TO: Judge Carvill
Judge Markman
Judge Clay
René C. Davidson Courthouse
Superior Court of Alameda County
Department 1
Department 6
Department 15
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Fax: (510) 267-1567
Fax: (510) 891-6276
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
dept.15@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov
MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Judge Markman
Judge Clay
René C. Davidson Courthouse
Superior Court of Alameda County
Department 1
Department 6
Department 15
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Fax: (510) 267-1567
Fax: (510) 891-6276
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
dept.15@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov
MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Case No.: RG18888371
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay being assigned this case for all purposes
Hearing: CMC
Hearing Date: May 24, 2018
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Rene C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Department 6
Faxed and Emailed
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay being assigned this case for all purposes
Hearing: CMC
Hearing Date: May 24, 2018
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Rene C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Department 6
Faxed and Emailed
FROM: Abdul-Jalil
DATE: March 22, 2018
RE: Plaintiff’s Unavailability and Opposition to an Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding and CMC, Case No.: RG18888371.
DATE: March 22, 2018
RE: Plaintiff’s Unavailability and Opposition to an Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding and CMC, Case No.: RG18888371.
Dear Judges Clay, Carvill, and Markman:
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”!
Herein is Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s notice of Opposition to any Tentative Ruling Issued by Judge Clay; receipt of an alleged denial of Challenge for Cause by Judge Clay on Saturday, March 31, 2018; and a reply by defendant Equinix to an alleged Vexatious Litigant Motion on March 31, 2018.
Plaintiff herein files this standing Opposition to any Tentative Ruling Issued by Judge Clay in this or any other matter that he might issue.
He has issued an order ALREADY deeming me a Vexatious Litigant in a proceeding yet to be heard and REFUSING to have that hearing on a date I can attend, yet DEMANDING the hearing be on a date I can NOT attend due to religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for over 30 years!
Clays Alleged Denial of Challenge for Cause
Judge Clay was NEVER served a challenge, whether he would like to treat any document
filed and/or served on him or the court as such is merely an attempt to further his and the courts unfortunate, agenda of denying me justice.
Judge Clay was NEVER served a challenge, whether he would like to treat any document
filed and/or served on him or the court as such is merely an attempt to further his and the courts unfortunate, agenda of denying me justice.When and if I file a challenge, he will know it!
My filings with the court relative to Clay was an attempt to address the humanity and fairness of due process and justice, and when it is denied, to acknowledge it and hold those whom have violated those premises to be held accountable.
It was an opportunity for Clay to accept his involvement in the many issues I have addressed over the years and just quietly move away from the light being shined on the many illegal atrocities continuing to date that are still outstanding and unresolved!
The judges mentioned have exhibited clear and gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, islamophobia, xenaphobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the plaintiffs litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of al-Hakim; portrayed al-Hakim a liar and when he could not prove it he tried to create the lie that in his sole judgment is a lie in order to justify his calling al-Hakim a “liar”; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim even through third parties; highjacked the hearings with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the Unruh and Bane Acts. These efforts of the judges can qualify as a Hate Crime under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts, while they are clear acts of religious bigotry and intolerance for which al-Hakim will not allow.
The judges mentioned have exhibited clear and gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, islamophobia, xenaphobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the plaintiffs litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of al-Hakim; portrayed al-Hakim a liar and when he could not prove it he tried to create the lie that in his sole judgment is a lie in order to justify his calling al-Hakim a “liar”; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim even through third parties; highjacked the hearings with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the Unruh and Bane Acts. These efforts of the judges can qualify as a Hate Crime under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts, while they are clear acts of religious bigotry and intolerance for which al-Hakim will not allow.
This is vitally important because this court and the judges herein mentioned have a history of corruption and repeatedly violating plaintiff’s rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California State Constitution and/or covering it up!
On March 29, 2018, I had to file another complaint with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS, regarding the continued corruption of this court cartel, the “COURTEL”.
Equinix to an alleged Vexatious Litigant Motion
With regards to a reply served by defendant Equinix to an alleged Vexatious Litigant Motion I received on March 31, 2018, I will NOT attempt to respond to it since I was NEVER served any motion to begin with.
With regards to a reply served by defendant Equinix to an alleged Vexatious Litigant Motion I received on March 31, 2018, I will NOT attempt to respond to it since I was NEVER served any motion to begin with.
As I said before, I have never been involved in and there are NO prior orders from ANY court that deems me a vexatious litigant!
As mentioned in the denied request “What prior orders does the court have regarding this case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on this case when NOTHING has been filed in this case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants have defaulted on?”
This is a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on my litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in my cases.
How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a fee waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So am I to understand that YOUR system is guilty before a hearing on this meritless motion is even heard?
Is that NOT a major violation of the Constitution and my basic civil right to innocence before PROVEN guilty??!!!
THIS MOTION SHOULD BE DROPPED IMMEDIATELY AND SANCTIONS ORDERED ON THE PARTY THAT FILED THIS FRIVOLOUS MOTION!
This motion is scheduled for Friday, April 6, 2018 as well as the CMC scheduled for Thursday, May 24, 2018.
This motion is scheduled for Friday, April 6, 2018 as well as the CMC scheduled for Thursday, May 24, 2018.
The defendants and the court has been on notice for over 30 years that I have a long standing religious obligations that conflict with scheduled dates on Thursdays and Fridays making it impossible for me to attend any proceedings those days.
I am NOT available on either April 6, nor May 24, 2018 and CAN NOT attend.
I previously requested that the court continue those dates while I am available on any Monday or Wednesday even on April 4, 2018, at 10 AM since I will be in court that morning in another department and May 23, 2018.
I am NOT available on either April 6, nor May 24, 2018 and CAN NOT attend.
I previously requested that the court continue those dates while I am available on any Monday or Wednesday even on April 4, 2018, at 10 AM since I will be in court that morning in another department and May 23, 2018.
While I have NOT been served any documents from anyone in this case and these issues have NOT been subject to any prior litigation, it is NOT possible that I could be deemed a vexatious litigant!
The court has failed and refused to respond, and with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda of finding me a vexatious litigant in this matter, where I have NEVER been served ANY motion papers, apparent to all!
As mentioned we will be presenting a motion to compel the answers to the summons, requests for production of documents and subpoena as we had intended to serve our first amended complaint AFTER receiving the responses that were due a month ago. The defendants have defaulted on both issues.
This is a complaint against my internet server host for 8 years of abusesthat includes but not limited to blocking our web server, ALL incoming and outgoing email, websites and website traffic to censor, suppress, conceal and cover up our exposing their corruption with charges of Fraud, Negligence, Censorship, Misrepresentation, Defect in Product, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceptive Trade Practices, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud by Concealment, California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 17200 et seq, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Discrimination in Violation of the Unruh Act, Nuisance, Abuse of Process, Fraud by Concealment, Violation of California False Advertising Law, Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceit, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices (UDAP), Unconscionability, California FDCPA (Rosenthal Act), Violation of Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), Elder Abuse, among others.
They are in a daily operation of mounting more and more damages as they have refused and failed to mitigate their damages from 8 years of the above tortious actions!
I have sent this notice via fax and email to the following parties: dept.14@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov, WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MMarkham@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, fax: 510-267-1567, 510-891-6276, Interserver Inc, Equinix (US) Enterprises Inc, Michael Lavrik, mike@interserver.net, John Quaglieri, john@interserver.net, fax: 201-526-6605, Anna Hsia, fax: 415-636-5965, anna@zwillgen.com, kmostofizadeh@equinix.com,bgalvin@equinix.com
CONCLUSION
I request that this charade of vexatious litigant motion be dismissed and judge Clay recuse himself from this case and address the appeals issues presented and address the continued corruption and persecution I, my family, businesses, and communities we serve continue to suffer at your individual and collective gavels.
I request that this charade of vexatious litigant motion be dismissed and judge Clay recuse himself from this case and address the appeals issues presented and address the continued corruption and persecution I, my family, businesses, and communities we serve continue to suffer at your individual and collective gavels.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: April 2, 2018
Date: April 2, 2018
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff
510-394-4501
Plaintiff
510-394-4501