Judge Kim Colwell and her Departments 511 and 507 Continued Fraud Complaint

TO:   Judge Michael Markman        Judge Kim Colwell
Judge Wynne Carvill                       Judge Jeff Brand
Judge Kim Colwell                           Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Jon Rolefsen                         Departments 511 and 507
Judge Evelio Grillo                           Hayward Hall of Justice
Judge Morris Jacobson                  24405 Amador Street
Judge C. Don Clay                          Hayward, CA 94544
Judge Winifred Smith                     FAX #: 510-690-2824
Judge Yolanda Northridge
Judge Stephen Pulido
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee
Judge Kevin R. Murphy
Superior Court of Alameda County
Departments 1, and 511
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.507@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KMurphyalameda.courts.ca.gov, JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov, YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov,

Chad Finke                                     Judge Lesley Holland
Executive Officer                           Superior Court of San Joaquin County
Superior Court of California         Departments 31and 12
County of Alameda                       Stockton Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street Room 209      222 E. Weber Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612                      Stockton, California 95202
Fax: 510-891-6276                      Fax: (209) 992-5667
cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov

Martin Hoshino                                Victoria B. Henley
Director                                            Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California          Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue                455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688     San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586                 FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov           Victoria.Henley@jud.ca.gov
John.Wordlaw@jud.ca.gov

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye            Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California         Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments                 350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                               San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                          Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205        Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov

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

Xavier Becerra                                   Matthew A. Brega
Attorney General of California         Director- D C. S. S.
1300 I Street, Suite 125                    Alameda County District Attorney
P.O. Box 944255                               5669 Gibraltar Drive
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550         Pleasanton, CA 94588-8547
FAX No.: (916) 324-8835                Fax No.: 925 468-9008
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov             Matthew.Brega@acgov.org
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov         Sue.Eadie@acgov.org
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov               Ann.Deim@acgov.org

Barbara J. Parker                                 Mayor Libby Schaff
City Attorney                                        City of Oakland
City of Oakland                                    One City Hall Plaza, 3rd Floor
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor         Oakland, CA 94612
Oakland CA 94612                              FAX #: 510 238-4731
FAX #: 510 238-6500                         LSchaff@oaklandnet.com
info@oaklandcityattorney.org            officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com
BJParker@oaklandcityattorney.org        mayor@oaklandnet.com
sli@oaklandcityattorney.org, aflores@oaklandcityattorney.org
DWalther@oaklandcityattorney.org, oaklandcityattorney@gmail.com

Sabrina Landreth                                      Nancy O’Malley
Oakland City Administrator                     District Attorney
City of Oakland                                         René C. Davidson Courthouse
One City Hall Plaza, 3rd Floor                 1225 Fallon Street, Room 900
Oakland, CA 94612                                  Oakland, CA 94612
FAX #: 510 238-2223                               FAX #: 510 271-5157
ATodd@oaklandnet.com                          Nancy.OMalley@acgov.org
shom@oaklandnet.com                           Kevin.Dunleavy@acgov.org
slandreth@oaklandnet.com                     Michael.OConnor@acgov.org
cityadministrator@oaklandnet.com        David.Stein@acgov.org

Brenda Roberts                                    Whitney Barazoto
City Auditor                                           Executive Director
City of Oakland                                    Public Ethics Commission
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 4th Floor         1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 4th Floor
Oakland CA 94612                              Oakland, CA 94612
FAX #: 510 238-7640                         Fax (510) 238-3315
BRoberts@oaklandnet.com                wbarazoto@oaklandnet.com           cityauditor@oaklandnet.com             ethicscommission@oaklandnet.com         slawrence@oaklandnet.com            MDalju@oaklandnet.com

Jayne W. Williams
Principal
Meyers Nave
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland CA 94607
FAX #: 510 444-1108
jwilliams@meyersnave.com
bcc
Faxed and Emailed

FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     February 9, 2018
NO PAGES: 14
RE:        Judge Kim Colwell and her Departments 511 and 507 Continued fraud, al-Hakim v. CSAA and in Miller v al-Hakim, Case: #OCV0574030

“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 Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:

Last week I sent you ALL a 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint and it is already outdated and Judge Colwell TOTALLY BURNED Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye! I will file a Formal Complaint next week!

The Complaint concerns the Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Demand for Removal of Judges For Cause; Due to Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law; 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 by Judge Kim Colwell; and to Vacate ALL Rulings and Orders Issued IN THE MATTERS OF: al-Hakim v. EBMUD, al-Hakim v. CSAA; and Miller v. al-Hakim.

Well this week I had to file a Writ of Mandate against Judge Colwell when she was served a Peremptory and Challenge for Cause while on the bench, she acknowledged the Challenges, I insisted that she could not hear anything regarding the case as she was challenged and had to answer first, she ignored that discussion of whether she could even hear any matters and proceeded into the case and decided three crucial natters, an OSC, Motion to Quash and sanctions.

She later answered the Peremptory and Challenge for Cause, but chose to eliminate ANY reference to the Peremptory Challenge as if it did not exist!

On January 31, 2018 I sent a faxed and emailed letter to Judge Colwell and defendants counsel in the al-hakim v CSAA case Mr. Bradley stating “ I was informed by the court clerk in Oakland today that there is an order on the Challenge of Colwell, Order to Show Cause and the Motion to Quash Subpoena that was heard on January 22, 2018 in Department 511. I would like to receive a copy of those orders ASAP.”

Colwell allegedly issued order striking the challenge on January 25, 2018 and granting defendants motions for OSC, Quash Subpoena and sanctions on January 26, 2018 yet plaintiff al-Hakim had not received them by January 31, 2018, with the 10 Day limit to file a Writ flying off the calendar!

Colwell was in clear violation of the law as it is prejudicial misconduct for a judge, after a valid peremptory challenge and challenge for cause has been made, to continue to decide any contested issue. Wenger v Commission on Judicial Performance (1981) 29 C3d 615, 643, 175 CR 420. This was a gross abuse of discretion!

Courts have held that once a timely challenge is made, the judge loses jurisdiction to proceed and any subsequent orders made in the case are null and void. See, e.g., Solberg v Superior Court (1977) 19 C3d 182, 190, 137 CR 460 (dicta); Ziesmer v Superior Court (2003) 107 CA4th 360, 363– 364, 132 CR2d 130; Zilog, Inc. v Superior Court (2001) 86 CA4th 1309, 1323, 104 CR2d 173; Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v Philo Lumber Co. (1985) 163 CA3d 1212, 1219, 210 CR 368. In Louisiana-Pacific, the court held that because the challenge takes effect instantaneously and irrevocably, later events, such as a dismissal, do not cause a rescission of the challenge even if it operates to the disadvantage of coparties who have remained in the case after the party making the challenge has been dismissed. 163 CA3d at 1219, 1221. See also People v Whitfield (1986) 183 CA3d 299, 303, 228 CR 82 (after disqualification following peremptory challenge, judge immediately loses jurisdiction, and all subsequent orders and judgments are void).

The judge who is subject to a peremptory challenge under CCP §170.6 loses jurisdiction in the case. Thus, a subsequent judgment by that judge is void when the case was tried before another judge and declared a mistrial and then transferred to and tried before the original judge. In re Jenkins (1999) 70 CA4th 1162, 1165–1167, 83 CR2d 232. A judge should accept a challenge with equanimity. Improper reactions to peremptory challenges have been the subject of judicial discipline, as in Wenger v Commission on Judicial Performance (1981) 29 C3d 615, 643, 175 CR 420 where continuing to decide contested issues in a case in which a peremptory challenge had been filed was prejudicial misconduct.

Colwell has willfully and repeatedly abused her discretion and she should never be allowed to pass upon her own disqualification for abusing that discretion. (1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Courts, § 89, p. 362; 1983 supp., § 89, pp. 282-283.)

I ask that the court should forward a copy of it’s opinion to the Commission on Judicial Performance, the body best suited to determine whether Judge Colwell’s actions constitute actionable judicial misconduct. (Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 8, 18; see Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3D(1).).

I raised the issue of the judge’s disqualification in a timely manner BEFORE the judge had completed judicial action in the proceeding and before the judgment was final. Further, his uncontradicted allegations established disqualification under section 170.1, subdivision (a)(2). Because the judgment was rendered by a disqualified judge, the judgment is voidable upon plaintiff’s objection. ( In re Christian J., supra, 155 Cal. App. 3d at p. 280.)

The acts of a judge subject to disqualification are void or, according to some authorities, voidable. Giometti v Etienne (1934) 219 C 687, 688– 689 (void); Urias v Harris Farms, Inc. (1991) 234 CA3d 415, 424, 285 CR 659 (voidable); Betz v Pankow (1993) 16 CA4th 931, 939–940, 20 CR2d 841 (voidable); Rossco Holdings Inc. v Bank of America (2007) 149 CA4th 1353, 58 CR3d 141 (void); Christie v City of El Centro (2006) 135 CA4th 767, 37 CR3d 718 (void); see also §2.75 for discussion of effect of rulings by judge who was subject of a peremptory challenge.

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 she 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 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 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)).
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. 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.
The Court of Appeal expanded upon Lorenson in Davis v. Superior Court (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 8 (Davis ).
In Davis, the Court of Appeal held that conduct that perverts or obstructs justice is not necessarily limited to crimes listed in part 1, title 7 of the Penal Code, nor are all crimes in that title necessarily crimes that pervert or obstruct justice:
“The reference [in Lorenson ] to ‘Crimes Against Public Justice’ does not necessarily exclude a crime not defined within the four corners of that part 1, title [7], of the Penal Code. The court’s reference to such crimes was illustrative, rather than exclusionary; the type of conduct with which title [7] principally deals falls within the category of acts ‘to pervert or obstruct justice.’
From Davis, the Attorney General relies on the sentence, “The court’s reference to such crimes [found in part 1, title 7 of the Penal Code] was illustrative, rather than exclusionary; the type of conduct with which title [7] principally deals falls within the category of acts ‘to pervert or obstruct justice.’ ” (Davis, supra, 175 Cal.App. 2d at p. 16.)
The court ruled in Gallegos- Curiel, 681 F.2d at 1169 (“[T]he appearance of vindictiveness results only where, as a practical matter, there is a realistic or reasonable likelihood of prosecutorial conduct that would not have occurred but for hostility or a punitive animus towards the defendant because he has exercised his specific legal rights.) (citing Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 373, 384). The mere appearance of prosecutorial vindictiveness suffices to place the burden on the government because the doctrine of vindictive prosecution “seeks[s] to reduce or eliminate apprehension on the part of an accused” that she may be punished for exercising her rights. Ruesga- Martinez, 534 F.2d at 1369. As the district court noted, the “prophylactic” doctrine is designed, in part, “to prevent chilling the exercise of [legal] rights by other defendants who must make their choices under similar circumstances in the future.” United States v. DeMarco, 550 F.2d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 1977).
Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have ignored the rule of law, undermined public safety and compromised the justice system by 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.
This scheme may have affected hundreds of cases and caused havoc in Superior Court – problems that are further complicated if the judge or clerk encouraged others to lie about the scheme.



Judge Colwell has Personal Knowledge of Disputed Evidentiary Facts
Judge Colwell, who has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts in proceedings assigned to them must recuse themselves. CCP §170.1(a)(1)(A). A judge is deemed to have “personal knowledge” if the judge knows that the judge, his or her spouse, or a relative within the third degree of kinship to either of them or the spouse of such a person is likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

CCP §170.1(a)(1)(B).
CCP §170.3(b); Cal Rules of Ct 2.818(c)(2)(C) [temporary judge].
b. [§2.12] Former Counsel
A judge is disqualified if the judge served as a lawyer in the proceeding, represented one of the parties in another action that involved the same issues, or gave advice to one of the parties on any matter involved in the present proceeding. CCP §170.1(a)(2)(A). A judge is deemed to have served as a lawyer in the proceeding if, within the past two years:
• A party or an officer, director, or trustee of a party was a client of the judge or of the judge’s former law firm (CCP §170.1(a)(2)(B)(i)); or
• A lawyer in the proceeding was associated in private practice (see CCP §170.5(e)) with the judge (CCP §170.1(a)(2)(B)(ii)).
The judge is also disqualified if he or she was an attorney with a public agency that is a participant in the proceeding and personally advised or represented the agency regarding issues present in the proceeding. CCP §170.1(a)(2)(C).
When the judge has served as an attorney in the matter in controversy, the disqualification may not be waived. CCP §170.3(b)(2)(B); Cal Rules of Ct 2.818(c)(2)(B) [temporary judge].
A judge has a duty to disclose that the judge’s former firm has represented one of the parties. Urias v Harris Farms, Inc. (1991) 234 CA3d 415, 425, 285 CR 659. Although this fact may be common knowledge in the community, it is the judge’s responsibility to disclose this fact and not counsel’s responsibility to uncover and reveal it. 234 CA3d at 425.
c. [§2.13] Financial Interest
A judge who has a financial interest in the proceedings or in a party to the proceedings is disqualified. CCP §170.1(a)(3)(A). The judge is disqualified if the financial interest is held by the judge, the judge’s spouse, or a minor child who is living in the judge’s household, or if it is held by the judge or the judge’s spouse in a fiduciary capacity, i.e., as an executor, trustee, guardian, or administrator. CCP §§170.1(a)(3)(B), 170.5(g). A judge must make reasonable efforts to keep current and informed about all such financial interests so that he or she may make knowledgeable decisions regarding recusal.

CCP §170.1(a)(3)(C).
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.

Colwell’s clients Retired Judges David Lee, Michael Ballachey, and Richard Hodge, though they live in three different counties, all coincidentally hired the same Oakland defense firm, Meyers Nave, run by former Oakland City Attorney Jayne Williams whom was responsible for providing the files to the defendants for 18 months initially, fabricating and planting that evidence in the case files that was then given to Colwell’s client Judge Lee for trial. Judge Colwell, then the partner and attorney at Meyers Nave handled the requested depositions and investigation concerning retired Judges Lee, Ballachey, and Hodge, thereby actively participating in the continued cover up of the admitted crimes of all those involved.

For years al-Hakim had engaged in protracted litigation activities with Colwell, her managing law partner at Myers Nave, Jayne Williams, Kim Drake, and others regarding these herein referenced issues. They are ALL were and are a defense counsel, defendant, percipient eye witness, and conspirator with an irreparable conflict! Colwell had NO defense nor answers to the undisputed, uncontroverted facts and evidence of her involvement in the illicit issues raised in the First and Second Challenge that SHE DOES NOT DENY, JUST WANTS TO IGNORE THEM AWAY as NONE of them are allegations and conclusions unsupported by specific references to evidence!! Colwell is guilty of perjury again, lying by omission! Does she deny working with the three retired judges in this very same CSAA case she has now attempted to rule the final death blow to al-Hakim by granting defendants Order to Show Cause Cause for Sale of Dwelling!
The CSAA defendants, their experts, witnesses, and legal counsels in both the Rescue Rooter and CSAA cases with their perjurious testimony given by the defendants witnesses on the fabricated and planted evidence that was denied at the end of her client retired judge David Lee trial; the fabricated and planted evidence in the City of Oakland case file that fostered the perjurious testimony given by the defendants witnesses that was denied at the end of her client retired judge David Lee’s trial was the ONLY evidence provided at trial by defendants CSAA in their case before judge Jon Tigar? Colwell’s personal involvement in the defense legal strategy, representation and cover up of these ongoing crimes are even more apparent in her most recent efforts to silently dispose of this case with the sale of the home without acknowledgement of any complicit actions on her part. These FACTS and EVIDENCE are a part of the case files and court records so she can not rationalize away her crime stained hands with a “unclean hands” defense.

al-Hakim has always complained in WRITTEN FORM in every contact with the court, over 50 times, of Colwell’s illegal involvement in this and other cases since the first matter arose in Department 511 in June 2016. Plaintiff has filed in EVERY written document, correspondence, motion, answer, request, reply, and oral argument, FROM THE FIRST TO THE LAST, his standing objection to Colwell’s involvement in ANY way, administrative or otherwise, in one of the following forms:

A) “We will 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!”

B) “As we mentioned in ALL our correspondence and filings 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!”
C) “I am herewith opposing the tentative ruling and further reiterate that I oppose any and every ruling issued by this tainted judge and have a standing objection to her continued obstruction of justice by remaining in this case prohibiting justice as “Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied!”.
The U. S. Attorney General General has ordered that this matter be investigated and ALL the parties have 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 several judge including 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 al-Hakim Family’s rights under the United States and California State Constitution.

For these reasons, and because Judge Colwell would be a material, percipient eye witness concerning her conversations with the judges and others and 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).
Litigants may waive this type of disqualification except when the judge is a material witness in the proceeding. CCP §170.3(b); Cal Rules of Ct 2.818(c)(2)(C) [temporary judge].
b. [§2.12] Former Counsel
A judge is disqualified if the judge served as a lawyer in the proceeding, represented one of the parties in another action that involved the same issues, or gave advice to one of the parties on any matter involved in the present proceeding. CCP §170.1(a)(2)(A).

Judge Kimberly Colwell’s Dept. 511 and 507 and Judges Robert Freedman, Ioana Petrou and Evelio Grillo Dept. 1, 15/20 and Chad Finke Superior Court Administrative Abuses
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim has filed several complaints regarding several rather blatant court administrative “errors” that are completely unacceptable in Departments 1, 15, 20, 507, and 511 to former Alameda County Superior Court Presiding Court Judge Morris Jacobson, and Supervising Judge Jon Rolefson, current Presiding Court Judge Wynn Carvill, and Supervising Judge Mark Markham, County Appellate Judges C. Don Clay, Kevin Murphy, Jo-Lynne Lee, Presiding Judge Kim Colwell, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye of the California State Supreme Court- and Chairman of both the Judicial Council of California and the Commission on Judicial Appointments, Martin Hoshino- Director of the Judicial Council of California, Victoria B. Henley- Director-Chief Counsel of the Commission on Judicial Performance, Alex Tse- Director of the No. District U. S. Attorney’s Office, Phyllis J. Hamilton- Chief District Judge of the U. S. District Court- No. Division and Chad Finke of the Alameda County Superior Court Administration.

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!!

WHEREFORE, plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim prays that due to the established Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption; the Manipulation of the Judicial Assignments; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge;; Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice the relief herein requested be granted:
1) Removal of ALL Judges Challenged For Cause, ALL the Judges, Tigar, Freedman, Petrou, Colwell, Madden, Carvill, and Krashna should have recused themselves to avoid the appearance of impropriety, or if not be disqualified,
2) required to make a full disclosure and cooperate in the investigation involving the Miller, CSAA and Rescue cases,
3) that the court Vacate ALL Rulings and Orders Issued in these cases by those Judges charged herein.

Without the herein referenced answers, responses and results of the ongoing investigations and complaints with the necessary depositions, request production of documents and hearing transcripts, this process will NOT be transparent, not legally, ethically nor morally proper, and only serve the purpose of extinguishing my rights WITHOUT any recourse that was EVER FAIR and impartial while denying the Challenges.
Unless and until these issues can be fairly resolved BEFORE any hearing can be scheduled, I am and will be subject to the continued fraud, corruption and collusion complained of in ALL the aforementioned herein and CAN NOT in good conscience agree to ANY of the conditions referenced in the letters/form!

Further, I request an OPEN hearing on this matter before an impartial judge. This matter may need to be transferred to another county venue on fair trial grounds as provided by CCP §397(b) where the influence of the Judges, district attorney, city attorney and opposing litigants is not so inextricably intertwined with judicial interests.

ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501
ajalil1234@gmail.com