implicating and incriminating police, that they worked with law enforcement, the police are accomplishes, collaborators, and Plaintiffs are under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist AMWF or Abdul-Jalil.
The courts has established that the government must investigate, detect, collect, and preserve evidence relevant to guilt or innocence as ministerial actions. The critical issue in this ministerial action of evidence collection by the Sheriffs is without discretion, leaving them solely responsible for evidence collection, and the failure to investigate and seize material evidence convicts them of their failure of duty to preserve it. Hence, Sheriffs DO NOT have unchecked discretion to investigate, detect, collect, and preserve evidence; AND given that Plaintiffs are admitted government assets, with court’s prior rulings on informant disclosure suggest that police should exert reasonable efforts to locate material witnesses, reflecting a similar duty to seize material evidence. Sheriffs were aware of the materiality of evidence and this understanding should have compelled them to act to preserve such evidence, aligning with the principle favoring the state in ministerial actions.
Case law indicates that while police officers have liability and they can be held accountable for negligent execution of decisions of issues that involve distinguishing between discretionary and ministerial actions.
The objective of the continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy with “Target, Engagement, Harassment, Provocation, Litigation” tactics is designed to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- AMWF, Abdul-Jalil, al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives. The very nature and inherent structure/operation of the Political/Judicial Institution (Judges are Politicians= elected officials by the Public, to serve for the public) makes it diabolically impossible to journey from the Constitution to the Institution “Of The People, For The People, By The People!” that places them in this evil “criminal and civil rights/litigation meat grinder”.
This East Bay action is one of AMWF and Abdul-Jalil being forced into a small claims action that is both oppressive and coercive by limiting the money awards and the depravation of ones rights as the court decision is non-appealable.
This means that as a litigant, AMWF and Abdul-Jalil waives their most basic Civil and Human Right to a fair trial without recourse to appeal an intentionally wrongful decision that may be by design! This is unlawful, offends public policy, common law and an established concept of unfairness, is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes substantial injury as a part of the larger planned “judgment peonage”, an activity to take bankrupting judgments against us, causing SEVER economic legal damages, non-economic damages, and punitive damages sentencing us to LIFE in “debtors prison”!
Over the last 50+ years al-Hakim’s “court activities” has documented, with filed and served court actions, filed and served complaints, and filed and served correspondence memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
al-Hakim proves where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate his rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528.
Some of those litigation opponents referenced these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in their filings, ALL of whom have been complained of or to are, in major part because al-Hakim reported the very obvious agenda of parties by memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities corruption and persecution and their involvement in the cover-up of that criminal corruption.
The parties are Governmental and Quasi-governmental employees, agents, contractors, entities, associates, members, and contractors of their companies, the U. S. Federal Government, State of California, County, and City agencies, among others, have engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance by and with unethical and criminal means, instigated and encouraged said acts, which gives rise to fraudulent, corruption as they conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived, employed and enacted the criminal, tactical, torture inspired policy of TARGETED HATE CRIME, Terror, Civil Conspiracy, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced Bigotry, Vindictive Retaliation, Oppression, Harassment, Racism, Discrimination, Bias, Prejudice, Unfairness, Persecution, AND GRAND CORRUPTION, victimization, inciting acrimony, animus, in the continued persecution with calumny deceit and the attempted entrapment of us as the continuing “TARGET”.
ALL the DOCUMENTED actions alleged with cite relevant legal case authority to support arguments and assertions for a FORMAL COMPLAINT and Request for Investigation for Hate Crimes include violations of California Law including violations of the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts Civil Code section 51.7, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Acts, Civil Code section 52.1, Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983; California Government Code sections 11135 et seq., 12900 et seq., California Penal Code section 13023, California Penal Code section 422.55 and California Civil Code sections 51, 51.7, 52.5, and 54 et seq.; the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; California Constitution, Article VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475, 3523, and 3528, and for Harassment, Censorship, Fraud, Negligence, Misrepresentation, Abuse of Process, Abuse of Power, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Contract/Common Law Warranty, Deceptive Trade Practices, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud by Concealment, California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 17200 et seq, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Discrimination in Violation of the Unruh Act, Nuisance, Abuse of Process, Fraud by Concealment, Violation of California False Advertising Law, Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceit-(California Civil Code § 1710), Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices, Unconscionability (UDAP), Elder Abuse.
The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, provides protection against interference or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any constitutional or statutory rights. Remedies for violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act or the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act include restraining orders, injunctive relief, equitable relief to secure constitutional and statutory rights, actual damages, exemplary or punitive damages, a civil penalty of $25,000, and attorney’s fees. An action may be brought by the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, or by the individual harmed.
California Penal Code section 13023. California Penal Code section 422.55 defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.”
The California Attorney General DEMANDS an Investigation for Hate Crimes in violation of California Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts; the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983, California Penal Code sections 13519.6, Penal Code section 13023 and Penal Code 422.55 which defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.” Cite relevant legal case authority to support arguments and assertions. Depending on the circumstances of each case, bias motivation may include, but is not limited to, hatred, animosity, discriminatory selection of victims, resentment, revulsion, contempt, unreasonable fear, paranoia, callousness, thrill-seeking, desire for social dominance, desire for social bonding with those of one’s “own kind,” or a perception of the vulnerability of the victim due to the victim being perceived as being weak, worthless, or fair game because of a protected characteristic, including, but not limited to, disability, gender, Age, Ancestry, Anti-Islamic, Anti-black or African American, Anti-other ethnicity/national origin, association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics of a protected class, Citizenship, Color Disability (physical, intellectual/developmental, mental health/psychiatric), Medical Condition (cancer or genetic characteristic), National Origin (includes language restrictions), Political Affiliation, Race (includes hairstyle and hair texture), Religious creed (includes dress and grooming practices), and aggrieve in their entrapment strategy with the use of confidential informants, snitches, government operatives can provide a number of conditions under which “an inducement to an individual to engage in crime is authorized.” This could apply to any or all of the actions taken in and of their services agency acting in their clients name and stead.


JUDGES THOMAS NIXON, BRIAN CARUTH, STUART HING, MICHAEL GAFFEY, CLERKS OF DEPT. 1, 105, 605, 711, PLAINTIFFS, AND CHAD FINKE ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES

On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in an unsolicited email to the court with Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent! 

    In that email East Bay wrote:

Hello Abdul jalil.
This is EAST BAY AUTO CENTER.  I spoken last time with you to pick up your truck. Also I send email and text messages to pick up the truck.
We have no space for keep your truck that long. We small parking lot. This is Michanic shop not storage for your truck.
We send the truck back to storage yard. We not touched any things for your truck.
The truck is locked from the back of the truck. It’s still the same locked 🔒.

If you still want to pick up your truck please let me know we will pick it up from storage yard. Paying the storage money.
You have to pay me for the storage fee.
Please call for schedule to pick up the car.

If you have any questions please call me. Thanks
510-940-8675
Eastbayauto6@gmail.com

These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to a unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
EBAC’s unsolicited admissions and confessions to the court and judges makes them all percipient eye witnesses. Further, in your/their fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!? Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., failure to perform your ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon EBAC unsolicited admissions and confessions with defendant’s NOTICED pleading constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and  Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice is a denial of access to the courts, in violation of defendant’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments! Thus as Judges and court administrators, you have rules governing the disposition of the such actions and pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, YOU ALL have been forever silent regarding this; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4
THIS SECTION ABOVE APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

The Matters of the December 20, 2024 Hearing
At the December 20, 2024 Hearing, the court had appointed Cabral Bonner an attorney, in accordance with Article 6, section 21 of the Constitution of the State of California, to act as the Temporary Judge in this matters before the Court in this department on this date. The Defendant informs the court that he objects to having a pro- tem preside over the matter AND THAT THIS MATTER HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO JUDGE CARUTH AFTER BEING REASSIGNED FROM A PRO-TEM COMMISSIONER FICKLES. If the court was aware of this fact, it should have continued the matter BEFORE we appeared in court, as this was a complete waste of time!
Yet, Plaintiff’s East Bay Auto Center (EBAC) DID NOT appear and there was NO reason given for same. However, Mr. Bonner admits in court that EBAC had contacted the court earlier stating they would NOT appear, BUT NO ONE CONTACTED US, the DEFENDANTS! Here we have the court ADMITTING to having illegal ex-parte communications with the plaintiff’s WITHOUT informing defendants when a matter of a pro-tem was ALREADY DECIDED! As a hypothetical, what would have happened if defendants had agreed to having the matter heard by Bonner and the plaintiff’s FAILED TO APPEAR?! Would a default have been entered?! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!
THE ENTIRE “HEARING” WAS JUST AN ILLEGAL, PRETENTIOUS CHARADE BY THE COURT!

Conspiracy to Subvert, Pervert, Obstruct, or Defeat the Course of Justice
Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
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.”
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.  [Citation.]

“In California, the statutes relating to ‘Crimes Against Public Justice’ are found in part I, title [7], of the Penal Code. Bribery, escapes, rescues, perjury, falsifying evidence, and other acts which would have been considered offenses against the administration of justice at common law are made criminal by legislative enactment. 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. [Citation.]In the same category is a conspiracy to obtain the release of a person charged with a felony by presenting a worthless and void bail bond. Such a conspiracy has been held to be a perversion of the due administration of the law, and an offense within the meaning of subdivision [ (a) ]5 of section 182 of the Penal Code. [Citation.]” (Lorenson v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 49, 59–60, italics added (Lorenson ).)
In Lorenson, the defendant was a police captain in the Los Angeles Police Department indicted for conspiracy to commit robbery, to commit assault with a deadly weapon, and to pervert or obstruct justice. (Lorenson, supra, 35 Cal.2d at pp. 50–51.) In rejecting a claim of insufficient evidence to support the indictment, the court concluded that one could infer from the evidence that there was agreement among the defendant, other members of the police department, and criminal associates of Mickey Cohen to assault and rob the victim, Pearson. The court further noted that there was evidence from which one could infer that the defendant and other police officers “were to furnish protection to the participants in the conspiracy by refusing to disclose the identity of Pearson’s attackers, if they were arrested, and to effect their release from custody.”(Id. at p. 57.) After the robbery and assault, Cohen’s associates were arrested (apparently by officers not involved in the conspiracy), but they were immediately released from the police station before Pearson could arrive to identify any of them, and the arresting officers were instructed not to talk about the incident. (Id. at p. 54.) Lorenson is an example of “[a] conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws,” an indictable offense at common law. (Id. at pp. 59–60.)
THIS SECTION ABOVE APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

A “RAT” in Court Administration and Clerks Obstructed, Perverted the Course and Due Administration of Justice
   On June 11, 2024, Abdul-Jalil appeared at window 12 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and filed our “Defendants Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court”. I was waited on by a young lady that appeared to be of Latin/Asian descent.
We had a discussion regarding my listing my name as the CEO and Person of Interest as it relates to the “defendants” filed in the East Bay Auto Center claim. As this conversation directly addressed MY NAME, she laughingly kept referring to me as “Mr. Wallace”, CLEARLY taunting, being disrespectful, antagonistic and provocative! I corrected her INTENTIONALLY calling me out of my name 3 times by responding softly with “Mr. al-Hakim” the first 3 times! At her fourth lashing out, I corrected her with a chuckle that let her know that I acknowledged she was being childish and petty trying to provoke me! When she grasped it, she got up and said “I’m going to lunch!”. She left and another clerk came over, Jamie J. Thomas, and took her place to complete the filing. While she left several times as I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she met with different people at a computer discussing something.
   On June 13, 2024, I appeared at window 9 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants Small Claim and Order, and a letter to Commissioner Fickles and East Bay Auto Center that we OPPOSED the case being heard by and Request reassignment of the Case from a Judge Pro Team or Commissioner and Requesting a Court Reporter for the July 8, 2024 hearing. The clerk filed the letter but questioned the proof of service (attached as Exh. B), so she said she would talk to her supervisor. I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she spoke with someone (others) before she returned with clerk Jamie J. Thomas whom preceded to say that she could NOT accept the proof of service BECAUSE the ONLY one that they could accept was the standard form that comes with the SC-120 form. I informed her that this proof of service was the same as the standard form and is used more commonly in court filings and I have used them over 20 years without any problem. She said that I would have to serve the claim again or have the server to sign a new proof. But more alarming, she said I could fill out the proof to be signed by the process server, but I could NOT serve it because I’m listed as the agent for the service of process. NOW, just how did she know that and why did she need to know that? She obviously conducted her own investigation. She issued her ORDER and refused to accept the proof!
   She read the letter then said that she could NOT give the letter to the Commissioner because she would be engaging in illegal ex-parte communications. I again stated that I have filed over 100 letters in the same fashion and never had a problem with them before as long as there was a filing cover page. (Attached as Exh. C)
   Not wanting to argue with her also early trying to harass and inconvenience me, I said that I would file both with the presiding court judge whom I was going to file the Request for Reassignment with anyway, and I left.
   On June 18, 2024, I appeared at window 4 in the Clerks General Office in the Rene Davidson of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants Continuance and Reassignment, a female clerk- “T. Hayle?” came out on 2 occasions, the first after a 15 minute wait, addressed me as Mr. Wallace, questioned the proof of service, debated the motion vs. declaration and need to refile with a reservation number. She made the RIDICULOUS argument that the “electronic filing system does not recognize documents on pleading paper” thus, I had to have the documents served again!
   On December 19, 2024, I appeared at window 9 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants EBAC Subpoena, Request for Production of Documents and Video Taped Depositions, and Order Shortening Time and was told by the clerk- “Malen Jih MSG?” that the server should have signed in Sheriff’s location on the proof of service. While she left as I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she met with different people discussing something. She returned and repeated her statement and accepted the proof. Clearly that was NOT the case nor had the documents been signed in the wrong place! This statement exposes the fact that the court has had some interaction with third parties that has informed them that the documents WERE signed in the wrong place on the proof.
   As we have EXTENSIVE documentation on the MANY egregious, unscrupulous, heinous illegal activities of court administrator Chadrat Finke and the employees with the District Attorneys office, WE ARE SURE THAT THEY HAVE EMPLOYED THE FULL FORCE OF THEIR OFFICES AND THOSE OF THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS TO AFFACT AND DIRECT THE COURSE AND OUTCOME OF THIS AND ALL RELATED MATTERS!

Dept. 105 Clerk Sergio Lopez subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
   On May 8, 2025 we sent the following email to Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke in response to the Continuing FAILED compliance from Dept. 105 Clerk Sergio Lopez.
That email is as follows:

CLERKS USUAL NON-RESPONSE TO EMAIL: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACEDear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,    After NOT getting a response from Mr. Lopez, the Clerk of department 105, for THREE (3) MONTHS, we still have NOT gotten a response to our email just a week ago! WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES! HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED HEREIN? We are requesting clarity on the issues below as follows:A) Does the reservation number provides for the motion to compel response to subpoenas and production of documents which are already listed, INCLUDE our demand for Videotape Depositions for each of 1) Plaintiffs, 2) California Department of Motor Vehicles, 3) Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 4) California Bureau of Automotive Repair, 5) California Department of Insurance, 6) State Farm Insurance, and 7) Alameda County Business Tax Collector as needed? Are we to use the same number for each separately?B) We want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAPC) Does the hearing on 6/10/2025, 9AM calendar INCLUDE an order on our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion and our motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025?D) IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S EBAC’S UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES. Further, in your fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!??E) OUR UNRESOLVED concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. What is the court going to do about this? Why is the date not changed to the very NEXT DAY,  JUNE 11, 2025??!!??   Again, we will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served AND MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

——– Message ——–Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,
    So I’m very confused Mr. Lopez, just how does your attempted missed phone call to us this morning, May 1, 2025 at 7:58am, JUSTIFY YOUR THREE MONTHS OF WILLFUL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE SINCE FEBRUARY 4, 2025??!!??    The requests are very plain and does NOT take three months of your deliberation to understand, (or maybe it does!) and if they were THAT confusing, WHY DID YOU WAIT 3 MONTHS TO CALL AND HANG UP WITHOUT LEAVING A MESSAGE??!!?? Therefore, if you had NO idea of what we wanted in my EXTENSIVE emails and voicemails messages I left for you, WHY DIDN’T YOU JUST CALL to get clarity THREE MONTHS AGO??!!??    Your reservation number provides for the motion to compel response to subpoenas and production of documents which are already listed, BUT as written, excludes our demand for Videotape Depositions for each.    It also does NOT address the fact we want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAP. You, Mr. Lopez have told us and written to us “Please be advised that Department 105 does not conduct ex-parte hearings”, yet, AS PART OF THE AUDIO RECORDING INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC IN THE COURTS ANNOUNCEMENT, YOU EXPRESSLY STATE THAT LITIGANTS CAN REQUEST EX-PARTE HEARINGS AND THE PROCEDURE FOR SAME!    WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES! HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED HEREIN?    You note that the following is scheduled for hearing on 6/10/2025 9AM:Hearing on Motion – Other Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.    For clarity, WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER to does this INCLUDE our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion and our motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025?    The court should have ruled on these matters as summary judgment before now!    Also shown on the schedule is “Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.” We had Requested an IMMEDIATE Ex-Parte Hearing on Wednesday, October 9, 2024 or Friday, October 11, 2024 for Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck and to Compel Videotape Depositions, Production of Documents.    We had requested the order ASAP for the truck be made available to us to get vital information from the engine, body, cab, under body, exhaust, etc., and video the condition of the truck and the contents to search, inspect, process and document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, finger printing, and clues for the damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property.

    On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroy the chain of custody!    We called the County Sheriff’s and made arrangements to meet them there for a truck theft/missing report on October 2, 2024. Once we met there, Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S THE LOCATION OF THE TRUCK, OR WETHER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AGAIN AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!    As you are aware from our previous filings, in April 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As a result, we do not have a total value of the scope of loss and damage to the truck therefrom. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago!    As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
    We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
    The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.    IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED PHONE CALL TO ME, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM
    This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.    As witnessed, in April 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!    East Bay Auto Center is the ONLY suspects that could have stolen, burglarized, vandalized, and damaged the truck as it was not stolen by anyone else!    AMWF’s truck was “STOLEN” from East Bay Auto Center while there for the insurance repair estimate, BUT NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!!    The information as to the causes are stated herein AND THE IMMEDIACY WAS OBVIOUS.     On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in an unsolicited email to the court with Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!    In that email East Bay wrote:

Hello Abdul jalil.This is EAST BAY AUTO CENTER.  I spoken last time with you to pick up your truck. Also I send email and text messages to pick up the truck.We have no space for keep your truck that long. We small parking lot. This is Michanic shop not storage for your truck.We send the truck back to storage yard. We not touched any things for your truck.The truck is locked from the back of the truck. It’s still the same locked 🔒.
If you still want to pick up your truck please let me know we will pick it up from storage yard. Paying the storage money.You have to pay me for the storage fee.Please call for schedule to pick up the car.
If you have any questions please call me. Thanks510-940-8675Eastbayauto6@gmail.com

    These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!    They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.    Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to a unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!    IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES. Further, in your fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!??    Since you, Mr. Lopez, failed to respond, I will reiterate that we still have OUR UNRESOLVED concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend.    Previously, we received notice that the above entitled case has been reassigned from Commissioner Fickles to Judge Caruth in Department 105 as per Judge Nixon’s order and also received separate notice that the court date has been changed to Tuesday, July 9, 2024, in Department 105, at 9:00 a.m. It is well documented with the court over 40 years, AND MR. FINKE CAN VERIFY THAT, I have religious commitments on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and unavailable on those dates. The new date falls on one of those days I am unavailable. The matter was continued to present. How is this possible and what is the court going to do about this? Why is the date not changed to the very NEXT DAY,  JUNE 11, 2025??!!??    Again, we will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served AND MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

On 5/1/25 8:00 AM, Dept. 105, Superior Court wrote:

Please be advised that the court was attempting to understand the nature of your motions.The court had also attempted to call you to no answer (510-394-4501).A reservation number has been generated for the following:A-67622-003
Hearing on Motion – Other Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents.
The following is scheduled for hearing on 6/10/2025 9AM24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER VS AARON & MARGARET WALLACE
Small Claims Trial
Hearing on Motion – Other Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.
Hearing on Motion – Other Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents.
Thank you,Mr. LopezDepartment 105 – Courtroom ClerkWiley W. Manuel Courthouse661 Washington StreetOakland, CA 94607(510) 627-4712

From: A. J. <ajalil1234@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 8:50 PM
To: Dept. 105, Superior Court <dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept. 711, Superior Court <dept711@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept .1, Superior Court <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept. 605, Superior Court <dept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Nixon, Judge Thomas, Superior Court <tnixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Finke, Chad, Superior Court <cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept .1, Superior Court <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Caruth, Judge Brian, Superior Court <bcaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Gaffey, Judge Michael, Superior Court <mgaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Hing, Judge Stuart, Superior Court <shing@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; eastbayauto6@gmail.com<eastbayauto6@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACE

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,    So I guess you, Mr. Lopez, et. al., DID NOT receive the emails below and therefore had NO idea of what I wanted in my EXTENSIVE voicemail messages I left for you either??!!??    We requested a hearing date and a reservation number(s) for our Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the 1) Plaintiffs, 2) California Department of Motor Vehicles, 3) Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 4) California Bureau of Automotive Repair, 5) California Department of Insurance, 6) State Farm Insurance, and 7) Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions for each. This matter MUST be heard in ANY Law and Motion judge including Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711 as soon as possible after the date above. We have yet to find ANY legal experts that can confirm that Small Claims Court DOES NOT ALLOW Ex-Parte motions.    PLEASE PROVIDE THE SAME SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THIS MATTER FORWARD AS IT IS TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT THIS WOULD TAKE THREE MONTHS FOR MR. LOPEZ TO DO!! THIS IS NOT JUST INCOMPETENCE, IT IS OBSTRUCTION IN IT’S MOST BLATANTLY PURIST FORM!! We want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAP.    Additionally, attached is a copy of the filed proofs of service of our motions that the court allegedly ruled was NOT filed without disclosing “what motion(s)”? This may be a result of the proofs being filed a day before the hearing.    On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion AND our Motion to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum AND the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents against Plaintiffs. They failed and refused to respond. The motion was personally served on November 20, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025 is attached.    The motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025 is attached.    We also have a concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. How is this possible and what is the court going to do about this?    We will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served ASAP.    This seems Mr. Lopez NOT receiving OUR emails is a reoccurring theme with you AND NEEDS TO STOP IMMEDIATELY as I reference my previous last TWO (2) voicemails and emails of February 4, 2025 and March 3, 2025 as follows:
1) ——– February 4, 2025 Message ——–Dear Mr. Lopez,    I called you today at 1:47 pm and left you a message regarding my latest email to you on January 27, 2025 requesting a copy of the Courts order continuing the December 20, 2024 hearing and any rulings on our motions; Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum, Compel Videotape Depositions and Production of Documents, Entry of Default Order, Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction, Order Striking Complaint, Tortious Interference, Spoliation of Evidence, Intentional Misrepresentation, Grand Larceny, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Intentional Misrepresentation, Property Damage, and Extortion.    Amazingly you replied to that message with this email at 1:56 pm.    Thanks so much!    But, why have you NOT responded to my emails regarding same, if in fact you respond to emails much quicker than phone calls/voice mails? You even remind the callers to your department 105 that the clerks may take up to 5 days to reply to phone calls/voicemails.    I’m a little confused as to whether or not you are even getting my emails as there is NO indication that they have NOT been delivered to you as well as the others, Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 1605, 711, and Chad Finke.    If there is a problem with the email delivery to you, PLEASE let me know, as it would ascertain just where the real problem is.Thanks again,AJ

2) ——– March 3, 2025 Message ——–TO:        Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan              Superior Court of Alameda County                  East Bay Auto Center                       Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                21099 Mission Blvd.              Department 105                                                 Hayward, CA 94541              661 Washington St.                                          Email:                                                         EastBayAuto6@gmail.com              Oakland, CA 94607                                           Ph:510‐690‐2728              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.govBCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov             Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County             René C. Davidson Courthouse                           René C. Davidson Courthouse             Department 1                                                      1225 Fallon Street, Room 209             Oakland, CA 94612                                           Oakland, CA 94612             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                    Fax: 510-891-6276             TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.govcfinke@alameda.courts.ca.govdept1@alameda.courts.ca.govcc: Judges Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711U.S. Postal Mail and EmailedFROM:     Defendant Aaron & Margaret Wallace FoundationDATE:     March 3, 2025NO PAGES:     1RE:        Annual Retreat for Ramadan and Request Reservation number for Defendants Motion to Compel Compliance with Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions.“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 7:1-3The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew,

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, Plaintiffs, et. al.,This notice is to inform the Court and parties that I will be in annual retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan until April 5, 2025 and unavailable to respond to any litigation.We also want to request a hearing date and a reservation number for our Motion to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the Plaintiffs, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions for each. This matter MUST be heard in ANY Law and Motion judge including Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711 as soon as possible after the date above. We have yet to find ANY legal experts that can confirm that Small Claims Court DOES NOT ALLOW Ex-Parte motions.As referenced in our December 19, 2024, email to the court that the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents were filed and served on the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector that THEY ALL did not respond wherein we would file Motions to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Videotape Depositions and Production of Documents for ALL of them. Hence this request.As previously mentioned, I KNOW the court is aware, as is everyone else, that this matter CAN NOT BE HEARD IN FIFTEEN (15) MINUTE SMALL CLAIMS HEARING. OUR LITIGATION WITH WITNESSES ALONE WILL BE AT LEAST TWO (2) DAYS!!On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion AND our Motion to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum AND the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents against Plaintiffs. They failed and refused to respond.As mentioned, we waited over a month for the courts to respond to our last requests via email and there was NO RESPONSE, thus the earlier motion for an order shortening time.AGAIN, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS by the Plaintiffs to the court and Judges makes YOU ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES.Thanks,Abdul-Jalil al-Hakimajalil1234@gmail.com510-394-4501    In closing, these and other issues MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

On 4/7/25 4:13 PM, Dept. 105, Superior Court wrote:

Hello,Please specify what kind of motions you are attempting to file for the subjected case.Please list each motion numerically.Thank you,Mr. LopezDepartment 105 – Courtroom ClerkWiley W. Manuel Courthouse661 Washington StreetOakland, CA 94607(510) 627-4712

   I consider the actions of ALL the clerks on those days to undermining and compromising the justice system and 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.
The court clerks staff could be viewed as having subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
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)).

Conclusion
Defendant has provided uncontroverted, uncontested, irrefutable PROOF of:
1) Proof Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., failure to perform your ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon EBAC unsolicited admissions and confessions with defendant’s NOTICED pleading constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice is a denial of access to the courts, in violation of defendant’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments! Thus as Judges and court administrators, you have rules governing the disposition of the such actions and pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, YOU ALL have been forever silent regarding this; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4
2) PROOF Pro Tem Mr. Bonner admits at December 20, 2024 hearing that EBAC had contacted the court earlier stating they would NOT appear, BUT NO ONE CONTACTED US, the DEFENDANTS! Here we have the court ADMITTING to having illegal ex-parte communications with the plaintiff’s WITHOUT informing defendants when a matter of a pro-tem was ALREADY DECIDED! As a hypothetical, what would have happened if defendants had agreed to having the matter heard by Bonner and the plaintiff’s FAILED TO APPEAR?! Would a default have been entered?! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!,
3) PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance,
4) PROOF of Alameda County Sheriffs, Law Enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hayward Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; San Leandro Police Chiefs Abdul Pridgen/Angela Averiett; U. S. Attorneys Stephanie Hinds/Ismail Ramsey; F.B.I. NorCal Directors Craig Fair/Robert Tripp; with support from the Court, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, and associated third parties implicated by East Bay Auto engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of targeted entrapment, tortious interference, fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act
5) Proof a “RAT” in Court Administration, Judges and Clerks actions constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice

Respectfully submitted.
Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******
Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, attached hereto please find a CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things in response to the court order (attached) for production of documents in the above referenced matter. You were served this subpoena for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles today, December 11, 2024 and should respond immediately.
Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, as the Custodian of Records you are NOT required to appear in person if within ten (10) days from the date of the serving of this request upon you, you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the “DEFINITIONS” Section as part of this attached affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271. (1) Place a copy of the records in an envelope (or other wrapper) where Documents produced shall be Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially. Enclose the original declaration of the custodian with the records. Seal the envelope. (2) Attach a copy of this subpoena to the envelope or write on the envelope the case name and number; your name; and the date, time, and place. (3) Place this first envelope in an outer envelope, seal it, and mail it to me at the address or email address (ajalil1234@gmail.com ) above. (4) The written response shall be served within ten (10) days of the service of this request.
SUBPOENA REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on Responding Party: Custodian of Records and Person Most Knowledgeable is used herein to refer to, and includes Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles, AND YOU are NOT required to appear in person if you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the declaration on page two or the attached declaration or affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with.As might be YOUR custom, you may provide responsive records in electronic format (i.e., text files that can be opened with any word processing software such as Word or TextEdit) or a searchable portable document file (PDF).
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS
ALL the Defendants, Requestors and Propounders seek disclosure of any and all records created which were prepared, received, transmitted, collected and/or maintained by the Plaintiffs, Responding Parties, ALL Government Related Parties, and ALL Government Related Third Parties, including but not limited to those listed in those sections herein.
YOU are requested to produce for inspection and copying, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031), the DOCUMENTS in the below-numbered categories.  The production shall take place on December 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., at 4200 Park Blvd., Oakland, California, 94602.
This is a request for an opportunity to inspect and/or obtain copies of records of any and all documents, files, correspondence, audio and video files, or other records of yours and various National, State, County of Alameda and City of Oakland Offices under the provisions of CCP 2031 on behalf of the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders.
YOU are required to serve a written response, under oath, responding to each item or category as provided by Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031).
The written response shall be served within seven (7) days of the service of this request.
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.
This is a request for an opportunity to inspect and/or obtain copies of records of any and all documents, files, correspondence, audio and video files, or other records of yours and various offices under the provisions of Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on behalf of the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, family members Harun al-Hakim-Miller, Jalil Omar al-Hakim, Bari al-Hakim-Williams, and their siblings; and the entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth.org, eX-whY Adventures, their real, personal and business property (all herein after referred to as “ALL the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders and/or Defendant/Requestors and Propounders”)
Please process this request for ALL SECTION Requests under ALL statutes herein to release the maximum number of documents and records in the interests of justice and achieving full compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031). Please search ALL your automated indices to the Central Records System, the older general (manual) indices, all Field Offices, other facilities that are separate from the office processing the request, or with another agency or agencies having a substantial interest in the determination of the request, or among two or more components of the agency or agencies having substantial subject matter interest therein needed to coordinate the response with different sections in the department that have responsibility for the requested records. This search is essential to collect and appropriately examine the separate and distinct records which are demanded so that copies of the following documents containing the following information be provided to us by Responding Parties and ALL Related Parties seek disclosure of any records for the Plaintiff/Responding Party.East Bay Auto filed a Small claims action to try to collect $3,400 in back storage fees BUT their status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, they may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto Center, their owners, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto Center, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) As the defendant, we filed a cross complaint and may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.We asked that the court award ALL costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, other losses and damages, and monetary sanctions in an amount according to proof. The costs are well over $20,000 at present.
As we have always maintained and is proven by their bad faith fact pattern, this was ALWAYS an entrapment scheme designed to take possession of the truck with it’s contents and trigger civil/criminal actions knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. They are not acting alone!These requests are deemed to be continuing insofar as if any of the above is secured subsequent to the date herein for the production of same, said documents are to be provided to Defendant’s consistent within the applicable Rule of Civil Procedure.
This subpoena is not intended as a full or complete statement of all relevant demands, claims, facts or applicable law, and nothing herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my rights, remedies, claims or causes of action, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Please provide the records in an electronic format to: ajalil1234@gmail.com. Documents not in electronic format should be forwarded Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim below on or before the return date of this subpoena if you wish to comply voluntarily rather than appearing before the court.The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
Defendants the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Claims
Defendants/Requesting Party’s, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Harun al-Hakim-Miller, Patty Flenory, Jalil Omar al-Hakim, Bari al-Hakim-Williams, Joette al-Hakim-Hall, and their siblings; their affected entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth.org, eX-whY Adventures, their real and personal property, their real property including but not limited to 7633 Sunkist Drive, Oakland, CA  94605, their businesses and business property, their charities, their communities, the communities they serve, those that they serve, HAVE an on going claim against the Responding Parties Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles and Plaintiffs Shah Sons LLC,  DOING BUSINESS AS (DBA) East Bay Auto Center and Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, their alleged Asian investors, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Claims, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Appraisal Team (“State Farm”), Gary O’Donnell, or any of its employees or representatives including but not limited to Mary Weaver, Gary O’Donnell, Madison Ritter, Kaitlin Hampe, Samantha B, Lex, Kendra Behrens, Victor Walker, “Neg”, Karena Kelly-Guishard, Lexie Figueroa, each of their contractors Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, with each of their investors, their predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, divisions, each of their past or present officers, their previous and current directors, previous and current employees, agents, consultants, independent contractors, representatives, lobbyist, experts, private investigators, private security, past and current attorneys, partners, associates, investigators, witnesses, litigation opponents, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, others unnamed as Does One through One Hundred, et. at.
On January 30, 2024, at 3:25 pm I went to East Bay Auto at 21099 Mission Blvd., Hayward, CA 94541 for a Alameda County Sheriff’s Civil Stand By observed by Deputies Joshua Chavez #2287 and Collin Lenahan #2453 to pick up our truck and East Bay Auto Center REFUSED to release it claiming they are owed storage.
East Bay admitted in the presence of the two (2) Deputies, whom are percipient eye witnesses, 1) that they DO NOT have a contract with us in any capacity, 2) that they were paid $1,050 by the insurance company for storage, 3) that East Bay has had many other communications and agreements with the insurance company and their agents, 4) they have had communications and agreements which we were NOT privy to and do not have copies of, 5) East Bay had previously told me that they had an agreement with the insurance company for the storage, BUT revealed that they actually have a check and displayed it before the deputies, 6) they referred to their hand written policy posted on the wall that they charge storage 2 days AFTER the completion of any work performed.
They have NOT and will NOT perform any work on the truck and I will never sign any work order for same nor have we singed a release for them to be paid!
I am the person for the Service Process in this Plaintiff’s fraudulent claim and named as the Person of Interest in this fraudulent alleged Lien Sale denied on February 7, 2024 by the Department of Motor Vehicle filed by these same Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center.
Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center filed this claim March 13, 2024, and allegedly served it via U. S. postal mail from Hayward, California with postage meter dated Monday, May 20, 2024.
We received the mailed letter claim on Friday, May 31, 2024. Yet only FIVE (5) DAYS LATER, on March 19, 2024, plaintiff’s contacted AMWF and Abdul-Jalil by phone and reply email dated March 25, 2024 with invoice dated March 19, 2024 DISAVOWING AND REJECTING their claim and REQUESTING that we come and retrieve the truck AT NO COSTS!
On April 22, 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As a result, we do not have a total value of the scope of loss and damage to the truck therefrom. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago!
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroy the chain of custody!
We called the County Sheriff’s and made arrangements to meet them there for a truck theft/missing report on October 2, 2024. Once we met there, Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S THE LOCATION OF THE TRUCK, OR WETHER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AGAIN AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in several unsolicited emails to the court and Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey; Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711; and court administrator Chad Finke that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
Plaintiffs and Sheriffs have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to an unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
On November 2, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been returned to Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward with additional damage. Upon investigation, the truck has been further BURGLARIZED by the breach of the lock on the roll up door and the roll up door itself! THE DAMAGES ARE UNKOWN AND YET TO BE INVESTIGATED!
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION.
As reported of this date, East Bay STILL has the truck and REFUSES to release it to us unless and until we indemnify them from ALL liability for their civil and criminal charges of larceny, fraud, theft, damage, if the vehicle is stolen from them, etc., so they may be able to do or have done anything they choose to the vehicle and it’s contents without any possible consequences!
The truck was supposed to have been returned to defendants by March 7, 2024, BUT that DID NOT HAPPEN.
Now, the truck has been STOLEN, was burglarized, vandalized, is damaged, and East Bay has refused to allow the COUNTY SHERIFFS nor us to inspect the truck for a complete analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages, UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SIGN A WAIVER OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR SAME! We will NOT ever do that.
As you have been advised, East Bay Auto Center filed a Small Claims action against us for an additional $3,400 storage fees beyond the amount they settled with State Farm for. We have filed a Cross Complaint against them for undetermined costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, and other losses and damages, has cab damage that is 57 inches long stretching from the rear passenger side to start of the cab damage that is 6-8 inches wide through the corporate lettering, the truck is currently lodged 2 inches within and against the fence and CAN NOT be moved without causing MORE significant damage!
The truck was NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!
East Bay Auto Center is NOT currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair nor the Alameda County Business License AS A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY, thus they are NOT authorized to do business in the State of California and don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit. They, East Bay Auto Center, may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer.
We discovered that the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) has Shah Sons LLC, listed as the “owner” of East Bay Auto Center. That is also true for the Alameda County Business License although their license is invalid for failure to file and pay taxes and comply with a mandatory audit.
HOWEVER, Shah Sons LLC, HAS NOT REGISTERED NOR ARE THEY USING A DBA (DOING BUSINESS AS) for East Bay Auto Center with any Federal, State, or County governmental agency, NOT the IRS, California Secretary of State State, California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair nor the Alameda County Business License.
In order for East Bay Auto Center to legally exist AS A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY, they would have to file the proper documents with the IRS, California Secretary of State State, California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair and the Alameda County Business License, establishing Shah Sons LLC,  DOING BUSINESS AS (DBA) East Bay Auto Center. They have NOT done that even though they filed a Fictitious Business Name Statement with Alameda County.
Additionally, there are NO other REQUIRED means, NO INVOICES, NO ADVERTISEMENTS, NOTHING ON THEIR WEBSITE, that they comply with for the use of the legal name of the LLC- Shah Sons LLC, followed by the DBA- doing business as East Bay Auto Center. This practice clarifies the legal entity involved and maintain the LLC’s limited liability status. This ensures that the contracts are enforceable and that the LLC is recognized as the party to these endeavors.
If an LLC does not properly use its DBA, it operates under a DBA without using its legal name, it intentionally breaches the line between personal and business activities and loses the limited liability protection typically afforded to LLC members.This leads to “piercing the corporate veil,” where courts hold members personally liable for business debts and obligations, negating the primary benefit of forming an LLC. Courts have determined that the LLC is not a separate entity if it does not clearly identify itself, leading to personal liability for members.
Contracts should include clear liability clauses that outline the responsibilities and limitations of liability for the LLC. This can help protect the LLC from claims that may arise from business activities conducted under the DBA.
To maintain the limited liability protection of SHAH SONS LLC, it is crucial to keep personal and business finances separate. This includes using a dedicated business bank account and credit cards for all transactions related to the DBA- “Shah Sons LLC, doing business as East Bay Auto Center”. Open a dedicated business bank account for the LLC- Shah Sons LLC, that uses the legal name- “Shah Sons LLC, doing business as East Bay Auto Center”. This separation helps maintain the SHAH SONS LLC’s limited liability protection and simplifies financial management.
Given that EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) The defendant may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.
East Bay Auto has suspensions with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
We will ask the court to transfer the Small Claims action to Court of Competent Jurisdiction because we have no projected total of the costs, losses and damages to the truck that exceed the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to a court of competent jurisdiction.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
However, co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm are not acting alone as the ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s officers. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Sheriff’s Deputy Markita Sayles that she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES is PROOF of how POLICE FILE FALSE REPORTS, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, FIX THE CASE, COMMIT FRAUD to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto AFTER she:
1) admitted she talked with Law Enforcement Special Services resources twice to ascertain that she was proceeding in the correct manner according to their plan and her instructions. WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO CONSULT WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES TO TAKE AND FILE A SIMPLE, COMMON POLICE REPORT?,
2) East Bay Auto incriminated police admitting that they worked with police, are accomplishes, collaborators, were under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation or Abdul-Jalil,
3) The vehicle was ADMITTED stolen, burglarized, vandalized, fraud, larceny and damaged, BUT, BOTH policemen said “this is NOT a criminal matter, truck was not stolen”,
4) Dep. Sayles said she can’t inspect/process nor document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property, nor can Abdul-Jalil without the approval of their asset East Bay Auto,
5) Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times,
6) Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras,
7) Dep. Sayles said Abdul-Jalil didn’t answers her questions, BUT she NEVER asked basic questions as: Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, nothing on damage, suspects, the truck registration or VIN,
Dep. Sayles said Abdul-Jalil needed to go to court in order to get a police report, REFUSING TO TAKE A REPORT!, and
9) Dep. Sayles said it’s a civil matter 8 Times! NOT a criminal matter.
THIS VIDEO PROVIDES PROOF THAT SHERIFF’S DEPT. MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! Sayles “event/police report” states:

“RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”

Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, AND Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras! SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE!
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
The Entrapment Strategy is disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Abdul-Jalil, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties, the threats/demands for Payment of Storage, refusal to pay for a Rental vehicle, mitigating the continuing Loss of Use and Damages, and their illegal clandestine efforts to gain ownership of our truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US with the FRAUDULENT attempted East Bay Auto Lien Sale and REFUSAL to release our truck to defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.
Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation is going forward with Civil and Criminal Charges/Claims for Grand Larceny, Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Property Theft, Burglary, Vandalism, Extortion, Phone (Terrorist) Threats, Deception, attempted Grand Theft, Costs, Damages, Mitigating the Continuing Loss of Use, and Monetary Sanctions, among others with Federal and State Complaints filed against East Bay Auto and State Farm Insurance and served them both with Preservation-of-Evidence Demand Letter.
Additionally, with respect to any and all business operation regarding the defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation insurance policy and claim, and THE FACT that State Farm, their employees, their referenced agents, sub-agents, contractors, State Farm Claims, State Farm Appraisal Team, Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, and ALL known and unknown Third Parties have clearly “targeted” defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and using recognizable government entrapment tactics the latest of which was the refusal to release the truck and “lien sale” to gain ownership of their truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US! As a direct and proximate result of State Farm and their co-conspirators East Bay’s continuing actions, defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation is FORCED to make long term arrangements for the storage of the truck UNTIL STATE FARM PAYS FOR THE REPAIR AS AMWF PURSUES ALL OTHER REMEDIES!
Some Requests for Documents include:
61. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof of MARKITA SAYLES FILED A FALSE REPORT, LIED ABOUT ENTIRE POLICE REPORT, see: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
62. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof of MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! as Sayles her “event/police report” states “ RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
63. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof that Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
64. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof that Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
101. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED PHONE CALL TO DEFENDANTS, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
102. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Sheriff failure and refusal to investigate and file a report established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
103. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Sheriff failure and refusal to investigate and file a report established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
104. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
105. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
110. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfer with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
111. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfer with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
273. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to June 26, 2012, 50 page complaint regarding al-Hakim being accosted by the Sheriffs deputy stating “I have recently called and left messages as well as speaking to your clerk Elaine just last week regarding my desire to file several law suits as well as answering other matters that require the ability to file those required documents without the fear of being ambushed by the District Attorney’s office enforcers or the County Sheriff’s Department acting in their place and stead for other judicial entities. I have been precluded from any legal rights by virtue of this illegal, repressive censorship enacted by the DA’s office. This has gone on far too long and the legal consequences continue to mount as I am forbidden to pursue my civil rights in court without the oppression of the system by those in control of it. I want to and will file my law suits and go forward to resolution of these unprecedented matters in this public forum.” filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay.
274. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to January 7, 2014, 11 page letter, fax and email complaint in (ACDCSS) case number #0010274454-01 (previously listed as FSD #274454A) regarding “Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim being profiled, surveilled, identified, and targeted by the District Attorney and Sheriff’s Deputy, al-Hakim being accosted by Sheriffs Deputies and prevented from entering the Alameda Family Law Courthouse by County Sheriff’s who informed defendant that he must go to Judge Pulido’s courtroom to file the letter, that he would be handling this matter in Probate Court and defendants requesting security” filed with Winifred Smith- Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California; C. Don Clay- Supervising Judge, Superior Court of California; Stephen Pulido- Presiding Judge Family Law Court, Superior Court of California; and Judge Sandra Bean- Alameda Family Law Court, Superior Court of California.
289.  ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to plaintiffs July 11, 2018 hearing in the matters of al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371 and resultant complaint filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced in RE: “al-Hakim states “I have been in your courtroom over 20 times and I have never seen a deputy standing right behind the party during a hearing.” and you have THREE deputies in the courtroom right now!”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
290. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to the October 3, 2018 hearing, the resultant letter, fax and email Complaint filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced in RE: “Clay says “that’s normal, I may even have more!” al-Hakim says “for a civil ex-parte motion at 3:00 p.m.? I don’t believe that! Clay says ” It’s true”
297. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to the April 14, 2008 Complaint with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced therein the request for security against Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar RE: “when al-Hakim entered the courthouse building, the deputy at the metal detector called upstairs to the courtroom, Department 21 to inform them of his arrival in the building” filed with Victoria B. Henley, Director-Chief Counsel of the Sate of California Commission on Judicial Performance, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye- Supreme Court of California and Chair, Judicial Council of California, and Commission Judicial Appointments; Judge Phyllis Hamilton- Chief District Judge, U. S. District Court- No. Division; Alex Tse- Director, U. S. Attorney’s Office; Xavier Becerra- Attorney General of California; Victoria Henley-Director-Chief Counsel, Commission on Judicial Performance;  Martin Hoshino- Director, Judicial Council of California, Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge, former Presiding Court Judge George Hernandez and Alameda County Superior Court Administration.

These torts exposes the Responding Parties to the full array of tort remedies, including punitive damages on top of regular tort damages, for an insurance company’s unreasonable breach of an insurance contract.
Responding Parties engaging in the herein referenced Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” persecution to the detriment and oppression of Defendants, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, the communities they serve, and those they serve was both covert and overt, consisting of both actions and inactions of subterfuges and evasions that violated the obligation of good faith in performance with their continuing evasion of the spirit of the bargain, lack of diligence and slacking off, willful rendering of imperfect performance, abuse of a power to specify terms, and interference with or failure to cooperate in the other party’s performance.” (R. J. Kuhl Corp. v. Sullivan (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1589, 1602 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 425].)
As a direct and proximate result of Responding Parties actions, Defendant’s has suffered losses and damages, including but not limited to: 1) repair of their vehicle, 2) loss of use of the vehicle during the repair period, measured by the rental value of a similar vehicle, 3) loss of income due to the inability to use the vehicle for business purposes, 4) additional expenses incurred due to the inability to use the vehicle for personal and business purposes, emotional distress and inconvenience caused by the loss of use. As this matter is part of an ongoing action, defendants also has claims for 1) general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 2) for costs of suit incurred herein; and 3) for any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim at:
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation 
4200 Park Blvd., Suite 116 
Oakland, CA 94602 
Tel: 510-394-4501Respectfully, Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******     We received a voicemail for someone named Mary from State Farm claims inquiring into our moving the Truck from East Bay Auto Center.
    As reported of this date, East Bay STILL has the truck and REFUSES to release it to us unless and until we indemnify them from ALL liability for their civil and criminal charges of larceny, fraud, theft, damage, if the vehicle is stolen from them, etc., so they may be able to do or have done anything they choose to the vehicle and it’s contents without any possible consequences!
     The truck was supposed to have been returned to us by March 7, 2024, BUT that DID NOT HAPPEN.
      Now, the truck has been STOLEN, was burglarized, vandalized, is damaged, and East Bay has refused to allow the COUNTY SHERIFFS nor us to inspect the truck for a complete analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages,UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SIGN A WAIVER OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR SAME! We will NOT ever do that.
    As you ALL have been advised, East Bay Auto Center filed a Small Claims action against us for an additional $3,400 storage fees beyond the amount they settled with State Farm for. We have filed a Cross Complaint against them for undetermined costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, and other losses and damages, has cab damage that is 57 inches long stretching from the rear passenger side to start of the cab damage that is 6-8 inches wide through the corporate lettering, the truck is currently lodged 2 inches within and against the fence and CAN NOT be moved without causing MORE significant damage!
    The truck was NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!
    East Bay Auto Center is Not currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, thus they don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit.
    EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California. They may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer.
    Given that EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) The defendant may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.
    East Bay Auto has suspensions with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
    We will ask the court to transfer the Small Claims action to Court of Competent Jurisdiction because we have no projected total of the costs, losses and damages. losses and damages to the truck that may exceed the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and if so, request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to a court of competent jurisdiction.
    I base my request for the imposition of a sanction on the basis that it took me over 47 hours to research and locate the correct Plaintiff’s personnel, many phone calls, letters, emails and faxes in communication with the parties referenced herein, to research and prepare this motion, costs, and expenses according to proof. My discounted hourly wage is $350 per hour (from regular posted fee of $550/hour) for the 47 hours spent on this matter equals $16,450 alone.
    As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
    The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.    A FORMAL COMPLAINT WILL FOLLOW UNDER SEPARATE COVER.
    Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
    IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
    However, co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm are not acting alone as the ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s officers.
    This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Sheriff’s Deputy Markita Sayles that she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES is PROOF of how POLICE FILE FALSE REPORTS, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, FIX THE CASE, COMMIT FRAUD to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto AFTER she:
1) admitted she talked with Law Enforcement Special Services resources twice to ascertain that she was proceeding in the correct manner according to their plan and her instructions. WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO CONSULT WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES TO TAKE AND FILE A SIMPLE, COMMON POLICE REPORT?,
2) East Bay Auto incriminated police admitting that they worked with police, are accomplishes, collaborators, were under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist AMWF and Abdul-Jalil,
3) The vehicle was ADMITTED stolen, burglarized, vandalized, fraud, larceny and damaged, BUT, BOTH policemen said “this is NOT a criminal matter, truck was not stolen”,
4) Dep. Sayles said she can’t inspect/process nor document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property, nor can Jalil without the approval of their asset East Bay Auto,
5) Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times,
6) Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras,
7) Dep. Sayles said Jalil didn’t answers her questions, BUT she NEVER asked basic questions as: Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, nothing on damage, suspects, the truck registration or VIN,
Dep. Sayles said Jalil needed to go to court in order to get a police report, REFUSING TO TAKE A REPORT!, and
9) Dep. Sayles said it’s a civil matter 8 Times! NOT a criminal matter.
    THIS VIDEO PROVIDES PROOF THAT SHERIFF’S DEPT. MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! Sayles “event/police report” states:

“RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”

    Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, AND Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras! SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE!
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    The Entrapment Strategy is to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- AMWF and Abdul-Jalil, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have PREPARED SUBPOENAS TO BE SERVED THIS WEEK ON ALL THE PARTIES REFERRENCED HEREIN that we have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties, the threats/demands for Payment of Storage, refusal to pay for a Rental vehicle, mitigating the continuing Loss of Use and Damages, and their illegal clandestine efforts to gain ownership of our truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US with the FRAUDULENT attempted East Bay Auto Lien Sale and REFUSAL to release our truck to AMWF.
    AMWF is going forward with Civil and Criminal Charges/Claims for Grand Larceny, Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Property Theft, Burglary, Vandalism, Extortion, Phone (Terrorist) Threats, Deception, attempted Grand Theft, Costs, Damages, Mitigating the Continuing Loss of Use, and Monetary Sanctions, among others with Federal and State Complaints filed against East Bay Auto and State Farm Insurance and served them both with Preservation-of-Evidence Demand Letter.
   Additionally, with respect to any and all business operation regarding the AMWF insurance policy and claim, and THE FACT that State Farm, their employees, their referenced agents, sub-agents, contractors, State Farm Claims, State Farm Appraisal Team, Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, and ALL known and unknown Third Parties have clearly “targeted” AMWF and using recognizable government entrapment tactics the latest of which was the refusal to release the truck and “lien sale” to gain ownership of their truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US! As a direct and proximate result of State Farm and their co-conspirators East Bay’s continuing actions, AMWF is FORCED to make long term arrangements for the storage of the truck UNTIL STATE FARM PAYS FOR THE REPAIR AS AMWF PURSUES ALL OTHER REMEDIES!     ALL THE PARTIES HEREIN ARE DEMANDED TO LODGE AND FILE THE REQUISITE COMPLAINT AND BEGAN THE MANDATORY INVESTIGATION PROCESS!

Respectfully,


Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******
Anti-SPAM Policy Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary to our company that is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.
This e-mail message was sent to you because you have previously corresponded with us and/or are subscribed to one of our emailing lists.
If you have received this communication in error, or this e-mail is unsolicited, please accept our apologies and at any time you would like to remove yourself from our mailings, please feel free to do so by clicking on “Unsubscribe“, or you can also notify the sender immediately and we shall delete your address, or replying to this message and type “Unsubscribe” in the subject line to remove yourself from our mailing list.
If you’ve received unsolicited email from one of our users, or if you suspect a user of abusing email services (or have any questions regarding our policies), please do not hesitate to contact us. Under Bill 1618 Title III passed by the 105th U. S. Congress, email cannot be considered Spam as long as it includes contact information and a remove link for removal from the mailing list.
We prohibit users from sending unsolicited email, and do not allow the use of third-party, purchased, rented, or harvested mailing lists. Anyone found abusing such email is banned from the use of our service.
Every complaint is investigated, and you will receive a response from our abuse team detailing the action we’re taking to deal with the issue.
Thanks in advance for you time.

—
Creating and Edvocating Relevant Social Service Programs

—
Creating and Edvocating Relevant Social Service Programs Attachments:

al-Hakim Decl:State Non-Svc Brand Vexatious Litigant List 7:8:25.pages.pdf

146 KB

Subject: VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (CCP 391 (B)(3))) ORDER THAT WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED; PROOF Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice; PROOF KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance

From: “A. J.” <ajalil1234@gmail.com>

Date: 7/8/25, 10:02 AM

To: Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov, Marsha.Slough@jud.ca.gov, rbmoises@cjp.ca.gov, charlenedrummer@hotmail.com, coletteabrooks@aol.com, Gregory.Dresser@cjp.ca.gov, GPDresser@cjp.ca.gov, Shawn.Spaulding@cjp.ca.gov, SRSpaulding@cjp.ca.gov, Anne.Hunter@cjp.ca.gov, AMHunter@cjp.ca.gov, mark.lizarraga@cjp.ca.gov, Sonya.smith@cjp.ca.gov, SRsmith@cjp.ca.gov, Emma.Bradford@cjp.ca.gov, mani@sheiklaw.us, rivie@imwlaw.com, rachel@hillmediationservices.com, gnelson@nflawfirm.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, michelle.Curran@jud.ca.gov, robert.Oyung@jud.ca.gov, salena.Chow@jud.ca.gov, Deborah.Brown@jud.ca.gov, Laura.Speed@jud.ca.gov, Deborah.Collier-Tucker@jud.ca.gov, Chio.Saephanh@jud.ca.gov, Heather.Resetarits@jud.ca.gov, Cristina.Resendiz-Johnson@jud.ca.gov, Elizabeth.Tam-Helmuth@jud.ca.gov, amanda.Morris@jud.ca.gov, AccessFairnessComm@jud.ca.gov, civilandsmallclaims@jud.ca.gov, malcumbrac@nemecek-cole.com, pbrownmcgill@pbmlawoffices.com, pdeedon@maire-law.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, crice@dlunited.org, elise@aswtlawyers.com, jt@thigpenlegal.com, saul.bercovitch@calawyers.org, elizabeth.Tam-Helmuth@jud.ca.gov, amanda.Morris@jud.ca.gov, AccessFairnessComm@jud.ca.gov, civilandsmallclaims@jud.ca.gov, malcumbrac@nemecek-cole.com, pbrownmcgill@pbmlawoffices.com, pdeedon@maire-law.com, mpritt@bsfllp.com, crice@dlunited.org, elise@aswtlawyers.com, jt@thigpenlegal.com, saul.bercovitch@calawyers.org, jenny.Grantz@jud.ca.gov, collabjusticecomm@jud.ca.gov, Dana.Cruz@jud.ca.gov, Deanna.adams@jud.ca.gov, Carrie.Zoller@jud.ca.gov, CLAC@jud.ca.gov, jenny.wald@jud.ca.gov, bruce.greenlee@jud.ca.gov, kerry.doyle@jud.ca.gov, douglas.denton@jud.ca.gov, sarah.Fleischer-Ihn@jud.ca.gov, Jamie.Schechter@jud.ca.gov, camilla.kieliger@jud.ca.gov, james.barolo@jud.ca.gov, anne.ronan@jud.ca.gov, marsha.Slough@jud.ca.gov, susan.mcmullan@jud.ca.gov, douglasp.miller@jud.ca.gov, sarah.Fleischer-Ihn@jud.ca.gov, anne.ronan@jud.ca.gov, corby.sturges@jud.ca.gov, jenny.grantz@jud.ca.gov, jason.Haas@jud.ca.gov, donna.Newman@jud.ca.gov, jennifer.chappelle@jud.ca.gov, marsha.slough@jud.ca.gov, chris.Belloli@jud.ca.gov, corey.Rada@jud.ca.gov, davidakaiser@earthlink.net, info@caljudges.org, dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov, BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov, cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov, SHing@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MGaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept711@alameda.courts.ca.gov, Dept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov

BCC: ajalil@berkeley.edu

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

4200 Park Blvd., Ste. #One16, Oakland CA  94602
Phone  (510) 394-4101

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation

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

Linked In Profile on Abdul-Jalil, Kobe Bryant Supports AMWF

Abdul-Jalil Honored in Port Au-Prince, Haiti and Miami, Fla. for Relief Missions to Haiti ,  Thanks You from Arch Bishop Joel Jeune to Abdul-Jalil

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY HONORS ABDUL-JALIL Receives Certificate-of-Recognition for 2021-22 

Belal Salih Esa receives Posthumous Congressional Proclamation/Resolution for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from California Governor Gavin Newsom and the State Legislature for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from the Mayor, City Council and the Unified School District Board of Supervisors of the City of Albany for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)

Humanitarian Civil and Human Rights Achievements

Articles on Abdul-Jalil:  ABDUL-JALIL GENIUS- BOY WONDER!!MC Hammer Tribute to ABDUL-JALILEmanuel Steward on ABDUL-JALIL
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Maze Featuring Frankie Beverly and Marvin Gaye
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Khalid al-Mansour, President Barack Obama and Prince Al-Waleed
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Destiny and Marvin Gaye

Abdul-Jalil BMI Songwriter/Producer

Abdul-Jalil Wrote/Produced/Adminstered Survey, Poll, Analysis, Song, and Commercials for City of Oakland Image Campaign “I Know You’ll Love Oakland”

Abdul-Jalil Wrote/Produced/Adminstered Mayor Lionel Wilson and City of Oakland “Conference On Urban Economic Development” and Commercials

Abdul-Jalil Hosted the City of Oakland’s “Holiday Season at the Trans Pacific Centre”

Ron Dellums Congressional Acknowledgement to Abdul-Jalil for Bicentennial Basketball Classic

Abdul-Jalil and The Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Fundraiser
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg1
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg2
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg3

ABDUL-JALIL- the First _SUPER AGENT_ Legal Black History Page 1
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 2
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 3
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law, Lecturor, Presenter, Marketing, Branding Page 4

Award for “Distinguished Marketing and Promotional Services” from NFL Super Bowl NFL Experience , Abdul-Jalil Award from NFL Super Bowl, Rihanna SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo , Dr. Dre SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo

SUPER BOWL CELEBRITY PLACEMENT, Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg1,  Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg2 ,  Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg3

