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
Supervising Judge Michael Markman Executive Officer
Judge Stephen Kaus Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Kevin R. Murphy 1225 Fallon Street Room 209
Judge C. Don Clay Oakland, CA 94612
Judge Jeff Brand Fax: 510-891-6276
Judge Kim Colwell email@example.com
Judge Morris Jacobson
Judge Winifred Smith Charles Johnson
Judge Jon Rolefsen Beth Robbins
Judge Yolanda Northridge Deputy Clerk
Judge Dennis Hayashi First District Court of Appeal
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee 350 McAllister Street
Superior Court of Alameda County San Francisco CA 94102
Departments 1, 6, 511, and 518 Fax: 415-865-7309, 415-865-7209
René C. Davidson Courthouse Beth.Robbins@jud.ca.gov,
1225 Fallon Street Charles.Johnson@jud.ca.gov
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
firstname.lastname@example.org,WCarville@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov,email@example.com,KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, SKaus@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KMurphy@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov,YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov, DHayashi@alameda.courts.ca.gov, firstname.lastname@example.org,RFreedman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
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
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
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
FAX No.: 916-324-8835
Fax No.: 916-322-4532, 916-323-5341, 916-324-5567, 916-319-9421cc: ; bcc ACLU, LCCR, East Bay Community Law Center, Bay Area Legal Aid, USC Gould School Of Law, Western Center On Law & Poverty, Electronic Frontier Foundation, National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, Equal Justice Society, Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center,
Faxed and Emailed
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: October 11, 2018
NO PAGES: 5 plus Exhibits
RE: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s PROOF of Judge Kim Colwell Fraud in al-HAKIM VS CSAA- Wellpoint, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #C811337; Complaint of Department 511 Still Engaging in Perverting and Obstructing Justice, and Due Administration of the Law in Tentative Ruling issued in two motions of September 20, 2018.“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”
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Freedman, Grillo, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:
I have previously sent you ALL a 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint that was already outdated before I could file it!
This Complaint concerns, exposes and underscores the Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy in the cases of Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim involving Judges Wynne Carvill, Kim Colwell, and Michael Markman with Chad Finke,among others with the Manipulation of the record and Register of Actions; Obstruction of Justice, 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)); the continued Fraud Upon The Court by Judges Colwell and Wynne Carvill with Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law!
On September 18, 2018, I previously filed and served notice via fax and email on the court that I had a Standing Opposition to ALL Tentative Rulings made in al-Hakim vs. CSAA, Case: #C-811337,and that I was unavailable for hearing on Thursday, September 20, 2018, and that the court has scheduled that hearing on a date they know I will not be available and requested that they continue the hearing to a date that they KNOW I will.
It is well established with the courts and defendants that plaintiff has a 50 year religious commitments and is unavailable on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, and that hearing was set for Thursday, September 20, 2018, 9:00 a.m., in Department 511, a date I can NOT attend.
For that reason, I requested that the hearings be continued to a Monday or Wednesday thereafter, with the understanding that he has court dates pending on September 26, 2018; October 3, 2018; October 15, 2018; October 22, 2018; and October 24, 2018, while awaiting dates for three other matters.
The court continued the dates, but issued an order that the tentative ruling was “uncontested”. That is NOT TRUE!
As stated, I contacted the court THREE times via fax and email PRIOR to the 4:00 PM deadline, and I have the faxes and emails to prove it!(See attached email from Scott Sanchez department 511 court clerk) In one email exchange on September 19, 2018, the department 511 court clerk replied to the filed opposition with a facetious question of “Do you have a case number?”; to which I replied “It’s in the Subject line, the REFERENCE: line and the body of the letter. Did you miss it somehow?”.
This intentionally erroneous ruling/order must be corrected immediately as clearly department 511 is still engaging in perverting and obstructing justice, and the due administration of the law.
One of the motions is a motion to vacate Colwell’s order granting the sale of my home which she has continued since April 2018, under the guise that it is subject to stay from the appeal, which it is NOT no differently than the motion to sell the home with an undertaking, in her effort to assure the home would be sold BEFORE the motion could be heard!
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.
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, 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 . 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 , of the Penal Code․ The court’s reference to such crimes was illustrative, rather than exclusionary; the type of conduct with which title  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  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.
The FBI should investigate this complaint of corruption by the judges, court administration, Colwell, the Dept. 511 court clerks and those with access to this sensitive information and hold them accountable for their actions.
There have been a litany of administrative abuses in these matters that is directly attributable to Colwell. 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.
Something must be done about this immediately!
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.