TO: Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments 350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102 Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4205, 415-865-4391, 415-865-4586
Martin Hoshino Victoria B. Henley
Director Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586 FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Judge Kevin R. Murphy- Dept. 10 Chad Finke
Judge C. Don Clay- Dept. 6 Executive Officer
Judge Michael M. Markman- Dept. 2 Superior Court of California
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee- Dept. 18 County of Alameda
APPELLATE DIVISION 1225 Fallon Street Room 209
Superior Court of Alameda County Oakland, CA 94612
René C. Davidson Courthouse Fax: 510-891-6276
1225 Fallon Street email@example.com
Oakland CA 94612
JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Judge Kevin R. Murphy Fax: 510-891-6276; Judge C. Don Clay Fax: 510-891-6276, Judge Michael M. Markman Fax: 510-263-4309, Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee Fax: 510-891-5304
Faxed and Emailed
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: March 21, 2018
NO PAGES: 15
RE: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Letter Demanding Investigation of interference of Judge Kim Colwell and her operation of Department 511, the Superior Court of Alameda Administration and Chad Finke, and the Judicial Council in ALL the matters of Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, including but not limited to al-HAKIM VS CSAA- Wellpoint, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #C811337, California Appeals Court Case# 153510, California Supreme Court Case# S-247169.
“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3 “The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
This fact is live and well in this complaint as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Murphy, Clay, Markman, and Lee, Mr. Hoshino, Mr. Finke, Ms. Henley and Associate Justices of the Court:
I was in Department 511 of Alameda County Superior Court yesterday and was appalled by the treatment I received! I will address that at another time when I’m dealing with Judge Colwell and the continued corruption of her staff there and the process for having an Ex-Parte hearing.
Something must be done about this immediately as I served her Challenge while on the bench wherein she denied it WITHOUT READING A WORD AND she rejected a motion for a stay in proceedings yesterday even though the order she issued for sale of my home is in appeals now, and has scheduled the sale by the County Sheriff’s for March 9, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. She said the stay, if issued, “has no affect in her Superior Court!”
Now I want to address the constant “Power Grab” and incessant meddling in my cases by Judge Colwell.
As part of the ongoing judicial administrative appeal in the cases of the challenged judges Carvill and Madden, I filed discovery motions to compel documents from Third Party Respondents that address the issues raised and opened to discovery by Judge Holland in his sworn affidavit in the judicial administrative hearing that is in appeals now.
As there is NO OTHER WAY to obtain the documents from the Third Party Respondents, judge Colwell, who is subject of and to those request, attempts to deny the discovery as “moot”.
The motion to compel discovery is NOT moot as it addresses the APPEALS issues raised by Judge Holland in his sworn affidavit striking the challenges to Judges Carvill and Madden and does not affect the substance of the Miller v al-Hakim case and is NOT subject to dismissal as “moot” by Colwell who was mentioned by name in Hollands order citing “CRIMES” by judges! Colwell merely seeks to shut down the discovery into her own criminal activity and that of the others she wants to cover up for and protect!
Her/Their ruling states:
“MOTION FOR DISCOVERY The motions of defendant Al-Hakim to compel discovery from third parties are DROPPED as moot.”
The motion to compel third party discovery is NOT moot and is NOT subject to dismissal as “moot” by Colwell!
In August and September 2017 we served and filed Request for Production of Documents and Subpoena’s on third parties the Superior Court, Judicial Council, Oakland City Attorney, Alameda County District Attorney and Alameda County Department of Child Support Services, Twitter, Google, Interserver, Equinix, and plaintiff J P Morgan Chase Bank, (Respondents).
In Judge Holland’s DECISION RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE JENNIFER MADDEN. CCP §§ 170.1 and 170.3(c)1. Alameda Court Case No.: No.OCV-0574030; Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17, Filed April 11, 2017, he plainly states “Mr. al-Hakim’ s personal knowledge of these circumstances is not adequately demonstrated in his declaration.” and “Nowhere does al-Hakim offer competent evidentiary support”.
Holland discusses crimes that were committed, criminality, wherein he mentions various parties that have been named. This fact alone opens up discovery into those matters that he says are not and can not be contained in transcripts.
He writes in a footnote on page 4 of his decision of the challenge for cause of judge Madden:
“This alleged investigation in this case is described in broad terms in the Statement: “[Judge] Madden has been, is and will irrevocably tainted and will/must be a NAMED defendant, witness, and attorney with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office (DA) that is involved in these two, 30 year, ongoing legal cases and investigation by the U.S. and California State Attorney Generals involving the DA’s office and the Oakland City Attorney fraud that Nancy O’Malley, Kamala Harris, and Judge Kim Colwell is also named in that is directly involved in these same case attempting to be put before her to serve as judge and trier of fact in!” (Sic.) Statement, 3:25-4:4.”
On May 9, 2017, Judge Wynne Carvill issued an “Order for Stay Pending Appeal” pursuant to CCP §§ 916, and a Case Management Conference set for November 8, 2017.
To date we have been denied ANY reporters transcripts or clerks notes, yet we have a court waiver for transcripts.
We have maintained for years that the evidence most important, relevant, and mandatory in this case lies in the file cabinets of various parties we have referenced in our filings of the Challenges in question.
All the Third Party Respondents has failed and refused to serve any response to Defendant al-Hakim’s Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, under per CCP 2031, and Subpoena and thus the Court should make an Order Compelling the Responses and imposing Monetary and other Sanctions for failure to respond.
These documents are necessary to investigate and prepare this case for motions, hearings, trial and this appeal.
The records of Third Party Respondents are relevant to the claims in this action and are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants have a compelling need for Third Party Respondents records that overcomes any possible objections of the responding parties.
Defendants are unable to obtain Third Party Respondents’s complete records any way other than through the properly served Demand for Production of Documents and Subpoena.
These documents are necessary to investigate and prepare this case for motions, hearings, trial and any appeal.
Defendant is informed and believe that said records are essential to the defense and will facilitate the ascertainment of true facts and a fair trial in this matter. (People v. Superior Court [Barrett], supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1315-1316.) The are needed ASAP. Failure to comply with a Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Subpoena may be punished as contempt. (Penal Code § 1331; Chapman v. Superior Court (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 199; 19 In Re Garcia (1974) 41 Cal.App.4th 997, 999.)
I petition the Alameda County Superior Court for an order directing Respondents to appear before the Court at a specified time and place to show cause why they have not produced or permitted the inspection or copying of the documents demanded by the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Subpoena which are currently in the possession of the Respondents and to thereafter enter an order compelling Respondents to comply with the Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Subpoena.
I am informed, believe, and thereon allege that based on my knowledge of the multiple cases files, and those referenced in previous court filings, testimony, evidence, including F.B.I. and confidential informants reports, that there exist good cause for the production of the above records. Moreover, that there is a reasonable likelihood that the records will disclose relevant and material information.
It should be noted that we have filed THREE (3) subpoenas and SEVEN (7) Requests for Production of Documents, in various forms of under California Rules of Court 10.500, FOIA, Brown Act- California Public Records Act Request (PRA), and Ethics Complaints with NO RESPONSE on the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, California State Attorney General, the Oakland City Attorney, Superior Court Administration, and the Judicial Council.
Just as important is the fact that we, as the moving party, has the burden of establishing grounds for disqualification based on facts, that we know are not inscribed in the transcripts.
The most profound element that has come out of this is judge Holland’s comments as follows:
”Here, Mr. al-Hakim alleges a litany of serious misconduct or outright criminality – by persons other than Judge Carvill, He complains of past mistreatment by numerous judges (and at least one commissioner) apparently because they ruled against him in other cases as well as the instant case. Al-Hakim’s attack is not limited to judicial officers. He accuses numerous other persons and agencies of serious wrongdoing.”
Judge Lesley Holland criminality comments portray perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
The Judicial disciplinary bodies handed judge Tigar a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If I somehow think my civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how am I going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give me a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Am I suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?
To that end, I have had to request a corrections three times and to the Tentative Ruling issued just December 7, 2017 allegedly by Judge Madden as the ruling is defective on it’s face. The ruling fails to mention the Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena served and filed upon Third Parties that were present for that calendared motion hearing on December 7, 2017. There was no “motion for terminating sanctions” scheduled for hearing yesterday.
The six other parties present were a little confused regarding the proceedings as none of us were there for the alleged “motion for terminating sanctions” as announced in the court and shown in the Tentative Ruling.
On October 2, 2017, I made and received a reservation number to file Motions (plural, multiple) to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc. in this matter. Although the motions were the same, there were multiple, separate third parties.
We also had scheduled a Case Management Conference hearing in this matter at the same time on November 8, 2017 at 9:15 A.M. That also was not mentioned in the Tentative Ruling.
We ALL would like some clarity and direction from the court as to this matter so that we can move forward ASAP.
As we mentioned in ALL our correspondence and filings since August 16, 2016 with the court since we have appeared, we made a formal challenge for cause in the courtroom and stated we also intend to file litigation regarding Judge Colwell’s continued improper presence in ANY and ALL matters that concerns US as it is clear her finger prints are all over this case and others while she has been involved in a previous matter that is still outstanding and will be served as a defendant, witness, and conspirator with an irreparable conflict. These concerns will be addressed!
At the hearing on November 8, 2017 al-Hakim reminded Colwell of her conflict saying “I confirmed that there are documents that state that fact least 15 times. She laughs saying “that’s a lot”. al-Hakim stated “you are involved in this very same case before you. “How?”. al-Hakim stated “in Judge Hollands affidavit in the decision on the challenges to judge Carvil and Madden, he discusses crimes that were committed, criminality, were he mentions various parties. Colwell says “Who?”. al-Hakim informed her “he mentions the District Attorney, Oakland City Attorney, California Attorney General and various judges. She states “that doesn’t involve me”. al-Hakim replied “yes it does, you were named as well”. Colwell contorts “What do you mean?”. al-Hakim read “he named you personally.” As the court crowd collectively exulted “OOOOOUUUuuuu!” she blurts out “that’s enough, that’s enough!!” then turns to the court clerk and says “call the Sheriff in here!!”. She adds “I’m going to pass on this case until I can check this out.”
The Sheriff Deputy comes into the court.
After being in chambers with another case parties, she calls us back up and announces that “I have checked everything and found nothing in judge Hollands decision or the files that mention or relate to me and I see no conflict. So I can hear this matter.” Clearly from just the information I have presented here, that is NOT true!!
Her/Their ruling states:
“The court did not hear the matter on 2/22/17 because al-Hakim filed challenges. The court dropped the motion by mistake. On 1/23/18, the court corrected its error and placed the motion back on calendar for 2/8/18.”
This statement is intentional FALSE!
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye Orders Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County
On Monday, January 22, 2018 the hearing scheduled on the Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Renewed Judgment and for Terminating Sanctions and other relief, and Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., in MILLER VS HAKIM, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #OCV0574030 was continued by the Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, to February 8, 2018, in Dept. 511 at 9:00 a.m.
The Chief Justice. She wrote:
“THE HONORABLE JOHN B. ELLIS, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, is hereby assigned to sit as a Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, on the following date(s): January 8, 2018 To February 8, 2018.
and until completion and disposition of any specific open motion or other matter pending in a case before the judge at the time the assignment ends. Any further motions or other matters in the case may be heard only pursuant to a separate appointment order. Dated: January 8, 2018”
This essentially amounts to a Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County which al-Hakim OPPOSES because it does NOT hold the corruptors and abusers accountable for their continued actions! This is merely a inconvenient way out for them! If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!
However, on January 23, 2018 Judge Colwell issued an Order calendaring the Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment, Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions (See Colwell’s Order under Ex “B”, page 2) as follows:
“ORDER (1) PLACING MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT BACK ON CALENDAR AND (2) STATING COURT’S UNDERSTANDING OF EFFECT OF ORDER OF 1/11/18. On 1/31/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion for terminating sanctions. This was set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 10/11/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion to compel discovery. These were set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18. On 12/13/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a challenge to Judge Krashna. On 1/8/18, the Chief Justice assigned the challenge to Judge Ellis in Solano County. On 1/18/18, Judge Ellis issued his decision.
ORDER The court ORDERS that the motion of al-Hakim to vacate and set aside the judgment under CCP 473 is PLACED ON CALENDAR for 2/8/18. It appears that the court somehow dropped the matter and never decided the motion. The court may correct its ministerial errors. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 181, 185; Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1199,1204.) The court ORDERS that its understanding of the 1/8/18 order of the Chief Justice is that the order assigned the challenge of Judge Krashna to Judge Ellis in Solano County but did not assign all pending motions to Judge Ellis. There was no request to assign all motions to an out of county judge. Judges in the Superior Court, Alameda County, will continue hearing the motions in this case.”
The order was dated January 23, 2018 and the proof of service was filed and mailed on January 29, 2018.
Additionally, there were orders issued January 24, 2018 by Colwell both the same day and proof of service was the same day January 29, 2018 calendaring the Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions.” This effort on behalf of Colwell is another “power grab” in an effort to conceal and further cover up that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Even though she had NO authority to administer, rule, or decide the case until AFTER February 8, 2018, on February 6, 2018 Colwell issued a tentative ruling in the case, I opposed that tentative ruling the same day, she held my ex-parte hearing February 7, 2018, to continue the matter and I was granted that continuance to February 26, 2018. She totally usurped the power of the Chief Justice and independently determined the outcome of the matters properly before Judge Ellis alone!
The hearing resulted in Judge Colwell “granting” my motion to vacate and set aside the renewed judgment after a 22 year struggle for justice! But it is a pyrrhic victory as she did NOT award fees, costs, sanctions as plead, but attempted to dismiss the discovery aspects of the case as “moot” since the case is over! She did this because the discovery is directly related to the need for additional information and documents as by ordered by Judge Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden. In his order/opinion he specifically refers to “criminal conduct” on behalf of Judge Colwell that she nows seeks to award herself a “plea bargain with a get-out-of-jail-free card!”. I opposed the ruling and it is scheduled to be heard on Monday, February 26, 20018 in department 511.
The tragedy of how these motions were continuously and mysteriously “dropped” from the calendar even AFTER SEVEN complaints, is subject of the corruption investigation right now and is a reason that the Chief Justice took the case away from Colwell and her court administration to begin with! Judge Ellis upon his review was taken aback when he reviewed this case as there was NO logical reason why this has continually happened in al-Hakim’s cases.
Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have ignored the rule of law, undermined public safety and compromised the justice system by fabricating, altering, manipulating, and tampering with the record have actually prevented the orderly administration of justice. As Faretta recognized, the record can only be read as an attempt to abuse the dignity of the courtroom and impugn the integrity of the rule of law as their actions “deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct” (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46. at pp. 834-835, fn. 46 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581, fn. 46]) that threatens to subvert the core concept of a trial.
Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Judge Colwell and her administrative staff is guilty of manipulating the calendar, changing motions and the calendar weekly, without any pleadings nor notice! I have asked before “Why and how did this motion manage to be removed from the calendar, by who and when? This also happened with the recent motions to compel as they were left off the calendar but mysteriously the motion to vacate and set aside the renewed judgment and the motion for terminating sanctions and other relief was placed on the calendar! On both the last two hearing dates the Case Management Conferences were also left off the calendar and tentative rulings! on 12/13/17 hearing the court will decide that motion. The complaints involve the court Department Clerk’s administration mishandling of motions with them being mis-titled or changing the title of motions as filed, calendared unwanted motions without notice or cause, calendared motions without notice, motions being dropped from the calendar without notice, parties missing from rulings without notice or cause, parties being removed without notice or cause, changing orders, changing tentative rulings, calendaring motions that were NOT requested, posting tentative rulings AFTER the scheduled hearing time, deleting items from the register of actions, and falsifying the record (for appeal), are VERY SERIOUS threats to the Rule of Law as practiced by the acceptable courts in America! Perhaps even MORE dangerous is the silence that pervades the court when asked “Why, How and by Whom?”
I have many unanswered questions for this court and Judges Carvill, Jacobson, Rolefson, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution I, my family, businesses, and communities we serve continue to suffer at your individual and collective gavels.
Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have entered information into the court’s computers to make it appear that the register of actions and record on appeal would not reflect what actually occurred in the cases. In some cases, the fraudulently created/altered records made it appear that certain matters had been dismissed or certain parties were NEVER apart of an action or motion.
The actions of falsifying court records had been complained of to Colwell and the presiding and supervising judges to no avail!
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.
Colwell and her Court Administration perverts or obstructs justice, or the due administration of the laws.
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)).
I have always stated that Judge Colwell has been, is and will be a NAMED defendant, witness, and conspirator from her work as attorney and partner of the law firm of Meyers Nave that is directly involved in the herein mentioned crimes as Colwell obtained intimate knowledge and information regarding disputed evidentiary facts known to defense counsel and the judges she represented for years as Colwell served as defense counsel for three retired judges in this CSAA case; participated in their preparation and defense litigation strategy regarding their subpoenas; communicated with plaintiff al-Hakim regarding same; served as defense counsel for those judges while working as a law partners at Myers Nave with managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case files; wherein Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams- while Oakland City Attorney- gave the case files to CSAA lead defense counsel for 18 months; Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case file gave them to then Judge David Lee- Colwell’s client- for the CSAA trial without informing the court that the defendants had custody of the case files for 18 months breaking the chain of custody; Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case file was evidence that related to the contamination of al-Hakim’s home; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware of the fabricated and planted evidence and that it related to the contamination of al-Hakim’s home; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA intervened into the underlying Rescue case in violation of the law AFTER her client Judge Lee had dismissed them when they presented a fabricated order allegedly signed by her client Judge Richard Hodge; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA intervened into the underlying Rescue case in violation of the law AFTER her client Judge Lee had dismissed them when they presented a fabricated order allegedly signed by her client Judge Richard Hodge; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that the fabricated and planted evidence was the ONLY evidence presented at trial by CSAA; participated in CSAA’s preparation and defense litigation strategy regarding their involvement with the fabricated and planted evidence, chain of custody of City of Oakland case files, CSAA fabricated Hodge’s order; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA constructed fraudulent fabricated evidence in 1999 and planted that evidence favorable to the defendants in the files SIX years AFTER the case was closed; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA engaged in spoliation of remaining evidence in the court files from 1991; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA fostered witness testimony based on this planted evidence in the al-Hakim v CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that the fraudulent fabricated evidence was created thru EXTRINSIC FRAUD with accompanying testimony procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious acts; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they engaged in actions to destroy the litigation of al-Hakim’s legal case; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they engaged in actions to coverup their unlawful acts; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they committed, aided and abetted this criminal activity with this unpardonable breach in the chain of custody of the court files to accommodate the defendants litigation strategy in both the CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case.
This case is the currently a $600,000 lien by Ropers and CSAA as part of their unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains on a property! NOW WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH THE SAME MATTER BEFORE HER TO ADJUDICATE AND ACT AS DEPUTY DEFENSE COUNSEL TO AFFIRM HER COMPENSATION RULING FROM THE BENCH!!!
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL BY THE DEFENDANTS CSAA WAS THE FABRICATED NOTES PLANTED IN THE CASE FILE BY COLWELL’S MANAGING PARTNER AT MEYERS NAVE AND GIVEN TO JUDGE TIGAR AND HER CLIENT JUDGE DAVID LEE AT TRIAL!!!
For these reasons, and because Judge Colwell is a material, percipient eye witness concerning her conversation, communication, correspondence, actions with her clients, partners, co-workers, employees, defendants, and experts, contend that Judge Colwell must be disqualified for cause pursuant to section 170.1, subdivision (a)(1) (the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts) and (a)(6) (a person aware of the facts reasonably might entertain a doubt whether the judge would be able to be impartial). An example of disqualification for personal knowledge is found in People v Avol (1987) 192 CA3d Supp 1, 6, 238 CR 45 (judge’s ex parte inspection of property violated defendant’s right to controvert evidence, but did not violate due process right or require reversal given overwhelming evidence and complete lack of showing of prejudice that might have required recusal).
Something must be done about this immediately as the scheduled sale by the County Sheriff’s is set for March 9, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. She said the stay, if issued, “has no affect in her Superior Court!”
The discovery must go forward to complete the appeals process.
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.
TO: Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye