Category: civil rights

Posted on

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Kim Colwell, Federal Court Case: #18-cv-04408

TO:  Judge Michael Markman        Judge Kim Colwell
Judge Wynne Carvill                       Judge Jeff Brand
Judge Kim Colwell                          Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Jon Rolefsen                        Departments 511 and 507
Judge Evelio Grillo                          Hayward Hall of Justice
Judge Morris Jacobson                 24405 Amador Street
Judge C. Don Clay                          Hayward, CA 94544
Judge Winifred Smith                     FAX #: 510-690-2824
Judge Yolanda Northridge
Judge Stephen Pulido
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee
Judge Kevin R. Murphy
Superior Court of Alameda County
Departments 1, and 511
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.507@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KMurphyalameda.courts.ca.gov, JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov, YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
Chad Finke                                     Xavier Becerra
Executive Officer                           Attorney General of California
Superior Court of California         1300 I Street, Suite 125
County of Alameda                        P.O. Box 944255
1225 Fallon Street Room 209      Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Oakland, CA 94612                       FAX No.: (916) 324-8835
Fax: 510-891-6276                       Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov    Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
Martin Hoshino                                Victoria B. Henley
Director                                             Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California          Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue               455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688    San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586                 FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov           Victoria.Henley@jud.ca.gov
John.Wordlaw@jud.ca.gov
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye         Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California      Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments              350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                            San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                       Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205      Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Alex Tse                                           Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                     Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                   U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                       6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue              1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102             Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234              FAX No.: 415 522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                       Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                 Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov             Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov
“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3 “The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”
bcc
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     July 31, 2018
NO PAGES: 8
RE:        Immediate Injunction and Opposition to Assigning case to Magistrate Judge, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Kim Colwell, Case: #18-cv-04408-DMR, Donna M. Ryu- Magistrate Judge
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
This fact is live and well in this complaint as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markham and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, and Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:
On July 23, 2018, I served and filed an 8 page letter to Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton, Claudia Wilken, Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu and Clerk Susan Y. Soong for an Immediate Injunction and Opposition to Assigning case to Magistrate Judge, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Kim Colwell, Case: #18-cv-04408-DMR.
This case, al-Hakim v. Judge Kim Colwell, case: #18-cv-04408-DMR, was assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu, but due to the history of this and the associated underlying cases and the many, many related complaints filed with and against (Judge Jon Tigar whom then Presiding Alameda County Superior Court Judge Yolanda Northridge ordered an investigation of) the Chief Justices and the other Justices of the court, it would totally inappropriate and unfair to have this matter adjudicated by a Magistrate Judge. For that reason I will NOT consent to having this matter heard by Judge Donna Ryu and my consent form denying same is attached.
As the case is filed therein, I am seeking an immediate preliminary and permanent injunction preventing underlying Defendants CSAA- Wellpoint from having an auction for the sale of my home scheduled for July 27, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. on the Alameda County courthouse steps in Oakland, California by the County Sheriffs. This aspect of the case demands immediate attention.
I seek this Court’s order for an immediate preliminary and permanent injunction on the grounds that Judge Colwell’s committing over 6 MAJOR Constitutional Violations of my rights and prejudiced me as my family, business and I am suffering from those actions wherein the order for the sale violates my right to due process and civil rights CAUSING IRREPARABLE HARM as Judge Colwell’s action to continue presiding over and ruling on the merits of the issues presented AFTER she had been properly served a valid peremptory challenge and a challenge for cause, and NOT answering the challenges nor referring the matter to another judge BEFORE ruling on the issues presented is prejudicial misconduct, voids the judgment orders, her order striking the challenge was defective as it did NOT addressed the peremptory challenge and thus precious judicial resources have been wasted by the judge issuing void rulings that would have to be relitigated.
Colwell has willfully and repeatedly abused her discretion and she should never be allowed to pass upon her own disqualification for abusing that discretion. (1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Courts, § 89, p. 362; 1983 supp., § 89, pp. 282-283.)
If Defendants and Judge Colwell are permitted to proceed with the sale, an uncontested conflict of interest, it will do immediate and irreparable injury to the personal and business property and rights of the plaintiffs to have their dispositive motions heard before an impartial judge, or at least their right to the appearance of justice in their proceeding. Judge Colwell proceeded to dispose of plaintiff’s case before her disqualification was effectuated.
An injunction is authorized and is entirely discretionary upon a showing that (1) the petitioner would suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction; (2) any such harm outweighs the harm to the respondent from granting the injunction; and (3) the case raises substantial questions. This shows at least that it raises substantial questions and if the sale is NOT enjoined it would end this litigation robbing appellant of his day in court and being made whole from his loss and damages.
Additionally, I have a case pending in Alameda County Superior Court, al-Hakim v. EBMUD, Case No.:RG14740943 that stems from an EBMUD water main that runs the length of my property in Oakland, California, broke sending thousands of gallons water and mud containing microbial, environmental and hazardous or hazardous causing bacteriological and other biological agents onto, into and around my home and property from 1:00 AM to 8:30 AM resulting in over $1.75 million damage. Again, if the sale is NOT enjoined it would end this litigation as well robbing appellant of his day in court and being made whole from his loss and damages.
This is a civil rights action demanding declaratory and injunctive relief with monetary and punitive damages from the Alameda County Superior Court and Judge Kim Colwell for depriving the me, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, in his cases 1) al-Hakim vs. CSAA, Alameda County Superior Court case#: C-811337;  and al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries, Alameda County Superior Court case No. 821885-2; 2) California Judicial Council Administration Assignment Appeal case#: 1050144-17, 3) Miller vs. al-Hakim, Alameda County Superior Court case#: OCV0574030, of his civil rights as this matter is of the character which the principles of United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, and XIV, as adopted by the Due Process Clause, protect.
I insists the course of proceeding be specifically fair under the letter of the code, and any suitable process or mode of proceeding be adopted which is most conformable to the spirit of the code that reflects “the court as an impartial forum for the determination of truth”, that “a person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial” and “how his participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street.”( Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co., supra, 609 F.2d at p. 1111; accord United States v. Ferguson, supra, 550 F.Supp. at p. 1260.) ( Code Civ. Proc., § 187.) Illustrative is the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co. (5th Cir. 1980) 609 F.2d 1101, 1111 [54 A.L.R.Fed. 825]: “Use of the word ‘might’ in the statute was intended to indicate that disqualification should follow if the reasonable man, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” (See also, e.g., United States v. Ferguson (S.D.N.Y. 1982) 550 F.Supp. 1256, 1260 (“whether a reasonable member of the public at large, aware of all the facts, might fairly question the Court’s impartiality”).) It represents a legislative judgment that due to the sensitivity of the question and inherent difficulties of proof as well as the importance of public confidence in the judicial system, the issue is not limited to the existence of an actual bias. Rather, if a reasonable man would entertain doubts concerning the judge’s impartiality, disqualification is mandated. “To ensure that the proceedings appear to the public to be impartial and hence worthy of their confidence, the situation must be viewed through the eyes of the objective person.” ( In re United States, supra, 666 F.2d at p. 694; see also Matter of Searches Conducted on March 5, 1980 (E.D.Wisc. 1980) 497 F.Supp. 1283, 1290.)
For OVER 20 years I have had to file many complaints with U. S. Federal District Court Chief District Judges Phyllis J. Hamilton, former Chief Judge Claudia Wilken, and Thelton E. Henderson involving the Judges and Superior Courts many indiscretions and very serious criminal charges with regards to the actions of the Oakland City Attorney’s Office, the law firm of Meyers Nave with Jayne Williams, Kim Colwell and Kim Drake among others; Ron Cook and the law firm of Willoughby Stuart & Bening; Stephan Barber and the law firm of Ropers Majeski participation in the orchestration of defendants Rescue Rooter and Bay Area Carpet’s defense.
The complaints involve Judicial and Superior Court court corruption with the harassment I continue to experience in the courts retaliation against me by harassing me and taking adverse judicial actions against me, in major part because I have filed these complaints and reported the very obvious agenda of Colwell and other judges Fixing Cases against me because I am Muslim, Black, and a Whistleblower exposing their criminal corruption; their appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism; and the corruption with the Superior Court Clerk’s administration mishandling of motions with them being mis-entitled or changing the title of motions as filed, calendared unwanted motions without notice or cause, calendared motions without notice, motions being dropped from the calendar without notice, parties missing from rulings without notice or cause, parties being removed without notice or cause, changing orders, changing tentative rulings, calendaring motions that were NOT requested, posting tentative rulings AFTER the scheduled hearing time, deleting items from the register of actions, and falsifying the record (for appeal), are VERY SERIOUS threats to the Rule of Law as practiced by the acceptable courts in America! Colwell and other judges and the court clerks have ignored the rule of law, undermined public safety and compromised the justice system by fabricating, altering, manipulating, and tampering with the record have actually prevented the orderly administration of justice. As Faretta recognized, the record can only be read as an attempt to abuse the dignity of the courtroom and impugn the integrity of the rule of law as their actions “deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct” (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46. at pp. 834-835, fn. 46 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581, fn. 46]) that threatens to subvert the core concept of a trial.
Judge Colwell has been, is and will be a NAMED defendant, witness, and conspirator from her work as attorney and partner of the law firm of Meyers Nave.
Colwell’s clients Retired Judges David Lee, Michael Ballachey, and Richard Hodge, though they live in three different counties, all coincidentally hired the same Oakland defense firm, Meyers Nave, run by former Oakland City Attorney Jayne Williams whom was responsible for providing the files to the defendants for 18 months initially, fabricating and planting that evidence in the case files that was then given to Colwell’s client Judge Lee for trial. Judge Colwell, then the partner and attorney at Meyers Nave handled the requested depositions and investigation concerning retired Judges Lee, Ballachey, and Hodge, thereby actively participating in the continued cover up of the admitted crimes of all those involved.
For years al-Hakim had engaged in protracted litigation activities with Colwell, her managing law partner at Myers Nave, Jayne Williams, Kim Drake, and others regarding these herein referenced issues. They ALL were and are a defense counsel, defendant, percipient eye witness, and conspirator with an irreparable conflict!
Colwell, the firm of Meyers Nave, run by former Oakland City Attorney Jayne Williams is directly involved in the herein mentioned crimes as Colwell obtained intimate knowledge and information regarding disputed evidentiary facts known to defense counsel and the judges she represented for years as Colwell served as defense counsel for three retired judges in this CSAA case; participated in their preparation and defense litigation strategy regarding their subpoenas; communicated with plaintiff al-Hakim regarding same; served as defense counsel for those judges while working as a law partners at Myers Nave with managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case files; wherein Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams- while Oakland City Attorney- gave the case files to CSAA lead defense counsel for 18 months; Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case file gave them to then Judge David Lee- Colwell’s client- for the CSAA trial without informing the court that the defendants had custody of the case files for 18 months breaking the chain of custody; Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case file was evidence that related to the contamination of al-Hakim’s home; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware of the fabricated and planted evidence and that it related to the contamination of al-Hakim’s home; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA intervened into the underlying Rescue case in violation of the law AFTER her client Judge Lee had dismissed them when they presented a fabricated order allegedly signed by her client Judge Richard Hodge; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA intervened into the underlying Rescue case in violation of the law AFTER her client Judge Lee had dismissed them when they presented a fabricated order allegedly signed by her client Judge Richard Hodge; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that the fabricated and planted evidence was the ONLY evidence presented at trial by CSAA; participated in CSAA’s preparation and defense litigation strategy regarding their involvement with the fabricated and planted evidence, chain of custody of City of Oakland case files, CSAA fabricated Hodge’s order; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA constructed fraudulent fabricated evidence in 1999 and planted that evidence favorable to the defendants in the files SIX years AFTER the case was closed; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA engaged in spoliation of remaining evidence in the court files from 1991; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA fostered witness testimony based on this planted evidence in the al-Hakim v CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that the fraudulent fabricated evidence was created thru EXTRINSIC FRAUD with accompanying testimony procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious acts; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they engaged in actions to destroy the litigation of al-Hakim’s legal case; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they engaged in actions to coverup their unlawful acts; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they committed, aided and abetted this criminal activity with this unpardonable breach in the chain of custody of the court files to accommodate the defendants litigation strategy in both the CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case.
The many other claims including abuse of discretion, gross misconduct, conduct prejudicial, gross negligence, bias, the subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony charges are inextricably intertwined with the truthful testimony and conduct of the named retired Judges Lee, Hodge and Ballachey; Defendant’s and their attorneys, agents, witnesses and experts; CSAA and their attorneys, agents, witnesses and experts; Ron Cook and Willoughby Stuart & Bening and their attorneys, agents, witnesses and experts; and the City of Oakland Attorneys’ office, suggest that all documents, notes, meetings and conversations with and of the respective judges, witnesses, experts, defendants and counsels are admissible as to these charges for which there is no impunity.
The legal implications of how important is it to the integrity and validity of the proper adherence to the “rule of law”, justice, the investigation and analysis of high profile crimes that Judge Colwell, the finder of fact, is in fact guilty of corruption, collusion, conspiracy, extrinsic fraud, breaching the chain of custody giving the case files to defendants for over a year, fabricating evidence, planting fabricated evidence in case files and providing that spoliated case file to the courts without informing the court!
Subsequently, the witness testimony and evidence that was procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious testimony by them and the defendants, they engaged in actions to interfere with their client and litigant’s legal case, engaged in actions to coverup the unlawful act of suborn and solicited perjurious testimony, committed fraud upon the court of the State of California, aided and abetted criminal activity, committed willful, criminal and corrupt perjury, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, conspiracy, subornation of perjurious testimony and solicitation of perjurious testimony, fraudulent concealment, spoliation of evidence with the City of Oakland, their unpardonable breach in the chain of custody of the court files, has committed patterned willful, criminal, and corrupt deception and fraud upon the court, extrinsic fraud, spoliation of evidence with the disappearance of court records.
The trial before Judge Dacid Lee ended with Lee instructing the jury “not to consider the entire testimonies of ALL the defendants, their witnesses, experts and legal counsels to be due to the perjurious testimony given by ALL the defendants witnesses” on the fabricated and planted evidence that was denied at the end of her client retired judge David Lee and stating this was grounds for a new trial.
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL BY THE DEFENDANTS CSAA WAS THE FABRICATED NOTES PLANTED IN THE CITY OF OAKLAND CASE FILE BY COLWELL’S MANAGING PARTNER AT MEYERS NAVE, JAYNE WILLIAMS AND GIVEN TO JUDGE TIGAR AND HER CLIENT JUDGE DAVID LEE AT TRIAL fostered the perjurious testimony given by the defendants witnesses that was denied at the end of her client retired judge David Lee’s trial was the ONLY evidence provided at trial by defendants CSAA in their case before judge Jon Tigar.
The CSAA insurance case, Plaintiff was away attending TWO (2) funerals with previous court permission to do so from Judge Tigar and noticing the court five times of the funerals BEFORE attending, and Tigar took advantage of the opportunity and decided the cases in my absence! It should be noted that Tigar ADMITTED TWICE THAT HE HAD COMMITTED SUCH EGREGIOUS ERRORS THAT THE THEY DEMANDED A MISTRIAL, WHICH PLAINTIFF DECLARED AS WELL. I acknowledge that this fact is a major factor in Tigar deciding the case in my absence as an attempt to evade the many legal transgressions he committed during the case.
This current CSAA-Wellpoint case is the current $600,000 lien on the property being executed on for collection by Ropers and CSAA as part of their unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains from Plaintiff’s insurance law suit against them! This case was decided while Plaintiff was away attending TWO (2) funerals with previous court permission!
NOW WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH THE SAME MATTER BEFORE COLWELL TO ADJUDICATE AND ACT AS DEPUTY DEFENSE COUNSEL TO EARN HER COMPENSATION WITH THIS RULING FROM THE BENCH!!!
Colwell had NO defense nor answers to the undisputed, uncontroverted facts and evidence of her involvement in the illicit issues raised in the First and Second Challenge that SHE DOES NOT DENY, JUST WANTS TO IGNORE THEM AWAY as NONE of them are allegations and conclusions unsupported by specific references to evidence!! Colwell is guilty of perjury again, lying by omission! Does she deny working with the three retired judges in this very same CSAA case she has now attempted to rule the final death blow to al-Hakim by granting defendants Order to Show Cause Cause for Sale of Dwelling!
For these reasons, and because Judge Colwell is a material, percipient eye witness concerning her conversation, communication, correspondence, actions with her clients, partners, co-workers, employees, defendants, and experts, contend that Judge Colwell must be disqualified for cause pursuant to section 170.1, subdivision (a)(1) (the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts) and (a)(6) (a person aware of the facts reasonably might entertain a doubt whether the judge would be able to be impartial). An example of disqualification for personal knowledge is found in People v Avol (1987) 192 CA3d Supp 1, 6, 238 CR 45 (judge’s ex parte inspection of property violated defendant’s right to controvert evidence, but did not violate due process right or require reversal given overwhelming evidence and complete lack of showing of prejudice that might have required recusal).
This fact alone is perhaps the single most important reason why yourselves and Victoria Henley, the many former and present Presiding and Supervising Alameda County Superior Court Judges, Appellant Court Judges and Supreme Court Judges, heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in this case, has been so derelict in doing so, and because you are ALL inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes would bring all of their cases under scrutiny, opens the way to legally being overturned and setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system!
As a direct and proximate result of Colwell’s WILLFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY committing 6 MAJOR Constitutional Violations of Plaintiff’s rights and Prejudices Plaintiff suffered herein, these are a clear denial of al-Hakim and his Family’s rights under the United States and California State Constitution, among others, and proves where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate plaintiff’s rights and there are also uncontroverted rights violations under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085; on the ground of misconduct, prejudicial misconduct, bias, and prejudice in violations of Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.0-170.6; specifically 170, subd. (a)(5); 170, subd. (e); 170.1, subdivision (a)(2); 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(C); 170.3, subd. (c)(1); 170.3, subd. (c)(5); 170.3, subd. (d); 170.l(a)(6), §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), §170.4(a)-(3) and 170.6; the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8) and 3C( a corresponding Federal Statute, 28 United States Code section 455(a) adopted by Congress in 1974); Business and Professions Code sections 6068, subdivisions (b) and (f), 6103 and 6106 and former rule 7-105(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; California Constitution, Article VI, §§ 8, 18; see Cal. Code Judicial Ethics, Canon 3D(1).); and violates al-Hakim’s fundamental civil rights and due process under the law guaranteed by the United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, and XIV, and as applicable to this state of California Constitution by the first clause of Article I, section 13; Article VI, section 4 1/2; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3).
The court’s denying al-Hakim’s rights thereto in defiance of the law implicates the fundamental issues of violating his right to due process and civil rights AND CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO HIS CASE. The court has let their personal convictions interfere with the duty to be scrupulously fair as the exclusive trier of fact. There is no question that Judge Colwell has repeatedly violated this tenant of fairness.
Judge Colwell’s presence in this case summarily denied al-Hakim’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing such a ruling and places an intolerable burden on him, denying his legitimate and undeniable rights and strikes at the heart of his fundamental civil rights and due process under the law, guaranteed by the United States Constitution and California Constitution. No statute in California authorizes the court to deny a right that is uncontroverted while in the process denying such precious fundamental rights of due process and justice. The use of judicial power to permit such injustice raises significant legal questions, and an order from this Court is necessary to prevent this abuse.
The court MUST review this letter and issue an order for an injunction prohibiting the scheduled sale of my home immediately!
You are ALL being served and I will file this letter with the courts.
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.
Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501
Posted on

