TO: Judge Michael Markman Judge Kim Colwell
Judge Wynne Carvill Judge Jeff Brand
Judge Kim Colwell Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Jon Rolefsen Departments 511 and 507
Judge Evelio Grillo Hayward Hall of Justice
Judge Morris Jacobson 24405 Amador Street
Judge C. Don Clay Hayward, CA 94544
Judge Winifred Smith FAX #: 510-690-2824
Judge Yolanda Northridge
Judge Stephen Pulido
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee
Judge Kevin R. Murphy
Superior Court of Alameda County
Departments 1, and 511
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
, KMurphyalameda.courts.ca.gov, JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Chad Finke Xavier Becerra
Executive Officer Attorney General of California
Superior Court of California 1300 I Street, Suite 125
County of Alameda P.O. Box 944255
1225 Fallon Street Room 209 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Oakland, CA 94612 FAX No.: (916) 324-8835
Fax: 510-891-6276 Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Martin Hoshino Victoria B. Henley
Director Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586 FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments 350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102 Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205 Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Alex Tse Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse 6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue 1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102 Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234 FAX No.: 415 522-3605
“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3 “The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”
Faxed and Emailed
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: July 31, 2018
NO PAGES: 8
RE: Immediate Injunction and Opposition to Assigning case to Magistrate Judge, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Kim Colwell, Case: #18-cv-04408-DMR, Donna M. Ryu- Magistrate Judge
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
This fact is live and well in this complaint as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markham and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, and Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:
On July 23, 2018, I served and filed an 8 page letter to Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton, Claudia Wilken, Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu and Clerk Susan Y. Soong for an Immediate Injunction and Opposition to Assigning case to Magistrate Judge, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Kim Colwell, Case: #18-cv-04408-DMR.
This case, al-Hakim v. Judge Kim Colwell, case: #18-cv-04408-DMR, was assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu, but due to the history of this and the associated underlying cases and the many, many related complaints filed with and against (Judge Jon Tigar whom then Presiding Alameda County Superior Court Judge Yolanda Northridge ordered an investigation of) the Chief Justices and the other Justices of the court, it would totally inappropriate and unfair to have this matter adjudicated by a Magistrate Judge. For that reason I will NOT consent to having this matter heard by Judge Donna Ryu and my consent form denying same is attached.
As the case is filed therein, I am seeking an immediate preliminary and permanent injunction preventing underlying Defendants CSAA- Wellpoint from having an auction for the sale of my home scheduled for July 27, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. on the Alameda County courthouse steps in Oakland, California by the County Sheriffs. This aspect of the case demands immediate attention.
I seek this Court’s order for an immediate preliminary and permanent injunction on the grounds that Judge Colwell’s committing over 6 MAJOR Constitutional Violations of my rights and prejudiced me as my family, business and I am suffering from those actions wherein the order for the sale violates my right to due process and civil rights CAUSING IRREPARABLE HARM as Judge Colwell’s action to continue presiding over and ruling on the merits of the issues presented AFTER she had been properly served a valid peremptory challenge and a challenge for cause, and NOT answering the challenges nor referring the matter to another judge BEFORE ruling on the issues presented is prejudicial misconduct, voids the judgment orders, her order striking the challenge was defective as it did NOT addressed the peremptory challenge and thus precious judicial resources have been wasted by the judge issuing void rulings that would have to be relitigated.
Colwell has willfully and repeatedly abused her discretion and she should never be allowed to pass upon her own disqualification for abusing that discretion. (1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Courts, § 89, p. 362; 1983 supp., § 89, pp. 282-283.)
If Defendants and Judge Colwell are permitted to proceed with the sale, an uncontested conflict of interest, it will do immediate and irreparable injury to the personal and business property and rights of the plaintiffs to have their dispositive motions heard before an impartial judge, or at least their right to the appearance of justice in their proceeding. Judge Colwell proceeded to dispose of plaintiff’s case before her disqualification was effectuated.
An injunction is authorized and is entirely discretionary upon a showing that (1) the petitioner would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction; (2) any such harm outweighs the harm to the respondent from granting the injunction; and (3) the case raises substantial questions. This shows at least that it raises substantial questions and if the sale is NOT enjoined it would end this litigation robbing appellant of his day in court and being made whole from his loss and damages.
Additionally, I have a case pending in Alameda County Superior Court, al-Hakim v. EBMUD, Case No.:RG14740943 that stems from an EBMUD water main that runs the length of my property in Oakland, California, broke sending thousands of gallons water and mud containing microbial, environmental and hazardous or hazardous causing bacteriological and other biological agents onto, into and around my home and property from 1:00 AM to 8:30 AM resulting in over $1.75 million damage. Again, if the sale is NOT enjoined it would end this litigation as well robbing appellant of his day in court and being made whole from his loss and damages.
This is a civil rights action demanding declaratory and injunctive relief with monetary and punitive damages from the Alameda County Superior Court and Judge Kim Colwell for depriving the me, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, in his cases 1) al-Hakim vs. CSAA, Alameda County Superior Court case#: C-811337; and al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries, Alameda County Superior Court case No. 821885-2; 2) California Judicial Council Administration Assignment Appeal case#: 1050144-17, 3) Miller vs. al-Hakim, Alameda County Superior Court case#: OCV0574030, of his civil rights as this matter is of the character which the principles of United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, and XIV, as adopted by the Due Process Clause, protect.
I insists the course of proceeding be specifically fair under the letter of the code, and any suitable process or mode of proceeding be adopted which is most conformable to the spirit of the code that reflects “the court as an impartial forum for the determination of truth”, that “a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial” and “how his participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street.”( Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co., supra, 609 F.2d at p. 1111; accord United States v. Ferguson, supra, 550 F.Supp. at p. 1260.) ( Code Civ. Proc., § 187.) Illustrative is the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co. (5th Cir. 1980) 609 F.2d 1101, 1111 [54 A.L.R.Fed. 825]: “Use of the word ‘might’ in the statute was intended to indicate that disqualification should follow if the reasonable man, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” (See also, e.g., United States v. Ferguson (S.D.N.Y. 1982) 550 F.Supp. 1256, 1260 (“whether a reasonable member of the public at large, aware of all the facts, might fairly question the Court’s impartiality”).) It represents a legislative judgment that due to the sensitivity of the question and inherent difficulties of proof as well as the importance of public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable man would entertain doubts concerning the judge’s impartiality, disqualification is mandated. “To ensure that the proceedings appear to the public to be impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of the objective person.” ( In re United States, supra, 666 F.2d at p. 694; see also Matter of Searches Conducted on March 5, 1980 (E.D.Wisc. 1980) 497 F.Supp. 1283, 1290.)
For OVER 20 years I have had to file many complaints with U. S. Federal District Court Chief District Judges Phyllis J. Hamilton, former Chief Judge Claudia Wilken, and Thelton E. Henderson involving the Judges and Superior Courts many indiscretions and very serious criminal charges with regards to the actions of the Oakland City Attorney’s Office, the law firm of Meyers Nave with Jayne Williams, Kim Colwell and Kim Drake among others; Ron Cook and the law firm of Willoughby Stuart & Bening; Stephan Barber and the law firm of Ropers Majeski participation in the orchestration of defendants Rescue Rooter and Bay Area Carpet’s defense.
The complaints involve Judicial and Superior Court court corruption with the harassment I continue to experience in the courts retaliation against me by harassing me and taking adverse judicial actions against me, in major part because I have filed these complaints and reported the very obvious agenda of Colwell and other judges Fixing Cases against me because I am Muslim, Black, and 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; and the corruption with the Superior Court Clerk’s administration mishandling of motions with them being mis-entitled or changing the title of motions as filed, calendared unwanted motions without notice or cause, calendared motions without notice, motions being dropped from the calendar without notice, parties missing from rulings without notice or cause, parties being removed without notice or cause, changing orders, changing tentative rulings, calendaring motions that were NOT requested, posting tentative rulings AFTER the scheduled hearing time, deleting items from the register of actions, and falsifying the record (for appeal), are VERY SERIOUS threats to the Rule of Law as practiced by the acceptable courts in America! Colwell and other judges and the court clerks have ignored the rule of law, undermined public safety and compromised the justice system by fabricating, altering, manipulating, and tampering with the record have actually prevented the orderly administration of justice. As Faretta recognized, the record can only be read as an attempt to abuse the dignity of the courtroom and impugn the integrity of the rule of law as their actions “deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct” (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46. at pp. 834-835, fn. 46 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581, fn. 46]) that threatens to subvert the core concept of a trial.
Judge Colwell has been, is and will be a NAMED defendant, witness, and conspirator from her work as attorney and partner of the law firm of Meyers Nave.
Colwell’s clients Retired Judges David Lee, Michael Ballachey, and Richard Hodge, though they live in three different counties, all coincidentally hired the same Oakland defense firm, Meyers Nave, run by former Oakland City Attorney Jayne Williams whom was responsible for providing the files to the defendants for 18 months initially, fabricating and planting that evidence in the case files that was then given to Colwell’s client Judge Lee for trial. Judge Colwell, then the partner and attorney at Meyers Nave handled the requested depositions and investigation concerning retired Judges Lee, Ballachey, and Hodge, thereby actively participating in the continued cover up of the admitted crimes of all those involved.
For years al-Hakim had engaged in protracted litigation activities with Colwell, her managing law partner at Myers Nave, Jayne Williams, Kim Drake, and others regarding these herein referenced issues. They ALL were and are a defense counsel, defendant, percipient eye witness, and conspirator with an irreparable conflict!
Colwell, the firm of Meyers Nave, run by former Oakland City Attorney Jayne Williams is directly involved in the herein mentioned crimes as Colwell obtained intimate knowledge and information regarding disputed evidentiary facts known to defense counsel and the judges she represented for years as Colwell served as defense counsel for three retired judges in this CSAA case; participated in their preparation and defense litigation strategy regarding their subpoenas; communicated with plaintiff al-Hakim regarding same; served as defense counsel for those judges while working as a law partners at Myers Nave with managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case files; wherein Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams- while Oakland City Attorney- gave the case files to CSAA lead defense counsel for 18 months; Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case file gave them to then Judge David Lee- Colwell’s client- for the CSAA trial without informing the court that the defendants had custody of the case files for 18 months breaking the chain of custody; Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case file was evidence that related to the contamination of al-Hakim’s home; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware of the fabricated and planted evidence and that it related to the contamination of al-Hakim’s home; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA intervened into the underlying Rescue case in violation of the law AFTER her client Judge Lee had dismissed them when they presented a fabricated order allegedly signed by her client Judge Richard Hodge; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA intervened into the underlying Rescue case in violation of the law AFTER her client Judge Lee had dismissed them when they presented a fabricated order allegedly signed by her client Judge Richard Hodge; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that the fabricated and planted evidence was the ONLY evidence presented at trial by CSAA; participated in CSAA’s preparation and defense litigation strategy regarding their involvement with the fabricated and planted evidence, chain of custody of City of Oakland case files, CSAA fabricated Hodge’s order; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA constructed fraudulent fabricated evidence in 1999 and planted that evidence favorable to the defendants in the files SIX years AFTER the case was closed; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA engaged in spoliation of remaining evidence in the court files from 1991; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA fostered witness testimony based on this planted evidence in the al-Hakim v CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that the fraudulent fabricated evidence was created thru EXTRINSIC FRAUD with accompanying testimony procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious acts; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they engaged in actions to destroy the litigation of al-Hakim’s legal case; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they engaged in actions to coverup their unlawful acts; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they committed, aided and abetted this criminal activity with this unpardonable breach in the chain of custody of the court files to accommodate the defendants litigation strategy in both the CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case.
The many other claims including abuse of discretion, gross misconduct, conduct prejudicial, gross negligence, bias, the subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony charges are inextricably intertwined with the truthful testimony and conduct of the named retired Judges Lee, Hodge and Ballachey; Defendant’s and their attorneys, agents, witnesses and experts; CSAA and their attorneys, agents, witnesses and experts; Ron Cook and Willoughby Stuart & Bening and their attorneys, agents, witnesses and experts; and the City of Oakland Attorneys’ office, suggest that all documents, notes, meetings and conversations with and of the respective judges, witnesses, experts, defendants and counsels are admissible as to these charges for which there is no impunity.
The legal implications of how important is it to the integrity and validity of the proper adherence to the “rule of law”, justice, the investigation and analysis of high profile crimes that Judge Colwell, the finder of fact, is in fact guilty of corruption, collusion, conspiracy, extrinsic fraud, breaching the chain of custody giving the case files to defendants for over a year, fabricating evidence, planting fabricated evidence in case files and providing that spoliated case file to the courts without informing the court!
Subsequently, the witness testimony and evidence that was procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious testimony by them and the defendants, they engaged in actions to interfere with their client and litigant’s legal case, engaged in actions to coverup the unlawful act of suborn and solicited perjurious testimony, committed fraud upon the court of the State of California, aided and abetted criminal activity, committed willful, criminal and corrupt perjury, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, conspiracy, subornation of perjurious testimony and solicitation of perjurious testimony, fraudulent concealment, spoliation of evidence with the City of Oakland, their unpardonable breach in the chain of custody of the court files, has committed patterned willful, criminal, and corrupt deception and fraud upon the court, extrinsic fraud, spoliation of evidence with the disappearance of court records.
The trial before Judge Dacid Lee ended with Lee instructing the jury “not to consider the entire testimonies of ALL the defendants, their witnesses, experts and legal counsels to be due to the perjurious testimony given by ALL the defendants witnesses” on the fabricated and planted evidence that was denied at the end of her client retired judge David Lee and stating this was grounds for a new trial.
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL BY THE DEFENDANTS CSAA WAS THE FABRICATED NOTES PLANTED IN THE CITY OF OAKLAND CASE FILE BY COLWELL’S MANAGING PARTNER AT MEYERS NAVE, JAYNE WILLIAMS AND GIVEN TO JUDGE TIGAR AND HER CLIENT JUDGE DAVID LEE AT TRIAL fostered the perjurious testimony given by the defendants witnesses that was denied at the end of her client retired judge David Lee’s trial was the ONLY evidence provided at trial by defendants CSAA in their case before judge Jon Tigar.
The CSAA insurance case, Plaintiff was away attending TWO (2) funerals with previous court permission to do so from Judge Tigar and noticing the court five times of the funerals BEFORE attending, and Tigar took advantage of the opportunity and decided the cases in my absence! It should be noted that Tigar ADMITTED TWICE THAT HE HAD COMMITTED SUCH EGREGIOUS ERRORS THAT THE THEY DEMANDED A MISTRIAL, WHICH PLAINTIFF DECLARED AS WELL. I acknowledge that this fact is a major factor in Tigar deciding the case in my absence as an attempt to evade the many legal transgressions he committed during the case.
This current CSAA-Wellpoint case is the current $600,000 lien on the property being executed on for collection by Ropers and CSAA as part of their unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains from Plaintiff’s insurance law suit against them! This case was decided while Plaintiff was away attending TWO (2) funerals with previous court permission!
NOW WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH THE SAME MATTER BEFORE COLWELL TO ADJUDICATE AND ACT AS DEPUTY DEFENSE COUNSEL TO EARN HER COMPENSATION WITH THIS RULING FROM THE BENCH!!!
Colwell had NO defense nor answers to the undisputed, uncontroverted facts and evidence of her involvement in the illicit issues raised in the First and Second Challenge that SHE DOES NOT DENY, JUST WANTS TO IGNORE THEM AWAY as NONE of them are allegations and conclusions unsupported by specific references to evidence!! Colwell is guilty of perjury again, lying by omission! Does she deny working with the three retired judges in this very same CSAA case she has now attempted to rule the final death blow to al-Hakim by granting defendants Order to Show Cause Cause for Sale of Dwelling!
For these reasons, and because Judge Colwell is a material, percipient eye witness concerning her conversation, communication, correspondence, actions with her clients, partners, co-workers, employees, defendants, and experts, contend that Judge Colwell must be disqualified for cause pursuant to section 170.1, subdivision (a)(1) (the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts) and (a)(6) (a person aware of the facts reasonably might entertain a doubt whether the judge would be able to be impartial). An example of disqualification for personal knowledge is found in People v Avol (1987) 192 CA3d Supp 1, 6, 238 CR 45 (judge’s ex parte inspection of property violated defendant’s right to controvert evidence, but did not violate due process right or require reversal given overwhelming evidence and complete lack of showing of prejudice that might have required recusal).
This fact alone is perhaps the single most important reason why yourselves and Victoria Henley, the many former and present Presiding and Supervising Alameda County Superior Court Judges, Appellant Court Judges and Supreme Court Judges, heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in this case, has been so derelict in doing so, and because you are ALL 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 would bring all of their cases under scrutiny, opens the way to legally being overturned and 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!
As a direct and proximate result of Colwell’s WILLFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY committing 6 MAJOR Constitutional Violations of Plaintiff’s rights and Prejudices Plaintiff suffered herein, these are a clear denial of al-Hakim and his Family’s rights under the United States and California State Constitution, among others, and proves where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate plaintiff’s rights and there are also uncontroverted rights violations under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085; on the ground of misconduct, prejudicial misconduct, bias, and prejudice in violations of Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.0-170.6; 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), §170.4(a)-(3) and 170.6; 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; California Constitution, Article VI, §§ 8, 18; see Cal. Code Judicial 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 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).
The court’s denying al-Hakim’s rights thereto in defiance of the law implicates the fundamental issues of violating his right to due process and civil rights AND CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO HIS CASE. The court has let their personal convictions interfere with the duty to be scrupulously fair as the exclusive trier of fact. There is no question that Judge Colwell has repeatedly violated this tenant of fairness.
Judge Colwell’s presence in this case summarily denied al-Hakim’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing such a ruling and places an intolerable burden on him, denying his legitimate and undeniable rights and strikes at the heart of his fundamental civil rights and due process under the law, guaranteed by the United States Constitution and California Constitution. No statute in California authorizes the court to deny a right that is uncontroverted while in the process denying such precious fundamental rights of due process and justice. The use of judicial power to permit such injustice raises significant legal questions, and an order from this Court is necessary to prevent this abuse.
The court MUST review this letter and issue an order for an injunction prohibiting the scheduled sale of my home immediately!
You are ALL being served and I will file this letter with the courts.
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.