The Man Who Turn$ Hit$ Into Million$, One Special Case,

The Historic Jr. Moore Contract pg1, The Historic Jr. Moore Contract pg2,

ESPN Bostock 5th & Jackson TV Special Part 1, and Part 2,  ESPN Bostock Magazine Special, ESPN Magazine- The History and Mystery of The High Five,
the “al-Hakim Tax Code Ruling”, Smart Agent, Busy Agent,
Abdul-Jalil in Harvard University Law School Federal Tax Course Outline
Abdul-Jalil in Yale University Law School Federal Tax Course 13th Ed., Prof. Eric Zolt
Abdul-Jalil in Wake Forest University Law School “Islamic and Jewish Perspective On Interest”
Abdul-Jalil in Washington University Law School Tax CodeAbdul-Jalil in Washington & Lee University Law School Tax Code,Abdul-Jalil in University of Virginia Law School Tax Course

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation-KPFA Promotional Video
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Kids Celebrity Gift BackPacks
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Free Food Program Celebrity Giving Back
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville KPFA Interview Video
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Alameda Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Entourage & Randy Holland in Trader Joe’s Pinole “Tribute to Legends of Jazz” Show
Santa Fe Elementary School’s Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, SemiFreddi’s, Trader Joe’s, Little Ceasar’s Pizza, Marshawn Lynch’s “Fam1ly F1rst” and Leon Powe’s “Fresh Start Oakland”
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 1
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 2

---

You can click on any highlighted word to view or download that itemTo:    Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero                    Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero
         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: 415-865-4391,415-865-4205               Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov

        Michelle Curran                                            Gregory Dresser           
        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
Michelle.Curran@jud.ca.govGregory.Dresser@jud.ca.gov


            Ismail J. Ramsey-Director                    Rob Bonta
            U. S. Attorney’s Office                         Attorney General of California
            Federal Courthouse                              1300 I Street, Suite 125
            450 Golden Gate Avenue                     P.O. Box 944255           
            San Francisco, CA 94102                    Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
            Fax No.: 415-436-7234                        Fax: 916-324-8835

Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan
              Superior Court of Alameda County                   East Bay Auto Center         
              Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                 21099 Mission Blvd.
              Department 105                                               Hayward, CA 94541
              661 Washington St.                                          Email: EastBayAuto6@gmail.com
              Oakland, CA 94607                                          Ph:510‐690‐2728
              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov
BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov

Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer
             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County
             René C. Davidson Courthouse                          René C. Davidson Courthouse
             Department 1                                                  1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
             Oakland, CA 94612                                          Oakland, CA 94612
             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                Fax: 510-891-6276
TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.govcfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov
            Judge Stuart Hing                                                 Judge Michael Gaffey
            East County Hall of Justice                                  Fremont Hall of Justice
            Fremont Law & Motion, Dept 711                       Fremont Law & Motion, Dept. 605
            5151 Gleason Drive                                              39439 Paseo Padre Parkway
            Dublin, CA 94568                                                Fremont, CA 94538
            SHing@alameda.courts.ca.gov                            MGaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept711@alameda.courts.ca.govDept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov
            925-227-6711                                                        510-818-7510
            Robert Tripp, FBI Director                                 Yesenia Sanchez
            Northern District of California                            Alameda County Sheriff
            San Francisco Field Office                                  1401 Lakeside Drive, 12th Floor
            450 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor                  Oakland, CA 94612-4305
            San Francisco, CA 94102-9523                           Fax: (510) 272-6811

            Chief Brian Matthews                                         Casey Hallinan             Hayward Police Department                               Attorney General of California             300 W. Winton Ave.                                            Attn: Public Inquiry Unit             Hayward, CA 94544                                            P.O. Box 944255             Fax: 510-293-7183                                              Sacramento, CA 94244-2550Fax: (916) 323-5341

           Senator Aisha Wahab (SD-10)                Ursula Jones Dickson
           California State Senate                            District Attorney
           39510 Paseo Padre Pkwy, Ste 280          René C. Davidson Courthouse
           Fremont, CA 94538                                1225 Fallon Street, Room 900
           Fax: 916-319-2125                                  Oakland CA 94612
                                                                           Fax: 510-452-5625, 510-271-5157

           Steve Gordon- Director                            Kenneth J. Pogue- Director
           Department of Motor Vehicles                 Office of Administrative Law
           2415 1st Ave., Mail Station F101             300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250
           Sacramento, CA 95818-2606                   Sacramento, CA 95814-4339
           Fax:                                                           Fax: 916-323-6826
Steve.Gordon@dmv.ca.govKenneth.Pogue@oai.ca.gov

           Kimberly Kirchmeyer- Director                Patrick Dorais- Bureau Chief
           Department of Consumer Affairs              Bureau of Automotive Repair
          1625 North Market Blvd., Suite N 112      Complaint Intake Unit
           Sacramento, CA 95834                             10949 N. Mather Blvd.
           Fax: (916) 574-8623                                  Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Kimberly.Kirchmeyer@dca.ca.gov           Fax: (916) 464-3405
Patrick_Dorais@dca.ca.gov

          Ricardo Lara- Commissioner                    Alex Anneker           Department of Insurance                           State Farm Insurance Agent          300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700                     5301 Claremont Ave          Sacramento, CA 95814                              Oakland, CA 94618          Fax: 916-445-5276                                    alex.anneker.vadygn@statefarm.com, EastBayAuto6@gmail.comRicardo.Lara@insurance.ca.gov
         Custodian of Records
         State Farm Claims
         PO Box 52250
         Phoenix, AZ 85072-2250
        Alacrity Fax: 985-345-4400, 800-952-5371sent via: U. S. Mail, Fax, and email                                  
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     July 8, 2025
NO. PAGES: 12
TO THOMAS NIXON, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT

ABDUL-JALIL AL-HAKIM DECLARATION/STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO JUDGE JEFF BRAND ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (CCP 391 (B)(3))) ORDER THAT WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT FOR FILING CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 AND 170.3; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED. I HAVE CALLED YOUR OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES, LEFT VOICEMAIL MESSAGES AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE!

   THE OATH OF OFFICE
I, ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

“Judicial challenges themselves are not, however, evidence a want or delay of prosecution. A party is entitled to challenge a judicial officer for cause or bias.” “The challenges appear to be filed in an earnest belief that the judges of this Court ought to be disqualified from deciding this case and that each successive challenge will overcome the prior’s shortcomings.””the Court hopes and encourages both parties to take this new judicial assignment as a good time to wipe the slate clean, forgive any earlier acrimony, and proceed to resolve and adjudicate the claims raised by the Complaint in normal order and good faith. Al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated.” “Both parties deserve the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law. In short, this case deserves a chance to proceed on its merits, and now is an opportune time as any to do so.”

Judge Stephen Kaus, Tentative Ruling made September 11, 2018.
Judge Kaus admits to the courts acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law!

        Plaintiff and al-Hakim were NOT aware that there was any finding of GUILT in the matter of Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. C-81137 herein Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, was deemed a vexatious litigant by Alameda County Superior Court.
    As the CEO of Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation we filed an action against Defendants State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Claims and State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Appraisal Team or any of its employees or representatives including but not limited to Mary Weaver, Gary O’Donnell, Madison Ritter, Kaitlin Hampe, Samantha B, Kendra Behrens, Victor Walker, “Neg”, Karena Kelly-Guishard, Lexie Figueroa; Alex Anneker Insurance Agency, and Alex Anneker; Alacrity Solutions, LLC, and employees Jim Pearl, John Hall, Matt Fatheree, Rob Beller; Snapsheet and employees Brad Weisberg, Andy Cohen, Dan Colomb, Brad Weisberg, Jennifer Fagan, Jesse Perrotta, Alexia Bustamante; Up North Towing and Matthew; Blue Star Towing; Shah Sons LLC DBA- East Bay Auto Center, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Nomi Khan, and their Investors; and Does 1 through 200, inclusive.
    It is entitled as same and given Case No: 25CV108981, with a hearing set for July 23, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. at the René C. Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612, in Department 19, before Judge Joscelyn Jones.
    I recently became aware of the alleged order when Defendants filed a Motion for An Order for Dismissal for Failing to Timely Obtain a Prefiling Order within Ten (10) Days of the Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order. per  CCP section 391.7(c).
    Co-Defendants State Farm and Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (“Alacrity”) have alleged they both filed Notices that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order as State Farm filed theirs on April 2, 2025, and Alacrity filed its on April 17, 2025. The Notices of Vexatious Litigant automatically stayed this case and required the Foundation to obtain a prefiling order from the presiding judge of this court within ten (10) days of the filings.
    BOTH CO-DEFENDANTS STATE FARM AND ALACRITY HAVE FAILED AND REFUSED TO SERVE SAID NOTICES ON AARON & MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION (AMWF.)
    We filed our Opposition and Cross‐Motion for Filing this Frivolous or Dilatory motion with Monetary Sanctions against Defendants and their counsels under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5, 128.7, and 391.7(f) on July 3, 2025.
    When I /WE filed the opposition, the clerk said she could NOT find the case by the number nor name. I insisted that both were right and after 5 minutes she asked “it’s NOT al-Hakim?”. I said “NO, it’s the Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.” She repeated her question and I again insisted that it was correct.
    The I to had to sit at the clerks desk for another 20 minutes while she was communicating with someone on the computer regarding the case, typing all the time.
    It was clear that the Defendants actions had succeeded in getting the case title changed to reflect MY name rather than the 68 YEAR OLD, WORLD RENOWNED FOUNDATION!

“SNITCHES” HAD AL-HAKIM MAIL, ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER NEVER SERVED
    From February 2019 when my family, our businesses, and I was illegally forced from our home of over 40 years WITH TWO DAYS NOTICE, due to the continuing fraud of the “COURTEL” and “SHADOW COURT” with judges Jeff Brand, Kim Cowell, Wynne Carvill, Robert Freedman, Frank Roesch, C. Don Clay, court administrator Chad Finke and others in the appeals court, we were ALL homeless!
    I had a very meager form of communication until May 2019 when I lost the remaining support I had for even that!
    From that time I never received any communications from the courts even though I filed change of addresses with the court master file and each department that I had a case in including the State and Federal Appeals courts.
    However, on at least two separate occasions I was confronted by two people that are known to me as “snitches”- confidential informants, government assets, stating that they had “lots” of mail addressed to me and most of it was from the court. There was a third person of similar ilk that stated they were being coerced to be complicit in the “snitch” activities of one of the others, and that they felt/knew there was government involvement! I will elaborate more in the actual “Request to be Removed from the Vexatious Litigant list.
    I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY!
    The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Abdul-Jalil HAVE LIVED THE EXPERIENCE OF THE “COURTEL” and “SHADOW COURT” and the alleged order of being deemed a vexatious litigant by the Alameda County Superior Court order on June 11, 2019, YET IT HAS NEVER SERVED AND MORE INEXPLICABLE, on March 19, 2018, MORE THAN 16 MONTHS EARLIER THAN THE ALLEGED ORDER, al-Hakim received a notice/order of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant”! (see Exh. A)
    THE “COURTEL”, this Black Robed Society Conceived in Sin, Born of Corruption, Covered Up with Collusion, protected by the System itself- the COURTEL! A litany of Law Lords, Demonically Dealing Decisions for Dominance, DOLLAR$!
    This Judicial Cult of Immoral Dishonor, this “COURTEL”, with no accountability grievously disintegrates in “a monumentally moral descent into the very exclusive JUDGES CHAMBERS in HELL for Criminal Justices who swear others to GOD but themselves are sworn to Judicial Purgatory as Satan’s Slaves!” They want the WORLD to believe they are GOD’S vicegerents on earth and pledge allegiance to THEM- then GOD, to honor their dishonor, to gracefully ignore their disgrace, to hold them in reverence ABOVE GOD while they do the Devils work!!
    THEY ENGAGED IN FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, JUDICIAL/LEGAL GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION exposing these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing legal parties; assuring the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, enacting government sponsored terror, with the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
    This Defendants Motion is frivolous and was filed for an improper purpose— aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise the court as their “butt puppet” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
    Defendants push the COURTEL Command to activate and commence the TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY action to their Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court Corruptocrats and Kleptocrats in the Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Scheme and Litigation Strategy in their “Shadow Court” Operation.
    The concept and reality of this “Shadow Court” raises concerns about the rule of law, fairness, and the protection of individual rights within the legal system.
    The COURTEL “Shadow Court” is the legal, court or judicial system that operates outside the official legal framework or established judicial system that has several interpretations depending on the factors and context including:
Informal or Extrajudicial Courts: Shadow courts refer to “formal and extrajudicial” bodies of unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities engaged in GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION that furtively create, provoke, and frame aggrieved civil and criminal disputes to illegally administer justice without constitutional authority as one of their tactics in their TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY for these parties to advance their “COURTEL” Campaign of JUDICIAL CORRUPTION against a TARGETED PARTY. The objective of the “shadow court” is to facilitate the COURTEL’s continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy with “Target, Engagement, Harassment, Provocation, Litigation” tactics is designed to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGETED PARTY, their family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially in the shadow courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives. The very nature and inherent structure/operation of this Civil/Criminal Entrapment Sting and Litigation Strategy- actively employs the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court systems at ALL levels (Judges are Politicians= elected officials by the Public, to serve the public) makes it diabolically impossible to journey from the Constitution to the Institution “Of The People, For The People, By The People!” that places them in this evil “criminal and civil rights/litigation meat grinder”. The parties are Governmental and Quasi-governmental employees, agents, entities, associates, members, and contractors of their companies, the U. S. Federal Government, State of California, County, and City agencies, among others, have engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act. Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance by and with unethical and criminal means, instigated and encouraged said acts, which gives rise to fraudulent, corruption as they conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived, employed and enacted the criminal, tactical, torture inspired policy of TARGETED HATE CRIME, Terror, Civil Conspiracy, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced Bigotry, Vindictive Retaliation, Oppression, Harassment, Racism, Discrimination, Bias, Prejudice, Unfairness, Persecution, AND GRAND CORRUPTION, victimization, inciting acrimony, animus, in the continued persecution with calumny deceit and the attempted entrapment of us as the continuing “TARGET”. These parties ADMITTEDLY engage in corruption and conspiracy, while consorting, colluding, conceiving and enacting this Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Sting and Litigation Strategy- actively employ the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court systems at ALL levels, including other judicial, governmental and political officials, their handlers, their contractors, agents, associates, proxies, sycophants, employees, the experts, witnesses, representatives, operatives, unnamed third parties, allies, political handlers and consultants (including their attorneys), the TARGETED PARTY’s litigation opponents and and others, to act out their VENDETTA, CREATING CRIME, FIXING CASES in furtherance of their Corruption Agenda with the FULL FORCE OF THE LAW to destroy the TARGETED PARTY. These “Shadow courts” arise in situations where the official judicial system is ineffective, corrupt, or inaccessible, as they have compromised to create their own mechanisms for their own desired justice. The litigation is commenced by agreement or at the direction of the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court and opposing counsel, is pursued to a legal termination in their favor, was brought without probable cause, was initiated with malice with the motive to obtain a collateral advantage and provide a legal defense for them because they have been, are and will be a defendants and witnesses needing protection with finding against the TARGETED PARTY.
Political Context: In the Law Enforcement, Judicial/Political/Social context, the “shadow court” is a governmental design engineered judicial system set up and controlled by Federal/State/County/Local/ law enforcement, political, and legal/judicial groups to secretly control and covertly co-opt the legitimacy of the “official” legal/judicial system they designed engineered to support and foster those parties acts to achieve their desired ruling government interests. This entrapment scheme strategy is employed in their authoritarian capacity where the official courts are used but these actions are surreptitious, back channel, social club- Inn of Courts and judicial chambers operations not visible to the public so they can not be seen as biased or controlled by the government. This group of Federal/State/County/Local/ law enforcement, political, and legal/judicial groups have its own corrupt leaders and policies, effectively taking over the legal and judicial governance authority whenever the need and opportunity arises.
Conspiracy Theories: In conspiracy theory circles, the shadow court is often described as a clandestine Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court agencies and organizations that manipulate or controls the actual process. This includes Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial groups and their secret societies, intelligence agencies, and other powerful entities that operate behind the scenes to influence and control political/legal/judicial/social decisions and public policy.
Historical Context: The term has also been used historically to describe Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court agencies and organizations or alternative administrations that claim legitimacy but operate outside the recognized government legal/judicial framework, especially during times of conflict or political/legal/judicial/social upheaval.
Secret or Covert Judicial Processes: The term can also describe secretive judicial processes that lack transparency and due process, often associated with human and civil rights abuses. These courts operate without proper legal procedures, leading to arbitrary decisions.
    This COURTEL has acculturated a Guantanomo Bay style system of the worst aspects of an evil society- grounded in Grand Endemic and Systemic corruption, violence, fraud, exploitation, racism, bigotry, and persecution, into their State sponsored terror operation of protected government endemically corrupt legal system to perpetuate their own criminal judicial/legal/financial/psychological/ violence upon innocent minorities, Muslims, immigrants, WITH common people being captured in their special illegal rendition into Civil Rights/Familial/Financial/Social/Psychological/Emotional TORTURE- OBLITERATING ANY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AND THE GREAT AMERICAN DREAM!
    Their tactics are more extreme than muckraking or character assassination, disinformation/misinformation, or defamation, wherein the COURTEL: DOJ, FBI, Court systems, Law Enforcement at ALL levels, and opposing parties anxiously track TARGETED PARTY’s movements, business and social activity, writings, speeches, phone and text conversations, internet activity, social media, personal and sexual relationships/endeavors to fabricate and gather negative, embarrassing or compromising information about the TARGETED PARTY, to publish and disperse that information as widely as possible, “NEUTRALIZING YOU!”, DESTROYING INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, and THEIR BUSINESSES BY ILLEGALLY TARGETING and FRAMING INNOCENT, UNAWARE, COMMON, EVERYDAY CIVILIANS!
    The COURTEL and Shadow Court Recent Acts in Underlying East Bay Auto Center Case that Impact The Other Case
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD
    IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND PROVEN THAT THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER, IF TRUE, WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, AND CORRUPTION BY THE VERY SAME ENTITIES DEFENDANTS REFERENCES IN THIER PLEADING!
    AS ADMITTED AND SHOWN JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE PUBLISHED THEY HAD AN ORDER DECLARING AL-HAKIM A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT THAT DID NOT EXIST!
    THEY DECLARED THEIR COLLECTIVE INTENT, THIS GAVE RISE TO THEIR MOTIVE, AND THEY CREATED THEIR OPPORTUNITY!
    ABDUL-JALIL AL-HAKIM HAD TO FILE OPPOSITIONS TO THREE ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE IN THIS ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT PROCEEDING CCP 391(B)(3) IN SIX MONTHS!
    On March 19, 2018, MORE THAN 16 MONTHS EARLIER THAN THE ALLEGED ORDER, al-Hakim received a notice/order of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” by JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE by the Alameda County Superior Court order on June 11, 2019, YET IT HAS NEVER SERVED! (see order as Exh. A).
    This alleged vexatious litigant order was taken as a crime, the parties JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE committed with “malice aforethought,” as the crime was premeditated, and the perpetrators held malice for the victim al-Hakim. AS PROVEN MY THEIR ORDER issued on June 11, 2019, there clearly was malice aforethought that is defined as a crime being planned in advance, with the intention to kill or grievously harm another individual, al-Hakim. This is proof of JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE malice aforethought as a requirement to convict someone of first-degree murder!
    They, JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE clearly established intention to commit a crime without just cause or provocation, specifically in this cases involving exposing their collective first-degree murder of the al-Hakim’s HUMAN and CIVIL RIGHTS, further exposes the COURTEL AND SHADOW COURTS full blown attack of the al-Hakim family! THIS IS AN EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT OF AN ONGOING TARGETED ATTEMPT TO DESTROY- EVEN KILL, A FAMILY HERE IN AMERICA- REAL LIVES, IN REAL LIFE, RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES, IN REAL TIME with expressed Malice or a “depraved” or “malignant” heart with the “Intent to kill”, mens rea!
    THEY ENGAGED IN FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, JUDICIAL/LEGAL GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION exposing these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing legal parties; assuring the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, enacting government sponsored terror, with the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
    COURTEL Command to activate and commence the TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY action to their Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court Corruptocrats and Kleptocrats in the Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Scheme and Litigation Strategy in their “Shadow Court” Operation.
    Judges Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke issued an order that claimed they had a prior order which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant. We have asked for that order and ALL have remained silent and claim not to be responsible for it, yet it is in an ORDER FROM THE COURT!
    al-Hakim is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges Defendants, with and through their counsel, has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise “Good White Way” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
(see “Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke Vexatious Litigant Strategy Fraud on th Court”, Challenge
for Cause of Judge Kaus filed December 4, 2018, at Page 24-27)
    Alameda County Superior Court allegedly issued this order on June 11, 2019, YET HAVE NEVER SERVED IT ON AL-HAKIM. PERHAPS EVEN MORE INEXPLICABLE, on March 19, 2018, al-Hakim received a notice of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” and a court motion pending for an alleged Vexatious Litigant proceeding.
    al-Hakim couldn’t tell from the signature who endorsed the denied waiver but it may be judge Carvill or Chad Finke because the judge in the case, C. Don Clay said he didn’t know anything about!
    Neither Carvill nor Finke EVER admitted it was them who issued the alleged “order”.
I have NEVER been deemed as such, NEVER received any such notice and was unaware of this pending alleged process which needless to say was without ANY merit!
    We repeatedly asked “Who filed this alleged motion, when, and what proof of service have they filed?” and “When is this motion being heard, in what department and by whom?”.
    We requested ANSWERS to “What prior orders does the court have regarding that case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on the case when NOTHING had been filed in that case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants defaulted on?”
    That was admittedly a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on al-Hakim’s litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in his cases.
    How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So are we to understand that YOUR system is guilty before a hearing on this meritless motion is even heard?
    A determination of vexatious litigant status specifically under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §391(b)(3) requires somewhat more than a retaliatory judge conspiring with the defendant to complain that they perceive al-Hakim vexed to their mutual motive, interest, benefit, and opportunity is a reoccurring theme over the 50 years of this case where the defendants have represented the judges in this case against al-Hakim and the judges have likewise defended the defendants as “sitting judge for the defense” and “deputy defense counsel”! There are simply no meritorious grounds for this motion at all. The statutory criteria are clearly stated and easily understood. And in this case, Plaintiff show they are as far removed from meeting the statutory criteria as possible, which Brand either knew or should have known before filing this motion out of retaliation and desperation.
CONCLUSION
I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY AND THAT CO-DEFENDANTS STATE FARM AND ALACRITY BOTH FILED ILLEGAL NOTICES THAT PLAINTIFF IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT SUBJECT TO PREFILING ORDER HAD SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THE CASE TITLE CHANGED TO REFLECT MY NAME RATHER THAN THE 68 YEAR OLD, WORLD RENOWNED FOUNDATION!!

Respectfully submitted,


Date: July 8, 2025Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff

********
RE:        A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Misrepresentation, Concealment of Material Facts with Intent to Induce Court’s Act or Reliance; VIDEO ADMISSIONS, PROOF Sheriff’s Deputy MARKITA SAYLES COMMITTED FRAUD, FIXING THE CASE; ADMITTED SHE WAS INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES; PERJURY; FILING AN ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT”; WILLFULLY FABRICATED EVIDENCE; COMMITTED MISCONDUCT; CONCEALMENT; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto

Dear Sheriff Sanchez, Chief Chaplin, A. G. Ramsey, A. G. Bonta, Director Tripp, Steve Gordon- DMV, Ricardo Lara- DOI, Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA , Patrick Dorais- BAR, Kenneth J. Pogue- OAL, A. G. Hallinan, Senator Wahab, D. A. Price, State Farm Claims, East Bay Auto Center, et. al.,

Law Enforcement Fraud, Misrepresentation, Concealment of Material Facts with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACE

Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan
              Superior Court of Alameda County                  East Bay Auto Center         
              Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                21099 Mission Blvd.
              Department 105                                                 Hayward, CA 94541
              661 Washington St.                                            Email: EastBayAuto6@gmail.com
              Oakland, CA 94607                                           Ph:510‐690‐2728
              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov
BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov

             Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer
             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County
             René C. Davidson Courthouse                           René C. Davidson Courthouse
             Department 1                                                      1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
             Oakland, CA 94612                                           Oakland, CA 94612
             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                    Fax: 510-891-6276
TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov

cc: Judges Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711
U.S. Postal Mail and Emailed
FROM:     Defendant Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     June 5, 2025
NO PAGES:     1
RE:        Declaration for finding Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Leandro Police, Hayward Police, Alameda County District Attorney, Chad Finke and Clerks in Superior Court Administration with support from U. S. Attorney- Northern District, FBI, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, engaged in GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme complete with Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance.

“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 at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew,

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, Plaintiffs, et. al.,

Attached please find our Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Declaration and Legal Argument in Support of Order finding Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Leandro Police, Hayward Police, Alameda County District Attorney, Chad Finke and Clerks in Superior Court Administration with support from U. S. Attorney- Northern District, FBI, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, engaged in GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme complete with Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance; Fixing the Case against Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation behind their declaration the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing police crime reports AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court actions; Judges, Court Administration, Clerks Obstructed, Perverted Course, Due Administration of Justice.

THE OATH OF OFFICE

I, ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance!
   Below is a recent email exchange with the California Registry of Charities and Fundraisers operating under the auspicious of Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Dear Registry of Charities and Fundraisers,

    Attached hereto please find the AG’s summary receipt for the filing of the requested 2022-23 YE filed documents that MUST be properly completed and confirmed BEFORE any electronic payment for the fee can be processed and accepted! Again, there never was any unspecified “deficiencies” for 2022-23 nor 2023-24 YE!!
    Again, we filed the forms, submitted the documents and paid, for which we presented the receipts for, online at the AG’s website.
    As we stated earlier. we had NOT received ANY RESPONSE to our multiple 2 emails, a fax and letters to your offices since May 14, 2025 regrading a notice that our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation non-profit 2024 YE filing has been rejected for unspecified “deficiencies”. You probably would NOT have responded if it were NOT for the intervention of Alicia Xiong in RegCompliance <RegCompliance@doj.ca.gov>!
    AGAIN, we ALWAYS DISAGREED WITH THIS FINDING and requested you PLEASE provide specifically what the 2024 YE filing unspecified “deficiencies” are?
    We filed the forms, submitted the documents and paid, for which we have the receipts for, online at the AG’s website.
    AFTER we provided the copies of the requested filings AS PROOF there was never any alleged “deficiencies”, you responded that you had the 2024 YE filings BUT the 2023 YE was missing!
    THAT ALSO WAS A FALSE STATEMENT! We provided the filed documents AND the AG’s completed summary for the filing that MUST be completed properly BEFORE the system will electronically allow for the processing and acceptance of the fee, for which we also had the receipts for!!
    As stated before, we find the “timing and non-responses suspicious” as the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation have ongoing litigation that this action may impact!
   This ENTIRE “DEFICIENCIES” ACTION WAS A COMPLETE FABRICATION TO PROVOKE AND ENTRAP US INTO AN INDEFENSIBLE LEGAL POSITION as if our our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation would be “suspended” for the alleged non-filing of the “deficiencies” for 2022-23 nor 2023-24 YE, THEY ARE/WOULD THEN Not be currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, thus they are NOT authorized to do business in the State of California and don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit. They DO NOT have legal standing to exist, if they may be suspended for some reason.
 A suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court.
 A corporation may be suspended for at least one of the following reasons:
    •    Failure to file one or more tax returns. Cal Rev. & Tax Code Sec. 23301.
    •    Failure to pay the business’ tax balance due. This can include the penalty for failing to file the annual Statement of Information with the Secretary of State. California Corporations Code Section 2205.
Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani, (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 1361.(Stating a suspended corporation is disqualified from exercising any right, power, or privilege, including prosecuting or defending an action, or appealing a judgment).
A suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court. (Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Superior Court [54 Cal.App.4th 1366] (1922) 188 Cal. 393, 396-397 [205 P. 446]; Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 46, 50-51 [317 P.2d 649].)
    Nor may a suspended corporation appeal from an adverse judgment (Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co. (1937) 9 Cal.2d 16, 20-21 [68 P.2d 968]; Gar-Lo, Inc. v. Prudential Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 242, 245 [116 Cal.Rptr. 389]), or seek a writ of mandate (Brown v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 519, 635 [51 Cal.Rptr. 633]).
    Given this heinous, blatant attempt to eliminate our status as a current Corporation with Secretary of State and State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, we will file another Complaint with the Alameda County Judges Brian Caruth, Tom Nixon, Michael Gaffey, Stuart Hing, Joscelyn Jones, and Superior Court administrator Chad Finke, Alameda County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, Hayward Police Chief Brian Matthews, U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, F.B.I. Northern District Director Robert Tripp, California Attorney General Casey Hallinan, California State Senator Aisha Wahab, Alameda County District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson, Director of California Department of Motor Vehicles Steve Gordon, California Department of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, California Director Department of Consumer Affairs Kimberly Kirchmeyer, California Bureau of Automotive Repair Chief Patrick Dorais, Director California Office of Administrative Law Kenneth J. Pogue, California Attorney General Hallinan- Public Inquiry Unit, and several Federal government offices.
    We consider this further PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance!
    As we have always maintained and is proven by their bad faith fact pattern, this was ALWAYS an entrapment scheme designed to take possession of the truck with it’s contents and trigger civil/criminal actions knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. They are not acting alone!
    IT IS CLEAR THAT OUR NON-PROFIT AARON & MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION, ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM, THE AL-HAKIM FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES AND BUSINESS PROPERTY, THEIR REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, THEIR CHARITIES, THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE- PERSONALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, MORALLY, ETHICALLY, AND FINANCIALLY, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
    WE HAVE PRESENTED further PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme and Hate Crimes. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the legal, judicial and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    The Entrapment Strategy is disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
    We have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties!
    We will respond further in mass with the affect that our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation non-profit business has been actually and potentially DAMAGED by your agency, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and ALL those referenced herein.
    THIS NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED!
We continue this section herewith below for argument and law:
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS, LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO IN TARGETED ENTRAPMENT, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE, FRUAD, MISREPRESENTATION WITH THE INTENT TO INDUCE THE COURT’S ACT OR RELIANCE
Law Enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hayward Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; San Leandro Police Chiefs Abdul Pridgen/Angela Averiett; U. S. Attorneys Stephanie Hinds/Ismail Ramsey; F.B.I. NorCal Directors Craig Fair/Robert Tripp; with support from the Court, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, and associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Further, they committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing this case; they were instructed by and with special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report” OR NONE AT ALL; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to covering for their “asset” co-conspirators; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, Law Enforcement with associated third parties continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence; as they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence was founded to take the responsibility, accountability, and liability off the Sheriff’s to have performed their investigation and filing a legitimate police crime report by destroying the evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO CENTER as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED MAY 28, 2024 PHONE CALL TO AL-HAKIM, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM.
The Plaintiffs, Sheriffs and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the Civil Rights Act”.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, Law Enforcement and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET! We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!! This established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
The April and May 2024 videos PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves, Plaintiff’s, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company and Law Enforcement in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
East Bay Auto Center is the ONLY suspects that could have stolen, burglarized, vandalized, and damaged the truck as it was not stolen by anyone else!
AMWF’s truck was “STOLEN” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with an associated third party while there for the insurance repair estimate. BUT NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!!
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroying the evidence and chain of custody!
On October 2, 2024, Plaintiffs EBAC FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S WHERE TO AND WHEN EBAC MOVED THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S Deputies Sean Sullivan #2137 and Collin Lenahan #2453 as Percipient Eye Witnesses.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in unsolicited emails to the court and Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, the Clerks of Dept. 1, and 105, and Superior Court Administrator Chad Finke that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Then East Bay Auto Center attempt’s to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to an unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
AGAIN, this was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE and was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and to destroy the chain of custody!
But Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company are NOT acting alone, but with governmental entities and their associates!
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: 1) they were fully aware at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence.
The County Sheriff’s coercive, malicious, intentional tortious interference are a violation of our rights under the California Constitution is a deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process and their police actions are inherently coercive due to their societal trust. For a Civil Code Section 52.1 cause of action, two elements must be established: (1) intentional interference with a constitutional or legal right, and (2) that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The courts, in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, it was determined that relief is granted under Civil Code Section 52.1 if coercive actions are present. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement Intentional Spoliation of Evidence can be viewed through Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court, California. 1998-05-11 and Penal Code section 135 establishes criminal penalties for spoliation, defining it as the willful destruction or concealment of evidence intended to prevent its production in legal proceedings, classifying such acts as misdemeanors.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfere with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.
Under Coprich v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, California. 2000-05-19 , the court allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint, because the officers were responsible for gathering or preserving evidence or for preventing her from doing so. However, the court did not determine that remedies monetary and contempt sanctions, with criminal sanctions for intentional destruction of evidence, and disciplinary measures against attorneys/law enforcement involved in suppressing evidence.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement intentionally failed to preserve evidence of the truck burglary is tortious interference due to spoliation of evidence and intentional interference with defendant’s prospective economic advantage, emphasizing defendants’ right to their injury claims are a valuable expectancy.
On November 2, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been returned to Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward with additional damage. Upon investigation, the truck has been further BURGLARIZED by the breach of the lock on the roll up door and the roll up door itself! THE DAMAGES ARE UNKOWN AND YET TO BE INVESTIGATED!
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Irrefutable evidence shows that Plaintiff’s and the Alameda County Sheriff’s acted with the intent to disrupt Defendants contractual relationship and deny defendants civil rights.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement had knowledge of this contract and intentionally interfered with it AND violated the defendants civil rights (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134 establishes the elements of tortious interference with contractual relations, emphasizing that the defendant must have knowledge of the contract and intentionally interfere with it) by deputy SAYLES whom ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE FALSE POLICE REPORT, willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, failed and refused to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, AS IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY AUTO TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET IN FIXING THIS CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM.
As a direct result of Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcements actions, Defendant has suffered losses and damages including but not limited to loss of business, personal, and real property, lost use of the truck, loss of services to the communities that they serve, loss of revenue, reputational harm, and emotional distress. Defendant also suffered damages, that need to be determined by the order ASAP for the truck be made available to us to get vital information from the engine, body, cab, under body, exhaust, etc., and a complete video investigation, analysis and documentation of the condition of the truck and the contents; to search, inspect, process and document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, finger printing, and clues for the damage, theft, vandalism, and missing/stolen business and personal property to ascertain the total vehicle costs, loss, damages as well as the theft costs, loss and damages. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802. This case highlights the requirement that the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was independently wrongful, which can include unlawful actions by law enforcement.
Defendant argues that the actions of Plaintiff’s and the Alameda County Sheriff’s violated the defendants civil rights and contends that the interference was not justified and was willful, intentional and conducted with malice. Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 1990, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507. This case discusses the necessity of proving that the interference was wrongful and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.
Defendant had a valid and enforceable contract with State Farm insurance company and Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement had knowledge of this contract. Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal. 4th 1140 (2004): This case illustrates intentional interference and the knowledge of the contract by the defendant and they acted with the intent to interfere.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were intentional and wrongful, constituting tortious interference with Defendants contractual relations. Burden v. County of Santa Clara, 81 Cal. App. 4th 244 (2000): This case highlights the limitations of tortious interference claims against government entities, noting that while government entities may have certain immunities, intentional and wrongful conduct still lead to liability.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company and Law Enforcement coercive, malicious, intentional tortious interference are a violation of our rights under the California Constitution is a deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process and their police actions are inherently coercive due to their societal trust. For a Civil Code Section 52.1 cause of action, two elements must be established: (1) intentional interference with a constitutional or legal right, and (2) that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The courts, in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, it was determined that relief is granted under Civil Code Section 52.1 if coercive actions are present. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10. Plaintiff’s and the County Sheriff’s actions were the actual and proximate cause of the interference.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfere with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement intentionally failed to preserve evidence of the truck burglary is tortious interference due to spoliation of evidence and intentional interference with defendant’s prospective economic advantage, emphasizing defendants’ right to their injury claims are a valuable expectancy.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
This Grand corruption is systemic and endemic in ALL al-Hakim cases involves the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of AMWF, al-Hakim, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve.
This Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement ill advised strategy with actions to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence was founded to take the responsibility, accountability, and liability off the Sheriff’s to have performed their investigation and filing a legitimate police crime report by destroying the evidence!
Defendants expressed concern over the Sheriffs officers intentionally mishandling of the crime scene, bad faith failure to investigate and collect incriminating evidence, noting the significant stakes given the involvement of the Plaintiffs and their admissions implicating and incriminating police, that they worked with law enforcement, the police are accomplishes, collaborators, and Plaintiffs are under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist AMWF or Abdul-Jalil.
The courts has established that the government must investigate, detect, collect, and preserve evidence relevant to guilt or innocence as ministerial actions. The critical issue in this ministerial action of evidence collection by the Sheriffs is without discretion, leaving them solely responsible for evidence collection, and the failure to investigate and seize material evidence convicts them of their failure of duty to preserve it. Hence, Sheriffs DO NOT have unchecked discretion to investigate, detect, collect, and preserve evidence; AND given that Plaintiffs are admitted government assets, with court’s prior rulings on informant disclosure suggest that police should exert reasonable efforts to locate material witnesses, reflecting a similar duty to seize material evidence. Sheriffs were aware of the materiality of evidence and this understanding should have compelled them to act to preserve such evidence, aligning with the principle favoring the state in ministerial actions.
Case law indicates that while police officers have liability and they can be held accountable for negligent execution of decisions of issues that involve distinguishing between discretionary and ministerial actions.
The objective of the continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy with “Target, Engagement, Harassment, Provocation, Litigation” tactics is designed to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- AMWF, Abdul-Jalil, al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives. The very nature and inherent structure/operation of the Political/Judicial Institution (Judges are Politicians= elected officials by the Public, to serve for the public) makes it diabolically impossible to journey from the Constitution to the Institution “Of The People, For The People, By The People!” that places them in this evil “criminal and civil rights/litigation meat grinder”.
This East Bay action is one of AMWF and Abdul-Jalil being forced into a small claims action that is both oppressive and coercive by limiting the money awards and the depravation of ones rights as the court decision is non-appealable.
This means that as a litigant, AMWF and Abdul-Jalil waives their most basic Civil and Human Right to a fair trial without recourse to appeal an intentionally wrongful decision that may be by design! This is unlawful, offends public policy, common law and an established concept of unfairness, is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes substantial injury as a part of the larger planned “judgment peonage”, an activity to take bankrupting judgments against us, causing SEVER economic legal damages, non-economic damages, and punitive damages sentencing us to LIFE in “debtors prison”!
Over the last 50+ years al-Hakim’s “court activities” has documented, with filed and served court actions, filed and served complaints, and filed and served correspondence memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
al-Hakim proves where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate his rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528.
Some of those litigation opponents referenced these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in their filings, ALL of whom have been complained of or to are, in major part because al-Hakim reported the very obvious agenda of parties by memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities corruption and persecution and their involvement in the cover-up of that criminal corruption.
The parties are Governmental and Quasi-governmental employees, agents, contractors, entities, associates, members, and contractors of their companies, the U. S. Federal Government, State of California, County, and City agencies, among others, have engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance by and with unethical and criminal means, instigated and encouraged said acts, which gives rise to fraudulent, corruption as they conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived, employed and enacted the criminal, tactical, torture inspired policy of TARGETED HATE CRIME, Terror, Civil Conspiracy, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced Bigotry, Vindictive Retaliation, Oppression, Harassment, Racism, Discrimination, Bias, Prejudice, Unfairness, Persecution, AND GRAND CORRUPTION, victimization, inciting acrimony, animus, in the continued persecution with calumny deceit and the attempted entrapment of us as the continuing “TARGET”.
ALL the DOCUMENTED actions alleged with cite relevant legal case authority to support arguments and assertions for a FORMAL COMPLAINT and Request for Investigation for Hate Crimes include violations of California Law including violations of the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts Civil Code section 51.7, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Acts, Civil Code section 52.1, Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983; California Government Code sections 11135 et seq., 12900 et seq., California Penal Code section 13023, California Penal Code section 422.55 and California Civil Code sections 51, 51.7, 52.5, and 54 et seq.; the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; California Constitution, Article VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475, 3523, and 3528, and for Harassment, Censorship, Fraud, Negligence, Misrepresentation, Abuse of Process, Abuse of Power, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Contract/Common Law Warranty, Deceptive Trade Practices, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud by Concealment, California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 17200 et seq, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Discrimination in Violation of the Unruh Act, Nuisance, Abuse of Process, Fraud by Concealment, Violation of California False Advertising Law, Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceit-(California Civil Code § 1710), Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices, Unconscionability (UDAP), Elder Abuse.
The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, provides protection against interference or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any constitutional or statutory rights. Remedies for violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act or the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act include restraining orders, injunctive relief, equitable relief to secure constitutional and statutory rights, actual damages, exemplary or punitive damages, a civil penalty of $25,000, and attorney’s fees. An action may be brought by the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, or by the individual harmed.
California Penal Code section 13023. California Penal Code section 422.55 defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.”
The California Attorney General DEMANDS an Investigation for Hate Crimes in violation of California Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts; the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983, California Penal Code sections 13519.6, Penal Code section 13023 and Penal Code 422.55 which defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.” Cite relevant legal case authority to support arguments and assertions. Depending on the circumstances of each case, bias motivation may include, but is not limited to, hatred, animosity, discriminatory selection of victims, resentment, revulsion, contempt, unreasonable fear, paranoia, callousness, thrill-seeking, desire for social dominance, desire for social bonding with those of one’s “own kind,” or a perception of the vulnerability of the victim due to the victim being perceived as being weak, worthless, or fair game because of a protected characteristic, including, but not limited to, disability, gender, Age, Ancestry, Anti-Islamic, Anti-black or African American, Anti-other ethnicity/national origin, association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics of a protected class, Citizenship, Color Disability (physical, intellectual/developmental, mental health/psychiatric), Medical Condition (cancer or genetic characteristic), National Origin (includes language restrictions), Political Affiliation, Race (includes hairstyle and hair texture), Religious creed (includes dress and grooming practices), and aggrieve in their entrapment strategy with the use of confidential informants, snitches, government operatives can provide a number of conditions under which “an inducement to an individual to engage in crime is authorized.” This could apply to any or all of the actions taken in and of their services agency acting in their clients name and stead.


JUDGES THOMAS NIXON, BRIAN CARUTH, STUART HING, MICHAEL GAFFEY, CLERKS OF DEPT. 1, 105, 605, 711, PLAINTIFFS, AND CHAD FINKE ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES

On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in an unsolicited email to the court with Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent! 

    In that email East Bay wrote:

Hello Abdul jalil.
This is EAST BAY AUTO CENTER.  I spoken last time with you to pick up your truck. Also I send email and text messages to pick up the truck.
We have no space for keep your truck that long. We small parking lot. This is Michanic shop not storage for your truck.
We send the truck back to storage yard. We not touched any things for your truck.
The truck is locked from the back of the truck. It’s still the same locked 🔒.

If you still want to pick up your truck please let me know we will pick it up from storage yard. Paying the storage money.
You have to pay me for the storage fee.
Please call for schedule to pick up the car.

If you have any questions please call me. Thanks
510-940-8675
Eastbayauto6@gmail.com

These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to a unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
EBAC’s unsolicited admissions and confessions to the court and judges makes them all percipient eye witnesses. Further, in your/their fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!? Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., failure to perform your ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon EBAC unsolicited admissions and confessions with defendant’s NOTICED pleading constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and  Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice is a denial of access to the courts, in violation of defendant’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments! Thus as Judges and court administrators, you have rules governing the disposition of the such actions and pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, YOU ALL have been forever silent regarding this; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4
THIS SECTION ABOVE APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

The Matters of the December 20, 2024 Hearing
At the December 20, 2024 Hearing, the court had appointed Cabral Bonner an attorney, in accordance with Article 6, section 21 of the Constitution of the State of California, to act as the Temporary Judge in this matters before the Court in this department on this date. The Defendant informs the court that he objects to having a pro- tem preside over the matter AND THAT THIS MATTER HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO JUDGE CARUTH AFTER BEING REASSIGNED FROM A PRO-TEM COMMISSIONER FICKLES. If the court was aware of this fact, it should have continued the matter BEFORE we appeared in court, as this was a complete waste of time!
Yet, Plaintiff’s East Bay Auto Center (EBAC) DID NOT appear and there was NO reason given for same. However, Mr. Bonner admits in court that EBAC had contacted the court earlier stating they would NOT appear, BUT NO ONE CONTACTED US, the DEFENDANTS! Here we have the court ADMITTING to having illegal ex-parte communications with the plaintiff’s WITHOUT informing defendants when a matter of a pro-tem was ALREADY DECIDED! As a hypothetical, what would have happened if defendants had agreed to having the matter heard by Bonner and the plaintiff’s FAILED TO APPEAR?! Would a default have been entered?! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!
THE ENTIRE “HEARING” WAS JUST AN ILLEGAL, PRETENTIOUS CHARADE BY THE COURT!

Conspiracy to Subvert, Pervert, Obstruct, or Defeat the Course of Justice
Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
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.”
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.  [Citation.]

“In California, the statutes relating to ‘Crimes Against Public Justice’ are found in part I, title [7], of the Penal Code. Bribery, escapes, rescues, perjury, falsifying evidence, and other acts which would have been considered offenses against the administration of justice at common law are made criminal by legislative enactment. 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. [Citation.]In the same category is a conspiracy to obtain the release of a person charged with a felony by presenting a worthless and void bail bond. Such a conspiracy has been held to be a perversion of the due administration of the law, and an offense within the meaning of subdivision [ (a) ]5 of section 182 of the Penal Code. [Citation.]” (Lorenson v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 49, 59–60, italics added (Lorenson ).)
In Lorenson, the defendant was a police captain in the Los Angeles Police Department indicted for conspiracy to commit robbery, to commit assault with a deadly weapon, and to pervert or obstruct justice. (Lorenson, supra, 35 Cal.2d at pp. 50–51.) In rejecting a claim of insufficient evidence to support the indictment, the court concluded that one could infer from the evidence that there was agreement among the defendant, other members of the police department, and criminal associates of Mickey Cohen to assault and rob the victim, Pearson. The court further noted that there was evidence from which one could infer that the defendant and other police officers “were to furnish protection to the participants in the conspiracy by refusing to disclose the identity of Pearson’s attackers, if they were arrested, and to effect their release from custody.”(Id. at p. 57.) After the robbery and assault, Cohen’s associates were arrested (apparently by officers not involved in the conspiracy), but they were immediately released from the police station before Pearson could arrive to identify any of them, and the arresting officers were instructed not to talk about the incident. (Id. at p. 54.) Lorenson is an example of “[a] conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws,” an indictable offense at common law. (Id. at pp. 59–60.)
THIS SECTION ABOVE APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

A “RAT” in Court Administration and Clerks Obstructed, Perverted the Course and Due Administration of Justice
   On June 11, 2024, Abdul-Jalil appeared at window 12 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and filed our “Defendants Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court”. I was waited on by a young lady that appeared to be of Latin/Asian descent.
We had a discussion regarding my listing my name as the CEO and Person of Interest as it relates to the “defendants” filed in the East Bay Auto Center claim. As this conversation directly addressed MY NAME, she laughingly kept referring to me as “Mr. Wallace”, CLEARLY taunting, being disrespectful, antagonistic and provocative! I corrected her INTENTIONALLY calling me out of my name 3 times by responding softly with “Mr. al-Hakim” the first 3 times! At her fourth lashing out, I corrected her with a chuckle that let her know that I acknowledged she was being childish and petty trying to provoke me! When she grasped it, she got up and said “I’m going to lunch!”. She left and another clerk came over, Jamie J. Thomas, and took her place to complete the filing. While she left several times as I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she met with different people at a computer discussing something.
   On June 13, 2024, I appeared at window 9 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants Small Claim and Order, and a letter to Commissioner Fickles and East Bay Auto Center that we OPPOSED the case being heard by and Request reassignment of the Case from a Judge Pro Team or Commissioner and Requesting a Court Reporter for the July 8, 2024 hearing. The clerk filed the letter but questioned the proof of service (attached as Exh. B), so she said she would talk to her supervisor. I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she spoke with someone (others) before she returned with clerk Jamie J. Thomas whom preceded to say that she could NOT accept the proof of service BECAUSE the ONLY one that they could accept was the standard form that comes with the SC-120 form. I informed her that this proof of service was the same as the standard form and is used more commonly in court filings and I have used them over 20 years without any problem. She said that I would have to serve the claim again or have the server to sign a new proof. But more alarming, she said I could fill out the proof to be signed by the process server, but I could NOT serve it because I’m listed as the agent for the service of process. NOW, just how did she know that and why did she need to know that? She obviously conducted her own investigation. She issued her ORDER and refused to accept the proof!
   She read the letter then said that she could NOT give the letter to the Commissioner because she would be engaging in illegal ex-parte communications. I again stated that I have filed over 100 letters in the same fashion and never had a problem with them before as long as there was a filing cover page. (Attached as Exh. C)
   Not wanting to argue with her also early trying to harass and inconvenience me, I said that I would file both with the presiding court judge whom I was going to file the Request for Reassignment with anyway, and I left.
   On June 18, 2024, I appeared at window 4 in the Clerks General Office in the Rene Davidson of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants Continuance and Reassignment, a female clerk- “T. Hayle?” came out on 2 occasions, the first after a 15 minute wait, addressed me as Mr. Wallace, questioned the proof of service, debated the motion vs. declaration and need to refile with a reservation number. She made the RIDICULOUS argument that the “electronic filing system does not recognize documents on pleading paper” thus, I had to have the documents served again!
   On December 19, 2024, I appeared at window 9 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants EBAC Subpoena, Request for Production of Documents and Video Taped Depositions, and Order Shortening Time and was told by the clerk- “Malen Jih MSG?” that the server should have signed in Sheriff’s location on the proof of service. While she left as I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she met with different people discussing something. She returned and repeated her statement and accepted the proof. Clearly that was NOT the case nor had the documents been signed in the wrong place! This statement exposes the fact that the court has had some interaction with third parties that has informed them that the documents WERE signed in the wrong place on the proof.
   As we have EXTENSIVE documentation on the MANY egregious, unscrupulous, heinous illegal activities of court administrator Chadrat Finke and the employees with the District Attorneys office, WE ARE SURE THAT THEY HAVE EMPLOYED THE FULL FORCE OF THEIR OFFICES AND THOSE OF THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS TO AFFACT AND DIRECT THE COURSE AND OUTCOME OF THIS AND ALL RELATED MATTERS!

Dept. 105 Clerk Sergio Lopez subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
   On May 8, 2025 we sent the following email to Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke in response to the Continuing FAILED compliance from Dept. 105 Clerk Sergio Lopez.
That email is as follows:

CLERKS USUAL NON-RESPONSE TO EMAIL: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACEDear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,    After NOT getting a response from Mr. Lopez, the Clerk of department 105, for THREE (3) MONTHS, we still have NOT gotten a response to our email just a week ago! WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES! HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED HEREIN? We are requesting clarity on the issues below as follows:A) Does the reservation number provides for the motion to compel response to subpoenas and production of documents which are already listed, INCLUDE our demand for Videotape Depositions for each of 1) Plaintiffs, 2) California Department of Motor Vehicles, 3) Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 4) California Bureau of Automotive Repair, 5) California Department of Insurance, 6) State Farm Insurance, and 7) Alameda County Business Tax Collector as needed? Are we to use the same number for each separately?B) We want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAPC) Does the hearing on 6/10/2025, 9AM calendar INCLUDE an order on our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion and our motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025?D) IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S EBAC’S UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES. Further, in your fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!??E) OUR UNRESOLVED concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. What is the court going to do about this? Why is the date not changed to the very NEXT DAY,  JUNE 11, 2025??!!??   Again, we will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served AND MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

——– Message ——–Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,
    So I’m very confused Mr. Lopez, just how does your attempted missed phone call to us this morning, May 1, 2025 at 7:58am, JUSTIFY YOUR THREE MONTHS OF WILLFUL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE SINCE FEBRUARY 4, 2025??!!??    The requests are very plain and does NOT take three months of your deliberation to understand, (or maybe it does!) and if they were THAT confusing, WHY DID YOU WAIT 3 MONTHS TO CALL AND HANG UP WITHOUT LEAVING A MESSAGE??!!?? Therefore, if you had NO idea of what we wanted in my EXTENSIVE emails and voicemails messages I left for you, WHY DIDN’T YOU JUST CALL to get clarity THREE MONTHS AGO??!!??    Your reservation number provides for the motion to compel response to subpoenas and production of documents which are already listed, BUT as written, excludes our demand for Videotape Depositions for each.    It also does NOT address the fact we want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAP. You, Mr. Lopez have told us and written to us “Please be advised that Department 105 does not conduct ex-parte hearings”, yet, AS PART OF THE AUDIO RECORDING INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC IN THE COURTS ANNOUNCEMENT, YOU EXPRESSLY STATE THAT LITIGANTS CAN REQUEST EX-PARTE HEARINGS AND THE PROCEDURE FOR SAME!    WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES! HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED HEREIN?    You note that the following is scheduled for hearing on 6/10/2025 9AM:Hearing on Motion – Other Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.    For clarity, WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER to does this INCLUDE our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion and our motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025?    The court should have ruled on these matters as summary judgment before now!    Also shown on the schedule is “Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.” We had Requested an IMMEDIATE Ex-Parte Hearing on Wednesday, October 9, 2024 or Friday, October 11, 2024 for Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck and to Compel Videotape Depositions, Production of Documents.    We had requested the order ASAP for the truck be made available to us to get vital information from the engine, body, cab, under body, exhaust, etc., and video the condition of the truck and the contents to search, inspect, process and document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, finger printing, and clues for the damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property.

    On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroy the chain of custody!    We called the County Sheriff’s and made arrangements to meet them there for a truck theft/missing report on October 2, 2024. Once we met there, Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S THE LOCATION OF THE TRUCK, OR WETHER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AGAIN AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!    As you are aware from our previous filings, in April 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As a result, we do not have a total value of the scope of loss and damage to the truck therefrom. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago!    As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
    We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
    The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.    IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED PHONE CALL TO ME, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM
    This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.    As witnessed, in April 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!    East Bay Auto Center is the ONLY suspects that could have stolen, burglarized, vandalized, and damaged the truck as it was not stolen by anyone else!    AMWF’s truck was “STOLEN” from East Bay Auto Center while there for the insurance repair estimate, BUT NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!!    The information as to the causes are stated herein AND THE IMMEDIACY WAS OBVIOUS.     On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in an unsolicited email to the court with Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!    In that email East Bay wrote:

Hello Abdul jalil.This is EAST BAY AUTO CENTER.  I spoken last time with you to pick up your truck. Also I send email and text messages to pick up the truck.We have no space for keep your truck that long. We small parking lot. This is Michanic shop not storage for your truck.We send the truck back to storage yard. We not touched any things for your truck.The truck is locked from the back of the truck. It’s still the same locked 🔒.
If you still want to pick up your truck please let me know we will pick it up from storage yard. Paying the storage money.You have to pay me for the storage fee.Please call for schedule to pick up the car.
If you have any questions please call me. Thanks510-940-8675Eastbayauto6@gmail.com

    These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!    They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.    Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to a unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!    IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES. Further, in your fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!??    Since you, Mr. Lopez, failed to respond, I will reiterate that we still have OUR UNRESOLVED concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend.    Previously, we received notice that the above entitled case has been reassigned from Commissioner Fickles to Judge Caruth in Department 105 as per Judge Nixon’s order and also received separate notice that the court date has been changed to Tuesday, July 9, 2024, in Department 105, at 9:00 a.m. It is well documented with the court over 40 years, AND MR. FINKE CAN VERIFY THAT, I have religious commitments on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and unavailable on those dates. The new date falls on one of those days I am unavailable. The matter was continued to present. How is this possible and what is the court going to do about this? Why is the date not changed to the very NEXT DAY,  JUNE 11, 2025??!!??    Again, we will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served AND MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

On 5/1/25 8:00 AM, Dept. 105, Superior Court wrote:

Please be advised that the court was attempting to understand the nature of your motions.The court had also attempted to call you to no answer (510-394-4501).A reservation number has been generated for the following:A-67622-003
Hearing on Motion – Other Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents.
The following is scheduled for hearing on 6/10/2025 9AM24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER VS AARON & MARGARET WALLACE
Small Claims Trial
Hearing on Motion – Other Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.
Hearing on Motion – Other Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents.
Thank you,Mr. LopezDepartment 105 – Courtroom ClerkWiley W. Manuel Courthouse661 Washington StreetOakland, CA 94607(510) 627-4712

From: A. J. <ajalil1234@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 8:50 PM
To: Dept. 105, Superior Court <dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept. 711, Superior Court <dept711@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept .1, Superior Court <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept. 605, Superior Court <dept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Nixon, Judge Thomas, Superior Court <tnixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Finke, Chad, Superior Court <cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept .1, Superior Court <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Caruth, Judge Brian, Superior Court <bcaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Gaffey, Judge Michael, Superior Court <mgaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Hing, Judge Stuart, Superior Court <shing@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; eastbayauto6@gmail.com<eastbayauto6@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACE

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,    So I guess you, Mr. Lopez, et. al., DID NOT receive the emails below and therefore had NO idea of what I wanted in my EXTENSIVE voicemail messages I left for you either??!!??    We requested a hearing date and a reservation number(s) for our Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the 1) Plaintiffs, 2) California Department of Motor Vehicles, 3) Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 4) California Bureau of Automotive Repair, 5) California Department of Insurance, 6) State Farm Insurance, and 7) Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions for each. This matter MUST be heard in ANY Law and Motion judge including Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711 as soon as possible after the date above. We have yet to find ANY legal experts that can confirm that Small Claims Court DOES NOT ALLOW Ex-Parte motions.    PLEASE PROVIDE THE SAME SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THIS MATTER FORWARD AS IT IS TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT THIS WOULD TAKE THREE MONTHS FOR MR. LOPEZ TO DO!! THIS IS NOT JUST INCOMPETENCE, IT IS OBSTRUCTION IN IT’S MOST BLATANTLY PURIST FORM!! We want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAP.    Additionally, attached is a copy of the filed proofs of service of our motions that the court allegedly ruled was NOT filed without disclosing “what motion(s)”? This may be a result of the proofs being filed a day before the hearing.    On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion AND our Motion to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum AND the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents against Plaintiffs. They failed and refused to respond. The motion was personally served on November 20, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025 is attached.    The motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025 is attached.    We also have a concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. How is this possible and what is the court going to do about this?    We will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served ASAP.    This seems Mr. Lopez NOT receiving OUR emails is a reoccurring theme with you AND NEEDS TO STOP IMMEDIATELY as I reference my previous last TWO (2) voicemails and emails of February 4, 2025 and March 3, 2025 as follows:
1) ——– February 4, 2025 Message ——–Dear Mr. Lopez,    I called you today at 1:47 pm and left you a message regarding my latest email to you on January 27, 2025 requesting a copy of the Courts order continuing the December 20, 2024 hearing and any rulings on our motions; Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum, Compel Videotape Depositions and Production of Documents, Entry of Default Order, Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction, Order Striking Complaint, Tortious Interference, Spoliation of Evidence, Intentional Misrepresentation, Grand Larceny, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Intentional Misrepresentation, Property Damage, and Extortion.    Amazingly you replied to that message with this email at 1:56 pm.    Thanks so much!    But, why have you NOT responded to my emails regarding same, if in fact you respond to emails much quicker than phone calls/voice mails? You even remind the callers to your department 105 that the clerks may take up to 5 days to reply to phone calls/voicemails.    I’m a little confused as to whether or not you are even getting my emails as there is NO indication that they have NOT been delivered to you as well as the others, Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 1605, 711, and Chad Finke.    If there is a problem with the email delivery to you, PLEASE let me know, as it would ascertain just where the real problem is.Thanks again,AJ

2) ——– March 3, 2025 Message ——–TO:        Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan              Superior Court of Alameda County                  East Bay Auto Center                       Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                21099 Mission Blvd.              Department 105                                                 Hayward, CA 94541              661 Washington St.                                          Email:                                                         EastBayAuto6@gmail.com              Oakland, CA 94607                                           Ph:510‐690‐2728              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.govBCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov             Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County             René C. Davidson Courthouse                           René C. Davidson Courthouse             Department 1                                                      1225 Fallon Street, Room 209             Oakland, CA 94612                                           Oakland, CA 94612             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                    Fax: 510-891-6276             TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.govcfinke@alameda.courts.ca.govdept1@alameda.courts.ca.govcc: Judges Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711U.S. Postal Mail and EmailedFROM:     Defendant Aaron & Margaret Wallace FoundationDATE:     March 3, 2025NO PAGES:     1RE:        Annual Retreat for Ramadan and Request Reservation number for Defendants Motion to Compel Compliance with Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions.“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 7:1-3The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew,

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, Plaintiffs, et. al.,This notice is to inform the Court and parties that I will be in annual retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan until April 5, 2025 and unavailable to respond to any litigation.We also want to request a hearing date and a reservation number for our Motion to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the Plaintiffs, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions for each. This matter MUST be heard in ANY Law and Motion judge including Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711 as soon as possible after the date above. We have yet to find ANY legal experts that can confirm that Small Claims Court DOES NOT ALLOW Ex-Parte motions.As referenced in our December 19, 2024, email to the court that the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents were filed and served on the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector that THEY ALL did not respond wherein we would file Motions to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Videotape Depositions and Production of Documents for ALL of them. Hence this request.As previously mentioned, I KNOW the court is aware, as is everyone else, that this matter CAN NOT BE HEARD IN FIFTEEN (15) MINUTE SMALL CLAIMS HEARING. OUR LITIGATION WITH WITNESSES ALONE WILL BE AT LEAST TWO (2) DAYS!!On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion AND our Motion to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum AND the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents against Plaintiffs. They failed and refused to respond.As mentioned, we waited over a month for the courts to respond to our last requests via email and there was NO RESPONSE, thus the earlier motion for an order shortening time.AGAIN, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS by the Plaintiffs to the court and Judges makes YOU ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES.Thanks,Abdul-Jalil al-Hakimajalil1234@gmail.com510-394-4501    In closing, these and other issues MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

On 4/7/25 4:13 PM, Dept. 105, Superior Court wrote:

Hello,Please specify what kind of motions you are attempting to file for the subjected case.Please list each motion numerically.Thank you,Mr. LopezDepartment 105 – Courtroom ClerkWiley W. Manuel Courthouse661 Washington StreetOakland, CA 94607(510) 627-4712

   I consider the actions of ALL the clerks on those days to undermining and compromising the justice system and 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.
The court clerks staff could be viewed as having subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
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)).

Conclusion
Defendant has provided uncontroverted, uncontested, irrefutable PROOF of:
1) Proof Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., failure to perform your ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon EBAC unsolicited admissions and confessions with defendant’s NOTICED pleading constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice is a denial of access to the courts, in violation of defendant’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments! Thus as Judges and court administrators, you have rules governing the disposition of the such actions and pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, YOU ALL have been forever silent regarding this; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4
2) PROOF Pro Tem Mr. Bonner admits at December 20, 2024 hearing that EBAC had contacted the court earlier stating they would NOT appear, BUT NO ONE CONTACTED US, the DEFENDANTS! Here we have the court ADMITTING to having illegal ex-parte communications with the plaintiff’s WITHOUT informing defendants when a matter of a pro-tem was ALREADY DECIDED! As a hypothetical, what would have happened if defendants had agreed to having the matter heard by Bonner and the plaintiff’s FAILED TO APPEAR?! Would a default have been entered?! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!,
3) PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance,
4) PROOF of Alameda County Sheriffs, Law Enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hayward Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; San Leandro Police Chiefs Abdul Pridgen/Angela Averiett; U. S. Attorneys Stephanie Hinds/Ismail Ramsey; F.B.I. NorCal Directors Craig Fair/Robert Tripp; with support from the Court, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, and associated third parties implicated by East Bay Auto engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of targeted entrapment, tortious interference, fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act
5) Proof a “RAT” in Court Administration, Judges and Clerks actions constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice

Respectfully submitted.
Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******
Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, attached hereto please find a CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things in response to the court order (attached) for production of documents in the above referenced matter. You were served this subpoena for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles today, December 11, 2024 and should respond immediately.
Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, as the Custodian of Records you are NOT required to appear in person if within ten (10) days from the date of the serving of this request upon you, you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the “DEFINITIONS” Section as part of this attached affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271. (1) Place a copy of the records in an envelope (or other wrapper) where Documents produced shall be Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially. Enclose the original declaration of the custodian with the records. Seal the envelope. (2) Attach a copy of this subpoena to the envelope or write on the envelope the case name and number; your name; and the date, time, and place. (3) Place this first envelope in an outer envelope, seal it, and mail it to me at the address or email address (ajalil1234@gmail.com ) above. (4) The written response shall be served within ten (10) days of the service of this request.
SUBPOENA REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on Responding Party: Custodian of Records and Person Most Knowledgeable is used herein to refer to, and includes Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles, AND YOU are NOT required to appear in person if you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the declaration on page two or the attached declaration or affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with.As might be YOUR custom, you may provide responsive records in electronic format (i.e., text files that can be opened with any word processing software such as Word or TextEdit) or a searchable portable document file (PDF).
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS
ALL the Defendants, Requestors and Propounders seek disclosure of any and all records created which were prepared, received, transmitted, collected and/or maintained by the Plaintiffs, Responding Parties, ALL Government Related Parties, and ALL Government Related Third Parties, including but not limited to those listed in those sections herein.
YOU are requested to produce for inspection and copying, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031), the DOCUMENTS in the below-numbered categories.  The production shall take place on December 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., at 4200 Park Blvd., Oakland, California, 94602.
This is a request for an opportunity to inspect and/or obtain copies of records of any and all documents, files, correspondence, audio and video files, or other records of yours and various National, State, County of Alameda and City of Oakland Offices under the provisions of CCP 2031 on behalf of the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders.
YOU are required to serve a written response, under oath, responding to each item or category as provided by Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031).
The written response shall be served within seven (7) days of the service of this request.
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.
This is a request for an opportunity to inspect and/or obtain copies of records of any and all documents, files, correspondence, audio and video files, or other records of yours and various offices under the provisions of Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on behalf of the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, family members Harun al-Hakim-Miller, Jalil Omar al-Hakim, Bari al-Hakim-Williams, and their siblings; and the entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth.org, eX-whY Adventures, their real, personal and business property (all herein after referred to as “ALL the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders and/or Defendant/Requestors and Propounders”)
Please process this request for ALL SECTION Requests under ALL statutes herein to release the maximum number of documents and records in the interests of justice and achieving full compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031). Please search ALL your automated indices to the Central Records System, the older general (manual) indices, all Field Offices, other facilities that are separate from the office processing the request, or with another agency or agencies having a substantial interest in the determination of the request, or among two or more components of the agency or agencies having substantial subject matter interest therein needed to coordinate the response with different sections in the department that have responsibility for the requested records. This search is essential to collect and appropriately examine the separate and distinct records which are demanded so that copies of the following documents containing the following information be provided to us by Responding Parties and ALL Related Parties seek disclosure of any records for the Plaintiff/Responding Party.East Bay Auto filed a Small claims action to try to collect $3,400 in back storage fees BUT their status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, they may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto Center, their owners, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto Center, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) As the defendant, we filed a cross complaint and may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.We asked that the court award ALL costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, other losses and damages, and monetary sanctions in an amount according to proof. The costs are well over $20,000 at present.
As we have always maintained and is proven by their bad faith fact pattern, this was ALWAYS an entrapment scheme designed to take possession of the truck with it’s contents and trigger civil/criminal actions knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. They are not acting alone!These requests are deemed to be continuing insofar as if any of the above is secured subsequent to the date herein for the production of same, said documents are to be provided to Defendant’s consistent within the applicable Rule of Civil Procedure.
This subpoena is not intended as a full or complete statement of all relevant demands, claims, facts or applicable law, and nothing herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my rights, remedies, claims or causes of action, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Please provide the records in an electronic format to: ajalil1234@gmail.com. Documents not in electronic format should be forwarded Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim below on or before the return date of this subpoena if you wish to comply voluntarily rather than appearing before the court.The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
Defendants the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Claims
Defendants/Requesting Party’s, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Harun al-Hakim-Miller, Patty Flenory, Jalil Omar al-Hakim, Bari al-Hakim-Williams, Joette al-Hakim-Hall, and their siblings; their affected entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth.org, eX-whY Adventures, their real and personal property, their real property including but not limited to 7633 Sunkist Drive, Oakland, CA  94605, their businesses and business property, their charities, their communities, the communities they serve, those that they serve, HAVE an on going claim against the Responding Parties Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles and Plaintiffs Shah Sons LLC,  DOING BUSINESS AS (DBA) East Bay Auto Center and Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, their alleged Asian investors, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Claims, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Appraisal Team (“State Farm”), Gary O’Donnell, or any of its employees or representatives including but not limited to Mary Weaver, Gary O’Donnell, Madison Ritter, Kaitlin Hampe, Samantha B, Lex, Kendra Behrens, Victor Walker, “Neg”, Karena Kelly-Guishard, Lexie Figueroa, each of their contractors Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, with each of their investors, their predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, divisions, each of their past or present officers, their previous and current directors, previous and current employees, agents, consultants, independent contractors, representatives, lobbyist, experts, private investigators, private security, past and current attorneys, partners, associates, investigators, witnesses, litigation opponents, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, others unnamed as Does One through One Hundred, et. at.
On January 30, 2024, at 3:25 pm I went to East Bay Auto at 21099 Mission Blvd., Hayward, CA 94541 for a Alameda County Sheriff’s Civil Stand By observed by Deputies Joshua Chavez #2287 and Collin Lenahan #2453 to pick up our truck and East Bay Auto Center REFUSED to release it claiming they are owed storage.
East Bay admitted in the presence of the two (2) Deputies, whom are percipient eye witnesses, 1) that they DO NOT have a contract with us in any capacity, 2) that they were paid $1,050 by the insurance company for storage, 3) that East Bay has had many other communications and agreements with the insurance company and their agents, 4) they have had communications and agreements which we were NOT privy to and do not have copies of, 5) East Bay had previously told me that they had an agreement with the insurance company for the storage, BUT revealed that they actually have a check and displayed it before the deputies, 6) they referred to their hand written policy posted on the wall that they charge storage 2 days AFTER the completion of any work performed.
They have NOT and will NOT perform any work on the truck and I will never sign any work order for same nor have we singed a release for them to be paid!
I am the person for the Service Process in this Plaintiff’s fraudulent claim and named as the Person of Interest in this fraudulent alleged Lien Sale denied on February 7, 2024 by the Department of Motor Vehicle filed by these same Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center.
Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center filed this claim March 13, 2024, and allegedly served it via U. S. postal mail from Hayward, California with postage meter dated Monday, May 20, 2024.
We received the mailed letter claim on Friday, May 31, 2024. Yet only FIVE (5) DAYS LATER, on March 19, 2024, plaintiff’s contacted AMWF and Abdul-Jalil by phone and reply email dated March 25, 2024 with invoice dated March 19, 2024 DISAVOWING AND REJECTING their claim and REQUESTING that we come and retrieve the truck AT NO COSTS!
On April 22, 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As a result, we do not have a total value of the scope of loss and damage to the truck therefrom. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago!
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroy the chain of custody!
We called the County Sheriff’s and made arrangements to meet them there for a truck theft/missing report on October 2, 2024. Once we met there, Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S THE LOCATION OF THE TRUCK, OR WETHER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AGAIN AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in several unsolicited emails to the court and Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey; Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711; and court administrator Chad Finke that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
Plaintiffs and Sheriffs have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to an unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
On November 2, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been returned to Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward with additional damage. Upon investigation, the truck has been further BURGLARIZED by the breach of the lock on the roll up door and the roll up door itself! THE DAMAGES ARE UNKOWN AND YET TO BE INVESTIGATED!
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION.
As reported of this date, East Bay STILL has the truck and REFUSES to release it to us unless and until we indemnify them from ALL liability for their civil and criminal charges of larceny, fraud, theft, damage, if the vehicle is stolen from them, etc., so they may be able to do or have done anything they choose to the vehicle and it’s contents without any possible consequences!
The truck was supposed to have been returned to defendants by March 7, 2024, BUT that DID NOT HAPPEN.
Now, the truck has been STOLEN, was burglarized, vandalized, is damaged, and East Bay has refused to allow the COUNTY SHERIFFS nor us to inspect the truck for a complete analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages, UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SIGN A WAIVER OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR SAME! We will NOT ever do that.
As you have been advised, East Bay Auto Center filed a Small Claims action against us for an additional $3,400 storage fees beyond the amount they settled with State Farm for. We have filed a Cross Complaint against them for undetermined costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, and other losses and damages, has cab damage that is 57 inches long stretching from the rear passenger side to start of the cab damage that is 6-8 inches wide through the corporate lettering, the truck is currently lodged 2 inches within and against the fence and CAN NOT be moved without causing MORE significant damage!
The truck was NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!
East Bay Auto Center is NOT currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair nor the Alameda County Business License AS A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY, thus they are NOT authorized to do business in the State of California and don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit. They, East Bay Auto Center, may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer.
We discovered that the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) has Shah Sons LLC, listed as the “owner” of East Bay Auto Center. That is also true for the Alameda County Business License although their license is invalid for failure to file and pay taxes and comply with a mandatory audit.
HOWEVER, Shah Sons LLC, HAS NOT REGISTERED NOR ARE THEY USING A DBA (DOING BUSINESS AS) for East Bay Auto Center with any Federal, State, or County governmental agency, NOT the IRS, California Secretary of State State, California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair nor the Alameda County Business License.
In order for East Bay Auto Center to legally exist AS A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY, they would have to file the proper documents with the IRS, California Secretary of State State, California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair and the Alameda County Business License, establishing Shah Sons LLC,  DOING BUSINESS AS (DBA) East Bay Auto Center. They have NOT done that even though they filed a Fictitious Business Name Statement with Alameda County.
Additionally, there are NO other REQUIRED means, NO INVOICES, NO ADVERTISEMENTS, NOTHING ON THEIR WEBSITE, that they comply with for the use of the legal name of the LLC- Shah Sons LLC, followed by the DBA- doing business as East Bay Auto Center. This practice clarifies the legal entity involved and maintain the LLC’s limited liability status. This ensures that the contracts are enforceable and that the LLC is recognized as the party to these endeavors.
If an LLC does not properly use its DBA, it operates under a DBA without using its legal name, it intentionally breaches the line between personal and business activities and loses the limited liability protection typically afforded to LLC members.This leads to “piercing the corporate veil,” where courts hold members personally liable for business debts and obligations, negating the primary benefit of forming an LLC. Courts have determined that the LLC is not a separate entity if it does not clearly identify itself, leading to personal liability for members.
Contracts should include clear liability clauses that outline the responsibilities and limitations of liability for the LLC. This can help protect the LLC from claims that may arise from business activities conducted under the DBA.
To maintain the limited liability protection of SHAH SONS LLC, it is crucial to keep personal and business finances separate. This includes using a dedicated business bank account and credit cards for all transactions related to the DBA- “Shah Sons LLC, doing business as East Bay Auto Center”. Open a dedicated business bank account for the LLC- Shah Sons LLC, that uses the legal name- “Shah Sons LLC, doing business as East Bay Auto Center”. This separation helps maintain the SHAH SONS LLC’s limited liability protection and simplifies financial management.
Given that EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) The defendant may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.
East Bay Auto has suspensions with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
We will ask the court to transfer the Small Claims action to Court of Competent Jurisdiction because we have no projected total of the costs, losses and damages to the truck that exceed the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to a court of competent jurisdiction.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
However, co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm are not acting alone as the ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s officers. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Sheriff’s Deputy Markita Sayles that she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES is PROOF of how POLICE FILE FALSE REPORTS, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, FIX THE CASE, COMMIT FRAUD to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto AFTER she:
1) admitted she talked with Law Enforcement Special Services resources twice to ascertain that she was proceeding in the correct manner according to their plan and her instructions. WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO CONSULT WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES TO TAKE AND FILE A SIMPLE, COMMON POLICE REPORT?,
2) East Bay Auto incriminated police admitting that they worked with police, are accomplishes, collaborators, were under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation or Abdul-Jalil,
3) The vehicle was ADMITTED stolen, burglarized, vandalized, fraud, larceny and damaged, BUT, BOTH policemen said “this is NOT a criminal matter, truck was not stolen”,
4) Dep. Sayles said she can’t inspect/process nor document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property, nor can Abdul-Jalil without the approval of their asset East Bay Auto,
5) Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times,
6) Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras,
7) Dep. Sayles said Abdul-Jalil didn’t answers her questions, BUT she NEVER asked basic questions as: Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, nothing on damage, suspects, the truck registration or VIN,
Dep. Sayles said Abdul-Jalil needed to go to court in order to get a police report, REFUSING TO TAKE A REPORT!, and
9) Dep. Sayles said it’s a civil matter 8 Times! NOT a criminal matter.
THIS VIDEO PROVIDES PROOF THAT SHERIFF’S DEPT. MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! Sayles “event/police report” states:

“RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”

Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, AND Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras! SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE!
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
The Entrapment Strategy is disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Abdul-Jalil, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties, the threats/demands for Payment of Storage, refusal to pay for a Rental vehicle, mitigating the continuing Loss of Use and Damages, and their illegal clandestine efforts to gain ownership of our truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US with the FRAUDULENT attempted East Bay Auto Lien Sale and REFUSAL to release our truck to defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.
Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation is going forward with Civil and Criminal Charges/Claims for Grand Larceny, Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Property Theft, Burglary, Vandalism, Extortion, Phone (Terrorist) Threats, Deception, attempted Grand Theft, Costs, Damages, Mitigating the Continuing Loss of Use, and Monetary Sanctions, among others with Federal and State Complaints filed against East Bay Auto and State Farm Insurance and served them both with Preservation-of-Evidence Demand Letter.
Additionally, with respect to any and all business operation regarding the defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation insurance policy and claim, and THE FACT that State Farm, their employees, their referenced agents, sub-agents, contractors, State Farm Claims, State Farm Appraisal Team, Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, and ALL known and unknown Third Parties have clearly “targeted” defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and using recognizable government entrapment tactics the latest of which was the refusal to release the truck and “lien sale” to gain ownership of their truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US! As a direct and proximate result of State Farm and their co-conspirators East Bay’s continuing actions, defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation is FORCED to make long term arrangements for the storage of the truck UNTIL STATE FARM PAYS FOR THE REPAIR AS AMWF PURSUES ALL OTHER REMEDIES!
Some Requests for Documents include:
61. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof of MARKITA SAYLES FILED A FALSE REPORT, LIED ABOUT ENTIRE POLICE REPORT, see: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
62. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof of MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! as Sayles her “event/police report” states “ RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
63. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof that Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
64. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof that Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
101. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED PHONE CALL TO DEFENDANTS, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
102. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Sheriff failure and refusal to investigate and file a report established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
103. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Sheriff failure and refusal to investigate and file a report established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
104. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
105. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
110. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfer with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
111. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfer with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
273. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to June 26, 2012, 50 page complaint regarding al-Hakim being accosted by the Sheriffs deputy stating “I have recently called and left messages as well as speaking to your clerk Elaine just last week regarding my desire to file several law suits as well as answering other matters that require the ability to file those required documents without the fear of being ambushed by the District Attorney’s office enforcers or the County Sheriff’s Department acting in their place and stead for other judicial entities. I have been precluded from any legal rights by virtue of this illegal, repressive censorship enacted by the DA’s office. This has gone on far too long and the legal consequences continue to mount as I am forbidden to pursue my civil rights in court without the oppression of the system by those in control of it. I want to and will file my law suits and go forward to resolution of these unprecedented matters in this public forum.” filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay.
274. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to January 7, 2014, 11 page letter, fax and email complaint in (ACDCSS) case number #0010274454-01 (previously listed as FSD #274454A) regarding “Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim being profiled, surveilled, identified, and targeted by the District Attorney and Sheriff’s Deputy, al-Hakim being accosted by Sheriffs Deputies and prevented from entering the Alameda Family Law Courthouse by County Sheriff’s who informed defendant that he must go to Judge Pulido’s courtroom to file the letter, that he would be handling this matter in Probate Court and defendants requesting security” filed with Winifred Smith- Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California; C. Don Clay- Supervising Judge, Superior Court of California; Stephen Pulido- Presiding Judge Family Law Court, Superior Court of California; and Judge Sandra Bean- Alameda Family Law Court, Superior Court of California.
289.  ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to plaintiffs July 11, 2018 hearing in the matters of al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371 and resultant complaint filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced in RE: “al-Hakim states “I have been in your courtroom over 20 times and I have never seen a deputy standing right behind the party during a hearing.” and you have THREE deputies in the courtroom right now!”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
290. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to the October 3, 2018 hearing, the resultant letter, fax and email Complaint filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced in RE: “Clay says “that’s normal, I may even have more!” al-Hakim says “for a civil ex-parte motion at 3:00 p.m.? I don’t believe that! Clay says ” It’s true”
297. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to the April 14, 2008 Complaint with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced therein the request for security against Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar RE: “when al-Hakim entered the courthouse building, the deputy at the metal detector called upstairs to the courtroom, Department 21 to inform them of his arrival in the building” filed with Victoria B. Henley, Director-Chief Counsel of the Sate of California Commission on Judicial Performance, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye- Supreme Court of California and Chair, Judicial Council of California, and Commission Judicial Appointments; Judge Phyllis Hamilton- Chief District Judge, U. S. District Court- No. Division; Alex Tse- Director, U. S. Attorney’s Office; Xavier Becerra- Attorney General of California; Victoria Henley-Director-Chief Counsel, Commission on Judicial Performance;  Martin Hoshino- Director, Judicial Council of California, Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge, former Presiding Court Judge George Hernandez and Alameda County Superior Court Administration.

These torts exposes the Responding Parties to the full array of tort remedies, including punitive damages on top of regular tort damages, for an insurance company’s unreasonable breach of an insurance contract.
Responding Parties engaging in the herein referenced Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” persecution to the detriment and oppression of Defendants, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, the communities they serve, and those they serve was both covert and overt, consisting of both actions and inactions of subterfuges and evasions that violated the obligation of good faith in performance with their continuing evasion of the spirit of the bargain, lack of diligence and slacking off, willful rendering of imperfect performance, abuse of a power to specify terms, and interference with or failure to cooperate in the other party’s performance.” (R. J. Kuhl Corp. v. Sullivan (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1589, 1602 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 425].)
As a direct and proximate result of Responding Parties actions, Defendant’s has suffered losses and damages, including but not limited to: 1) repair of their vehicle, 2) loss of use of the vehicle during the repair period, measured by the rental value of a similar vehicle, 3) loss of income due to the inability to use the vehicle for business purposes, 4) additional expenses incurred due to the inability to use the vehicle for personal and business purposes, emotional distress and inconvenience caused by the loss of use. As this matter is part of an ongoing action, defendants also has claims for 1) general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 2) for costs of suit incurred herein; and 3) for any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim at:
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation 
4200 Park Blvd., Suite 116 
Oakland, CA 94602 
Tel: 510-394-4501Respectfully, Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******     We received a voicemail for someone named Mary from State Farm claims inquiring into our moving the Truck from East Bay Auto Center.
    As reported of this date, East Bay STILL has the truck and REFUSES to release it to us unless and until we indemnify them from ALL liability for their civil and criminal charges of larceny, fraud, theft, damage, if the vehicle is stolen from them, etc., so they may be able to do or have done anything they choose to the vehicle and it’s contents without any possible consequences!
     The truck was supposed to have been returned to us by March 7, 2024, BUT that DID NOT HAPPEN.
      Now, the truck has been STOLEN, was burglarized, vandalized, is damaged, and East Bay has refused to allow the COUNTY SHERIFFS nor us to inspect the truck for a complete analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages,UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SIGN A WAIVER OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR SAME! We will NOT ever do that.
    As you ALL have been advised, East Bay Auto Center filed a Small Claims action against us for an additional $3,400 storage fees beyond the amount they settled with State Farm for. We have filed a Cross Complaint against them for undetermined costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, and other losses and damages, has cab damage that is 57 inches long stretching from the rear passenger side to start of the cab damage that is 6-8 inches wide through the corporate lettering, the truck is currently lodged 2 inches within and against the fence and CAN NOT be moved without causing MORE significant damage!
    The truck was NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!
    East Bay Auto Center is Not currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, thus they don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit.
    EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California. They may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer.
    Given that EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) The defendant may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.
    East Bay Auto has suspensions with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
    We will ask the court to transfer the Small Claims action to Court of Competent Jurisdiction because we have no projected total of the costs, losses and damages. losses and damages to the truck that may exceed the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and if so, request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to a court of competent jurisdiction.
    I base my request for the imposition of a sanction on the basis that it took me over 47 hours to research and locate the correct Plaintiff’s personnel, many phone calls, letters, emails and faxes in communication with the parties referenced herein, to research and prepare this motion, costs, and expenses according to proof. My discounted hourly wage is $350 per hour (from regular posted fee of $550/hour) for the 47 hours spent on this matter equals $16,450 alone.
    As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
    The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.    A FORMAL COMPLAINT WILL FOLLOW UNDER SEPARATE COVER.
    Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
    IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
    However, co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm are not acting alone as the ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s officers.
    This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Sheriff’s Deputy Markita Sayles that she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES is PROOF of how POLICE FILE FALSE REPORTS, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, FIX THE CASE, COMMIT FRAUD to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto AFTER she:
1) admitted she talked with Law Enforcement Special Services resources twice to ascertain that she was proceeding in the correct manner according to their plan and her instructions. WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO CONSULT WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES TO TAKE AND FILE A SIMPLE, COMMON POLICE REPORT?,
2) East Bay Auto incriminated police admitting that they worked with police, are accomplishes, collaborators, were under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist AMWF and Abdul-Jalil,
3) The vehicle was ADMITTED stolen, burglarized, vandalized, fraud, larceny and damaged, BUT, BOTH policemen said “this is NOT a criminal matter, truck was not stolen”,
4) Dep. Sayles said she can’t inspect/process nor document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property, nor can Jalil without the approval of their asset East Bay Auto,
5) Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times,
6) Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras,
7) Dep. Sayles said Jalil didn’t answers her questions, BUT she NEVER asked basic questions as: Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, nothing on damage, suspects, the truck registration or VIN,
Dep. Sayles said Jalil needed to go to court in order to get a police report, REFUSING TO TAKE A REPORT!, and
9) Dep. Sayles said it’s a civil matter 8 Times! NOT a criminal matter.
    THIS VIDEO PROVIDES PROOF THAT SHERIFF’S DEPT. MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! Sayles “event/police report” states:

“RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”

    Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, AND Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras! SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE!
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    The Entrapment Strategy is to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- AMWF and Abdul-Jalil, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have PREPARED SUBPOENAS TO BE SERVED THIS WEEK ON ALL THE PARTIES REFERRENCED HEREIN that we have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties, the threats/demands for Payment of Storage, refusal to pay for a Rental vehicle, mitigating the continuing Loss of Use and Damages, and their illegal clandestine efforts to gain ownership of our truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US with the FRAUDULENT attempted East Bay Auto Lien Sale and REFUSAL to release our truck to AMWF.
    AMWF is going forward with Civil and Criminal Charges/Claims for Grand Larceny, Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Property Theft, Burglary, Vandalism, Extortion, Phone (Terrorist) Threats, Deception, attempted Grand Theft, Costs, Damages, Mitigating the Continuing Loss of Use, and Monetary Sanctions, among others with Federal and State Complaints filed against East Bay Auto and State Farm Insurance and served them both with Preservation-of-Evidence Demand Letter.
   Additionally, with respect to any and all business operation regarding the AMWF insurance policy and claim, and THE FACT that State Farm, their employees, their referenced agents, sub-agents, contractors, State Farm Claims, State Farm Appraisal Team, Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, and ALL known and unknown Third Parties have clearly “targeted” AMWF and using recognizable government entrapment tactics the latest of which was the refusal to release the truck and “lien sale” to gain ownership of their truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US! As a direct and proximate result of State Farm and their co-conspirators East Bay’s continuing actions, AMWF is FORCED to make long term arrangements for the storage of the truck UNTIL STATE FARM PAYS FOR THE REPAIR AS AMWF PURSUES ALL OTHER REMEDIES!     ALL THE PARTIES HEREIN ARE DEMANDED TO LODGE AND FILE THE REQUISITE COMPLAINT AND BEGAN THE MANDATORY INVESTIGATION PROCESS!

Respectfully,


Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******
Anti-SPAM Policy Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary to our company that is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.
This e-mail message was sent to you because you have previously corresponded with us and/or are subscribed to one of our emailing lists.
If you have received this communication in error, or this e-mail is unsolicited, please accept our apologies and at any time you would like to remove yourself from our mailings, please feel free to do so by clicking on “Unsubscribe“, or you can also notify the sender immediately and we shall delete your address, or replying to this message and type “Unsubscribe” in the subject line to remove yourself from our mailing list.
If you’ve received unsolicited email from one of our users, or if you suspect a user of abusing email services (or have any questions regarding our policies), please do not hesitate to contact us. Under Bill 1618 Title III passed by the 105th U. S. Congress, email cannot be considered Spam as long as it includes contact information and a remove link for removal from the mailing list.
We prohibit users from sending unsolicited email, and do not allow the use of third-party, purchased, rented, or harvested mailing lists. Anyone found abusing such email is banned from the use of our service.
Every complaint is investigated, and you will receive a response from our abuse team detailing the action we’re taking to deal with the issue.
Thanks in advance for you time.

—
Creating and Edvocating Relevant Social Service Programs

—
Creating and Edvocating Relevant Social Service Programs Attachments:

al-Hakim Decl:State Non-Svc Brand Vexatious Litigant List 7:8:25.pages.pdf

146 KB

Subject: PROOF A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance; Proof Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice

From: “A. J.” <ajalil1234@gmail.com>

Date: 6/6/25, 4:06 PM

To: Daniel.Olsen@hayward-ca.gov, Brian.Matthews@hayward-ca.gov, YSanchez@acgov.org, Ismail.J.Ramsey@usdoj.gov, Rob.Bonta@doj.ca.gov, san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov, Bertram.Fairries@ic.fbi.gov, media.sf@fbi.gov, Robert.Tripp@fbi.gov, piu@doj.ca.gov, Kimberly.Kirchmeyer@dca.ca.gov, Patrick_Dorais@dca.ca.gov, Ricardo.Lara@insurance.ca.gov, Ursula.Dickson@acgov.org, Steve.Gordon@dmv.ca.gov, AAveriett@SanLeandro.org

CC: ethan.Quinn@ic.fbi.gov, Linda_Janssen@dca.ca.gov, Bill_Thomas@dca.ca.gov, shaina.Witter@fbi.gov, agustin.Lopez@fbi.gov, bryan.Stevens@fbi.gov, dsnyder@firstamendmentcoalition.org, jerry@consumerwatchdog.org, Teresa.Campbell@insurance.ca.gov, Lucy.Wang@insurance.ca.gov, Michael.Soller@insurance.ca.gov, Madison.Voss@insurance.ca.gov, Bernard.Soriano@dmv.ca.gov, Eric.Partington@oai.ca.gov, Nicole.Carrillo@oai.ca.gov, Ismail.Ramsey@usdoj.gov, dmvrodlsu@dmv.ca.gov, Marcela.Sencion@dmv.ca.gov, India.Fayne@dmv.ca.gov, Juan.Cornejo@dmv.ca.gov, Christina.Michel@dmv.ca.gov, Robert.Crockett@dmv.ca.gov, Sonia.Huestis@dmv.ca.gov, Lucy.Wang@insurance.ca.gov, Teresa.Campbell@insurance.ca.gov, DBlanchard@acgov.org, KKelly@alacritysolutions.com, jhall@alacritysolutions.com, JChavez@acgov.org, CLenahan@acgov.org, MSayles@acgov.org, TAnderson@acgov.org, GGosal@acgov.org, rlucia@acgov.org, CNice@acgov.org, TMadigan@acgov.org, Jmendiola@acgov.org, SSullivan@acgov.org, Francesca.Gessner@doj.ca.gov, Damon.Brown@doj.ca.gov, Laura.Stuber@doj.ca.gov, Maheen.Ahmed@doj.ca.gov, Venus.Johnson@doj.ca.gov, Clay.Leek@doj.ca.gov, Elvis.Chan@fbi.gov, Jeff.Fields@fbi.gov, Sid.Patel@fbi.gov, Paul.Zambelli@fbi.gov, dhaunold@fbi.gov, Ismail.Ramsey@usdoj.gov, Michelle.Lo@usdoj.gov, Jeff.Nedrow@usdoj.gov, Patrick.Robbins@usdoj.gov, Kimberly.Hopkins@usdoj.gov, vivian.wang@usdoj.gov, Elizabeth.Kurlan@usdoj.gov, Ilham.Hosseini@usdoj.gov, Matthew.Olson@usdoj.gov, Ajay.Krishnamurthy@usdoj.gov, charles.bisesto@usdoj.gov, Nicholas.Balestrieri@acgov.org, Mikael.Boyer@acgov.org, Josie.Chan@acgov.org, Suzanne.Simpkins@acgov.org, udickson@sbcglobal.net, “Dept. 105, Superior Court” <dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov>, “Dept. 711, Superior Court” <dept711@alameda.courts.ca.gov>, “Dept .1, Superior Court” <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>, “Dept. 605, Superior Court” <dept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov>, “Nixon, Judge Thomas, Superior Court” <tnixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov>, “Finke, Chad, Superior Court” <cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov>, “Dept .1, Superior Court” <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>, “Caruth, Judge Brian, Superior Court” <bcaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov>, “Gaffey, Judge Michael, Superior Court” <mgaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov>, “Hing, Judge Stuart, Superior Court” <shing@alameda.courts.ca.gov>, VSapp@SanLeandro.org, TQiu@SanLeandro.org, JSanchez@SanLeandro.org

BCC: ajalil@berkeley.edu

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

4200 Park Blvd., Ste. #One16, Oakland CA  94602
Phone  (510) 394-4101

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation

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

Linked In Profile on Abdul-Jalil, Kobe Bryant Supports AMWF

Abdul-Jalil Honored in Port Au-Prince, Haiti and Miami, Fla. for Relief Missions to Haiti ,  Thanks You from Arch Bishop Joel Jeune to Abdul-Jalil

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY HONORS ABDUL-JALIL Receives Certificate-of-Recognition for 2021-22 

Belal Salih Esa receives Posthumous Congressional Proclamation/Resolution for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from California Governor Gavin Newsom and the State Legislature for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from the Mayor, City Council and the Unified School District Board of Supervisors of the City of Albany for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)

Humanitarian Civil and Human Rights Achievements

Articles on Abdul-Jalil:  ABDUL-JALIL GENIUS- BOY WONDER!!MC Hammer Tribute to ABDUL-JALILEmanuel Steward on ABDUL-JALIL
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Maze Featuring Frankie Beverly and Marvin Gaye
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Khalid al-Mansour, President Barack Obama and Prince Al-Waleed
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Destiny and Marvin Gaye

Abdul-Jalil BMI Songwriter/Producer

Abdul-Jalil Wrote/Produced/Adminstered Survey, Poll, Analysis, Song, and Commercials for City of Oakland Image Campaign “I Know You’ll Love Oakland”

Abdul-Jalil Wrote/Produced/Adminstered Mayor Lionel Wilson and City of Oakland “Conference On Urban Economic Development” and Commercials

Abdul-Jalil Hosted the City of Oakland’s “Holiday Season at the Trans Pacific Centre”

Ron Dellums Congressional Acknowledgement to Abdul-Jalil for Bicentennial Basketball Classic

Abdul-Jalil and The Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Fundraiser
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg1
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg2
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg3

ABDUL-JALIL- the First _SUPER AGENT_ Legal Black History Page 1
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 2
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 3
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law, Lecturor, Presenter, Marketing, Branding Page 4

Award for “Distinguished Marketing and Promotional Services” from NFL Super Bowl NFL Experience , Abdul-Jalil Award from NFL Super Bowl, Rihanna SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo , Dr. Dre SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo

SUPER BOWL CELEBRITY PLACEMENT, Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg1,  Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg2 ,  Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg3

The Man Who Turn$ Hit$ Into Million$, One Special Case,

The Historic Jr. Moore Contract pg1, The Historic Jr. Moore Contract pg2,

ESPN Bostock 5th & Jackson TV Special Part 1, and Part 2,  ESPN Bostock Magazine Special, ESPN Magazine- The History and Mystery of The High Five,
the “al-Hakim Tax Code Ruling”, Smart Agent, Busy Agent,
Abdul-Jalil in Harvard University Law School Federal Tax Course Outline
Abdul-Jalil in Yale University Law School Federal Tax Course 13th Ed., Prof. Eric Zolt
Abdul-Jalil in Wake Forest University Law School “Islamic and Jewish Perspective On Interest”
Abdul-Jalil in Washington University Law School Tax CodeAbdul-Jalil in Washington & Lee University Law School Tax Code,Abdul-Jalil in University of Virginia Law School Tax Course

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation-KPFA Promotional Video
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Kids Celebrity Gift BackPacks
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Free Food Program Celebrity Giving Back
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville KPFA Interview Video
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Alameda Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Entourage & Randy Holland in Trader Joe’s Pinole “Tribute to Legends of Jazz” Show
Santa Fe Elementary School’s Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, SemiFreddi’s, Trader Joe’s, Little Ceasar’s Pizza, Marshawn Lynch’s “Fam1ly F1rst” and Leon Powe’s “Fresh Start Oakland”
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 1
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 2

---

You can click on any highlighted word to view or download that itemTo:      Ismail J. Ramsey-Director                    Rob Bonta
            U. S. Attorney’s Office                         Attorney General of California
            Federal Courthouse                              1300 I Street, Suite 125
            450 Golden Gate Avenue                     P.O. Box 944255           
            San Francisco, CA 94102                    Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
            Fax No.: 415-436-7234                        Fax: 916-324-8835

Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan
              Superior Court of Alameda County                  East Bay Auto Center         
              Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                21099 Mission Blvd.
              Department 105                                                Hayward, CA 94541
              661 Washington St.                                           Email: EastBayAuto6@gmail.com
              Oakland, CA 94607                                          Ph:510‐690‐2728
              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov
BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov

Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer
             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County
             René C. Davidson Courthouse                           René C. Davidson Courthouse
             Department 1                                                     1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
             Oakland, CA 94612                                           Oakland, CA 94612
             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                    Fax: 510-891-6276
TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov
            Judge Stuart Hing                                                 Judge Michael Gaffey
            East County Hall of Justice                                  Fremont Hall of Justice
            Fremont Law & Motion, Dept 711                       Fremont Law & Motion, Dept. 605
            5151 Gleason Drive                                              39439 Paseo Padre Parkway
            Dublin, CA 94568                                                Fremont, CA 94538
            SHing@alameda.courts.ca.gov                            MGaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept711@alameda.courts.ca.govDept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov
            925-227-6711                                                        510-818-7510
            Robert Tripp, FBI Director                                 Yesenia Sanchez
            Northern District of California                            Alameda County Sheriff
            San Francisco Field Office                                  1401 Lakeside Drive, 12th Floor
            450 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor                  Oakland, CA 94612-4305
            San Francisco, CA 94102-9523                           Fax: (510) 272-6811

            Chief Brian Matthews                                         Casey Hallinan             Hayward Police Department                               Attorney General of California             300 W. Winton Ave.                                            Attn: Public Inquiry Unit             Hayward, CA 94544                                            P.O. Box 944255             Fax: 510-293-7183                                              Sacramento, CA 94244-2550Fax: (916) 323-5341

           Senator Aisha Wahab (SD-10)                Ursula Jones Dickson
           California State Senate                            District Attorney
           39510 Paseo Padre Pkwy, Ste 280          René C. Davidson Courthouse
           Fremont, CA 94538                                1225 Fallon Street, Room 900
           Fax: 916-319-2125                                  Oakland CA 94612
                                                                           Fax: 510-452-5625, 510-271-5157

           Steve Gordon- Director                            Kenneth J. Pogue- Director
           Department of Motor Vehicles                 Office of Administrative Law
           2415 1st Ave., Mail Station F101             300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250
           Sacramento, CA 95818-2606                   Sacramento, CA 95814-4339
           Fax:                                                           Fax: 916-323-6826
Steve.Gordon@dmv.ca.govKenneth.Pogue@oai.ca.gov

           Kimberly Kirchmeyer- Director                Patrick Dorais- Bureau Chief
           Department of Consumer Affairs              Bureau of Automotive Repair
          1625 North Market Blvd., Suite N 112      Complaint Intake Unit
           Sacramento, CA 95834                             10949 N. Mather Blvd.
           Fax: (916) 574-8623                                  Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Kimberly.Kirchmeyer@dca.ca.gov           Fax: (916) 464-3405
Patrick_Dorais@dca.ca.gov

          Ricardo Lara- Commissioner                    Alex Anneker           Department of Insurance                           State Farm Insurance Agent          300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700                     5301 Claremont Ave          Sacramento, CA 95814                              Oakland, CA 94618          Fax: 916-445-5276                                    alex.anneker.vadygn@statefarm.com, EastBayAuto6@gmail.comRicardo.Lara@insurance.ca.gov
         Custodian of Records
         State Farm Claims
         PO Box 52250
         Phoenix, AZ 85072-2250
        Alacrity Fax: 985-345-4400, 800-952-5371sent via: U. S. Mail, Fax, and email                                  
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     June 6, 2025
NO. PAGES: 8
RE:        A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Misrepresentation, Concealment of Material Facts with Intent to Induce Court’s Act or Reliance; VIDEO ADMISSIONS, PROOF Sheriff’s Deputy MARKITA SAYLES COMMITTED FRAUD, FIXING THE CASE; ADMITTED SHE WAS INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES; PERJURY; FILING AN ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT”; WILLFULLY FABRICATED EVIDENCE; COMMITTED MISCONDUCT; CONCEALMENT; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto

Dear Sheriff Sanchez, Chief Chaplin, A. G. Ramsey, A. G. Bonta, Director Tripp, Steve Gordon- DMV, Ricardo Lara- DOI, Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA , Patrick Dorais- BAR, Kenneth J. Pogue- OAL, A. G. Hallinan, Senator Wahab, D. A. Price, State Farm Claims, East Bay Auto Center, et. al.,

Law Enforcement Fraud, Misrepresentation, Concealment of Material Facts with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACE

Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan
              Superior Court of Alameda County                  East Bay Auto Center         
              Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                21099 Mission Blvd.
              Department 105                                                 Hayward, CA 94541
              661 Washington St.                                            Email: EastBayAuto6@gmail.com
              Oakland, CA 94607                                           Ph:510‐690‐2728
              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov
BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov

             Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer
             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County
             René C. Davidson Courthouse                           René C. Davidson Courthouse
             Department 1                                                      1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
             Oakland, CA 94612                                           Oakland, CA 94612
             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                    Fax: 510-891-6276
TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov

cc: Judges Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711
U.S. Postal Mail and Emailed
FROM:     Defendant Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     June 5, 2025
NO PAGES:     1
RE:        Declaration for finding Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Leandro Police, Hayward Police, Alameda County District Attorney, Chad Finke and Clerks in Superior Court Administration with support from U. S. Attorney- Northern District, FBI, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, engaged in GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme complete with Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance.

“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 at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew,

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, Plaintiffs, et. al.,

Attached please find our Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Declaration and Legal Argument in Support of Order finding Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Leandro Police, Hayward Police, Alameda County District Attorney, Chad Finke and Clerks in Superior Court Administration with support from U. S. Attorney- Northern District, FBI, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, engaged in GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme complete with Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance; Fixing the Case against Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation behind their declaration the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing police crime reports AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court actions; Judges, Court Administration, Clerks Obstructed, Perverted Course, Due Administration of Justice.

THE OATH OF OFFICE

I, ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance!
   Below is a recent email exchange with the California Registry of Charities and Fundraisers operating under the auspicious of Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Dear Registry of Charities and Fundraisers,

    Attached hereto please find the AG’s summary receipt for the filing of the requested 2022-23 YE filed documents that MUST be properly completed and confirmed BEFORE any electronic payment for the fee can be processed and accepted! Again, there never was any unspecified “deficiencies” for 2022-23 nor 2023-24 YE!!
    Again, we filed the forms, submitted the documents and paid, for which we presented the receipts for, online at the AG’s website.
    As we stated earlier. we had NOT received ANY RESPONSE to our multiple 2 emails, a fax and letters to your offices since May 14, 2025 regrading a notice that our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation non-profit 2024 YE filing has been rejected for unspecified “deficiencies”. You probably would NOT have responded if it were NOT for the intervention of Alicia Xiong in RegCompliance <RegCompliance@doj.ca.gov>!
    AGAIN, we ALWAYS DISAGREED WITH THIS FINDING and requested you PLEASE provide specifically what the 2024 YE filing unspecified “deficiencies” are?
    We filed the forms, submitted the documents and paid, for which we have the receipts for, online at the AG’s website.
    AFTER we provided the copies of the requested filings AS PROOF there was never any alleged “deficiencies”, you responded that you had the 2024 YE filings BUT the 2023 YE was missing!
    THAT ALSO WAS A FALSE STATEMENT! We provided the filed documents AND the AG’s completed summary for the filing that MUST be completed properly BEFORE the system will electronically allow for the processing and acceptance of the fee, for which we also had the receipts for!!
    As stated before, we find the “timing and non-responses suspicious” as the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation have ongoing litigation that this action may impact!
   This ENTIRE “DEFICIENCIES” ACTION WAS A COMPLETE FABRICATION TO PROVOKE AND ENTRAP US INTO AN INDEFENSIBLE LEGAL POSITION as if our our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation would be “suspended” for the alleged non-filing of the “deficiencies” for 2022-23 nor 2023-24 YE, THEY ARE/WOULD THEN Not be currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, thus they are NOT authorized to do business in the State of California and don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit. They DO NOT have legal standing to exist, if they may be suspended for some reason.
 A suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court.
 A corporation may be suspended for at least one of the following reasons:
    •    Failure to file one or more tax returns. Cal Rev. & Tax Code Sec. 23301.
    •    Failure to pay the business’ tax balance due. This can include the penalty for failing to file the annual Statement of Information with the Secretary of State. California Corporations Code Section 2205.
Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani, (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 1361.(Stating a suspended corporation is disqualified from exercising any right, power, or privilege, including prosecuting or defending an action, or appealing a judgment).
A suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court. (Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Superior Court [54 Cal.App.4th 1366] (1922) 188 Cal. 393, 396-397 [205 P. 446]; Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 46, 50-51 [317 P.2d 649].)
    Nor may a suspended corporation appeal from an adverse judgment (Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co. (1937) 9 Cal.2d 16, 20-21 [68 P.2d 968]; Gar-Lo, Inc. v. Prudential Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 242, 245 [116 Cal.Rptr. 389]), or seek a writ of mandate (Brown v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 519, 635 [51 Cal.Rptr. 633]).
    Given this heinous, blatant attempt to eliminate our status as a current Corporation with Secretary of State and State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, we will file another Complaint with the Alameda County Judges Brian Caruth, Tom Nixon, Michael Gaffey, Stuart Hing, Joscelyn Jones, and Superior Court administrator Chad Finke, Alameda County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, Hayward Police Chief Brian Matthews, U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, F.B.I. Northern District Director Robert Tripp, California Attorney General Casey Hallinan, California State Senator Aisha Wahab, Alameda County District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson, Director of California Department of Motor Vehicles Steve Gordon, California Department of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, California Director Department of Consumer Affairs Kimberly Kirchmeyer, California Bureau of Automotive Repair Chief Patrick Dorais, Director California Office of Administrative Law Kenneth J. Pogue, California Attorney General Hallinan- Public Inquiry Unit, and several Federal government offices.
    We consider this further PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance!
    As we have always maintained and is proven by their bad faith fact pattern, this was ALWAYS an entrapment scheme designed to take possession of the truck with it’s contents and trigger civil/criminal actions knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. They are not acting alone!
    IT IS CLEAR THAT OUR NON-PROFIT AARON & MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION, ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM, THE AL-HAKIM FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES AND BUSINESS PROPERTY, THEIR REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, THEIR CHARITIES, THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE- PERSONALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, MORALLY, ETHICALLY, AND FINANCIALLY, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
    WE HAVE PRESENTED further PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme and Hate Crimes. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the legal, judicial and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    The Entrapment Strategy is disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
    We have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties!
    We will respond further in mass with the affect that our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation non-profit business has been actually and potentially DAMAGED by your agency, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and ALL those referenced herein.
    THIS NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED!
We continue this section herewith below for argument and law:
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS, LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO IN TARGETED ENTRAPMENT, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE, FRUAD, MISREPRESENTATION WITH THE INTENT TO INDUCE THE COURT’S ACT OR RELIANCE
Law Enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hayward Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; San Leandro Police Chiefs Abdul Pridgen/Angela Averiett; U. S. Attorneys Stephanie Hinds/Ismail Ramsey; F.B.I. NorCal Directors Craig Fair/Robert Tripp; with support from the Court, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, and associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Further, they committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing this case; they were instructed by and with special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report” OR NONE AT ALL; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to covering for their “asset” co-conspirators; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, Law Enforcement with associated third parties continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence; as they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence was founded to take the responsibility, accountability, and liability off the Sheriff’s to have performed their investigation and filing a legitimate police crime report by destroying the evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO CENTER as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED MAY 28, 2024 PHONE CALL TO AL-HAKIM, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM.
The Plaintiffs, Sheriffs and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the Civil Rights Act”.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, Law Enforcement and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET! We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!! This established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
The April and May 2024 videos PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves, Plaintiff’s, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company and Law Enforcement in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
East Bay Auto Center is the ONLY suspects that could have stolen, burglarized, vandalized, and damaged the truck as it was not stolen by anyone else!
AMWF’s truck was “STOLEN” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with an associated third party while there for the insurance repair estimate. BUT NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!!
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroying the evidence and chain of custody!
On October 2, 2024, Plaintiffs EBAC FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S WHERE TO AND WHEN EBAC MOVED THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S Deputies Sean Sullivan #2137 and Collin Lenahan #2453 as Percipient Eye Witnesses.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in unsolicited emails to the court and Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, the Clerks of Dept. 1, and 105, and Superior Court Administrator Chad Finke that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Then East Bay Auto Center attempt’s to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to an unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
AGAIN, this was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE and was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and to destroy the chain of custody!
But Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company are NOT acting alone, but with governmental entities and their associates!
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: 1) they were fully aware at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence.
The County Sheriff’s coercive, malicious, intentional tortious interference are a violation of our rights under the California Constitution is a deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process and their police actions are inherently coercive due to their societal trust. For a Civil Code Section 52.1 cause of action, two elements must be established: (1) intentional interference with a constitutional or legal right, and (2) that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The courts, in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, it was determined that relief is granted under Civil Code Section 52.1 if coercive actions are present. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement Intentional Spoliation of Evidence can be viewed through Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court, California. 1998-05-11 and Penal Code section 135 establishes criminal penalties for spoliation, defining it as the willful destruction or concealment of evidence intended to prevent its production in legal proceedings, classifying such acts as misdemeanors.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfere with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.
Under Coprich v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, California. 2000-05-19 , the court allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint, because the officers were responsible for gathering or preserving evidence or for preventing her from doing so. However, the court did not determine that remedies monetary and contempt sanctions, with criminal sanctions for intentional destruction of evidence, and disciplinary measures against attorneys/law enforcement involved in suppressing evidence.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement intentionally failed to preserve evidence of the truck burglary is tortious interference due to spoliation of evidence and intentional interference with defendant’s prospective economic advantage, emphasizing defendants’ right to their injury claims are a valuable expectancy.
On November 2, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been returned to Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward with additional damage. Upon investigation, the truck has been further BURGLARIZED by the breach of the lock on the roll up door and the roll up door itself! THE DAMAGES ARE UNKOWN AND YET TO BE INVESTIGATED!
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Irrefutable evidence shows that Plaintiff’s and the Alameda County Sheriff’s acted with the intent to disrupt Defendants contractual relationship and deny defendants civil rights.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement had knowledge of this contract and intentionally interfered with it AND violated the defendants civil rights (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134 establishes the elements of tortious interference with contractual relations, emphasizing that the defendant must have knowledge of the contract and intentionally interfere with it) by deputy SAYLES whom ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE FALSE POLICE REPORT, willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, failed and refused to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, AS IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY AUTO TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET IN FIXING THIS CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM.
As a direct result of Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcements actions, Defendant has suffered losses and damages including but not limited to loss of business, personal, and real property, lost use of the truck, loss of services to the communities that they serve, loss of revenue, reputational harm, and emotional distress. Defendant also suffered damages, that need to be determined by the order ASAP for the truck be made available to us to get vital information from the engine, body, cab, under body, exhaust, etc., and a complete video investigation, analysis and documentation of the condition of the truck and the contents; to search, inspect, process and document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, finger printing, and clues for the damage, theft, vandalism, and missing/stolen business and personal property to ascertain the total vehicle costs, loss, damages as well as the theft costs, loss and damages. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802. This case highlights the requirement that the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was independently wrongful, which can include unlawful actions by law enforcement.
Defendant argues that the actions of Plaintiff’s and the Alameda County Sheriff’s violated the defendants civil rights and contends that the interference was not justified and was willful, intentional and conducted with malice. Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 1990, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507. This case discusses the necessity of proving that the interference was wrongful and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.
Defendant had a valid and enforceable contract with State Farm insurance company and Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement had knowledge of this contract. Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal. 4th 1140 (2004): This case illustrates intentional interference and the knowledge of the contract by the defendant and they acted with the intent to interfere.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were intentional and wrongful, constituting tortious interference with Defendants contractual relations. Burden v. County of Santa Clara, 81 Cal. App. 4th 244 (2000): This case highlights the limitations of tortious interference claims against government entities, noting that while government entities may have certain immunities, intentional and wrongful conduct still lead to liability.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company and Law Enforcement coercive, malicious, intentional tortious interference are a violation of our rights under the California Constitution is a deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process and their police actions are inherently coercive due to their societal trust. For a Civil Code Section 52.1 cause of action, two elements must be established: (1) intentional interference with a constitutional or legal right, and (2) that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The courts, in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, it was determined that relief is granted under Civil Code Section 52.1 if coercive actions are present. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10. Plaintiff’s and the County Sheriff’s actions were the actual and proximate cause of the interference.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfere with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement intentionally failed to preserve evidence of the truck burglary is tortious interference due to spoliation of evidence and intentional interference with defendant’s prospective economic advantage, emphasizing defendants’ right to their injury claims are a valuable expectancy.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
This Grand corruption is systemic and endemic in ALL al-Hakim cases involves the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of AMWF, al-Hakim, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve.
This Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement ill advised strategy with actions to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence was founded to take the responsibility, accountability, and liability off the Sheriff’s to have performed their investigation and filing a legitimate police crime report by destroying the evidence!
Defendants expressed concern over the Sheriffs officers intentionally mishandling of the crime scene, bad faith failure to investigate and collect incriminating evidence, noting the significant stakes given the involvement of the Plaintiffs and their admissions implicating and incriminating police, that they worked with law enforcement, the police are accomplishes, collaborators, and Plaintiffs are under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist AMWF or Abdul-Jalil.
The courts has established that the government must investigate, detect, collect, and preserve evidence relevant to guilt or innocence as ministerial actions. The critical issue in this ministerial action of evidence collection by the Sheriffs is without discretion, leaving them solely responsible for evidence collection, and the failure to investigate and seize material evidence convicts them of their failure of duty to preserve it. Hence, Sheriffs DO NOT have unchecked discretion to investigate, detect, collect, and preserve evidence; AND given that Plaintiffs are admitted government assets, with court’s prior rulings on informant disclosure suggest that police should exert reasonable efforts to locate material witnesses, reflecting a similar duty to seize material evidence. Sheriffs were aware of the materiality of evidence and this understanding should have compelled them to act to preserve such evidence, aligning with the principle favoring the state in ministerial actions.
Case law indicates that while police officers have liability and they can be held accountable for negligent execution of decisions of issues that involve distinguishing between discretionary and ministerial actions.
The objective of the continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy with “Target, Engagement, Harassment, Provocation, Litigation” tactics is designed to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- AMWF, Abdul-Jalil, al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives. The very nature and inherent structure/operation of the Political/Judicial Institution (Judges are Politicians= elected officials by the Public, to serve for the public) makes it diabolically impossible to journey from the Constitution to the Institution “Of The People, For The People, By The People!” that places them in this evil “criminal and civil rights/litigation meat grinder”.
This East Bay action is one of AMWF and Abdul-Jalil being forced into a small claims action that is both oppressive and coercive by limiting the money awards and the depravation of ones rights as the court decision is non-appealable.
This means that as a litigant, AMWF and Abdul-Jalil waives their most basic Civil and Human Right to a fair trial without recourse to appeal an intentionally wrongful decision that may be by design! This is unlawful, offends public policy, common law and an established concept of unfairness, is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes substantial injury as a part of the larger planned “judgment peonage”, an activity to take bankrupting judgments against us, causing SEVER economic legal damages, non-economic damages, and punitive damages sentencing us to LIFE in “debtors prison”!
Over the last 50+ years al-Hakim’s “court activities” has documented, with filed and served court actions, filed and served complaints, and filed and served correspondence memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
al-Hakim proves where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate his rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528.
Some of those litigation opponents referenced these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in their filings, ALL of whom have been complained of or to are, in major part because al-Hakim reported the very obvious agenda of parties by memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities corruption and persecution and their involvement in the cover-up of that criminal corruption.
The parties are Governmental and Quasi-governmental employees, agents, contractors, entities, associates, members, and contractors of their companies, the U. S. Federal Government, State of California, County, and City agencies, among others, have engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance by and with unethical and criminal means, instigated and encouraged said acts, which gives rise to fraudulent, corruption as they conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived, employed and enacted the criminal, tactical, torture inspired policy of TARGETED HATE CRIME, Terror, Civil Conspiracy, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced Bigotry, Vindictive Retaliation, Oppression, Harassment, Racism, Discrimination, Bias, Prejudice, Unfairness, Persecution, AND GRAND CORRUPTION, victimization, inciting acrimony, animus, in the continued persecution with calumny deceit and the attempted entrapment of us as the continuing “TARGET”.
ALL the DOCUMENTED actions alleged with cite relevant legal case authority to support arguments and assertions for a FORMAL COMPLAINT and Request for Investigation for Hate Crimes include violations of California Law including violations of the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts Civil Code section 51.7, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Acts, Civil Code section 52.1, Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983; California Government Code sections 11135 et seq., 12900 et seq., California Penal Code section 13023, California Penal Code section 422.55 and California Civil Code sections 51, 51.7, 52.5, and 54 et seq.; the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; California Constitution, Article VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475, 3523, and 3528, and for Harassment, Censorship, Fraud, Negligence, Misrepresentation, Abuse of Process, Abuse of Power, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Contract/Common Law Warranty, Deceptive Trade Practices, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud by Concealment, California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 17200 et seq, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Discrimination in Violation of the Unruh Act, Nuisance, Abuse of Process, Fraud by Concealment, Violation of California False Advertising Law, Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceit-(California Civil Code § 1710), Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices, Unconscionability (UDAP), Elder Abuse.
The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, provides protection against interference or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any constitutional or statutory rights. Remedies for violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act or the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act include restraining orders, injunctive relief, equitable relief to secure constitutional and statutory rights, actual damages, exemplary or punitive damages, a civil penalty of $25,000, and attorney’s fees. An action may be brought by the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, or by the individual harmed.
California Penal Code section 13023. California Penal Code section 422.55 defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.”
The California Attorney General DEMANDS an Investigation for Hate Crimes in violation of California Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts; the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983, California Penal Code sections 13519.6, Penal Code section 13023 and Penal Code 422.55 which defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.” Cite relevant legal case authority to support arguments and assertions. Depending on the circumstances of each case, bias motivation may include, but is not limited to, hatred, animosity, discriminatory selection of victims, resentment, revulsion, contempt, unreasonable fear, paranoia, callousness, thrill-seeking, desire for social dominance, desire for social bonding with those of one’s “own kind,” or a perception of the vulnerability of the victim due to the victim being perceived as being weak, worthless, or fair game because of a protected characteristic, including, but not limited to, disability, gender, Age, Ancestry, Anti-Islamic, Anti-black or African American, Anti-other ethnicity/national origin, association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics of a protected class, Citizenship, Color Disability (physical, intellectual/developmental, mental health/psychiatric), Medical Condition (cancer or genetic characteristic), National Origin (includes language restrictions), Political Affiliation, Race (includes hairstyle and hair texture), Religious creed (includes dress and grooming practices), and aggrieve in their entrapment strategy with the use of confidential informants, snitches, government operatives can provide a number of conditions under which “an inducement to an individual to engage in crime is authorized.” This could apply to any or all of the actions taken in and of their services agency acting in their clients name and stead.


JUDGES THOMAS NIXON, BRIAN CARUTH, STUART HING, MICHAEL GAFFEY, CLERKS OF DEPT. 1, 105, 605, 711, PLAINTIFFS, AND CHAD FINKE ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES

On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in an unsolicited email to the court with Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent! 

    In that email East Bay wrote:

Hello Abdul jalil.
This is EAST BAY AUTO CENTER.  I spoken last time with you to pick up your truck. Also I send email and text messages to pick up the truck.
We have no space for keep your truck that long. We small parking lot. This is Michanic shop not storage for your truck.
We send the truck back to storage yard. We not touched any things for your truck.
The truck is locked from the back of the truck. It’s still the same locked 🔒.

If you still want to pick up your truck please let me know we will pick it up from storage yard. Paying the storage money.
You have to pay me for the storage fee.
Please call for schedule to pick up the car.

If you have any questions please call me. Thanks
510-940-8675
Eastbayauto6@gmail.com

These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to a unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
EBAC’s unsolicited admissions and confessions to the court and judges makes them all percipient eye witnesses. Further, in your/their fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!? Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., failure to perform your ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon EBAC unsolicited admissions and confessions with defendant’s NOTICED pleading constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and  Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice is a denial of access to the courts, in violation of defendant’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments! Thus as Judges and court administrators, you have rules governing the disposition of the such actions and pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, YOU ALL have been forever silent regarding this; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4
THIS SECTION ABOVE APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

The Matters of the December 20, 2024 Hearing
At the December 20, 2024 Hearing, the court had appointed Cabral Bonner an attorney, in accordance with Article 6, section 21 of the Constitution of the State of California, to act as the Temporary Judge in this matters before the Court in this department on this date. The Defendant informs the court that he objects to having a pro- tem preside over the matter AND THAT THIS MATTER HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO JUDGE CARUTH AFTER BEING REASSIGNED FROM A PRO-TEM COMMISSIONER FICKLES. If the court was aware of this fact, it should have continued the matter BEFORE we appeared in court, as this was a complete waste of time!
Yet, Plaintiff’s East Bay Auto Center (EBAC) DID NOT appear and there was NO reason given for same. However, Mr. Bonner admits in court that EBAC had contacted the court earlier stating they would NOT appear, BUT NO ONE CONTACTED US, the DEFENDANTS! Here we have the court ADMITTING to having illegal ex-parte communications with the plaintiff’s WITHOUT informing defendants when a matter of a pro-tem was ALREADY DECIDED! As a hypothetical, what would have happened if defendants had agreed to having the matter heard by Bonner and the plaintiff’s FAILED TO APPEAR?! Would a default have been entered?! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!
THE ENTIRE “HEARING” WAS JUST AN ILLEGAL, PRETENTIOUS CHARADE BY THE COURT!

Conspiracy to Subvert, Pervert, Obstruct, or Defeat the Course of Justice
Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
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.”
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.  [Citation.]

“In California, the statutes relating to ‘Crimes Against Public Justice’ are found in part I, title [7], of the Penal Code. Bribery, escapes, rescues, perjury, falsifying evidence, and other acts which would have been considered offenses against the administration of justice at common law are made criminal by legislative enactment. 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. [Citation.]In the same category is a conspiracy to obtain the release of a person charged with a felony by presenting a worthless and void bail bond. Such a conspiracy has been held to be a perversion of the due administration of the law, and an offense within the meaning of subdivision [ (a) ]5 of section 182 of the Penal Code. [Citation.]” (Lorenson v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 49, 59–60, italics added (Lorenson ).)
In Lorenson, the defendant was a police captain in the Los Angeles Police Department indicted for conspiracy to commit robbery, to commit assault with a deadly weapon, and to pervert or obstruct justice. (Lorenson, supra, 35 Cal.2d at pp. 50–51.) In rejecting a claim of insufficient evidence to support the indictment, the court concluded that one could infer from the evidence that there was agreement among the defendant, other members of the police department, and criminal associates of Mickey Cohen to assault and rob the victim, Pearson. The court further noted that there was evidence from which one could infer that the defendant and other police officers “were to furnish protection to the participants in the conspiracy by refusing to disclose the identity of Pearson’s attackers, if they were arrested, and to effect their release from custody.”(Id. at p. 57.) After the robbery and assault, Cohen’s associates were arrested (apparently by officers not involved in the conspiracy), but they were immediately released from the police station before Pearson could arrive to identify any of them, and the arresting officers were instructed not to talk about the incident. (Id. at p. 54.) Lorenson is an example of “[a] conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws,” an indictable offense at common law. (Id. at pp. 59–60.)
THIS SECTION ABOVE APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.

A “RAT” in Court Administration and Clerks Obstructed, Perverted the Course and Due Administration of Justice
   On June 11, 2024, Abdul-Jalil appeared at window 12 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and filed our “Defendants Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court”. I was waited on by a young lady that appeared to be of Latin/Asian descent.
We had a discussion regarding my listing my name as the CEO and Person of Interest as it relates to the “defendants” filed in the East Bay Auto Center claim. As this conversation directly addressed MY NAME, she laughingly kept referring to me as “Mr. Wallace”, CLEARLY taunting, being disrespectful, antagonistic and provocative! I corrected her INTENTIONALLY calling me out of my name 3 times by responding softly with “Mr. al-Hakim” the first 3 times! At her fourth lashing out, I corrected her with a chuckle that let her know that I acknowledged she was being childish and petty trying to provoke me! When she grasped it, she got up and said “I’m going to lunch!”. She left and another clerk came over, Jamie J. Thomas, and took her place to complete the filing. While she left several times as I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she met with different people at a computer discussing something.
   On June 13, 2024, I appeared at window 9 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants Small Claim and Order, and a letter to Commissioner Fickles and East Bay Auto Center that we OPPOSED the case being heard by and Request reassignment of the Case from a Judge Pro Team or Commissioner and Requesting a Court Reporter for the July 8, 2024 hearing. The clerk filed the letter but questioned the proof of service (attached as Exh. B), so she said she would talk to her supervisor. I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she spoke with someone (others) before she returned with clerk Jamie J. Thomas whom preceded to say that she could NOT accept the proof of service BECAUSE the ONLY one that they could accept was the standard form that comes with the SC-120 form. I informed her that this proof of service was the same as the standard form and is used more commonly in court filings and I have used them over 20 years without any problem. She said that I would have to serve the claim again or have the server to sign a new proof. But more alarming, she said I could fill out the proof to be signed by the process server, but I could NOT serve it because I’m listed as the agent for the service of process. NOW, just how did she know that and why did she need to know that? She obviously conducted her own investigation. She issued her ORDER and refused to accept the proof!
   She read the letter then said that she could NOT give the letter to the Commissioner because she would be engaging in illegal ex-parte communications. I again stated that I have filed over 100 letters in the same fashion and never had a problem with them before as long as there was a filing cover page. (Attached as Exh. C)
   Not wanting to argue with her also early trying to harass and inconvenience me, I said that I would file both with the presiding court judge whom I was going to file the Request for Reassignment with anyway, and I left.
   On June 18, 2024, I appeared at window 4 in the Clerks General Office in the Rene Davidson of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants Continuance and Reassignment, a female clerk- “T. Hayle?” came out on 2 occasions, the first after a 15 minute wait, addressed me as Mr. Wallace, questioned the proof of service, debated the motion vs. declaration and need to refile with a reservation number. She made the RIDICULOUS argument that the “electronic filing system does not recognize documents on pleading paper” thus, I had to have the documents served again!
   On December 19, 2024, I appeared at window 9 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants EBAC Subpoena, Request for Production of Documents and Video Taped Depositions, and Order Shortening Time and was told by the clerk- “Malen Jih MSG?” that the server should have signed in Sheriff’s location on the proof of service. While she left as I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she met with different people discussing something. She returned and repeated her statement and accepted the proof. Clearly that was NOT the case nor had the documents been signed in the wrong place! This statement exposes the fact that the court has had some interaction with third parties that has informed them that the documents WERE signed in the wrong place on the proof.
   As we have EXTENSIVE documentation on the MANY egregious, unscrupulous, heinous illegal activities of court administrator Chadrat Finke and the employees with the District Attorneys office, WE ARE SURE THAT THEY HAVE EMPLOYED THE FULL FORCE OF THEIR OFFICES AND THOSE OF THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS TO AFFACT AND DIRECT THE COURSE AND OUTCOME OF THIS AND ALL RELATED MATTERS!

Dept. 105 Clerk Sergio Lopez subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
   On May 8, 2025 we sent the following email to Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke in response to the Continuing FAILED compliance from Dept. 105 Clerk Sergio Lopez.
That email is as follows:

CLERKS USUAL NON-RESPONSE TO EMAIL: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACEDear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,    After NOT getting a response from Mr. Lopez, the Clerk of department 105, for THREE (3) MONTHS, we still have NOT gotten a response to our email just a week ago! WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES! HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED HEREIN? We are requesting clarity on the issues below as follows:A) Does the reservation number provides for the motion to compel response to subpoenas and production of documents which are already listed, INCLUDE our demand for Videotape Depositions for each of 1) Plaintiffs, 2) California Department of Motor Vehicles, 3) Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 4) California Bureau of Automotive Repair, 5) California Department of Insurance, 6) State Farm Insurance, and 7) Alameda County Business Tax Collector as needed? Are we to use the same number for each separately?B) We want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAPC) Does the hearing on 6/10/2025, 9AM calendar INCLUDE an order on our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion and our motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025?D) IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S EBAC’S UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES. Further, in your fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!??E) OUR UNRESOLVED concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. What is the court going to do about this? Why is the date not changed to the very NEXT DAY,  JUNE 11, 2025??!!??   Again, we will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served AND MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

——– Message ——–Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,
    So I’m very confused Mr. Lopez, just how does your attempted missed phone call to us this morning, May 1, 2025 at 7:58am, JUSTIFY YOUR THREE MONTHS OF WILLFUL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE SINCE FEBRUARY 4, 2025??!!??    The requests are very plain and does NOT take three months of your deliberation to understand, (or maybe it does!) and if they were THAT confusing, WHY DID YOU WAIT 3 MONTHS TO CALL AND HANG UP WITHOUT LEAVING A MESSAGE??!!?? Therefore, if you had NO idea of what we wanted in my EXTENSIVE emails and voicemails messages I left for you, WHY DIDN’T YOU JUST CALL to get clarity THREE MONTHS AGO??!!??    Your reservation number provides for the motion to compel response to subpoenas and production of documents which are already listed, BUT as written, excludes our demand for Videotape Depositions for each.    It also does NOT address the fact we want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAP. You, Mr. Lopez have told us and written to us “Please be advised that Department 105 does not conduct ex-parte hearings”, yet, AS PART OF THE AUDIO RECORDING INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC IN THE COURTS ANNOUNCEMENT, YOU EXPRESSLY STATE THAT LITIGANTS CAN REQUEST EX-PARTE HEARINGS AND THE PROCEDURE FOR SAME!    WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES! HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED HEREIN?    You note that the following is scheduled for hearing on 6/10/2025 9AM:Hearing on Motion – Other Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.    For clarity, WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER to does this INCLUDE our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion and our motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025?    The court should have ruled on these matters as summary judgment before now!    Also shown on the schedule is “Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.” We had Requested an IMMEDIATE Ex-Parte Hearing on Wednesday, October 9, 2024 or Friday, October 11, 2024 for Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck and to Compel Videotape Depositions, Production of Documents.    We had requested the order ASAP for the truck be made available to us to get vital information from the engine, body, cab, under body, exhaust, etc., and video the condition of the truck and the contents to search, inspect, process and document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, finger printing, and clues for the damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property.

    On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroy the chain of custody!    We called the County Sheriff’s and made arrangements to meet them there for a truck theft/missing report on October 2, 2024. Once we met there, Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S THE LOCATION OF THE TRUCK, OR WETHER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AGAIN AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!    As you are aware from our previous filings, in April 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As a result, we do not have a total value of the scope of loss and damage to the truck therefrom. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago!    As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
    We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
    The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.    IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED PHONE CALL TO ME, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM
    This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.    As witnessed, in April 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!    East Bay Auto Center is the ONLY suspects that could have stolen, burglarized, vandalized, and damaged the truck as it was not stolen by anyone else!    AMWF’s truck was “STOLEN” from East Bay Auto Center while there for the insurance repair estimate, BUT NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!!    The information as to the causes are stated herein AND THE IMMEDIACY WAS OBVIOUS.     On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in an unsolicited email to the court with Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!    In that email East Bay wrote:

Hello Abdul jalil.This is EAST BAY AUTO CENTER.  I spoken last time with you to pick up your truck. Also I send email and text messages to pick up the truck.We have no space for keep your truck that long. We small parking lot. This is Michanic shop not storage for your truck.We send the truck back to storage yard. We not touched any things for your truck.The truck is locked from the back of the truck. It’s still the same locked 🔒.
If you still want to pick up your truck please let me know we will pick it up from storage yard. Paying the storage money.You have to pay me for the storage fee.Please call for schedule to pick up the car.
If you have any questions please call me. Thanks510-940-8675Eastbayauto6@gmail.com

    These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!    They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.    Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to a unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!    IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES. Further, in your fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!??    Since you, Mr. Lopez, failed to respond, I will reiterate that we still have OUR UNRESOLVED concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend.    Previously, we received notice that the above entitled case has been reassigned from Commissioner Fickles to Judge Caruth in Department 105 as per Judge Nixon’s order and also received separate notice that the court date has been changed to Tuesday, July 9, 2024, in Department 105, at 9:00 a.m. It is well documented with the court over 40 years, AND MR. FINKE CAN VERIFY THAT, I have religious commitments on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and unavailable on those dates. The new date falls on one of those days I am unavailable. The matter was continued to present. How is this possible and what is the court going to do about this? Why is the date not changed to the very NEXT DAY,  JUNE 11, 2025??!!??    Again, we will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served AND MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

On 5/1/25 8:00 AM, Dept. 105, Superior Court wrote:

Please be advised that the court was attempting to understand the nature of your motions.The court had also attempted to call you to no answer (510-394-4501).A reservation number has been generated for the following:A-67622-003
Hearing on Motion – Other Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents.
The following is scheduled for hearing on 6/10/2025 9AM24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER VS AARON & MARGARET WALLACE
Small Claims Trial
Hearing on Motion – Other Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.
Hearing on Motion – Other Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents.
Thank you,Mr. LopezDepartment 105 – Courtroom ClerkWiley W. Manuel Courthouse661 Washington StreetOakland, CA 94607(510) 627-4712

From: A. J. <ajalil1234@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 8:50 PM
To: Dept. 105, Superior Court <dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept. 711, Superior Court <dept711@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept .1, Superior Court <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept. 605, Superior Court <dept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Nixon, Judge Thomas, Superior Court <tnixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Finke, Chad, Superior Court <cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept .1, Superior Court <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Caruth, Judge Brian, Superior Court <bcaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Gaffey, Judge Michael, Superior Court <mgaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Hing, Judge Stuart, Superior Court <shing@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; eastbayauto6@gmail.com<eastbayauto6@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACE

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al.,    So I guess you, Mr. Lopez, et. al., DID NOT receive the emails below and therefore had NO idea of what I wanted in my EXTENSIVE voicemail messages I left for you either??!!??    We requested a hearing date and a reservation number(s) for our Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the 1) Plaintiffs, 2) California Department of Motor Vehicles, 3) Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 4) California Bureau of Automotive Repair, 5) California Department of Insurance, 6) State Farm Insurance, and 7) Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions for each. This matter MUST be heard in ANY Law and Motion judge including Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711 as soon as possible after the date above. We have yet to find ANY legal experts that can confirm that Small Claims Court DOES NOT ALLOW Ex-Parte motions.    PLEASE PROVIDE THE SAME SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THIS MATTER FORWARD AS IT IS TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT THIS WOULD TAKE THREE MONTHS FOR MR. LOPEZ TO DO!! THIS IS NOT JUST INCOMPETENCE, IT IS OBSTRUCTION IN IT’S MOST BLATANTLY PURIST FORM!! We want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAP.    Additionally, attached is a copy of the filed proofs of service of our motions that the court allegedly ruled was NOT filed without disclosing “what motion(s)”? This may be a result of the proofs being filed a day before the hearing.    On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion AND our Motion to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum AND the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents against Plaintiffs. They failed and refused to respond. The motion was personally served on November 20, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025 is attached.    The motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025 is attached.    We also have a concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. How is this possible and what is the court going to do about this?    We will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served ASAP.    This seems Mr. Lopez NOT receiving OUR emails is a reoccurring theme with you AND NEEDS TO STOP IMMEDIATELY as I reference my previous last TWO (2) voicemails and emails of February 4, 2025 and March 3, 2025 as follows:
1) ——– February 4, 2025 Message ——–Dear Mr. Lopez,    I called you today at 1:47 pm and left you a message regarding my latest email to you on January 27, 2025 requesting a copy of the Courts order continuing the December 20, 2024 hearing and any rulings on our motions; Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum, Compel Videotape Depositions and Production of Documents, Entry of Default Order, Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction, Order Striking Complaint, Tortious Interference, Spoliation of Evidence, Intentional Misrepresentation, Grand Larceny, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Intentional Misrepresentation, Property Damage, and Extortion.    Amazingly you replied to that message with this email at 1:56 pm.    Thanks so much!    But, why have you NOT responded to my emails regarding same, if in fact you respond to emails much quicker than phone calls/voice mails? You even remind the callers to your department 105 that the clerks may take up to 5 days to reply to phone calls/voicemails.    I’m a little confused as to whether or not you are even getting my emails as there is NO indication that they have NOT been delivered to you as well as the others, Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 1605, 711, and Chad Finke.    If there is a problem with the email delivery to you, PLEASE let me know, as it would ascertain just where the real problem is.Thanks again,AJ

2) ——– March 3, 2025 Message ——–TO:        Judge Brian Caruth                                           Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan              Superior Court of Alameda County                  East Bay Auto Center                       Wiley Manuel Courthouse                                21099 Mission Blvd.              Department 105                                                 Hayward, CA 94541              661 Washington St.                                          Email:                                                         EastBayAuto6@gmail.com              Oakland, CA 94607                                           Ph:510‐690‐2728              Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.govBCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov             Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon                         Chad Finke Executive Officer             Superior Court of Alameda County                   Superior Court of Alameda County             René C. Davidson Courthouse                           René C. Davidson Courthouse             Department 1                                                      1225 Fallon Street, Room 209             Oakland, CA 94612                                           Oakland, CA 94612             Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276                    Fax: 510-891-6276             TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.govcfinke@alameda.courts.ca.govdept1@alameda.courts.ca.govcc: Judges Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711U.S. Postal Mail and EmailedFROM:     Defendant Aaron & Margaret Wallace FoundationDATE:     March 3, 2025NO PAGES:     1RE:        Annual Retreat for Ramadan and Request Reservation number for Defendants Motion to Compel Compliance with Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions.“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 7:1-3The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew,

Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, Plaintiffs, et. al.,This notice is to inform the Court and parties that I will be in annual retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan until April 5, 2025 and unavailable to respond to any litigation.We also want to request a hearing date and a reservation number for our Motion to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the Plaintiffs, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions for each. This matter MUST be heard in ANY Law and Motion judge including Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711 as soon as possible after the date above. We have yet to find ANY legal experts that can confirm that Small Claims Court DOES NOT ALLOW Ex-Parte motions.As referenced in our December 19, 2024, email to the court that the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents were filed and served on the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector that THEY ALL did not respond wherein we would file Motions to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Videotape Depositions and Production of Documents for ALL of them. Hence this request.As previously mentioned, I KNOW the court is aware, as is everyone else, that this matter CAN NOT BE HEARD IN FIFTEEN (15) MINUTE SMALL CLAIMS HEARING. OUR LITIGATION WITH WITNESSES ALONE WILL BE AT LEAST TWO (2) DAYS!!On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion AND our Motion to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum AND the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents against Plaintiffs. They failed and refused to respond.As mentioned, we waited over a month for the courts to respond to our last requests via email and there was NO RESPONSE, thus the earlier motion for an order shortening time.AGAIN, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS by the Plaintiffs to the court and Judges makes YOU ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES.Thanks,Abdul-Jalil al-Hakimajalil1234@gmail.com510-394-4501    In closing, these and other issues MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ

On 4/7/25 4:13 PM, Dept. 105, Superior Court wrote:

Hello,Please specify what kind of motions you are attempting to file for the subjected case.Please list each motion numerically.Thank you,Mr. LopezDepartment 105 – Courtroom ClerkWiley W. Manuel Courthouse661 Washington StreetOakland, CA 94607(510) 627-4712

   I consider the actions of ALL the clerks on those days to undermining and compromising the justice system and 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.
The court clerks staff could be viewed as having subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
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)).

Conclusion
Defendant has provided uncontroverted, uncontested, irrefutable PROOF of:
1) Proof Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., failure to perform your ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon EBAC unsolicited admissions and confessions with defendant’s NOTICED pleading constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice is a denial of access to the courts, in violation of defendant’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments! Thus as Judges and court administrators, you have rules governing the disposition of the such actions and pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, YOU ALL have been forever silent regarding this; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4
2) PROOF Pro Tem Mr. Bonner admits at December 20, 2024 hearing that EBAC had contacted the court earlier stating they would NOT appear, BUT NO ONE CONTACTED US, the DEFENDANTS! Here we have the court ADMITTING to having illegal ex-parte communications with the plaintiff’s WITHOUT informing defendants when a matter of a pro-tem was ALREADY DECIDED! As a hypothetical, what would have happened if defendants had agreed to having the matter heard by Bonner and the plaintiff’s FAILED TO APPEAR?! Would a default have been entered?! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!,
3) PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance,
4) PROOF of Alameda County Sheriffs, Law Enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hayward Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; San Leandro Police Chiefs Abdul Pridgen/Angela Averiett; U. S. Attorneys Stephanie Hinds/Ismail Ramsey; F.B.I. NorCal Directors Craig Fair/Robert Tripp; with support from the Court, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, and associated third parties implicated by East Bay Auto engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of targeted entrapment, tortious interference, fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act
5) Proof a “RAT” in Court Administration, Judges and Clerks actions constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice

Respectfully submitted.
Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******
Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, attached hereto please find a CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things in response to the court order (attached) for production of documents in the above referenced matter. You were served this subpoena for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles today, December 11, 2024 and should respond immediately.
Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, as the Custodian of Records you are NOT required to appear in person if within ten (10) days from the date of the serving of this request upon you, you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the “DEFINITIONS” Section as part of this attached affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271. (1) Place a copy of the records in an envelope (or other wrapper) where Documents produced shall be Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially. Enclose the original declaration of the custodian with the records. Seal the envelope. (2) Attach a copy of this subpoena to the envelope or write on the envelope the case name and number; your name; and the date, time, and place. (3) Place this first envelope in an outer envelope, seal it, and mail it to me at the address or email address (ajalil1234@gmail.com ) above. (4) The written response shall be served within ten (10) days of the service of this request.
SUBPOENA REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on Responding Party: Custodian of Records and Person Most Knowledgeable is used herein to refer to, and includes Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles, AND YOU are NOT required to appear in person if you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the declaration on page two or the attached declaration or affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with.As might be YOUR custom, you may provide responsive records in electronic format (i.e., text files that can be opened with any word processing software such as Word or TextEdit) or a searchable portable document file (PDF).
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS
ALL the Defendants, Requestors and Propounders seek disclosure of any and all records created which were prepared, received, transmitted, collected and/or maintained by the Plaintiffs, Responding Parties, ALL Government Related Parties, and ALL Government Related Third Parties, including but not limited to those listed in those sections herein.
YOU are requested to produce for inspection and copying, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031), the DOCUMENTS in the below-numbered categories.  The production shall take place on December 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., at 4200 Park Blvd., Oakland, California, 94602.
This is a request for an opportunity to inspect and/or obtain copies of records of any and all documents, files, correspondence, audio and video files, or other records of yours and various National, State, County of Alameda and City of Oakland Offices under the provisions of CCP 2031 on behalf of the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders.
YOU are required to serve a written response, under oath, responding to each item or category as provided by Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031).
The written response shall be served within seven (7) days of the service of this request.
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.
This is a request for an opportunity to inspect and/or obtain copies of records of any and all documents, files, correspondence, audio and video files, or other records of yours and various offices under the provisions of Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on behalf of the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, family members Harun al-Hakim-Miller, Jalil Omar al-Hakim, Bari al-Hakim-Williams, and their siblings; and the entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth.org, eX-whY Adventures, their real, personal and business property (all herein after referred to as “ALL the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders and/or Defendant/Requestors and Propounders”)
Please process this request for ALL SECTION Requests under ALL statutes herein to release the maximum number of documents and records in the interests of justice and achieving full compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031). Please search ALL your automated indices to the Central Records System, the older general (manual) indices, all Field Offices, other facilities that are separate from the office processing the request, or with another agency or agencies having a substantial interest in the determination of the request, or among two or more components of the agency or agencies having substantial subject matter interest therein needed to coordinate the response with different sections in the department that have responsibility for the requested records. This search is essential to collect and appropriately examine the separate and distinct records which are demanded so that copies of the following documents containing the following information be provided to us by Responding Parties and ALL Related Parties seek disclosure of any records for the Plaintiff/Responding Party.East Bay Auto filed a Small claims action to try to collect $3,400 in back storage fees BUT their status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, they may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto Center, their owners, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto Center, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) As the defendant, we filed a cross complaint and may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.We asked that the court award ALL costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, other losses and damages, and monetary sanctions in an amount according to proof. The costs are well over $20,000 at present.
As we have always maintained and is proven by their bad faith fact pattern, this was ALWAYS an entrapment scheme designed to take possession of the truck with it’s contents and trigger civil/criminal actions knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. They are not acting alone!These requests are deemed to be continuing insofar as if any of the above is secured subsequent to the date herein for the production of same, said documents are to be provided to Defendant’s consistent within the applicable Rule of Civil Procedure.
This subpoena is not intended as a full or complete statement of all relevant demands, claims, facts or applicable law, and nothing herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my rights, remedies, claims or causes of action, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Please provide the records in an electronic format to: ajalil1234@gmail.com. Documents not in electronic format should be forwarded Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim below on or before the return date of this subpoena if you wish to comply voluntarily rather than appearing before the court.The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
Defendants the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Claims
Defendants/Requesting Party’s, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Harun al-Hakim-Miller, Patty Flenory, Jalil Omar al-Hakim, Bari al-Hakim-Williams, Joette al-Hakim-Hall, and their siblings; their affected entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth.org, eX-whY Adventures, their real and personal property, their real property including but not limited to 7633 Sunkist Drive, Oakland, CA  94605, their businesses and business property, their charities, their communities, the communities they serve, those that they serve, HAVE an on going claim against the Responding Parties Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles and Plaintiffs Shah Sons LLC,  DOING BUSINESS AS (DBA) East Bay Auto Center and Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, their alleged Asian investors, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Claims, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Appraisal Team (“State Farm”), Gary O’Donnell, or any of its employees or representatives including but not limited to Mary Weaver, Gary O’Donnell, Madison Ritter, Kaitlin Hampe, Samantha B, Lex, Kendra Behrens, Victor Walker, “Neg”, Karena Kelly-Guishard, Lexie Figueroa, each of their contractors Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, with each of their investors, their predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, divisions, each of their past or present officers, their previous and current directors, previous and current employees, agents, consultants, independent contractors, representatives, lobbyist, experts, private investigators, private security, past and current attorneys, partners, associates, investigators, witnesses, litigation opponents, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, others unnamed as Does One through One Hundred, et. at.
On January 30, 2024, at 3:25 pm I went to East Bay Auto at 21099 Mission Blvd., Hayward, CA 94541 for a Alameda County Sheriff’s Civil Stand By observed by Deputies Joshua Chavez #2287 and Collin Lenahan #2453 to pick up our truck and East Bay Auto Center REFUSED to release it claiming they are owed storage.
East Bay admitted in the presence of the two (2) Deputies, whom are percipient eye witnesses, 1) that they DO NOT have a contract with us in any capacity, 2) that they were paid $1,050 by the insurance company for storage, 3) that East Bay has had many other communications and agreements with the insurance company and their agents, 4) they have had communications and agreements which we were NOT privy to and do not have copies of, 5) East Bay had previously told me that they had an agreement with the insurance company for the storage, BUT revealed that they actually have a check and displayed it before the deputies, 6) they referred to their hand written policy posted on the wall that they charge storage 2 days AFTER the completion of any work performed.
They have NOT and will NOT perform any work on the truck and I will never sign any work order for same nor have we singed a release for them to be paid!
I am the person for the Service Process in this Plaintiff’s fraudulent claim and named as the Person of Interest in this fraudulent alleged Lien Sale denied on February 7, 2024 by the Department of Motor Vehicle filed by these same Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center.
Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center filed this claim March 13, 2024, and allegedly served it via U. S. postal mail from Hayward, California with postage meter dated Monday, May 20, 2024.
We received the mailed letter claim on Friday, May 31, 2024. Yet only FIVE (5) DAYS LATER, on March 19, 2024, plaintiff’s contacted AMWF and Abdul-Jalil by phone and reply email dated March 25, 2024 with invoice dated March 19, 2024 DISAVOWING AND REJECTING their claim and REQUESTING that we come and retrieve the truck AT NO COSTS!
On April 22, 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As a result, we do not have a total value of the scope of loss and damage to the truck therefrom. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago!
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroy the chain of custody!
We called the County Sheriff’s and made arrangements to meet them there for a truck theft/missing report on October 2, 2024. Once we met there, Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S THE LOCATION OF THE TRUCK, OR WETHER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AGAIN AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in several unsolicited emails to the court and Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey; Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711; and court administrator Chad Finke that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
Plaintiffs and Sheriffs have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to an unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
On November 2, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been returned to Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward with additional damage. Upon investigation, the truck has been further BURGLARIZED by the breach of the lock on the roll up door and the roll up door itself! THE DAMAGES ARE UNKOWN AND YET TO BE INVESTIGATED!
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION.
As reported of this date, East Bay STILL has the truck and REFUSES to release it to us unless and until we indemnify them from ALL liability for their civil and criminal charges of larceny, fraud, theft, damage, if the vehicle is stolen from them, etc., so they may be able to do or have done anything they choose to the vehicle and it’s contents without any possible consequences!
The truck was supposed to have been returned to defendants by March 7, 2024, BUT that DID NOT HAPPEN.
Now, the truck has been STOLEN, was burglarized, vandalized, is damaged, and East Bay has refused to allow the COUNTY SHERIFFS nor us to inspect the truck for a complete analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages, UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SIGN A WAIVER OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR SAME! We will NOT ever do that.
As you have been advised, East Bay Auto Center filed a Small Claims action against us for an additional $3,400 storage fees beyond the amount they settled with State Farm for. We have filed a Cross Complaint against them for undetermined costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, and other losses and damages, has cab damage that is 57 inches long stretching from the rear passenger side to start of the cab damage that is 6-8 inches wide through the corporate lettering, the truck is currently lodged 2 inches within and against the fence and CAN NOT be moved without causing MORE significant damage!
The truck was NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!
East Bay Auto Center is NOT currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair nor the Alameda County Business License AS A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY, thus they are NOT authorized to do business in the State of California and don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit. They, East Bay Auto Center, may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer.
We discovered that the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) has Shah Sons LLC, listed as the “owner” of East Bay Auto Center. That is also true for the Alameda County Business License although their license is invalid for failure to file and pay taxes and comply with a mandatory audit.
HOWEVER, Shah Sons LLC, HAS NOT REGISTERED NOR ARE THEY USING A DBA (DOING BUSINESS AS) for East Bay Auto Center with any Federal, State, or County governmental agency, NOT the IRS, California Secretary of State State, California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair nor the Alameda County Business License.
In order for East Bay Auto Center to legally exist AS A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY, they would have to file the proper documents with the IRS, California Secretary of State State, California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair and the Alameda County Business License, establishing Shah Sons LLC,  DOING BUSINESS AS (DBA) East Bay Auto Center. They have NOT done that even though they filed a Fictitious Business Name Statement with Alameda County.
Additionally, there are NO other REQUIRED means, NO INVOICES, NO ADVERTISEMENTS, NOTHING ON THEIR WEBSITE, that they comply with for the use of the legal name of the LLC- Shah Sons LLC, followed by the DBA- doing business as East Bay Auto Center. This practice clarifies the legal entity involved and maintain the LLC’s limited liability status. This ensures that the contracts are enforceable and that the LLC is recognized as the party to these endeavors.
If an LLC does not properly use its DBA, it operates under a DBA without using its legal name, it intentionally breaches the line between personal and business activities and loses the limited liability protection typically afforded to LLC members.This leads to “piercing the corporate veil,” where courts hold members personally liable for business debts and obligations, negating the primary benefit of forming an LLC. Courts have determined that the LLC is not a separate entity if it does not clearly identify itself, leading to personal liability for members.
Contracts should include clear liability clauses that outline the responsibilities and limitations of liability for the LLC. This can help protect the LLC from claims that may arise from business activities conducted under the DBA.
To maintain the limited liability protection of SHAH SONS LLC, it is crucial to keep personal and business finances separate. This includes using a dedicated business bank account and credit cards for all transactions related to the DBA- “Shah Sons LLC, doing business as East Bay Auto Center”. Open a dedicated business bank account for the LLC- Shah Sons LLC, that uses the legal name- “Shah Sons LLC, doing business as East Bay Auto Center”. This separation helps maintain the SHAH SONS LLC’s limited liability protection and simplifies financial management.
Given that EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) The defendant may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.
East Bay Auto has suspensions with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
We will ask the court to transfer the Small Claims action to Court of Competent Jurisdiction because we have no projected total of the costs, losses and damages to the truck that exceed the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to a court of competent jurisdiction.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
However, co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm are not acting alone as the ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s officers. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Sheriff’s Deputy Markita Sayles that she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES is PROOF of how POLICE FILE FALSE REPORTS, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, FIX THE CASE, COMMIT FRAUD to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto AFTER she:
1) admitted she talked with Law Enforcement Special Services resources twice to ascertain that she was proceeding in the correct manner according to their plan and her instructions. WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO CONSULT WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES TO TAKE AND FILE A SIMPLE, COMMON POLICE REPORT?,
2) East Bay Auto incriminated police admitting that they worked with police, are accomplishes, collaborators, were under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation or Abdul-Jalil,
3) The vehicle was ADMITTED stolen, burglarized, vandalized, fraud, larceny and damaged, BUT, BOTH policemen said “this is NOT a criminal matter, truck was not stolen”,
4) Dep. Sayles said she can’t inspect/process nor document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property, nor can Abdul-Jalil without the approval of their asset East Bay Auto,
5) Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times,
6) Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras,
7) Dep. Sayles said Abdul-Jalil didn’t answers her questions, BUT she NEVER asked basic questions as: Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, nothing on damage, suspects, the truck registration or VIN,
Dep. Sayles said Abdul-Jalil needed to go to court in order to get a police report, REFUSING TO TAKE A REPORT!, and
9) Dep. Sayles said it’s a civil matter 8 Times! NOT a criminal matter.
THIS VIDEO PROVIDES PROOF THAT SHERIFF’S DEPT. MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! Sayles “event/police report” states:

“RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”

Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, AND Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras! SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE!
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
The Entrapment Strategy is disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Abdul-Jalil, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties, the threats/demands for Payment of Storage, refusal to pay for a Rental vehicle, mitigating the continuing Loss of Use and Damages, and their illegal clandestine efforts to gain ownership of our truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US with the FRAUDULENT attempted East Bay Auto Lien Sale and REFUSAL to release our truck to defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.
Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation is going forward with Civil and Criminal Charges/Claims for Grand Larceny, Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Property Theft, Burglary, Vandalism, Extortion, Phone (Terrorist) Threats, Deception, attempted Grand Theft, Costs, Damages, Mitigating the Continuing Loss of Use, and Monetary Sanctions, among others with Federal and State Complaints filed against East Bay Auto and State Farm Insurance and served them both with Preservation-of-Evidence Demand Letter.
Additionally, with respect to any and all business operation regarding the defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation insurance policy and claim, and THE FACT that State Farm, their employees, their referenced agents, sub-agents, contractors, State Farm Claims, State Farm Appraisal Team, Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, and ALL known and unknown Third Parties have clearly “targeted” defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and using recognizable government entrapment tactics the latest of which was the refusal to release the truck and “lien sale” to gain ownership of their truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US! As a direct and proximate result of State Farm and their co-conspirators East Bay’s continuing actions, defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation is FORCED to make long term arrangements for the storage of the truck UNTIL STATE FARM PAYS FOR THE REPAIR AS AMWF PURSUES ALL OTHER REMEDIES!
Some Requests for Documents include:
61. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof of MARKITA SAYLES FILED A FALSE REPORT, LIED ABOUT ENTIRE POLICE REPORT, see: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
62. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof of MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! as Sayles her “event/police report” states “ RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
63. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof that Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
64. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof that Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
101. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED PHONE CALL TO DEFENDANTS, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
102. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Sheriff failure and refusal to investigate and file a report established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
103. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Sheriff failure and refusal to investigate and file a report established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
104. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
105. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
110. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfer with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
111. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfer with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
273. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to June 26, 2012, 50 page complaint regarding al-Hakim being accosted by the Sheriffs deputy stating “I have recently called and left messages as well as speaking to your clerk Elaine just last week regarding my desire to file several law suits as well as answering other matters that require the ability to file those required documents without the fear of being ambushed by the District Attorney’s office enforcers or the County Sheriff’s Department acting in their place and stead for other judicial entities. I have been precluded from any legal rights by virtue of this illegal, repressive censorship enacted by the DA’s office. This has gone on far too long and the legal consequences continue to mount as I am forbidden to pursue my civil rights in court without the oppression of the system by those in control of it. I want to and will file my law suits and go forward to resolution of these unprecedented matters in this public forum.” filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay.
274. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to January 7, 2014, 11 page letter, fax and email complaint in (ACDCSS) case number #0010274454-01 (previously listed as FSD #274454A) regarding “Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim being profiled, surveilled, identified, and targeted by the District Attorney and Sheriff’s Deputy, al-Hakim being accosted by Sheriffs Deputies and prevented from entering the Alameda Family Law Courthouse by County Sheriff’s who informed defendant that he must go to Judge Pulido’s courtroom to file the letter, that he would be handling this matter in Probate Court and defendants requesting security” filed with Winifred Smith- Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California; C. Don Clay- Supervising Judge, Superior Court of California; Stephen Pulido- Presiding Judge Family Law Court, Superior Court of California; and Judge Sandra Bean- Alameda Family Law Court, Superior Court of California.
289.  ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to plaintiffs July 11, 2018 hearing in the matters of al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371 and resultant complaint filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced in RE: “al-Hakim states “I have been in your courtroom over 20 times and I have never seen a deputy standing right behind the party during a hearing.” and you have THREE deputies in the courtroom right now!”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
290. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to the October 3, 2018 hearing, the resultant letter, fax and email Complaint filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced in RE: “Clay says “that’s normal, I may even have more!” al-Hakim says “for a civil ex-parte motion at 3:00 p.m.? I don’t believe that! Clay says ” It’s true”
297. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to the April 14, 2008 Complaint with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced therein the request for security against Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar RE: “when al-Hakim entered the courthouse building, the deputy at the metal detector called upstairs to the courtroom, Department 21 to inform them of his arrival in the building” filed with Victoria B. Henley, Director-Chief Counsel of the Sate of California Commission on Judicial Performance, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye- Supreme Court of California and Chair, Judicial Council of California, and Commission Judicial Appointments; Judge Phyllis Hamilton- Chief District Judge, U. S. District Court- No. Division; Alex Tse- Director, U. S. Attorney’s Office; Xavier Becerra- Attorney General of California; Victoria Henley-Director-Chief Counsel, Commission on Judicial Performance;  Martin Hoshino- Director, Judicial Council of California, Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge, former Presiding Court Judge George Hernandez and Alameda County Superior Court Administration.

These torts exposes the Responding Parties to the full array of tort remedies, including punitive damages on top of regular tort damages, for an insurance company’s unreasonable breach of an insurance contract.
Responding Parties engaging in the herein referenced Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” persecution to the detriment and oppression of Defendants, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, the communities they serve, and those they serve was both covert and overt, consisting of both actions and inactions of subterfuges and evasions that violated the obligation of good faith in performance with their continuing evasion of the spirit of the bargain, lack of diligence and slacking off, willful rendering of imperfect performance, abuse of a power to specify terms, and interference with or failure to cooperate in the other party’s performance.” (R. J. Kuhl Corp. v. Sullivan (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1589, 1602 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 425].)
As a direct and proximate result of Responding Parties actions, Defendant’s has suffered losses and damages, including but not limited to: 1) repair of their vehicle, 2) loss of use of the vehicle during the repair period, measured by the rental value of a similar vehicle, 3) loss of income due to the inability to use the vehicle for business purposes, 4) additional expenses incurred due to the inability to use the vehicle for personal and business purposes, emotional distress and inconvenience caused by the loss of use. As this matter is part of an ongoing action, defendants also has claims for 1) general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 2) for costs of suit incurred herein; and 3) for any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim at:
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation 
4200 Park Blvd., Suite 116 
Oakland, CA 94602 
Tel: 510-394-4501Respectfully, Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******     We received a voicemail for someone named Mary from State Farm claims inquiring into our moving the Truck from East Bay Auto Center.
    As reported of this date, East Bay STILL has the truck and REFUSES to release it to us unless and until we indemnify them from ALL liability for their civil and criminal charges of larceny, fraud, theft, damage, if the vehicle is stolen from them, etc., so they may be able to do or have done anything they choose to the vehicle and it’s contents without any possible consequences!
     The truck was supposed to have been returned to us by March 7, 2024, BUT that DID NOT HAPPEN.
      Now, the truck has been STOLEN, was burglarized, vandalized, is damaged, and East Bay has refused to allow the COUNTY SHERIFFS nor us to inspect the truck for a complete analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages,UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SIGN A WAIVER OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR SAME! We will NOT ever do that.
    As you ALL have been advised, East Bay Auto Center filed a Small Claims action against us for an additional $3,400 storage fees beyond the amount they settled with State Farm for. We have filed a Cross Complaint against them for undetermined costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, and other losses and damages, has cab damage that is 57 inches long stretching from the rear passenger side to start of the cab damage that is 6-8 inches wide through the corporate lettering, the truck is currently lodged 2 inches within and against the fence and CAN NOT be moved without causing MORE significant damage!
    The truck was NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!
    East Bay Auto Center is Not currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, thus they don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit.
    EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California. They may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer.
    Given that EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) The defendant may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.
    East Bay Auto has suspensions with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
    We will ask the court to transfer the Small Claims action to Court of Competent Jurisdiction because we have no projected total of the costs, losses and damages. losses and damages to the truck that may exceed the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and if so, request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to a court of competent jurisdiction.
    I base my request for the imposition of a sanction on the basis that it took me over 47 hours to research and locate the correct Plaintiff’s personnel, many phone calls, letters, emails and faxes in communication with the parties referenced herein, to research and prepare this motion, costs, and expenses according to proof. My discounted hourly wage is $350 per hour (from regular posted fee of $550/hour) for the 47 hours spent on this matter equals $16,450 alone.
    As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
    The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.    A FORMAL COMPLAINT WILL FOLLOW UNDER SEPARATE COVER.
    Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
    IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
    However, co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm are not acting alone as the ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s officers.
    This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Sheriff’s Deputy Markita Sayles that she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES is PROOF of how POLICE FILE FALSE REPORTS, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, FIX THE CASE, COMMIT FRAUD to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto AFTER she:
1) admitted she talked with Law Enforcement Special Services resources twice to ascertain that she was proceeding in the correct manner according to their plan and her instructions. WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO CONSULT WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES TO TAKE AND FILE A SIMPLE, COMMON POLICE REPORT?,
2) East Bay Auto incriminated police admitting that they worked with police, are accomplishes, collaborators, were under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist AMWF and Abdul-Jalil,
3) The vehicle was ADMITTED stolen, burglarized, vandalized, fraud, larceny and damaged, BUT, BOTH policemen said “this is NOT a criminal matter, truck was not stolen”,
4) Dep. Sayles said she can’t inspect/process nor document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property, nor can Jalil without the approval of their asset East Bay Auto,
5) Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times,
6) Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras,
7) Dep. Sayles said Jalil didn’t answers her questions, BUT she NEVER asked basic questions as: Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, nothing on damage, suspects, the truck registration or VIN,
Dep. Sayles said Jalil needed to go to court in order to get a police report, REFUSING TO TAKE A REPORT!, and
9) Dep. Sayles said it’s a civil matter 8 Times! NOT a criminal matter.
    THIS VIDEO PROVIDES PROOF THAT SHERIFF’S DEPT. MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! Sayles “event/police report” states:

“RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”

    Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, AND Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras! SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE!
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
    The Entrapment Strategy is to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- AMWF and Abdul-Jalil, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have PREPARED SUBPOENAS TO BE SERVED THIS WEEK ON ALL THE PARTIES REFERRENCED HEREIN that we have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties, the threats/demands for Payment of Storage, refusal to pay for a Rental vehicle, mitigating the continuing Loss of Use and Damages, and their illegal clandestine efforts to gain ownership of our truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US with the FRAUDULENT attempted East Bay Auto Lien Sale and REFUSAL to release our truck to AMWF.
    AMWF is going forward with Civil and Criminal Charges/Claims for Grand Larceny, Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Property Theft, Burglary, Vandalism, Extortion, Phone (Terrorist) Threats, Deception, attempted Grand Theft, Costs, Damages, Mitigating the Continuing Loss of Use, and Monetary Sanctions, among others with Federal and State Complaints filed against East Bay Auto and State Farm Insurance and served them both with Preservation-of-Evidence Demand Letter.
   Additionally, with respect to any and all business operation regarding the AMWF insurance policy and claim, and THE FACT that State Farm, their employees, their referenced agents, sub-agents, contractors, State Farm Claims, State Farm Appraisal Team, Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, and ALL known and unknown Third Parties have clearly “targeted” AMWF and using recognizable government entrapment tactics the latest of which was the refusal to release the truck and “lien sale” to gain ownership of their truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US! As a direct and proximate result of State Farm and their co-conspirators East Bay’s continuing actions, AMWF is FORCED to make long term arrangements for the storage of the truck UNTIL STATE FARM PAYS FOR THE REPAIR AS AMWF PURSUES ALL OTHER REMEDIES!     ALL THE PARTIES HEREIN ARE DEMANDED TO LODGE AND FILE THE REQUISITE COMPLAINT AND BEGAN THE MANDATORY INVESTIGATION PROCESS!

Respectfully,


Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******
Anti-SPAM Policy Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary to our company that is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.
This e-mail message was sent to you because you have previously corresponded with us and/or are subscribed to one of our emailing lists.
If you have received this communication in error, or this e-mail is unsolicited, please accept our apologies and at any time you would like to remove yourself from our mailings, please feel free to do so by clicking on “Unsubscribe“, or you can also notify the sender immediately and we shall delete your address, or replying to this message and type “Unsubscribe” in the subject line to remove yourself from our mailing list.
If you’ve received unsolicited email from one of our users, or if you suspect a user of abusing email services (or have any questions regarding our policies), please do not hesitate to contact us. Under Bill 1618 Title III passed by the 105th U. S. Congress, email cannot be considered Spam as long as it includes contact information and a remove link for removal from the mailing list.
We prohibit users from sending unsolicited email, and do not allow the use of third-party, purchased, rented, or harvested mailing lists. Anyone found abusing such email is banned from the use of our service.
Every complaint is investigated, and you will receive a response from our abuse team detailing the action we’re taking to deal with the issue.
Thanks in advance for you time.

—
Creating and Edvocating Relevant Social Service Programs Attachments:

EBAC AlaCo Sheriff Sanchez Compel Subpeona Prod Docs Dec:PA 5:18:25.pdf

392 KB

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

4200 Park Blvd., Ste. #One16, Oakland CA  94602
Phone  (510) 394-4101

Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation-KPFA Promotional Video:
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Kids Celebrity Gift BackPacks
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Free Food Program Celebrity Giving Back
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville KPFA Interview Video
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Alameda Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Entourage & Randy Holland in Trader Joe’s Pinole “Tribute to Legends of Jazz” Show
Santa Fe Elementary School’s Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, SemiFreddi’s, Trader Joe’s, Little Ceasar’s Pizza, Marshawn Lynch’s “Fam1ly F1rst” and Leon Powe’s “Fresh Start Oakland”
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 1
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 2
Abdul-Jalil Honored in Port Au-Prince, Haiti and Miami, Fla. for Relief Missions to Haiti
Linked In Profile on Abdul-Jalil
Thanks You from Arch Bishop Joel Jeune to Abdul-Jalil
Portrait of Abdul-Jalil by Artist Buford Delaney in Paris, France
Articles on Abdul-Jalil:  ABDUL-JALIL GENIUS- BOY WONDER!!MC Hammer Tribute to ABDUL-JALILKobe Supports AMWFEmanuel Steward on ABDUL-JALIL
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Maze Featuring Frankie Beverly and Marvin Gaye
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Khalid al-Mansour, President Barack Obama and Prince Al-Waleed
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Destiny and Marvin Gaye
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY HONORS ABDUL-JALIL Receives Certificate-of-Recognition for 2021-22 

Belal Salih Esa receives Posthumous Congressional Proclamation/Resolution for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from California Governor Gavin Newsom and the State Legislature for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from the Mayor, City Council and the Unified School District Board of Supervisors of the City of Albany for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)

Humanitarian Civil and Human Rights Achievements
ABDUL-JALIL- the First _SUPER AGENT_ Legal Black History Page 1
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 2
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 3
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law, Lecturor, Presenter, Marketing, Branding Page 4

Rihanna SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo
Dr. Dre SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo
The Man Who Turn$ Hit$ Into Million$, One Special Case,  ESPN Bostock 5th & Jackson TV Special Part 1, and Part 2,  ESPN Bostock Magazine Special, ESPN Magazine- The History and Mystery of The High Five,
the “al-Hakim Tax Code Ruling”, Smart Agent, Busy Agent,
Abdul-Jalil in Harvard University Law School Federal Tax Course Outline
Abdul-Jalil in Yale University Law School Federal Tax Course 13th Ed., Prof. Eric Zolt
Abdul-Jalil in Wake Forest University Law School “Islamic and Jewish Perspective On Interest”
Abdul-Jalil in Washington University Law School Tax CodeAbdul-Jalil in Washington & Lee University Law School Tax Code,Abdul-Jalil in University of Virginia Law School Tax Course
Award for “Distinguished Marketing and Promotional Services” from NFL Super Bowl NFL Experience,

---

You can click on any highlighted word to view or download that item

TO:  Steve Gordon, Joseph Chapman
        California Department of Motor Vehicles-DMV Legal Affairs Division
        Custodian of Records and Person Most Knowledgeable Does One through One Hundred
        2415 1st Avenue, MS C128
        PO Box 932382
        Sacramento, CA 95818-2606
        Fax: 916-657-6243


Sent via USPS mail and Emailed
Hearing Date: June 10, 2025, 9am, in Department 105 of the Alameda County Superior Court, Wiley W. Manuel Courthouse, 661 Washington Street, Oakland, CA 94607
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     June 2, 2025
NO PAGES:     2 pages
RE:        Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Video Taped Depositions for Patrick Dorais, Randall Phillips, the Custodian of Records, and Person Most Knowledgeable in Matter of East Bay Auto Center v. Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Case: #24SC067622; Hearing Date: June 10, 2025, 9am in Department 105 of the Alameda County Superior Court, Wiley W. Manuel Courthouse, 661 Washington Street, Oakland, CA 94607

Dear Steve Gordon, Joseph Chapman, Sonia Huestis, India Fayne, Marcela Sencion, Matthew Christy, the Custodian of Records, and Person Most Knowledgeable, et.al,;

    We are the defendant in the above case and have served you herewith attached this Defendant’s Motion to Compel compliance with the subpoena, the further Production of Documents and for Videotape Depositions to answer any question and to produce ALL documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible things under your control that is specified in the subpoena that will be accompanied by this notice and meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(b).)   This Motion is for the Production of Documents and Videotape Depositions by Steve Gordon, Joseph Chapman, Sonia Huestis, India Fayne, Marcela Sencion, Matthew Christy, the Custodian of Records, and Person Most Knowledgeable PERSONALLY TESTIFYING AND BRINGING ALL REQUESTED DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT HEARING SCHEDULED ABOVE FOR IN CAMERA EXAMINATION/INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE COURT. ALL THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS MUST BE PROVIDED IN TRIPLICATE AS COPIES FOR THE COURT, PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS.     We had hoped to get the responses to the subpoena and we are now forced to file Defendant’s motion to Compel compliance with the subpoena, the further Production of Documents and for Videotape Depositions to answer any question and to produce ALL documents, electronically stored information, and/or tangible things under your control that is specified in the subpoena that will be accompanied by this notice and meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(b).)     Defendant is moving for an order compelling you as the subpoenaed party to provide a complete and accurate privilege log and for an in camera inspection of the documents you have withheld from production in response to defendant’s subpoena request for Production, based on any objections or claims of privilege, in order to determine whether you are entitled to withhold those documents based on any claims.
    The motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030 and 2031 on the ground that YOU, as the subpoenaed party, have failed to comply with your discovery obligations and on the further ground that good cause exists to compel the further responses and production of documents sought by DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL YOUR FURTHER RESPONSES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BY YOU BASED ON ANY OBJECTIONS, CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE, and REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION IN DISPUTE, YOUR FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISPUTED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REASONS FURTHER PRODUCTION AND RESPONSES SHOULD NOT BE COMPELLED.
    If you have any objection, response or reply it should be made in the form of a properly noticed, served, and filed motion to the court.
    We are demanding ALL related costs and all fees for the Meet and Confer and Motion to Compel Responses to the Subpoena and Video taped depositions, sanctions, and request a contempt order and order a bench warrant for the arrest of those responsible as provided by California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.300 and others.


Respectfully,


Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
ajalil1234@gmail.com
510 394-4501

——– Message ——–

Subject:	CORRECTED CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM)
Date:	Tue, 26 Nov 2024 11:42:09 -0800
From:	A. J. <ajalil1234@gmail.com>
Reply-To:	ajalil1234@gmail.com
To:	Joseph.Chapman@dmv.ca.gov, PRArequest@dmv.ca.gov, Steve.Gordon@dmv.ca.gov, Sonia.Huestis@dmv.ca.gov, Matthew.Christy@dmv.ca.gov

TO:     Steve Gordon- Director
           Department of Motor Vehicles
           2415 1st Ave., Mail Station F101
           Sacramento, CA 95818-2606
cc: Mr. Chapman, Mr. Christy
sent via: U. S. Mail, and email                                  
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE:     November 25, 2024
RE:        CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) in East Bay Auto Center, Shah Sons LLC, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, Asian investors, and Does One through One Hundred, Plaintiffs, vs. Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Defendant,

Dear Director Gordon, Mr. Chapman, and Mr. Christy,
    Attached hereto please find aCORRECTED CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things in response to the court order (attached) for production of documents in the above referenced matter.    We CORRECTED the Motion section of the first page pleading from BAR to DMV. The rest of the document is the same.
    Mr. Gordon and Joseph Chapman-Legal Counsel, as the Custodian of Records you are NOT required to appear in person if within ten (10) days from the date of the serving of this request upon you, you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the “DEFINITIONS” Section as part of this attached affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271. (1) Place a copy of the records in an envelope (or other wrapper) where Documents produced shall be Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially. Enclose the original declaration of the custodian with the records. Seal the envelope. (2) Attach a copy of this subpoena to the envelope or write on the envelope the case name and number; your name; and the date, time, and place. (3) Place this first envelope in an outer envelope, seal it, and mail it to me at the address or email address (ajalil1234@gmail.com ) above. (4) The written response shall be served within ten (10) days of the service of this request.
SUBPOENA REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on Responding Party: Custodian of Records and Person Most Knowledgeable is used herein to refer to, and includes Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR), Patrick Dorais- Chief AND YOU are NOT required to appear in person if you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the declaration on page two or the attached declaration or affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with.As might be YOUR custom, you may provide responsive records in electronic format (i.e., text files that can be opened with any word processing software such as Word or TextEdit) or a searchable portable document file (PDF).
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.    These requests are deemed to be continuing insofar as if any of the above is secured subsequent to the date herein for the production of same, said documents are to be provided to Defendant’s consistent within the applicable Rule of Civil Procedure.
     This subpoena is not intended as a full or complete statement of all relevant demands, claims, facts or applicable law, and nothing herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my rights, remedies, claims or causes of action, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
     Please provide the records in an electronic format to: ajalil1234@gmail.com. Documents not in electronic format should be forwarded Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim below on or before the return date of this subpoena if you wish to comply voluntarily rather than appearing before the court.
     Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim at:
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation 
4200 Park Blvd., Suite 116 
Oakland, CA 94602 
Tel: 510-394-4501
Respectfully,
Abdul-Jalil