Abdul-Jalil Trustee Assignment, Wellpoint Complaint, Retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan and New Bankruptcy Case: #18-41048

TO:        Alex Tse                           Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                    Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                  U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                     6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue            1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102             Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: 415-436-7234                FAX No.: 415-522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                       Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                  Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky               Martha G. Bronitsky
William Lafferty                                        Trustee
Office of the United States Trustee       P.O. Box 5004
1301 Clay Street, Room 690N                Hayward, CA 94540
Oakland, CA 94612                                  Fax: 510-266-5589
Fax: 510-637-3220                                 vsilveira@oak13.com
Roger_Efrensky@cand.uscourts.gov
William_Lafferty@cand.uscourts.gov
Xavier Becerra                                           Tracy Hope Davis
Attorney General of California                 Office of the United States Trustee
1300 I Street, Suite 125                            450 Golden Gate Ave,Ste #05-0153
P.O. Box 944255                                       San Francisco, CA 94102
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550                 Fax: 415-705-3379
FAX No.: 916-324-8835                          Tracy_Davis@cand.uscourts.gov
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
cc: ; bcc
cc: Clerk Edward J. Emmons ; bcc
Faxed and Emailed

FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     May 14, 2018
NO PAGES: 4
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Annual Retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan from May 14, 2018 until June 20, 2018 and Intention to Proceed New Bankruptcy Case: #18-41048 RLE

Dear Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky, Martha Bronitsky, Alex Tse, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Xavier Becerra, and Tracy Hope Davis:

On May 3, 2018, I filed the new petition as promised, case #:18-41048, and was assigned Ms. Bronitsky again.

On May 8, 2018, I sent a letter to all above formally requesting a re-assignment to another trustee ASAP as I will be gone May 12, 2018.

I also called and left a lengthy message for Ms. Tracy Hope Davis the same day regarding the same request and the urgency of shortness of time due to my retreat. I have received no response and I filed that letter with the court.

As promised, on May 9, 2018, I sent all above the follow up letter with an updated complaint on the ongoing fraud by creditor Wellpoint Asset Recovery and their attorney John Bradley as this alleged debt was procured through fraud that is continuing!

That letter was sent to Tom Pahl- Federal Trade Commission, Wendy Kamenshine- Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Mick Mulvaney- OMB, Selvi Stanislaus- Franchise Tax Board, David J. Gau- Board of Equalization, Alex Padilla- Secretary of State and Travis Poole- Travelling Mailbox.com.

We have filed criminal activities complaints and there are ongoing investigations with ALL the government agencies listed above regarding Wellpoint Asset Recovery, Trustors Security Deed Service, Dennis Lanni, with his partners Andre Scott, Deanna Montgomery, Colin Hammett, and Ken Madhvani and the alleged debt that was procured through fraud that is continuing!

ALL official correspondence sent to them by the Bankruptcy Court, Federal government, ourselves and attorneys at the address of their registered agent and business partner, Colin Hammett, at 4470 W. Sunset Blvd. #91234, Los Angeles, CA 90027, has been returned for months, “unknown recipient”!

Moreover, this is NOT a physical address for their alleged business operation, it is a “post office box” at the local UPS store!

We have checked with the California Secretary of State, Franchise Tax Board, Board of Equalization, Employment Development Department, official County business listings, and the Internal Revenue Service and there have NEVER been any listings for the alleged “School Trust #1321” nor “Sunkist Trust #7633” although they have filed legal documents listing them as a business entities in county courts and agencies.

All of their business filings with the Secretary of State, particularly the Statement of Information is outdated or non-existent.

This is important because Dennis Lanni, with his partner Colin Hammett have listed properties and business addresses at the below addresses yet NONE for Wellpoint Asset Recovery:
650 Howe Ave., #1030, Sacramento, CA 95825
2398 Fair Oaks Blvd Sacramento, CA 95825
2003 T St Sacramento, CA 95811
1709 18th St Sacramento, CA 95811
2208 Hillcrest Way Carmichael, CA 95608
3524 50Th St, Sacramento, CA 95820
2180 Geary Rd, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
164 Lucinda Ln, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
4557 10Th Ave, Sacramento, CA 95820
1709 18th St Sacramento, CA 95811
1495 Ridgeview Dr Ste 220, Reno, NV 89519-6334
320 N. 10th St., 100E, Sacramento, CA 95811

Mr. Lanni, Hammett and their myriad of connected companies include but not limited to School Trust #1321; Sunkist Trust #7633; Housing Group Fund Corporation; Trustors Security Deed Service; Eurisko Development; Wellpoint Asset Recovery LLC; Cosis LLC; Eurisko Development Solutions LLC; Otolum, Inc.; Otolum Corporation; Housing Group Fund LLC; Cdm Holdings, LLC; EOJ INVESTING, LLC; WESTERN MONARCH GROUP; ALTA VISTA MINING INC; and Dennis Lanni, with his partners Andre Scott, Deanna Montgomery, Colin Hammett, and Ken Madhvani, among others are the SAME entity assigned the lien by CSAA.

Most ALL of these entities above have ceased formal legal business operations, yet that is unimportant as they have operated illegally before.

In less than a year, the Assignment of the Judgment changed hands FOUR (4) times within the same individuals comprised of different collapsable Limited Liability Corporations or entities filed in county documents that DO NOT EXISToutside of those filings! There are NO formal nor legal state, county, nor city business listings for School Trust #1321, nor Sunkist Trust #7633.

They filed documents in Alameda County Recorders that were forgeries and fraudulent in an effort to foreclose on the property and attempted several proposed auctions of the home from the Alameda County Courthouse steps in Oakland, CA.

One forged document had “Jerline Wallace” and her alleged court appointment as “Trustee” for Clyde Wallace, that raised questions of “what was she appointed to do, why was she appointed, when was she appointed, where was she appointed, how was she appointed and by whom?”

There were even more questions about the alleged “Sunkist Trust #7633”, “who really comprises this trust, what type of business entity is it under the laws of the State of California, why was it formed, when was it formed, where was it formed, how was it formed and by whom?”

On May 8, 2018, I noticed this Court, while on April 10, 2018, I noticed the Superior, Appeals, and Supreme Courts, that I will be in the annual retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan from May 14, 2018 until June 20, 2018 and unavailable to respond to any litigation. The creditor parties have already been noticed.

However, Wellpoint, whom was advised of my annual retreat OVER A MONTH ago, is attempting to hold litigation while I am in retreat. That was to be expected of them.
Again, I simply want to reiterate and make plain that I have every intention of completing my bankruptcy petition and discharging the debt and I will file everything beforehand.

Again, I ask the court/trustee/authorities MUST review the theft of my money in the Wong case, have her compensate me for my loses, and change it’s assignment of this case to Bronitsky and make a more proper assignment.

You are ALL being served and I will file this letter with the courts.

Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501

Posted on

Complaint and Request for Further Investigation of Wellpoint Asset Recovery, LLC

TO:  Travis Poole                                  Mick Mulvaney
Travelling Mailbox.com                       Director
500 Westover Dr.                                The Office of Management and Budget
Sanford, NC 27330                             725 17th Street, NW
Fax: 800-991-2996                             Washington, DC 20503
support@travellingmailbox.com        Fax: 202-395-3888, John.M.Mulvaney@omb.eop.gov
Alex Tse                                              Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                         Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                       U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                           6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue                 1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102                 Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: 415-436-7234                    FAX No.: 415-522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                           Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                     Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov                  Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky                    Tracy Hope Davis
Office of the United States Trustee             Office of the United States Trustee
1301 Clay Street, Room 690N                      450 Golden Gate Ave,Ste #05-0153
Oakland, CA 94612                                       San Francisco, CA 94102
Fax: 510-637-3220                                       Fax: 415-705-3379
Roger_Efrensky@cand.uscourts.gov          Tracy_Davis@cand.uscourts.gov
Xavier Becerra                                          Wendy Kamenshine
Attorney General of California                Ombudsman
1300 I Street, Suite 125                           Consumer Finance Protection Bureau
P.O. Box 944255                                      1700 G St. N.W.
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550                Washington, D.C. 20552
FAX No.: 916-324-8835                         Fax: 855-237-2392
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov                     CFPBOmbudsman@cfpb.gov
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
Tom Pahl                                                  Alex Padilla
Director                                                    California Secretary of State
Bureau of Consumer Protection            1500 11th St., Room 390
Federal Trade Commission                    Sacramento CA 95814
600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW                   Fax: 916-653-4795
Washington, DC 20580                          alex.padilla@sos.ca.gov
Fax: 202-326-3799
tpahl@ftc.gov, RMazer@ftc.gov
Selvi Stanislaus                                            David J. Gau
Executive Officer                                         Executive Director
Franchise Tax Board                                   Board of Equalization
PO Box 115                                                   450 N St., Room 2322, MIC:73
Rancho Cordova CA 95741-0115               Sacramento CA 95814
Fax: 916-845-9048, 916-843-6022,        Fax No. 916-324-2586,
916-845-6614, 916-843-2060                 David.Gau@boe.ca.gov
Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB)           Brenda.Fleming@boe.ca.gov
Fax: 916-227-2798
cc: Clerk Edward J. Emmons ; bcc
Faxed and Emailed

FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     May 7, 2018
NO PAGES: 6
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Complaint and Request for Further Investigation of Wellpoint Asset Recovery, LLC, NO Address for Registered Business Agent.

Dear Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky, Tom Pahl, Alex Tse, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Xavier Becerra, Wendy Kamenshine, Tracy Hope Davis, Mick Mulvaney, Selvi Stanislaus, David J. Gau, Alex Padilla and Travis Poole:

We have filed criminal activities complaints and there are ongoing investigations with ALL the government agencies listed above regarding Wellpoint Asset Recovery, Trustors Security Deed Service, Dennis Lanni, with his partners Andre Scott, Deanna Montgomery, Colin Hammett, and Ken Madhvani and the alleged debt that was procured through fraud that is continuing!

ALL official correspondence sent to them by the Federal government, ourselves and attorneys at the address of their registered agent and business partner, Colin Hammett, at 4470 W. Sunset Blvd. #91234, Los Angeles, CA 90027, has been returned for months, “unknown recipient”!

Moreover, this is NOT a physical address for their alleged business operation, it is a “post office box” at the local UPS store!

This UPS Store operation is owned by Travis Poole of TravellingMailbox.com and just serves as a “mail forwarding service” where they are LEGALLY required to accept ALL proper mail deliveries and NOT return any legitimately delivered mail as “unknown recipient”.     They, UPS, also stated that they have NEVER returned ANY mail for that client and would not verify if they are a client at all. Further investigation of Mr. Poole, his services and actions at TravellingMailbox is mandatory.

We have checked with the California Secretary of State, Franchise Tax Board, Board of Equalization, Employment Development Department, official County business listings, and the Internal Revenue Service and there have NEVER been any listings for the alleged “School Trust #1321” nor “Sunkist Trust #7633” although they have filed legal documents listing them as a business entities in county courts and agencies.

All of their business filings with the Secretary of State, particularly the Statement of Information is outdated or non-existent.

California law prohibits any business and agent from registering as a agent for service using a post office box, and NOT a physical address.

This is important because Dennis Lanni, with his partner Colin Hammett have listed properties and business addresses at the below addresses yet NONE for Wellpoint Asset Recovery:
650 Howe Ave., #1030, Sacramento, CA 95825
2398 Fair Oaks Blvd Sacramento, CA 95825
2003 T St Sacramento, CA 95811
1709 18th St Sacramento, CA 95811
2208 Hillcrest Way Carmichael, CA 95608
3524 50Th St, Sacramento, CA 95820
2180 Geary Rd, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
164 Lucinda Ln, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
4557 10Th Ave, Sacramento, CA 95820
1709 18th St Sacramento, CA 95811
1495 Ridgeview Dr Ste 220, Reno, NV 89519-6334
320 N. 10th St., 100E, Sacramento, CA 95811

Mr. Lanni, Hammett and their myriad of connected companies include but not limited to School Trust #1321; Sunkist Trust #7633; Housing Group Fund Corporation; Trustors Security Deed Service; Eurisko Development; Wellpoint Asset Recovery LLC; Cosis LLC; Eurisko Development Solutions LLC; Otolum, Inc.; Otolum Corporation; Housing Group Fund LLC; Cdm Holdings, LLC; EOJ INVESTING, LLC; WESTERN MONARCH GROUP; ALTA VISTA MINING INC; and Dennis Lanni, with his partners Andre Scott, Deanna Montgomery, Colin Hammett, and Ken Madhvani, among others are the SAME entity assigned the lien by CSAA.

Most ALL of these entities above have ceased formal legal business operations, yet that is unimportant as they have operated illegally before.

In less than a year, the Assignment of the Judgment changed hands FOUR (4) times within the same individuals comprised of different collapsable Limited Liability Corporations or entities filed in county documents that DO NOT EXIST outside of those filings! There are NO formal nor legal state, county, nor city business listings for School Trust #1321, nor Sunkist Trust #7633. Here is the courts register of actions for the judgment:
Court Proceedings

Register of Actions
Date        Action
5/27/2016    Substitution of Attorney Filed for Housing Group Fund Corporation, Assignment of Judgment Filed, Writ of Execution Issued, Memo of credits interest & costs after judgment Filed for Housing Group Fund Corporation, Declaration of Interest Filed
10/3/2016    Assignment of Judgment Filed
1/25/2017    Assignment of Judgment Filed School Trust #1321
4/21/2017    Application Re: Other Ex Parte Granted, Civil Ex-Parte Commenced and Completed, Abstract of Judgment Issued, Affidavit of Identity Filed for Wellpoint Asset Recovery LLC

They filed documents in Alameda County Recorders that were forgeries and fraudulent in an effort to foreclose on the property and attempted several proposed auctions of the home from the Alameda County Courthouse steps in Oakland, CA.

One forged document had “Jerline Wallace” and her alleged court appointment as “Trustee” for Clyde Wallace, that raised questions of “what was she appointed to do, why was she appointed, when was she appointed, where was she appointed, how was she appointed and by whom?”

There were even more questions about the alleged “Sunkist Trust #7633”, “who really comprises this trust, what type of business entity is it under the laws of the State of California, why was it formed, when was it formed, where was it formed, how was it formed and by whom?”

We made several requests under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.) and the Rosenthal Act (Civil Code § 1788, et seq.) and that the written responses to my requests of August 29, 2016 and September 14, 2016 were due from them no later than September 29, 2016. They failed and refused to comply with the noticed demand Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1788.52.

We had Joseph Jaramillo, Senior Attorney at the Housing And Economic Rights Advocates and National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) send two letters to them asking them to validate the debt. They failed and refused to respond.

During the course of this effort to collect on their “deed of trust”, Lanni admits that as the “500 pound elephant in the room!” he offered an illegal predatory loan of over $$440.000 (to cover the $300, 000 CSAA lien and his claimed $140,000 lien) to enable himself to swindle me into giving him value to his worthless deed that he lured the others into joining him as he told them “he (al-Hakim) doesn’t have an attorney and no one will work with him, so we can take the property!”

He made this illegal predatory loan offer to Mr. Jaramillo as well as to me.

When I asked him to verify that he indeed had the CSAA lien from Ropers Majeski and Stephan Barber, he said he did but would not provide proof of it.

Mr Lanni was trying to secure an illegal predatory loan from me at the same time he was operating as the collector and assignee of the CSAA lien and this was confirmed by Mr. Bradley!

Mr. Lanni had previously tried to engage me in buying the property.

This “group/groups” formed an action in the probate Estate of Wallace, Clyde, Defendants- Case No. P047803 and FPR047803.

On May 11, 2017, I sent a 4 page letter to Judge Alesia Jones of Solano County Court regarding this probate opened by Lanni to try to secure some value in the alleged deeds that he knew were invalid.

I have filed several Civil Collection Agency Elder Abuse complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau- case number: 160926-000033; California Attorney General, the California Office of Business Oversight (DBO)- case number: 161003-000872
The parties have always failed and refused to respond to any “government secured channel” inquiry regarding the matter and as such when they did so with the Attorney General and Office of Business Oversight, the case was referred to the Federal Communication Commission for a broader Federal investigation that is ongoing at present.

The parties, ALL of them, including CSAA and Mr. Bradley have committed such tortious acts they have put their entire lien AND professional careers in jeopardy!

ALL this information is critical to the issues plead and CAN NOT be obtained otherwise, as they have evaded providing this to the Sate and Federal Government!

They have continued the cover up of the admitted crimes of all those involved in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau. et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 811337-3, and in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 821885-2. She directly participated in the unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains from that fraud.

Wellpoint attorney recently admitted in the Appeals Court that he “paid” the County Sheriff’s $1,500 to ensure that the planned house action took place and to report to him any activities on my part with designs on selling my home at Sheriff’s auction, wherein they can buy it for a fraction of the value, obtain the asset, and still be owed the debt!

Again, we want ALL of you served with this letter to consider this a complaint and investigation request relate to the existence and collection of the alleged debt by Wellpoint, counsel Bradley with Hammett and Lanni that the government has found was illegal and may void the alleged debt. Lanni has admitted that he tried for years to recover on an illegal alleged debt that included his attempt to sell the home in question several times as an alleged “foreclosure” on the Oakland courthouse steps and as part of this strategy to bring value to the illegal alleged debt, he offered a predatory loan to attempt to move into “first position” with a new mortgage to cover the alleged $300,000 CSAA debt and $130,000 for the illegal alleged debt. He did this even AFTER he was aware that the government agencies were trying to apprehend him for these illegal activities.

This complaint and investigation request include the fraud upon the court that defendants CSAA-Wellpoint committed when they failed and refused to reveal the fact that they were aware of the Homestead on the property, the value of the District Attorney liens on the property, and the contamination in the home TWENTY YEARS BEFORE their alleged home appraisal yet there is NO reference to any contamination in it as if it would NOT have any value in determining the fair market value of that appraisal. This fraud upon the court is very clear when they knew that their own experts testified that it would cost over $350,000 to remediate just the lower level of the home in 1997! CSAA’s costs for the entire home was $700,000.

You are ALL being served and I will file this letter with the courts.

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501

Posted on

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim's Complaint and Investigation Request Wellpoint Asset Recovery and MARTHA BRONITSKY Bankruptcy Case: #18-40567

TO:        Alex Tse                           Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                    Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                  U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                     6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue            1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102             Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: 415-436-7234                FAX No.: 415-522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                       Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                  Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov

Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky               Martha G. Bronitsky
William Lafferty                                        Trustee
Office of the United States Trustee       P.O. Box 5004
1301 Clay Street, Room 690N                Hayward, CA 94540
Oakland, CA 94612                                  Fax: 510-266-5589
Fax: 510-637-3220                                 vsilveira@oak13.com
Roger_Efrensky@cand.uscourts.gov
William_Lafferty@cand.uscourts.gov

Xavier Becerra                                           Tracy Hope Davis
Attorney General of California                 Office of the United States Trustee
1300 I Street, Suite 125                            450 Golden Gate Ave,Ste #05-0153
P.O. Box 944255                                       San Francisco, CA 94102
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550                 Fax: 415-705-3379
FAX No.: 916-324-8835                          Tracy_Davis@cand.uscourts.gov
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
cc: ; bcc
cc: Clerk Edward J. Emmons ; bcc
Faxed and Emailed

FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     April 18, 2018
NO PAGES: 6 + 3 attachments
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Intention to Proceed with Bankruptcy Case: #18-40567 RLE

Dear Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky, Martha Bronitsky, Alex Tse, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Xavier Becerra, and Tracy Hope Davis:

I received a letter dated March 29, 2018, from Ianthe V. del Rosario, Legal Assistant at the Office of the United States Trustee in response to my fax of the day before.

The letter DOES NOT EVEN MENTION MARTHA BRONITSKY, her theft of my money paid to her in her official fiduciary capacity as a trustee, is without action, non committal, and intentionally vague so as to suggest that your office will do absolutely NOTHING which is to be expected, and I may NEVER be contacted nor be informed of anything!

As I stated in my first letter, I filed a complaint in this matter with Mark L. Pope, Linda Ekstrom-Stanley, and Carol Roth among others, wherein it was just covered-up!

With this letter response from Ms. del Rosario, it appears that this must be the culture of the Office of the United States Trustee, to covered up these criminal activities! It offers NO attempt at even alluding to any transparent action being taken, quite the contrary, it totally avoids holding anyone accountable, even pending this charade of an “investigation”. THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, DISCIPLINARY ACTION MUST BE TAKEN ON THE RECORD!

Times have changed dramatically from the days when corruption, specially government enforced corruption, could be “covered-up and hushed-up”, in this new-world of open government, whistle blowers, activist, and demands of accountability are celebrated! You can’t get away with it!!

I never received any answer to how the correspondence from the court/trustee was ALL dated on the same date, postmarked on the same date, and use that date as the time certain for the responses to all the filings that are due to began. Starting a “running clock”.

This is some what startling since those documents were not mailed by the court/trustee on that dateand I received them two weeks later simultaneously with very little time to prepare ALL those responses to the 106, 107 series forms required to be completed from the date of the correspondence. I had to find where the forms were, get them and some advise/help with them.

It takes longer to assemble all the data that is required and do so trying to be precise and inclusive then I was able to have in this case, less than two weeks.

Since these documents were handled by Bronitsky, I can assume that had some impact on the process, perhaps how it was expedited!

Bronitsky, for some reason recently filed a request with the courts and was placed on the service list as a noticed party in an unrelated Superior Court case, al-Hakim vs AT&T, case #:RG17-881130. Why? (see attached proof of service)

I can suggest with certainty that it has some involvement with the Wellpoint Asset Recovery creditor as this alleged debt was procured through fraud that is continuing!

Wellpoint attorney, John Bradley recently admitted in the Appeals Court that he “paid” the County Sheriff’s $1,500 to ensure that the planned house auction took place and to report to him any activities on my part.

Wellpoint Asset Recovery, a $600,000 creditor with designs on selling my home at Sheriff’s auction, wherein they can buy it for a fraction of the value, obtain the asset, and still be owed the debt!

Yet ALL Bankruptcy Court correspondence sent to them at the address of their registered agent and business partner, Colin Hammett, at 4470 W. Sunset Blvd. #91234, Los Angeles, CA 90027, has been returned, “unknown recipient”! (see attached letter)

At the January 22, 2018, hearing Mr. Bradley attempted to “quash” the subpoena served on Mr. Lanni and his myriad of connected companies including Wellpoint, before.

Those connected companies include but not limited to School Trust #1321, Sunkist Trust #7633, Housing Group Fund Corporation, Trustors Security Deed Service, Eurisko Development, Wellpoint Asset Recovery LLC and Dennis Lanni, with his partners Andre Scott, Deanna Montgomery, Colin Hammett, and Ken Madhvani, among others are the SAME entity assigned the lien by CSAA.

They filed documents in Alameda County Recorders that were forgeries and fraudulent in an effort to foreclose on the property and attempted several proposed auctions of the home from the Alameda County Courthouse steps in Oakland, CA.

One forged document had “Jerline Wallace”and her alleged court appointment as “Trustee”for Clyde Wallace, that raised questions of “what was she appointed to do, why was she appointed, when was she appointed, where was she appointed, how was she appointed and by whom?”

There were even more questions about the alleged “Sunkist Trust #7633”, “who really comprises this trust, what type of business entity is it under the laws of the State of California, why was it formed, when was it formed, where was it formed, how was it formed and by whom?”

We made several requests under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.) and the Rosenthal Act (Civil Code § 1788, et seq.) and that the written responses to my requests of August 29, 2016 and September 14, 2016 were due from them no later than September 29, 2016. They failed and refused to comply with the noticed demand Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1788.52.

I had Joseph Jaramillo, Senior Attorney at the Housing And Economic Rights Advocates and National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) send two letters to them asking them to validate the debt. They failed and refused to respond.

During the course of this effort to collect on their “deed of trust”, Lanni admits that as the “500 pound elephant in the room!” he offered an illegal predatory loan of over $$440.000 (to cover the $300, 000 CSAA lien and his claimed $140,000 lien) to enable himself to swindle me into giving him value to his worthless deed that he lured the others into joining him as he told them “he (al-Hakim) doesn’t have an attorney and no one will work with him, so we can take the property!”

He made this illegal predatory loan offer to Mr. Jaramillo as well as to me.

When I asked him to verify that he indeed had the CSAA lien from Ropers Majeski and Stephan Barber, he said he did but would not provide proof of it.

Mr Lanni was trying to secure an illegal predatory loan from me at the same time he was operating as the collector and assignee of the CSAA lien and this was confirmed by Mr. Bradley!

Mr. Lanni had previously tried to engage me in buying the property.

This “group/groups” formed an action in the probate Estate of Wallace, Clyde, Defendants- Case No. P047803 and FPR047803.

On May 11, 2017, I sent a 4 page letter to Judge Alesia Jones of Solano County Court regarding this probate opened by Lanni to try to secure some value in the alleged deeds that he knew were invalid.

I have filed several Civil Collection Agency Elder Abuse complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau- case number: 160926-000033; California Attorney General, the California Office of Business Oversight (DBO)- case number: 161003-000872
The parties have always failed and refused to respond to any “government secured channel” inquiry regarding the matter and as such when they did so with the Attorney General and Office of Business Oversight, the case was referred to the Federal Communication Commission for a broader Federal investigation that is ongoing at present.

The parties, ALL of them, including CSAA and Mr. Bradley have committed such tortious acts they have put their entire lien AND professional careers in jeopardy!

ALL this information is critical to the issues plead and CAN NOT be obtained otherwise, as they have evaded providing this to the Sate and Federal Government!

Recently, Wellpoint filed a motion with the court to declare the bankruptcy stay “void” claiming that I had filed several times, wherein Judge Efrensky denied that motion since the matter had been dismissed. Wellpoint then immediately went back to the sheriff’s to file their action to sell the home at auction again that is scheduled for May 4, 2018.

What is NOT noted is that each time I filed the Chapter 13, it was assigned to Bronitsky!

I just can’t have Ms. Bronitsky’s presence in this case since she has previously issued me checks drawn on her business account that have bounced for insufficient funds and others that had stopped payments applied to them of $9,889.04, I do not feel comfortable going forward with her as a trustee.

We have been assembling the necessary data to go forward with the filing to resolution and intend to contest the alleged debts of:
CSAA-Wellpoint Asset Recovery as this alleged debt was procured through fraud that is continuing;
USDOJ as this alleged debt was paid in 1978;
National Collection Agency as we DO NOT KNOW who they represent and we have issued debt buyers demands upon them and they have failed and refused to respond;
Alliance Credit/Bank 1, T. Miller as this alleged debt was procured through fraud and recently dismissed in court;
We are still investigating other claims and liens.

I want ALL of you served with this letter to consider this a complaint and investigation request relate to the existence and collection of the alleged debt by Wellpoint, counsel Bradley and Lanni that the government has found was illegal and may void the alleged debt.

Lanni has admitted that he tried for years to recover on an illegal alleged debt that included his attempt to sell the home in question several times as an alleged “foreclosure” on the Oakland courthouse steps and as part of this strategy to bring value to the illegal alleged debt, he offered a predatory loan to attempt to move into “first position” with a new mortgage to cover the alleged $300,000 CSAA debt and $130,000 for the illegal alleged debt. He did this even AFTER he was aware that the government agencies were trying to apprehend him for these illegal activities.

This complaint and investigation request include the fraud upon the court that defendants CSAA-Wellpoint committed when they failed and refused to reveal the fact that they were aware of the Homestead on the property, the value of the District Attorney liens on the property, and the contamination in the home TWENTY YEARS BEFORE their alleged home appraisal yet there is NO reference to any contamination in it as if it would NOT have any value in determining the fair market value of that appraisal used in the Order to Show Cause for Sale of Dwelling in January 2018. This fraud upon the court is very clear when they knew that their own experts testified that it would cost over $350,000 to remediate just the lower level of the home in 1997! CSAA’s costs for the entire home was $700,000 and was nearly the same as al-Hakim’s experts $700,000. This is part of the Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau. et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 811337-3, and in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 821885-2 cases.

I would NOT be filing the petition if it were not for this claimed debt that was procured through fraud!

Again, I simply want to reiterate and make plain that I have every intention of completing my bankruptcy petition and discharging the debt even if I have to refile it.

Again, I ask the court/trustee/authorities MUST review the theft of my money in the Wong case, compensate me for my loses, and change it’s assignment of this case to Bronitsky and make a more proper assignment in the future.

You are ALL being served and I will file this letter with the courts.

Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501

Posted on

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim's Intention to Proceed with Bankruptcy Case: #18-40567

TO:        Alex Tse                           Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                    Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                  U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                     6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue            1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102             Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: 415-436-7234                FAX No.: 415-522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                       Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                  Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov

Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky               Martha G. Bronitsky
William Lafferty                                        Trustee
Office of the United States Trustee       P.O. Box 5004
1301 Clay Street, Room 690N                Hayward, CA 94540
Oakland, CA 94612                                  Fax: 510-266-5589
Fax: 510-637-3220                                 vsilveira@oak13.com
Roger_Efrensky@cand.uscourts.gov
William_Lafferty@cand.uscourts.gov

Xavier Becerra                                           Tracy Hope Davis
Attorney General of California                 Office of the United States Trustee
1300 I Street, Suite 125                            450 Golden Gate Ave,Ste #05-0153
P.O. Box 944255                                       San Francisco, CA 94102
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550                 Fax: 415-705-3379
FAX No.: 916-324-8835                          Tracy_Davis@cand.uscourts.gov
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
cc: ; bcc
cc: Clerk Edward J. Emmons ; bcc
Faxed and Emailed

FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     April 3, 2018
NO PAGES: 2
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Intention to Proceed with Bankruptcy Case: #18-40567

Dear Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky, Martha Bronitsky, Alex Tse, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Xavier Becerra, and Tracy Hope Davis:

It was good to briefly speak with Ms Davis today, and simply want to reiterate and make plain that I have every intention of completing my bankruptcy petition and discharging the debt even if I have to refile it.

I would NOT be filing the petition if it were not for the claimed debts that were procured through fraud!

