TO: Judge Carvill
Judge Markman
Judge Clay
René C. Davidson Courthouse
Superior Court of Alameda County
Department 1
Department 6
Department 15
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Fax: (510) 267-1567
Fax: (510) 891-6276
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
dept.15@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov
MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.govCase No.: RG18888371
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay being assigned this case for all purposes
Hearing: CMC
Hearing Date: May 24, 2018
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Rene C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Department 6
Faxed and Emailed
FROM: Abdul-Jalil
DATE: March 22, 2018
RE: Plaintiff’s Unavailability and Opposition to an Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding and CMC, Case No.: RG18888371.
Dear Judges Clay, Carvill, and Markman:
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.” Convict judge Freedman lives by and practices this credo today!
Herein is Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s opposition to an Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding.
I have searched the Register of Actions in this case and ALL other possible cases I have ever been involved in and found there is NO prior order from ANY court that deems me a vexatious litigant!
I did however find that there is a motion for same scheduled for Friday, April 6, 2018 as well as the CMC scheduled for Thursday, May 24, 2018.
This is notable because the defendants and the court has been on notice for over 30 years that I have a long standing conflict of schedules on Thursdays and Fridays.
I am NOT available on either April 6, nor May 24, 2018.
I am herewith requesting that the court continue those dates while I am available on any Monday or Wednesday even on April 4, 2018, at 10 AM since I will be in court that morning in another department and May 23, 2018.
While I have NOT been served any documents from anyone in this case and these issues have NOT been subject to any prior litigation, it is NOT possible that I could be deemed a vexatious litigant!
THIS MOTION SHOULD BE DROPPED IMMEDIATELY AND SANCTIONS ORDERED ON THE PARTY THAT FILED THIS FRIVOLOUS MOTION!
We will be presenting a motion to compel the answers to the summons, requests for production of documents and subpoena as we had intended to serve our first amended complaint AFTER receiving the responses that were due a month ago. The defendants have defaulted on both issues.
This is a complaint against my internet server host for Fraud, Negligence, Censorship, Misrepresentation, Defect in Product, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied 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, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices (UDAP), Unconscionability, California FDCPA (Rosenthal Act), Violation of Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), Elder Abuse, among others.
They are in a daily operation of mounting more and more damages as they have refused and failed to mitigate their damages from years of the above tortious actions!
The ONLY way I was aware of this is because I recently filed a fee waiver request for Reporters transcripts, Expert testimony, Jury Fees, after having been approved for a previous waiver.
I just received a notice of the waiver being denied citing my being deemed a Vexatious Litigant and a court motion pending for an alleged Vexatious Litigant proceeding.
I can’t tell from the signature who endorsed the denied waiver but it may be judge Carvill.
I have NEVER been deemed as such, NEVER received any such notice and am unaware of this pending process which needless to say is without ANY merit!
Who filed this motion, when, and what proof of service have they filed?
When is this motion being heard, in what department and by whom?
As mentioned in the denied request “What prior orders does the court have regarding this case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on this case when NOTHING has been filed in this case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants have defaulted on?”
This is a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on my litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in my cases.
How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a fee waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So am I 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??!!!
I have already opposed Judge C. Don Clay’s assignment to the above referenced case for all purposes in Department 6. Judge Clay sits on the Superior Court Appeals Division judiciary and I have two matters that are currently before that panel and he has much greater value there as opposed to hearing this matter. I would hate to think that this is just another example of the ongoing manipulation of the assignment of judges I my cases that I have brought to the attention of various authorities.
This matter was initially assigned on January 11, 2018 to Judge Stephen Kaus yet without any notice, appearances, rulings, or recusals, it was reassigned to judge Clay.
I have had numerous occasions to interact with Judge Clay over the years and in virtually every one it has been in regards to a complaint of judicial misconduct requesting an investigation that is part of the opinion rendered by Administrative Judge Lesley Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden that is at the heart of this opposition as it is center focus of the appeal referenced below. Judge Clay is tainted with information that would disqualify him from that interaction and I would NOT be comfortable with him acting in a judicial capacity in this case. In the complaints that were submitted to him, some complaining about him, he did nothing to respond to nor address the issues of the complaints, which suggest that he was simply complicit and participated in their cover up.
On one occasion he responded to a traffic warrant that was issued for my arrest by judge Tigar in the appeals division after I appealed a decision by judge Tabor whom proceeded not to respond to the appeal. After I requested the case be dismissed in the interest of justice six months AFTER the default and the Tigar warrant, judge Clay granted the dismissal.
In another matter in the appeals court, I had paid $315 in advance for a transcript that was critical to my case and the court reporters refused to prepare it. Without the transcript I was unable to present the major aspect of my case and it was dismissed for that reason. Judge Clay manage to have the court administration to refund only $280 of the prepaid $315 fee for the denied transcript.
I thank him for both those gestures as no one else has done anything similar even when they were demanded by law to do so.
However, Judge Clay sits on the Superior Court Appeals Division judiciary and I have two 
matters that are currently before that panel with discovery issues and one involves Presiding Court Judge Wynne Carvill wherein the discovery is directly related to the need for additional information and documents as ordered by Administrative Judge Lesley Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden. In judge Holland’s order/opinion he specifically refers to “criminal conduct”.
In Judge Holland’s DECISION RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE JENNIFER MADDEN. CCP §§ 170.1 and 170.3(c)1. Alameda Court Case No.: No.OCV-0574030; Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17, Filed April 11, 2017, he plainly states “Mr. al-Hakim’ s personal knowledge of these circumstances is not adequately demonstrated in his declaration.” and “Nowhere does al-Hakim offer competent evidentiary support”.
Holland discusses crimes that were committed, criminality, wherein he mentions various parties that have been named. This fact alone opens up discovery into those matters that he says are not and can not be contained in transcripts.
He writes in a footnote on page 4 of his decision of the challenge for cause of judge Madden:
“This alleged investigation in this case is described in broad terms in the Statement: “[Judge] Madden has been, is and will irrevocably tainted and will/must be a NAMED defendant, witness, and attorney with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office (DA) that is involved in these two, 30 year, ongoing legal cases and investigation by the U.S. and California State Attorney Generals involving the DA’s office and the Oakland City Attorney fraud that Nancy O’Malley, Kamala Harris, and Judge Kim Colwell is also named in that is directly involved in these same case attempting to be put before her to serve as judge and trier of fact in!” (Sic.) Statement, 3:25-4:4.”
On May 9, 2017, Judge Wynne Carvill issued an “Order for Stay Pending Appeal” pursuant to CCP §§ 916, and a Case Management Conference set for November 8, 2017.
It should be noted that al-Hakim has filed THREE (3) request for production of documents and subpoenas as well as SIX (6) Requests for Production of Documents, in various forms of under California Rules of Court 10.500, FOIA, Brown Act- California Public Records Act Request (PRA), and Ethics Complaints with NO RESPONSE on the Superior Court Administration, and the Judicial Council.
Just as important is the fact that Defendant, as the moving party, has the burden of establishing grounds for disqualification based on facts, that they know are not inscribed in the transcripts.
The most profound element that has come out of this is judge Holland’s comments as follows:
”Here, Mr. al-Hakim alleges a litany of serious misconduct or outright criminality – by persons other than Judge Carvill, He complains of past mistreatment by numerous judges (and at least one commissioner) apparently because they ruled against him in other cases as well as the instant case.
Al-Hakim’s attack is not limited to judicial officers. He accuses numerous other persons and agencies of serious wrongdoing.”
Judge Lesley Holland criminality comments portray perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
The Judicial disciplinary bodies have a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If Defendant somehow thinks his civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how is he going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give him a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Is Defendant suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?
As those discovery matters and cases move forward, I would NOT want to have them compromised by judge Clay being involved in this current case, or vice-versa.
On November 13, 2017, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim sent a fax and email as follows:
Judge Kevin R. Murphy- Dept. 10 Irwin J. Eskanos
Judge C. Don Clay- Dept. 6 4 Orinda Way, Suite 180 -C
Judge Michael M. Markman- Dept. 2 Orinda, CA 94563
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee- Dept. 18 FAX NO. (925) 791-1444
APPELLATE DIVISION Irwin@essventures.com
Superior Court of Alameda County myrna@theacsinc.com
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
KMurphy@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.10@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept6@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept2@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Judge Kevin R. Murphy Fax: 510-891-6276; Judge C. Don Clay Fax: 510-891-6276, Judge Michael M. Markman Fax: 510-263-4309, Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee Fax: 510-891-5304
Faxed and Emailed
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: November 10, 2017
NO PAGES: 5 pages
RE: Defendants Request to Formally Open Discovery in Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., MILLER VS HAKIM, Case: #OCV0574030, Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17
Dear Appellate Judges Murphy, Clay, Markman and Lee:
I am sending you ALL as well as plaintiff’s this fax and email to request that the court formally open discovery and formally recognize our discovery requests filed with the court in this matter.
Attached please find Defendants Request to Formally Open Discovery in Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., MILLER VS HAKIM, Case: #OCV0574030, Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17.
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501In that 5 page letter, I complained about the discovery issues pertinent to the cases here being compromised by Judge Colwell attempting to rule on these appeals matters in HER superior court. That includes the third party respondents attempted to being allowed NOT to respond to the request for production of documents and subpoenas. It even references the court administration removing the third parties from the docket and register of actions as if the never existed only to have to “admit error” when it became obvious that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff were caught and had subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
This fact was reported to Appellate Judges Murphy, Clay, Markman and Lee yet they did nothing!
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye Orders Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County
On Monday, January 22, 2018 the hearing scheduled on the Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Renewed Judgment and for Terminating Sanctions and other relief, and Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., in MILLER VS HAKIM, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #OCV0574030 was continued by the Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, to February 8, 2018, in Dept. 511 at 9:00 a.m.
The Chief Justice. She wrote:
“THE HONORABLE JOHN B. ELLIS, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, is hereby assigned to sit as a Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, on the following date(s):
January 8, 2018 To February 8, 2018.
and until completion and disposition of any specific open motion or other matter pending in a case before the judge at the time the assignment ends. Any further motions or other matters in the case may be heard only pursuant to a separate appointment order.
Dated: January 8, 2018”
This essentially amounts to a Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County which al-Hakim OPPOSES because it does NOT hold the corruptors and abusers accountable for their continued actions! This is merely a inconvenient way out for them!
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!
However, on January 23, 2018 Judge Colwell issued an Order calendaring the Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment, Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions (See Colwell’s Order under Ex “B”, page 2) as follows:
“ORDER (1) PLACING MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT BACK ON CALENDAR AND (2) STATING COURT’S UNDERSTANDING OF EFFECT OF ORDER OF 1/11/18.
On 1/31/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion for terminating sanctions. This was set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 10/11/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion to compel discovery. These were set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 12/13/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a challenge to Judge Krashna. On 1/8/18, the Chief Justice assigned the challenge to Judge Ellis in Solano County. On 1/18/18, Judge Ellis issued his decision.
ORDER
The court ORDERS that the motion of al-Hakim to vacate and set aside the judgment under CCP 473 is PLACED ON CALENDAR for 2/8/18. It appears that the court somehow dropped the matter and never decided the motion. The court may correct its ministerial errors. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 181, 185; Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1199,1204.)
The court ORDERS that its understanding of the 1/8/18 order of the Chief Justice is that the order assigned the challenge of Judge Krashna to Judge Ellis in Solano County but did not assign all pending motions to Judge Ellis. There was no request to assign all motions to an out of county judge. Judges in the Superior Court, Alameda County, will continue hearing the motions in this case.”
The order was dated January 23, 2018 and the proof of service was filed and mailed on January 29, 2018.
Additionally, there were orders issued January 24, 2018 by Colwell both the same day and proof of service was the same day January 29, 2018 calendaring the Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions.” This effort on behalf of Colwell is another “power grab” in an effort to conceal and further cover up that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Even though she had NO authority to administer, rule, or decide the case until AFTER February 8, 2018, on February 6, 2018 Colwell issued a tentative ruling in the case, I opposed that tentative ruling the same day, she held my ex-parte hearing February 7, 2018, to continue the matter and I was granted that continuance to February 26, 2018. She totally usurped the power of the Chief Justice and independently determined the outcome of the matters properly before Judge Ellis alone!
The hearing resulted in Judge Colwell “granting” my motion to vacate and set aside the renewed judgment after a 22 year struggle for justice! But it is a pyrrhic victory as she did NOT award fees, costs, sanctions as plead, but attempted to dismiss the discovery aspects of the case as “moot” since the case is over! She did this because the discovery is directly related to the need for additional information and documents as by ordered by Judge Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden. In his order/opinion he specifically refers to “criminal conduct” on behalf of Judge Colwell that she nows seeks to award herself a “plea bargain with a get-out-of-jail-free card!”. I opposed the ruling and it is scheduled to be heard on Monday, February 26, 20018 in department 511.
The tragedy of how these motions were continuously and mysteriously “dropped” from the calendar even AFTER SEVEN complaints, is subject of the corruption investigation right now and is a reason that the Chief Justice took the case away from Colwell and her court administration to begin with! Judge Ellis upon his review was taken aback when he reviewed this case as there was NO logical reason why this has continually happened in al-Hakim’s cases.
Manipulative Judicial Assignments
al-Hakim knows that Clay “was not only a new judge but also had views indicating … that he would be overly impressioned by Carvill, Markham, Freedman, Jacobson, Rolefson and the Superior Court cartel.” al-Hakim is concerned someone may have improperly arranged for the transfer of the case to that judge in order to insure a continuum of Freedman’s wrath as opposed to al-Hakim receiving a fair trial that he might receive before a different judge of the superior court. Cleary Grillo lacks the appearance of fairness and al-Hakim seeks to be heard by a judge whose impartiality and fairness toward him cannot reasonably be questioned.
In one case Judge Grillo and Petrou declared the “Peremptory Challenge is denied because a peremptory challenge to Judge Paul D. Herbert was accepted and once a peremptory challenge has been accepted, the party that filed the peremptory challenge may not file another, CCP section 170.6(a)(4)”.
Judge Paul D. Herbert was NOT eligible for peremptory challenge because was irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action as he has been, is and will be a defendant, witness, attorney and partner of the law firm of Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley PC that is directly involved in this same case attempting to be put before him to serve as judge and trier of fact in! While Herbert was an attorney and partner at Ropers, they served as defense counsel for CSAA in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau. et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 811337-3, and in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 821885-2, where the defendants were represented by the law firm of Willoughby, Stuart & Bening and where Ropers were the hostile intervener for CSAA where he directly participated in the unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains from their fraud. There is currently a $600,000 lien by Ropers and CSAA as part of their unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains on the same property in question here damaged by EBMUD!
Both Presiding Judge Morris Jacobson and the Supervising Judge Jon Rolefson knew he was disqualified from consideration even for a peremptory challenge and he can NOT just arbitrarily “accept” a peremptory challenge, that’s illegal and designed to exhaust al-Hakim’s challenge, while denying his right to a fair trial, due process and clear violation of his civil rights! By doing so, she attempts to eliminate the challenge as it pertains to Petrou.
This is the second time this “manipulative judge assigning” tactic has been employed by the Superior Court Administration, the Presiding and Supervising Court Judges of assigning case to judges that they know are conflicted, tainted, bias and prejudice such that they could not survive any challenge for cause in order to force al-Hakim to waste a peremptory challenge then assign the tainted judge of their intended choice.
al-Hakim has already stated that both that Presiding Judge Jacobson and the Supervising Judge Rolefson will continue to violate the local court’s policy against bias, and prejudice.
Absent their disqualification, these judges and their colleagues on the Superior Court will assure that retaliatory reassignment occurs in plaintiff’s case in order to attempt to extend their cover-up of discriminatory animus against plaintiff. That has now happened with the assignment of the case to Petrou after Herbert while aiding Judges Petrou, Clay, Carvill, Herbert Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains!
Judge Petrou after Herbert’s assignment to this case coupled with Freedman’s actions along with Judges Jacobson and Rolefson 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.
Judges Petrou, Herbert, Jacobson, Rolefson, the Superior Court, and Judicial Council with Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!
al-Hakim KNOWS that unless this process is transparent and ALL the herein mentioned
judicial officials are impartial and unbiased, former Presiding Alameda County Superior Court Judges Yolanda Northridge, Barbara J. Miller, George Hernandez, Winifred Smith, C. Don Clay, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Paul Herbert and Judge Jon Rolefson, with Stephen Brick, Kim Colwell, and retired Judges David Lee, Richard Hodge and Michael Ballachey; former U.S. Attorneys Joe Russoniello, Melinda Haag; the U. S. and California State Attorney Generals, the U. S. Federal District Courts Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken, Thelton E. Henderson, Jon Tigar; California Court of Appeal -First District, Presiding Judge Barbara J. R. Jones, Judges Kennedy, James Richman, Henry Needham, Susan Graham, Mary Quilez, Diana Herbert, Dick Sandvick; the California Courts of Appeal -First District, Alameda Superior Court Appeals Division- Mrs. Johnson-Cannon Appeals Clerk, Nancy Adams, Anita Lippman, Ruby Atwall, and ALL former and current employees; The California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; Victoria Henley, Chad Finke, Yvette Trevino, Bernadette Torivio and; The California Judges Association, Ronald G. Overholt, these judges and their colleagues in the Courts will assure that retaliation occurs in al-Hakim’s cases in an attempt to extend their cover-up of discriminatory animus against him.
Perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
The Judicial disciplinary bodies handed judge Tigar a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If I somehow think my civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how am I going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give me a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Am I suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?
I have sent this notice via fax and email to the following parties:
dept.14@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
MMarkham@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, fax: 510-267-1567, 510-891-6276, Interserver Inc, Equinix (US) Enterprises Inc, Michael Lavrik,
mike@interserver.net, John Quaglieri,
john@interserver.net, fax: (201) 526-6605, Anna Hsia, fax: (415) 636-5965,
anna@zwillgen.com,
kmostofizadeh@equinix.com,
bgalvin@equinix.com.
CONCLUSION
I request that this charade of vexatious litigant motion be dismissed and judge Clay recuse himself from this case and address the appeals issues presented as I have many unanswered questions for this court and Judges Carvill, Clay, Grillo, Jacobson, Rolefson, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution I, my family, businesses, and communities we serve continue to suffer at your individual and collective gavels.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: March 19, 2018
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff
