| Subject: Demand for Removal and Censure of KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon |
| From: “A. J.” <ajalil1234@gmail.com> |
| Date: 8/18/25, 12:20 PM |
| To: SWiles@mercuryllc.com, KAllen@cwdc.com, LChen@mercuryllc.com, CBustos@mercuryllc.com, TGordon@mercuryllc.com, MHardaway@mercuryllc.com, JHartmann@mercuryllc.com, HKnoch@mercuryllc.com, BLanza@mercuryllc.com, JLonergan@mercuryllc.com, MMcSherry@mercuryllc.com, JMessner@mercuryllc.com, CMiddleton@mercuryllc.com, JMoffett@mercuryllc.com, ARoyster@mercuryllc.com, MSoliman@mercuryllc.com, KTesta@mercuryllc.com, AVargas@mercuryllc.com, DVitter@mercuryllc.com, MButler@mercuryllc.com, VWeber@mercuryllc.com, DWilson@mercuryllc.com |
| BCC: ajalil@berkeley.edu |
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
4200 Park Blvd., Ste. #One16, Oakland CA 94602
Phone (510) 394-4101
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
Abdul-Jalil Profile , Abdul-Jalil Intro , Portrait of Abdul-Jalil by Artist Buford Delaney in Paris, France
Linked In Profile on Abdul-Jalil, Kobe Bryant Supports AMWF
Abdul-Jalil Honored in Port Au-Prince, Haiti and Miami, Fla. for Relief Missions to Haiti , Thanks You from Arch Bishop Joel Jeune to Abdul-Jalil
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY HONORS ABDUL-JALIL Receives Certificate-of-Recognition for 2021-22
Belal Salih Esa receives Posthumous Congressional Proclamation/Resolution for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from California Governor Gavin Newsom and the State Legislature for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Belal Salih Esa received a Posthumous Legislative Proclamation/Resolution from the Mayor, City Council and the Unified School District Board of Supervisors of the City of Albany for his work with the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation (AMWF)
Humanitarian Civil and Human Rights Achievements
Articles on Abdul-Jalil: ABDUL-JALIL GENIUS- BOY WONDER!!MC Hammer Tribute to ABDUL-JALILEmanuel Steward on ABDUL-JALIL
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Maze Featuring Frankie Beverly and Marvin Gaye
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Khalid al-Mansour, President Barack Obama and Prince Al-Waleed
ABDUL-JALIL’S BABE with Destiny and Marvin Gaye
Abdul-Jalil BMI Songwriter/Producer
Abdul-Jalil Hosted the City of Oakland’s “Holiday Season at the Trans Pacific Centre”
Ron Dellums Congressional Acknowledgement to Abdul-Jalil for Bicentennial Basketball Classic
Abdul-Jalil and The Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Fundraiser
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg1
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg2
Abdul-Jalil and The Historic Jesse Jackson 4 President 1984 Campaign pg3
ABDUL-JALIL- the First _SUPER AGENT_ Legal Black History Page 1
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 2
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law Courses in All Major Law and MBA Programs Page 3
ABDUL-JALIL-Sports and Entertainment Law, Lecturor, Presenter, Marketing, Branding Page 4
Award for “Distinguished Marketing and Promotional Services” from NFL Super Bowl NFL Experience , Abdul-Jalil Award from NFL Super Bowl, Rihanna SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo , Dr. Dre SUPER BOWL Celebrity Promo
SUPER BOWL CELEBRITY PLACEMENT, Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg1, Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg2 , Abdul-Jalil Duo Role in “Free Base Ain’t Free” pg3
The Man Who Turn$ Hit$ Into Million$, One Special Case,
The Historic Jr. Moore Contract pg1, The Historic Jr. Moore Contract pg2,
ESPN Bostock 5th & Jackson TV Special Part 1, and Part 2, ESPN Bostock Magazine Special, ESPN Magazine- The History and Mystery of The High Five,
the “al-Hakim Tax Code Ruling”, Smart Agent, Busy Agent,
Abdul-Jalil in Harvard University Law School Federal Tax Course Outline
Abdul-Jalil in Yale University Law School Federal Tax Course 13th Ed., Prof. Eric Zolt
Abdul-Jalil in Wake Forest University Law School “Islamic and Jewish Perspective On Interest”
Abdul-Jalil in Washington University Law School Tax CodeAbdul-Jalil in Washington & Lee University Law School Tax Code,Abdul-Jalil in University of Virginia Law School Tax Course
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation-KPFA Promotional Video
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Kids Celebrity Gift BackPacks
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Free Food Program Celebrity Giving Back
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville KPFA Interview Video
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Emeryville Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Trader Joe’s Alameda Customer Appreciation
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and ¿eX-whY AdVentures? Entourage & Randy Holland in Trader Joe’s Pinole “Tribute to Legends of Jazz” Show
Santa Fe Elementary School’s Peace March with Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, SemiFreddi’s, Trader Joe’s, Little Ceasar’s Pizza, Marshawn Lynch’s “Fam1ly F1rst” and Leon Powe’s “Fresh Start Oakland”
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 1
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Santa Fe Elementary LilCaesars Pizza Part 2
You can click on any highlighted word to view or download that itemTo: Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero
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: 415-865-4391,415-865-4205 Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov
Michelle Curran Gregory Dresser
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
Michelle.Curran@jud.ca.govGregory.Dresser@jud.ca.gov
Craig H. Missakian-Director Rob Bonta
U. S. Attorney’s Office Attorney General of California
Federal Courthouse 1300 I Street, Suite 125
450 Golden Gate Avenue P.O. Box 944255
San Francisco, CA 94102 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Fax No.: 415-436-7234 Fax: 916-324-8835
Judge Brian Caruth Judge Joscelyn Jones
Superior Court of Alameda County Superior Court of Alameda County
Wiley Manuel Courthouse René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street, Department 105 1225 Fallon Street, Department 19
661 Washington St. Oakland, CA 94612
Oakland, CA 94607 dept.19@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Email: dept.105@alameda.courts.ca.gov
BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon Chad Finke Executive Officer
Superior Court of Alameda County Superior Court of Alameda County
René C. Davidson Courthouse René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street, Department 1 1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
Oakland, CA 94612 Oakland, CA 94612
Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276 Fax: 510-891-6276
TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.govcfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Judge Stuart Hing Judge Michael Gaffey
East County Hall of Justice Fremont Hall of Justice
Fremont Law & Motion, Dept 711 Fremont Law & Motion, Dept. 605
5151 Gleason Drive 39439 Paseo Padre Parkway
Dublin, CA 94568 Fremont, CA 94538
SHing@alameda.courts.ca.gov MGaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept.711@alameda.courts.ca.govDept.605@alameda.courts.ca.gov
925-227-6711 510-818-7510
Sanjay Virmani, FBI Director Yesenia Sanchez Northern District of California Alameda County Sheriff
San Francisco Field Office 1401 Lakeside Drive, 12th Floor
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor Oakland, CA 94612-4305
San Francisco, CA 94102-9523 Fax: (510) 272-6811
Chief Brian Matthews Casey Hallinan Hayward Police Department Attorney General of California 300 W. Winton Ave. Attn: Public Inquiry Unit Hayward, CA 94544 P.O. Box 944255 Fax: 510-293-7183 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550Fax: (916) 323-5341
Senator Aisha Wahab (SD-10) Ursula Jones Dickson
California State Senate District Attorney
39510 Paseo Padre Pkwy, Ste 280 René C. Davidson Courthouse
Fremont, CA 94538 1225 Fallon Street, Room 900
Fax: 916-319-2125 Oakland CA 94612
Fax: 510-452-5625, 510-271-5157
Steve Gordon- Director Kenneth J. Pogue- Director
Department of Motor Vehicles Office of Administrative Law
2415 1st Ave., Mail Station F101 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1250
Sacramento, CA 95818-2606 Sacramento, CA 95814-4339
Fax: Fax: 916-323-6826
Steve.Gordon@dmv.ca.govKenneth.Pogue@oai.ca.gov
Kimberly Kirchmeyer- Director Patrick Dorais- Bureau Chief
Department of Consumer Affairs Bureau of Automotive Repair
1625 North Market Blvd., Suite N 112 Complaint Intake Unit
Sacramento, CA 95834 10949 N. Mather Blvd.
Fax: (916) 574-8623 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Kimberly.Kirchmeyer@dca.ca.gov Fax: (916) 464-3405
Patrick_Dorais@dca.ca.gov
Ricardo Lara- Commissioner Alex Anneker Department of Insurance State Farm Insurance Agent 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700 5301 Claremont Ave Sacramento, CA 95814 Oakland, CA 94618 Fax: 916-445-5276 alex.anneker.vadygn@statefarm.com, Ricardo.Lara@insurance.ca.gov
Custodian of Records
State Farm Claims
PO Box 52250
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2250
Alacrity Fax: 985-345-4400, 800-952-5371sent via: U. S. Mail, Fax, and email
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE: August 18, 2025
NO. PAGES: 12
RE: PRESIDING JUDGE REFUSES TO SERVE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!
Dear Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero- Supreme Court of California, Chair- Judicial Council of California, Commission on Judicial Appointments; Director Michelle Curran- Judicial Council of California; Director-Chief Counsel Gregory Dresser- Commission on Judicial Performance; Director Craig H. Missakian- U.S. Attorney’s Office; Attorney General of California Rob Bonta; Judge Brian Caruth- Superior Court of Alameda County; Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon- Superior Court of Alameda County; Executive Officer Chad Finke- Superior Court of Alameda County; Judge Stuart Hing- Superior Court of Alameda County; Judge Michael Gaffey- Superior Court of Alameda County; FBI Director Sanjay Virmani- San Francisco Field Office; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez- Alameda County Sheriff; Chief Brian Matthews- Hayward Police Department; Casey Hallinan- Attorney General of California Public Inquiry Unit; Senator Aisha Wahab- California State Senate (SD-10); District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson-Alameda County; Director Steve Gordon- Department of Motor Vehicles; Director Kenneth J. Pogue- Office of Administrative Law; Director Kimberly Kirchmeyer- Department of Consumer Affairs; Bureau Chief Patrick Dorais- Bureau of Automotive Repair; Commissioner Ricardo Lara- Department of Insurance; et. al.,
COME NOW THE PLAINTIFF Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, CEO/President Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim with this Statement of Disqualification and Declaration in Support of Motion and Demand for Removal and Censure of Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and presiding Judge Thomas Nixon for for cause pursuant to California CCP §170.6 and under CCP §§170.1-5 et. seq.; CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)), (CCP § 170.3 (c) (1)), the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8), 3C, 3D(1), 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2), 4, 4D(1) and 4(E); Due to Criminal Conduct in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §242; Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§182, subd. (a)(5); Fraud On The Court- Federal Code 60; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 60, § 47, § 4541, § 425.16, § 355, 356, 473, 475, § 3523, § 3528 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180; 1st, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment U. S. Constitution; California Constitution by the first clause of Article I, section 13; Article VI, section 4 1/2; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3).
Pursuant to current California law, two methods exist for seeking to disqualify a judge(s). A party may either move to disqualify the judge(s) for cause pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. §§ 170.1 through 170.5, or they may file a peremptory challenge in accordance with Cal. Civ. Proc. §170.6. This motion is based on the matters contained herein, on Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1-170.6 and on the supporting Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury of Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, CEO/President Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim attached hereto and filed herewith.
The PLAINTIFF Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, CEO/President Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim in the above-entitled matter hereby moves that the case and hearing, which involves a contested issue of law or fact, and which has been assigned to Joscelyn Jones yet allegedly reassigned without notice to Stephen Kaus, Judges of the above-entitled Court, be reassigned from these Judges, and that no matters hereinafter arising in this cause be heard or assigned to these Judges, on the ground that said judges are irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action and any other action given the manner and actions that resulted in his assignment is suspect and wreaks of conspiracy.
We do not feel that this case should have these same judges because as has been proven in this case, if they are biased in one case, it can only lead to an appealable adjudication! Given the history of ongoing corruption in these and other al-Hakim cases, several that involve Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and presiding Judge Thomas Nixon, it would NOT be wise of the court to do so unless it plans to effect their continuing corruption.
Given that Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and presiding Judge Thomas Nixon has NOT answered the challenge, al-Hakim reserves ALL issues from this and the previous FOUR (4) challenges against Kaus and incorporates them herein.
BACKGROUND AND LEGAL ARGUMENT WITH GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION
Plaintiff Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, CEO/President Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim files this action seeking relief from Judge Kaus’s July 24, 2025 Amended Tentative Case Management Order and Judge Jones August 8, 2025 Tentative Case Management Order order reaffirming Kaus’ order and Dismissing the case in the Alameda County Superior Court before Judges Jones/Kaus in Department 19. Jones issued the exact same ruling as Kaus and plaintiff’s have filed the Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Kaus’s Order and Jones order because Defendants failed to serve their motion.
The gravamen of plaintiff’s petition is simply Jones, Nixon and Kaus’ willful and intentional perjurious orders circumscribed in fraud on the court, Kaus ruling on matters before him without jurisdiction making his order void upon being challenged to vacate and set aside; which ALL fall under fraud per CCP § 473 and CCP § 1008. This willful blindness on the part of Jones, Nixon and Kaus is further evidence of why they can not serve in this matter as we can not find any justice in his inhumanity.
Plaintiff argues the established, continuing Jones, Nixon and Kaus, Superior Court Administration Corruption; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); Fraud on the Court, Fraud Upon The Court; and Manipulation is an essential element in vacating and voiding any order subject to inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect, or FRAUD (CCP §473(b)); Code Civ. Proc., § 475; and renders the judgment and/or default is void (CCP §473(d)).
Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the “Court”) does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. The Court is an unbiased, but methodical “creature” which is governed by the Rule of Law… that is, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional law. The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and “just” if it is allowed to function as the laws proscribe. The sad fact is that judges are violating their oath of office and are NOT properly following these rules, are playing a revised legal game with their own created rules and THIS is a Fraud upon the Court, immediately removing jurisdiction from that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective – invalidates) every decision from that point on. Any judge who does such a thing is under mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse himself or herself from the case, and this rarely happens unless someone can force them to do so with the evidence of violations of procedure and threat of losing half their pensions for life which is what can take place. In any case, it is illegal, and EVERY case which has had fraud involved can be re-opened AT ANY TIME, because there is no statutes of limitations on fraud.
Fraud on the Court, or Fraud upon the Court, is where a material misrepresentation has been made to the court, or by the court itself. The main requirement is that the impartiality of the court has been so disrupted that it can’t perform its tasks without bias or prejudice.
Some examples of fraud on the court include:
a. Fraud in the service of court summons (such as withholding a court summons from a party)b. Corruption or influence of a court member or officialc. Judicial fraudd. Intentionally failing to inform the parties of necessary appointments or requirements, in efforts to obstruct the judicial processe. “Unconscionable” schemes to deceive or make misrepresentations through the court system
It’s important to note that fraud on the court only involves court officials or officers of the court, such as judges or court-appointed attorneys. The fraud must be directed at the “judicial machinery” itself.
The complaint will be amended upon receipt of the responses to the Interrogatories, Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things AND the and Demand for Production of Documents, Set One.
Additionally, Defendants failed to Meet and Confer per Code of Civil Procedure Section 435.5 before filing a demurrer.
Jones, Nixon and Kaus’ Tentative Ruling/Orders IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE of Crime
When the tentative ruling/order of the court is proof of corruption, conspiracy, fraud upon the court, denial of due process, obstruction of justice, and a violation of a litigants civil rights, that tentative ruling/order becomes IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE of these crimes.
Jones, Nixon and Kaus here attempts to rule on their own perjury and fraud in these rulings/orders denying al-Hakim’s rights to a fair, unbiased legal proceeding.
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, filed an action seeking to: VACATE AND SET ASIDE Judge Kaus’s July 24, 2025 Disregard Order as void for lack of assignment and jurisdiction; Disqualify Judge Joscelyn Jones, Presiding Court Judge Thomas Nixon and Judge Stephen Kaus from this case as irreparable tainted; Set aside its order disregarding Plaintiff’s 88-page Verified Statement/Declaration in opposition, Vacate its order of July 24, 2025; Deem Plaintiff’s five-page memorandum and eighty-three-page declaration timely and proper; Reinstate and Compel full review and Consider the Verified Statement/Declaration in opposition on its merits; Provide an opportunity for full and fair hearing; Conduct a comprehensive review of case assignment procedures; Refer allegations of judicial misconduct to appropriate oversight bodies; and Grant the Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper, Grant any further relief necessary to prevent prejudice to Plaintiff.
On January 31, 2025, this case was originally assigned to Judge Joscelyn Jones by public court order.
Presiding Court Judge Thomas Nixon has never issued a publicly available order formally reassigning this case to anyone, including Judge Stephen Kaus. No public or private order has ever reassigned this matter to any other judge, including Judge Stephen Kaus from Judge Jones to Judge Kaus.
The fact that no formal reassignment order exists transferring the case to Judge Stephen Kaus, renders any subsequent orders by Judge Kaus void.
On April 2, 2025, Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., served a notice under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7(c) that Plaintiff’s purported CEO, Abdul Jalil al-Hakim, is an alleged vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order.
Mr. al-Hakim, CEO/President of Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, a non-profit corporation in California, filed an 88-page Verified Statement/Declaration captioned “Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants Motion for An Order for Dismissal for Failing to Timely Obtain a Prefiling Order within Ten (10) Days of the Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order. per CCP section 391.7(c); and Cross‐Motion for Filing this Frivolous or Dilatory motion with Monetary Sanctions against Defendants and their counsels under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5, 128.7, and 391.7(f)”, verified under penalty of perjury, in opposition to State Farm’s motion for dismissal.
That filing consisted of: 1) A five-page memorandum of points and authorities; and 2) An eighty-three-page Verified Statement/Declaration addressing separate factual issues.
Fourteen pages (17%) of the Verified Statement was factual and legal evidence of judicial misconduct, tortious interference, fraud, collusion, and conspiracy involving Judge Kaus.
Plaintiff’s CEO & President, Abdul Jalil al-Hakim, signed and filed that Verified Statement believing that, as a non‐profit corporation representing itself, he could submit factual declarations under CCP § 2015.5.
On July 8 and July 31, 2025, Mr. al-Hakim separately notified Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon that an alleged vexatious‐litigant order, was procured through fraud and never served, prevented Plaintiff’s timely response. Plaintiff requested Judge Nixon to serve the alleged order so he and Plaintiff could respond properly and intelligently and Nixon has failed and refused service.
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, CEO/President of Plaintiff Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation sent a twelve (12) page letter/complaint that was filed and served on Judge Thomas Nixon, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT in Opposition to Judge Jeff Brand alleged Vexatious Litigant (CCP 391 (b)(3)) Order that was procured through Fraud, Conspiracy, Corruption and with Premeditated Malice Aforethought for Filing Challenges for Cause under CCP 170.1 and 170.3; the alleged Vexatious Order was never served and that it be served, requesting action regarding: “PRESIDING JUDGE REFUSES TO SERVE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED; PROOF Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice; PROOF KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance”. That letter/complaint was served on Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero- Supreme Court of California, Chair- Judicial Council of California, Commission on Judicial Appointments; Director Michelle Curran- Judicial Council of California; Director-Chief Counsel Gregory Dresser- Commission on Judicial Performance; Director Craig H. Missakian- U.S. Attorney’s Office; Attorney General of California Rob Bonta; FBI Director Sanjay Virmani- San Francisco Field Office; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez- Alameda County Sheriff; District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson-Alameda County; Director Steve Gordon- Department of Motor Vehicles; Director Kenneth J. Pogue- Office of Administrative Law; Bureau Chief Patrick Dorais- Bureau of Automotive Repair; Commissioner Ricardo Lara- Department of Insurance; et. al., ALL of whom have been subpoenaed as witnesses and to produce documents are involved in the instant case.
To date Judge Nixon has failed and refused service and ignored the written Complaints and Demands.
On July 22, 2025, Plaintiff made five (5) calls and left two (2) voicemail messages on three separate Alameda County Superior Court hotlines, persistently seeking to contest the Tentative Rulings on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff also emailed Department 19 at 3:30 pm the same day, expressly notifying the Court of its desire to contest any adverse tentative ruling and requesting the tentative ruling for review (Exh. B).
In response/reply to Plaintiff email, on July 23, 2025 at 9:15 am, the clerk, Angelica Mendola, confirmed by email that a tentative ruling had been posted online and advised Plaintiff on how to access it (Exh. C).
So this verifies that the court received our communication that we contested the ruling and planned to appear to argue the matters even though we did NOT know what the rulings were.
CEO al-Hakim appeared for Plaintiff in person as normal for the July 23, 2025 hearing at 3:00 pm. and was then informed by the court bailiff that the matters were continued as was the Case Management Conference hearing scheduled for July 29, 2025. He remained in the courtroom until Judge Jones came out and called her first case and provided her with a filed stamped copy of the Complaint and Demand served on Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon that an alleged vexatious‐litigant order, was procured through fraud and never served, AND DEMANDING that he serve it ASAP! This has prevented Plaintiff’s timely response to this problem.
Plaintiff finally got clearance Friday July 25, 2025 to access the courts e-filing and I noticed there was issues in the Register of Actions that we had NOT been served.
On July 28, 2025, CEO al-Hakim sent a letter/complaint to Judge Joscelyn Jones, Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon, Defendant agent Sonia Shah- Spencer Fane LLP, Defendant agent Adriana Valenzo- Hayes Scott, Defendant Brad Weisberg- Snapsheet, Defendant agent Muhammad Khan- East Bay Auto Center and Defendant agent Chad Finke Executive Officer requesting a reservation number for our Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, Terminating Sanctions, and Monetary Sanctions the MOTION FOR TEMPORARY LIFT OF AUTOMATIC STAY TO GRANT MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND (ii) MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT filed by Defendant agent Sonia Shah on June 6, 2025:
These filings were NEVER SERVED ON US BY ANYONE and therefore we request a Reservation number for our Motion to Dismiss the above with Prejudice, for Terminating Sanctions, and Monetary Sanctions!
Our motion will be prepared by tomorrow and we would like a time on any of the following dates: September 1, 2025, September 3, 2025, September 8, 2025, September 10, 2025, September 15, 2025, September 17, 2025, September 22, 2025, September 24, 2025, September 29, 2025, or 31, 2025.
Also, by the time were approved to access the e-filing, I went online to view the 7/23/25 Tentative Ruling in Defendants Motion to Dismiss and our Opposition and motion for Sanctions but was unsuccessful because it was too late.
He informed those listed above that we did not get clearance to access the courts e-filing before the scheduled July 23, 2025 hearing so he appeared there as normal.
The court NEVER responded to the multiple requests for for a reservation number to file a motion to dismiss, so we filed and served it the next day.
We filed the motion to Dismiss for Defendants Failure to Serve Motion and in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay to grant Motion to Strike Complaint and (ii) Motion to Strike complaint filed by Defendant Alacrity Solutions, LLC through Defendant agent Sonia Shah- Spencer Fane LLP (“Defendant, Defendant agent”) on June 6, 2025.
From the date of filing until the present, Defendant agent Shah has never served its Motion, supporting points and authorities, declarations, or proposed orders on Plaintiff’s despite numerous opportunities to do so.
Defendant agent counsel Shah has a documented this history of failing and refusing to effect service in this case before this Court.
Defendant agent Shah’s unilateral filing without notice constitutes a deliberate fraud on this Court and on Plaintiff in violation of procedural rules and due process.
Unless this Court dismisses the Unserved Motion with prejudice and imposes terminating and monetary sanctions, Defendant will continue to reap the procedural benefits of its misconduct.
On July 31, 2025 we received a notice entitled “Amended Tentative Case Management Order on July 24, 2025 at 9:42 am.” by Judge Stephen Kaus.
Kaus has a very disturbing and dishonest history that is well documented and since he was NEVER assigned/reassigned this case it raises many questions of what his role is and more importantly why? Where’s the original ruling and who ordered it?
Kaus orders:
Defendant Alacrity Solutions Group LLC (“Alacrity”) has filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s Complaint, based (in part) on the fact that Plaintiff “Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation” is identified as a corporation, but it is not represented by an attorney duly licensed by the California State Bar. (See, e.g., Merco Const. Engineers Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.App.3d 724.) This request is valid, but the defect that Alacrity raises can potentially be cured if Plaintiff obtains licensed counsel to represent it in this case.
Alacrity’s motion has been continued to August 13, 2025. By no later than August 6, 2025, Plaintiff may file a substitution of attorney or notice of appearance, signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice in California who will represent Plaintiff in this case. If Plaintiff fails to file such a notice by August 6, 2025, the Court intends to strike Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismiss this case on August 13, 2025.
and
The Court disregards, and did not read or consider, Plaintiff’s 88 page opposition brief filed on July 3, 2025. First, as noted above, Plaintiff is identified in the Complaint as a corporation, and therefore it must be represented by an attorney duly licensed by the-California State Bar. Plaintiff’s opposition brief was prepared and filed by Mr. al-Hakim, who is not an attorney. Second, the opposition brief is longer (by a factor of over 500%) than the maximum length of an opposition brief permitted by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113( d).) The Court refuses to consider the opposition brief on that basis. (See Rules 3.11 B(g) and 3.1300(d).)
In his order of July 24, 2025, Judge Stephen Kaus issued an “Amended Tentative Case Management Order,” and on July 31, 2025, a notice affixed that Order. The Court declared that:
- notwithstanding this undisputed record, the “Tentative Case Management Order in this matter was published and was not contested,” thereby fabricating the record and disregarding all proof of contest,
- it would not read or consider Plaintiff’s Verified Statement/Declaration in opposition because (a) a corporation must be represented by counsel, and its brief was filed by a non-attorney, and (b) the brief exceeded by over 500% the page limit in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).
Plaintiff’s Verified Statement/Declaration consisted of a 5-page Memorandum of Points and Authorities and an 83-page Verified Statement/Declaration covered three substantive areas:
- Foundation’s organizational structure
- Objective of alleged “Targeted Entrapment Scheme”
- Case-specific impacts
By contrast the Defendants’ Memorandum was 6 pages, with 80 pages of exhibits.
Plaintiff Verified Statement/Declaration addressed factual and legal evidence of judicial misconduct, tortious interference, fraud, collusion, and conspiracy involving Judge Kaus, signed and filed that Verified Statement pro se, believing that, as a non‐profit corporation representing itself, we could submit factual declarations under CCP § 2015.5.
Plaintiff’s CEO was unaware that the tentative Order was issued by Judge Kaus, who was never assigned to the matter. Plaintiff timely contests both the substantive refusal to consider its filing and the judge’s authority.
Plaintiff has proven that Judge Kaus has a history of corruption, manipulation, obstruction of justice, misconduct and bias, and that his involvement in this case is suspect and raises questions of conspiracy.
Judge Kaus ignored the procedural and substantive defects in the assignment and failed to consider the verified evidence of his own misconduct that he was aware of.
Judge Stephen Kaus chose to be willfully blind by not reading the verified statement, despite the fact that 14 pages of the 83 pages (17%) Verified Statement/Declaration addresses factual evidence that Judge Kaus admitted tortious interference, misrepresentation, fraud, deception, concealment, conduct to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws, conspiracy, collusion, and corruption.
On August 8, 2025, Judge Jones/Kaus issued a “Tentative Case Management Order” reaffirming the previous order of Kaus and Dismissing the case as per Kaus: “Alacrity’s motion has been continued to August 13, 2025. By no later than August 6, 2025, Plaintiff may file a substitution of attorney or notice of appearance, signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice in California who will represent Plaintiff in this case. If Plaintiff fails to file such a notice by August 6, 2025, the Court intends to strike Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismiss this case on August 13, 2025.”
Judges Jones/Kaus/Nixon failed and refused to consider plaintiff’s motion to Dismiss for Defendants Failure to Serve Motion and in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay to grant Motion to Strike Complaint and (ii) Motion to Strike complaint filed by Defendant Alacrity Solutions, LLC through Defendant agent Sonia Shah- Spencer Fane LLP (“Defendant, Defendant agent”)
The court dismisses our motion and REWARDS the Unserved Motion as Defendant reap the procedural benefits of its misconduct.
It is clear from this order, Judges Jones/Kaus/Nixon has failed and refused to read and consider ANY of plaintiff’s filings- motions or declarations filed in this action:
- Plaintiff’s 88-page Verified Statement/Declaration in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss,
- Plaintiff’s Amended Verified Statement/Declaration and Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss,
- Motion to Dismiss for Defendants Failure to Serve Motion and in Opposition to Defendants Motion for Temporary Lift of Automatic Stay to grant Motion to Strike Complaint and (ii) Motion to Strike complaint filed by Defendant Alacrity Solutions, LLC,
- Motion of Vacate and Set Aside Judges Jones/Kaus/Nixon “Amended Tentative Case Management Order”,
- Plaintiff’s Verified Statement/Declaration and PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Gross Misconduct in THIS CASE and Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme With HIS Tortious Interference, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance; Alameda County Sheriff’s Tortious Interference,
- Plaintiff’s Verified Statement/Declaration in Opposition to Judge Jeff Brand alleged Vexatious Litigant (CCP 391 (b)(3))) Order that was procured through Fraud, Conspiracy, Corruption and with Premeditated Malice Aforethought for Filing Challenges for Cause under CCP 170.1 and 170.3; Order was never served and that it be served,
- Plaintiff’s Verified Statement/Declaration
The illegal Ex Parte Communications of Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon having had a meeting the minds and made case altering decisions that were NOT noticed is evidence of illegal ex-parte communications, secretive and unpublished agreements, misrepresentation, fraud, deception, concealment, conduct to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws, conspiracy, collusion, and corruption involving Judges Joslyn Jones, Stephen Kaus, and Presiding Court Judge Thomas Nixon.
No Valid Assignment to Judge Kaus—Order Void Ab Initio
A presiding judge must issue a publicly‐available reassignment order. (Cal. Rules Jud. Admin. 2.10(D); Williams, supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at 1007.) Here, none exists transferring Case No. 25CV108981 from Judge Thomas Nixon to Judge Kaus. Any ruling by a judge without assignment is void for lack of jurisdiction.
Absence of Valid Reassignment Order Renders Order Void
The presiding judge has a non‐delegable duty on to assign judges. Because no reassignment is publicly recorded, Judge Kaus lacked jurisdiction to enter the July 24 Order. Alcantar, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at 838: “A judge without jurisdiction cannot validate prior or subsequent acts.” Honig, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 296: “All orders entered after a disqualification are void.”
Absent a reassignment order, Judge Kaus lacked jurisdiction to issue orders and are Void Ab Initio for Lack of Valid Assignment. Thus the Amended Tentative Case Management Order is void ab initio.
The order is void because the presiding judge must reassign cases requiring a publicly-available assignment order, and no such order exists transferring this case to Judge Kaus. This is a fundamental requirement of due process and fairness, and Judge Kaus’ order must be set aside.
Procedural Irregularity of Case Assignment
The absence of a publicly available reassignment order from Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon renders Judge Kaus’s order void. In re Marriage of Oliverez (2005) establishes that proper judicial assignment is fundamental to due process. Judicial Assignment
Presiding Court Judge Thomas Nixon has never issued a publicly-available order formally reassigning this case to anyone, including Judge Stephen Kaus. No public or private order has ever reassigned this matter to any other judge, including Judge Stephen Kaus from Judge Jones to Judge Kaus. A judicial assignment is ineffective unless memorialized by a publicly‐available minute or order (Cal. Rules Jud. Admin. 2.10).
However, no formal reassignment order exists transferring the case to Judge Stephen Kaus, rendering any subsequent orders by Judge Kaus potentially void. A court lacks jurisdiction to act without a valid assignment (Williams v. Hayes (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 1001, 1007).
Judicial Bias and Misconduct
California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1 allows for the disqualification of a judge based on bias or prejudice. The standard for disqualification is whether a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.
The illegal Ex Parte Communications of Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon having had a meeting the minds and made case altering decisions that were NOT noticed. Judge Kaus’s history of misconduct and bias, as alleged by the Plaintiff, raises serious questions about his impartiality.
The Plaintiff has a right to a fair and impartial hearing, and Judge Kaus’s involvement in this case undermines that right. The Plaintiff’s allegations of conspiracy and targeted entrapment further support the need for disqualification and investigation given the illegal Ex Parte Communications of Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon.
Ex Parte Communications and Misconduct
No public or private order has ever reassigned this matter to any other judge, including Judge Stephen Kaus from Judge Jones to Judge Kaus. Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon have had a meeting the minds and made case altering decisions the were NOT noticed. California Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1 prohibits ex parte communications between judges and parties.
The allegations of illegal ex parte communications and misconduct by Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus, and Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon violate this statute.
Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon Engaged in Misconduct
The illegal Ex Parte Communications of Judges Kaus, Jones, and Nixon proves they engaged in misconduct, including illegal ex-parte communications, secretive and unpublished agreements, tortious interference misrepresentation, fraud, deception, concealment, conduct to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws, conspiracy, collusion, and corruption. This misconduct requires that the Court set aside Judge Kaus’ order and consider Plaintiff’s 88-page Verified Statement/Declaration.
Judicial misconduct warrant thorough investigation and potential referral to the Commission on Judicial Performance.
Kaus Ruling was Contested, Willfully Blindness Must Be Addressed, Not Ignored
Kaus ruled “Tentative Case Management Order in this matter was published and was not contested,” thereby fabricating the record and disregarding all proof of contest.
Kaus intentionally fabricates this order despite our July 22, 2025 email verifies that the court received our communication that we contested the ruling, planned to appear to argue the matters and did even though we did NOT know what the rulings were.
The order is a material fabrication, issued in bad faith, and in direct contravention of undisputed evidence that the Foundation timely and repeatedly contested the tentative ruling. This Court should grant relief under California Code of Civil Procedure § 473 and related authorities.
Judge Kaus ignored the procedural and substantive defects in the assignment and failed to consider the verified evidence of his own misconduct that he was aware of.
Judge Stephen Kaus chose to be willfully blind by not reading the verified statement, despite the fact that 14 pages of the 83 pages (17%) Verified Statement/Declaration addresses factual evidence that Judge Kaus admitted tortious interference, misrepresentation, fraud, deception, concealment, conduct to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws, conspiracy, collusion, and corruption involving Judge Kaus and others. Chief Justice directives (CRC 10.500 et seq.) mandate reporting and adjudication of judicial misconduct. A judge cannot simply “choose to be willfully blind.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 170.3(b).).
Vexatious Litigant Order
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that parties be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. The failure to serve the vexatious litigant order and the alleged misconduct by the judges constitute a violation of Plaintiff’s and al-Hakim’s due process rights. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. Fairness and Due Process Require Consideration of Plaintiff’s Evidence. Reyes v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 477, 483 [holding that a court must consider a party’s right to due process]
Due process under article I, § 7 of the California Constitution guarantees the right to present one’s evidence. Striking the entire opposition without considering factual declarations deprives Plaintiff of fundamental fairness.
Presiding Judge Nixon Must Serve the Alleged Vexatious Litigant Order
Presiding Judge Nixon must serve the alleged Vexatious Litigant order that was procured through fraud, conspiracy, corruption, and with premeditated malice aforethought on al-Hakim. The failure to do so is a further example of the misconduct engaged in by the judges. The failure to serve the vexatious litigant order and the alleged misconduct by the judges constitute a violation of al-Hakim’s due process rights. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. Fairness and Due Process Require Consideration of Plaintiff’s Evidence. Reyes v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 477, 483 [holding that a court must consider a party’s right to due process]PROOF of Kaus’ Gross Misconduct in Continuing Targeted Entrapment SchemeThis is PROOF of Judge Stephen Kaus’ Gross Misconduct in THIS CASE and Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme With HIS Tortious Interference, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance! The PLAINTIFF and Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim in the above-entitled matter will move that the “Amended Tentative Case Management Order on July 24, 2025 at 9:42 am.” by Judge Stephen Kaus, the case and hearing, which involves a contested issue of law or fact, and which has NOT been assigned to Judge Stephen Kaus, of the above-entitled Court, be set aside.
And if the case is or has been assigned to him, it be reassigned from that Judge, and that no matters hereinafter arising in this cause be heard or assigned to Judge Stephen Kaus, on the ground that said judge is and was already irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff in this and any other action given the manner and actions that resulted in his assignment is suspect and wreaks of conspiracy.
We do not feel that this case should have the same judge that has been proven in this case, if he is disqualified for his admitted CONFLICT in one case AFTER a fourth Challenge for Cause, he is biased in another case AFTER a fourth Challenge for Cause, he is prejudiced in ALL, and can only lead to an appealable adjudication! Given the history of ongoing corruption in these and other al-Hakim cases, several that involve these county judges, it would NOT be wise of the court to do so unless it plans to effect their continuing corruption.
Plaintiff is contesting his continued sitting in ANY case and now indicate our intent to file a disqualification, motion to set aside the “Amended Tentative Case Management Order on July 24, 2025 at 9:42 am.” by Judge Stephen Kaus and an appeal for same.
These facts are very much the same as previously indicated in matters that Kaus’s purported concern about his failure to file a timely response and al-Hakim’s intent to file an appeal for Kaus’s failure was merely a pretext for his decision to independently take it upon himself to deny al-Hakim’s civil right to a fair, impartial judge and in order to deny his civil right to a fair hearing and trial, ALL IN THE ACTION 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!”
Judge Kaus Admits to Courts Conspiracy, Collusion, Corruption, Acrimony and Animus toward al-Hakim
Kaus admits to further control the evidence of his and the courts corruption, wherein the animus is so thick it chocks you, the incitement of hate permeates the proceedings, and the matters decided in the culmination of the courts calumny deceit!
“Judicial challenges themselves are not, however, evidence a want or delay of prosecution. A party is entitled to challenge a judicial officer for cause or bias.” “The challenges appear to be filed in an earnest belief that the judges of this Court ought to be disqualified from deciding this case and that each successive challenge will overcome the prior’s shortcomings.””the Court hopes and encourages both parties to take this new judicial assignment as a good time to wipe the slate clean, forgive any earlier acrimony, and proceed to resolve and adjudicate the claims raised by the Complaint in normal order and good faith. Al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated.” “Both parties deserve the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law. In short, this case deserves a chance to proceed on its merits, and now is an opportune time as any to do so.”
Judge Stephen Kaus, Tentative Ruling made September 11, 2018.
Judge Kaus admits to the COURTEL’S acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with “the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law”! He did just the opposite enacting the agenda of the “COURTEL- ” the COURT CORRUPTION CARTEL!!
Kaus then admits:
“It came to my attention over the last weekend that sufficient shares of stock in ATT Inc. are attributed to me under Code of Civil Procedure §170.l, subd. (a)(6)(A)(3) to require my recusal in this matter and to have required it at the time the case was assigned to me. Therefore, I am recusing myself from this matter. The Presiding Judge of the Civil Division will make further orders.”
Judge Stephen Kaus
Judge Kaus ADMITTED FRAUD, was Disqualified IN TWO CASES after TWO YEARS where al-Hakim filed FOUR (4) Disqualification Challenges For Cause against him and he still ruled for ATT BEFORE RECUSING despite this obvious, KNOWN conflict of interest that stands today due to the “COURTEL- ” the COURT CORRUPTION CARTEL!!
Plaintiff Verified Statement/Declaration addressed factual and legal evidence of judicial misconduct, tortious interference, fraud, collusion, and conspiracy involving Judge Kaus, signed and filed that Verified Statement pro se, believing that, as a non‐profit corporation representing itself, we could submit factual declarations under CCP § 2015.5.
Plaintiff’s CEO was unaware that the tentative Order was issued by Judge Kaus, who was never assigned to the matter. Plaintiff timely contests both the substantive refusal to consider its filing and the judge’s authority.
Plaintiff has proven that Judge Kaus has a history of corruption, manipulation, obstruction of justice, misconduct and bias, and that his involvement in this case is suspect and raises questions of conspiracy.
Judge Kaus acted contrary to his assurances and has admitted his and the Courts history of acrimony, animus, fraud, conspiracy, and corruption, as documented in previous cases. Judge Kaus has a history of admitted conflict of interest, bias, and corrupt conduct, including:
- Admitting to acrimony and animus toward Plaintiff’s CEO, Abdul Jalil al-Hakim.
- Filing a recusal statement due to a conflict of interest in a related case.
- Being disqualified and removed from a previous case FOR CAUSE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CCP §170.6 and UNDER CCP §§170.1-5 et seq., which has been widely publicized worldwide.
- Judge Kaus admitted to a conflict of interest and recused himself from that previous case but continued to rule in favor of AT&T before recusing AFTER FOUR (4) timely Challenges for Cause OVER TWO (2) YEARS culminating in Judge Kaus’s admitted recusal due to ownership of ATT, Inc. stock he had since the beginning of the case in which al-Hakim was suing AT&T.
Judge Kaus ignored the procedural and substantive defects in the assignment and failed to consider the verified evidence of his own misconduct that he was aware of.
Judge Stephen Kaus chose to be willfully blind by not reading the verified statement, despite the fact that 14 pages of the 83 pages (17%) Verified Statement/Declaration addresses factual evidence that Judge Kaus admitted tortious interference, misrepresentation, fraud, deception, concealment, conduct to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws, conspiracy, collusion, and corruption.
In May 2022 Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced the Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act to overhaul our nation’s judicial ethics laws and restore public faith in our court system. This legislation is cosponsored by Representatives Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee; André Carson (D-Ind.); Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas.); Katie Porter (D-Calif.); Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.); Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.); Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.); Veronica Escobar (D-Texas); Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.); Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.); Andy Levin (D-Mich.); Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.); Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.); Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.).
“We can no longer stand by while our judges and justices take advantage of our system to build wealth and power at the expense of our country’s most marginalized. A system without basic ethics is a corrupt system,” said Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. “People deserve impartial judges and justices who aren’t beholden to special interests or to their personal agenda. Nobody is above the law. Not even a Supreme Court Justice. My bill with Senator Warren will reinstate the checks and balances needed to ensure a fair and balanced judicial system that fulfills its promise of equal justice under the law.”
“I’ve been fighting to reform our judicial ethics system for years. At a time when public trust in the Supreme Court has collapsed to historic lows, it’s critical that we enact legislation to reform this broken system. From banning federal judges from owning individual stocks to overhauling the broken judicial recusal process, my bill would help root out corruption and restore public trust in the federal judiciary – something that Chief Justice Roberts has simply failed to do,” wrote Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Ethics scandals have plagued our federal courts for decades. Clerks accuse federal judges of sexual misconduct with little to no recourse. Supreme Court Justices accept lavish international trips and fail to file basic financial disclosure reports. Judges and justices alike sit in cases in which they own individual stock in the parties—and in cases that could directly affect their spouses, 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!
Again, this “COURTEL” has been able to THRIVE, because the Federal, State, County and Local Governments Judicial and Law Enforcement Agencies, the Judicial Councils, the Commissions on Judicial Performance, the Disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action are PARTNERS, inextricably placed in the legal paradox where everyone having been involved in committing these crimes!
“Ethics reform is neither partisan nor personal: The American people deserve courts, and especially a Supreme Court, that they know follow strong ethics rules. The Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act will help accomplish that, by ensuring judges and justices act ethically, transparently, and accountably. We applaud Senator Warren and Representative Jayapal for their leadership in this effort,” said David Janovsky, Program Manager and Analyst at The Constitution Project of the Project On Government Oversight.
“This is exactly the kind of approach needed to tackle the culture of corruption and impunity that has infected America’s courts,” said Christopher Kang, Chief Counsel at Demand Justice.
“As Justice Thomas’ recent scandal shows, judges and justices at all levels routinely ride roughshod over basic ethical principles and face no consequences. The courts have failed to police themselves, and Congress must respond with comprehensive reform to tackle the many ethical crises facing the judiciary. Sen. Warren and Rep. Jayapal have put together the kind of multi-faceted package needed, and House and Senate leadership should advance this bill without delay.”
“Like every other court in America, the Supreme Court should be governed by a code of ethics. Our highest court should be held to the highest standards,” said Lisa Gilbert, Executive Vice President at Public Citizen. “The reforms found in Senator Warren and Representative Jayapal’s new legislation are critical for restoring the faith of the American people in the judiciary branch.”
“Americans’ faith in government is rapidly declining as politicians and judges use their positions of power to line their own pockets – often behind closed doors – while corporate special interests capture the courts with hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money. Senator Warren and Representative Jayapal’s new Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act would begin to reverse this troubling trend and add much-needed transparency and accountability to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary system. We applaud their leadership and commitment to fighting corruption and ensuring our courts protect all of us, not just the wealthy and well connected,” said Tiffany Muller, President of End Citizens United / Let America Vote Action Fund.
In TWO letters to the Supreme Court Judiciary, more than 50 legislators filed complaints about ethics violations within the Court and the Federal Court system following a Wall Street Journal investigation report!
A WALL STREET JOURNAL INVESTIGATION FOUND MORE THAN 130 FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE VIOLATED U.S. LAW AND JUDICIAL ETHICS BY IMPROPERLY FAILING TO DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES FROM 685 COURT CASES AROUND THE NATION INVOLVING COMPANIES IN WHICH THEY OR THEIR FAMILY OWNED STOCK. ONLY 56 OF THE JUDGES HAVE DIRECTED COURT CLERKS TO NOTIFY PARTIES IN 329 LAWSUITS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE RECUSED THEMSELVES!
The legislators wrote:
We write seeking information regarding an alarming report that over 130 federal judges have violated federal law and the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges by“overseeing court cases involving companies in which they or their family owned [individual] stock.”
These actions raise questions about the judgment and integrity of these individuals and will justifiably reduce public confidence in the justice system. Likewise, they raise questions about whether you have done enough in your role as the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States to establish and enforce ethics rules and uphold the integrity of the federal judiciary.
The scope of the ethics violations by dozens of federal judges—as reported by the Wall Street Journal—is stunning. Judges must “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”Both 28 U.S.C. § 455 and Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct require that judges disqualify themselves from proceedings when the judge, their spouses, or their minor children have a “financial interest in … a party to the proceeding … , however small.”But the Journal revealed that 131 federal judges—appointed by presidents spanning from Lyndon Johnson to Donald Trump and involved in hundreds of cases across the country—failed to properly recuse themselves in violation of these provisions between 2010 and 2018.These conflicts of interest have affected hundreds of cases and the integrity of the justice system. Already, “56 of the judges have directed court clerks to notify parties in 329 lawsuits that they should have recused themselves,” potentially leading to new assignments of judges and upending rulings.Judges ruled for parties in which they had a financial interest in two-thirds of contested motions.Furthermore, current Supreme Court Justices have similarly failed to recuse themselves from cases in recent years when they have had financial interests in parties before the Court, including through ownership of individual stock.It would be surprising if even a single judge or Justice was unaware of or ignored these important ethics protections; the fact that dozens did so represents a systemic failure that requires accountability.
Signed by Authors:
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)
Signed by Senators: Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee;
Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Chair of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet; and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights.
The letter was also signed by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.); Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.); Ron Wyden (D-Ore.); Cory Booker (D-N.J.); Alex Padilla (D-Calif.); Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii); Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.); and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.);
Signed by Congressman: Cori Bush (D-Mo.); Karen Bass (D-Calif.); David Cicilline (D-R.I.); Steven Cohen (D-Tenn.); Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.); Veronica Escobar (D-Texas); Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas); Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.); Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas); Ted Lieu (D-Calif.); and Deborah Ross (D-N.C.)
The ethics code for judges “requires recusal when a judge has a financial conflict, regardless of the substance of the judge’s actual involvement in the case,” the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct wrote in a letter to a judge this month.
When judges participated in such cases, about two-thirds of their rulings on motions that were contested came down in favor of their or their family’s financial interests.
The hundreds of recusal violations found by the Journal breach a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence: No one should be a judge of his or her own cause. Congress first laid out that principle in 1792 to guarantee litigants an impartial judge and reassure the public that courts could be trusted.
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said:
“The Wall Street Journal’s report on instances where conflicts inadvertently were not identified before a case was resolved or transferred is troubling, and the Administrative Office is carefully reviewing the matter.”
It said the federal judiciary “takes very seriously its obligations to preclude any financial conflicts of interest” and has taken steps, such as conflict-screening software and ethics training, to prevent violations. “We have in place a number of safeguards and are looking for ways to improve,” the office said.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who heads the federal judiciary, didn’t respond to requests for comment.
The nation’s roughly 600 full-time federal trial judges, supplemented by about 460 semiretired jurists called senior judges, wield enormous power. Holding lifetime appointments, they preside over hundreds of thousands of civil and criminal cases each year in 94 court districts.
They have soup-to-nuts control over all elements of their courtrooms, from pretrial process and trial to criminal pleas, judgments and sentencing. Judges have wide latitude for fact findings and evidentiary rulings, most of which can be overturned only for abuse of discretion, a high hurdle.
Violations of the 1974 law almost never become public. Judges’ financial disclosures aren’t online, are cumbersome to request and sometimes take years to access.
The Free Law Project, a nonpartisan legal-research nonprofit that is planning to post judicial disclosure forms online found their findings amount to a pervasive disregard for the judicial conflict-of-interest laws, legal experts said.
A recusal violation in isolation could be viewed as an oversight, but the Journal’s investigation “raises a more systemic problem of judges chronically neglecting their duty to disqualify in such cases,” said Charles Geyh, a law professor at Indiana University, who specializes in judicial conduct, ethics and accountability.
The findings “are both surprising and disappointing,” said Timothy Batten Sr., chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and a member of the Committee on Codes of Conduct for the Judicial Conference of the U.S.
Yet Judge Batten himself owned shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. while he heard 11 lawsuits involving the bank, most of which ended in the bank’s favor, the Journal’s analysis shows.
“I am mortified,” Judge Batten said in a phone interview when notified about his violations, which occurred in 2010 and 2011, before he joined the Codes of Conduct committee in 2019. “I had no idea that I had an interest in any of these companies in what was a most modest retirement account” managed by a broker.
“I just blew it. I regret any question that I’ve created or appearance of impropriety or a conflict of interest,” he said.
The Journal analyzed cases to determine whether judges made rulings on contested motions, such as those seeking dismissal or summary judgment. Judges ruled on contested motions in 21% of the nearly 700 cases in question.
Those rulings favored the judges’ financial interests in 94 cases, went against the judges’ interest in 27 cases and had mixed outcomes in 24 cases.
The Judicial Conference of the U.S. requires courts to use conflict-checking software to help identify cases where judges should bow out.
Judge Janis Sammartino of California traded in stocks of Bank of America Corp., CVS Health Corp., Deutsche Bank AG, Hartford Financial Services Group Inc., HSBC Holdings PLC, JPMorgan, Pfizer Inc., Public Storage, Wells Fargo & Co. and Microsoft Corp. while hearing 18 lawsuits involving one or more of those companies, the Journal found. In all, she heard 54 cases involving companies held in her family’s trusts. In her Microsoft case, had a class been approved, the case could potentially have cost Microsoft more than $45 million, according to court filings by the plaintiff.
Judge Sammartino disqualified herself in at least 10 other cases involving companies whose stocks were listed on her disclosure forms, a review of her cases shows.
Judge Sammartino’s 54 conflicts were the second-most recusal violations. Brian Martinotti in New Jersey ranked third, handling 44 cases involving companies in which he had invested.
Judge Rodney Gilstrap, chief of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, had the largest number of conflicts in the Journal’s analysis: 138 cases assigned to him involving companies in which he or his wife held an interest.
In at least 18 instances, judges disqualified themselves over conflicts, only to have the case reassigned to a judge who also had a conflict but didn’t recuse.
“Amended Tentative Case Management Order on July 23, 2025 at 9:42 am.” by Judge Stephen Kaus
Kaus’ presence in this case is unfortunate and retaliatory as he has been disqualified from other al-Hakim cases after ADMITTING to DISHONESTY AFTER A FOURTH CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE in the same department while he just appeared out of nowhere to make these rulings allegedly on July 24, 2025 at 9:42 am. We will address this issue under separate cover.
Kaus sole purpose of espousing defendants vitriol of Trump-esq hate induced 50+ year strategy of FRAUD, DECIET, RACISM, RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY, INTOLERANCE, AND PREJUDICE, DESIGNED ENGINEERED to stir the animus of the court to provoke acrimony toward al-Hakim, fostering calumny deceit and denial of al-Hakim’s civil rights and immunity from takings of property without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law is objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of al-Hakim in lieu of proper litigation (see “Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke Vexatious Litigant Strategy Fraud on th Court”, Challenge for Cause of Judge Kaus filed December 4, 2018, at Page 24-27).
Tentative Case Management Order on August 8, 2025 allegedly by Judge Joscelyn Jones
Given that Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and presiding Judge Thomas Nixon has NOT answered the challenge, al-Hakim reserves ALL issues from this and the previous FOUR (4) challenges against Kaus and incorporates them herein.
On August 8, 2025, Judge Jones issued a Tentative Case Management Order simply reaffirming Kaus’ order and Dismissing the case in it’s entirety.
She repeated Kaus cry of :
The Motion re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN SUPPORT OF (i) MOTION FOR TEMPORARY LIFT OF AUTOMATIC STAY TO GRANT MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT AND (ii) MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT filed by Alacrity Solutions, LLC on 06/06/2025 is Granted.Alacrity’s motion makes an alternative request to strike the Complaint on the grounds that a corporation cannot represent itself in Court but instead must be represented by an attorney duly licensed by the California State Bar. (See, e.g., Merco Const. Engineers Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.App.3d 724.) This request is meritorious.This motion was continued from its prior hearing date of July 21, 2025. Plaintiff was directed to file a substitution of attorney or notice of appearance, signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice in California who will represent Plaintiff in this case, by no later than August 6, 2025. Plaintiff was advised that if it failed to file such a notice by August 6, 2025, the Court would strike Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismiss this case on August 13, 2025.Plaintiff did not file a substitution of attorney or notice of appearance signed by an attorney duly licensed to practice in California by August 6, 2025, as directed. Plaintiff’s Complaint is therefore STRICKEN, and this entire action is DISMISSED.Alacrity’s request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7(a) is DENIED. The named Plaintiff in this case is a (self-described) corporation, not a vexatious litigant. Therefore, section 391.7(a) does not apply to this case as pled.All future scheduled hearing dates in this case are VACATED. The Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for 09/23/2025 is vacated .The Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by Snapsheet (Defendant) + CRS# 841093799305 scheduled for 10/15/2025 is vacated .
JONES DID SO KNOWING THAT 1) THE MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT ALACRITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, WAS NEVER SERVED ON PLAINTIFF, 2) THAT IT WAS VOID AS BEING ISSUED BY KAUS WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ORDER IT, 3) PLAINTIFF’S FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT ALACRITY BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER SERVED AS WELL AS, 4) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE AND SET ASIDE BOTH KAUS’S AND JONES ORDERS!
This is Jones, Nixon and Kaus’ willful and intentional perjurious orders circumscribed in fraud on the court, Kaus ruling on matters before him without jurisdiction making his order void upon being challenged to vacate and set aside; which ALL fall under fraud per CCP § 473 and CCP § 1008. This willful blindness on the part of Jones, Nixon and Kaus is further evidence of why they can not serve in this matter as we can not find any justice in his inhumanity.
Jones, Nixon and Kaus has no respect for the constitutionally guaranteed “impartial and unbiased judicial proceeding” instead advocates the corrupt, morally bankrupt judicial legal strategy to foreclose on plaintiff’s right to a fair and impartial judge for the fraudulent purpose to RAILROADING this case to a speedy spurious end!
Jones, Nixon and Kaus finds it abhorrent that plaintiff has the nerve to exercise their constitutional rights to demand fairness, impartiality and the proper administration of justice, as required by law, NOT the attempts of the judicial “sleight- of-hand” and tricknology implored by the court.
As Kaus has expressed in the past, he knows his colleagues in the Appeals Court will cover-up this corruption as his actions entrap and force al-Hakim into the “Writ Racket” to deny and bury any appeals.
Jones, Nixon and Kaus, Superior Court Administration Corruption, Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice
al-Hakim argues the established, continuing Jones, Nixon and Kaus, Superior Court Administration Corruption; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); Fraud on the Court, Fraud Upon The Court; and Manipulation is an essential element in vacating and voiding any order subject to inadvertence, surprise, mistake, or excusable neglect, or FRAUD (CCP §473(b)); Code Civ. Proc., § 475; and renders the judgment and/or default is void (CCP §473(d)).
Fraud Upon the Court is where the Judge (who is NOT the “Court”) does NOT support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. The Court is an unbiased, but methodical “creature” which is governed by the Rule of Law… that is, the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional law. The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and “just” if it is allowed to function as the laws proscribe. The sad fact is that judges are violating their oath of office and are NOT properly following these rules, are playing a revised legal game with their own created rules and THIS is a Fraud upon the Court, immediately removing jurisdiction from that Court, and vitiates (makes ineffective – invalidates) every decision from that point on. Any judge who does such a thing is under mandatory, non-discretionary duty to recuse himself or herself from the case, and this rarely happens unless someone can force them to do so with the evidence of violations of procedure and threat of losing half their pensions for life which is what can take place. In any case, it is illegal, and EVERY case which has had fraud involved can be re-opened AT ANY TIME, because there is no statutes of limitations on fraud.
Fraud on the Court, or Fraud upon the Court, is where a material misrepresentation has been made to the court, or by the court itself. The main requirement is that the impartiality of the court has been so disrupted that it can’t perform its tasks without bias or prejudice.
Some examples of fraud on the court include:
- a. Fraud in the service of court summons (such as withholding a court summons from a party)
- b. Corruption or influence of a court member or official
- c. Judicial fraud
- d. Intentionally failing to inform the parties of necessary appointments or requirements, in efforts to obstruct the judicial process
- e. “Unconscionable” schemes to deceive or make misrepresentations through the court system
It’s important to note that fraud on the court only involves court officials or officers of the court, such as judges or court-appointed attorneys. The fraud must be directed at the “judicial machinery” itself.
“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court as it is also clear and well-settled law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”
When any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court,”the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
Fraud on the court is limited to fraud that does, or at least attempts to, “defile the court itself,” or that is perpetrated by officers of the court “so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudicating cases.” Moore’s Federal Practice 3d ¶ 60.21[4][a] (3d ed. 2003). Thus, a “fraud on the court” is a fraud designed not simply to cheat an opposing litigant, but to “corrupt the judicial process” or “subvert the integrity of the court.” Oxxford Clothes XX, Inc. v. Expeditors Int’l, Inc., 127 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1997); Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted); Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457, 460 (2d Cir. 1994). It is marked by an “unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decisions,” Dixon v. Commissioner, No. 00-70858, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831, at *11-12 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2003), amending 316 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003), or by “egregious misconduct directed to the court itself.” Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court.”
Jones, Nixon and Kaus’ Willful Blindness
As previously presented, this willful blindness on the part of Jones, Nixon and Kaus is further evidence of why they can not serve in this matter as they can not find any justice when their actions are clear examples of negligence, mistake, carelessness as willful blindness since he was aware of the facts, evidence, actions, documents, and testimony in question and deliberately avoided confirming them. The sole way Jones, Nixon and Kaus could not have known about the facts, evidence, actions, documents, and testimony is by avoiding knowledge of it so as NOT to have to rule on them. (U.S. v. Aulicino, 44 F.3d 1102 (2nd Cir. 1995); U.S. v. Tanner, 628 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Svoboda, 347 F.3d 471 (2nd Cir. 2003);US v. Mitrano, 658 F. 3d 117 (1st Cir. 2011); U.S. v. Malewicka, 664 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir. 2011).)
Orders Voidable Under Civ. Code §473
Code of Civil Procedure section 473 allowing relief from entry of order/judgment are limited to applications made within six months of the date of judgment. Plaintiff cites the well–known case of United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 65–66 [25 L.Ed. 93, 95], in which the court said: “. . . ‘Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponents, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or where an attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client’s interest to the other side, —- these and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case;’ such are, in the view of the tribunal, instances of extrinsic fraud.” (Italics added.)
Plaintiff was kept away from court due to the continuing Superior Court Administration Corruption; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); Fraud Upon The Court; and Manipulation.
Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus’s Rulings are Void or Voidable
Except in very limited circumstances not applicable here, when a judge fails and refuses to answer a Peremptory and Challenges for Cause, a disqualified judge has no power to act in any proceedings after his or her disqualification. (CCP §170.4(c)) Christie v. City of El Centro (App. 4 Dist. 2006) 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 718, 135 Cal.App.4th 767.
The acts of a judge subject to disqualification are void or, according to some authorities, voidable. (Giometti v. Etienne (1934) 219 Cal. 687, 688-689, 28 P.2d 913 (Giometti); Urias, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at p. 424, 285 Cal.Rptr. 659; Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931, 939-940, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 841 (Betz).)
Relief is available to a party who, with due diligence, discovers the grounds for disqualification only after judgment is entered or appeal filed. (Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc. 234 Cal.App.3d 415, 424-425)
The clearly deceptive practices of Jones, Nixon and Kaus is a slap in the face of the Rule of Law, proving a sham proceeding and bogus orders that flow therefrom are void where Kaus has entered tentative rulings and orders in these cases that are void and voidable upon contesting, which plaintiff will do!
Jones, Nixon and Kaus’s Judicial Imprimatur of Defense’s Case From the Bench
Clearly from Jones, Nixon and Kaus orders, they are merely continuing the corruption as the other judges has shown they are intemperate and has stepped outside the boundaries of what can be characterized as proper and reflects the judge’s intent to intimidate, taunt, infer, and influence the outcome of this case, and as such, impress on the case his judicial imprimatur of the defense’s position; is retaliatory, punitive and places an intolerable burden on plaintiff.
Again, they have stooped so low as to “weaponize” the rulings in such a way that plaintiff IS NOT litigating their case against the defendants, they are defending themselves against the assault from the court! Jones, Nixon and Kaus has deputized themselves co-defense counsel in an effort to deny plaintiff any rights to a fair trial. These extrajudicial punitive measures being taken by Jones, Nixon and Kaus is a prime, irrefutable example of EXTREME BIAS AND PREJUDICE AND MISCONDUCT, AMONG OTHERS!!!
Jones, Nixon and Kaus and other judges have exhibited clear and gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the plaintiffs litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of plaintiff and al-Hakim; portrayed al-Hakim a liar and when they could not prove it they tried to create the lie that in their sole judgment is a lie in order to justify Jones, Nixon and Kaus calling al-Hakim a “liar”; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied plaintiffs and 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 plaintiff and al-Hakim will not allow.
Jones, Nixon and Kaus and other judges have made such a mockery of justice that now these judges do not hesitate to deny or violate your rights and defy you to file a writ knowing that the Appeals Court, Superior Court Administration and the Judicial Council will cover up and white-wash their criminal activity! Plaintiff and al-Hakim had contested their continued sitting in the case and indicated the intent to file an appeal for same. These facts indicate that Jones, Nixon and Kaus’s purported orders was merely a pretext for their decision to independently take it upon themselves to deny plaintiff’s civil right to a fair, impartial judge and in order to deny their civil right to a fair hearing and trial, ALL IN THE ACTION forcing plaintiff 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!”
Complaint for Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because He’s Muslim, Black, Whistleblower
al-Hakim filed a complaint with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, U. S. DOJ Chief Alex Tse, AG Xavier Becerra, District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, Victoria Henley, Chad Finke, Martin Hoshino and OTHERS, to address the very obvious agenda of Grillo and other judges Fixing Cases against me because I am Muslim and Black, 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; engaging in the defense of current defendant, and REFUSING to have a 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!
Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim opposes ANY and ALL rulings, orders, notes, testimony, or other evidence from Judge Kaus, and judges Grillo Carvill, Markman, Jacobson, Clay, Rolefson, Petrou and Freedman where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these Judges sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528.
Jones, Nixon and Kaus MUST accept that he has taken a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the State of California, NOT enact his personal agenda to persecute me and deny my rights under the aforementioned Constitutions!
Kaus has continuously lied and perjured himself in open court, casting off any remote semblance of honor or integrity that anyone present could respect.
Jones, Nixon and Kaus and other judges doesn’t accept that” judges should be umpires, NOT PLAYERS”. They have assigned themselves designated hitter and starting pitcher for the defense, while still umpiring the game!
As we have shown, Kaus attempted to offer to “re-set” the litigation and asks al-Hakim to go forward in trust that he will be fair and impartial.
That is a lot to ask of someone that has been FORCED to withstand al-Hakim’s “court activities”, in the last 45 years al-Hakim has documented, filed and served court actions, filed and served complaints and filed and served correspondence memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower!; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
Kaus wants al-Hakim to forget ALL this and TRUST him???!! As president Reagan said “trust, but verify!”
March 1, 2018, Letter Complaint to Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Grillo, Markham and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Victoria Henley, Mr. Chad Finke, and Mr. Martin Hoshino
On March 1, 2018, al-Hakim sent a three page letter complaint as follows:
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Grillo, Markham and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Victoria Henley, Mr. Chad Finke, and Mr. Martin Hoshino: On several occasions I have expressed my ongoing concern for Judge Evelio Grillo’s sitting in the matters referenced above to Judges Markham and Carvill as well as several rather blatant court administrative “errors” that are completely unacceptable in Departments 15, 20, 507, and 511 to former Presiding Court Judge Morris Jacobson, and Supervising Judge Jon Rolefson. Just yesterday I had a hearing before Judge Grillo in the al-Hakim v. EBMUD and totally out of the dark, he also calls the al-Hakim v. AT&T Inc case that was NOT on the calendar!I was shocked because there was NEVER any notice of the proceeding to the parties which is probably why the defendants did not appear and did NOT contest the tentative ruling none of us knew about! How does this continue to happen on a bi-weekly basis in this court? He blatantly perjured himself in open court to the extent I was embarrassed for him! Changing orders, issuing orders after removal from a case, changing tentative rulings, changing the title of motions, calendaring motions that were NOT requested, removing motions from the calendar without notice, calendaring motions without notice, 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! Perhaps even MORE dangerous is the silence that pervades the court when asked “Why, How and by Whom?” As the matter pertains to Judge Grillo sitting in the al-Hakim v. EBMUD, the courts assigned him to this case wherein after 3 court days of having the matter he reads, reviews, research’s, and writes a tentative ruling that is IDENTICAL to the 7 page ruling issued by tainted Judge Robert Freedman AFTER his second challenge for cause! What happened to Freedman’s first tentative ruling that was a few sentences on a page, and what happened in between the fists ruling and the fourth that caused the change????!!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT THE CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE!!! In his vindictive retaliation against me and his depraved agenda of persecution, Freedman appointed himself “deputy defense counsel” and attacked al-Hakim’s complaint in support of the defenses demurrer that the defense did not and could not raise themselves! So how does judge Grillo manage to come to the same wording in his 7 page tentative ruling after only 3 court days with the case as Freedman did after 2 years with it??!!! Even more upsetting is the fact that the same 7 page tentative ruling was issued by judge Ioana Petrou in her independent review of the case as well. Three different judges, a tentative ruling that was a few sentences on a page to 7 pages, the same 7 page ruling issued by those three different judges without the benefit of a single letter from the alphabet, not a single word being added to the pleadings, testimony, evidence, argument, nor any legally approved open communications regarding the issues raised herein. Or has there been some illegal, unapproved secret communications regarding the issues raised herein? Clearly I am unwilling to move forward with judge Griilo sitting in this as well as any other case given that he’s merely judge Freedman’s stooge adopting his racist, islamophobic, xenaphobic, hate induced agenda (Freedman made comments in open court regarding al-Hakim being Muslim at a hearing!) to deny al-Hakim his human and civil rights, and due process under the law. I do not feel that the process of my having to exhaust my rights to a fair and impartial hearing should be used up on peremptory challenges nor challenges for cause of judges that are tainted and conflicted in these matters due to their previous involvement, i.e., judges Freedman, Rolefson, Colwell, Krashna, Herbert, Petrou! You can accept this letter as a peremptory challenge and a challenge for cause of judge Grillio because his tainted and conflicted status as advocate judge sitting in name face, place and stead for judge Freedman is unacceptable and a clear violation of the law and cannons as it pertains to impartiality, bias, prejudice, collusion, corruption, civil rights and due process. Given that I have had no response from the judges, nor the court administration, including Chad Finke refusing to comply with three subpoenas and request for production of documents and the Judicial Council with the same, 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-Hakim510-394-4501ajalil1234@gmail.com
68 Constitutional Violations of Plaintiff’s Rights
al-Hakim has previously demonstrated criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Judges Freedman, Petrou, and Grillo in their 68 Constitutional Violations of plaintiff al-Hakim’s rights, which plaintiff will NOT waive, as the reason for the delay in the case that has made it Impossible, Impracticable, and Futile to Proceed.
Grillo’s or anyone else’s “protracted and unexplained delay in prosecution” argument is mindless as there is no reason greater than plaintiff’s basic right to pursue litigation at all, where Freedman, Petrou, and Grillo have denied plaintiff’s civil rights and due process, an equal opportunity to participate in unbiased pursuit of his legal claims as if these are still the dark days of american history when Black people had no rights at all!; This is the reason for the delay in the case that Grillo and the judges before has made it Impossible, Impracticable, and Futile to Proceed.
al-Hakim’s Complaint for Fixing Cases against him because He’s Muslim, Black,Whistleblower
As a DIRECT result of the criminal conduct and ongoing corruption of Freedman, Petrou, and Grillo in their 68 Constitutional Violations of plaintiff’s rights, which plaintiff will NOT waive, this is the reason for the delay in the case that has made it Impossible, Impracticable, and Futile to Proceed, al-Hakim complained of the harassment he continues to experience and the courts retaliation against plaintiff by harassing him and taking adverse judicial actions against him, in major part because he reported the very obvious agenda of Grillo and other judges Fixing Cases against him because he is Muslim and Black, 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.
Plaintiff filed an action that is a simple matter of the EBMUD water main collapsing and causing over $1.5 million dollars damage to his home, business and personal property with over $900,000 damage to the foundation and exterior grounds of the home, wherein they have accepted their fault and liability in this matter yet he is being FORCED to walk away from the suit because he WILL NOT FOREGO HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL???!!!
THIS WAS al-Hakim’s action that is being stymied by Kaus and the previous judges adopting Freedman’s racist, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, hate induced agenda (Freedman made comments in open court regarding al-Hakim being Muslim at a hearing!) to deny al-Hakim his human and civil rights, and due process under the law. al-Hakim does not feel that the process of having to exhaust his rights to a fair and impartial hearing should be used up on peremptory challenges nor challenges for cause of judges that are tainted and conflicted in these matters due to their previous involvement, i.e., Judges Carvill, Jacobson, Rolefson, Grillo, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels!
The “Good White Way”, White Class Privilege
Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others is guilty of clear and gross white class and white privileged bias, prejudice, religious hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda and racism with the practice of the “Good White Way”.
This is an old practice affirming that a Black person is guilty of a crime BEFORE he knows there ever was a crime, that he could NOT have possible committed and harkens back to a time when lynching was the law!
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 motion as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!
Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, employ the “Good White Way” through reward and cover up the crimes for the “good white man”, reward and cover up the crimes for the “good white woman” who is a friend and co-worker, and victimize the poor black victim with the loss of his money, property, and life!
They enjoy financial gains while flaunting their impunity from prosecution in the culture of Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others, the “Courtel”, to covered up these criminal activities of each other! They offer 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, whistleblowers, activist, and demands of accountability are celebrated! You can’t get away with it!!
al-Hakim’s Complaints for Fixing Cases against him because He’s Muslim, Black, Whistleblower
al-Hakim is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower has engaged in constitutionally protected speech, namely, holding and expressing viewpoints exposing corruption by defendants and their retaliating actions due to plaintiffs race, religion, whistleblowing activities, white class and privileged bias, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, prejudice, favoritism, bigotry and racism; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the opposing parties litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of al-Hakim; 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 rights guaranteed by U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV, Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts, and the Bane Acts.
By treating al-Hakim differently from similarly situated people, organizations, and members of the public because they are Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower exposing corruption by defendants and because of their beliefs, among other things, Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration, acting under color of state law and according to policy and practice, have engaged in actions that retaliate against al-Hakim for holding and expressing disfavored views, and in so retaliating, have engaged in conduct that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected speech activity.
al-Hakim’ actions in holding and expressing disfavored views was a substantial and motivating factor in Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration’ retaliation against them by imposing unlawful restrictions on Plaintiff and al-Hakim’s Federal civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment, causing Plaintiff and al-Hakim to suffer and continue in the future to suffer irreparable injury that cannot be fully compensated by an award of monetary damages.
Case of fairness to Plaintiff and al-Hakim Maintaining Respect for Law and Promoting Confidence in the Administration of Justice
The principle involved in this case is not merely one of fairness to plaintiff and al-Hakim but also one of maintaining respect for the law and promoting confidence in the administration of justice. [4] 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].”
The appearance of justice is not satisfied where the court behind closed doors, Judges Jones, Nixon, and Kaus have been the moving force in the transfer of this case from the assigned judge and where they have had and made ex-parte communications and statements which are adverse to a parties interest. Due process requires that this matter be heard by a new judge.
The record discloses, however, that al-Hakim at no time engaged in the kind of personal attack on the judge that, regardless of their reaction or lack of it, he would be unlikely “to maintain that calm detachment necessary for fair adjudication.” (Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, supra, 400 U.S. at p. 465 [27 L.Ed.2d at p. 540]; Taylor v. Hayes, supra, 418 U.S. at p. 501 [41 L.Ed.2d at p. 909].) In Taylor v. Hayes, supra, however, it was held that “contemptuous conduct, though short of personal attack, may still provoke a trial judge and so embroil him in controversy that he cannot ‘hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused ….’ Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 (1927).” The court stated that “In making this ultimate judgment, the inquiry must be not only whether there was actual bias on respondent’s part, but also whether there was ‘such a likelihood of bias or an appearance of bias that the judge was unable to hold the balance between vindicating the interests of the court and the interests of the accused.’Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 588 (1964). ‘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 due process of law requires no less. In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955).” (418 U.S. at p. 501 [41 L.Ed.2d at p. 909].) We note that in Taylor v. Hayes it was not petitioner’s conduct, considered alone, that required recusal; rather, the critical factor was the character of respondent’s response to misbehavior during the course of the trial. (418 U.S. at p. 503, fn. 10 [41 L.Ed.2d at p. 910].)
Plaintiff is also concerned and:
1) opposes ANY and ALL rulings, orders, notes, testimony, or other evidence from Judges Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, charges and has shown that previously, under color of law, Judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, the other judges, court administration and the clerk’s sought to deprive plaintiff and al-Hakim 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 while aiding their unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains. In so doing Judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s acted with malicious intent to favor opposing litigants and the court by unlawful exercise of discretion. Judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s conduct, possibly by agreement or conspiracy between these parties in violation of 18 U.S.C. §241, constituted an egregious crime within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §242, quoted below.
2) Plaintiff and al-Hakim further charge and has shown that this conduct on behalf of Judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s part constituted, beyond reasonable doubt, a clear, direct, intentional, knowing, and premeditated violation of 18 U.S.C. §242, which states as follows:
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
3) Plaintiff and al-Hakim, proclaims that Judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s is irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action.
The U. S. Attorney General General has ordered that this matter be investigated and ALL the parties and has refused, and engaged now the courts attempt to cover up their transgressions when they are exposed for being guilty of willful corrupt misconduct, they refused to acknowledged al-Hakim’s memorandum filled with the courts abuses by judges referenced herein, Colwell; the Oakland City Attorney’s Office and the parties in both the CSAA and Rescue cases. This matter is of the character which the principles of U.S. Const. amend. I, V, VI, and XIV, as adopted by the Due Process Clause, protect. This is a clear denial of plaintiff’s and al-Hakim Family’s rights under the United States and California State Constitution.
Plaintiff and al-Hakim, states that Judges Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s purported to exercise their authority at hearings in which they violated plaintiff’s civil rights, has admittedly acting with personal interest in the outcome under the color of law 18 USC §242. The Judges willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability she would continue her unethical behavior if she were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future. That judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus, before whom the hearing aforesaid action was pending is prejudiced against the party or the interest of the party so that affiant cannot or believes that they cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before these judges. Plaintiff and al-Hakim request and have a standing objection to ANY involvement of Judge Jones, Nixon, and Kaus in this and ANY other matter.
Kaus’s Assignment Violate Canons 2 and 3 of the California Code of Judicial Conduct
Judge Kaus’s assignment to this case coupled with judge Jones and Nixon’s actions 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.
“‘When the record clearly demonstrates what the trial court did, we will not presume it did something different’… we are confident that if that is what Judge Golden meant, he knew how to say it.” (Paterno v. State of California (2003) Cal.App.4th) There is a clear pattern of discriminatory conduct, which Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus are attempting to cover up this conduct, which have no basis in fact or law.
Violating Tenant of Fairness
There is no question that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus are violating this tenant of fairness as there are also grounds for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085; on the ground of misconduct, prejudicial misconduct, bias, and prejudice in violations of Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.0-170.5; specifically 170, subd. (a)(5); 170, subd. (e); 170.1, subdivision (a)(2); 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(C); 170.3, subd. (c)(1); 170.3, subd. (c)(5); 170.3, subd. (d); 170.l(a)(6), §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8) and 3C( a corresponding Federal Statute, 28 United States Code section 455(a) adopted by Congress in 1974); Business and Professions Code sections 6068, subdivisions (b) and (f), 6103 and 6106 and former rule 7-105(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 8, 18; see Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3D(1).); and violates al-Hakim’s fundamental civil rights and due process under the law guaranteed by the United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, and XIV, and as applicable to this state of California Constitution by the first clause of Section 13 of Article I; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3).
Judge Kaus’s presence in this case, with Judges Jones and Nixon involvement summarily denies plaintiff’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing their rulings and places an intolerable burden on them, denying their 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 denying the motion to dismiss from this Court is necessary to prevent this continued abuse.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 6068 Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus’ Moral Turpitude
Section 6068 obliges a judge and attorney to “support the Constitution and laws” (subd. (a)) and “maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers” (subd. (b)). Under section 6106, “any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, . . . constitutes a cause for [a lawyer’s] disbarment or suspension.” (Italics added.) The courts conclude that, under certain circumstances, an attorney’s disobedience, even when he acts in a nonprofessional or personal capacity, violates section 6068, subdivisions (a) and (b), and constitutes “moral turpitude” within the meaning of section 6106.
Multiple acts of misconduct involving moral turpitude and dishonesty warrant disbarment. (See std. 2.3, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, div. V, Rules Proc. of State Bar; compare Dixon v. State Bar (1982) 32 Cal.3d 728, 739, 740 [187 Cal.Rptr. 30, 653 P.2d 321].) Patton’s pattern of serious, recurrent misconduct is a factor in aggravation. ( Garlow v. State Bar (1988) 44 Cal.3d 689, 711 [244 Cal.Rptr. 452, 749 P.2d 1307].)
It is evident that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus has no appreciation for the fair, just and proper administration of justice, nor equity under the law and is totally at odds with the judicial and legal professional standards of this state and country. Disqualification as a judge and disbarment as an attorney would thus be necessary to protect the public, and preserve confidence in the profession, and maintain high professional standards. ( Ainsworth v. State Bar (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1218, 1235 [252 Cal.Rptr. 267, 762 P.2d 431].)
Dishonest acts in court are a basic violation of a judge or attorney’s role, oath, and duties. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subds. (a), (b), (d); State Bar Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 7-105.) We have condemned such conduct in the strongest terms. (E.g., Davis v. State Bar (1983) 33 Cal.3d 231, 239-240 [188 Cal. Rptr. 441, 655 P.2d 1276]; Olguin v. State Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 195, 199-200 [167 Cal. Rptr. 876, 616 P.2d 858].)
The Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct
In the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Although these canons do not have the force of law or regulation, “they reflect a judicial consensus regarding appropriate behavior” for California judges. ( Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1989) 49 Cal. 3d 826, 838, fn. 6 [264 Cal. Rptr. 100, 782 P.2d 239, 89 A.L.R.4th 235]; see Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 707, fn. 22 [122 Cal. Rptr. 778, 537 P.2d 898].) The failure of a judge to comply with the canons “suggests performance below the minimum level necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.” ( Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance, supra, 49 Cal. 3d at p. 838, fn. 6.)
An impartial and independent judiciary is indispensable to our legal system. Of equal importance is public confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary, because the effective functioning of our legal system is dependent upon the public’s willingness to accept the judgments and rulings of the courts. (Cal. Code Jud. Conduct, com. to canon 1.) Plaintiff argues that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus’s conduct and actions described herein violate Cannons 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8), 3C, 3D(1), 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2), 4, 4D(1) and 4(E) and the court can not allow this type of willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (moral turpitude, corruption, and dishonesty) that brings the judicial office into disrepute. (Art. VI, § 18, subd. (c).)
The responsibility existed under the Code of Judicial Ethics Rule 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2) and 4D(1) for Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus to tell the County Court about the facts of any illegal ex-parte communications and any illegal acts of collusion, and conspiracy in this case and that is under the federal statute the misprision of felony and under 18 U.S.C. Section 4 makes it a federal crime. It’s a federal crime for someone who knows of a crime being committed to not tell a judge about such crime. And State court judges are bound to follow federal law under Article 6 Clause 2 of the Constitution.
Alameda County Superior Court officers and the County Court would then be misleading and deceiving the court and the People of the State of California and actually committing obstruction of justice. So if the County Court does not come in and disclose that the County is aware of the illegal acts of Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus, the County has committed obstruction of justice. Now when the County knows that they committed these illegal acts and the Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus knows that they committed these illegal acts, the two of them together have committed obstruction of justice and they have precluded plaintiff, in the lawsuit, from obtaining a fair trial. Now that results in two things. One results in the denial of due process, in addition such action is going to be an obstruction of justice because what the County Court has done means the judiciary has obstructed justice by also denying plaintiff a fair hearing. Third, they’ve committed an extrinsic fraud upon the court and the People of The State of California because what they’ve done by having bought the court in, they’ve prevented al-Hakim from obtaining a fair hearing. When together they do what is known as an outside action of stopping a litigant from obtaining a fair trial they’ve committed an extrinsic fraud because that’s something that plaintiff and al-Hakim really can’t find out about and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what this case is about.
If it had something to do with the proof of the case it would be considered an intrinsic fraud and it would be something that plaintiff could prove within the confines of the case, but this is something totally outside of what is collateral to the case. So it becomes an extrinsic fraud and the cases hold that when one party does something or something happens that is outside of the case and it prevents through any means whatsoever a party getting a fair trial, that’s extrinsic fraud and that actually deprives the court of jurisdiction. And when there is no jurisdiction anything that the court does is void. This is what is happening here.
The County Court, having already displayed fraud and perjury in the Kaus and Jones orders is participating in a broad conspiracy to obstruct justice, and blind obedience to a corrupt culture has serious consequences. In their corrupt attempt to shield the judge from scrutiny, these court officials brought scandal and shame to themselves, their office and the Court. These court officials decided to impede any litigation and investigation, and in doing so they should have thrown away their careers and their freedom and now being held accountable for their unlawful actions. Interference with litigation and a federal investigation cannot be tolerated as this will not allow plaintiff, al-Hakim or any other litigant to move forward in an environment of mutual trust with the common goal of delivering justice to litigants in collaboration with trusted partners at the County court.
By Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus and County Court not disclosing their acts of extrinsic fraud and the cover-up, they all lacked “courage to do what is right” and they are committing obstruction of justice and should be considered for charges of racketeering and prosecuted under the RICO Act.
Attacks al-Hakim in Open Court
As shown herein, Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s committed prejudicial misconduct by expressing prejudgment of plaintiff and al-Hakim’s credibility. Indeed, Kaus and Freedman made statements in open court, not simply to fulfill some ethical or judicial duty but to demean, embarrass and humiliate al-Hakim. Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s must acknowledge that by disclosing their bias against al-Hakim and their prejudgment of his credibility constituted prejudicial misconduct. (See Dodds, supra, 12 Cal. 4th at p. 176 [judge’s “prejudgment in the handling of cases . . . constituted prejudicial conduct”]; Roberts v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 739, 744-745, 748 [190 Cal. Rptr. 910, 661 P.2d 1064]; McCartney, supra, 12 Cal. 3d at p. 533 [in examining witness, judge “may not . . . become an advocate for either party or cast aspersions or ridicule upon a witness”].)
Contempt
Viewing these matters in their entirety, one will conclude that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s behavior in this matter.” constituted prejudicial misconduct. (See Dodds, supra, 12 Cal. 4th at p. 176 [judge committed prejudicial misconduct by “interrupting and yelling loudly and angrily at counsel and a litigant”]; Wenger, supra, 29 Cal. 3d at p. 629 [judge entitled to take remedial steps in response to counsel’s intemperate language committed willful misconduct by misusing contempt power]; Cannon v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications (1975) 14 Cal. 3d 678, 706 [122 Cal. Rptr. 778, 537 P.2d 898] [judge improperly used punitive action as first, rather than last, “means of controlling proceedings”].)
Atmosphere of Unfairness and Contempt Charge
It must be stipulated that Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s fraud violated canons 1, 2A, and 2B(2), and constituted prejudicial misconduct at the very least. Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s treated al-Hakim in a manner in violation of canons 1, 2A, and 3B(4). Their actions and improper references of plaintiff and al-Hakim reflected a prejudgment of him and a lack of impartiality, contrary to canon 3B(5). Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, abusive conduct must draw harsh criticism from the Court of Appeal in this decisions arising out of these charges of the “atmosphere of unfairness” created by the judge’s denial of plaintiff’s civil rights, right to due process, biased administration of justice, erroneous rulings, lies, deception, threats, retaliation, and caustic, condescending remarks of the plaintiff and al-Hakim. (People v. Urias (July 31, 2006, G035179 [2006 WL 2128631] [nonpub. opn.]).)
Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus Deceit Under The Color of Law and Authority In Violation Of The Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts
Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus adopting and invoking the courts modus operandi and agenda has threatened plaintiff and al-Hakim in their effort to slaughter plaintiff and al-Hakim’s character, integrity, reputation and persona, exhibit bad faith and deceit; deny al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; there’s no way Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s can claim to be unbiased and impartial.
Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus would be exhibiting clear and gross examples of bias, prejudice, favoritism, bigotry and racism; advocated imprimaturs of the plaintiffs litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of plaintiff and al-Hakim; portrayed plaintiff and al-Hakim as disruptive and when they could not prove it they tried to create the disruption; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding plaintiff and al-Hakim even through third parties; and highjacked the hearing with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the Unruh and Bane Acts. These efforts of Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s 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 plaintiff and al-Hakim will not allow.
Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s have made knowingly false statements; dishonesty; fraudulent deception; calumny deceit; willful and prejudicial misconduct; abuse of discretion; negligence; bias; prejudice; misrepresentation; incompetence; conflict of interest; bad faith; collusion; denial of due process; obstruction of justice; racism; bigotry; has exhibited, expressed and shown a fixed opinion of plaintiff and al-Hakim; displayed favoritism towards the plaintiff’s; made false accusations; harassed plaintiff and al-Hakim; has willfully, deceitfully and recklessly indulged in a series of offensive acts and statements against plaintiff and al-Hakim and has displayed disdain, malice, and a mental attitude or disposition toward plaintiff and al-Hakim that prohibits the right to a fair hearing or trial; failed and refused to respond to the allegations contained in the challenges for cause; conduct prejudicial; and advocated a judicial imprimatur of the defense’s position are grounds for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc. §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); 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; and Cal. Code Jud. Conduct Cannons 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5) and 3B(8). Judges Jones, Nixon, Kaus, Grillo, Petrou, Freedman, Carvill, Markham, Jacobson, Rolefson, the judges, court administration and the clerk’s persistent willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, promised retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability she would continue her unethical behavior if she were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future violates and strikes at the heart of plaintiff and al-Hakim’s fundamental civil rights and due process under the law guaranteed by the United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, and XIV, and as applicable to this state of California Constitution by the first clause of Section 13 of Article I; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3). Plaintiff and al-Hakim are convinced that a fair and impartial trial could not be had before this judge now or in the future! Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus are incompetent, has no respect for justice, is morally bankrupt, and she will offend again.
Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus are Tainted With Inadmissible Evidence and are Disqualified
California law requires that a judge be honest, unbiased and competent. Plaintiff has presented evidence that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus are not impartial, unbiased, nor therefore competent and does not meet any of these requirements. Additionally, they are tainted, lack disinterestedness, are biased and prejudiced as plaintiff has informed Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus of the many transgressions of the respective judges, court administration, and clerks in this case, the defendants, and defense counsels and as a matter of law Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus cannot be impartial due to this information.
Plaintiff’s direct charges to Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus, court administration, and clerks exposed, corrupted and impregnated Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus by the interjecting and introduction of illegal, inadmissible, irrelevant and prejudicial evidence in the complaints, the pleadings, and obvious ex-parte communications even through a third party that will improperly influence Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus and they can not expect to be unblemished, to serve as a disinterested third party, fair, impartial and without bias after this exposure. Again, plaintiff’s opposing litigants, knowing that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus will retaliate against plaintiff and al-Hakim, want to retain Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus in their continuing effort to curry the courts favor, to seek and establish an illegal, unfair advantage, thus further establishing this need for Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus to recuse from this case.
It is beyond dispute that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus has personal knowledge of evidentiary facts crucial to this complaint and must be disqualified. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1(a)(1) [mandatory disqualification of judge who has personal knowledge of evidentiary facts]; Catchpole v. Brannon (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 237, 249-253 [advocacy for a party is judicial misconduct]
These conflicts are a direct pecuniary interest and clear evidence which casts considerable doubt on Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus’s ability to act impartially and that they can never be allowed to be considered as the judge now. Plaintiff’s uncontradicted evidence on this point is more than ample to satisfy the “impression of possible bias” test. ( Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 919, 924 [20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834] and decisions cited.)
Knowing this makes it very difficult for any objective person to contemplate how Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus can serve in this matter and smacks of collusion and corruption! As a matter of law, if Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus does not recuse themselves, plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order disqualifying Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus from acting as the judge in this matter rather than proceeding to trial in a matter that would surely be appealed and be vacated. Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus will surely fail to admit or deny plaintiff’s allegations as required by § 170.3, subd. (c)(3). Plaintiff request that Judges Jones, Nixon and Kaus recuse themselves in the interest of justice as per Code of Civil Procedure §170.1(a)(6)(A), and (B) in violation of the law and/or must be disqualified.
Plaintiff and al-Hakim were NOT aware that there was any finding of GUILT in the matter of Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. C-81137 herein Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, was deemed a vexatious litigant by Alameda County Superior Court.
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD
IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND PROVEN THAT THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER, IF TRUE, WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, AND CORRUPTION BY THE VERY SAME ENTITIES DEFENDANTS REFERENCES IN THIER PLEADING!
AS ADMITTED AND SHOWN JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE PUBLISHED THEY HAD AN ORDER DECLARING AL-HAKIM A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT THAT DID NOT EXIST!
THEY DECLARED THEIR COLLECTIVE INTENT, THIS GAVE RISE TO THEIR MOTIVE, AND THEY CREATED THEIR OPPORTUNITY!
On March 19, 2018, MORE THAN 16 MONTHS EARLIER THAN THE ALLEGED ORDER, al-Hakim received a notice/order of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” by JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE by the Alameda County Superior Court order on June 11, 2019, YET IT HAS NEVER SERVED! (see order as Exh. A).
This alleged vexatious litigant order was taken as a crime, the parties JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE committed with “malice aforethought,” as the crime was premeditated, and the perpetrators held malice for the victim al-Hakim. AS PROVEN MY THEIR ORDER issued on June 11, 2019, there clearly was malice aforethought that is defined as a crime being planned in advance, with the intention to kill or grievously harm another individual, al-Hakim. This is proof of JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE malice aforethought as a requirement to convict someone of first-degree murder!
They, JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE clearly established intention to commit a crime without just cause or provocation, specifically in this cases involving exposing their collective first-degree murder of the al-Hakim’s HUMAN and CIVIL RIGHTS, further exposes the COURTEL AND SHADOW COURTS full blown attack of the al-Hakim family! THIS IS AN EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT OF AN ONGOING TARGETED ATTEMPT TO DESTROY- EVEN KILL, A FAMILY HERE IN AMERICA- REAL LIVES, IN REAL LIFE, RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES, IN REAL TIME with expressed Malice or a “depraved” or “malignant” heart with the “Intent to kill”, mens rea!
THEY ENGAGED IN FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, JUDICIAL/LEGAL GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION exposing these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing legal parties; assuring the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, enacting government sponsored terror, with the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
COURTEL Command to activate and commence the TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY action to their Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court Corruptocrats and Kleptocrats in the Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Scheme and Litigation Strategy in their “Shadow Court” Operation.
Judges Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke issued an order that claimed they had a prior order which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant. We have asked for that order and ALL have remained silent and claim not to be responsible for it, yet it is in an ORDER FROM THE COURT!
al-Hakim is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges Defendants, with and through their counsel, has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise “Good White Way” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else! (see “Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke Vexatious Litigant Strategy Fraud on th Court”, Challenge for Cause of Judge Kaus filed December 4, 2018, at Page 24-27)
Alameda County Superior Court allegedly issued this order on June 11, 2019, YET HAVE NEVER SERVED IT ON AL-HAKIM. PERHAPS EVEN MORE INEXPLICABLE, on March 19, 2018, al-Hakim received a notice of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” and a court motion pending for an alleged Vexatious Litigant proceeding.
al-Hakim couldn’t tell from the signature who endorsed the denied waiver but it may be judge Carvill or Chad Finke because the judge in the case, C. Don Clay said he didn’t know anything about!
Neither Carvill nor Finke EVER admitted it was them who issued the alleged “order”.
I have NEVER been deemed as such, NEVER received any such notice and was unaware of this pending alleged process which needless to say was without ANY merit!
We repeatedly asked “Who filed this alleged motion, when, and what proof of service have they filed?” and “When is this motion being heard, in what department and by whom?”.
We requested ANSWERS to “What prior orders does the court have regarding that case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on the case when NOTHING had been filed in that case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants defaulted on?”
That was admittedly a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on al-Hakim’s litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in his cases.
How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So are we 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??!!!
Given the above, we Demand Removal and Censure of Judges Joscelyn Jones, Stephen Kaus and presiding Judge Thomas Nixon for for cause pursuant to California CCP §170.6 and under CCP §§170.1-5 et. seq.; CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)), (CCP § 170.3 (c) (1)), the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8), 3C, 3D(1), 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2), 4, 4D(1) and 4(E); Due to Criminal Conduct in Violation of 18 U.S.C. §242; Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§182, subd. (a)(5); Fraud On The Court- Federal Code 60; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 60, § 47, § 4541, § 425.16, § 355, 356, 473, 475, § 3523, § 3528 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180; 1st, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment U. S. Constitution; California Constitution by the first clause of Article I, section 13; Article VI, section 4 1/2; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3)
Respectfully submitted August 12, 2025, at Oakland, CA
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
——– Message ——–
| Subject: | PRESIDING JUDGE REFUSES TO SERVE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT!; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED; PROOF Judges Nixon, Caruth, Hing, Gaffey, Finke Perversion, Obstruction Defeats Course/Administration of Justice; PROOF KAMALA HARRIS SYCOPHANTS A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Concealment of Facts Induce Court’s Act or Reliance |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 30 Jul 2025 21:19:56 -0700 |
| From: | A. J. <ajalil1234@gmail.com> |
As you ALL are aware, on July 8, 2025, we filed a Declaration in the matter of Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. C-81137 wherein Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, was allegedly deemed a vexatious litigant by Alameda County Superior Court. I CALLED Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon’s OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES, LEFT VOICEMAIL MESSAGES AND DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE! I then filed the Declaration and served a copy on Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon the same hour, establishing that THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED ON ME AND REQUESTED THAT IT BE SERVED SO I COULD PROPERLY RESPOND TO IT.
ON AT LEAST TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS I WAS CONFRONTED BY PEOPLE THAT ARE KNOWN TO ME AS “SNITCHES”- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS, GOVERNMENT ASSETS, STATING THAT THEY HAD “LOTS” OF MAIL ADDRESSED TO ME AND MOST OF IT WAS FROM THE COURT. THERE WAS A THIRD PERSON OF SIMILAR ILK THAT STATED THEY WERE BEING COERCED TO BE COMPLICIT IN THE “SNITCH” ACTIVITIES OF ONE OF THE OTHERS.
That was THREE (3) weeks ago and as of today, July 31, 2025, Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon has FAILED AND REFUSED TO serve the order on al-Hakim! WHY??!!
Nixon is obstructing justice in furtherance of the OVERT/COVERT ADMITTED ACTIONS of FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, AND CORRUPTION ON THE PARTS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT! I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY!!
Respectfully submitted,
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff
——– Message ——–
sent via: U. S. Mail, Fax, and email
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE: July 8, 2025
NO. PAGES: 12
TO THOMAS NIXON, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT
ABDUL-JALIL AL-HAKIM DECLARATION/STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO JUDGE JEFF BRAND ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (CCP 391 (B)(3) ORDER THAT WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD AND MALICE AFORETHOUGHT FOR FILING CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE UNDER CCP 170.1 AND 170.3; ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED. I HAVE CALLED YOUR OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES, LEFT VOICEMAIL MESSAGES AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSE!
THE OATH OF OFFICE
I, ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
“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!
Plaintiff and al-Hakim were NOT aware that there was any finding of GUILT in the matter of Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. C-81137 herein Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, was deemed a vexatious litigant by Alameda County Superior Court.
As the CEO of Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation we filed an action against Defendants State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Claims and State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Appraisal Team or any of its employees or representatives including but not limited to Mary Weaver, Gary O’Donnell, Madison Ritter, Kaitlin Hampe, Samantha B, Kendra Behrens, Victor Walker, “Neg”, Karena Kelly-Guishard, Lexie Figueroa; Alex Anneker Insurance Agency, and Alex Anneker; Alacrity Solutions, LLC, and employees Jim Pearl, John Hall, Matt Fatheree, Rob Beller; Snapsheet and employees Brad Weisberg, Andy Cohen, Dan Colomb, Brad Weisberg, Jennifer Fagan, Jesse Perrotta, Alexia Bustamante; Up North Towing and Matthew; Blue Star Towing; Shah Sons LLC DBA- East Bay Auto Center, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Nomi Khan, and their Investors; and Does 1 through 200, inclusive.
It is entitled as same and given Case No: 25CV108981, with a hearing set for July 23, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. at the René C. Davidson Courthouse, 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612, in Department 19, before Judge Joscelyn Jones.
I recently became aware of the alleged order when Defendants filed a Motion for An Order for Dismissal for Failing to Timely Obtain a Prefiling Order within Ten (10) Days of the Notice that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order. per CCP section 391.7(c).
Co-Defendants State Farm and Alacrity Solutions Group, LLC (“Alacrity”) have alleged they both filed Notices that Plaintiff is a Vexatious Litigant Subject to Prefiling Order as State Farm filed theirs on April 2, 2025, and Alacrity filed its on April 17, 2025. The Notices of Vexatious Litigant automatically stayed this case and required the Foundation to obtain a prefiling order from the presiding judge of this court within ten (10) days of the filings.
BOTH CO-DEFENDANTS STATE FARM AND ALACRITY HAVE FAILED AND REFUSED TO SERVE SAID NOTICES ON AARON & MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION (AMWF.)
We filed our Opposition and Cross‐Motion for Filing this Frivolous or Dilatory motion with Monetary Sanctions against Defendants and their counsels under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 128.5, 128.7, and 391.7(f) on July 3, 2025.
When I /WE filed the opposition, the clerk said she could NOT find the case by the number nor name. I insisted that both were right and after 5 minutes she asked “it’s NOT al-Hakim?”. I said “NO, it’s the Plaintiffs Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.” She repeated her question and I again insisted that it was correct.
The I to had to sit at the clerks desk for another 20 minutes while she was communicating with someone on the computer regarding the case, typing all the time.
It was clear that the Defendants actions had succeeded in getting the case title changed to reflect MY name rather than the 68 YEAR OLD, WORLD RENOWNED FOUNDATION!
“SNITCHES” HAD AL-HAKIM MAIL, ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER NEVER SERVED
From February 2019 when my family, our businesses, and I was illegally forced from our home of over 40 years WITH TWO DAYS NOTICE, due to the continuing fraud of the “COURTEL” and “SHADOW COURT” with judges Jeff Brand, Kim Cowell, Wynne Carvill, Robert Freedman, Frank Roesch, C. Don Clay, court administrator Chad Finke and others in the appeals court, we were ALL homeless!
I had a very meager form of communication until May 2019 when I lost the remaining support I had for even that!
From that time I never received any communications from the courts even though I filed change of addresses with the court master file and each department that I had a case in including the State and Federal Appeals courts.
However, on at least two separate occasions I was confronted by two people that are known to me as “snitches”- confidential informants, government assets, stating that they had “lots” of mail addressed to me and most of it was from the court. There was a third person of similar ilk that stated they were being coerced to be complicit in the “snitch” activities of one of the others, and that they felt/knew there was government involvement! I will elaborate more in the actual “Request to be Removed from the Vexatious Litigant list.
I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY!
The Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Abdul-Jalil HAVE LIVED THE EXPERIENCE OF THE “COURTEL” and “SHADOW COURT” and the alleged order of being deemed a vexatious litigant by the Alameda County Superior Court order on June 11, 2019, YET IT HAS NEVER SERVED AND MORE INEXPLICABLE, on March 19, 2018, MORE THAN 16 MONTHS EARLIER THAN THE ALLEGED ORDER, al-Hakim received a notice/order of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant”! (see Exh. A)
THE “COURTEL”, this Black Robed Society Conceived in Sin, Born of Corruption, Covered Up with Collusion, protected by the System itself- the COURTEL! A litany of Law Lords, Demonically Dealing Decisions for Dominance, DOLLAR$!
This Judicial Cult of Immoral Dishonor, this “COURTEL”, with no accountability grievously disintegrates in “a monumentally moral descent into the very exclusive JUDGES CHAMBERS in HELL for Criminal Justices who swear others to GOD but themselves are sworn to Judicial Purgatory as Satan’s Slaves!” They want the WORLD to believe they are GOD’S vicegerents on earth and pledge allegiance to THEM- then GOD, to honor their dishonor, to gracefully ignore their disgrace, to hold them in reverence ABOVE GOD while they do the Devils work!!
THEY ENGAGED IN FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, JUDICIAL/LEGAL GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION exposing these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing legal parties; assuring the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, enacting government sponsored terror, with the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
This Defendants Motion is frivolous and was filed for an improper purpose— aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise the court as their “butt puppet” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
Defendants push the COURTEL Command to activate and commence the TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY action to their Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court Corruptocrats and Kleptocrats in the Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Scheme and Litigation Strategy in their “Shadow Court” Operation.
The concept and reality of this “Shadow Court” raises concerns about the rule of law, fairness, and the protection of individual rights within the legal system.
The COURTEL “Shadow Court” is the legal, court or judicial system that operates outside the official legal framework or established judicial system that has several interpretations depending on the factors and context including:
Informal or Extrajudicial Courts: Shadow courts refer to “formal and extrajudicial” bodies of unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities engaged in GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION that furtively create, provoke, and frame aggrieved civil and criminal disputes to illegally administer justice without constitutional authority as one of their tactics in their TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY for these parties to advance their “COURTEL” Campaign of JUDICIAL CORRUPTION against a TARGETED PARTY. The objective of the “shadow court” is to facilitate the COURTEL’s continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy with “Target, Engagement, Harassment, Provocation, Litigation” tactics is designed to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGETED PARTY, their family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially in the shadow courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives. The very nature and inherent structure/operation of this Civil/Criminal Entrapment Sting and Litigation Strategy- actively employs the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court systems at ALL levels (Judges are Politicians= elected officials by the Public, to serve the public) makes it diabolically impossible to journey from the Constitution to the Institution “Of The People, For The People, By The People!” that places them in this evil “criminal and civil rights/litigation meat grinder”. The parties are Governmental and Quasi-governmental employees, agents, entities, associates, members, and contractors of their companies, the U. S. Federal Government, State of California, County, and City agencies, among others, have engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act. Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance by and with unethical and criminal means, instigated and encouraged said acts, which gives rise to fraudulent, corruption as they conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived, employed and enacted the criminal, tactical, torture inspired policy of TARGETED HATE CRIME, Terror, Civil Conspiracy, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced Bigotry, Vindictive Retaliation, Oppression, Harassment, Racism, Discrimination, Bias, Prejudice, Unfairness, Persecution, AND GRAND CORRUPTION, victimization, inciting acrimony, animus, in the continued persecution with calumny deceit and the attempted entrapment of us as the continuing “TARGET”. These parties ADMITTEDLY engage in corruption and conspiracy, while consorting, colluding, conceiving and enacting this Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Sting and Litigation Strategy- actively employ the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court systems at ALL levels, including other judicial, governmental and political officials, their handlers, their contractors, agents, associates, proxies, sycophants, employees, the experts, witnesses, representatives, operatives, unnamed third parties, allies, political handlers and consultants (including their attorneys), the TARGETED PARTY’s litigation opponents and and others, to act out their VENDETTA, CREATING CRIME, FIXING CASES in furtherance of their Corruption Agenda with the FULL FORCE OF THE LAW to destroy the TARGETED PARTY. These “Shadow courts” arise in situations where the official judicial system is ineffective, corrupt, or inaccessible, as they have compromised to create their own mechanisms for their own desired justice. The litigation is commenced by agreement or at the direction of the Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court and opposing counsel, is pursued to a legal termination in their favor, was brought without probable cause, was initiated with malice with the motive to obtain a collateral advantage and provide a legal defense for them because they have been, are and will be a defendants and witnesses needing protection with finding against the TARGETED PARTY.
Political Context: In the Law Enforcement, Judicial/Political/Social context, the “shadow court” is a governmental design engineered judicial system set up and controlled by Federal/State/County/Local/ law enforcement, political, and legal/judicial groups to secretly control and covertly co-opt the legitimacy of the “official” legal/judicial system they designed engineered to support and foster those parties acts to achieve their desired ruling government interests. This entrapment scheme strategy is employed in their authoritarian capacity where the official courts are used but these actions are surreptitious, back channel, social club- Inn of Courts and judicial chambers operations not visible to the public so they can not be seen as biased or controlled by the government. This group of Federal/State/County/Local/ law enforcement, political, and legal/judicial groups have its own corrupt leaders and policies, effectively taking over the legal and judicial governance authority whenever the need and opportunity arises.
Conspiracy Theories: In conspiracy theory circles, the shadow court is often described as a clandestine Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court agencies and organizations that manipulate or controls the actual process. This includes Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial groups and their secret societies, intelligence agencies, and other powerful entities that operate behind the scenes to influence and control political/legal/judicial/social decisions and public policy.
Historical Context: The term has also been used historically to describe Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court agencies and organizations or alternative administrations that claim legitimacy but operate outside the recognized government legal/judicial framework, especially during times of conflict or political/legal/judicial/social upheaval.
Secret or Covert Judicial Processes: The term can also describe secretive judicial processes that lack transparency and due process, often associated with human and civil rights abuses. These courts operate without proper legal procedures, leading to arbitrary decisions.
This COURTEL has acculturated a Guantanomo Bay style system of the worst aspects of an evil society- grounded in Grand Endemic and Systemic corruption, violence, fraud, exploitation, racism, bigotry, and persecution, into their State sponsored terror operation of protected government endemically corrupt legal system to perpetuate their own criminal judicial/legal/financial/psychological/ violence upon innocent minorities, Muslims, immigrants, WITH common people being captured in their special illegal rendition into Civil Rights/Familial/Financial/Social/Psychological/Emotional TORTURE- OBLITERATING ANY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOUR PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AND THE GREAT AMERICAN DREAM!
Their tactics are more extreme than muckraking or character assassination, disinformation/misinformation, or defamation, wherein the COURTEL: DOJ, FBI, Court systems, Law Enforcement at ALL levels, and opposing parties anxiously track TARGETED PARTY’s movements, business and social activity, writings, speeches, phone and text conversations, internet activity, social media, personal and sexual relationships/endeavors to fabricate and gather negative, embarrassing or compromising information about the TARGETED PARTY, to publish and disperse that information as widely as possible, “NEUTRALIZING YOU!”, DESTROYING INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES, and THEIR BUSINESSES BY ILLEGALLY TARGETING and FRAMING INNOCENT, UNAWARE, COMMON, EVERYDAY CIVILIANS!
The COURTEL and Shadow Court Recent Acts in Underlying East Bay Auto Center Case that Impact The Other Case
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD
IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND PROVEN THAT THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER, IF TRUE, WAS PROCURED THROUGH FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, AND CORRUPTION BY THE VERY SAME ENTITIES DEFENDANTS REFERENCES IN THIER PLEADING!
AS ADMITTED AND SHOWN JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE PUBLISHED THEY HAD AN ORDER DECLARING AL-HAKIM A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT THAT DID NOT EXIST!
THEY DECLARED THEIR COLLECTIVE INTENT, THIS GAVE RISE TO THEIR MOTIVE, AND THEY CREATED THEIR OPPORTUNITY!
ABDUL-JALIL AL-HAKIM HAD TO FILE OPPOSITIONS TO THREE ORDERS TO SHOW CAUSE IN THIS ALLEGED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT PROCEEDING CCP 391(B)(3) IN SIX MONTHS!
On March 19, 2018, MORE THAN 16 MONTHS EARLIER THAN THE ALLEGED ORDER, al-Hakim received a notice/order of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” by JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE by the Alameda County Superior Court order on June 11, 2019, YET IT HAS NEVER SERVED! (see order as Exh. A).
This alleged vexatious litigant order was taken as a crime, the parties JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE committed with “malice aforethought,” as the crime was premeditated, and the perpetrators held malice for the victim al-Hakim. AS PROVEN MY THEIR ORDER issued on June 11, 2019, there clearly was malice aforethought that is defined as a crime being planned in advance, with the intention to kill or grievously harm another individual, al-Hakim. This is proof of JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE malice aforethought as a requirement to convict someone of first-degree murder!
They, JUDGES CLAY, CARVILL, AND SUPERIOR COURT ADMINISTRATOR CHAD FINKE clearly established intention to commit a crime without just cause or provocation, specifically in this cases involving exposing their collective first-degree murder of the al-Hakim’s HUMAN and CIVIL RIGHTS, further exposes the COURTEL AND SHADOW COURTS full blown attack of the al-Hakim family! THIS IS AN EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT OF AN ONGOING TARGETED ATTEMPT TO DESTROY- EVEN KILL, A FAMILY HERE IN AMERICA- REAL LIVES, IN REAL LIFE, RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES, IN REAL TIME with expressed Malice or a “depraved” or “malignant” heart with the “Intent to kill”, mens rea!
THEY ENGAGED IN FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, JUDICIAL/LEGAL GRAND SYSTEMIC AND ENDEMIC CORRUPTION exposing these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing legal parties; assuring the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, enacting government sponsored terror, with the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
COURTEL Command to activate and commence the TARGETED ENTRAPMENT SCHEME STRATEGY action to their Federal/State/County/Local/ Law Enforcement, Political groups and the Legal/Judicial Court Corruptocrats and Kleptocrats in the Deep State sponsored Civil/Criminal Entrapment Scheme and Litigation Strategy in their “Shadow Court” Operation.
Judges Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke issued an order that claimed they had a prior order which deems al-Hakim as a vexatious litigant. We have asked for that order and ALL have remained silent and claim not to be responsible for it, yet it is in an ORDER FROM THE COURT!
al-Hakim is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges Defendants, with and through their counsel, has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as they attempt to exercise “Good White Way” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
(see “Clay, Carvill, and Chad Finke Vexatious Litigant Strategy Fraud on th Court”, Challenge
for Cause of Judge Kaus filed December 4, 2018, at Page 24-27)
Alameda County Superior Court allegedly issued this order on June 11, 2019, YET HAVE NEVER SERVED IT ON AL-HAKIM. PERHAPS EVEN MORE INEXPLICABLE, on March 19, 2018, al-Hakim received a notice of a waiver being denied citing his being deemed a “Vexatious Litigant” and a court motion pending for an alleged Vexatious Litigant proceeding.
al-Hakim couldn’t tell from the signature who endorsed the denied waiver but it may be judge Carvill or Chad Finke because the judge in the case, C. Don Clay said he didn’t know anything about!
Neither Carvill nor Finke EVER admitted it was them who issued the alleged “order”.
I have NEVER been deemed as such, NEVER received any such notice and was unaware of this pending alleged process which needless to say was without ANY merit!
We repeatedly asked “Who filed this alleged motion, when, and what proof of service have they filed?” and “When is this motion being heard, in what department and by whom?”.
We requested ANSWERS to “What prior orders does the court have regarding that case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on the case when NOTHING had been filed in that case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants defaulted on?”
That was admittedly a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on al-Hakim’s litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in his cases.
How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So are we to understand that YOUR system is guilty before a hearing on this meritless motion is even heard?
A determination of vexatious litigant status specifically under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §391(b)(3) requires somewhat more than a retaliatory judge conspiring with the defendant to complain that they perceive al-Hakim vexed to their mutual motive, interest, benefit, and opportunity is a reoccurring theme over the 50 years of this case where the defendants have represented the judges in this case against al-Hakim and the judges have likewise defended the defendants as “sitting judge for the defense” and “deputy defense counsel”! There are simply no meritorious grounds for this motion at all. The statutory criteria are clearly stated and easily understood. And in this case, Plaintiff show they are as far removed from meeting the statutory criteria as possible, which Brand either knew or should have known before filing this motion out of retaliation and desperation.
CONCLUSION
I/WE DEMAND THAT THE COURT ESTABLISH THAT THE ORDER WAS NEVER SERVED AND THAT IT BE SERVED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ADDRESS ABOVE SO THAT I/WE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY AND THAT CO-DEFENDANTS STATE FARM AND ALACRITY BOTH FILED ILLEGAL NOTICES THAT PLAINTIFF IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT SUBJECT TO PREFILING ORDER HAD SUCCEEDED IN GETTING THE CASE TITLE CHANGED TO REFLECT MY NAME RATHER THAN THE 68 YEAR OLD, WORLD RENOWNED FOUNDATION!!
Respectfully submitted,
Date: July 8, 2025Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff
********
RE: A. G. Bonta, Law Enforcement Fraud, Misrepresentation, Concealment of Material Facts with Intent to Induce Court’s Act or Reliance; VIDEO ADMISSIONS, PROOF Sheriff’s Deputy MARKITA SAYLES COMMITTED FRAUD, FIXING THE CASE; ADMITTED SHE WAS INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES; PERJURY; FILING AN ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT”; WILLFULLY FABRICATED EVIDENCE; COMMITTED MISCONDUCT; CONCEALMENT; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto
Dear Sheriff Sanchez, Chief Chaplin, A. G. Ramsey, A. G. Bonta, Director Tripp, Steve Gordon- DMV, Ricardo Lara- DOI, Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA , Patrick Dorais- BAR, Kenneth J. Pogue- OAL, A. G. Hallinan, Senator Wahab, D. A. Price, State Farm Claims, East Bay Auto Center, et. al.,
Law Enforcement Fraud, Misrepresentation, Concealment of Material Facts with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACE
Judge Brian Caruth Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan
Superior Court of Alameda County East Bay Auto Center
Wiley Manuel Courthouse 21099 Mission Blvd.
Department 105 Hayward, CA 94541
661 Washington St. Email: EastBayAuto6@gmail.com
Oakland, CA 94607 Ph:510‐690‐2728
Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov
BCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon Chad Finke Executive Officer
Superior Court of Alameda County Superior Court of Alameda County
René C. Davidson Courthouse René C. Davidson Courthouse
Department 1 1225 Fallon Street, Room 209
Oakland, CA 94612 Oakland, CA 94612
Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276 Fax: 510-891-6276
TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov
cc: Judges Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711
U.S. Postal Mail and Emailed
FROM: Defendant Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
DATE: June 5, 2025
NO PAGES: 1
RE: Declaration for finding Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Leandro Police, Hayward Police, Alameda County District Attorney, Chad Finke and Clerks in Superior Court Administration with support from U. S. Attorney- Northern District, FBI, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, engaged in GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme complete with Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance.
“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 at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew,
Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, Plaintiffs, et. al.,
Attached please find our Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Declaration and Legal Argument in Support of Order finding Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Leandro Police, Hayward Police, Alameda County District Attorney, Chad Finke and Clerks in Superior Court Administration with support from U. S. Attorney- Northern District, FBI, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, engaged in GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme complete with Fraud, Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts with Knowledge of the Truth with the Intent to Induce the Court’s Act or Reliance; Fixing the Case against Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation behind their declaration the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing police crime reports AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court actions; Judges, Court Administration, Clerks Obstructed, Perverted Course, Due Administration of Justice.
THE OATH OF OFFICE
I, ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance!
Below is a recent email exchange with the California Registry of Charities and Fundraisers operating under the auspicious of Attorney General Rob Bonta.
Dear Registry of Charities and Fundraisers,
Attached hereto please find the AG’s summary receipt for the filing of the requested 2022-23 YE filed documents that MUST be properly completed and confirmed BEFORE any electronic payment for the fee can be processed and accepted! Again, there never was any unspecified “deficiencies” for 2022-23 nor 2023-24 YE!!
Again, we filed the forms, submitted the documents and paid, for which we presented the receipts for, online at the AG’s website.
As we stated earlier. we had NOT received ANY RESPONSE to our multiple 2 emails, a fax and letters to your offices since May 14, 2025 regrading a notice that our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation non-profit 2024 YE filing has been rejected for unspecified “deficiencies”. You probably would NOT have responded if it were NOT for the intervention of Alicia Xiong in RegCompliance <RegCompliance@doj.ca.gov>!
AGAIN, we ALWAYS DISAGREED WITH THIS FINDING and requested you PLEASE provide specifically what the 2024 YE filing unspecified “deficiencies” are?
We filed the forms, submitted the documents and paid, for which we have the receipts for, online at the AG’s website.
AFTER we provided the copies of the requested filings AS PROOF there was never any alleged “deficiencies”, you responded that you had the 2024 YE filings BUT the 2023 YE was missing!
THAT ALSO WAS A FALSE STATEMENT! We provided the filed documents AND the AG’s completed summary for the filing that MUST be completed properly BEFORE the system will electronically allow for the processing and acceptance of the fee, for which we also had the receipts for!!
As stated before, we find the “timing and non-responses suspicious” as the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation have ongoing litigation that this action may impact!
This ENTIRE “DEFICIENCIES” ACTION WAS A COMPLETE FABRICATION TO PROVOKE AND ENTRAP US INTO AN INDEFENSIBLE LEGAL POSITION as if our our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation would be “suspended” for the alleged non-filing of the “deficiencies” for 2022-23 nor 2023-24 YE, THEY ARE/WOULD THEN Not be currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, thus they are NOT authorized to do business in the State of California and don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit. They DO NOT have legal standing to exist, if they may be suspended for some reason.
A suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court.
A corporation may be suspended for at least one of the following reasons:
• Failure to file one or more tax returns. Cal Rev. & Tax Code Sec. 23301.
• Failure to pay the business’ tax balance due. This can include the penalty for failing to file the annual Statement of Information with the Secretary of State. California Corporations Code Section 2205.
Timberline, Inc. v. Jaisinghani, (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 1361.(Stating a suspended corporation is disqualified from exercising any right, power, or privilege, including prosecuting or defending an action, or appealing a judgment).
A suspended corporation may not prosecute or defend an action in a California court. (Ransome-Crummey Co. v. Superior Court [54 Cal.App.4th 1366] (1922) 188 Cal. 393, 396-397 [205 P. 446]; Alhambra-Shumway Mines, Inc. v. Alhambra Gold Mine Corp. (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 46, 50-51 [317 P.2d 649].)
Nor may a suspended corporation appeal from an adverse judgment (Boyle v. Lakeview Creamery Co. (1937) 9 Cal.2d 16, 20-21 [68 P.2d 968]; Gar-Lo, Inc. v. Prudential Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 242, 245 [116 Cal.Rptr. 389]), or seek a writ of mandate (Brown v. Superior Court (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 519, 635 [51 Cal.Rptr. 633]).
Given this heinous, blatant attempt to eliminate our status as a current Corporation with Secretary of State and State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, we will file another Complaint with the Alameda County Judges Brian Caruth, Tom Nixon, Michael Gaffey, Stuart Hing, Joscelyn Jones, and Superior Court administrator Chad Finke, Alameda County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, Hayward Police Chief Brian Matthews, U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, F.B.I. Northern District Director Robert Tripp, California Attorney General Casey Hallinan, California State Senator Aisha Wahab, Alameda County District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson, Director of California Department of Motor Vehicles Steve Gordon, California Department of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, California Director Department of Consumer Affairs Kimberly Kirchmeyer, California Bureau of Automotive Repair Chief Patrick Dorais, Director California Office of Administrative Law Kenneth J. Pogue, California Attorney General Hallinan- Public Inquiry Unit, and several Federal government offices.
We consider this further PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance!
As we have always maintained and is proven by their bad faith fact pattern, this was ALWAYS an entrapment scheme designed to take possession of the truck with it’s contents and trigger civil/criminal actions knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. They are not acting alone!
IT IS CLEAR THAT OUR NON-PROFIT AARON & MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION, ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM, THE AL-HAKIM FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES AND BUSINESS PROPERTY, THEIR REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY, THEIR CHARITIES, THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE- PERSONALLY, PROFESSIONALLY, MORALLY, ETHICALLY, AND FINANCIALLY, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
WE HAVE PRESENTED further PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme and Hate Crimes. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the legal, judicial and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
The Entrapment Strategy is disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties!
We will respond further in mass with the affect that our Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation non-profit business has been actually and potentially DAMAGED by your agency, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and ALL those referenced herein.
THIS NEVER SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED!
We continue this section herewith below for argument and law:
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFFS, LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO IN TARGETED ENTRAPMENT, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE, FRUAD, MISREPRESENTATION WITH THE INTENT TO INDUCE THE COURT’S ACT OR RELIANCE
Law Enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hayward Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; San Leandro Police Chiefs Abdul Pridgen/Angela Averiett; U. S. Attorneys Stephanie Hinds/Ismail Ramsey; F.B.I. NorCal Directors Craig Fair/Robert Tripp; with support from the Court, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, and associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Further, they committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing this case; they were instructed by and with special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report” OR NONE AT ALL; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to covering for their “asset” co-conspirators; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, Law Enforcement with associated third parties continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence; as they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence was founded to take the responsibility, accountability, and liability off the Sheriff’s to have performed their investigation and filing a legitimate police crime report by destroying the evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO CENTER as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED MAY 28, 2024 PHONE CALL TO AL-HAKIM, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM.
The Plaintiffs, Sheriffs and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the Civil Rights Act”.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, Law Enforcement and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET! We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!! This established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
The April and May 2024 videos PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves, Plaintiff’s, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company and Law Enforcement in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
East Bay Auto Center is the ONLY suspects that could have stolen, burglarized, vandalized, and damaged the truck as it was not stolen by anyone else!
AMWF’s truck was “STOLEN” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with an associated third party while there for the insurance repair estimate. BUT NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!!
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroying the evidence and chain of custody!
On October 2, 2024, Plaintiffs EBAC FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S WHERE TO AND WHEN EBAC MOVED THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S Deputies Sean Sullivan #2137 and Collin Lenahan #2453 as Percipient Eye Witnesses.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in unsolicited emails to the court and Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, the Clerks of Dept. 1, and 105, and Superior Court Administrator Chad Finke that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Then East Bay Auto Center attempt’s to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to an unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
AGAIN, this was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE and was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and to destroy the chain of custody!
But Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company are NOT acting alone, but with governmental entities and their associates!
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: 1) they were fully aware at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence.
The County Sheriff’s coercive, malicious, intentional tortious interference are a violation of our rights under the California Constitution is a deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process and their police actions are inherently coercive due to their societal trust. For a Civil Code Section 52.1 cause of action, two elements must be established: (1) intentional interference with a constitutional or legal right, and (2) that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The courts, in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, it was determined that relief is granted under Civil Code Section 52.1 if coercive actions are present. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement Intentional Spoliation of Evidence can be viewed through Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court, California. 1998-05-11 and Penal Code section 135 establishes criminal penalties for spoliation, defining it as the willful destruction or concealment of evidence intended to prevent its production in legal proceedings, classifying such acts as misdemeanors.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfere with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.
Under Coprich v. Superior Court, California Court of Appeal, California. 2000-05-19 , the court allowed the plaintiff to amend her complaint, because the officers were responsible for gathering or preserving evidence or for preventing her from doing so. However, the court did not determine that remedies monetary and contempt sanctions, with criminal sanctions for intentional destruction of evidence, and disciplinary measures against attorneys/law enforcement involved in suppressing evidence.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement intentionally failed to preserve evidence of the truck burglary is tortious interference due to spoliation of evidence and intentional interference with defendant’s prospective economic advantage, emphasizing defendants’ right to their injury claims are a valuable expectancy.
On November 2, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been returned to Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward with additional damage. Upon investigation, the truck has been further BURGLARIZED by the breach of the lock on the roll up door and the roll up door itself! THE DAMAGES ARE UNKOWN AND YET TO BE INVESTIGATED!
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Irrefutable evidence shows that Plaintiff’s and the Alameda County Sheriff’s acted with the intent to disrupt Defendants contractual relationship and deny defendants civil rights.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement had knowledge of this contract and intentionally interfered with it AND violated the defendants civil rights (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134 establishes the elements of tortious interference with contractual relations, emphasizing that the defendant must have knowledge of the contract and intentionally interfere with it) by deputy SAYLES whom ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE FALSE POLICE REPORT, willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, failed and refused to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, AS IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY AUTO TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET IN FIXING THIS CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM.
As a direct result of Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcements actions, Defendant has suffered losses and damages including but not limited to loss of business, personal, and real property, lost use of the truck, loss of services to the communities that they serve, loss of revenue, reputational harm, and emotional distress. Defendant also suffered damages, that need to be determined by the order ASAP for the truck be made available to us to get vital information from the engine, body, cab, under body, exhaust, etc., and a complete video investigation, analysis and documentation of the condition of the truck and the contents; to search, inspect, process and document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, finger printing, and clues for the damage, theft, vandalism, and missing/stolen business and personal property to ascertain the total vehicle costs, loss, damages as well as the theft costs, loss and damages. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago. Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802. This case highlights the requirement that the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s conduct was independently wrongful, which can include unlawful actions by law enforcement.
Defendant argues that the actions of Plaintiff’s and the Alameda County Sheriff’s violated the defendants civil rights and contends that the interference was not justified and was willful, intentional and conducted with malice. Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 1990, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507. This case discusses the necessity of proving that the interference was wrongful and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.
Defendant had a valid and enforceable contract with State Farm insurance company and Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement had knowledge of this contract. Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal. 4th 1140 (2004): This case illustrates intentional interference and the knowledge of the contract by the defendant and they acted with the intent to interfere.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were intentional and wrongful, constituting tortious interference with Defendants contractual relations. Burden v. County of Santa Clara, 81 Cal. App. 4th 244 (2000): This case highlights the limitations of tortious interference claims against government entities, noting that while government entities may have certain immunities, intentional and wrongful conduct still lead to liability.
Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company and Law Enforcement coercive, malicious, intentional tortious interference are a violation of our rights under the California Constitution is a deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process and their police actions are inherently coercive due to their societal trust. For a Civil Code Section 52.1 cause of action, two elements must be established: (1) intentional interference with a constitutional or legal right, and (2) that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion. The courts, in Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829, it was determined that relief is granted under Civil Code Section 52.1 if coercive actions are present. Cal. Civ. Code § 1714.10. Plaintiff’s and the County Sheriff’s actions were the actual and proximate cause of the interference.
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfere with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement intentionally failed to preserve evidence of the truck burglary is tortious interference due to spoliation of evidence and intentional interference with defendant’s prospective economic advantage, emphasizing defendants’ right to their injury claims are a valuable expectancy.
The Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy expose these actions of Grand Corruption as willful, intentional, malicious, capricious, outrageous and tortious in their failed attempt to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence to establish the truck was “STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED ” from East Bay Auto Center by East Bay Auto Center and/or with associated third parties, while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “civil” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of a federally protected right under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
This Grand corruption is systemic and endemic in ALL al-Hakim cases involves the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of AMWF, al-Hakim, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve.
This Plaintiffs, the Sheriffs, co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, and Law Enforcement ill advised strategy with actions to avoid investigation, detection and collection of the necessary evidence was founded to take the responsibility, accountability, and liability off the Sheriff’s to have performed their investigation and filing a legitimate police crime report by destroying the evidence!
Defendants expressed concern over the Sheriffs officers intentionally mishandling of the crime scene, bad faith failure to investigate and collect incriminating evidence, noting the significant stakes given the involvement of the Plaintiffs and their admissions implicating and incriminating police, that they worked with law enforcement, the police are accomplishes, collaborators, and Plaintiffs are under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist AMWF or Abdul-Jalil.
The courts has established that the government must investigate, detect, collect, and preserve evidence relevant to guilt or innocence as ministerial actions. The critical issue in this ministerial action of evidence collection by the Sheriffs is without discretion, leaving them solely responsible for evidence collection, and the failure to investigate and seize material evidence convicts them of their failure of duty to preserve it. Hence, Sheriffs DO NOT have unchecked discretion to investigate, detect, collect, and preserve evidence; AND given that Plaintiffs are admitted government assets, with court’s prior rulings on informant disclosure suggest that police should exert reasonable efforts to locate material witnesses, reflecting a similar duty to seize material evidence. Sheriffs were aware of the materiality of evidence and this understanding should have compelled them to act to preserve such evidence, aligning with the principle favoring the state in ministerial actions.
Case law indicates that while police officers have liability and they can be held accountable for negligent execution of decisions of issues that involve distinguishing between discretionary and ministerial actions.
The objective of the continuing Targeted Entrapment Strategy with “Target, Engagement, Harassment, Provocation, Litigation” tactics is designed to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- AMWF, Abdul-Jalil, al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives. The very nature and inherent structure/operation of the Political/Judicial Institution (Judges are Politicians= elected officials by the Public, to serve for the public) makes it diabolically impossible to journey from the Constitution to the Institution “Of The People, For The People, By The People!” that places them in this evil “criminal and civil rights/litigation meat grinder”.
This East Bay action is one of AMWF and Abdul-Jalil being forced into a small claims action that is both oppressive and coercive by limiting the money awards and the depravation of ones rights as the court decision is non-appealable.
This means that as a litigant, AMWF and Abdul-Jalil waives their most basic Civil and Human Right to a fair trial without recourse to appeal an intentionally wrongful decision that may be by design! This is unlawful, offends public policy, common law and an established concept of unfairness, is immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and causes substantial injury as a part of the larger planned “judgment peonage”, an activity to take bankrupting judgments against us, causing SEVER economic legal damages, non-economic damages, and punitive damages sentencing us to LIFE in “debtors prison”!
Over the last 50+ years al-Hakim’s “court activities” has documented, with filed and served court actions, filed and served complaints, and filed and served correspondence memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, Fixing Cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
al-Hakim proves where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate his rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528.
Some of those litigation opponents referenced these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in their filings, ALL of whom have been complained of or to are, in major part because al-Hakim reported the very obvious agenda of parties by memorializing and exposing the judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities corruption and persecution and their involvement in the cover-up of that criminal corruption.
The parties are Governmental and Quasi-governmental employees, agents, contractors, entities, associates, members, and contractors of their companies, the U. S. Federal Government, State of California, County, and City agencies, among others, have engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act.
Law Enforcement with associated third parties, engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance by and with unethical and criminal means, instigated and encouraged said acts, which gives rise to fraudulent, corruption as they conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived, employed and enacted the criminal, tactical, torture inspired policy of TARGETED HATE CRIME, Terror, Civil Conspiracy, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Hate Induced Bigotry, Vindictive Retaliation, Oppression, Harassment, Racism, Discrimination, Bias, Prejudice, Unfairness, Persecution, AND GRAND CORRUPTION, victimization, inciting acrimony, animus, in the continued persecution with calumny deceit and the attempted entrapment of us as the continuing “TARGET”.
ALL the DOCUMENTED actions alleged with cite relevant legal case authority to support arguments and assertions for a FORMAL COMPLAINT and Request for Investigation for Hate Crimes include violations of California Law including violations of the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts Civil Code section 51.7, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Acts, Civil Code section 52.1, Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983; California Government Code sections 11135 et seq., 12900 et seq., California Penal Code section 13023, California Penal Code section 422.55 and California Civil Code sections 51, 51.7, 52.5, and 54 et seq.; the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; California Constitution, Article VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475, 3523, and 3528, and for Harassment, Censorship, Fraud, Negligence, Misrepresentation, Abuse of Process, Abuse of Power, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Contract/Common Law 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-(California Civil Code § 1710), Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices, Unconscionability (UDAP), Elder Abuse.
The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, provides protection against interference or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion with a person’s exercise or enjoyment of any constitutional or statutory rights. Remedies for violations of the Ralph Civil Rights Act or the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act include restraining orders, injunctive relief, equitable relief to secure constitutional and statutory rights, actual damages, exemplary or punitive damages, a civil penalty of $25,000, and attorney’s fees. An action may be brought by the Attorney General, or any district attorney or city attorney, or by the individual harmed.
California Penal Code section 13023. California Penal Code section 422.55 defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.”
The California Attorney General DEMANDS an Investigation for Hate Crimes in violation of California Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts; the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983, California Penal Code sections 13519.6, Penal Code section 13023 and Penal Code 422.55 which defines a hate crime as “a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: (1) Disability, (2) Gender, (3) Nationality, (4) Race or ethnicity, (5) Religion, (6) Sexual orientation, (7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.” Cite relevant legal case authority to support arguments and assertions. Depending on the circumstances of each case, bias motivation may include, but is not limited to, hatred, animosity, discriminatory selection of victims, resentment, revulsion, contempt, unreasonable fear, paranoia, callousness, thrill-seeking, desire for social dominance, desire for social bonding with those of one’s “own kind,” or a perception of the vulnerability of the victim due to the victim being perceived as being weak, worthless, or fair game because of a protected characteristic, including, but not limited to, disability, gender, Age, Ancestry, Anti-Islamic, Anti-black or African American, Anti-other ethnicity/national origin, association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics of a protected class, Citizenship, Color Disability (physical, intellectual/developmental, mental health/psychiatric), Medical Condition (cancer or genetic characteristic), National Origin (includes language restrictions), Political Affiliation, Race (includes hairstyle and hair texture), Religious creed (includes dress and grooming practices), and aggrieve in their entrapment strategy with the use of confidential informants, snitches, government operatives can provide a number of conditions under which “an inducement to an individual to engage in crime is authorized.” This could apply to any or all of the actions taken in and of their services agency acting in their clients name and stead.
JUDGES THOMAS NIXON, BRIAN CARUTH, STUART HING, MICHAEL GAFFEY, CLERKS OF DEPT. 1, 105, 605, 711, PLAINTIFFS, AND CHAD FINKE ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in an unsolicited email to the court with Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
In that email East Bay wrote:
Hello Abdul jalil.
This is EAST BAY AUTO CENTER. I spoken last time with you to pick up your truck. Also I send email and text messages to pick up the truck.
We have no space for keep your truck that long. We small parking lot. This is Michanic shop not storage for your truck.
We send the truck back to storage yard. We not touched any things for your truck.
The truck is locked from the back of the truck. It’s still the same locked 🔒.
If you still want to pick up your truck please let me know we will pick it up from storage yard. Paying the storage money.
You have to pay me for the storage fee.
Please call for schedule to pick up the car.
If you have any questions please call me. Thanks
510-940-8675
Eastbayauto6@gmail.com
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to a unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
EBAC’s unsolicited admissions and confessions to the court and judges makes them all percipient eye witnesses. Further, in your/their fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!? Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., failure to perform your ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon EBAC unsolicited admissions and confessions with defendant’s NOTICED pleading constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice is a denial of access to the courts, in violation of defendant’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments! Thus as Judges and court administrators, you have rules governing the disposition of the such actions and pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, YOU ALL have been forever silent regarding this; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4
THIS SECTION ABOVE APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.
The Matters of the December 20, 2024 Hearing
At the December 20, 2024 Hearing, the court had appointed Cabral Bonner an attorney, in accordance with Article 6, section 21 of the Constitution of the State of California, to act as the Temporary Judge in this matters before the Court in this department on this date. The Defendant informs the court that he objects to having a pro- tem preside over the matter AND THAT THIS MATTER HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO JUDGE CARUTH AFTER BEING REASSIGNED FROM A PRO-TEM COMMISSIONER FICKLES. If the court was aware of this fact, it should have continued the matter BEFORE we appeared in court, as this was a complete waste of time!
Yet, Plaintiff’s East Bay Auto Center (EBAC) DID NOT appear and there was NO reason given for same. However, Mr. Bonner admits in court that EBAC had contacted the court earlier stating they would NOT appear, BUT NO ONE CONTACTED US, the DEFENDANTS! Here we have the court ADMITTING to having illegal ex-parte communications with the plaintiff’s WITHOUT informing defendants when a matter of a pro-tem was ALREADY DECIDED! As a hypothetical, what would have happened if defendants had agreed to having the matter heard by Bonner and the plaintiff’s FAILED TO APPEAR?! Would a default have been entered?! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!
THE ENTIRE “HEARING” WAS JUST AN ILLEGAL, PRETENTIOUS CHARADE BY THE COURT!
Conspiracy to Subvert, Pervert, Obstruct, or Defeat the Course of Justice
Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
Under section 182, subdivision (a)(5), it is a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit any act “to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.”
In 1950, the California Supreme Court explained the meaning of an act that perverts or obstructs justice, or the due administration of the laws:
“Generally speaking, conduct which constitutes an offense against public justice, or the administration of law includes both malfeasance and nonfeasance by an officer in connection with the administration of his public duties, and also anything done by a person in hindering or obstructing an officer in the performance of his official obligations. Such an offense was recognized at common law and generally punishable as a misdemeanor. Now, quite generally, it has been made a statutory crime and, under some circumstances, a felony. [Citation.]
“In California, the statutes relating to ‘Crimes Against Public Justice’ are found in part I, title [7], of the Penal Code. Bribery, escapes, rescues, perjury, falsifying evidence, and other acts which would have been considered offenses against the administration of justice at common law are made criminal by legislative enactment. Section 182, subdivision 5,[7] is a more general section making punishable a conspiracy to commit any offense against public justice.
The meaning of the words ‘to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws’ is easily ascertained by reference either to the common law or to the more specific crimes enumerated in part I, title [7]. A conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws is an obstruction of justice and an indictable offense at common law. [Citation.]In the same category is a conspiracy to obtain the release of a person charged with a felony by presenting a worthless and void bail bond. Such a conspiracy has been held to be a perversion of the due administration of the law, and an offense within the meaning of subdivision [ (a) ]5 of section 182 of the Penal Code. [Citation.]” (Lorenson v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 49, 59–60, italics added (Lorenson ).)
In Lorenson, the defendant was a police captain in the Los Angeles Police Department indicted for conspiracy to commit robbery, to commit assault with a deadly weapon, and to pervert or obstruct justice. (Lorenson, supra, 35 Cal.2d at pp. 50–51.) In rejecting a claim of insufficient evidence to support the indictment, the court concluded that one could infer from the evidence that there was agreement among the defendant, other members of the police department, and criminal associates of Mickey Cohen to assault and rob the victim, Pearson. The court further noted that there was evidence from which one could infer that the defendant and other police officers “were to furnish protection to the participants in the conspiracy by refusing to disclose the identity of Pearson’s attackers, if they were arrested, and to effect their release from custody.”(Id. at p. 57.) After the robbery and assault, Cohen’s associates were arrested (apparently by officers not involved in the conspiracy), but they were immediately released from the police station before Pearson could arrive to identify any of them, and the arresting officers were instructed not to talk about the incident. (Id. at p. 54.) Lorenson is an example of “[a] conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws,” an indictable offense at common law. (Id. at pp. 59–60.)
THIS SECTION ABOVE APPLIES TO EACH AND EVERY SECTION OF THIS DOCUMENT.
A “RAT” in Court Administration and Clerks Obstructed, Perverted the Course and Due Administration of Justice
On June 11, 2024, Abdul-Jalil appeared at window 12 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and filed our “Defendants Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court”. I was waited on by a young lady that appeared to be of Latin/Asian descent.
We had a discussion regarding my listing my name as the CEO and Person of Interest as it relates to the “defendants” filed in the East Bay Auto Center claim. As this conversation directly addressed MY NAME, she laughingly kept referring to me as “Mr. Wallace”, CLEARLY taunting, being disrespectful, antagonistic and provocative! I corrected her INTENTIONALLY calling me out of my name 3 times by responding softly with “Mr. al-Hakim” the first 3 times! At her fourth lashing out, I corrected her with a chuckle that let her know that I acknowledged she was being childish and petty trying to provoke me! When she grasped it, she got up and said “I’m going to lunch!”. She left and another clerk came over, Jamie J. Thomas, and took her place to complete the filing. While she left several times as I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she met with different people at a computer discussing something.
On June 13, 2024, I appeared at window 9 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants Small Claim and Order, and a letter to Commissioner Fickles and East Bay Auto Center that we OPPOSED the case being heard by and Request reassignment of the Case from a Judge Pro Team or Commissioner and Requesting a Court Reporter for the July 8, 2024 hearing. The clerk filed the letter but questioned the proof of service (attached as Exh. B), so she said she would talk to her supervisor. I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she spoke with someone (others) before she returned with clerk Jamie J. Thomas whom preceded to say that she could NOT accept the proof of service BECAUSE the ONLY one that they could accept was the standard form that comes with the SC-120 form. I informed her that this proof of service was the same as the standard form and is used more commonly in court filings and I have used them over 20 years without any problem. She said that I would have to serve the claim again or have the server to sign a new proof. But more alarming, she said I could fill out the proof to be signed by the process server, but I could NOT serve it because I’m listed as the agent for the service of process. NOW, just how did she know that and why did she need to know that? She obviously conducted her own investigation. She issued her ORDER and refused to accept the proof!
She read the letter then said that she could NOT give the letter to the Commissioner because she would be engaging in illegal ex-parte communications. I again stated that I have filed over 100 letters in the same fashion and never had a problem with them before as long as there was a filing cover page. (Attached as Exh. C)
Not wanting to argue with her also early trying to harass and inconvenience me, I said that I would file both with the presiding court judge whom I was going to file the Request for Reassignment with anyway, and I left.
On June 18, 2024, I appeared at window 4 in the Clerks General Office in the Rene Davidson of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants Continuance and Reassignment, a female clerk- “T. Hayle?” came out on 2 occasions, the first after a 15 minute wait, addressed me as Mr. Wallace, questioned the proof of service, debated the motion vs. declaration and need to refile with a reservation number. She made the RIDICULOUS argument that the “electronic filing system does not recognize documents on pleading paper” thus, I had to have the documents served again!
On December 19, 2024, I appeared at window 9 in the Clerks General Office in the Hayward Hall of Justice and attempted to file our proof of service for the Defendants EBAC Subpoena, Request for Production of Documents and Video Taped Depositions, and Order Shortening Time and was told by the clerk- “Malen Jih MSG?” that the server should have signed in Sheriff’s location on the proof of service. While she left as I sat at her window for over 15 minutes as she met with different people discussing something. She returned and repeated her statement and accepted the proof. Clearly that was NOT the case nor had the documents been signed in the wrong place! This statement exposes the fact that the court has had some interaction with third parties that has informed them that the documents WERE signed in the wrong place on the proof.
As we have EXTENSIVE documentation on the MANY egregious, unscrupulous, heinous illegal activities of court administrator Chadrat Finke and the employees with the District Attorneys office, WE ARE SURE THAT THEY HAVE EMPLOYED THE FULL FORCE OF THEIR OFFICES AND THOSE OF THEIR CO-CONSPIRATORS TO AFFACT AND DIRECT THE COURSE AND OUTCOME OF THIS AND ALL RELATED MATTERS!
Dept. 105 Clerk Sergio Lopez subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
On May 8, 2025 we sent the following email to Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke in response to the Continuing FAILED compliance from Dept. 105 Clerk Sergio Lopez.
That email is as follows:
CLERKS USUAL NON-RESPONSE TO EMAIL: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACEDear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al., After NOT getting a response from Mr. Lopez, the Clerk of department 105, for THREE (3) MONTHS, we still have NOT gotten a response to our email just a week ago! WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES! HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED HEREIN? We are requesting clarity on the issues below as follows:A) Does the reservation number provides for the motion to compel response to subpoenas and production of documents which are already listed, INCLUDE our demand for Videotape Depositions for each of 1) Plaintiffs, 2) California Department of Motor Vehicles, 3) Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 4) California Bureau of Automotive Repair, 5) California Department of Insurance, 6) State Farm Insurance, and 7) Alameda County Business Tax Collector as needed? Are we to use the same number for each separately?B) We want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAPC) Does the hearing on 6/10/2025, 9AM calendar INCLUDE an order on our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion and our motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025?D) IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S EBAC’S UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES. Further, in your fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!??E) OUR UNRESOLVED concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. What is the court going to do about this? Why is the date not changed to the very NEXT DAY, JUNE 11, 2025??!!?? Again, we will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served AND MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ
——– Message ——–Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al., So I’m very confused Mr. Lopez, just how does your attempted missed phone call to us this morning, May 1, 2025 at 7:58am, JUSTIFY YOUR THREE MONTHS OF WILLFUL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE SINCE FEBRUARY 4, 2025??!!?? The requests are very plain and does NOT take three months of your deliberation to understand, (or maybe it does!) and if they were THAT confusing, WHY DID YOU WAIT 3 MONTHS TO CALL AND HANG UP WITHOUT LEAVING A MESSAGE??!!?? Therefore, if you had NO idea of what we wanted in my EXTENSIVE emails and voicemails messages I left for you, WHY DIDN’T YOU JUST CALL to get clarity THREE MONTHS AGO??!!?? Your reservation number provides for the motion to compel response to subpoenas and production of documents which are already listed, BUT as written, excludes our demand for Videotape Depositions for each. It also does NOT address the fact we want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAP. You, Mr. Lopez have told us and written to us “Please be advised that Department 105 does not conduct ex-parte hearings”, yet, AS PART OF THE AUDIO RECORDING INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC IN THE COURTS ANNOUNCEMENT, YOU EXPRESSLY STATE THAT LITIGANTS CAN REQUEST EX-PARTE HEARINGS AND THE PROCEDURE FOR SAME! WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER TO THESE ISSUES! HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE JUDGES AND COURT ADMINISTRATION REFERENCED HEREIN? You note that the following is scheduled for hearing on 6/10/2025 9AM:Hearing on Motion – Other Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck. For clarity, WE WANT A DIRECT AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER to does this INCLUDE our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion and our motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025? The court should have ruled on these matters as summary judgment before now! Also shown on the schedule is “Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck.” We had Requested an IMMEDIATE Ex-Parte Hearing on Wednesday, October 9, 2024 or Friday, October 11, 2024 for Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck and to Compel Videotape Depositions, Production of Documents. We had requested the order ASAP for the truck be made available to us to get vital information from the engine, body, cab, under body, exhaust, etc., and video the condition of the truck and the contents to search, inspect, process and document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, finger printing, and clues for the damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property.
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroy the chain of custody! We called the County Sheriff’s and made arrangements to meet them there for a truck theft/missing report on October 2, 2024. Once we met there, Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S THE LOCATION OF THE TRUCK, OR WETHER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AGAIN AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As you are aware from our previous filings, in April 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As a result, we do not have a total value of the scope of loss and damage to the truck therefrom. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago! As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!! We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!! The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas. IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED PHONE CALL TO ME, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism! Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. As witnessed, in April 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! East Bay Auto Center is the ONLY suspects that could have stolen, burglarized, vandalized, and damaged the truck as it was not stolen by anyone else! AMWF’s truck was “STOLEN” from East Bay Auto Center while there for the insurance repair estimate, BUT NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!! The information as to the causes are stated herein AND THE IMMEDIACY WAS OBVIOUS. On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in an unsolicited email to the court with Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent! In that email East Bay wrote:
Hello Abdul jalil.This is EAST BAY AUTO CENTER. I spoken last time with you to pick up your truck. Also I send email and text messages to pick up the truck.We have no space for keep your truck that long. We small parking lot. This is Michanic shop not storage for your truck.We send the truck back to storage yard. We not touched any things for your truck.The truck is locked from the back of the truck. It’s still the same locked 🔒.
If you still want to pick up your truck please let me know we will pick it up from storage yard. Paying the storage money.You have to pay me for the storage fee.Please call for schedule to pick up the car.
If you have any questions please call me. Thanks510-940-8675Eastbayauto6@gmail.comThese admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE! They have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation. Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to a unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck! IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES. Further, in your fiduciary capacity as officers of the court and guardians of the public trust and interest, YOU ALL ARE MANDATED TO REPORT THESE CRIMINAL ACTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT! HAVE ANY OF YOU DONE THAT??!!?? Since you, Mr. Lopez, failed to respond, I will reiterate that we still have OUR UNRESOLVED concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. Previously, we received notice that the above entitled case has been reassigned from Commissioner Fickles to Judge Caruth in Department 105 as per Judge Nixon’s order and also received separate notice that the court date has been changed to Tuesday, July 9, 2024, in Department 105, at 9:00 a.m. It is well documented with the court over 40 years, AND MR. FINKE CAN VERIFY THAT, I have religious commitments on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and unavailable on those dates. The new date falls on one of those days I am unavailable. The matter was continued to present. How is this possible and what is the court going to do about this? Why is the date not changed to the very NEXT DAY, JUNE 11, 2025??!!?? Again, we will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served AND MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ
On 5/1/25 8:00 AM, Dept. 105, Superior Court wrote:
Please be advised that the court was attempting to understand the nature of your motions.The court had also attempted to call you to no answer (510-394-4501).A reservation number has been generated for the following:A-67622-003 Hearing on Motion – Other Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents. The following is scheduled for hearing on 6/10/2025 9AM24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER VS AARON & MARGARET WALLACE Small Claims Trial Hearing on Motion – Other Motion to Order Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center to Immediately Disclose Location and Examination of Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation truck. Hearing on Motion – Other Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents. Thank you,Mr. LopezDepartment 105 – Courtroom ClerkWiley W. Manuel Courthouse661 Washington StreetOakland, CA 94607(510) 627-4712
From: A. J. <ajalil1234@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 8:50 PM
To: Dept. 105, Superior Court <dept105@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept. 711, Superior Court <dept711@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept .1, Superior Court <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept. 605, Superior Court <dept605@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Nixon, Judge Thomas, Superior Court <tnixon@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Finke, Chad, Superior Court <cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Dept .1, Superior Court <dept1@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Caruth, Judge Brian, Superior Court <bcaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Gaffey, Judge Michael, Superior Court <mgaffey@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; Hing, Judge Stuart, Superior Court <shing@alameda.courts.ca.gov>; eastbayauto6@gmail.com<eastbayauto6@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 24SC067622 EAST BAY AUTO CENTER vs AARON & MARGARET WALLACE
Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, Plaintiffs, and Chad Finke, et. al., So I guess you, Mr. Lopez, et. al., DID NOT receive the emails below and therefore had NO idea of what I wanted in my EXTENSIVE voicemail messages I left for you either??!!?? We requested a hearing date and a reservation number(s) for our Motions to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the 1) Plaintiffs, 2) California Department of Motor Vehicles, 3) Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, 4) California Bureau of Automotive Repair, 5) California Department of Insurance, 6) State Farm Insurance, and 7) Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions for each. This matter MUST be heard in ANY Law and Motion judge including Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711 as soon as possible after the date above. We have yet to find ANY legal experts that can confirm that Small Claims Court DOES NOT ALLOW Ex-Parte motions. PLEASE PROVIDE THE SAME SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THIS MATTER FORWARD AS IT IS TOTALLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE THAT THIS WOULD TAKE THREE MONTHS FOR MR. LOPEZ TO DO!! THIS IS NOT JUST INCOMPETENCE, IT IS OBSTRUCTION IN IT’S MOST BLATANTLY PURIST FORM!! We want this heard on the Ex-Parte calendar ASAP. Additionally, attached is a copy of the filed proofs of service of our motions that the court allegedly ruled was NOT filed without disclosing “what motion(s)”? This may be a result of the proofs being filed a day before the hearing. On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion AND our Motion to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum AND the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents against Plaintiffs. They failed and refused to respond. The motion was personally served on November 20, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025 is attached. The motions to enter default for the non-response to the above motions was personally served on December 17, 2025 and filed on December 19, 2025 is attached. We also have a concern for the hearing being continued to TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2025. I was told by Mr. Lopez that small claims matters are ONLY HEARD ON MONDAYS AND FRIDAYS. The court is aware that I have Religious obligations on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays and therefore unable to attend. How is this possible and what is the court going to do about this? We will respond more thoroughly to these and other issues in a Declaration/Motion to be filed and served ASAP. This seems Mr. Lopez NOT receiving OUR emails is a reoccurring theme with you AND NEEDS TO STOP IMMEDIATELY as I reference my previous last TWO (2) voicemails and emails of February 4, 2025 and March 3, 2025 as follows: 1) ——– February 4, 2025 Message ——–Dear Mr. Lopez, I called you today at 1:47 pm and left you a message regarding my latest email to you on January 27, 2025 requesting a copy of the Courts order continuing the December 20, 2024 hearing and any rulings on our motions; Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum, Compel Videotape Depositions and Production of Documents, Entry of Default Order, Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction, Order Striking Complaint, Tortious Interference, Spoliation of Evidence, Intentional Misrepresentation, Grand Larceny, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Intentional Misrepresentation, Property Damage, and Extortion. Amazingly you replied to that message with this email at 1:56 pm. Thanks so much! But, why have you NOT responded to my emails regarding same, if in fact you respond to emails much quicker than phone calls/voice mails? You even remind the callers to your department 105 that the clerks may take up to 5 days to reply to phone calls/voicemails. I’m a little confused as to whether or not you are even getting my emails as there is NO indication that they have NOT been delivered to you as well as the others, Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 1605, 711, and Chad Finke. If there is a problem with the email delivery to you, PLEASE let me know, as it would ascertain just where the real problem is.Thanks again,AJ
2) ——– March 3, 2025 Message ——–TO: Judge Brian Caruth Muhammad Khan, Numi Khan Superior Court of Alameda County East Bay Auto Center Wiley Manuel Courthouse 21099 Mission Blvd. Department 105 Hayward, CA 94541 661 Washington St. Email: EastBayAuto6@gmail.com Oakland, CA 94607 Ph:510‐690‐2728 Email: dept105@alameda.courts.ca.govBCaruth@alameda.courts.ca.gov Presiding Judge Thomas Nixon Chad Finke Executive Officer Superior Court of Alameda County Superior Court of Alameda County René C. Davidson Courthouse René C. Davidson Courthouse Department 1 1225 Fallon Street, Room 209 Oakland, CA 94612 Oakland, CA 94612 Fax: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276 Fax: 510-891-6276 TNixon@alameda.courts.ca.govcfinke@alameda.courts.ca.govdept1@alameda.courts.ca.govcc: Judges Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711U.S. Postal Mail and EmailedFROM: Defendant Aaron & Margaret Wallace FoundationDATE: March 3, 2025NO PAGES: 1RE: Annual Retreat for Ramadan and Request Reservation number for Defendants Motion to Compel Compliance with Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions.“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 7:1-3The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given at the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew,
Dear Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, Plaintiffs, et. al.,This notice is to inform the Court and parties that I will be in annual retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan until April 5, 2025 and unavailable to respond to any litigation.We also want to request a hearing date and a reservation number for our Motion to Compel Compliance with the Filed and Served Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents on the Plaintiffs, the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector and Videotape Depositions for each. This matter MUST be heard in ANY Law and Motion judge including Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711 as soon as possible after the date above. We have yet to find ANY legal experts that can confirm that Small Claims Court DOES NOT ALLOW Ex-Parte motions.As referenced in our December 19, 2024, email to the court that the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents were filed and served on the California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, State Farm Insurance, and Alameda County Business Tax Collector that THEY ALL did not respond wherein we would file Motions to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Videotape Depositions and Production of Documents for ALL of them. Hence this request.As previously mentioned, I KNOW the court is aware, as is everyone else, that this matter CAN NOT BE HEARD IN FIFTEEN (15) MINUTE SMALL CLAIMS HEARING. OUR LITIGATION WITH WITNESSES ALONE WILL BE AT LEAST TWO (2) DAYS!!On November 18, 2024, Defendants filed our Motion for Order 1) shorten time per Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b) ); 2) ascertain the correct legal name Plaintiff’s; 3) to amend the complaint; 4) Order to Return Defendants truck; 5) Compel Videotape Depositions and Plaintiffs Production of Documents; 7) Transfer to Court of competent jurisdiction; 8) an order Striking Complaint of East Bay Auto Center; 9) Grand Larceny; 10) Tortious Interference; 11) Intentional Spoliation of Evidence; 12) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 13) Intentional Misrepresentation; 14) Property Damage; 15) Grand Larceny of Suspended LLC, 16) Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 17) Intentional Misrepresentation of Suspended LLC, 18) Property Damage of Suspended LLC, and 19) Extortion AND our Motion to Compel Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum AND the Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum and Request for Production of Documents against Plaintiffs. They failed and refused to respond.As mentioned, we waited over a month for the courts to respond to our last requests via email and there was NO RESPONSE, thus the earlier motion for an order shortening time.AGAIN, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS by the Plaintiffs to the court and Judges makes YOU ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES.Thanks,Abdul-Jalil al-Hakimajalil1234@gmail.com510-394-4501 In closing, these and other issues MUST be addressed by the court ASAP!Respectfully,AJ
On 4/7/25 4:13 PM, Dept. 105, Superior Court wrote:
Hello,Please specify what kind of motions you are attempting to file for the subjected case.Please list each motion numerically.Thank you,Mr. LopezDepartment 105 – Courtroom ClerkWiley W. Manuel Courthouse661 Washington StreetOakland, CA 94607(510) 627-4712
I consider the actions of ALL the clerks on those days to undermining and compromising the justice system and 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.
The court clerks staff could be viewed as having subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Under section 182, subdivision (a)(5), it is a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit any act “to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.” (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
Conclusion
Defendant has provided uncontroverted, uncontested, irrefutable PROOF of:
1) Proof Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey, Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711, and Chad Finke, et. al., failure to perform your ministerial and/or judicial duty, (as an officer/member of the court), by not acting upon EBAC unsolicited admissions and confessions with defendant’s NOTICED pleading constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice is a denial of access to the courts, in violation of defendant’s federally secured U.S. Constitutional Rights, guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments! Thus as Judges and court administrators, you have rules governing the disposition of the such actions and pleading and it is clearly established, but yet, YOU ALL have been forever silent regarding this; mainly, due to fraud placed upon the court. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” (See U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297 (5 th cir. 1977)). Fraud upon the court also warrants dismissal (see Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)).4
2) PROOF Pro Tem Mr. Bonner admits at December 20, 2024 hearing that EBAC had contacted the court earlier stating they would NOT appear, BUT NO ONE CONTACTED US, the DEFENDANTS! Here we have the court ADMITTING to having illegal ex-parte communications with the plaintiff’s WITHOUT informing defendants when a matter of a pro-tem was ALREADY DECIDED! As a hypothetical, what would have happened if defendants had agreed to having the matter heard by Bonner and the plaintiff’s FAILED TO APPEAR?! Would a default have been entered?! IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN!,
3) PROOF of Attorney General Rob Bonta’s GROSS MISCONDUCT in this continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme completed with this misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance,
4) PROOF of Alameda County Sheriffs, Law Enforcement, Attorney General Rob Bonta, Hayward Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; San Leandro Police Chiefs Abdul Pridgen/Angela Averiett; U. S. Attorneys Stephanie Hinds/Ismail Ramsey; F.B.I. NorCal Directors Craig Fair/Robert Tripp; with support from the Court, California Department of Motor Vehicles, California Department of Insurance, California Department of Consumer Affairs, California Bureau of Automotive Repair, and associated third parties implicated by East Bay Auto engaged and framed this TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE for the expressed purposes of targeted entrapment, tortious interference, fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance while claiming to hide behind their declaration of the CRIME being a “CIVIL” action, NOT A CRIMINAL ACTION, as their defense for NOT filing a legitimate police crime report AND destroying the evidence, FORCING a civil court/small claims action as their criminal prosecutor, deputy counsel, judge, jury, witness, executioner, demonstrate a CLEAR deprivation of federally protected rights under the U. S. Constitution and Civil Rights Act
5) Proof a “RAT” in Court Administration, Judges and Clerks actions constitutes a Subversion, Perversion, Obstruction, and Defeats the Course and Administration of Justice
Respectfully submitted.
Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******
Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, attached hereto please find a CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Things in response to the court order (attached) for production of documents in the above referenced matter. You were served this subpoena for the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles today, December 11, 2024 and should respond immediately.
Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, as the Custodian of Records you are NOT required to appear in person if within ten (10) days from the date of the serving of this request upon you, you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the “DEFINITIONS” Section as part of this attached affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271. (1) Place a copy of the records in an envelope (or other wrapper) where Documents produced shall be Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially. Enclose the original declaration of the custodian with the records. Seal the envelope. (2) Attach a copy of this subpoena to the envelope or write on the envelope the case name and number; your name; and the date, time, and place. (3) Place this first envelope in an outer envelope, seal it, and mail it to me at the address or email address (ajalil1234@gmail.com ) above. (4) The written response shall be served within ten (10) days of the service of this request.
SUBPOENA REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on Responding Party: Custodian of Records and Person Most Knowledgeable is used herein to refer to, and includes Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles, AND YOU are NOT required to appear in person if you produce (i) the Bates-stamped or otherwise numbered sequentially records described in the declaration on page two or the attached declaration or affidavit and (ii) a completed declaration of custodian of records in compliance with.As might be YOUR custom, you may provide responsive records in electronic format (i.e., text files that can be opened with any word processing software such as Word or TextEdit) or a searchable portable document file (PDF).
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.
REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS
ALL the Defendants, Requestors and Propounders seek disclosure of any and all records created which were prepared, received, transmitted, collected and/or maintained by the Plaintiffs, Responding Parties, ALL Government Related Parties, and ALL Government Related Third Parties, including but not limited to those listed in those sections herein.
YOU are requested to produce for inspection and copying, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031), the DOCUMENTS in the below-numbered categories. The production shall take place on December 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., at 4200 Park Blvd., Oakland, California, 94602.
This is a request for an opportunity to inspect and/or obtain copies of records of any and all documents, files, correspondence, audio and video files, or other records of yours and various National, State, County of Alameda and City of Oakland Offices under the provisions of CCP 2031 on behalf of the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders.
YOU are required to serve a written response, under oath, responding to each item or category as provided by Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031).
The written response shall be served within seven (7) days of the service of this request.
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was, but no longer is, in YOUR possession, custody, or control, please state whether such DOCUMENT was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and describe the circumstances and date(s) of such disposition.
This is a request for an opportunity to inspect and/or obtain copies of records of any and all documents, files, correspondence, audio and video files, or other records of yours and various offices under the provisions of Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031) on behalf of the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, family members Harun al-Hakim-Miller, Jalil Omar al-Hakim, Bari al-Hakim-Williams, and their siblings; and the entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth.org, eX-whY Adventures, their real, personal and business property (all herein after referred to as “ALL the Defendant/Requestors and Propounders and/or Defendant/Requestors and Propounders”)
Please process this request for ALL SECTION Requests under ALL statutes herein to release the maximum number of documents and records in the interests of justice and achieving full compliance with Evidence Code sections 1560, 1561, 1562, and 1271 governing this SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) AND Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031 (CCP 2031). Please search ALL your automated indices to the Central Records System, the older general (manual) indices, all Field Offices, other facilities that are separate from the office processing the request, or with another agency or agencies having a substantial interest in the determination of the request, or among two or more components of the agency or agencies having substantial subject matter interest therein needed to coordinate the response with different sections in the department that have responsibility for the requested records. This search is essential to collect and appropriately examine the separate and distinct records which are demanded so that copies of the following documents containing the following information be provided to us by Responding Parties and ALL Related Parties seek disclosure of any records for the Plaintiff/Responding Party.East Bay Auto filed a Small claims action to try to collect $3,400 in back storage fees BUT their status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, they may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto Center, their owners, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto Center, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) As the defendant, we filed a cross complaint and may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.We asked that the court award ALL costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, other losses and damages, and monetary sanctions in an amount according to proof. The costs are well over $20,000 at present.
As we have always maintained and is proven by their bad faith fact pattern, this was ALWAYS an entrapment scheme designed to take possession of the truck with it’s contents and trigger civil/criminal actions knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice. They are not acting alone!These requests are deemed to be continuing insofar as if any of the above is secured subsequent to the date herein for the production of same, said documents are to be provided to Defendant’s consistent within the applicable Rule of Civil Procedure.
This subpoena is not intended as a full or complete statement of all relevant demands, claims, facts or applicable law, and nothing herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my rights, remedies, claims or causes of action, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.
Please provide the records in an electronic format to: ajalil1234@gmail.com. Documents not in electronic format should be forwarded Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim below on or before the return date of this subpoena if you wish to comply voluntarily rather than appearing before the court.The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
Defendants the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation Claims
Defendants/Requesting Party’s, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, Harun al-Hakim-Miller, Patty Flenory, Jalil Omar al-Hakim, Bari al-Hakim-Williams, Joette al-Hakim-Hall, and their siblings; their affected entities Superstar Management, The Genius of Randy Wallace, Inc., Nowtruth.org, eX-whY Adventures, their real and personal property, their real property including but not limited to 7633 Sunkist Drive, Oakland, CA 94605, their businesses and business property, their charities, their communities, the communities they serve, those that they serve, HAVE an on going claim against the Responding Parties Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez and Deputy Markita Sayles and Plaintiffs Shah Sons LLC, DOING BUSINESS AS (DBA) East Bay Auto Center and Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, their alleged Asian investors, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Claims, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company Appraisal Team (“State Farm”), Gary O’Donnell, or any of its employees or representatives including but not limited to Mary Weaver, Gary O’Donnell, Madison Ritter, Kaitlin Hampe, Samantha B, Lex, Kendra Behrens, Victor Walker, “Neg”, Karena Kelly-Guishard, Lexie Figueroa, each of their contractors Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, with each of their investors, their predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, divisions, each of their past or present officers, their previous and current directors, previous and current employees, agents, consultants, independent contractors, representatives, lobbyist, experts, private investigators, private security, past and current attorneys, partners, associates, investigators, witnesses, litigation opponents, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, predecessors, affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, assigns, others unnamed as Does One through One Hundred, et. at.
On January 30, 2024, at 3:25 pm I went to East Bay Auto at 21099 Mission Blvd., Hayward, CA 94541 for a Alameda County Sheriff’s Civil Stand By observed by Deputies Joshua Chavez #2287 and Collin Lenahan #2453 to pick up our truck and East Bay Auto Center REFUSED to release it claiming they are owed storage.
East Bay admitted in the presence of the two (2) Deputies, whom are percipient eye witnesses, 1) that they DO NOT have a contract with us in any capacity, 2) that they were paid $1,050 by the insurance company for storage, 3) that East Bay has had many other communications and agreements with the insurance company and their agents, 4) they have had communications and agreements which we were NOT privy to and do not have copies of, 5) East Bay had previously told me that they had an agreement with the insurance company for the storage, BUT revealed that they actually have a check and displayed it before the deputies, 6) they referred to their hand written policy posted on the wall that they charge storage 2 days AFTER the completion of any work performed.
They have NOT and will NOT perform any work on the truck and I will never sign any work order for same nor have we singed a release for them to be paid!
I am the person for the Service Process in this Plaintiff’s fraudulent claim and named as the Person of Interest in this fraudulent alleged Lien Sale denied on February 7, 2024 by the Department of Motor Vehicle filed by these same Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center.
Plaintiff East Bay Auto Center filed this claim March 13, 2024, and allegedly served it via U. S. postal mail from Hayward, California with postage meter dated Monday, May 20, 2024.
We received the mailed letter claim on Friday, May 31, 2024. Yet only FIVE (5) DAYS LATER, on March 19, 2024, plaintiff’s contacted AMWF and Abdul-Jalil by phone and reply email dated March 25, 2024 with invoice dated March 19, 2024 DISAVOWING AND REJECTING their claim and REQUESTING that we come and retrieve the truck AT NO COSTS!
On April 22, 2024 Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO ALLOW THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S TO INSPECT THE TRUCK AFTER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES! As a result, we do not have a total value of the scope of loss and damage to the truck therefrom. The truck has over $200,000 in valuable items in the cargo payload bay since it has been in the possession and custody of the Plaintiffs a year ago!
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We declared we will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
On October 1, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been moved from the Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward. This was done WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION OR KNOWLEDGE! This was done to DESTROY the crime scene from the truck being stolen without being inspected nor investigated by law enforcement and destroy the chain of custody!
We called the County Sheriff’s and made arrangements to meet them there for a truck theft/missing report on October 2, 2024. Once we met there, Plaintiff’s FAILED AND REFUSED TO DISCLOSE TO THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S THE LOCATION OF THE TRUCK, OR WETHER IT WAS STOLEN, BURGLARIZED, VANDALIZED AND DAMAGED AGAIN AS PART OF COMPLETING A POLICE REPORT THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES!
On Friday, October 4, 2024, East Bay ADMITTED and CONFESSED in several unsolicited emails to the court and Judges Thomas Nixon, Brian Caruth, Stuart Hing, Michael Gaffey; Clerks of Dept. 1, 105, 605, 711; and court administrator Chad Finke that they have willfully and intentionally absconded with our truck and transferred the possession and control to a Third Party without our knowledge or consent!
These admissions and confessions are evidence that they willfully and intentionally improperly altered, concealed, suppression and destroyed evidence wherein the egregiousness of this spoliation, the strength and nature of their actions is untenable with any JUSTICE!
Plaintiffs and Sheriffs have NO REGARD FOR THE LAW NOR JUSTICE witnessed by this inference arising from the spoliation.
Now they attempt to EXTORT monies from us by holding the truck HOSTAGE and DEMANDING an unknown amount of towing and storage fees for payment to an unknown third party to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck, AS WELL AS payment of towing and storage fees to THEM to be paid TO THEM in advance of any delivery of the truck!
On November 2, 2024 we discovered that our truck had been returned to Plaintiff’s shop on Mission Blvd. in Hayward with additional damage. Upon investigation, the truck has been further BURGLARIZED by the breach of the lock on the roll up door and the roll up door itself! THE DAMAGES ARE UNKOWN AND YET TO BE INVESTIGATED!
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THESE UNSOLICITED ADMISSIONS and CONFESSIONS to the court and Judges makes them ALL PERCIPIENT EYE WITNESSES AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION.
As reported of this date, East Bay STILL has the truck and REFUSES to release it to us unless and until we indemnify them from ALL liability for their civil and criminal charges of larceny, fraud, theft, damage, if the vehicle is stolen from them, etc., so they may be able to do or have done anything they choose to the vehicle and it’s contents without any possible consequences!
The truck was supposed to have been returned to defendants by March 7, 2024, BUT that DID NOT HAPPEN.
Now, the truck has been STOLEN, was burglarized, vandalized, is damaged, and East Bay has refused to allow the COUNTY SHERIFFS nor us to inspect the truck for a complete analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages, UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SIGN A WAIVER OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR SAME! We will NOT ever do that.
As you have been advised, East Bay Auto Center filed a Small Claims action against us for an additional $3,400 storage fees beyond the amount they settled with State Farm for. We have filed a Cross Complaint against them for undetermined costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, and other losses and damages, has cab damage that is 57 inches long stretching from the rear passenger side to start of the cab damage that is 6-8 inches wide through the corporate lettering, the truck is currently lodged 2 inches within and against the fence and CAN NOT be moved without causing MORE significant damage!
The truck was NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!
East Bay Auto Center is NOT currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair nor the Alameda County Business License AS A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY, thus they are NOT authorized to do business in the State of California and don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit. They, East Bay Auto Center, may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer.
We discovered that the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) has Shah Sons LLC, listed as the “owner” of East Bay Auto Center. That is also true for the Alameda County Business License although their license is invalid for failure to file and pay taxes and comply with a mandatory audit.
HOWEVER, Shah Sons LLC, HAS NOT REGISTERED NOR ARE THEY USING A DBA (DOING BUSINESS AS) for East Bay Auto Center with any Federal, State, or County governmental agency, NOT the IRS, California Secretary of State State, California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair nor the Alameda County Business License.
In order for East Bay Auto Center to legally exist AS A LEGAL BUSINESS ENTITY, they would have to file the proper documents with the IRS, California Secretary of State State, California Franchise Tax Board, California Board of Equalization, California Bureau of Automotive Repair and the Alameda County Business License, establishing Shah Sons LLC, DOING BUSINESS AS (DBA) East Bay Auto Center. They have NOT done that even though they filed a Fictitious Business Name Statement with Alameda County.
Additionally, there are NO other REQUIRED means, NO INVOICES, NO ADVERTISEMENTS, NOTHING ON THEIR WEBSITE, that they comply with for the use of the legal name of the LLC- Shah Sons LLC, followed by the DBA- doing business as East Bay Auto Center. This practice clarifies the legal entity involved and maintain the LLC’s limited liability status. This ensures that the contracts are enforceable and that the LLC is recognized as the party to these endeavors.
If an LLC does not properly use its DBA, it operates under a DBA without using its legal name, it intentionally breaches the line between personal and business activities and loses the limited liability protection typically afforded to LLC members.This leads to “piercing the corporate veil,” where courts hold members personally liable for business debts and obligations, negating the primary benefit of forming an LLC. Courts have determined that the LLC is not a separate entity if it does not clearly identify itself, leading to personal liability for members.
Contracts should include clear liability clauses that outline the responsibilities and limitations of liability for the LLC. This can help protect the LLC from claims that may arise from business activities conducted under the DBA.
To maintain the limited liability protection of SHAH SONS LLC, it is crucial to keep personal and business finances separate. This includes using a dedicated business bank account and credit cards for all transactions related to the DBA- “Shah Sons LLC, doing business as East Bay Auto Center”. Open a dedicated business bank account for the LLC- Shah Sons LLC, that uses the legal name- “Shah Sons LLC, doing business as East Bay Auto Center”. This separation helps maintain the SHAH SONS LLC’s limited liability protection and simplifies financial management.
Given that EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) The defendant may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.
East Bay Auto has suspensions with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
We will ask the court to transfer the Small Claims action to Court of Competent Jurisdiction because we have no projected total of the costs, losses and damages to the truck that exceed the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to a court of competent jurisdiction.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
However, co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm are not acting alone as the ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s officers. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas.
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Sheriff’s Deputy Markita Sayles that she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES is PROOF of how POLICE FILE FALSE REPORTS, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, FIX THE CASE, COMMIT FRAUD to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto AFTER she:
1) admitted she talked with Law Enforcement Special Services resources twice to ascertain that she was proceeding in the correct manner according to their plan and her instructions. WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO CONSULT WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES TO TAKE AND FILE A SIMPLE, COMMON POLICE REPORT?,
2) East Bay Auto incriminated police admitting that they worked with police, are accomplishes, collaborators, were under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation or Abdul-Jalil,
3) The vehicle was ADMITTED stolen, burglarized, vandalized, fraud, larceny and damaged, BUT, BOTH policemen said “this is NOT a criminal matter, truck was not stolen”,
4) Dep. Sayles said she can’t inspect/process nor document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property, nor can Abdul-Jalil without the approval of their asset East Bay Auto,
5) Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times,
6) Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras,
7) Dep. Sayles said Abdul-Jalil didn’t answers her questions, BUT she NEVER asked basic questions as: Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, nothing on damage, suspects, the truck registration or VIN,
Dep. Sayles said Abdul-Jalil needed to go to court in order to get a police report, REFUSING TO TAKE A REPORT!, and
9) Dep. Sayles said it’s a civil matter 8 Times! NOT a criminal matter.
THIS VIDEO PROVIDES PROOF THAT SHERIFF’S DEPT. MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! Sayles “event/police report” states:
“RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”
Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, AND Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras! SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE!
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
The Entrapment Strategy is disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and Abdul-Jalil, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties, the threats/demands for Payment of Storage, refusal to pay for a Rental vehicle, mitigating the continuing Loss of Use and Damages, and their illegal clandestine efforts to gain ownership of our truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US with the FRAUDULENT attempted East Bay Auto Lien Sale and REFUSAL to release our truck to defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.
Defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation is going forward with Civil and Criminal Charges/Claims for Grand Larceny, Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Property Theft, Burglary, Vandalism, Extortion, Phone (Terrorist) Threats, Deception, attempted Grand Theft, Costs, Damages, Mitigating the Continuing Loss of Use, and Monetary Sanctions, among others with Federal and State Complaints filed against East Bay Auto and State Farm Insurance and served them both with Preservation-of-Evidence Demand Letter.
Additionally, with respect to any and all business operation regarding the defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation insurance policy and claim, and THE FACT that State Farm, their employees, their referenced agents, sub-agents, contractors, State Farm Claims, State Farm Appraisal Team, Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, and ALL known and unknown Third Parties have clearly “targeted” defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation and using recognizable government entrapment tactics the latest of which was the refusal to release the truck and “lien sale” to gain ownership of their truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US! As a direct and proximate result of State Farm and their co-conspirators East Bay’s continuing actions, defendants Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation is FORCED to make long term arrangements for the storage of the truck UNTIL STATE FARM PAYS FOR THE REPAIR AS AMWF PURSUES ALL OTHER REMEDIES!
Some Requests for Documents include:
61. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof of MARKITA SAYLES FILED A FALSE REPORT, LIED ABOUT ENTIRE POLICE REPORT, see: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
62. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof of MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! as Sayles her “event/police report” states “ RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
63. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof that Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
64. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by Markita Sayles PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from deputies Markita Sayles and Collin Lenahan is proof that Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
101. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “IN AN UNSOLICITED, UNWANTED PHONE CALL TO DEFENDANTS, SAYLES ADMITS SHE LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE! See video at: https://youtu.be/ZEgZRhuYOMM”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
102. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Sheriff failure and refusal to investigate and file a report established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
103. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Sheriff failure and refusal to investigate and file a report established a legal relationship between the Sheriffs and defendants that lead to liability based on the Sheriffs inducing reliance by the defendants, resulting in a greater risk of harm due to Sheriffs negligence than what the defendants already faced, then the Sheriffs fail to respond to requests for assistance or investigate when they promised to do so”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
104. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
105. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims of intentional spoliation of evidence have several irrefutable facts they can not overcome: Plaintiffs and the Sheriffs facing claims at all times of their duty to preserve the evidence, 2) they were fully aware at all times there was NO accidental destruction, this was willful and intentional; 3) they were aware at all times of the relevance of the evidence, 4) they were fully aware at all times of their intent and motive in the spoliation of evidence and this provided them the opportunity, 5) they were fully aware at all times of the willful and intentional causation of the spoliation of evidence, 6) they were fully aware at all times of the damages for the spoliation of evidence, and 7) they were fully aware at all times of their need for compliance with legal obligations regarding the spoliation of evidence”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
110. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfer with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent.”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
111. INVESTIGATE, PRODUCE AND Identify in detail all persons who may have knowledge of facts with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that “Defendant argues that Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions were NOT justified, that the interference was not justified, acted with the intent to interfere, was conducted with malice and this wrongful conduct lead to their liability. The evidence shows that Plaintiffs and Sheriff’s acted with the intent to deny, disrupt and intentional interfer with Defendants Constitutional and legal rights, that such interference was executed through threats, intimidation, or coercion, with their unreasonable seizure and deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process; and to deny and impede access to court and insurance companies with ALL the evidence that should have been readily available. Plaintiffs and Sheriffs actions of interference with Defendants rights protected by state or federal laws, specifically noting that Civil Code § 52.1 emphasizes the element of fear for safety associated with hate violence, particularly focusing on threats, intimidation, or coercion was deliberate and spiteful, serves to undermine the public trust and allowing such conduct to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent”. In that detail describe the actions of such individuals, those communications, identify all persons, and produce ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to and concerning the communications described in this action, any investigation, and identify the author of each such document. State the persons, business, employee or employees, agents, etc., who were aware of such facts, the source of their knowledge, the facts of which each such persons, business, agents, employee or employees was aware, and Defendant’s response to such facts, if any.
273. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to June 26, 2012, 50 page complaint regarding al-Hakim being accosted by the Sheriffs deputy stating “I have recently called and left messages as well as speaking to your clerk Elaine just last week regarding my desire to file several law suits as well as answering other matters that require the ability to file those required documents without the fear of being ambushed by the District Attorney’s office enforcers or the County Sheriff’s Department acting in their place and stead for other judicial entities. I have been precluded from any legal rights by virtue of this illegal, repressive censorship enacted by the DA’s office. This has gone on far too long and the legal consequences continue to mount as I am forbidden to pursue my civil rights in court without the oppression of the system by those in control of it. I want to and will file my law suits and go forward to resolution of these unprecedented matters in this public forum.” filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay.
274. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to January 7, 2014, 11 page letter, fax and email complaint in (ACDCSS) case number #0010274454-01 (previously listed as FSD #274454A) regarding “Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim being profiled, surveilled, identified, and targeted by the District Attorney and Sheriff’s Deputy, al-Hakim being accosted by Sheriffs Deputies and prevented from entering the Alameda Family Law Courthouse by County Sheriff’s who informed defendant that he must go to Judge Pulido’s courtroom to file the letter, that he would be handling this matter in Probate Court and defendants requesting security” filed with Winifred Smith- Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California; C. Don Clay- Supervising Judge, Superior Court of California; Stephen Pulido- Presiding Judge Family Law Court, Superior Court of California; and Judge Sandra Bean- Alameda Family Law Court, Superior Court of California.
289. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references which YOU contend support any position YOU have taken at any time with respect to plaintiffs July 11, 2018 hearing in the matters of al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371 and resultant complaint filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced in RE: “al-Hakim states “I have been in your courtroom over 20 times and I have never seen a deputy standing right behind the party during a hearing.” and you have THREE deputies in the courtroom right now!”, include ALL legal requirements, legal statutes, legal theory supported with law and case citations, review, analysis, evaluation, handling, adjustment, report, agreement, policy, guide lines, and regulations applicable in your argument denying YOU and Deputy Markita Sayles committed fraud upon the people of the State of California in fixing the case; admitted she was instructed by special services resources; perjury; fraud; subornation and solicitation of perjurious testimony; prejudicial misconduct; corrupt misconduct; illegal ex parte communications; grand larceny; tortious interference; intentional spoliation of evidence; fraudulent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation; property damage; filing an entire “false police report”; willfully fabricated evidence; committed misconduct; concealment; to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto; engaging in this Continuing Targeted Entrapment Scheme, “Bad Faith” Fact Pattern and Hate Crimes.
290. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to the October 3, 2018 hearing, the resultant letter, fax and email Complaint filed against Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced in RE: “Clay says “that’s normal, I may even have more!” al-Hakim says “for a civil ex-parte motion at 3:00 p.m.? I don’t believe that! Clay says ” It’s true”
297. ANY and ALL Documents, records, letters, tangible evidence, telephone records, law enforcement (including ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES- DOJ, FBI, Attorney General, District Attorney, Local Sheriffs and Police) reports, detective reports, photographs, insurance company documents and reports, video tape recordings or voice recordings, video files, film, photos, multimedia presentations, White Boards, DVD’s, CD’s, audio disc/tapes, MP3‘s, audio files, communications and/or other instruments of any nature mentioning, concerning, relating, referring or containing cross-references to the April 14, 2008 Complaint with respect to defendants EXPRESSED CLAIM that is evidenced therein the request for security against Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jon Tigar RE: “when al-Hakim entered the courthouse building, the deputy at the metal detector called upstairs to the courtroom, Department 21 to inform them of his arrival in the building” filed with Victoria B. Henley, Director-Chief Counsel of the Sate of California Commission on Judicial Performance, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye- Supreme Court of California and Chair, Judicial Council of California, and Commission Judicial Appointments; Judge Phyllis Hamilton- Chief District Judge, U. S. District Court- No. Division; Alex Tse- Director, U. S. Attorney’s Office; Xavier Becerra- Attorney General of California; Victoria Henley-Director-Chief Counsel, Commission on Judicial Performance; Martin Hoshino- Director, Judicial Council of California, Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge, former Presiding Court Judge George Hernandez and Alameda County Superior Court Administration.
These torts exposes the Responding Parties to the full array of tort remedies, including punitive damages on top of regular tort damages, for an insurance company’s unreasonable breach of an insurance contract.
Responding Parties engaging in the herein referenced Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” persecution to the detriment and oppression of Defendants, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, the communities they serve, and those they serve was both covert and overt, consisting of both actions and inactions of subterfuges and evasions that violated the obligation of good faith in performance with their continuing evasion of the spirit of the bargain, lack of diligence and slacking off, willful rendering of imperfect performance, abuse of a power to specify terms, and interference with or failure to cooperate in the other party’s performance.” (R. J. Kuhl Corp. v. Sullivan (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1589, 1602 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 425].)
As a direct and proximate result of Responding Parties actions, Defendant’s has suffered losses and damages, including but not limited to: 1) repair of their vehicle, 2) loss of use of the vehicle during the repair period, measured by the rental value of a similar vehicle, 3) loss of income due to the inability to use the vehicle for business purposes, 4) additional expenses incurred due to the inability to use the vehicle for personal and business purposes, emotional distress and inconvenience caused by the loss of use. As this matter is part of an ongoing action, defendants also has claims for 1) general and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial; 2) for costs of suit incurred herein; and 3) for any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim at:
Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation
4200 Park Blvd., Suite 116
Oakland, CA 94602
Tel: 510-394-4501Respectfully, Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
******* We received a voicemail for someone named Mary from State Farm claims inquiring into our moving the Truck from East Bay Auto Center.
As reported of this date, East Bay STILL has the truck and REFUSES to release it to us unless and until we indemnify them from ALL liability for their civil and criminal charges of larceny, fraud, theft, damage, if the vehicle is stolen from them, etc., so they may be able to do or have done anything they choose to the vehicle and it’s contents without any possible consequences!
The truck was supposed to have been returned to us by March 7, 2024, BUT that DID NOT HAPPEN.
Now, the truck has been STOLEN, was burglarized, vandalized, is damaged, and East Bay has refused to allow the COUNTY SHERIFFS nor us to inspect the truck for a complete analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages,UNLESS AND UNTIL WE SIGN A WAIVER OF THEIR LIABILITY FOR SAME! We will NOT ever do that.
As you ALL have been advised, East Bay Auto Center filed a Small Claims action against us for an additional $3,400 storage fees beyond the amount they settled with State Farm for. We have filed a Cross Complaint against them for undetermined costs, losses and damages from the un-inspected theft, burglary, vandalism, and damage to the truck we have yet to observe and document the losses and damages to the truck door locks, ignition, exterior and interior cab, engine, parts, body, theft and damage of it’s contents, and other losses and damages, has cab damage that is 57 inches long stretching from the rear passenger side to start of the cab damage that is 6-8 inches wide through the corporate lettering, the truck is currently lodged 2 inches within and against the fence and CAN NOT be moved without causing MORE significant damage!
The truck was NOT stolen nor burglarized through entry from knocking out the passenger door lock! There is ONLY 16 inches from the passenger door lock to the metal fence and 24 inches from the passenger door lock to the outer metal fence. That makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for someone to knock out the passenger door lock and a human body to open the door and enter the truck with less than 4 inches of clearance to enter given the design and build of the truck!! THE TRUCK WAS STOLEN THROUGH ENTRY FROM THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR AND THERE IS NO SIGN OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE DRIVERS SIDE DOOR LOCK, THUS LEAVING THE ONLY POSSIBLE ENTRY THROUGH THAT DRIVERS SIDE DOOR WITH A KEY!
East Bay Auto Center is Not currently registered with California Secretary of State nor the California Franchise Tax Board, thus they don’t have legal standing to file nor defend a law suit.
EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California. They may never have legally existed, they may be suspended for some reason, or they may not legally exist any longer.
Given that EBA status is not listed as a current Corporation with Secretary of State or State Franchise Tax Board authorized to do business in the State of California, there are multiple individual parties including East Bay Auto, Muhammad Khan, Sani Khan, Tariq Khan, Numi Khan, and Asian investors, there is good cause and we are asking the court to ascertain the correct legal name and status of East Bay Auto, the owners and investors of East Bay Auto, the correct legal names of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. CA Civ Pro Code § 116.560. (b) The defendant may request the court at any time, whether before or after judgment, to amend the defendant’s claim or judgment to include both the correct legal name and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s. Upon a showing of good cause, the court shall amend the claim or judgment to state the correct legal name of the plaintiff’s, and the name or names actually used by the plaintiff’s and investors.
East Bay Auto has suspensions with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).
We will ask the court to transfer the Small Claims action to Court of Competent Jurisdiction because we have no projected total of the costs, losses and damages. losses and damages to the truck that may exceed the jurisdictional limits stated in Sections 116.220, 116.221, and 116.231, and if so, request the small claims court to transfer the small claims action to a court of competent jurisdiction.
I base my request for the imposition of a sanction on the basis that it took me over 47 hours to research and locate the correct Plaintiff’s personnel, many phone calls, letters, emails and faxes in communication with the parties referenced herein, to research and prepare this motion, costs, and expenses according to proof. My discounted hourly wage is $350 per hour (from regular posted fee of $550/hour) for the 47 hours spent on this matter equals $16,450 alone.
As it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the COUNTY SHERIFFS to conduct a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF EAST BAY TO REFUSE THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY SHERIFFS NOR FOR THEM TO COMPLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DENYING OUR RIGHTS TO “COVER UP” FOR THEIR ASSET!!
We will NOT move the truck unless and until East Bay allows the COUNTY SHERIFFS and us to inspect the truck for a complete investigation, analysis and documentation of the total theft loss and damages IN THE LEGAL FORM OF A FILED POLICE REPORT!!!
The COUNTY SHERIFFS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY AUTO as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover up for them, implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s deputy Markita Sayles whom ADMITS she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES. Video is available on Youtube. See “ILLEGAL POLICE TARGETED ENTRAPMENT BACKFIRES! TRAPS POLICE, EXPOSES IMMORAL, UNETHICAL SCHEME!” at: https://youtu.be/kus80M56Vas. A FORMAL COMPLAINT WILL FOLLOW UNDER SEPARATE COVER.
Here we have the County Sheriff covering for their “asset” East Bay Auto and co-conspirator State Farm insurance company, is proven in the video by THEIR AND POLICE ADMISSIONS and Bad Faith/Hate crime fact pattern, was ALWAYS a Scheme to take possession of the truck, provoke and frame civil/criminal legal actions by fabricating a disputed legal issue we would be subjected to knowing that the courts are inapposite to our justice.
IT IS CLEAR THAT ABDUL-JALIL, HIS FAMILY, THEIR BUSINESSES, AND NON-PROFIT, the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation, HAS BEEN TARGETED WITH SPECIOUS, TORTIOUS ILLEGAL CLANDESTINE ACTS ON THE PART OF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH THE INTENT TO DESTROY THEIR LIVES!
However, co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm are not acting alone as the ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF AND LAW ENFORCEMENT have been IMPLICATED BY EAST BAY as an accessory and collaborator in this case, providing them protection and cover implying GROSS MISCONDUCT as evidenced in the video of and the “event report” from April 22, 2024 filed by the Sheriff’s officers.
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Sheriff’s Deputy Markita Sayles that she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES is PROOF of how POLICE FILE FALSE REPORTS, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, FIX THE CASE, COMMIT FRAUD to cover for their “asset” East Bay Auto AFTER she:
1) admitted she talked with Law Enforcement Special Services resources twice to ascertain that she was proceeding in the correct manner according to their plan and her instructions. WHY WOULD SHE NEED TO CONSULT WITH AND BE INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES TO TAKE AND FILE A SIMPLE, COMMON POLICE REPORT?,
2) East Bay Auto incriminated police admitting that they worked with police, are accomplishes, collaborators, were under the protection of law enforcement covering for their asset and would NOT do anything to assist AMWF and Abdul-Jalil,
3) The vehicle was ADMITTED stolen, burglarized, vandalized, fraud, larceny and damaged, BUT, BOTH policemen said “this is NOT a criminal matter, truck was not stolen”,
4) Dep. Sayles said she can’t inspect/process nor document the truck as a crime scene for evidence, damage, theft, vandalism, missing/stolen business and personal property, nor can Jalil without the approval of their asset East Bay Auto,
5) Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times,
6) Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras,
7) Dep. Sayles said Jalil didn’t answers her questions, BUT she NEVER asked basic questions as: Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, Telephone, nothing on damage, suspects, the truck registration or VIN,
Dep. Sayles said Jalil needed to go to court in order to get a police report, REFUSING TO TAKE A REPORT!, and
9) Dep. Sayles said it’s a civil matter 8 Times! NOT a criminal matter.
THIS VIDEO PROVIDES PROOF THAT SHERIFF’S DEPT. MARKITA SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “POLICE REPORT”! Sayles “event/police report” states:
“RP (Reporting Party, Abdul-Jalil) UPSET THAT HIS VEHICLE THAT UNDER THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP HAS DAMAGE. THE AUTO BODY SHOP STILL HAS CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE AND THE VEHILCE HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE RP. THE RP WAS ADVISED THE MATTER WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS ADAMENT THE THERE IS A CRIME EVEN THOUGH DEPS TOLD HIM IT WAS CIVIL. THE RP WAS UPSET AND DEMANDED A REPORT. WHEN ASKED WHAT WE WERE INVESTIGATING THE RP SAID THAT WOULD BE UP TO US. NO REPORT TAKEN”
Abdul-Jalil requested a Police Report OVER 21 times, AND Dep. Sayles said she would conduct a thorough investigation, interview shop owner, personnel and neighbors, check local cameras! SAYLES LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE “FALSE POLICE REPORT” and willfully committed PERJURY, FABRICATE EVIDENCE, MISCONDUCT, CONCEALMENT, COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN FIXING THE CASE!
This video PROVIDES ADMISSIONS from Markita Sayles she was INSTRUCTED BY SPECIAL SERVICES RESOURCES TWICE is PROOF there is a continuing Targeted Entrapment Scam/Sting/Scheme and Hate Crimes. The Sheriff’s office trapped themselves in CORRUPTION and SUBORNED PERJURIOUS TESTIMONY, in this State sponsored terror; with vindictive retaliation against AMWF and al-Hakim family while defending, concealing and thereby being further complicit in committing THE ADMITTED willful and intentional extrinsic fraud upon the people of the great State of California and the Court; fraud; prosecutorial misconduct; willful and malicious prosecution; willful misconduct; conflict of interest; obstruction of justice; denial of due process under the law; willful and intentional fabrication and authoring false evidence; misstating and mischaracterizing evidence; misrepresentation and concealment of material facts with knowledge of the truth with the intent to induce the court’s act or reliance; harassment; intimidation on behalf of the County Sheriffs; abuse of discretion, misconduct, conduct prejudicial, illegal ex-parte communications and bias designed to result in fixing the case against AMWF and al-Hakim; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing the police report and investigative process in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; provocation, bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate, bigotry and racism!
The Entrapment Strategy is to disable, destroy, and eliminate the TARGET- AMWF and Abdul-Jalil, the al-Hakim family, their businesses and business property, their real and personal property, their charities, their communities, and the communities they serve- personally, professionally, morally, ethically, and financially with the courts system to deny and exhaust any and all notions of civil rights, civil liberties, human rights without the God given right to undertake unbiased litigation without the deciding and controlling actions and influence of corrupt unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, agencies and operatives.
We have PREPARED SUBPOENAS TO BE SERVED THIS WEEK ON ALL THE PARTIES REFERRENCED HEREIN that we have documented AND filed SEVERAL Federal and State complaints of being complicit in the illegal TARGETED ENTRAPMENT activities WITH AND AGAINST Police Chiefs Tony Chaplin/Brian Matthew; Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez; Police Chief Abdul Pridgen; U. S. Attorney Ismail Ramsey; Attorney General Rob Bonta; F.B.I. Director Robert Tripp; Governor Gavin Newsom; Casey Hallinan; Ricardo Lara- DOI; Steve Gordon- DMV; Patrick Dorais- BAR; Kimberly Kirchmeyer- DCA; Grant Parks- State Auditor; Selvi Stanislaus- FTB; Senator Aisha Wahab; District Attorney Pam Price; HUD; et. al., against co-conspirators East Bay Auto/State Farm for their active, continuing role in this Targeted Entrapment Scheme and “Bad Faith” by them, their agents, contractors, and ALL known and unknown, announced and unannounced Third Parties, the threats/demands for Payment of Storage, refusal to pay for a Rental vehicle, mitigating the continuing Loss of Use and Damages, and their illegal clandestine efforts to gain ownership of our truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US with the FRAUDULENT attempted East Bay Auto Lien Sale and REFUSAL to release our truck to AMWF.
AMWF is going forward with Civil and Criminal Charges/Claims for Grand Larceny, Grand Theft Auto, Fraud, Property Theft, Burglary, Vandalism, Extortion, Phone (Terrorist) Threats, Deception, attempted Grand Theft, Costs, Damages, Mitigating the Continuing Loss of Use, and Monetary Sanctions, among others with Federal and State Complaints filed against East Bay Auto and State Farm Insurance and served them both with Preservation-of-Evidence Demand Letter.
Additionally, with respect to any and all business operation regarding the AMWF insurance policy and claim, and THE FACT that State Farm, their employees, their referenced agents, sub-agents, contractors, State Farm Claims, State Farm Appraisal Team, Alacrity Solutions, LLC, Snapsheet, Up North Towing, Blue Star Towing, and ALL known and unknown Third Parties have clearly “targeted” AMWF and using recognizable government entrapment tactics the latest of which was the refusal to release the truck and “lien sale” to gain ownership of their truck WITHOUT PAYING FOR THE REPAIR NOR COMPENSATING US! As a direct and proximate result of State Farm and their co-conspirators East Bay’s continuing actions, AMWF is FORCED to make long term arrangements for the storage of the truck UNTIL STATE FARM PAYS FOR THE REPAIR AS AMWF PURSUES ALL OTHER REMEDIES! ALL THE PARTIES HEREIN ARE DEMANDED TO LODGE AND FILE THE REQUISITE COMPLAINT AND BEGAN THE MANDATORY INVESTIGATION PROCESS!
Respectfully,
Abdul-Jalil
510-394-4501
*******
Anti-SPAM Policy Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary to our company that is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.
This e-mail message was sent to you because you have previously corresponded with us and/or are subscribed to one of our emailing lists.
If you have received this communication in error, or this e-mail is unsolicited, please accept our apologies and at any time you would like to remove yourself from our mailings, please feel free to do so by clicking on “Unsubscribe“, or you can also notify the sender immediately and we shall delete your address, or replying to this message and type “Unsubscribe” in the subject line to remove yourself from our mailing list.
If you’ve received unsolicited email from one of our users, or if you suspect a user of abusing email services (or have any questions regarding our policies), please do not hesitate to contact us. Under Bill 1618 Title III passed by the 105th U. S. Congress, email cannot be considered Spam as long as it includes contact information and a remove link for removal from the mailing list.
We prohibit users from sending unsolicited email, and do not allow the use of third-party, purchased, rented, or harvested mailing lists. Anyone found abusing such email is banned from the use of our service.
Every complaint is investigated, and you will receive a response from our abuse team detailing the action we’re taking to deal with the issue.
Thanks in advance for you time.
—
Creating and Edvocating Relevant Social Service Programs
—
Creating and Edvocating Relevant Social Service Programs Attachments:
| al-Hakim Decl:State Non-Svc Brand Vexatious Litigant List 7:8:25.pages.pdf | 146 KB |
| Kaus:Jones:Nixon DQ Decl AMWF v SF 8:12:25.pdf | 415 KB |