Judicial challenges themselves are not, however, evidence a want or delay of prosecution. A party is entitled to challenge a judicial officer for cause or bias.” “The challenges appear to be filed in an earnest belief that the judges of this Court ought to be disqualified from deciding this case and that each successive challenge will overcome the prior’s shortcomings.””the Court hopes and encourages both parties to take this new judicial assignment as a good time to wipe the slate clean, forgive any earlier acrimony, and proceed to resolve and adjudicate the claims raised by the Complaint in normal order and good faith. Al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated.” “Both parties deserve the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law. In short, this case deserves a chance to proceed on its merits, and now is an opportune time as any to do so.”
Judge Stephen Kaus, Tentative Ruling made September 11, 2018.
Judge Kaus admits to the courts acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law!
al-Hakim’s Declaration to Bigoted Judge Brand Order to Show Cause to DECLARE ABDUL- JALIL AL-HAKIM a Vexatious Litigant: Brand OSC Vex Litg Decl copy
al-Hakim’s Opposition to Bigoted Judge Brand Order to Show Cause to Declare ABDUL- JALIL AL-HAKIM a Vexatious Litigant: Brand OSC Opposition to Vexatious Litigant copy
California Appeals and Superior Court Corruption

al-Hakim has filed multiple complaints for years against Justices Jones, Burns, James Humes, Terence Bruiniers, Sandra Margulies, Anthony Kline, and Kathleen Banke as well as Challenges for Cause against Associate Justice James Richman and Henry Needham, Jr. whom apparently sit in this group but has not openly participated in the decisions.
al-Hakim has filed multiple complaints for years against California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, former Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Federal Chief District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, and former Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken also.
In these matters, it has been established and admitted that there has been illicit ex parte collusion and conspiracy between Superior Court judges Wynne Carvill, Kim Colwell, Jeff Brand, Robert Freedman, Frank Roesch, Stephan Kaus, Mike Markman, Don Clay, Stephan Pulido, Ioana Petrou, Yolanda Northridge, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Kevin Murphy, Jo-Lynne Lee, Scott Patton, David Krashna, Jennifer Madden, Sue Alexander, Glenn Oleon, George Hernandez, Tara Desautels, Leo Dorado, Dennis Hayashi, Julia Spain, several commissioners, and the Superior Court Administration of Chad Finke and the Appeals court with the judges mentioned above. Three of the judges have offered the same unsolicited.
Additionally, Judges Ronni MacLaren, Frank Roesch and Jo-Lynne Lee issued ORDERS OF SELF DISQUALIFICATION/REFUSAL pursuant to C.C.P. §170.1 (a)(6)(A)(ii) and C.C.P. §170.1 (a)(6)(A)(iii). This fact demonstrates that there has been and continues to be pervasive illegal ex-parte communications between the judges regarding al-Hakim because al-Hakim has NEVER had any contact with some judges that recused.
These superior court judges have conspired with the appellant courts to independently take it upon themselves to broadcast their “dog whistle signal to the appeals court” to deny al-Hakim’s petition and issue orders in their support forcing al-Hakim into the “WRIT RACKET”! This is NOT having a trial, this is being “railroaded by the court in a case that is ALREADY fixed against you!”
This action are part of what litigants have come to know as the “WRIT RACKET” instituted by the legal system, judges, courts, the judicial administrative and regulatory agencies, both State and Federal! 
These entities have made such a mockery of justice that now these judges do not hesitate to deny or violate a litigants rights and defy them to file a writ knowing that the Supreme Court, Appeals Court, Superior Court Administration, the Judicial Council, and the Commission on Judicial Performance, will cover up and white-wash their criminal activity! These criminal justices are forcing appellants into the Appeals Court cemetery for civil rights, where the Rule of Law is Overruled and Outlawed, the death of due process, where justice is a miscarriage, the treason of truth, the homicide of human rights, the dumpster for denial, where litigants rights are banished to rot in oppression, and die!
al-Hakim’s legal opponents, CSAA and others are engaged in corruption and conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived and employing this “WRIT RACKET” criminal entrapment defense litigation strategy with third parties, other judicial, governmental, law enforcement and legal entities employees, associates, members, agents, contractors, and informants of the U. S. Attorney General- Northern California, Homeland Security (NSA), F.B.I., U. S. Federal Court- Northern California District, California State Supreme Court, California State Appeals Court, Governor of California, California Attorney General, Alameda County District Attorney, Oakland City Attorney, California State Senator, California Congressperson, Alameda County Supervisors, Mayor of Oakland, Oakland City Councilpersons, Alameda County Superior Court, Judicial Council of California, among others, inciting the courts acrimony, animus, and persecution of al-Hakim with judicial calumny deceit!
To understand the “WRIT RACKET”, one needs to know what a “racket” and “racketeering” mean and depict in the legal community and population at large. The definitions are:
“A racket is a planned or organized criminal act, usually in which the criminal act is a form of business or a way to earn illegal or extorted money regularly or briefly but repeatedly. A racket is often a repeated or continuous criminal operation.”
“Racketeering, often associated with organized crime, is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a “racket”) to solve a problem that wouldn’t otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service. Racketeering as defined by the RICO act includes a list of 35 crimes.”
Moreover, this is exactly what the judges meant by their “dog whistle” signal/statement at the hearings that they would rely on their “colleagues (in the Appeals Court)” to support their decision to ignore the Rule of Law knowing that the appellate judges would do just as Jones, Burns, Bruiniers, Margulies, Kline, Humes and Banke did, “cover-up for him”.
Brand and the courts actions are a content- and viewpoint- based restriction on speech and lacks any objective criteria for suppressing speech and censorship of constitutionally protected free speech, engage in discriminatory business practices with impunity in violation of the U. S. Constitution First Amendment and California Civil Code § 51, and Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution for Violations of Free Speech, provides: “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.” when Plaintiff‟s viewpoints, are protected speech under the California Constitution, where the court harassed Plaintiff by engaging in a severe and pervasive scheme to suppress his constitutional and statutory right to engage in protected activity, by executing against him punitive and adverse judicial actions, and termination of his basic rights to due process?
By operation and application of judges restrictions set forth herein has unlawfully deprived Plaintiff of their full and equalJudicialTyranny accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in violation of CCP §51 and abused its discretion and improperly prejudice al-Hakim, under color of law, the Judges sought to deprive him of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
These Constitutional violations of Plaintiff’s rights and prejudices Plaintiff suffered herein, when the judges denied his civil rights and due process, an equal opportunity to participate in unbiased pursuit of his legal claims, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, religion, whistleblowing activities, bias, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, prejudice, favoritism, bigotry and racism; 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; illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim; denied the appeal with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the rights guaranteed by U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV, Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Under Color Of State Law; Section 1983, Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts, and the Bane Acts.
When the conduct of the Judges was unreasonable and undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others, plaintiff’s injuries and the violations of his constitutional rights were directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of the Appeals Court, which were the moving force behind the acts described herein caused damages to plaintiff, and will continue to cause damage to plaintiff in violation of his civil rights, and due process and equal protection of the laws under the U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV by this denial of equal access to an unbiased legal process.
Given the principle involved in this case is not merely one of fairness to al-Hakim but also one of maintaining respect for the law and promoting confidence in the administration of justice. (As the United States Supreme Court stated in In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 [99 L. Ed. 942, 946, 75 S. Ct. 623, 625]: “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. … Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 [75 S. Ct. 11, 13].”)
Where the court acted as described herein with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights with the intent to injure, vex, annoy and harass Plaintiff, subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intention of causing Plaintiff injury and depriving him of his constitutional rights when in these circumstances, there was denial of a substantial right rendered the ensuing commitment illegal because it is impossible for this or a reviewing court not to conclude that “a different result would have been probable if such error … or defect had not occurred or existed.”? (CCP § 475.)