I am some what concerned how the correspondence from the court/trustee was ALL dated on the same date, postmarked on the same date, and use that date as the time certain for the responses to all the filings that are due to began. Starting a “running clock”.

This is some what startling since those documents were not mailed by the court/trustee on that date and I received them with very little time to prepare ALL those responses to the 106, 107 series forms required to be completed from the date of the correspondence. I had to find where the forms were, get them and some advise/help with them.

It takes longer to assemble all the data that is required and do so trying to be precise and inclusive then I was able to have in this case.

Again, I have every intention of completing my bankruptcy petition even if I have to refile it.

I just can’t have Ms. Bronitsky’s presence in this case since she has previously issued me checks drawn on her business account that have bounced for insufficient funds and others that had stopped payments applied to them of $9,889.04, I do not feel comfortable going forward with her as a trustee.

The court/trustee MUST review the theft of my money in the Wong case, compensate me for my loses, and change it’s assignment of this case to Bronitsky and make a more proper assignment in the future.

You are ALL being served and I will file this letter with the courts.

Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501

Posted on

Plaintiff Opposition to any Tentative Ruling Issued by Judge Clay;Alleged denial of Challenge by Judge Clay; Reply by defendant Equinix

TO:  Judge Carvill
Judge Markman
Judge Clay
René C. Davidson Courthouse
Superior Court of Alameda County
Department 1
Department 6
Department 15
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Fax: (510) 267-1567
Fax: (510) 891-6276
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
dept.15@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov
MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Case No.: RG18888371
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay being assigned this case for all purposes
Hearing: CMC
Hearing Date: May 24, 2018
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Rene C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Department 6
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil
DATE:      March 22, 2018
RE:           Plaintiff’s Unavailability and Opposition to an Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding and CMC, Case No.: RG18888371.
Dear Judges Clay, Carvill, and Markman:
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”!
Herein is Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s notice of Opposition to any Tentative Ruling Issued by Judge Clay; receipt of an alleged denial of Challenge for Cause by Judge Clay on Saturday, March 31, 2018; and a reply by defendant Equinix to an alleged Vexatious Litigant Motion on March 31, 2018.
Plaintiff herein files this standing Opposition to any Tentative Ruling Issued by Judge Clay in this or any other matter that he might issue.
He has issued an order ALREADY deeming me a Vexatious Litigant in a proceeding yet to be heard and REFUSING to have that hearing on a date I can attend, yet DEMANDING the hearing be on a date I can NOT attend due to religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for over 30 years!
Clays Alleged Denial of Challenge for Cause
Judge Clay was NEVER served a challenge, whether he would like to treat any document filed and/or served on him or the court as such is merely an attempt to further his and the courts unfortunate, agenda of denying me justice.
When and if I file a challenge, he will know it!
My filings with the court relative to Clay was an attempt to address the humanity and fairness of due process and justice, and when it is denied, to acknowledge it and hold those whom have violated those premises to be held accountable.
It was an opportunity for Clay to accept his involvement in the many issues I have addressed over the years and just quietly move away from the light being shined on the many illegal atrocities continuing to date that are still outstanding and unresolved!
The judges mentioned have exhibited clear and gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, islamophobia, xenaphobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the plaintiffs litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of al-Hakim; portrayed al-Hakim a liar and when he could not prove it he tried to create the lie that in his sole judgment is a lie in order to justify his calling al-Hakim a “liar”; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim even through third parties; highjacked the hearings with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the Unruh and Bane Acts. These efforts of the judges can qualify as a Hate Crime under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts, while they are clear acts of religious bigotry and intolerance for which al-Hakim will not allow.
This is vitally important because this court and the judges herein mentioned have a history of corruption and repeatedly violating plaintiff’s rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California State Constitution and/or covering it up!
On March 29, 2018, I had to file another complaint with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS, regarding the continued corruption of this court cartel, the “COURTEL”.
Equinix to an alleged Vexatious Litigant Motion
With regards to a reply served by defendant Equinix to an alleged Vexatious Litigant Motion I received on March 31, 2018, I will NOT attempt to respond to it since I was NEVER served any motion to begin with.
As I said before, I have never been involved in and there are NO prior orders from ANY court that deems me a vexatious litigant!
As mentioned in the denied request “What prior orders does the court have regarding this case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on this case when NOTHING has been filed in this case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants have defaulted on?”
This is a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on my litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in my cases.
How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a fee waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So am I to understand that YOUR system is guilty before a hearing on this meritless motion is even heard?
Is that NOT a major violation of the Constitution and my basic civil right to innocence before PROVEN guilty??!!!
THIS MOTION SHOULD BE DROPPED IMMEDIATELY AND SANCTIONS ORDERED ON THE PARTY THAT FILED THIS FRIVOLOUS MOTION!

This motion is scheduled for Friday, April 6, 2018 as well as the CMC scheduled for Thursday, May 24, 2018.
The defendants and the court has been on notice for over 30 years that I have a long standing religious obligations that conflict with scheduled dates on Thursdays and Fridays making it impossible for me to attend any proceedings those days.


I am NOT available on either April 6, nor May 24, 2018 and CAN NOT attend.
I previously requested that the court continue those dates while I am available on any Monday or Wednesday even on April 4, 2018, at 10 AM since I will be in court that morning in another department and May 23, 2018.
While I have NOT been served any documents from anyone in this case and these issues have NOT been subject to any prior litigation, it is NOT possible that I could be deemed a vexatious litigant!
The court has failed and refused to respond, and with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda of finding me a vexatious litigant in this matter, where I have NEVER been served ANY motion papers, apparent to all!
As mentioned we will be presenting a motion to compel the answers to the summons, requests for production of documents and subpoena as we had intended to serve our first amended complaint AFTER receiving the responses that were due a month ago. The defendants have defaulted on both issues.
This is a complaint against my internet server host for 8 years of abusesthat includes but not limited to blocking our web server, ALL incoming and outgoing email, websites and website traffic to censor, suppress, conceal and cover up our exposing their corruption with charges of Fraud, Negligence, Censorship, Misrepresentation, Defect in Product, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceptive Trade Practices, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud by Concealment, California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 17200 et seq, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Discrimination in Violation of the Unruh Act, Nuisance, Abuse of Process, Fraud by Concealment, Violation of California False Advertising Law, Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceit, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices (UDAP), Unconscionability, California FDCPA (Rosenthal Act), Violation of Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), Elder Abuse, among others.
They are in a daily operation of mounting more and more damages as they have refused and failed to mitigate their damages from 8 years of the above tortious actions!
I have sent this notice via fax and email to the following parties: dept.14@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov, WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MMarkham@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, fax: 510-267-1567, 510-891-6276, Interserver Inc, Equinix (US) Enterprises Inc, Michael  Lavrik, mike@interserver.net, John Quaglieri, john@interserver.net, fax: 201-526-6605, Anna Hsia, fax: 415-636-5965, anna@zwillgen.com, kmostofizadeh@equinix.com,bgalvin@equinix.com
CONCLUSION
I request that this charade of vexatious litigant motion be dismissed and judge Clay recuse himself from this case and address the appeals issues presented and address the continued corruption and persecution I, my family, businesses, and communities we serve continue to suffer at your individual and collective gavels.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: April 2, 2018
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff
510-394-4501
Posted on

Chad Finke’s Illegal Appeal’s Court Dismissal for Failure to Complete Designation of Record

TO:  Judge Michael Markman          Judge Kim Colwell
Judge Wynne Carvill                        Judge Jeff Brand
Judge Kim Colwell                            Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Jon Rolefsen                          Departments 511 and 507
Judge Evelio Grillo                             Hayward Hall of Justice
Judge Morris Jacobson                    24405 Amador Street
Judge C. Don Clay                             Hayward, CA 94544
Judge Winifred Smith                       FAX #: 510-690-2824
Judge Yolanda Northridge
Judge Stephen Pulido
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee
Judge Kevin R. Murphy
Superior Court of Alameda County
Departments 1, and 511
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.507@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov,EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KMurphyalameda.courts.ca.gov, JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov,YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
Chad Finke                                      Judge Lesley Holland
Executive Officer                            Superior Court of San Joaquin County
Superior Court of California          Departments 31and 12
County of Alameda                        Stockton Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street Room 209       222 E. Weber Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612                        Stockton, California 95202
Fax: 510-891-6276                        Fax: (209) 992-5667
cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Martin Hoshino                                  Victoria B. Henley
Director                                              Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California           Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue                 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688      San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586                   FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov             Victoria.Henley@jud.ca.gov
John.Wordlaw@jud.ca.gov
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye             Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California           Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments                   350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                                 San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                            Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205          Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Alex Tse                                        Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                   Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                 U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                     6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue           1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102           Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234            FAX No.: 415 522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                    Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov            Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov
Xavier Becerra
Attorney General of California
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
FAX No.: (916) 324-8835
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
Faxed and Emailed bcc:
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     April 2, 2018
NO PAGES: 3 +  4 page Filed stamped copy of Designation of Record on Appeal Form
RE:        Appellant al-Hakim’s Letter regarding Chad Finke’s Illegal Appeal’s Court Dismissal for Failure to Complete Designation of Record on Appeal, Rule of Court 8.130, al-HAKIM VS CSAA- Wellpoint, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #C811337, California Appeals Court Case# 153640, California Supreme Court Case# S-247169
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
This fact is live and well in this complaint as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:
On Saturday, March 31, 2018, I received a letter from the Appeals Court dated March 27, 2018, stating that my appeal in the above case is dismissed for failure to cure the default of not filing the designation of record on appeal form.
The letter states that on February 22, 2018, the court notified me of the default and the case could be dismissed if it was not cured. It also states that on March 12, 2018 Chad Finke of the superior court issued a certificate opining that I had failed to remedy the default within the time allowed by law.
The document requested was provided to the appeals clerk in the Oakland office when I filed the appeal on February 12, 2018, including an additional, more exhaustive designation of the record filed on pleading paper.The clerk returned the designation of record form because it was on the form for “limited” cases. Later that day I sent the correct form to her and three others in the appeals office via email as she requested.
I went to the Oakland appeals office to get a filed stamped copy of the document and the same clerk (can’t discern what her name is from her signature) informed me then that she had received the completed designation of record form but could not file it because it was emailed. She had no answer when I asked her why she requested me to email it if she wasn’t going to file it. She said that she had the filed stamped written version of the designation of record and printed out a copy for me.
I returned to the Oakland office and filed the completed designation of record form and received a filed stamped copy on March 8, 2018, a copy of which is attached that I sent to Ms. Annie Reasoner and Mr. Charles Johnson of the Appeals court via fax email (ann.reasoner@jud.ca.gov, (Charles.Johnson@jud.ca.gov).
I have no idea why this case has been dismissed when I submitted the document requested and would like the default cured, and an answer to that question.
It seems that this is just another example of the continuing fraud at the hand of Chad Finke whom has been served at least 3 subpoenas and request for production of documents, and 7 other request that has been made of the Court to respond under California Rules of Court 10.500, FOIA, Brown Act- California Public Records Act Request (PRA), and Ethics Complaints with NO RESPONSE from the court nor the court administration, as well as the Judicial Council and Commission on Judicial Performance with the same non response.
Given that we have had no response from these authorities refusing to comply with the subpoenas and administrative requests, I have no choice but to file actions with the responsible agencies to discover this information and resolve the legal concerns expressed for years.
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.
Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501
Posted on

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Opposition to Assigning case to Martha Bronitsky, Case: #18-40567

TO:        Alex Tse                           Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                    Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                  U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                     6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue            1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102             Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: 415-436-7234                FAX No.: 415-522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                       Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                  Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov

Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky               Martha G. Bronitsky
William Lafferty                                        Trustee
Office of the United States Trustee       P.O. Box 5004
1301 Clay Street, Room 690N                Hayward, CA 94540
Oakland, CA 94612                                  Fax: 510-266-5589
Fax: 510-637-3220                                 vsilveira@oak13.com
Roger_Efrensky@cand.uscourts.gov
William_Lafferty@cand.uscourts.gov

Xavier Becerra                                           Tracy Hope Davis
Attorney General of California                 Office of the United States Trustee
1300 I Street, Suite 125                            450 Golden Gate Ave,Ste #05-0153
P.O. Box 944255                                       San Francisco, CA 94102
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550                 Fax: 415-705-3379
FAX No.: 916-324-8835                          Tracy_Davis@cand.uscourts.gov
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
cc: ; bcc
cc: Clerk Edward J. Emmons ; bcc
Faxed and Emailed

FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     March 28, 2018
NO PAGES: 3
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Opposition to Assigning case to Martha Bronitsky, Case: #18-40567

Dear Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky, Martha Bronitsky, Alex Tse, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Xavier Becerra, and Tracy Hope Davis:

I am the debtor in the above referenced case and have spoken with advisors regarding Ms. Bronitsky’s presence in this case and I have resolved that since she has previously issued me checks drawn on her business account that have bounced for insufficient funds and others that had stopped payments applied to them of $9,889.04, I do not feel comfortable going forward with her as a trustee.

In 1980-94, I owned and operated a computer store in downtown Oakland that was bombed and burglarized by Oakland Police officers and members of the force.
I caught them and one plead guilty, another was convicted and I was awarded restitution and attorneys fees in that case.

The officer that plead guilty Kailey Wong, he and his wife Susan filed bankruptcy (Case #9542893) wherein that case was assigned to Bronitsky.

On December 8, 1998 Martha Bronitskys’ office sent authorization to Fidelity National for payment of $9,889.04 of my money (Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, “CRD 080164”) to Eugene Schneider from their escrow account for the refinancing of the above mentioned debtors home and to close-out this case.

I contacted her office at least twelve times by phone (my records are available) and seven times by fax/letter (see her file and the U.S. Federal Court file) and it is clear that Mrs. Bronitsky knew or should have known that Mr. Schneider was not and had not ever my attorney.I requested that she immediately issue my $9,889.04 check to me. Her office informed me that they would not provide any justification for her actions.

In January-March, 1999 I attempted to address this issue with Mark L. Pope, Linda Ekstrom-Stanley, and Carol Roth among others, wherein it was just covered-up!

We have been assembling the necessary data to go forward with the filing to resolution and intend to contest the alleged debts of:
CSAA-Wellpoint Asset Recovery as this alleged debt was procured through fraud that is continuing;
USDOJ as this alleged debt was paid in 1978;
National Collection Agency as we DO NOT KNOW who they represent and we have issued debt buyers demands upon them and they have failed and refused to respond;
Alliance Credit/Bank 1, T. Miller as this alleged debt was procured through fraud and recently dismissed in court;

We are still investigating other claims and liens.

I ask that the court review the theft of my money in the Wong case, compensate me for my loses, and change it’s assignment of this case to Bronitsky and make a more proper assignment.

You are ALL being served and I will file this letter with the courts.

Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501

Posted on

Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Unavailability and Opposition to an Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding and CMC.

TO:     Judge Carvill
Judge Markman
Judge Clay
René C. Davidson Courthouse
Superior Court of Alameda County
Department 1
Department 6
Department 15
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Fax: (510) 267-1567
Fax: (510) 891-6276
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
dept.15@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov
MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Case No.: RG18888371
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay being assigned this case for all purposes
Hearing: CMC
Hearing Date: May 24, 2018
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Rene C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Department 6
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil
DATE:      March 22, 2018
RE:           Plaintiff’s Unavailability and Opposition to an Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding and CMC, Case No.: RG18888371.
Dear Judges Clay, Carvill, and Markman:
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Convict judge Freedman lives by and practices this credo today!
Herein is Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s opposition to an Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding.
I have searched the Register of Actions in this case and ALL other possible cases I have ever been involved in and found there is NO prior order from ANY court that deems me a vexatious litigant!
I did however find that there is a motion for same scheduled for Friday, April 6, 2018 as well as the CMC scheduled for Thursday, May 24, 2018.
This is notable because the defendants and the court has been on notice for over 30 years that I have a long standing conflict of schedules on Thursdays and Fridays.
I am NOT available on either April 6, nor May 24, 2018.
I am herewith requesting that the court continue those dates while I am available on any Monday or Wednesday even on April 4, 2018, at 10 AM since I will be in court that morning in another department and May 23, 2018.
While I have NOT been served any documents from anyone in this case and these issues have NOT been subject to any prior litigation, it is NOT possible that I could be deemed a vexatious litigant!
THIS MOTION SHOULD BE DROPPED IMMEDIATELY AND SANCTIONS ORDERED ON THE PARTY THAT FILED THIS FRIVOLOUS MOTION!
We will be presenting a motion to compel the answers to the summons, requests for production of documents and subpoena as we had intended to serve our first amended complaint AFTER receiving the responses that were due a month ago. The defendants have defaulted on both issues.
This is a complaint against my internet server host for Fraud, Negligence, Censorship, Misrepresentation, Defect in Product, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceptive Trade Practices, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud by Concealment, California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 17200 et seq, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Discrimination in Violation of the Unruh Act, Nuisance, Abuse of Process, Fraud by Concealment, Violation of California False Advertising Law, Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceit, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices (UDAP), Unconscionability, California FDCPA (Rosenthal Act), Violation of Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), Elder Abuse, among others.
They are in a daily operation of mounting more and more damages as they have refused and failed to mitigate their damages from years of the above tortious actions!
The ONLY way I was aware of this is because I recently filed a fee waiver request for Reporters transcripts, Expert testimony, Jury Fees, after having been approved for a previous waiver.
I just received a notice of the waiver being denied citing my being deemed a Vexatious Litigant and a court motion pending for an alleged Vexatious Litigant proceeding.
I can’t tell from the signature who endorsed the denied waiver but it may be judge Carvill.
I have NEVER been deemed as such, NEVER received any such notice and am unaware of this pending process which needless to say is without ANY merit!

Who filed this motion, when, and what proof of service have they filed?
When is this motion being heard, in what department and by whom?
As mentioned in the denied request “What prior orders does the court have regarding this case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on this case when NOTHING has been filed in this case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants have defaulted on?”
This is a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on my litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in my cases.
How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a fee waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So am I to understand that YOUR system is guilty before a hearing on this meritless motion is even heard?
Is that NOT a major violation of the Constitution and my basic civil right to innocence before PROVEN guilty??!!!
I have already opposed Judge C. Don Clay’s assignment to the above referenced case for all purposes in Department 6. Judge Clay sits on the Superior Court Appeals Division judiciary and I have two matters that are currently before that panel and he has much greater value there as opposed to hearing this matter. I would hate to think that this is just another example of the ongoing manipulation of the assignment of judges I my cases that I have brought to the attention of various authorities.
This matter was initially assigned on January 11, 2018 to Judge Stephen Kaus yet without any notice, appearances, rulings, or recusals, it was reassigned to judge Clay.
I have had numerous occasions to interact with Judge Clay over the years and in virtually every one it has been in regards to a complaint of judicial misconduct requesting an investigation that is part of the opinion rendered by Administrative Judge Lesley Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden that is at the heart of this opposition as it is center focus of the appeal referenced below. Judge Clay is tainted with information that would disqualify him from that interaction and I would NOT be comfortable with him acting in a judicial capacity in this case. In the complaints that were submitted to him, some complaining about him, he did nothing to respond to nor address the issues of the complaints, which suggest that he was simply complicit and participated in their cover up.
On one occasion he responded to a traffic warrant that was issued for my arrest by judge Tigar in the appeals division after I appealed a decision by judge Tabor whom proceeded not to respond to the appeal. After I requested the case be dismissed in the interest of justice six months AFTER the default and the Tigar warrant, judge Clay granted the dismissal.
In another matter in the appeals court, I had paid $315 in advance for a transcript that was critical to my case and the court reporters refused to prepare it. Without the transcript I was unable to present the major aspect of my case and it was dismissed for that reason. Judge Clay manage to have the court administration to refund only $280 of the prepaid $315 fee for the denied transcript.
I thank him for both those gestures as no one else has done anything similar even when they were demanded by law to do so.
However, Judge Clay sits on the Superior Court Appeals Division judiciary and I have two matters that are currently before that panel with discovery issues and one involves Presiding Court Judge Wynne Carvill wherein the discovery is directly related to the need for additional information and documents as ordered by Administrative Judge Lesley Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden. In judge Holland’s order/opinion he specifically refers to “criminal conduct”.
In Judge Holland’s DECISION RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE JENNIFER MADDEN. CCP §§ 170.1 and 170.3(c)1. Alameda Court Case No.: No.OCV-0574030; Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17, Filed April 11, 2017, he plainly states “Mr. al-Hakim’ s personal knowledge of these circumstances is not adequately demonstrated in his declaration.” and “Nowhere does al-Hakim offer competent evidentiary support”.
Holland discusses crimes that were committed, criminality, wherein he mentions various parties that have been named. This fact alone opens up discovery into those matters that he says are not and can not be contained in transcripts.
He writes in a footnote on page 4 of his decision of the challenge for cause of judge Madden:
“This alleged investigation in this case is described in broad terms in the Statement: “[Judge] Madden has been, is and will irrevocably tainted and will/must be a NAMED defendant, witness, and attorney with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office (DA) that is involved in these two, 30 year, ongoing legal cases and investigation by the U.S. and California State Attorney Generals involving the DA’s office and the Oakland City Attorney fraud that Nancy O’Malley, Kamala Harris, and Judge Kim Colwell is also named in that is directly involved in these same case attempting to be put before her to serve as judge and trier of fact in!” (Sic.) Statement, 3:25-4:4.”
On May 9, 2017, Judge Wynne Carvill issued an “Order for Stay Pending Appeal” pursuant to CCP §§ 916, and a Case Management Conference set for November 8, 2017.
It should be noted that al-Hakim has filed THREE (3) request for production of documents and subpoenas as well as SIX (6) Requests for Production of Documents, in various forms of under California Rules of Court 10.500, FOIA, Brown Act- California Public Records Act Request (PRA), and Ethics Complaints with NO RESPONSE on the Superior Court Administration, and the Judicial Council.
Just as important is the fact that Defendant, as the moving party, has the burden of establishing grounds for disqualification based on facts, that they know are not inscribed in the transcripts.
The most profound element that has come out of this is judge Holland’s comments as follows:
”Here, Mr. al-Hakim alleges a litany of serious misconduct or outright criminality – by persons other than Judge Carvill, He complains of past mistreatment by numerous judges (and at least one commissioner) apparently because they ruled against him in other cases as well as the instant case.
Al-Hakim’s attack is not limited to judicial officers. He accuses numerous other persons and agencies of serious wrongdoing.”
Judge Lesley Holland criminality comments portray perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
The Judicial disciplinary bodies have a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If Defendant somehow thinks his civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how is he going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give him a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Is Defendant suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?
As those discovery matters and cases move forward, I would NOT want to have them compromised by judge Clay being involved in this current case, or vice-versa.
On November 13, 2017, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim sent a fax and email as follows:
Judge Kevin R. Murphy- Dept. 10               Irwin J. Eskanos
Judge C. Don Clay- Dept. 6                         4 Orinda Way, Suite 180 -C
Judge Michael M. Markman- Dept. 2          Orinda, CA 94563
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee- Dept. 18                FAX NO. (925) 791-1444
APPELLATE DIVISION Irwin@essventures.com
Superior Court of Alameda County myrna@theacsinc.com
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
KMurphy@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.10@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept6@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept2@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Judge Kevin R. Murphy Fax: 510-891-6276; Judge C. Don Clay Fax: 510-891-6276, Judge Michael M. Markman Fax: 510-263-4309, Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee Fax: 510-891-5304
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     November 10, 2017
NO PAGES:     5 pages
RE:        Defendants Request to Formally Open Discovery in Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., MILLER VS HAKIM, Case: #OCV0574030, Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17
Dear Appellate Judges Murphy, Clay, Markman and Lee:
I am sending you ALL as well as plaintiff’s this fax and email to request that the court formally open discovery and formally recognize our discovery requests filed with the court in this matter.
Attached please find Defendants Request to Formally Open Discovery in Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., MILLER VS HAKIM, Case: #OCV0574030, Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17.
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501
In that 5 page letter, I complained about the discovery issues pertinent to the cases here being compromised by Judge Colwell attempting to rule on these appeals matters in HER superior court. That includes the third party respondents attempted to being allowed NOT to respond to the request for production of documents and subpoenas. It even references the court administration removing the third parties from the docket and register of actions as if the never existed only to have to “admit error” when it became obvious that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff were caught and had subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
This fact was reported to Appellate Judges Murphy, Clay, Markman and Lee yet they did nothing!
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye Orders Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County
On Monday, January 22, 2018 the hearing scheduled on the Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Renewed Judgment and for Terminating Sanctions and other relief, and Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., in MILLER VS HAKIM, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #OCV0574030 was continued by the Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, to February 8, 2018, in Dept. 511 at 9:00 a.m.
The Chief Justice. She wrote:
“THE HONORABLE JOHN B. ELLIS, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, is hereby assigned to sit as a Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, on the following date(s):
January 8, 2018 To February 8, 2018.
and until completion and disposition of any specific open motion or other matter pending in a case before the judge at the time the assignment ends. Any further motions or other matters in the case may be heard only pursuant to a separate appointment order.
Dated: January 8, 2018”
This essentially amounts to a Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County which al-Hakim OPPOSES because it does NOT hold the corruptors and abusers accountable for their continued actions! This is merely a inconvenient way out for them! 
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!
However, on January 23, 2018 Judge Colwell issued an Order calendaring the Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment, Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions (See Colwell’s Order under Ex “B”, page 2) as follows:
“ORDER (1) PLACING MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT BACK ON CALENDAR AND (2) STATING COURT’S UNDERSTANDING OF EFFECT OF ORDER OF 1/11/18.
On 1/31/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion for terminating sanctions. This was set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 10/11/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion to compel discovery. These were set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 12/13/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a challenge to Judge Krashna. On 1/8/18, the Chief Justice assigned the challenge to Judge Ellis in Solano County. On 1/18/18, Judge Ellis issued his decision.
ORDER

The court ORDERS that the motion of al-Hakim to vacate and set aside the judgment under CCP 473 is PLACED ON CALENDAR for 2/8/18. It appears that the court somehow dropped the matter and never decided the motion. The court may correct its ministerial errors. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 181, 185; Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1199,1204.)
The court ORDERS that its understanding of the 1/8/18 order of the Chief Justice is that the order assigned the challenge of Judge Krashna to Judge Ellis in Solano County but did not assign all pending motions to Judge Ellis. There was no request to assign all motions to an out of county judge. Judges in the Superior Court, Alameda County, will continue hearing the motions in this case.”
The order was dated January 23, 2018 and the proof of service was filed and mailed on January 29, 2018.
Additionally, there were orders issued January 24, 2018 by Colwell both the same day and proof of service was the same day January 29, 2018 calendaring the Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions.” This effort on behalf of Colwell is another “power grab” in an effort to conceal and further cover up that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Even though she had NO authority to administer, rule, or decide the case until AFTER February 8, 2018, on February 6, 2018 Colwell issued a tentative ruling in the case, I opposed that tentative ruling the same day, she held my ex-parte hearing February 7, 2018, to continue the matter and I was granted that continuance to February 26, 2018. She totally usurped the power of the Chief Justice and independently determined the outcome of the matters properly before Judge Ellis alone!
The hearing resulted in Judge Colwell “granting” my motion to vacate and set aside the renewed judgment after a 22 year struggle for justice! But it is a pyrrhic victory as she did NOT award fees, costs, sanctions as plead, but attempted to dismiss the discovery aspects of the case as “moot” since the case is over! She did this because the discovery is directly related to the need for additional information and documents as by ordered by Judge Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden. In his order/opinion he specifically refers to “criminal conduct” on behalf of Judge Colwell that she nows seeks to award herself a “plea bargain with a get-out-of-jail-free card!”. I opposed the ruling and it is scheduled to be heard on Monday, February 26, 20018 in department 511.
The tragedy of how these motions were continuously and mysteriously “dropped” from the calendar even AFTER SEVEN complaints, is subject of the corruption investigation right now and is a reason that the Chief Justice took the case away from Colwell and her court administration to begin with! Judge Ellis upon his review was taken aback when he reviewed this case as there was NO logical reason why this has continually happened in al-Hakim’s cases.
Manipulative Judicial Assignments
al-Hakim knows that Clay “was not only a new judge but also had views indicating … that he would be overly impressioned by Carvill, Markham, Freedman, Jacobson, Rolefson and the Superior Court cartel.” al-Hakim is concerned someone may have improperly arranged for the transfer of the case to that judge in order to insure a continuum of Freedman’s wrath as opposed to al-Hakim receiving a fair trial that he might receive before a different judge of the superior court. Cleary Grillo lacks the appearance of fairness and al-Hakim seeks to be heard by a judge whose impartiality and fairness toward him cannot reasonably be questioned.
In one case Judge Grillo and Petrou declared the “Peremptory Challenge is denied because a peremptory challenge to Judge Paul D. Herbert was accepted and once a peremptory challenge has been accepted, the party that filed the peremptory challenge may not file another, CCP section 170.6(a)(4)”.
Judge Paul D. Herbert was NOT eligible for peremptory challenge because was irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action as he has been, is and will be a defendant, witness, attorney and partner of the law firm of Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley PC that is directly involved in this same case attempting to be put before him to serve as judge and trier of fact in! While Herbert was an attorney and partner at Ropers, they served as defense counsel for CSAA in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau. et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 811337-3, and in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 821885-2, where the defendants were represented by the law firm of Willoughby, Stuart & Bening and where Ropers were the hostile intervener for CSAA where he directly participated in the unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains from their fraud. There is currently a $600,000 lien by Ropers and CSAA as part of their unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains on the same property in question here damaged by EBMUD!
Both Presiding Judge Morris Jacobson and the Supervising Judge Jon Rolefson knew he was disqualified from consideration even for a peremptory challenge and he can NOT just arbitrarily “accept” a peremptory challenge, that’s illegal and designed to exhaust al-Hakim’s challenge, while denying his right to a fair trial, due process and clear violation of his civil rights! By doing so, she attempts to eliminate the challenge as it pertains to Petrou.
This is the second time this “manipulative judge assigning” tactic has been employed by the Superior Court Administration, the Presiding and Supervising Court Judges of assigning case to judges that they know are conflicted, tainted, bias and prejudice such that they could not survive any challenge for cause in order to force al-Hakim to waste a peremptory challenge then assign the tainted judge of their intended choice.
al-Hakim has already stated that both that Presiding Judge Jacobson and the Supervising Judge Rolefson will continue to violate the local court’s policy against bias, and prejudice.
Absent their disqualification, these judges and their colleagues on the Superior Court will assure that retaliatory reassignment occurs in plaintiff’s case in order to attempt to extend their cover-up of discriminatory animus against plaintiff. That has now happened with the assignment of the case to Petrou after Herbert while aiding Judges Petrou, Clay, Carvill, Herbert Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains!
Judge Petrou after Herbert’s assignment to this case coupled with Freedman’s actions along with Judges Jacobson and Rolefson violate Canons 2 and 3 of the California Code of Judicial Conduct, which provide that a “judge should perform the duties of judicial office impartially…” “Statutes governing disqualification for cause are intended to ensure public confidence in the judiciary and to protect the right of litigants to a fair and impartial adjudicator – not to safeguard an asserted right, privilege or preference of a judge to try or hear a particular dispute.” (Curle v. Superior Court (Gleason) (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 103.
Judges Petrou, Herbert, Jacobson, Rolefson, the Superior Court, and Judicial Council with Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!
al-Hakim KNOWS that unless this process is transparent and ALL the herein mentioned judicial officials are impartial and unbiased, former Presiding Alameda County Superior Court Judges Yolanda Northridge, Barbara J. Miller, George Hernandez, Winifred Smith, C. Don Clay, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Paul Herbert and Judge Jon Rolefson, with Stephen Brick, Kim Colwell, and retired Judges David Lee, Richard Hodge and Michael Ballachey; former U.S. Attorneys Joe Russoniello, Melinda Haag; the U. S. and California State Attorney Generals, the U. S. Federal District Courts Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken, Thelton E. Henderson, Jon Tigar; California Court of Appeal -First District, Presiding Judge Barbara J. R. Jones, Judges Kennedy, James Richman, Henry Needham, Susan Graham, Mary Quilez, Diana Herbert, Dick Sandvick; the California Courts of Appeal -First District, Alameda Superior Court Appeals Division- Mrs. Johnson-Cannon Appeals Clerk, Nancy Adams, Anita Lippman, Ruby Atwall, and ALL former and current employees; The California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; Victoria Henley, Chad Finke, Yvette Trevino, Bernadette Torivio and; The California Judges Association, Ronald G. Overholt, these judges and their colleagues in the Courts will assure that retaliation occurs in al-Hakim’s cases in an attempt to extend their cover-up of discriminatory animus against him.
Perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
The Judicial disciplinary bodies handed judge Tigar a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If I somehow think my civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how am I going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give me a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Am I suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?
I have sent this notice via fax and email to the following parties: dept.14@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov, WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MMarkham@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, fax: 510-267-1567, 510-891-6276, Interserver Inc, Equinix (US) Enterprises Inc, Michael  Lavrik, mike@interserver.net, John Quaglieri, john@interserver.net, fax: (201) 526-6605, Anna Hsia, fax: (415) 636-5965, anna@zwillgen.com, kmostofizadeh@equinix.com,bgalvin@equinix.com.
CONCLUSION
I request that this charade of vexatious litigant motion be dismissed and judge Clay recuse himself from this case and address the appeals issues presented as I have many unanswered questions for this court and Judges Carvill, Clay, Grillo, Jacobson, Rolefson, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution I, my family, businesses, and communities we serve continue to suffer at your individual and collective gavels.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: March 19, 2018
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff
Posted on

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay’s assignment to Case No.: RG18888371

TO:     Judge Carvill
Judge Markman
Judge Clay
René C. Davidson Courthouse
Superior Court of Alameda County
Department 1
Department 6
Department 15
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Fax: (510) 267-1567
Fax: (510) 891-6276
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
dept.15@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov
MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Case No.: RG18888371
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay being assigned this case for all purposes
Hearing: CMC
land CA 94612
Department 6
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil
DATE:      March 12, 2018
RE:           Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay’s assignment to Case No.: RG18888371.
Dear Judges Clay, Carvill, and Markman:
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Convict judge Freedman lives by and practices this credo today!
Herein is Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s opposition to Judge C. Don Clay’s assignment to the above referenced case for all purposes in Department 6. Judge Clay sits on the Superior Court Appeals Division judiciary and I have two matters that are currently before that panel and he has much greater value there as opposed to hearing this matter. I would hate to think that this is just another example of the ongoing manipulation of the assignment of judges I my cases that I have brought to the attention of various authorities. I will discuss that later.
This matter was initially assigned on January 11, 2018 to Judge Stephen Kaus yet without any notice, appearances, rulings, or recusals, it was reassigned to judge Clay.
I have had numerous occasions to interact with Judge Clay over the years and in virtually every one it has been in regards to a complaint of judicial misconduct requesting an investigation that is part of the opinion rendered by Administrative Judge Lesley Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden that is at the heart of this opposition as it is center focus of the appeal referenced below. Judge Clay is tainted with information that would disqualify him from that interaction and I would NOT be comfortable with him acting in a judicial capacity in this case. In the complaints that were submitted to him, some complaining about him, he did nothing to respond to nor address the issues of the complaints, which suggest that he was simply complicit and participated in their cover up.
On one occasion he responded to a traffic warrant that was issued for my arrest by judge Tigar in the appeals division after I appealed a decision by judge Tabor whom proceeded not to respond to the appeal. After I requested the case be dismissed in the interest of justice six months AFTER the default and the Tigar warrant, judge Clay granted the dismissal.
In another matter in the appeals court, I had paid $315 in advance for a transcript that was critical to my case and the court reporters refused to prepare it. Without the transcript I was unable to present the major aspect of my case and it was dismissed for that reason. Judge Clay manage to have the court administration to refund only $280 of the prepaid $315 fee for the denied transcript.
I thank him for both those gestures as no one else has done anything similar even when they were demanded by law to do so.
However, Judge Clay sits on the Superior Court Appeals Division judiciary and I have two matters that are currently before that panel with discovery issues and one involves Presiding Court Judge Wynne Carvill wherein the discovery is directly related to the need for additional information and documents as ordered by Administrative Judge Lesley Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden. In judge Holland’s order/opinion he specifically refers to “criminal conduct”.
In Judge Holland’s DECISION RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE JENNIFER MADDEN. CCP §§ 170.1 and 170.3(c)1. Alameda Court Case No.: No.OCV-0574030; Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17, Filed April 11, 2017, he plainly states “Mr. al-Hakim’ s personal knowledge of these circumstances is not adequately demonstrated in his declaration.” and “Nowhere does al-Hakim offer competent evidentiary support”.
Holland discusses crimes that were committed, criminality, wherein he mentions various parties that have been named. This fact alone opens up discovery into those matters that he says are not and can not be contained in transcripts.
He writes in a footnote on page 4 of his decision of the challenge for cause of judge Madden:
“This alleged investigation in this case is described in broad terms in the Statement: “[Judge] Madden has been, is and will irrevocably tainted and will/must be a NAMED defendant, witness, and attorney with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office (DA) that is involved in these two, 30 year, ongoing legal cases and investigation by the U.S. and California State Attorney Generals involving the DA’s office and the Oakland City Attorney fraud that Nancy O’Malley, Kamala Harris, and Judge Kim Colwell is also named in that is directly involved in these same case attempting to be put before her to serve as judge and trier of fact in!” (Sic.) Statement, 3:25-4:4.”
On May 9, 2017, Judge Wynne Carvill issued an “Order for Stay Pending Appeal” pursuant to CCP §§ 916, and a Case Management Conference set for November 8, 2017.
It should be noted that al-Hakim has filed THREE (3) request for production of documents and subpoenas as well as SIX (6) Requests for Production of Documents, in various forms of under California Rules of Court 10.500, FOIA, Brown Act- California Public Records Act Request (PRA), and Ethics Complaints with NO RESPONSE on the Superior Court Administration, and the Judicial Council.
Just as important is the fact that Defendant, as the moving party, has the burden of establishing grounds for disqualification based on facts, that they know are not inscribed in the transcripts.
The most profound element that has come out of this is judge Holland’s comments as follows:
”Here, Mr. al-Hakim alleges a litany of serious misconduct or outright criminality – by persons other than Judge Carvill, He complains of past mistreatment by numerous judges (and at least one commissioner) apparently because they ruled against him in other cases as well as the instant case.
Al-Hakim’s attack is not limited to judicial officers. He accuses numerous other persons and agencies of serious wrongdoing.”
Judge Lesley Holland criminality comments portray perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
The Judicial disciplinary bodies have a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If Defendant somehow thinks his civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how is he going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give him a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Is Defendant suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?
As those discovery matters and cases move forward, I would NOT want to have them compromised by judge Clay being involved in this current case, or vice-versa.
On November 13, 2017, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim sent a fax and email as follows:
Judge Kevin R. Murphy- Dept. 10               Irwin J. Eskanos
Judge C. Don Clay- Dept. 6                         4 Orinda Way, Suite 180 -C
Judge Michael M. Markman- Dept. 2          Orinda, CA 94563
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee- Dept. 18                FAX NO. (925) 791-1444
APPELLATE DIVISION Irwin@essventures.com
Superior Court of Alameda County myrna@theacsinc.com
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
KMurphy@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.10@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept6@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept2@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Judge Kevin R. Murphy Fax: 510-891-6276; Judge C. Don Clay Fax: 510-891-6276, Judge Michael M. Markman Fax: 510-263-4309, Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee Fax: 510-891-5304
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     November 10, 2017
NO PAGES:     5 pages
RE:        Defendants Request to Formally Open Discovery in Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., MILLER VS HAKIM, Case: #OCV0574030, Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17
Dear Appellate Judges Murphy, Clay, Markman and Lee:
I am sending you ALL as well as plaintiff’s this fax and email to request that the court formally open discovery and formally recognize our discovery requests filed with the court in this matter.
Attached please find Defendants Request to Formally Open Discovery in Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., MILLER VS HAKIM, Case: #OCV0574030, Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17.
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501
In that 5 page letter, I complained about the discovery issues pertinent to the cases here being compromised by Judge Colwell attempting to rule on these appeals matters in HER superior court. That includes the third party respondents attempted to being allowed NOT to respond to the request for production of documents and subpoenas. It even references the court administration removing the third parties from the docket and register of actions as if the never existed only to have to “admit error” when it became obvious that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff were caught and had subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
This fact was reported to Appellate Judges Murphy, Clay, Markman and Lee yet they did nothing!
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye Orders Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County
On Monday, January 22, 2018 the hearing scheduled on the Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Renewed Judgment and for Terminating Sanctions and other relief, and Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., in MILLER VS HAKIM, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #OCV0574030 was continued by the Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, to February 8, 2018, in Dept. 511 at 9:00 a.m.
The Chief Justice. She wrote:
“THE HONORABLE JOHN B. ELLIS, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, is hereby assigned to sit as a Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, on the following date(s):
January 8, 2018 To February 8, 2018.
and until completion and disposition of any specific open motion or other matter pending in a case before the judge at the time the assignment ends. Any further motions or other matters in the case may be heard only pursuant to a separate appointment order.
Dated: January 8, 2018”
This essentially amounts to a Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County which al-Hakim OPPOSES because it does NOT hold the corruptors and abusers accountable for their continued actions! This is merely a inconvenient way out for them! 
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!
However, on January 23, 2018 Judge Colwell issued an Order calendaring the Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment, Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions (See Colwell’s Order under Ex “B”, page 2) as follows:
“ORDER (1) PLACING MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT BACK ON CALENDAR AND (2) STATING COURT’S UNDERSTANDING OF EFFECT OF ORDER OF 1/11/18.
On 1/31/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion for terminating sanctions. This was set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 10/11/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion to compel discovery. These were set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 12/13/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a challenge to Judge Krashna. On 1/8/18, the Chief Justice assigned the challenge to Judge Ellis in Solano County. On 1/18/18, Judge Ellis issued his decision.
ORDER

The court ORDERS that the motion of al-Hakim to vacate and set aside the judgment under CCP 473 is PLACED ON CALENDAR for 2/8/18. It appears that the court somehow dropped the matter and never decided the motion. The court may correct its ministerial errors. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 181, 185; Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1199,1204.)
The court ORDERS that its understanding of the 1/8/18 order of the Chief Justice is that the order assigned the challenge of Judge Krashna to Judge Ellis in Solano County but did not assign all pending motions to Judge Ellis. There was no request to assign all motions to an out of county judge. Judges in the Superior Court, Alameda County, will continue hearing the motions in this case.”
The order was dated January 23, 2018 and the proof of service was filed and mailed on January 29, 2018.
Additionally, there were orders issued January 24, 2018 by Colwell both the same day and proof of service was the same day January 29, 2018 calendaring the Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions.” This effort on behalf of Colwell is another “power grab” in an effort to conceal and further cover up that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Even though she had NO authority to administer, rule, or decide the case until AFTER February 8, 2018, on February 6, 2018 Colwell issued a tentative ruling in the case, I opposed that tentative ruling the same day, she held my ex-parte hearing February 7, 2018, to continue the matter and I was granted that continuance to February 26, 2018. She totally usurped the power of the Chief Justice and independently determined the outcome of the matters properly before Judge Ellis alone!
The hearing resulted in Judge Colwell “granting” my motion to vacate and set aside the renewed judgment after a 22 year struggle for justice! But it is a pyrrhic victory as she did NOT award fees, costs, sanctions as plead, but attempted to dismiss the discovery aspects of the case as “moot” since the case is over! She did this because the discovery is directly related to the need for additional information and documents as by ordered by Judge Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden. In his order/opinion he specifically refers to “criminal conduct” on behalf of Judge Colwell that she nows seeks to award herself a “plea bargain with a get-out-of-jail-free card!”. I opposed the ruling and it is scheduled to be heard on Monday, February 26, 20018 in department 511.
The tragedy of how these motions were continuously and mysteriously “dropped” from the calendar even AFTER SEVEN complaints, is subject of the corruption investigation right now and is a reason that the Chief Justice took the case away from Colwell and her court administration to begin with! Judge Ellis upon his review was taken aback when he reviewed this case as there was NO logical reason why this has continually happened in al-Hakim’s cases.
Manipulative Judicial Assignments
al-Hakim knows that Clay “was not only a new judge but also had views indicating … that he would be overly impressioned by Carvill, Markham, Freedman, Jacobson, Rolefson and the Superior Court cartel.” al-Hakim is concerned someone may have improperly arranged for the transfer of the case to that judge in order to insure a continuum of Freedman’s wrath as opposed to al-Hakim receiving a fair trial that he might receive before a different judge of the superior court. Cleary Grillo lacks the appearance of fairness and al-Hakim seeks to be heard by a judge whose impartiality and fairness toward him cannot reasonably be questioned.
In one case Judge Grillo and Petrou declared the “Peremptory Challenge is denied because a peremptory challenge to Judge Paul D. Herbert was accepted and once a peremptory challenge has been accepted, the party that filed the peremptory challenge may not file another, CCP section 170.6(a)(4)”.
Judge Paul D. Herbert was NOT eligible for peremptory challenge because was irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action as he has been, is and will be a defendant, witness, attorney and partner of the law firm of Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley PC that is directly involved in this same case attempting to be put before him to serve as judge and trier of fact in! While Herbert was an attorney and partner at Ropers, they served as defense counsel for CSAA in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau. et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 811337-3, and in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 821885-2, where the defendants were represented by the law firm of Willoughby, Stuart & Bening and where Ropers were the hostile intervener for CSAA where he directly participated in the unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains from their fraud. There is currently a $600,000 lien by Ropers and CSAA as part of their unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains on the same property in question here damaged by EBMUD!
Both Presiding Judge Morris Jacobson and the Supervising Judge Jon Rolefson knew he was disqualified from consideration even for a peremptory challenge and he can NOT just arbitrarily “accept” a peremptory challenge, that’s illegal and designed to exhaust al-Hakim’s challenge, while denying his right to a fair trial, due process and clear violation of his civil rights! By doing so, she attempts to eliminate the challenge as it pertains to Petrou.
This is the second time this “manipulative judge assigning” tactic has been employed by the Superior Court Administration, the Presiding and Supervising Court Judges of assigning case to judges that they know are conflicted, tainted, bias and prejudice such that they could not survive any challenge for cause in order to force al-Hakim to waste a peremptory challenge then assign the tainted judge of their intended choice.
al-Hakim has already stated that both that Presiding Judge Jacobson and the Supervising Judge Rolefson will continue to violate the local court’s policy against bias, and prejudice.
Absent their disqualification, these judges and their colleagues on the Superior Court will assure that retaliatory reassignment occurs in plaintiff’s case in order to attempt to extend their cover-up of discriminatory animus against plaintiff. That has now happened with the assignment of the case to Petrou after Herbert while aiding Judges Petrou, Clay, Carvill, Herbert Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains!
Judge Petrou after Herbert’s assignment to this case coupled with Freedman’s actions along with Judges Jacobson and Rolefson violate Canons 2 and 3 of the California Code of Judicial Conduct, which provide that a “judge should perform the duties of judicial office impartially…” “Statutes governing disqualification for cause are intended to ensure public confidence in the judiciary and to protect the right of litigants to a fair and impartial adjudicator – not to safeguard an asserted right, privilege or preference of a judge to try or hear a particular dispute.” (Curle v. Superior Court (Gleason) (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 103.
Judges Petrou, Herbert, Jacobson, Rolefson, the Superior Court, and Judicial Council with Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!
al-Hakim KNOWS that unless this process is transparent and ALL the herein mentioned judicial officials are impartial and unbiased, former Presiding Alameda County Superior Court Judges Yolanda Northridge, Barbara J. Miller, George Hernandez, Winifred Smith, C. Don Clay, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Paul Herbert and Judge Jon Rolefson, with Stephen Brick, Kim Colwell, and retired Judges David Lee, Richard Hodge and Michael Ballachey; former U.S. Attorneys Joe Russoniello, Melinda Haag; the U. S. and California State Attorney Generals, the U. S. Federal District Courts Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken, Thelton E. Henderson, Jon Tigar; California Court of Appeal -First District, Presiding Judge Barbara J. R. Jones, Judges Kennedy, James Richman, Henry Needham, Susan Graham, Mary Quilez, Diana Herbert, Dick Sandvick; the California Courts of Appeal -First District, Alameda Superior Court Appeals Division- Mrs. Johnson-Cannon Appeals Clerk, Nancy Adams, Anita Lippman, Ruby Atwall, and ALL former and current employees; The California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; Victoria Henley, Chad Finke, Yvette Trevino, Bernadette Torivio and; The California Judges Association, Ronald G. Overholt, these judges and their colleagues in the Courts will assure that retaliation occurs in al-Hakim’s cases in an attempt to extend their cover-up of discriminatory animus against him.
Perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
The Judicial disciplinary bodies handed judge Tigar a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If I somehow think my civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how am I going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give me a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Am I suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?
I have sent this notice via fax and email to the following parties: dept.14@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov, WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkham@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, fax: 510-267-1567, 510-891-6276.
CONCLUSION
I request that judge Clay recuse himself from this case and address the appeals issues presented as I have many unanswered questions for this court and Judges Carvill, Clay, Grillo, Jacobson, Rolefson, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution I, my family, businesses, and communities we serve continue to suffer at your individual and collective gavels.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: March 9, 2018
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff