Month: November 2018

TO:  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

Presiding Judge Wynne Carville                  Chad Finke
Supervising Judge Michael Markman         Executive Officer
Judge Stephen Kaus                                    Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Kevin R. Murphy                                1225 Fallon Street Room 209
Judge C. Don Clay                                        Oakland, CA 94612
Judge Jeff Brand                                          Fax: 510-891-6276
Judge Kim Colwell                                        cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Judge Morris Jacobson
Judge Winifred Smith                                 Charles Johnson
Judge Jon Rolefsen                                     Beth Robbins
Judge Yolanda Northridge                          Deputy Clerk
Judge Dennis Hayashi                                 First District Court of Appeal
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee                               350 McAllister Street
Superior Court of Alameda County            San Francisco CA 94102
Departments 1, 6, 511, and 518                   Fax: 415-865-7309, 415-865-7209
René C. Davidson Courthouse                    Beth.Robbins@jud.ca.gov,
1225 Fallon Street                                        Charles.Johnson@jud.ca.gov
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WCarville@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.511@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.518@alameda.courts.ca.gov, SKaus@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KMurphy@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov,YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov, DHayashi@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.19@alameda.courts.ca.gov,RFreedman@alameda.courts.ca.gov

Martin Hoshino                                      Victoria B. Henley
Director                                                  Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California               Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue                    455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688         San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586                     FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov               Victoria.Henley@jud.ca.gov
John.Wordlaw@jud.ca.gov

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
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov                Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                         Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov
Barbara.Valliere@usdoj.gov
sara.Winslow@usdoj.gov

Attorney General of California
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
FAX No.: 916-324-8835
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Sean.McCluskie@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
Laura.Stuber@doj.ca.gov
Kelli.Evans@doj.ca.gov
Marina.Soto@doj.ca.gov
Fax No.: 916-322-4532, 916-323-5341, 916-324-5567, 916-319-9421cc: ; bcc ACLU, LCCR, East Bay Community Law Center, Bay Area Legal Aid, USC Gould School Of Law, Western Center On Law & Poverty, Electronic Frontier Foundation, National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, Equal Justice Society, Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center,
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     November 30, 2018
NO PAGES: 16
RE:        Clay’s Denial Hearing Dates, Reservation Numbers, State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness; and Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy in al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371

“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3 “The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Freedman, Grillo, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:On January 29, 2018, I have previously sent you ALL a 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint that was already outdated before I could file it and filed another on February 9, 2018, February 22, 2018, March 1, 2018, March 12, 2018, and April 2, 2018.
On August 24, 2018, I sent you all a 125 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint against Judges C. Don Clay, Stephen Kaus, Robert Freedman, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Ioana Petrou, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Jo-Lynne Lee, Paul Herbert, Kim Colwell, Kevin Murphy, and Michael Markman with Chad Finke, among others with the Manipulation of the record and Register of Actions; Obstruction of Justice, Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); the continued Fraud Upon The Court by Judges C. Don Clay and Wynne Carvill with Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law!
On September 24, 2018, I sent you all a 14 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint against Judge C. Don “Con Don” Clay detailing his State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness in his courtroom at a July 11, 2018 hearing using his Sheriffs deputy.
Today, I am attaching herewith a new 140 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint against Judge C. Don Clay detailing his State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness in his courtroom as he TRIPLED DOWN WITH THREE Sheriffs deputy’s and the denial of requested hearing dates and reservation numbers to file any litigation
Con Don’s reign of State sponsored TERROR al-Hakim was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM, has expanded!
Clay is refusing to provide reservation numbers for al-Hakim to file and to hear ANY litigation of ANY type on a Monday or Wednesday. If it is NOT possible to have litigation with the schedule proposed when the court is open EVERYDAY, the time is free and the court is paid to be there, then bigotry, Islamophobia, and Xenophobia are the specious basis for this continued harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption as the uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules regarding Motions clearly have a double standard!
al-Hakim’s Religion and religious obligations on those days are NOT going to change for judge Clay. If it is NOT possible to have litigation with the schedule proposed when the court is open EVERYDAY, the time is free and the court is paid to be there, then bigotry, Islamophobia, and Xenophobia are the specious basis for this continued harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption as the uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules regarding Motions clearly have a double standard!
Clay’s continuing criminal harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption in his uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules summarily denies 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.
Clay’s mindless denials further expose and demonstrate the courts agenda of 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.
1. Clay, the Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness in Courtroom
The July 11, 2018, Hearing
At the recent July 11, 2018, hearing in the matters of al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371, al-Hakim entered the alcove leading into the courtroom and was stopped by the Sheriffs deputy and asked “who are you and where are  you going?”. al-Hakim responded with his name and that he was there for a 3:00 p.m. hearing, and asked “aren’t you expecting us?”. The deputy responded “ yeah, and inspecting you too!” al-Hakim thought that he had misheard him and asked “I didn’t hear you, what did you say?”, The deputy repeated “ yeah, and inspecting you too!”. Still not understanding the need for such response, al-Hakim said “I’m sorry, could you repeat that?” The deputy again repeated “ yeah, and inspecting you too!” in a very brash and challenging manner.
al-Hakim entered the courtroom and took a seat in the front row behind the railing of the court as there was already someone sitting at the defendants place at the hearing table, the clerk at her desk and the deputy sat at his desk near the front row of seats in the courtroom.
The deputy informs al-Hakim “you can’t sit in the first row, you have to move!” where upon al-Hakim moves across the courtroom to the second row of seats.
Judge Clay comes out of chambers and asks if they are ready to proceed, returns and takes the bench.
He calls for appearances of the parties and upon calling al-Hakim, while still standing, al-Hakim announces that “I have a challenge for you (Clay).”
Clay responds that he wants to go on with the matters, and asks if al-Hakim wants to be heard on the matters. al-Hakim, still standing holding the document in his hand extended toward Clay, responds that “you have been served a challenge and you must respond to it.”
The deputy blurts out “sit down and don’t interrupt the judge”, as if al-Hakim’s serving the challenge was somehow interrupting Clay and al-Hakim had NO RIGHT to do so.
Clay says “we have already started”
al-Hakim, while still standing holding the document in his hand extended toward Clay, reiterates that “there’s is no reporter so you can make the record anyway you choose, we haven’t done anything yet and I have challenged you (Clay) and you must answer it before you can proceed.”
Clay again responds that he wants to go on with the matters, and asks if al-Hakim wants to be heard on the matter of the subpoena and the vexatious litigant motion. al-Hakim, now sitting still holding the document in his hand extended toward the clerk, responds that “you have been served a challenge are you refusing to accept it?”
Clay angrily responds “I will deal with it later!” and nods approval to the deputy. al-Hakim handed the document to the deputy whom gave it to the clerk.
Clay asks al-Hakim how he viewed “the motion to compel the subpoena with the stay pending vexatious litigant motion?”
al-Hakim again stated that “ you have been challenged you, you can only perform administrative duties and you must answer it before you can proceed in this case. I am NOT waiving any rights and insist that since I was NEVER served the motion by defendants, I have been prejudiced by appearing here and will NOT waive that prejudice”
Further, al-Hakim answered that “the Subpoena and Request for Production of Documents where supposed to have been answered by the defendants before February 12, 2018 and they failed and refused to do so, have defaulted by failing and refusing to answer the summons and complaint, and our motion to compel was unopposed.”
al-Hakim noticed a horrendous odor from behind him and turned is his seat to find the deputy standing over his left shoulder two feet away!
Clay asks if al-Hakim agreed that the vexatious motion stay the proceedings?” wherein al-Hakim answers that the motion was allegedly filed on February 16, 2018, and still has NEVER been served despite numerous requests for it and the the answers were due before February 12, 2018. They were in default already and you do not have the authority to retroactively grant them a stay after the fact”
With the unmerciful stench emanating from his vaginal region and his sweat seemingly dropping on al-Hakim’s back, al-Hakim turned is his seat facing the deputy standing over his left shoulder two feet away whom appeared to be trying to read al-Hakim’s documents at the table. al-Hakim asked the deputy “would you like a seat” as he pulled out the seat next to him and offered it to the deputy. Clay makes the comment “you don’t want to do that!”, where upon the deputy is now standing over al-Hakim where he can’t move at all!
al-Hakim responded “do what, what are you thinking I want to do? I want to know why he has to stand over me behind my back. I don’t believe that that is normal in any courtroom” Clay responds “well, yes it is”. al-Hakim states “you are saying that he stands in this same position, two feet behind the plaintiff, in every case that you have?”
Clay says “well”
The odor now is at “hold your breath level!!” and al-Hakim doesn’t want to say that.
al-Hakim says “I don’t believe that, I have been in your courtroom over 20 times, I am familiar with the courts attempts at intimidation and this most certainly is one!”
Again Clay nods to the deputy and he retreats a few steps but stays in striking range of al-Hakim who is seated 40 feet away and 3 feet below Clay sitting on the bench.
This was clearly planned prior to al-Hakim appearing in court and was choreographed by Clay to provoke and instill terror and fear in al-Hakim during the hearing!!
Clay’s actions in this manner along with the deputy’s deadly pungent mix from his crotch-rot on that hot day, left more than a lingering quality, impression, and feeling of stench warfare attaching to Clay an odor of terror and suspicion.
This use of these heinous tactics to incite violence that apparently already in the forefront of Clay’s mind with the comment “you don’t want to do that!”, with the highly offensive odors to sicken, immobilize, and drive al-Hakim away from the courtroom as an enemy of the State was in and of itself utterly odious and wicked.
The deputy took his seat, wrote a note to Clay and delivered it to him.
Clay then announces that “I am going to deny the motion to compel”.
Clay’s own extraordinary, forced rendition, his own government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial holding of al-Hakim as a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly being interrogated UNDER DURESS carried out by the sheriffs, government with the consent of the court!
al-Hakim felt the threat of being hit in the back of the head at all times, for any comment or slight movement, or signal from Clay, to provoke violence to result with injury or death to al-Hakim! The expected harm was made to compel al-Hakim to do something against his will or to be considered wrong in Clay’s sole judgment to “sic his attack dog” on al-Hakim; especially this wrongful threat made by Clay and his deputy to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by al-Hakim to Clay’s mercy without real volition. With this oppression and persecution indelibly etched in his mind, heart and soul, al-Hakim now KNOWS the smell of TERROR!!
OCTOBER 3, 2018, CLAY WAS SERVED A 140 COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE (see attached) DETAILING WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN ANY MATTER CONCERNING ME, AND SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED!!
The October 3, 2018, Hearing
Rather than conduct the October 3, 2018 hearing in a manner that is routinely expected in civil society, Clay triples down on the terror and has THREE Sheriffs Deputies in the courtroom and then proclaims that it is “normal” for him to have that many in his courtroom, and further, that one is positioned behind the plaintiff’s seat!
At the October 3, 2018, hearing, al-Hakim entered the courtroom and took a seat to the right side of the room. There was deputy C. Arnold seated at his normal desk. Shortly after another deputy enters the courtroom, walks over to the seated deputy says “I got a call” and asks “is everything alright?” He replies yes in a solemn way. The deputy then retreats to the back of the courtroom and sits adjacent to al-Hakim on the other side.
Shortly after a third deputy enters the courtroom, walks over to the seated deputy and speaks with him then retreats to the back of the courtroom and sits behind al-Hakim.
The defendants were seated at their position at the table, and the plaintiff’s side had a bag with a keyboard, and some devices plugged into the audio system hanging out of/attached to the microphone. It appeared to be a covert recording device made to appear as if someone had left their stuff on the table.
Clay comes out and the parties make their appearance, wherein al-Hakim serves the challenge.
Clay asks “did you see my tentative ruling?” I am going to deny the motion to continue” “when I set a deadline, I mean it”,
After an extensive discussion with Defendant pleading “He has filed numerous challenges, including against you. That’s enough to declare him a vexatious litigant”, “he has sued the DA, Attorney General,City Attorney and filed appeals”
Clay says regarding their deficient moving papers “I don’t care about challenges, they don’t mean anything to me, I’m not scared of them!” He has said that he files complaints, files challenges to document the actions of the court” “you are going to have to work harder”,
“He filed complaints with me when I was presiding court judge” “he’s a litigator in his own way”
“you didn’t read the orders” “you haven’t carried your burden to declare him a vexatious litigant” , “you haven’t proven he’s a vexatious litigant”, “you just haven’t done enough to declare him a vexatious litigant”
Clay asked al-Hakim “do you want to be heard?”, wherein al-Hakim replied “no, I will not waive the prejudice, misconduct and abuse of the court and the defendants in their default and failed answer to the order” “anything I would say would just be under duress given the previous and current conditions in the courtroom with your three security guards”. Clay exclaims “they are not security, they’re sheriffs!”
al-Hakim states “I have been in your courtroom over 20 times and I have never seen a deputy standing right behind the party during a hearing.” and you have THREE deputies in the courtroom right now!”
Clay says “that’s normal, I may even have more!” al-Hakim says “for a civil ex-parte motion at 3:00 p.m.? I don’t believe that! Clay says ” It’s true”
THAT IS A BLATANT, BOLD FACED LIE!!!As a consequence, I would like to have the records from the Superior Court and Sheriffs offices detailing the number of deputies assigned to and in attendance in his courtroom daily for the last 10 years to substantiate his personal testimony of these facts!
al-Hakim hereby moves that the case and hearing, which involves a contested issue of law or fact, and which has been assigned to C. Don Clay, Judge of the above-entitled Court, be reassigned from that Judge, and that no matters hereinafter arising in this cause be heard or assigned to Judge C. Don Clay, on the ground that said judge is irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and  prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action where unless and until these issues can of Judge Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness with Courtroom Security can be fairly resolved BEFORE the next hearing scheduled IN DEPARTMENT 6, BEFORE JUDGE CLAY, I CAN NOT in good conscience OUT OF FEAR, agree to APPEAR with ANY of the continuing outstanding conditions referenced in this complaint regrading Clay’s State sponsored TERROR I was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM!
Clay has subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, committed fraud on the court, harassment and retaliation, where these actions, including Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness with Courtroom Security, violates his right to due process and civil rights. In light of its history and application, it is a violation of § 51 of the California Civil Code for a business establishment to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation, religious affiliation, or political or religious beliefs, including speech expressing those beliefs.
This action precludes plaintiff from retaining his unbiased rights pending the resolution of his claims as he battles 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 Clay and other judges Fixing Cases against him because he is Muslim  and Black, a Whistleblowerexposing their criminal corruption; 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.
Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness is Contempt
It must be stipulated that Judge Clay’s actions fraud violated canons 1, 2A, and 2B(2), and constituted prejudicial misconduct at the very least and treated al-Hakim in a manner in violation of canons 1, 2A, and 3B(4) and reflected a prejudgment of him and a lack of impartiality, contrary to canon 3B(5).  Judges Clay’s abusive conduct must draw harsh criticism from the Judicial Regulators in a decision arising out of these charges of the “atmosphere of unfairness” created by the judge’s denial of plaintiff’s civil rights, right to due process, biased administration of justice, erroneous rulings, lies, deception, threats, retaliation, and caustic, condescending remarks of the plaintiff. (People v. Urias (July 31, 2006, G035179 [2006 WL 2128631] [nonpub. opn.]).)
Judge Clay purported to exercise his authority at that hearing in which he violated al-Hakim’s civil rights, has admittedly acting with personal interest in the outcome under the color of law 18 USC §242. The Judges willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability she would continue her unethical behavior if she were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future. That judge Clay, before whom the hearing aforesaid action was pending is prejudiced against al-Hakim 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 request and have a standing objection to ANY involvement of Judge Clay in this and ANY other matter.
2. Clay FIXING CASES in Furtherance of Corruption Agenda
Judge Clay has been and is “fixing”this case against al-Hakim attempting to protect the defendants as he has scheduled proceedings DEMANDING the hearing be on a date al-Hakim can NOT attend due to religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for over 30 years, while REFUSING to have those proceedings on a date al-Hakim can attend, yet!
There is currently a CMC scheduled on December 12, 2018, and al-Hakim had requested THREE times to have a “Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion to Vacate Orders made by Judge Clay” on the SAME DATE, yet the requests were DENIED by deflecting the requests to his own rule Department 6 Information.
Defendants new counsel substituted in, and filed Motions to Strike and a Demurrer without the required Meet and Confer per Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 and did so without any court delay and scheduled to be heard on Friday, December 7, 2018, a date that the defendants and the court is aware al-Hakim unavailable to attend. Clay REFUSED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO DATE the CMC is scheduled on December 12, 2018, so that all motions could be heard.
Clay’s mindless denials further expose and demonstrate the courts agenda of 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.
al-Hakim Denied Litigation Right in Violation of Civil Right to Due Process, Duplicitous Double Standard
On April 25, 2018 al-Hakim sent an 8 page notice to Judges Clay, Carvill, Markman, Department 6, and Defendants requesting a Reservation for Ex-Parte Motion to Continue Hearings set for May 4, 2018, May 24, 2018, and June 14, 2018 during the Holy Month of Ramadan. al-Hakim requested that Ex-Parte hearing on a Monday or Wednesday PRIOR to May 10, 2018.
The court has failed and refused to respond, and with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda of finding me a vexatious litigant in this matter, where I have NEVER been served ANY motion papers, apparent to all!
al-Hakim requested “If the court will not honor this request, I would like an Ex-Parte hearing for a continuance for any Monday or Wednesday PRIOR to May 10, 2018.”
After THREE requests, Clay agreed to hear the Ex-Parte matter on Wednesday, May 2, 2018.
At that May 2, 2018, hearing Clay asked al-Hakim about his religious obligations wherein al-Hakim responded that they are “every Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays due to religious commitments, and this is a permanent obligation, as the obligation does not vary.
On August 13, 2018, al-Hakim sent notice to Judges Clay, Carvill, Markman, Department 6, and Defendants requesting a Reservation for Ex-Parte Motion for Return of Property, Server AMWFTRUST.ORG, al-HAKIM v. Interserver Equinix, Case: #RG18888371. FOUR request were ignored by Clay directing al-Hakim to Clay’s ExParte rule in the Department 6 Information which states:
ExParte Schedule:
Applications are considered only on moving papers and any written response. Email Dept. 6 to advise when papers will be filed and give notice to other side and advise same that written opposition must be filed in 24 hours.
Plaintiff reminded the court that he had previously had an ex-parte motion heard on Wednesday, May 2, 2018. Clay again ignored the request an al-Hakim had to file his ex-parte motion, submit it for Clay’s review for a month, and it was denied WITHOUT REASON NOR EXPLANATION
Yet, the defendants were able to have an instant ex-parte hearing October 3, 2018 on their failure to comply with the courts ordered vexatious litigant motion without any requirements.
On October 24, 2018, al-Hakim sent a 3 page notice to Judges Clay, Carvill, Markman, Department 6, and Defendants requesting a “Reservation Number to File Noticed Motion to Vacate Orders made by Judge Clay, Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness in Courtroom, al-HAKIM v. Interserver Equinix, Case: #RG18888371” to file a noticed motion to vacate the orders made by Judge Clay and would like the hearing to be held on December 3, or 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. to accommodate the court.
al-Hakim received an email from Kristi Hereth, Department 6 Courtroom Clerk stating “Motions are heard on the 1st and 3rd Friday of the Month. Previously the Court agreed to accommodate your request to have the matter heard mid-week due to your religious obligations that month. Please provide a few good dates on a 1st or 3rd Friday and I will notify you of the reservation number.”
al-Hakim responded “As the court is aware I am unavailable on Fridays which is why I proposed the Monday or Wednesday dates. I have now scheduled a matter for December 3, 2018 at 3:00 p.m, so that would leave December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter.
    As previously discussed, this is a permanent obligation,it was NEVER a one month accommodation made by the court and that fact has been established several times before and since, as the obligation does not vary, which is why we have had ALL our proceedings, hearings, ex-parte and otherwise on one of those days, usually a Wednesday at 3:00 p.m. to accommodate the court. So can you please just issue a reservation number and date on a Monday or Wednesday?
    I would appreciate it if we could move beyond the constant fabricated “conflict” and harassment with the dates each time I make a request and have to reaffirm the same issue with dates.”
On October 29, 2018, al-Hakim received an email from Kristi Hereth, Dept.6 Clerk stating “Please see Dept. 6’s rules regarding Motions.”
Department 6 Information which states:
L&M Schedule:
SJ are heard at 9 AM on 2nd Fri. & other mtns at 10 AM on 1st/3rd Fri. Email Dept. 6 for reservations. Include case name & no., title of motion and identity of moving party. Courtesy copies of all L&M pleadings are to be submitted directly to Dept 6.
al-Hakim responded “I am aware of the uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules regarding Motions, just as the court is aware I am unavailable on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays which is why I proposed the Monday or Wednesday dates.
Additionally, Defendants new counsel have filed Motions to Strike and a Demurrer scheduled to be heard on Friday, December 7, 2018, that the court is aware I am unavailable to attend and I request December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter to hear ALL the motions.
I am requesting to scheduled the motion on December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or December 10, 2018, December 12, 2018 or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter.
Is the court refusing to provide a reservation number to hear the motion on ANY of those date or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter?
My Religion and religious obligations on those days are NOT going to change for judge Clay.If it is NOT possible to have litigation with the schedule proposed when the court is open EVERYDAY, the time is free and the court is paid to be there, then bigotry, Islamophobia, and Xenophobia are the specious basis for this continued harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption as the uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules regarding Motions clearly have a double standard!
Again, I am requesting to schedule ALL the motions on December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or December 10, 2018, December 12, 2018 or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter.
I remain very, very concerned about Clay’s heightening TERROR TACTICS in the courtroom and unless and until this issue can be fairly resolved BEFORE the next hearing scheduled IN DEPARTMENT 6, BEFORE JUDGE CLAY, I CAN NOT in good conscience, OUT OF FEAR, agree to APPEAR with ANY of the continuing outstanding conditions referenced in that complaint regrading Clay’s State sponsored TERROR I was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM!”
THREE request were ignored by Clay directing al-Hakim to Clay’s Law and Motion rule and Plaintiff has NEVER had any response from Clay regarding his “Request for a Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion to Vacate Orders made by Judge Clay”!
On October 28, 2018, Defendants new counsel substituted in, and filed Motions to Strike and a Demurrer without the required Meet and Conferper Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 and did so without any court delay and scheduled to be heard on Friday, December 7, 2018, a date that the defendants and the court is aware I am unavailable to attend.
If defendants had met and conferred they would have been advised of the fact they are aware that plaintiff is unavailable to attend any proceedings on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays due to religious commitments, and as previously discussed, this is a permanent obligation, as the obligation does not vary, which is why we have had ALL our proceedings, hearings, ex-parte and otherwise on one of those days, usually a Wednesday at 3:00 p.m. to accommodate the court.
al-Hakim filed FOUR “Request for a Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion to Vacate Orders made by Judge Clay” and request December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter to hear ALL the motions. The court ignored al-Hakim’s request again.
There should have been NO further delay on the part of the court or the judges mentioned herein to prevent al-Hakim from being made whole since the defendants haven stolen their server server and absconded with 10 years of corporate data of the business we serve including Intellectual Property, Proprietary Data, and Trade Secrets.
Plaintiff had made over TEN requests for defendants to transfer/migrate our entire server AMWFTRUST.ORG, including ALL intellectual property, ALL proprietary property, Trade Secrets, ALL financial property and data, ALL email, email list, media, data, and websites for ALL our clients to another host and need full access to it for that purpose. The costs associated with building the sites is over $150,000, some media can NOT be reproduced, the data CAN NOT be reproduced and the costs are impossible to calculate at this time, and increasing every moment!
Clay is engaging in censorship, concealment, suppression of evidence, obstruction of justice, among other charges, in their agenda to silence our efforts in exposing their corruption and cover up!
al-Hakim has notified Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, U. S. DOJ Chief Alex Tse, AG Xavier Becerra, District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, Victoria Henley, Chad Finke, Martin Hoshino and OTHERS, while also filing and serving THREE formal notices on Judges Carvill, and Clay, Chad Finke and the Superior Court Administration via personal service, fax and email each; and the defendants that I will attend to my religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for over 30 years! I have requested that the court continue those dates while I am available on any Monday or Wednesday. The court has failed and refused to respond, and with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda apparent to all!
Clay’s agenda is effectively “banning” al-Hakim from pursuing ANY litigation he is rightfully entitled to that the corrupt judges do not want exposed!
This Issue Presents An Actual Controversy
al-Hakim argues that the issues raised in this motion presents an actual controversy. The court ordered that this matter be investigated and both Judges Rolefson and Freedman has refused, and engaged now the courts attempt to cover up their transgressions when they are exposed for being guilty of willful corrupt misconduct, they refused to acknowledged plaintiff’s memorandum filled with the courts abuses by Petrou and ALL those referenced herein with that of Meyers Nave and Ropers in both the CSAA and Rescue cases and by Judges Jacobson and Rolefson and previously Freedman. This matter is of the character which the principles of U.S. Const. amend. I, V, VI, and XIV, as adopted by the Due Process Clause, protect. This is a clear denial of al-Hakim Family’s rights under the United States and California State Constitution.
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. The court has 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 Judge Petrou is violating this tenant of fairness and further SHE CAN NOT SERVE IN THIS MATTER.
Judge Clays presence in this case, summarily denies plaintiff’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.
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).
It has come to the attention of Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim that Judge Clay in adopting and invoking his present modus operandi and agenda has deep conflicts of interest regarding the herein cited matters, requiring his recusal or disqualification, on grounds of conflict of interest, bias, prejudice, a minimum appearance of impropriety and other grounds, 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.
3. al-Hakim 56 Complaints listed in OCTOBER 3, 2018, 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE Document Communications with Clay Detail Corruption and Cover UP!
al-Hakim has pointed out to Clay that he has been addressing the misgivings of Clay, the court, and others for over 40 years, before the time that Clay has been serving as a judge and there have been many, many complaints, 56 complaints listed in the 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE (see attached), that al-Hakim has made to and about him and the July, 2005, al-Hakim filed Federal Corruption Complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him during the trial al-Hakim v. CSAA and Rescue, et. al”  in Superior Court of Alameda County, California.
al-Hakim has had many contacts, conversations, exchanged voice mail messages, faxes, emails, filed and served documents with and on Clay and his clerk Elaine Kabling on April 18, 2012; April 19, 2012; May 1, 2012, May 15, 2012; August 22, 2012; September 4, 2012, regarding a personal meeting on the open fraud investigation involving the Oakland City Attorney, various Judges, the District Attorney’s Office, their producing documents, resolving the many outstanding issues, that al-Hakim had previously spoke with Rich Cowan, met with Dan Lindhiem, the City Administrator regarding some of these issues.
That includes a matter where Clay was involved where al-Hakim was returned $280 by the clerk for a transcript that he paid $320, but lost the appeal because the court did not have the transcript! *(This was a case where the DA admitted that hey had misappropriated funds paid to them in trust for al-Hakim’s daughter that were diverted to someone else and other monies unaccounted for. The case was turned over to the State Attorney General due to conflict of interest with the DA and in the interest of justice.)
At the July hearing, al-Hakim stated that he is NOT a “deal maker” and will ALWAYS defend himself and fight for his rights that so many others of his race, and religion have died in this 400 year struggle and still die for on a daily basis. al-Hakim stated that defendants have defaulted in answering the summons, complaint, subpoena and request for production, they say they have no relationship with al-Hakim but they do not disclose their relationship with their co-defendants, they do not have a defense and it’s too late to mount one on the heels of a vexatious litigant motion that is untimely, after the fact.
al-Hakim, knowing Clay’s background and reputation as a lawyer who was NOT a litigator nor a formidable defender of truth, justice or civil rights, but instead as a “colored boy who could play the game in Black-Face for the “MAN”, the White Man’s system”, a “Coon”, a “deal maker” and “bag man” for judges; his work with “settling/buying off” cases for guilty drug dealers, hustlers and enterprising criminals with the street handle of “Con Don”; and his brief, failed attempt at being an entertainment and sports agent while at the same time al-Hakim was established as the FIRST SUPER AGENT representing many of the worlds greatest athletes and entertainers, and the founder of sports and entertainment marketing industry. Clay’s former law partner Clinton White, a former judge that was brought onto the bench under the auspices of judge Stan Golde, was a friend of al-Hakim’s and a big interest in Oakland baseball. al-Hakim was an friend of judge Golde and his sons Matt and Ivan as well as judge White and his son Bennie. Judge Golde was Clay’s entrée into the bench as with judge White. William G. “Billy” Hunter, a personal friend, confidant, partner and co-worker of Clay’s, tried to force al-Hakim to take him under his wing and teach him the art of sports and entertainment representation at the request of then mayor Lionel Wilson- a friend of al-Hakim’s, and when al-Hakim refused, at Hunters insistence, al-Hakim was investigated by the IRS that lead to al-Hakim’s victory over them and a tax code being named after him, wherein al-Hakim made Law Review and his contracts classes being taught in most leading major Graduate Business and Law Schools in the nation. al-Hakim later had to “bailout” Hunter in a contract that he had negotiated with M. C. Hammer for Patrick Bates with the Oakland Raiders that was a disaster! al-Hakim not only represented Hammer, but established his sports and entertainment production, management and boxing promotion firms. Had this blunder by Hunter been known to the public and NBA Players Association, Hunter would NOT have gotten that job and that fact is still a major consideration in his law suit against the NBA Players Association in Hunter’s firing. Oddly enough when Hunter sued the NBAPA, he chose to file that suit in Alameda County and guess who the judge was that was assigned the case?, Yeah, CLAY!! But we are NOT supposed to think that there was no collusion, conspiracy or ex-parte communications! Well, here is an email exchange between Clay and Hunter. In an exhibit filed with the motion, Andrew Kassof presented a record of emails exchanged between Hunter and C. Don Clay, the presiding judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, where Hunter filed his lawsuit. The emails in April 2012 indicated a friendly, sympathetic relationship between Hunter and the judge.
In one email, Clay wrote to Hunter, in an apparent reference to Fisher: “This guy and his advisors still think that they can out think you! They will never give up! You know always to be on the alert! Keep up the fight! We will continue to pray for you!”
Hunter responded:“C Don thanks so much for the support. I now know how Obama feels, since he has to contend with this bs on a daily basis. I have urged the [board] to conduct an extensive audit to shutdown Derek Fisher. Keep me in your prayers.”
Further, al-Hakim represented Dean Hodges and 75 Girls Records, Jive Records, Zomba Music, Dangerous Music, Oaktown Records, the record company, producers and publishing companies that owned the rights to an artist that Clay represented, Too $hort. al-Hakim was a driving force in the Oscar Grant activities including formulating and enacting the Anniversary Memorial that brought BART to the event as a sponsor and to the speakers podium in unison and harmony that is universally credited with being the movement that established peace in the streets and lead to the settlement of the two claims of the family. Clay was a judge in that case.
The 56 complaints listed in the 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE is only a small sample, but since 1980, and more recently 2000, as a matter of documentation, al-Hakim has filed and served a variety of letters, formal complaints, legal actions and legal challenges with the United States Attorney General’s Office- Department of Justice; Federal and California State Judges their ruling bodies and Associations; the Alameda County Superior Court of California, United States Attorney’s Office- Northern District; United States District Court- Northern Division, Attorney General of California, Alameda County District Attorney; City of Oakland and Oakland City Attorney; Federal, State and local law enforcement; Federal, State and local politicians; regarding the many blatant civil rights violations, fraud, criminal activities and corruption of these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities that was widely distributed over the internet and posted on many websites.
In July, 2005, al-Hakim filed a Federal Corruption Complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him during the trial al-Hakim v. CSAA and Rescue, et. al”  in Superior Court of Alameda County, California.
al-Hakim’s initial investigation of his USDOJ demanded a change in this criminal, tactical policy of isolation, victimization, criminalization and the attempted entrapment of al-Hakim as the continuing victim, including the use of government initiated, Nixon era “White House Plumbers” and CoIntelpro style dirty tricks!
This State sponsored persecutory terror and civil conspiracy has brought into play Federal, Sate County and local judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies to further their continued investigation of al-Hakim whom has been surveilled for years and continues today with the compromising of many agents and informants covers due to their sloppiness. These actions of these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies are just one example of the continuing efforts of law enforcement to silence and eliminate al-Hakim, even by death, as their “enemy of the State” adversary when al-Hakim has caught and exposed them as they have been entrapped in their own criminal snares!
The complaint, drafted and filed by al-Hakim in pro per, has broad based support from Democrats and Republicans, was submitted by Congresswoman Barbara Lee with the offices of Congressmen John Conyers, and Charles Rangel, reviewed by several legal experts, with advocacy by former Republican Senator J. C. Watts, a client of al-Hakim’s, is moving forward with the investigation and charges of criminal extrinsic fraud upon the court of the State of California, fabricating and planting fabricated evidence, spoliation of evidence against defendants/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Ron Cook and the law firm of Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; defense counsel Steve Barber and the law firm of Ropers Majeski; and many others.
The complaint addresses the concern that a Superior Court Judges’ conduct rose to the level of consideration for a Federal Crime and a Civil Rights violation because the bench upon which the judge rules is “under the color of law” and certainly the violation of anyone’s civil rights is a federal crime. “Muslims, just as any other group, can not be afraid to speak up when their rights have been abridged. If one does not speak up, then the transgressions goes unreported and the perpetrator goes on to harm again unchecked, it does not matter whom the transgressor is”said al-Hakim. The complaint, perhaps even more importantly, not only requested Merrily Friedlander, Chief of the Civil Rights Division, to make an investigation of a judicial hate crime, but also the many other civil rights and due process violations of judicial misconduct, and attorney extrinsic fraud upon the court and law that are themselves directly the matters complained. J. C. Watts in asking “What does a supposed terrorist act in Russia have to do with the negligent contamination of a home in America?”posed the argument that there must be consideration of and a response to the many issues in the complaint.
The investigation concerns trial Judge David C. Lee’s allowance of the illegal product of the spoliated evidence and unclean hands by defendant/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Cook and Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; and the Oakland City Attorney’s Office run by John Russo to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony, and fostered it’s use to prejudice the jury. During the trial, testimony revealed that there were numerous documents and photos of a very damning nature to the defense and AAA as the hostile intervener, that were missing, altered, or incomplete.
The complaint against then Oakland City Attorney John Russo and the City Attorney’s staff including Mark Morodomi, Randy Hall, Janie Wong, Anita Hong, Sophia Li, Demetruis Shelton, Elizabeth Allen, Erica Harrold and Michele Abbey; former Oakland and current San Leandro City Attorney Jane Williams and former employee Pat Smith; was for their fraudulently fabricating evidence in 1999 and planting that evidence favorable to the defendants in the case files SIX years AFTER the case was closed, engaged in spoliation of remaining evidence in the court files from 1991, fostering Rescue trial Judge David C. Lee’s allowance of the illegal product of fabricated and planted evidence, spoiliated evidence and unclean hands by defendant/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Ron Cook and Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; defense counsel Steve Barber and the law firm of Ropers Majeski; the other underlying defendants; and the Oakland City Attorney’s Office; to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony based on this planted evidence in the al-Hakim v CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case that was created thru EXTRINSIC FRAUD with accompanying testimony procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious acts and fostered it’s use to prejudice the jury. During the Rescue trial, testimony revealed that there were numerous documents and photos of a very damning nature to the defense and AAA as the hostile intervener, that were missing, altered, or incomplete, and providing the case file to defendants Stephan Barber and Ron Cook for nearly a year, Russo and your office failed to notify the court of this unpardonable illegal breach in the chain of custody of the file, and engaged in actions to destroy the litigation of my legal case; Russo and your office engaged in actions to coverup your unlawful acts; as you committed, aided and abetted this criminal activity.
After review in the U. S. Attorney General Office, the case was thought of as being so egregious that even the infamous Bradley Schlozman, whom is now fired and facing Federal indictment with resigned former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez for removing Democratic attorneys from the U. S. Attorneys Generals offices nationwide, sent al-Hakim a letter referring the matter (because of jurisdictional limitations) to then California State Attorney General- now Governor Jerry Brown, California State Bar Association, the California State Judicial Council, and California State Insurance Commissioner for investigation and prosecution. And these were Republican Judges and attorney’s being complained of!
Full Story with Videos and Documents at http://tinyurl.com/ljk8av
The Alameda County District Attorney (DA), the Attorney General of The State of California (AG) and the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) and their judicial team of covert illicit participants the putative accounting expert that created and complied the entire presumptively inadmissible product and evidence of admitted fraud and bribery, the accounting report used as the sole basis for the judgment by Commissioner Glenn Oleon despite the fact he knew it was the product of fraud.
al-Hakim and Family assert that good cause exists to question the legality of the standing of ALL the Parties including the Attorney General of The State of California (AG), Kamala Harris, whom substituted in as Attorney of Record allegedly representing The People of The State of California, et. al., In The Interest of Justice in this case for the Alameda County District Attorney (DA) and the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) as they exercised a clearly illegal conflict of interest in misrepresenting the family, conducting a complete trial to defend their illegal actions and evidence before admitting the conflict AFTER the trial was completed. This act makes them ALL a co-conspirator in the DCSSs continuing fraud upon The People of The Sate of California, the Superior Court and the al-Hakim Family, continuing their persecution of our family. They did not have standing then and CAN NOT NOW!
Then California Attorney General and now Governor Jerry Brown, responsible for carrying out the investigation of Oakland City Attorney John Russo, former Oakland and current San Leandro City Attorney Jayne Williams, former District Attorney Tom Orloff, current District Attorney Nancy E. O’Malley, Alameda County Superior Court, the State Appeals and Supreme Court judges, and various corporate defendants in this case is himself defending some of the criminals and covering up the very same corruption he is supposed to be investigating and prosecuting! Once served with the complaint, he denied rejecting it for investigation and NEVER moved forward with it.
In addition to the 56 listed complaints served on Clay over the years, al-Hakim has had many contacts, conversations, exchanged voice mail messages, faxes, emails, filed and served documents with and on Clay and his clerk Elaine Kabling on April 18, 2012; April 19, 2012; May 1, 2012, May 15, 2012; August 22, 2012; September 4, 2012, regarding a personal meeting on the open fraud investigation involving the Oakland City Attorney, various Judges, the District Attorney’s Office, their producing documents, resolving the many outstanding issues, that al-Hakim had previously spoke with Rich Cowan, met with Dan Lindhiem, the City Administrator regarding some of these issues.
Clay’s current directive from Carvill is to preemptively obliterate, destroy ANY and ALL remaining legal options for al-Hakim to pursue his rightful truth and justice that will expose ALL his and Carvill’s many years of criminal corruption and cover up of those denials of his inherent civil rights, human rights, and basic decency afforded to anyone, everyone, in his effort to please the MAN!
Now Clay is representing Carvill’s and his own interests in this matter BEFORE HIMSELFas judge makes Clay a litigant.
The most important result of that hearing is that Clay has officially made himself a defendant and fourth element in this case. Though currently sitting as the judge in this matter he is now a witness, defendant, co-defense counsel and deputy defense judge ruling in matters that he has lied and has been deceitful about and is personally involved in with Carvill, in an action that was brought by the defendants BEFORE HIM to establish HIS right to sit and rule in the same matter that HE and Carvill are personally involved in and HE sits in judgment of HIMSELF and Carvill BEFORE HIMSELF! His actions has the unfortunate consequence of making the judge a litigant, obliged to the defense counsel providing this opportunity to defend himself as the sitting judge of the litigants appearing before him in the case. ( Kerr v. United States District Court, supra, 426 U.S. at pp. 402-403 [48 L.Ed.2d at p. 732].) Judges should be umpires rather than players. This is a travesty and a mockery of justice with clear conflict while it wreaks of corruption and collusion!
4. Defendants has Conspired, Consorted, Colluded and Conceived Litigation Strategy with Judicial, Law Enforcement, Governmental and Legal Entities.
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.
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through counsel Anna Hsia has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived their vexatious litigation strategy with third parties, Twitter and their law firm Perkins Coie LLP with counsel Winnie Hung; Google and their law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. with counsel Kelly M. Knoll; JP Morgan Chase Bank and their law firm Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, with counsel William E. Ireland, Brett G. Moore; Alameda County Superior Court Administration and Chad Finke; Alameda County District Attorney and Nancy O’Malley; Office of the Oakland City Attorney and Barbara J. Parker; Department of Child Support Services and director Matthew A. Brega; Judicial Council of California with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Victoria B. Henley, Martin Hoshino, Marshall Grossman.
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with other parties that in open court announced themselves as “court observers” when questioned “who are you and why are you here (in court)?”. The two that were there at that time refused to give their names or whom they worked for.
There were/are at least these three, two whom announced themselves as “court observers” that attended at least four hearings and openly consorted with the conspirators before and in court and at all times refused to give their names or whom they worked for.
There were/are at least these three other third party governmental authority “court observers” that has attended hearings in other al-Hakim matters that consorted with the opposing party conspirators.
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with third party governmental authorities.
On at least two occasions Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia, with their third party co-conspirators began to affect this vexatious litigation strategy by asking the court to order that plaintiff reveal his litigation strategy.
On at least two occasions Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia, with their third party co-conspirators began to affect this vexatious litigation strategy by asking plaintiff to reveal his litigation strategy and openly opined that this was a “corruption investigation”.
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia 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 Hsia attempts to exercise “White Class Privilege” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsai has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities.
Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsai ADMITTED in open court at the October 3, 2018, hearing that she has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, and they were willing to file declarations and documents in support of the motion, accepted as including but not limited to Twitter and their law firm Perkins Coie LLP with counsel Winnie Hung; Google and their law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. with counsel Kelly M. Knoll; JP Morgan Chase Bank and their law firm Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, with counsel William E. Ireland, Brett G. Moore; Alameda County Superior Court Administration and Chad Finke (Judicial Council of California with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Victoria B. Henley, Martin Hoshino, Marshall Grossman); Alameda County District Attorney and Nancy O’Malley; Office of the Oakland City Attorney and Barbara J. Parker; and defendant Wellpoint-CSAA.
I remain very, very concerned about Clay’s heightening TERROR TACTICS in the courtroom and unless and until this issue can be fairly resolved BEFORE the next hearing scheduled IN DEPARTMENT 6, BEFORE JUDGE CLAY, I CAN NOT in good conscience, OUT OF FEAR, agree to APPEAR with ANY of the continuing outstanding conditions referenced in that complaint regrading Clay’s State sponsored TERROR I was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM!
I am and will be subject to the continued fraud, corruption and collusion complained of in ALL the aforementioned herein and further, I request an OPEN hearing on these matters 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.
Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501