Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Writ of Mandate, Trial Court Orders without Assignment, Jurisdiction, or Authority are Void Ab Initio

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

I. INTRODUCTION AND GROUNDS FOR PETITION

AND STAY OF ACTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. SUMMARY/ISSUES PRESENTED

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

2. JURISDICTION AND TIMELINESS

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

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

Extraordinary relief:

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

Request for immediate administrative stay:

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

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

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petition for Writ of Mandate and Writ of Review/Prohibition

Plaintiff/Petitioner, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF, Foundation), a 68 year old California Public Benefit Non-Profit Corporation, founded in 1967 in Richmond, California, is still fulfilling the Mission of the founders Aaron & Margaret Wallace as their Legacy runs STRONG in the FIVE GENERATIONS of HUNDREDS of sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews, great grandfathers and great grandmothers, grandfathers and grandmothers, grandchildren and great grandchildren, and ALL other forms and variations of the Family Tree, that continue to administer and operate the foundation today by “Creating, Innovating and Edvocating Relevant Social Services Programs”
January 31, 2025 Plaintiff/Petitioner filed this complaint Case No. 25CV108981, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation v State Farm, et. al.
April 2, 2025, Defendants State Farm (State Farm ) filed Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order that was NEVER SERVED ON PLAINTIFF.
April 17, 2025, Defendants Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (“Alacrity”) ALLEGEDLY filed Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order that was NEVER SERVED ON PLAINTIFF.
Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon WILLFULLY AND MALICIOUSLY granted their Notices of Vexatious Litigant UNLAWFULLY imposing upon and subjecting Plaintiff to the Code of Civil Procedure section 391’s punitive “vexatious litigant” process requiring the Foundation to obtain a prefiling order from the presiding judge within ten (10) days of the filings and automatically stayed this case. HOWEVER THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A PREFILING ORDER SERVED ON PLAINTIFF.
A CORPORATION CAN NOT BE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT under CCP section 391 a corporation is a distinct juridical entity; it cannot be a “person” acting in propria persona for purposes of § 391, nor can an officer’s personal status be imputed to the entity makes ALL judges Nixon, Kaus and Jones alleged orders Void Ab Initio, and ends the § 391 path for both defendants, as they are without jurisdiction or authority to act.
Kaus ordered the Foundation, not Mr. al-Hakim, is the named plaintiff; defendants’ notices avowing “Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant” were “not accurate” makes ALL judges Nixon, Kaus and Jones alleged orders Void Ab Initio, as they are without jurisdiction or authority.
Kaus order convicts Nixon beyond reasonable doubt, of a clear, direct, intentional, malicious, and premeditated violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §242, as a Deprivation of rights under color of law liable for this criminal act and prosecution for criminal behavior, with misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance, while this conduct of Nixon, Kaus, and Jones illegally and practically prevents AMWF from having a fair hearing, wherein the findings and award resulting from such misconduct must be annulled, and the matter remanded for further proceedings as in the event of a mistrial.
These actions are PROOF AMWF NON-PROFIT FOUNDATION, ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM, THE AL-HAKIM FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES AND BUSINESS PROPERTY, REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, CHARITIES, COMMUNITIES, AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE- PERSONALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, MORALLY, ETHICALLY, AND FINANCIALLY, HAS BEEN TARGETED in this ongoing Entrapment Scheme to disable, destroy, and eliminate them WITH EGREGIOUS, MALICIOUS, SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS, ILLEGAL, CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, Nixon, Kaus, Jones and the court with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while hiding behind their illegal declaration of the Foundation being a Vexatious Litigant imposing upon and subjecting them to an illegal prefiling order to deny and exhaust, any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, or human rights; without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation; without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of these corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies, operatives and litigation opponents WITH THE MALICIOUS INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
10. We have documented AND filed OVER SIXTY (60) Federal, State and Local complaints in cases of those authorities being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities against AMWF and al-Hakim family with their businesses.
11. This order proves Nixon, Kaus, and Jones engaged in criminal collusion, conspiracy, corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff’s of litigation due them contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law and rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528; Fraud Upon The Court, Manipulation, Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
12. May 19, 2025, State Farm filed a Motion for An Order for Dismissal for Failing to Timely Obtain a Prefiling Order within Ten (10) Days of the Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order per CCP section 391.7(c).
13. June 6, 2025, Alacrity allegedly filed a Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay and a Motion to Strike; those motions and supporting papers were never served on Petitioner.
14. July 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed an 88-page Verified Statement/Declaration captioned “Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants Motion for An Order for Dismissal for Failing to Timely Obtain a Prefiling Order within Ten (10) Days of the Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order. per CCP section 391.7(c); and Cross‐Motion for Filing this Frivolous or Dilatory motion with Monetary Sanctions against Defendants and their counsels under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5, 128.7, and 391.7(f)”, verified under penalty of perjury, in opposition to State Farm’s motion for dismissal.
15. al-Hakim, signed and filed the Verified Statement believing that, as a non profit corporation representing itself, he could submit factual declarations under CCP § 2015.5.
16. Plaintiff attempted multiple times over weeks to register for an account to access the e-filing system, but NEVER received any confirming email with login password to complete the registration.
17. July 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed and served Judge Nixon a twelve (12) page Declaration/Complaint as “Opposition to Judge Jeff Brand alleged Vexatious Litigant (CCP 391 (b)(3)) Order that was procured through Fraud, Conspiracy, Corruption and with Premeditated Malice Aforethought for Filing Challenges for Cause under CCP 170.1 and 170.3; the alleged Vexatious Order was never served and that it be served” separately notifying Nixon that this prevented Plaintiff’s timely response and Defendants Notices was NEVER SERVED. Plaintiff requested Judge Nixon to serve the alleged orders so they could respond properly and intelligently. To date Nixon has failed and refused service.
18. July 31, 2025, Plaintiff again filed and served the twelve (12) page Declaration/Complaint requesting action regarding: “PRESIDING JUDGE REFUSES TO SERVE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED; PROOF Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice; PROOF KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance”, served on Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero- Supreme Court of California, Chair- Judicial Council of California, Commission on Judicial Appointments; Director Michelle Curran- Judicial Council of California; Director-Chief Counsel Gregory Dresser- Commission on Judicial Performance; Director Craig H. Missakian- U.S. Attorney’s Office; Attorney General of California Rob Bonta; FBI Director Sanjay Virmani- San Francisco Field Office; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez- Alameda County Sheriff; District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson-Alameda County; Director Steve Gordon- Department of Motor Vehicles; Director Kenneth J. Pogue- Office of Administrative Law; Bureau Chief Patrick Dorais- Bureau of Automotive Repair; Commissioner Ricardo Lara- Department of Insurance; et. al., ALL of whom will be, and some have been, subpoenaed as witnesses and to produce documents are involved in the instant case.
19. To date Judge Nixon has failed and refused to serve the alleged Vexatious order and ALL referenced above have ignored the written Complaints and Demands.
20. July 17, 2025 Plaintiff filed and served a Request for Judicial Notice.
21. July 22, 2025, Plaintiff made five (5) calls and left two (2) voicemail messages on three separate Alameda County Superior Court hotlines, seeking to contest the Tentative Rulings on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff also emailed Department 19 at 3:30 pm the same day, expressly notifying the Court of its desire to contest any adverse tentative ruling and requesting the tentative ruling for review (see Exh. D).
22. In response/reply to Plaintiff email, on July 23, 2025 at 9:15 am, the department 19 clerk, Angelica Mendola, confirmed via email that a tentative ruling had been posted online and advised Plaintiff on how to access it, but NEVER informed that the matters were continued (see Exh. D). This verifies the court received our communication, we contested the ruling and planned to appear to argue the matters even though we did NOT know what the rulings were.
23. al-Hakim appeared for the July 23, 2025 hearing at 3:00 p.m. and was informed by the courtroom bailiff the ruling was posted, the matters were continued as was the Case Management Conference hearing scheduled for July 29, 2025. al-Hakim requested a copy of the Tentative Rulings from the court bailiff but he was unable/unwilling to print a copy from his computer and consulted with the clerk whom also could/would not provide a copy, wherein al-Hakim provided the bailiff and clerk with a filed stamped copy of the Verified Statement/Declaration/Complaint and Demand served on Nixon that the vexatious litigant order was procured through fraud and never served, AND DEMANDING that he serve it ASAP as this has prevented Plaintiff’s timely response to this problem! al-Hakim remained in the courtroom until Judge Jones came out and called her first case to establish that there was NO REASON NOR ISSUE OF HER APPEARING before he left.
24. Friday July 25, 2025 al-Hakim reverted to his personal e-filing account and had to request a new password to activate it, and did so successfully. The requested e-filing account for plaintiff WAS NEVER PROVIDED BY THE COURT!
25. al-Hakim went online and noticed there were MANY issues in the Register of Actions that had NOT been served BY THE DEFENDANTS AND THE COURT including the 7/23/25 Tentative Ruling on Defendants Motion to Dismiss and our Opposition and motion for Sanctions but it was too late to view it.
26. July 28, 2025, al-Hakim sent a letter/complaint to Judge Jones, Nixon, all Defendants, department clerk, and Chad Finke- Executive Officer requesting a reservation number for our Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, Terminating Sanctions, and Monetary Sanctions the Defendants Alacrity allegedly filed, unserved Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay and a Motion to Strike.
27. The letter/complaint documents: those filings were NEVER SERVED ON US BY ANYONE and request a Reservation number for our Motion to Dismiss the above with Prejudice, for Terminating Sanctions, and Monetary Sanctions; our motion will be prepared by tomorrow; and we would like a time on any of the following dates: September 1, 2025, September 3, 2025, September 8, 2025, September 10, 2025, September 15, 2025, September 17, 2025, September 22, 2025, September 24, 2025, September 29, 2025, or 31, 2025. (see Exh. E)
28. The court NEVER responded to the multiple requests over several days for a reservation number to file the motion to dismiss, rather the clerk sent emails WITHOUT a reservation number, so we filed and served our Motion the next day, August 1, 2025. (see Exh. F)
29. July 31, 2025 we received via postal mail a notice entitled “Amended Tentative Case Management Order on July 24, 2025 at 9:42 am.” by Judge Stephen Kaus ordering:

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

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

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

48. These dates of proof of service are fraudulent fabrications for the affirmations of Kaus’ previous tentatives by Jones provides that State Farm’s dismissal was DROPPED from the August 13, 2025 calendar as “moot in light of the Court’s order entered this date granting the motion by Defendant Alacrity Solutions Group LLC, incorrectly sued as Alacrity Solutions LLC, to strike Plaintiffs Complaint and dismissing this entire action” because it claims the Alacrity order was PRIOR TO THE TIME of the State Farm dismissal.
49. Date on the proof of service for State Farm’s dismissal is August 14, 2025, by Angelica Mendola, delivered and received via postal mail by plaintiff on August 22, 2025.
50. Date on the proof of service for the NEW Amended Alacrity order by Jones states it was served on plaintiff on August 14, 2025, by Amani Amponsah who is located in a different office/department/city than Angelica Mendola, whom had singed all the previous proofs for this actions and those on the same day, without a new signature nor date for the amended order, yet the envelope is postmarked, August 26, 2025- TWO (2) WEEKS LATER, was delivered and received via postal mail by plaintiff on September 2, 2025!
51. The dated proofs of service of August 14, 2025 and the envelope postmarked August 26, 2025, TWO (2) WEEKS LATER, received by plaintiff September 2, 2025, PROVES that the State Farm dismissal was entered BEFORE the Amended 8/14/25 at 10:04 am Alacrity order by Jones and IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE the State Farm dismissal was moot at the time the order was issued!
52. These proofs of service with postmarked mailing envelopes established continuing Jones, Kaus, Nixon, Finke, Mendola, Amponsah and Superior Court Administration Corruption with Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); Fraud on the Court, Fraud Upon The Court; and Manipulation is an essential element in vacating and voiding any order subject to inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect, or FRAUD (CCP §473(b)); Code Civ. Proc., § 475; and renders the judgment and/or default is void (CCP §473(d)).
53. These orders are ALL void for lack of authority as both Jones and Nixon can not simply adopt and enforce them as this is evidence of Fraud upon the court and the People of the State of California!
54. This new Amended order makes reference to documents filed by “Alacrity Solutions, LLC (Defendant) CRS# 696580079843 filed by on 8/11/2025” yet Petitioner is unaware of any such action and was NEVER served any documents of any type from defendants.
55. This Amended order makes reference to “The Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by Snapsheet (Defendant) +CRS# 841093799305 scheduled for 10/15/2025 is vacated”. Petitioner is unaware of any such action and was NEVER served any documents of any type from defendants Snapsheet.
56. Petitioner has NEVER received any filed and served notices from defendants counsel Sonia Shah/Spencer Fane LLP, NOR THE COURT for ANY of the following actions listed in the court Register of Actions:

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Stephen Kaus- February 25, 2019

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

___________________________

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

Petitioner

4. LEGAL ARGUMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII. STATEMENT OF DISQUALIFICATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IX. IRREPARABLE HARM / INADEQUATE REMEDY BY APPEAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

XI. REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF- STAY AND OSC

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

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

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

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

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

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

These proofs of service with postmarked mailing envelope established, continuing Jones, Kaus, Nixon, Mendola, Amponsah and Superior Court Administration Corruption with Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); Fraud on the Court, Fraud Upon The Court; and Manipulation is an essential element in vacating and voiding any order subject to inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect, or FRAUD (CCP §473(b)); Code Civ. Proc., § 475; and renders the judgment and/or default is void (CCP §473(d)).

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

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

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

PRAYER and RELIEF REQUESTED

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

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

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

___________________________

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

for Petitioner

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

AND EMERGENCY STAY REQUESTED

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

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

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

foregoing is true and correct.

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

____________________________

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM

for Petitioner

“In another religion they honor people who serve like you with Sainthood!” – Economics Professor Adeel Malik,Oxford University, England and World Renowned News Expert Commentator, speaking about Abdul-Jalil and the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.

“GOD sent me an ANGEL!” – Hammer, speaking about Abdul-Jalil.

“Jalil, YOU ARE A TZADIK (SAINT)!”– Barry Barkan, Live Oak Institute and

Ashoka Fellow at Ashoka Foundation:Innovators for the Public

“I thank God for you and for bringing you into my life and for the ministry you have been given to help the people of God!”– Pastor L. J. Jennings, Kingdom Builders Christian Fellowship, speaking about Abdul-Jalil and AMWF

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, c.1971

In 1971 Abdul-Jalil had the HONOR of having his portrait painted by Beauford Delaney, hailed as the most important African-American artists of the 20th century, whose life appeared to symbolize the mythical artistic existence of privation and relative obscurity, that show a retrospective of “uninhibited colorist (though never an unintelligent one)” that is “apotheosized” and whose talent and “free, open and outgoing nature” engendered admiration from everyone whom was fortunate enough to encounter him as he was THE darling of the international culture scene in New York and Paris. James Baldwin called him his “spiritual father.”

Beauford Delaney is ranked among the Top 10 globally, and in United States. Delaney’s best rank was in 1944, the artist’s rank has improved over the last 5 years, with the most dramatic change in 1992.

His list of friends and acquaintances including artists, World Leaders, politicians, activist, authors/poets/writers, intellectuals, filmmakers, promoted by numerous patrons of the arts, world Cultural Ambassadors, art gallery owners, befriended by notable figures, and musicians Stuart Davis — his closest painter compatriot — W.E.B. Du Bois (whose portrait he painted), Salvadore Dalí (whose portrait he painted), Countee Cullen, Louis Armstrong (whose portrait he painted), Duke Ellington (whose portrait he painted), Ethel Waters (whose portraits he painted), W.C. Handy (whose portrait he painted), Henry Miller (who wrote a tribute to him), John F. Kennedy (whose portraits he painted), Robert Kennedy (whose portraits he painted), Jean-Claude Killy (whose portraits he painted), Herb Gentry, Alain Locke, Cy Twombly, Sterling Brown, Langston Hughes, Georgia O’Keeffe (who drew charcoal and pastel portraits of Delaney in 1943), Augusta Savage, Stuart Davis, John Marin, Pablo Picasso (whose portrait he painted), Richard A. Long (whose portrait he painted), John Koenig (whose portrait he painted), and Claude McKay were connected to Paris in various ways.

Josephine Baker

Luminaries Josephine Baker, Bob Blackburn, Ed Clark, Bob Thompson, Marian Anderson (whose portrait he painted), Jacob Lawrence, Ella Fitzgerald (whose portrait he painted), Zora Neale Hurston, Alfred Stieglitz, Carl Van Vechten, Edward Steichen, Dorothy Norman, Anaïs Nin, art studio owner Charles Alston, Jackson Pollock, Vassili Pikoula, Henri Chahine (whose portrait he painted), Charlie Parker (whose portrait and music he painted.), James Jones, Jean Genet, Lawrence Calcagno, Cab Calloway, Elaine DeKooning, Palmer C. Hayden (whose portrait he painted), art dealer Darthea Speyer (whose portrait he painted) who had exhibitions of Delaney's art at Paris' Galerie Lambert in 1964. Others include artists Charles Boggs, Al Hirschfeld, John Franklin Koenig, Harold Cousins, Herbert Gentry (whose portrait he painted), Ed Clark, and Ellis Wilson, authors James Jones and Henry Miller (who was also a water colorist), Writers Richard Wright, Surrealist poet Stanislas Rodanski, Chester Himes, Ralph Ellison, William Gardner Smith, Richard Gibson, Lorraine Hansberry, Ted Joans, art historian Richard A. Long, and his friend Lynn Stone.

* * TESTIMONIALS ON ABDUL-JALIL * *

Emanuel Steward on Jalil

Emanuel Steward, Evander Holyfield, and Hammer in ring with Heavyweight Title Belts

“The Man who turns hits into MILLION$.” – The Tribune.
“You really are the BEST.” – L. BOSTOCK, California Angels.
“GOD sent me an Angel” – M.C. HAMMER.
“Smart Youth, most intriguing, has the Baseball world at his feet.” – N.Y. POST .

“Thanks for getting the Deal DONE Jalil!”- Evander “Real Deal” Holyfield, the only boxer in history to win the undisputed championship in two weight classes (cruiserweight in the late 1980s and at heavyweight in the early 1990s).

Reggie's Prayer

“Jalil, I told everybody that you guys are representing me!”- Reggie "the Minister of Defense" White, two-time NFL Defensive Player of the Year, Super Bowl XXXI champion, 13-time Pro Bowl, holds second place all-time among NFL career sack leaders with 198 (behind Bruce Smith's 200 career sacks). He was selected to the NFL 75th Anniversary All-Time Team, NFL 100th Anniversary All-Time Team, NFL 1990s All-Decade Team, and the NFL 1980s All-Decade Team. White is a member of the College Football Hall of Fame and the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Deion "Prime Time" Sanders playing with Atlanta Braves and Atlanta Falcons at the same time!

“You are going to have to deal with him (Jalil) now!”- Deion “Prime Time” Sanders to Atlanta Braves and Atlanta Hawks former President and General Manager Stan Kasten and Atlanta Braves General Manager John Schuerholz

“I don’t know what I would have done without you!.” – J.C. WATTS, U.S. HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES.
“Thanks for directing me to the Sonics.” – GUS WILLIAMS, NBA.
“Imaginative, foresighted, some pretty impressive credentials. His I.Q. QUALIFIES HIM AS A GENIUS.” – UPI .
“That’s the finest promotion job for an unknown athlete that I have ever seen.” – N.Y. JETS.
“I’m so happy!! I’m full of money!!” – C. ROBINSON, NBA.
“He is personable, unafraid, confident. and athletes are attracted to him” – D. MAGGARD, U.S. Olympic Committee.
“You have never been wrong” – EMANUEL STEWARD, Boxing
“He told me what he wanted, we shook hands. We made the deal in 5 minutes.” – B. BAVASI, California Angels

Superstar Management’s Podcast

For the BEST in Pro Sports and Entertainment

itunes pic
Part 2 of 2 Interviews of Abdul-Jalil, Nanita Strong and Imam Wali Mohammed on AmericanMuslim360 (AM360)
Abdul-Jalil, Nanita Strong and Imam Wali Mohammed discuss Feeding the needy on AmericanMuslim360 (AM360)in Part 2 of 2 Interviews by Niamat Shaheed.
AmericanMuslim360 (AM360)
AmericanMuslim360 Premium Channel is about Islam and being Muslim in American. AmericanMuslim360 has programing space available for Muslims who wish to host their own show. AM360 goal is to become a Network Channel in 2013, creating the AmericanMuslim360 Network Channel broadcasting an Islamic focused, 24/7 Muslim hosted Internet radio. If you wish to be a part of this progressive Community Life building effort, then host or move your show to AM360 Premium Channel. Connect Thomas Abdul-Salaam at www.AmericnMuslim360.com for details. Programing needs : Muslimah2Muslimah, Finance, Education, Economic Development, Brother2Brother, Youth, Music/Hip-Hop, Sports, News, Entertainment, Weather, Fashion, Business2Business, Social Issues, Politics, Movie Reviews, Arts, Stock Market, Islamic History, Hadith, Quran, Prophet Muhammad, Imam Warith Deen Mohammed, Jumah, Arabic, Taleem, How-to shows, and more.

Search Episodes

Part 2 of 2 Interviews of Abdul-Jalil, Nanita Strong and Imam Wali Mohammed on AmericanMuslim360 (AM360)

January 17, 2013

Abdul Jalil

Part 1 of 2 Interviews of Abdul-Jalil on AmericanMuslim360 (AM360)

January 17, 2013

Abdul Jalil

KNBR Law of Sports broadcast on “Bounce, The Don Barksdale Story”

December 13, 2010

Abdul Jalil

Law of Sports w-AJ, Doug, Ivan 12-4-10

December 5, 2010

Abdul Jalil

KGO Radio’s broadcast discussion of “Out. The Glenn Burke Story”

November 22, 2010

Abdul Jalil

Hip Hop and The Spread of Islam Part 1 of 2

June 19, 2009

Abdul Jalil

National Balsa Law Conference Part 2 of 2

June 19, 2009

Abdul Jalil

National Balsa Law Conference Part 1 of 2

June 19, 2009

Abdul Jalil

Search Results placeholder

Name *

First

Last

Cell and Home/Work Phone Numbers

Email *

Comment or Message *

Please note that this information has been gathered to help us provide Your Client with a service that will meet their needs. They should not fail to provide information required of them and which is relevant to this application for legal aid/assistance. Be assured that the information we have requested is essential to our understanding and how best to satisfy your current request and future needs, and that it will remain completely confidential. Please watch for an e-mail from us after we have reviewed your request. They MUST provide all documents to us in connection with this application for legal aid/assistance and it is a crime to present information that is false or misleading and they MUST NOT make a false or misleading statement either orally or in writing in relation to this application for legal aid/assistance and therefore declare that all the information they have given is true and correct. The information will be treated in STRICT CONFIDENCE. By submitting this form, you agree to ALL conditions herein and I Accept NOWTRUTH’s Terms of Submission. *

Who We Serve

We provide FREE groceries, clothing, shoes, hygiene kits, sleeping bags, blankets, medicine, and hot chef’s prepared gourmet meals to the homeless and homeless encampments and habitations of ALL kinds, from the streets to parks, from trees and bushes to alleys, from corners to ditches, from hand built shanties to tents under freeway overpasses!

Homeless encampment under the freeway on Peralta and 35th streets in Oakland, Calif.

We provide FREE groceries, bagged and hot chef’s prepared gourmet meals, plus the above, to the Oakland Safe Parking Program and the CAREavan Safe Parking Programs, among others, at local senior and community centers, and faith based organizations in an effort to provide families and/or individuals who have been displaced and are temporarily homeless, living in their vehicles and need a safe place to park and sleep overnight, with restrooms and an attendant present throughout the night at all of the locations.

We also provide food to those that had previously obtained necessary items at their Senior Center. But now that they’re closed are vital to the wellness of the community and senior population with our Food Bank program and Free Farmers Market Food Give-Aways.

Our HISTORIC Hammer “Rap-The-Vote Concert Series” Secured Re-Election of Russian President Boris Yeltsin AND Spawned Rise of Vladamir Putin to Power!

Our HISTORIC Hammer “Rap-The-Vote Concert Series” Secured Re-Election of Russian President Boris Yeltsin AND Spawned Rise of Vladamir Putin to Power!

“As long as there are reformers in the Russian Federation and the other states leading the journey toward democracy's horizon, our strategy must be to support them. And our place must be at their side.” -President Bill Clinton on the re-election of Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1995-

This 1995 event is a WORLD HISTORIC perspective about how our “WORLD ALTERING” Urban-American, western style, political campaign strategy utilizing M. C. Hammer in a “Rap-The-Vote Concert Series” secured the 18-45 voter turnout and the re-election of Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1995 with the “Our Home Is Russia” (NDR), a Russian liberal political party. Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim devised a strategic plan, executive produced, produced, filmed and broadcast on Russian National TV a series of concerts in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and the WORLD. This campaign tactic was their most effective strategy, greatest strength- uniquely different and vastly superior to anything Russia had ever witnessed. This comprehensive, targeted attack with our expertise well grounded in modern focused campaigning strategy, advertising, marketing, and promotions was trumpeted for saving Russian democracy with Yeltsin’s re-election ensuring continuity in the Democratic evolution of Russia and securing world peace. The television programming was so successful that it has regularly run on air since 1995!

At the time we began our concerts and campaign events over the weeks in St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin was then Deputy mayor of St. Petersburg, organized the St. Petersburg branch of the Party Our Home Is Russia, was it’s Chairman, and led the campaign issue of the party in the elections to the Duma that led to his rise to power and being named President of Russia by Boris Yeltsin.

This strategy was trumpeted for saving Russian democracy with Yeltsin’s re-election ensuring continuity in the Democratic evolution of Russia and securing world peace!

This strategy was heralded world wide by political pundits as “incredibly brilliant”, a “triumph for democratic reform” and “universally invaluable” in it’s effect of having “saved” Russian democracy, as Yeltsin was the only alternative in ensuring continuity in the evolution of Russia and securing world peace.

This coup, a miraculous event in history, was depicted and canonized in the 2004 film “Spinning Boris” starring Jeff Goldblum, Anthony LaPaglia and Liev Schreiber.

“Spinning Boris” The Best President of Russia America Ever Had ..L. A. Times Review

Jeff Goldblum, Anthony LaPaglia and Liev Schreiber star as a trio of elite American political campaign operatives who were hired in secret to manage Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s election campaign in 1996. He’s polling at 6 percent with the election a few months away. First, they must get someone’s attention; they succeed finally with Yeltsin’s daughter, then it’s polling, focus groups, messages and spin. Even as Yeltsin’s numbers go up, they are unsure who hired them and if Yeltsin’s allies have a different plan in mind than victory. When the going gets toughest, they put a spin on their stake: democracy and capitalism must win. They orchestrate the most spectacular political comeback of the twentieth century – as they “sold” Boris Yeltsin to the Russian public gaining Yeltsin’s successful re-election.

Excerpts of the Re-election of Russian President Boris Yeltsin in “Clinton Secrets”, a book by JOHN DIAMOND, Associated Press Writer

The campaign tactic was their most effective strategy, greatest strength- uniquely different and vastly superior to anything Russia had ever witnessed. This strategic plan with our expertise well grounded in modern American campaigning got Yeltsin re-elected. This was simply a matter of fact that he was the best the modern world could get compared to the alternative communist and he was fully supported by the U.S.

A State Department memorandum, marked “confidential,’’ summarized then President Bill Clinton’s meeting with Yeltsin at a summit in Egypt, where Clinton told Yeltsin he ”wanted to make sure that everything the United States did would have a positive impact and nothing should have a negative impact’’ on Yeltsin’s re-election. The memo added the U. S. wanted an upcoming summit with the Russian leader to be successful to “reinforce everything that Yeltsin had done.’’

THIS BLACK HISTORY IS WORLD HISTORY!

Abdul-Jalil was honored in Miami, Florida and Haiti—

World Conference of Mayors 2010- Abdul-Jalil was honored in Miami, Florida and Haiti, for the Relief Missions to Arch Bishop Joel Jeune of Grace Village in Haiti

they received from the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Stepping Together and Superstar Management with recognition of The World Conference of Mayors (WCM) and The National Conference of Black Mayors (NCBM). This is a tangible reality of SUCCESS in Haiti for ALL the members of the organizations world-wide rather than the many idle cocktail party rants and raves of projects that exist without any substance behind them!
Page One of Letter

Page Two of Letter

2005- Federal Complaint with United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of Hate Crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia
In 2005 he filed a federal complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him by Judge David C. Lee during a trial in Superior Court of Alameda County, California, that is moving forward with the investigation and charges of criminal extrinsic fraud upon the court of the State of California, spoliation of evidence, and the doctrine “unclean hands” 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 others. 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, has been review by several legal experts, with advocacy by former Republican Senator J. C. Watts, a client of al-Hakim’s.
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.

2003- al-Hakim Prevails in Motion to Vacate the Appraisal Awards Against CSAA
In February 2003 after 3 years of defendants legal delays with ten motions for terminating sanctions to prevent the motion from being heard, al-Hakim prevailed in his Motion to Vacate the Appraisal awards against CSAA. (View or download Order here http://www.box.net/shared/n10p7erncv)
The courts found that the awards had to be vacated if, among other grounds, “the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means”; or the appraisers(A. Michael DeCeasare, Ruben Estrada, Ron Magin and Gene Roberts) “exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted”. The order further cited the improper use of “cash value” as replacement cost, use of erroneous “used cost” figures, denial of coverage, injection of fraud, concealment, breach of contract, and coverage issues without any reason or evidence, CSAA could not defend their actions nor those of their own appraiser. What the court did not address in the motion to vacate was the actual collusion and fraud again perpetrated upon the court by the defendant Ron Cook and the hostile intervener when they provided to and the appraisal panel adopted the improper “cash values” used in the vacated award and the exhibits to support them came directly from the presentation of CSAA’s expert Gary Halpin at the vacated appraisal, and that the fraudulent award itself was further prepared, written, submitted and distributed by defendant Cook and the hostile intervener. This victory locks CSAA in on the Bad Faith actions we submitted to the courts and are subject to summary judgment.

Abdul-Jalil negotiated a series of contracts that included many unprecedented benefits to the individual clients, one of which was interest-free loans that could be forgiven. Upon review by the Internal Revenue Service, the contracts and returns where thrown out and challenged by the IRS as the IRS filed suit. After an 8 year legal battle, he prevailed in Federal Tax Court and established that Interest free Loans where in fact legal. This unprecedented legal ruling was established as a standard in the Tax Laws and was written in several National Law Journals. Cite:

“IRS vs Al-Hakim” published by Commerce Clearing House(CCH) Tax Court Memorandum Cases editions KF 6234A 505 and Maxwell McMillian (Prentice Hall) Federal Tax Cases edition KF 6234A 512 Tax Court Memorandum Decisions. Articles and citations available upon request….
The Historic “al-Hakim” Tax Code §7872 [692] Ruling
After al-Hakim’s victory in the Federal Tax Courts against the Tax Commissioner, in

Abdul-Jalil

December 2000 the IRS moved to change the Tax Codes with the historic “al-Hakim” Tax Code §7872 [692] Ruling. The IRS changed the Federal Tax Codes such that it now “prevents no-interest loans” and was instituted to eliminate and close the Federal Income Tax loop-hole created with al-Hakim’s use of interest free loans in sports and entertainment financial transactions.
CITE: Tax Notes, Dec. 4, 2000, p. 1311; 89 Tax Notes 1311 (Dec. 4, 2000) “al-Hakim Tax Code” Ruling
al-Hakim’s victory in the Federal Tax Court over the U. S. Tax Commissioner has the nations foremost academic institutions and academians in the study of Law and Business teaching al-Hakim’s use of interest free loans in Tax Free financial transactions as part of the Law and Business curriculum in such hallowed halls as Harvard University, Yale University,Washington University, Stanford University, University of Virginia, and Wake Forest University Schools of Law Federal Tax Courses, among others.

Abdul-Jalil negotiated a series of contracts that included many unprecedented benefits to the individual clients, one of which was interest-free loans that could be forgiven. Upon review by the Internal Revenue Service, the contracts and returns where thrown out and challenged by the IRS as the IRS filed suit. After an 8 year legal battle, he prevailed in Federal Tax Court and established that Interest free Loans where in fact legal. This unprecedented legal ruling was established as a standard in the Tax Laws and was written in several National Law Journals. Cite: “IRS vs Al-Hakim” published by Commerce Clearing House(CCH) Tax Court Memorandum Cases editions KF 6234A 505 and Maxwell McMillian (Prentice Hall) Federal Tax Cases edition KF 6234A 512 Tax Court Memorandum Decisions. Articles and citations available upon request….
The Historic “al-Hakim” Tax Code §7872 [692] Ruling
After al-Hakim’s victory in the Federal Tax Courts against the Tax Commissioner, in

Abdul-Jalil