Month: August 2018

TO:   Judge Michael Markman        Judge Kim Colwell
Judge Wynne Carvill                       Judge Jeff Brand
Judge Kim Colwell                           Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Jon Rolefsen                         Departments 511 and 507
Judge Evelio Grillo                           Hayward Hall of Justice
Judge Morris Jacobson                  24405 Amador Street
Judge C. Don Clay                           Hayward, CA 94544
Judge Winifred Smith                      FAX #: 510-690-2824
Judge Yolanda Northridge
Judge Stephen Pulido
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee
Judge Kevin R. Murphy
Superior Court of Alameda County
Departments 1, and 511
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.507@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KMurphyalameda.courts.ca.gov, JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov, YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
Chad Finke                                      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
cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov    Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@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
Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov           Victoria.Henley@jud.ca.gov
John.Wordlaw@jud.ca.gov
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye           Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California         Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments                 350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                               San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                          Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205        Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Alex Tse                                          Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                     Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                   U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                       6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue             1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102             Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234              FAX No.: 415 522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                       Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                  Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov
“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”
bcc
Mailed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     August 24, 2018
NO PAGES: 125 attachment
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Charges of Impropriety with Judge Evelio Grillo in the matters of al-Hakim v. EBMUD, Case: #RG14740943, and al-Hakim v. AT&T Inc., Case: #RGl7881130; and VERY SERIOUS blatant court administrative “errors”.
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:
PLAINTIFF ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM’S 125 page STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THIS COMPLAINT AGAINST HONORABLE JUDGE EVELIO GRILLO AND OTHERS  FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL AND SATE LAWS FOR PEREMPTORY BIAS CHALLENGE and 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; First, Fifth, Sixth, Eight and Fourteenth 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);
TO THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL:
COME NOW THE PLAINTIFF with his 125 page complaint against Judge Evelio Grillo and others listed herein, pursuant to the herein referenced 68 violations under United States and California State Constitution (United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, VIII, XIV, For Violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Under Color Of State Law; Section 1983).
This action is based on the matters contained herein, on the United States and California State Constitutional rights and on this document of plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim and filed herewith.
The cases and hearings, which involves a contested issues of law or fact, and which had been assigned to Evelio Grillo, Judge of the above-entitled Court, should NEVER have been assigned and no matters hereinafter arising be heard or assigned to Judge Evelio Grillo, on the ground that said judge is irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff.
Grillo does not provide any answers to the First Six (6) Challenges served on him because he can’t afford to incriminate himself until finally he has decided NOT to answer the fifth Challenge at all, thereby consenting to the Challenge. I incorporate that entire challenge herein until such time as he answers the challenge!
The above-entitled matters which has been reassigned to Stephen Kaus, Judge of the above-entitled Court, wherein plaintiff requested that at least one of the cases be reassigned from that Judge, and that no other matters hereinafter arising in that case or cause be heard or assigned to Judge Kaus, on the ground that said judge is 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.
I do not feel that these cases should have the same judge because as has been proven in this case, if he is biased in one case, he is prejudiced in both, and can only lead to an appealable adjudication! Given the history of ongoing corruption in these and other al-Hakim cases, several that involve Presiding Judge Wynne Carvill, it would NOT be wise of the court to do so unless it plans to effect their continuing corruption.
Given Judge Grillo’s July 18, 2018 “Filed Answer Adventure was a Complete Fabrication!” and his complaint against the superior court and clerks offices for their continuing fraud on the court, was one of the reasons for this assignment to Kaus entails a dramatic sequence of events and ex-parte communications that are not and have not been made public that have an immeasurable impact on these and other cases that now involve the on going actions of Judges Robert Freedman, Ioana Petrou, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Wynne Carvill, Kim Colwell, Mark Markman, Evelio Grillo, C. Don Clay, Chad Finke and Superior Court Clerks and administration among others.
In his recently filed July 16, 2018 Opposition to the Order to Show Cause and Challenge, al-Hakim demonstrated criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Freedman, Petrou, and Grillo in their 68 Constitutional Violations of plaintiff’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, Plaintiff 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 has filed this 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 IS PLAINTIFF’S action that is being stymied by Grillo 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, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution I, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels!
Grillo’s July 18, 2018 Filed Answer Adventure a Complete Fabrication!”
Prior to the cases being called, Grillo consulted with the court reporter regarding her services and she confirmed that she was there to transcribe the “al-Hakim criminal case”. Grillo suggested again that the case she was there for included three parties and he would give her notice when to go on the record, wherein again she stated that she was there for the “al-Hakim criminal case”.
Grillo called both cases, and upon announcing my appearance, I announced I was serving a challenge on Grillo wherein he announced “I know what you are going to do, but I have something that will make it unnecessary. I noticed in your opposition somewhere that you had raised the fact that I had failed to file and serve an answer striking your challenge for cause within the 10 day limit, I am accepting the dismissal and al-Hakim is right, all my orders and rulings are voided.. I did file an answer but somehow it was not posted or served, there was no proof of service”.
al-Hakim stated that “I am serving this challenge”, Grillo stated “I know that, but it will not be necessary, I am accepting (170.3 non-answer) dismissal”. He says “I checked the register of actions and didn’t see your challenge posted”, al-Hakim answered “neither is your answer striking it”.
Grillo claims his non answer and 170.3 dismissal is based on the fact he read that in al-Hakim’s opposition to the Order to Show Cause and realized he had NOT filed and served a timely answer striking the challenge, and was accepting the dismissal and al-Hakim is right wherein all his orders and rulings are voided.
Grillo says “I know that, that’s why I’m asking if you have a filed copy of the challenge?” al- Hakim said “I do”. Grillo asks “can I see it?” al-Hakim responded “I don’t have it with me”.
Grillo asks “can you get a copy of it?”, I responded “I would have to go get it”. Grillo asks “when can you get it?”
al-Hakim responded “I can get it and be back in an hour, before noon”. Grillo said “I did file an answer on July 9, 2018” and al-Hakim said “it would not be timely as it would have to be filed by July 6, 2018”.
Grillo insisted and required that al-Hakim provide a filed stamped copy of the challenge of June 27, 2018 stating that “I don’t want this to happen again and I don’t have a filed copy.”
al-Hakim said that “I’ve filled challenges in the courtroom and received a copy filed stamped by the clerk, all I have to do is serve it” “you aren’t denying being served the challenge, you got your copy?” Grillo admits “No, I did get it”.
al-Hakim returned to the court wherein Grillo announced that he had received the filed copy of the challenge from al-Hakim filed via email and it was filed in the AT&T case. Grillo admitted he concluded AT&T matter with defendants in al-Hakim’s absence, recounted the preposterous story of his answer being filed in the AT&T case but not in the EBMUD case. Clearly he had second thoughts about leaving the AT&T case and contrived a means to stay in it by filing an alleged answer in that case while I was away getting the filed copy of the challenge.
Grillo then claimed that there was clerical error in filing the challenge in the AT&T case not EBMUD, so by law he can correct the error and continue in AT&T case because he only needs to file the answer striking order by July 9, 2018, not serve it. al-Hakim corrected him that in fact if he filed the answer July 9, 2018, it would not be timely as it would have to be filed by July 6, 2018, and it MUST be served or al-Hakim wouldn’t know about it. al-Hakim reiterates that once he was served the new challenge it was inappropriate to proceed in any capacity beyond administrative duties and he was served the challenge.
Grillo says “I did file an answer but somehow it was not posted or served, there was no proof of service”. He asks his clerk to check the court register of actions for the pdf of the answer and she responded that there was an answer filed but no proof of service- just filed blank pages beyond his alleged answer. al-Hakim requested to see and get a copy of the alleged answer, Grillo did not respond. al-Hakim reminded Grillo that “you have been served a new challenge” and Grillo tried to evade service by accepting non-answer dismissal, then tried to change to acceptance in only the EBMUD case. Grillo continued the case to later at 1:30 p.m.
Where upon return al-Hakim appeared and Grillo informs him that he is going to recuse himself in both cases and has been in contact with Presiding Judge Carvill and Supervising Judge Markman all morning regarding transferring this case to Judge Kaus and he was going to file a complaint regarding the clerks office not properly filing or serving the challenge and answer striking challenge.
al-Hakim asked him “whom are you going to file the complaint with” he responded “judge Markman, and if you want to file a complaint you can do so as well” I asked whom should I file a complaint with and he said “Markman”. al-Hakim stated “this story is a complete fabrication!”
al-Hakim stated that his complaint wasn’t just going to be against the clerks office as as he stated to Grillo “you noticed in my opposition somewhere that I had raised the fact that you had failed to file and serve an answer striking your challenge for cause within the 10 day limit.” Grillo said yes, I did, that’s what prompted this dismissal”.
al-Hakim stated “there is no reference to the dismissal for not timely filing an answer in the opposition!” This is a complete fabrication!
Grillo said that “well that’s not what we are talking about, I have accepted the recusal, the issue is moot and all the confusion regarding the answer and service, I will address it with judge Markman”. al-Hakim again stated that “the entire reason that prompted this dismissal was because you noticed in my opposition somewhere that I had raised the fact that you had failed to file and serve an answer striking your challenge for cause within the 10 day limit but there is no reference to the dismissal for non answer in the opposition!”
al-Hakim reminded Grillo that “you have been served a new challenge” and Grillo tried to evade service by accepting non-answer dismissal, stating it was moot” and al-Hakim said the issues addressed in this challenge will endure far beyond today and I’ve served you”.
We have witnessed at least five times where the register of actions and record were altered even after the fact by the judges and clerks in al-Hakim’s cases.
His entire sham of filing an answer and 170.3 dismissal was a fabrication based on the fact he read that in opposition and realized he had NOT filed and served a timely answer striking the challenge, that was NOT in the opposition!
Grillo admitted that he had spoken with both Judges Carvill and Markman regarding his “Adventure” with the answer and it begs the answers to how were they involved in this matter, from it’s inception to it’s assignment to Kaus; to the alleged complaint against the clerks office that Grillo said he was going to file to asking al-Hakim to file his complaint, that al-Hakim will file against them ALL. There is clearly a case of fraud on the court, fabricating what is now evidence given the time and IP of the device that uploaded the alleged answer, fabricating the record and register of actions, and conspiracy, among others!
Carvill has been uniquely involved in this and other matters of al-Hakim’s and is still subject to the ongoing appeal and investigation of the criminal activities of him, judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others. As it regards the ongoing appeal, the underlying case that rendered the appeal was decided in al-Hakim’s favor after 22 years of litigation and found to declare Carvill and the other five judges that sat in the case without knowing anything about it while ruling in it solely on the script prepared by law clerk Phil Abar, ALL TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN FRAUD ON THE COURT AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE!!! SINCE THIS SCRIPT WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE JUDGE TO ANOTHER THERE WAS OBVIOUS COLLUSION, ILLEGAL EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, CORRUPTION, CONSPIRACY, AMONG OTHERS, and grounds for disqualification under CALIFORNIA CCP §170.6, 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; First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth 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).
Kaus Order does not mention Motion to Vacate AT&T Demurrer and Current Interpretation of Previously Filed Judicial Notice
Kaus’ order states:
ORDER SETTING HEARING ON DEMURRERS AND MOTION TO DISMISS
These two matters were assigned to this Department following the disqualification of Judge Grillo. There are demurrers pending in both matters and a motion to dismiss pending in Case RG14 740943.
The demurrers, which are fully briefed, and the motion to dismiss are hereby set for hearing on August 20, 2018 at 3 p.m. in Department 19
Because of the amount of litigation that has occurred since the motion to motion was filed on October 25,2017, either party may file a request for judicial notice of subsequent materials by August 6, 2018. Any opposition to that request shall be filed by August 13,2018.
July 27, 2018
The order requires clarity in regards to:
1) Kaus’ order does NOT address the fact that there is a motion to vacate the order on the AT&T demurrer that was filed, served, and an uncontested reply filed and served.
2) I have previously filed a request for judicial notice in the EBMUD case and only request that since it requests notice of all documents filed that is should be inclusive of all subsequent materials since the notice does not eliminate documents by date. There should be no need to amend nor file a new notice by August 6, 2018, as specified in the order. However, I want to specifically include the recently filed Opposition to the Order to Show Cause on July 16, 2018 and the accompanying Challenge for Cause of Judge Grillo on July 18, 2018.
The “Good White Way”, White Class Privilege
Judges 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 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 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 Complaint for Fixing Cases against him because He’s Muslim, Black,Whistleblower
Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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, Clay, acting under color of state law and according to policy and practice, have engaged in actions that retaliate against Plaintiff 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.
Plaintiff’ actions in holding and expressing disfavored views was a substantial and motivating factor in Clays’ retaliation against them by imposing unlawful restrictions on Plaintiff’ federal civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment, causing Plaintiff to suffer and continue in the future to suffer irreparable injury that cannot be fully compensated by an award of monetary damages.
Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke Vexatious Litigant Strategy Fraud on th Court
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!
Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges Defendants and third parties, with and through their counsel, has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities.
As far back as beginning in 1971, al-Hakim has been informed, believes, and based thereon alleges he has been targeted by these same judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities with the 1972 burglary/home invasion of his apartment by federal law enforcement and governmental entities whom he caught while at home when it occurred!
In 1998 Defendants in the CSAA and Rescue cases admitted that they had surveilled al-Hakim and was working with law enforcement and governmental entities investigating him. This included a court ordered “inspection” of al-Hakim’s home in which illegal destructive testing was done to his home and “evidence” covertly gathered. One comment made after one of the “inspections” was “that house is wired (bugged)!”
al-Hakim’s “court activities”, in the last 40 years al-Hakim has documented, filed and served court actions, filed and served complaints and filed and served correspondence memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim  and Black, a Whistleblower!; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
al-Hakim proves where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528.
These defendants and third parties, ALL of whom have been complained of or to are, in major part because al-Hakim reported the very obvious agenda of these 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.
Judge C. Don Clay, Presiding Judge Wynne Carvill, nor Chad Finke have any pre-filing order per C.C.P. §391which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant, thus in ruling that it has a prior order which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant and now have ruled that because al-Hakim has been deemed as a vexatious litigant they denied his request for an Additional Fee Waiver and on the pending motion to deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant, they and their court administrative staff has committed Fraud on the Court in violation of Federal Code 60 and Code of Civil Procedure § 60, § 47, § 4541 § 425.16, Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180.
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.
It is clear from al-Hakim’s recent experience and treatment with/from Judge Grillo and his Dept. 15 administrative staff, that judges C. Don Clay, Presiding Judge Wynne Carvill, and Chad Finke have initiated a covert pre-filing order per C.C.P. §391which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant.
Kaus May Need to Recuse In the Interest of Justice
Judges Freedman, Petrou, Grillo, Finke 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 al-Hakim; portrayed al-Hakim a liar and when he could not prove it he tried to create the lie that in his sole judgment is a lie in order to justify his calling al-Hakim a “liar”; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim even through third parties; highjacked the hearings with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the Unruh and Bane Acts. These efforts of the judges can qualify as a Hate Crime under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts, while they are clear acts of religious bigotry and intolerance for which al-Hakim will not allow.
al-Hakim says that in the past Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, purported to exercise their authority in which they violated his civil rights, has admittedly acting with personal interest in the outcome under the color of law 18 USC §242. Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, persistent willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability they would continue their unethical behavior if they were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future. That those judges before whom the hearing aforesaid actions were pending is prejudiced against him or the interest of the party so that affiant cannot or believes that he cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before this judge. al-Hakim requested and had a standing objection to ANY involvement of Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, and Finke among others in this and ANY other matter.
Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim alleges that due to the on going actions of Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, has established Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption; the Manipulation of the Judicial Assignments; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice and the relief herein requested must be granted.
Judge Kaus made need to recuse himself in the interest of justice to avoid the appearance of impropriety, or if not be disqualified and required to make a full disclosure and cooperate in the investigation involving Judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, and the AT&T, EBMUD, Interserver, Miller, CSAA and Rescue cases.
Further, al-Hakim request a hearing on this matter before an impartial judge.  This matter may need to be transferred to another county venue on fair trial grounds as provided by CCP §397(b) where the influence of the Judges, district attorney, city attorney and opposing litigants is not so inextricably intertwined with judicial interests.
Grillo Decided NOT to Answer Fifth Challenge at All, Consenting to the Challenge
On June 27, 2018, Grillo was challenged peremptorily pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 and for cause pursuant to sections 170.1 and 170.3. Grillo decided NOT to answer the fifth Challenge at all, thereby consenting to the Challenge per CCP §170.3(c)(4) for failure to file an order striking the Challenge within 10 days.
Judge Grillo Disqualified Per CCP §170.3(c)(4) for NOT Answering nor Striking Peremptory Challenge and Statement of Disqualification Within Ten-Day Time Limit
To date Grillo failed to answer or strike the June 27, 2018, Challenges wherein if the judge whose disqualification has been sought has made no answer within ten days, he or she is considered to have consented to the disqualification. CCP §170.3(c)(4); People v Superior Court (Mudge) (1997) 54 CA4th 407, 411, 62 CR2d 721.
A judge who does not strike the statement of disqualification within this ten-day time limit is deemed disqualified. Lewis v Superior Court (1988) 198 CA3d 1101, 1104, 244 CR 328. Once a judge strikes a statement of disqualification, the aggrieved party may seek a writ immediately without waiting for the ten-day period to elapse. Hollingsworth v Superior Court (1987) 191 CA3d 22, 26, 236 CR 193.
Second Time Grillo Disqualified for NOT Answering nor Striking Peremptory Challenge and Statement of Disqualification Within Ten-Day Time Limit
At the February 28, 2018 hearing on EBMUD Demurrer, I was in court when the “al-Hakim vs AT&T” case was called. Stunned, I raise my hand to check in and looked around to see if anyone was there from AT&T. No one responded.
Grillo called the cases and I presented him with a Challenge and requested that it be submitted for both cases since I was unaware of the AT&T matter being on the calendar. He said “the peremptory challenge?” I said “yes, for both cases”. He said he would look at the challenge and get back to us and called his next case.
I received the order denying the challenge as per EBMUD and order after the hearing wherein he does not mention the peremptory challenge in the AT&T case nor both orders in the cases.
I am left to assume that he ignored the AT&T peremptory challenge and for cause or independently decided it did NOT exist to the extent he could ignore it away!
Grillo failed to answer or strike the February 28, 2018, Challenges wherein if the judge whose disqualification has been sought has made no answer within ten days, he or she is considered to have consented to the disqualification.
Grillo Issues an Order to Show Cause (OSC)
At the June 27, 2018, hearing Grillo ordered plaintiff to answer his OSC why the motion should not be dismissed given the delay in prosecution for filing of the challenges against him. As a DIRECT result of the criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Grillo in his 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.
Grillo’s clear denial of al-Hakim’s basic civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom under the United States and California State Constitution as 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, when the records and files in plaintiff’s case prove an unprecedented, covert policy of “JURISPREJUDICE” in the California courts.
The court’s denying plaintiff’s rights thereto in defiance of the law implicates the fundamental issues of violating plaintiff’s right to due process and civil rights AND CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO HIS CASE bringing judicial charges for committing Extrinsic Fraud Upon the Court, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Willful Misconduct, Prejudicial Conduct, Bias, Prejudice, Retaliation, Discriminatory Animus, Willful and Malicious Prosecution, Conflict of Interest, Obstruction of Justice, Denial of Due Process, Willful and Intentional Fabrication and Authoring False Evidence; Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts, among others, as demanded. The court has conceal and covered up illegal activity as it pertains to any possible taint with these illegal activities, with a minimum appearance of impropriety, obstruction of justice, denial of due process, denial of civil rights, bias, prejudice, conflict of interest, abuse of discretion, retaliation, making it likely that a person aware of the facts could reasonably entertain a doubt as to the ability of the judge to be impartial, and have let their personal convictions interfere with the duty to be scrupulously fair as the exclusive trier of fact. ( People v. Cook, (1983), 33 Cal.3d at p. 408; People v. Friend, (1958), 50 Cal.2d at pp. 577-578.)
There is no question that the Judges 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 Grillo presence in this case, with Judges Jacobson, Ioana Petrou, Jon Rolefson, Paul Herbert and Robert Freedman before him, summarily denies plaintiff’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing their rulings 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 denying the motion to dismiss from this Court is necessary to prevent this continued abuse.
The Serving of the Order to Show Cause (OSC)
The order was signed by Grillo on June 27, 2018, with proof of service signed by Chad Finke on June 29, 2018 and mailed in an envelope postmarked July 2, 2018. As July 4, 2018, was a national holiday with many people taking off work the next days, the order was NOT received by al-Hakim until July 6, 2018 in the regular U. S. mail. Plaintiff’s answer to the Order, after given his five (5) court days to respond would place the due date at July 16, 2018, just two days BEFORE the hearing! That does NOT leave time for any cogent review of the answer before any tentative ruling is issued nor proper hearing on the matter.
This is objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of plaintiff, causes plaintiff injuries and this violation of his constitutional rights are directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Grillo, and which are the moving force behind the OSC, and same as the acts described herein have caused damages to plaintiff.
Grillo’s Bias, Prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced, Vindictive, Retaliatory, Bigoted and Racist June 27, 2018 Ruling
The ruling states:
a. “The Motion to Dismiss was set for hearing on 06/27/2018 at 09:00:00 in Department 15 before the Honorable Evelio Grillo. The Tentative Ruling was published and has not been contested.”
The Tentative Ruling was contested, via email and fax to the court and defendants on June 25, 2018. This is just another instance where Grillo has 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 and the Fourteenth Amendment, is objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of plaintiff, causes plaintiff injuries and this violation of his constitutional rights are directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Grillo, and which are the moving force behind the OSC, and same as the acts described herein have caused damages to plaintiff.
b. “Additionally, Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil aI-Hakim is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on July 18,2018 as to why the case should not be dismissed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410. Specifically, the serial challenges to one judge after another assigned to the case that does not serve a legitimate purpose and appears to be an attempt to stymie the prosecution of the case. Code of Civil Procedure section 583.410 provides that “[t]he court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to its own motion … if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case.” Code of Civil Procedures section 583 .420(a)(2), allows for dismissal based on a failure to bring the case to trial within two years after the action has commenced is discretionary. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 583.410, 583.420(a)(2).)”
Grillo is GOD!
Grillo feels he is above the law, should not be inconvenienced, charged, dismissed or removed from his agenda with the truth of his corruption filed within the Challenges!
Grillo’s comments are the very epitome of specious retaliation and heinous denial of due process FORCED on plaintiff because he is Muslim and Black, and a Whistleblower who 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.
This is just another instance where Grillo has 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 is objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of plaintiff, causes plaintiff injuries and this violation of his constitutional rights are directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of Grillo, and which are the moving force behind the OSC, and same as the acts described herein have caused damages to plaintiff. As a DIRECT result of the criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Grillo in his 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.
c. “the serial challenges to one judge after another assigned to the case that does not serve a legitimate purpose”
The right for a litigant to challenge a judge is second only to The GREATEST right a litigant has enshrined in the United States Constitution, most notably the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to a fair trial! al-Hakim will ALWAYS continue the SLAVE DRIVEN FOUR HUNDRED YEAR fight for civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process, equal protection, equal access to an unbiased legal process as is his OBLIGATION AND RIGHT under the U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV!
Solely because al-Hakim FLATLY REFUSES to waive the conflicts and criminal corruption of these tainted judges whom have ALL followed the whim and authority of convicted judge Robert Freedman, under color of law, Grillo and these Judges have 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 and the Fourteenth Amendment! If it is established that as a practical matter a litigant CAN NOT have a fair trial due to the obvious racist, vindictive, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, hate induced, retaliatory, depraved agenda of persecution against him and his family, community and religion; then there is in fact NO TRIAL, just an exercise in the exhausting of the litigants rights to a fair one!
Grillo PROVES he is just an “uncle Tom” carrying water for Freedman in his place and stead while exhibiting the sings of insanity by “committing the same “serial“ corruption over and over while sitting in this case and expecting that al-Hakim is going to let it go, and get a different result!”
Grillo’s Signs of “Insanity” and Ultimate Act of Corruption!
It is popularly accepted by the saying that “the first sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result!”. That fact becomes infinitely pronounced when viewed through al-Hakim’s written opposition to Grillo being in tis case from the very beginning. It states:
“Clearly I am unwilling to move forward with judge Grillo sitting in this as well as any other case given that he’s merely judge Freedman’s stooge adopting his 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. 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!”
Grillo somehow feels he can force or persuade al-Hakim to change his stance and succumb to Grillo’s demands as put forth in his “cut and paste” Freedman ruling! NOT A CHANCE as al-Hakim will ALWAYS continue the SLAVE DRIVEN FOUR HUNDRED YEAR fight for civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process, equal protection, equal access to an unbiased legal process as is his OBLIGATION AND RIGHT under the U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV!
Grillo PROVES he KNOWS he is above the law by demanding al-Hakim answer the OSC when the answer for the delay in prosecution lay firmly in his OWN actions! al-Hakim has merely documented the many legal transgressions of Grillo and enshrined them in the challenges that Grillo has NOT, can NOT and will NOT answer as required by law!
He has committed GREATER, more blatant criminal indiscretions than Freedman having adopted his obvious agenda to persecute al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve! NO ONE KNOWS BETTER THAN GRILLO THAT THE ULTIMATE EMPIRICAL REASONS FOR THIS OSC AND THAT THEY ARE THE SAME AS WHAT HAS MADE THIS CASE IMPOSSIBLE, IMPRACTICABLE AND FUTILE TO PROCEED, NONE OTHER THAN JUDGE GRILLO HIMSELF!!
Judge Grillo issues the OSC knowing that the reasons the answer is based on are HIS OWN impropriety, and having issued that OSC, will also sit in judgement of his own offenses sins while passing on his own bias and prejudice as he ignores away and covers it up! Judges can not rule on their own bias, neither can judge Grillo.
Grillo’s ”Fraud upon the court
Further, Grillo attempts to rule on his own corruption, bias and standing to make just such a determination by issuing the order for the OSC after denying the same issues in the motion to dismiss just six months ago and disposing of the matter, his actions are commiserate with ”Fraud upon the court” as has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968).
“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court. Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”). That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
In his vindictive retaliation against al-Hakim and his depraved agenda of persecution, Grillo’s actions were committed with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the Unruh and Bane Acts. These efforts of Grillo 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.
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 Grillo has 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!; As a DIRECT result of the criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Grillo in his 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.
d. “appears to be an attempt to stymie the prosecution of the case”
Plaintiff has filed this action that is a simple matter of the EBMUD water main collapsing and causing over $1.5 million dollars damage to my home, business and personal property with over $900,000 damage to the foundation and exterior grounds of the home! 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???!!!
IT IS HIS action that is being stymied by Grillo 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, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution I, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels!
Grillo is in denial and attempts to deflect the scrutiny that he is under from the indicting charges in filing of the challenges that he refuses to answer because they would incriminate him!
PLEASE CONTINUE READING FROM THE ATTACHED 125 PAGE COMPLAINT
Given that I have had no response from the judges, nor the court administration, including Chad Finke refusing to comply with three subpoenas and request for production of documents and the Judicial Council with the same, I have no choice but to file actions with the responsible agencies to discover this information and resolve the legal concerns expressed for years.
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.

Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501