al-HAKIM has Seventeen (17) Successful Recusals from Judicial Challenges

“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.
Judge Kaus admits to the courts 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!
Presiding Judge Northridge Conceals Corruption:

al-Hakim’s Declaration to Bigoted Judge Brand Order to Show Cause to DECLARE ABDUL- JALIL AL-HAKIM a Vexatious Litigant: Brand OSC Vex Litg Decl copy
al-Hakim’s Opposition to Bigoted Judge Brand Order to Show Cause to Declare ABDUL- JALIL AL-HAKIM a Vexatious Litigant: Brand OSC Opposition to Vexatious Litigant copy
al-HAKIM has Seventeen (17) Successful Recusals from Judicial Challenges
As with other judges, Brand was challenged PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CCP §§170.1-5, (CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)), § 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)( a corresponding Federal Statute, 28 United States Code section 455(a) (adopted by Congress in 1974); and FOR CAUSE UNDER CCP DUE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §242, NOT just CCP §170.1 or 170.3. At the hearing on February 25, 2019, Brand denied the challenge as to CCP §170.1 ONLY, after a five minute break claiming he read the challenge. He refused to address any of the aspects of the challenge after being repeatedly asked and insisted that it was being denied as to CCP §170.1 ONLY,  He remained silent as to ALL other aspects of the challenge! 
This OSC is exclusively because al-Hakim has filed challenges, BUT FOR CAUSE, none are frivolous or unmeritorious, but for cause!
There have been many, fifteen (15) successful recusals from Challenges filed in al-Hakim cases for Judges Paul Herbert, Evelio Grillo, Stephan Kaus, Jennifer Madden, Yolanda Northridge, Sue Alexander, Taylor Culver, James Reilly, Micheal Ballachey, Winifred Smith; where Kim Colwell, Henry Needham Jr. and Judith Ford (appellate review timed out without court response) did not answer the last challenges filed and served against them thus consenting to the challenges. Judges Judges Evelio Grillo, after five (5) challenges and Stephan Kaus, after four (4) challenges, were recused in two cases each, the AT&T and EBMUD cases!
Additionally, Judges Ronni MacLaren, Frank Roesch and Jo-Lynne Lee issued ORDERS OF SELF DISQUALIFICATION/REFUSAL pursuant to C.C.P. §170.1 (a)(6)(A)(ii) and C.C.P. §170.1 (a)(6)(A)(iii). This fact demonstrates that there has been and continues to be pervasive illegal ex-parte communications between the judges regarding al-Hakim because al-Hakim has NEVER had any contact with some judges that recused.
That’s fifteen (15) successful judicial recusals and (3) additional failures to file answers striking the challenges before leaving the court/department, with Brands challenge matter still pending CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THEY ARE NOT MERITLESS NOR FRIVOLOUS  BUT PREEMINENT, THE EMBODIMENT OF THE RULE OF LAW, AND MANDATED TO ESTABLISH AND PRESERVE  ALL OF al-HAKIM’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!
Alameda County Superior Court Corruption

Ret. Judge Richard Hodge recused after being appointed an umpire by Roesch in the CSAA appraisal case (administrative hearing) after being a judge in the case.
Defendants argue “Mr. al-Hakim’s repetitive challenges to any judge assigned to the instant case have delayed the proceedings. Mr. ai-Hakim should know better since he filed at least seven challenges to Judge Tigar in the same case.”
These fifteen (15) successful recusals DO NOT include Judge Jon Tigar’s TWO RECUSALS, 1) staged recusal granting the April 30, 2007 al-Hakim first Challenge for Cause on June 7, 2007 pursuant to C.C.P. section 107.6, ONLY, disregarding ALL the other causes plead! (see Tigar order Granting Challenge of June 7, 2007, CSAA, case no.: C-811337) CSAA defense counsel Stephan Barber moved to represent Tigar, the interest of the Insurance Company, and himself by filing a Motion for Reconsideration to deny Tigar’s recusal and restore his illegal place in this case. Tigar GRANTED THE MOTION, restoring HIMSELF as judge, officially made himself a defendant and fourth element in this case though sitting as the judge in this matter, he is now a defendant, co-defense counsel and deputy defense judge ruling in matters that he has lied and has been deceitful about and is personally involved in, was represented by defense counsel Barber himself in an action that was brought by Barber BEFORE TIGAR to establish HIS right to sit and rule in the same matter that HE is now personally involved in and HE sits in judgment of HIMSELF BEFORE HIMSELF!!! (see Tigar July 6, 2007 order Granting CSAA Motion for Reconsideration on Tigar’s own motion Vacating Order of June 7, 2007, CSAA, case no.: C-811337) and 2) now again recusing in a matter pending in Federal Court.
Tigar’s representation by the defense had the unfortunate consequence of making him a litigant, obliged to the defense and their counsel by leaving his defense to one of the litigants appearing before him in the same case. ( Kerr v. United States District Court, supra, 426 U.S. at pp. 402-403 [48 L.Ed.2d at p. 732].) Judges should be umpires rather than players. This is a travesty and a mockery of justice with clear conflict while it wreaks of corruption and collusion.
Respectfully,