FROM EMMETT TILL TO BREONNA TAYLOR: AMERICA CONTINUES TO SANCTION THE MURDERING OF BLACKS

FROM EMMETT TILL TO BREONNA TAYLOR: AMERICA CONTINUES TO SANCTION THE MURDERING OF BLACKS

MEDIA ADVISORY

“We want Justice for Breonna yet justice was met for her neighbors apartment walls and not her beautiful life.” – Lebron James, NBA star
On the 65th anniversary of the acquittal of the men who murdered 14-year-old Emmett “Bobo” Till, Black America suffered another punch to the gut by a justice system that too seldom provides anything approximating justice when the victim is Black. The officers who killed Breonna Taylor will not be held accountable.
In August of 1955, Till was murdered by a group of men after being falsely accused of flirting with a White woman in Money, Mississippi. As was the custom for many Black children in the north, they would be sent “down south” to spend the summer with relatives. Till never made it back home to Chicago. I was born 37 miles away in the same county, Tallahatchie, that he was kidnapped from and murdered.
The two men tried for his murder, J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant, were found not guilty in the county courthouse of Sumner, Mississippi on September 23, 1955. It had not even been a full month since they murdered Till. The all-white, all-male jury deliberated for 67 minutes before issuing a not guilty verdict. One juror infamously said:
“We wouldn’t have taken so long if we hadn’t stopped to drink pop.”
Fast forward to September 23, 2020 and we are told that no one will be held accountable for killing 26-year-old Breonna Taylor. The officers who shot her were not found to be criminally culpable by a grand jury. One officer, who was fired months ago was charged with a crime that most Americans could not define if they tried to. Former Louisville police officer Brett Hankison was indicted on three counts of wanton endangerment in the first degree for shooting into a neighboring apartment. What the heck is wanton endangerment? And just as importantly why is he facing five years in prison for shooting a wall but the officers who killed Taylor will not be charged with killing her?
Kentucky law describes wanton endangerment as happening:
“when, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, [a person] wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person.”
Allow this to sink in for a moment. Because this officer could have potentially caused bodily harm to someone in a neighboring apartment, he was the sole officer indicted from the night when Taylor was killed by police wearing civilian clothes using what was reported to be a no-knock warrant in the middle of the night. If this officer had actually shot straight, like his peers who killed Taylor, he would not have lost his job and would not be facing charges right now.
As we should have suspected, protests exploded in Louisville and around the country. I am numb. I have run out of words to describe my frustrations with America. I wonder why I stay in this country. I have been warning people for years that there is something fundamentally flawed with the way we police in this country.
It is more than the police though. It is also the district attorneys, and grand jurors around the country who refuse to hold police officers accountable for killing unarmed civilians. It is the state and federal elected officials, who have passed laws that make it nearly impossible to hold police officers accountable. It is the fault of judges who have interpreted the laws in a way that gives the cops a license to kill in almost every circumstance possible. It is the uncaring way in which so many Whites in this country show indifference when these things continue to happen over and over again.
The system is the problem not the people in the system. The system works the same in 2020 as it did in 1955 even though the people are not the same. he system is called racism. It allowed the murderers of Emmett Till to walk free and be paid for giving an interview with Look magazine where they detailed what they did to Emmett Till. On January 24, 1956 the magazine ran a cover story entitled “The Shocking Story of Approved Killing in Mississippi.” Both killers were paid $1,500 a piece and their attorney was paid $1,000. The most ironic thing about the magazine cover was that it featured two smiling blonde women who looked as if they did not have a care in this world.
Milam said during the interview that as they were kidnapping Till he pointed a flashlight in his face at his uncle’s home.
Milam: “You the nigger who did the talking?”
Bobo: “Yeah.”
Milam: “Don’t say, yeah to me. I’ll blow your head off. Get your clothes on.”
They stole a cotton gin fan weighing over 70 pounds so that they could weigh down Till’s corpse in the Tallahatchie River. This account comes from the interview:
They stood silently … just hating one another.
Milam: “Take off your clothes.”
Slowly, Bobo pulled off his shoes, his socks. He stood up, unbuttoned his shirt, dropped his pants, his shorts. He stood there naked. It was Sunday morning, a little before 7.
Milam: “You still as good as I am?”
Bobo: “Yeah.”
Milam: “You still ‘had’ white women?”
Bobo: “Yeah.”
That big .45 jumped in Big Milam’s hand. The youth turned to catch that big, expanding bullet at his right ear. He dropped.
This courageous 14-year-old kid had the audacity to speak to the White people in a way that was not allowed in Mississippi at that time. He was murdered and the murderers realizing they were protected by double jeopardy laws and a solidly White pool of jurors knew that nothing would happen to them. This is how Milam defended himself and described the murder in Look magazine.
“I never hurt a nigger in my life. I like niggers – in their place … But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice. As long as I live and can do anything about it, niggers are gonna stay in their place. Niggers ain’t gonna vote where I live. If they did, they’d control the government. They ain’t gonna go to school with my kids. And when a nigger gets close to mentioning sex with a white woman, he’s tired o’ livin’. I’m likely to kill him. Me and my folks fought for this country, and we got some rights. I stood there in that shed and listened to that nigger throw that poison at me, and I just made up my mind. ‘Chicago boy,’ I said, ‘I’m tired of ’em sending your kind down here to stir up trouble. Goddam you, I’m going to make an example of you – just so everybody can know how me and my folks stand.’ So Big Milam decided to act. He needed a weight…Bobo wasn’t bleeding much. Pistol-whipping bruises more than it cuts. They ordered him back in the truck and headed west again … Bryant and Big Milam stood aside while Bobo loaded the fan. Weight: 74 pounds … Big Milam ordered Bobo to pick up the fan.He staggered under its weight … carried it to the river bank.
Till’s mother, Mamie Till, demanded that her son have an open casket funeral so that the world could see what they did to Bobo. According to PBS, “Emmett Till’s mutilated body would be on display for all to see. Fifty thousand people in Chicago saw Emmett Till’s corpse with their own eyes. When the magazine Jet ran photos of the body, Black Americans across the country shuddered.” The murder of Till was a catalyst for the community of Montgomery, Alabama standing up to segregation and boycotting the buses just a few months later.
The killing of Till, and the acquittal just weeks later was a heavy blow to the hearts and minds of the 15 million Black people in this country. Today, 44 million Black people were kicked in the stomach by this decision in Kentucky. Protests are occurring once again just as they were when George Floyd was killed by police in May. We have endured so many of these murders without receiving justice that it feels like we are in a never-ending, repeating cycle of doom. Justice does not allow itself to be a part of the lived experience of Blacks when they are killed by police and in many cases vigilantes.
We have done all of the things possible to tell America how we feel. America has not changed much since that hot summer day in Mississippi when two murderers walked away free men. The officers who killed Taylor will not be held accountable. Nothing will change this reality. Civil charges will not be filed. There may be talk of it happening but I would not bet on it occurring.
What can we do now? What have we not done already? Has it mattered that George Floyd’s death led to worldwide protests but here we are again just months later? How can we be comforted? How can we be expected to do anything other than express our emotions? Many won’t like the way some express their frustration over the coming days and weeks. We will hear the useless calls for more police training. We will hear people say they stand by us but don’t appreciate or support how we protest.
Unfortunately for Blacks in this country the more things change the more they stay the same. There are no words to describe the current feelings I have. I am not surprised by the decision to not charge the officers who killed Breonna Taylor. The mindset of those people in Mississippi back in the 1950s is the mindset of far too many people around the country today. We must be honest and call America out for allowing this systemic racism to perpetuate itself.
Bob Dylan’s song The Death of Emmett Till could easily be re-written on behalf of the memory of Breonna Taylor.
“And so this trial was a mockery, but nobody seemed to mind.
I saw the morning papers but I could not bear to see
The smiling brothers walkin’ down the courthouse stairs.
For the jury found them innocent and the brothers they went free,
While Emmett’s body floats the foam of a Jim Crow southern sea.
If you can’t speak out against this kind of thing, a crime that’s so unjust,
Your eyes are filled with dead men’s dirt, your mind is filled with dust.
Your arms and legs they must be in shackles and chains, and your blood it must refuse to flow,
For you let this human race fall down so God-awful low!

Death of Ginsburg could boost Trump,we have his Replacement Candidates

MEDIA ADVISORY

Death of Ginsburg could boost Trump,we have his Replacement Candidates

Democrats fear Donald Trump will defy the legal icon’s final wish and attempt to push through a candidate to the Supreme Court – diverting attention from his handling of the coronavirus crisis
Crowds have gathered to pay tributes to iconic Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg following her death at the age of 87.
Emotional tributes have been paid to the women’s rights champion, amid fears Donald Trump could defy her dying wish.
Ginsburg had pleaded for her successor to be appointed once there is a new President – but Trump seems likely to pounce on the chance to divert attention from his handling of the coronavirus.
If he gets his way and a conservative takes Ginsburg’s place, laws permitting abortion in the US could be under threat.
Flowers were left outside the Supreme Court building in Washington DC as mourners paid their respects.
Ginsburg was a renowned liberal who famously branded Trump a “faker” and said he was guided by his ego.
The judge, a co-founder of the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), was just the second woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the US.
She was popularly known by her initials RBG, and emerged as an icon in popular culture in recent years.
An image of Ginsburg and the alternating messages “thank you” and “rest in power” were projected on the front of the New York State Civil Supreme Court building in Manhattan as Americans paid tribute.
The race to appoint a successor
Ginsburg had requested that her replacement on the Supreme Court was not appointed until there is a new President.
Just days before her death, she dictated a statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera, saying: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies – and she didn’t want to be replaced until Trump out of office
But with Trump on the back foot and Republicans anxious about losing the White House and the US Senate, experts believe putting forward a candidate could divert criticism away from the incumbent.
If successful, it would also move the Supreme Court further to the right, giving it a 6-3 conservative majority.
The balance is currently 5-4 in favour of conservatives.
Trump has already appointed two conservatives to lifetime posts on the court, Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.
Why this could impact on abortion rights in the US
Conservative activists for years have sought to get enough
votes on the Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump promised to appoint justices who would overturn that landmark decision. 
If Trump is able to appoint a judge who opposes abortion, he may be able to deliver on this pledge.
Timing could suit Donald Trump’s campaign, says strategist
For months, the election contest has centred on Trump’s handling of the pandemic, which has badly damaged his prospects for reelection as the US death toll nears 200,000.
However, Ginsburg’s death opens up the potential for Trump or Biden to choose a successor – who could rule on issues including abortion access, environmental regulations and the power of the presidency for a generation.
Strategists on both sides have seized on the moment to find an advantage.
Trump’s supporters see an opportunity to galvanize support beyond his most loyal core of backers, with Republican strategist Alex Conant saying: “It’s hard to see how this doesn’t help Trump politically.
“Biden wants this election to be a referendum on Trump. Now it’s going to be a referendum on whoever he nominates to the supreme court.”
Multiple Republicans close to the White House believe Mr Trump will likely nominate a woman.
“Any week Donald Trump doesn’t have to talk about coronavirus is a net positive for him,” said Joel Payne, a Democratic strategist who worked for 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
“Historically, Republicans vote on the court. I think some Republicans will see this as the October surprise to gin up excitement in their base.”
Tributes paid to liberal icon
Figures from across the political spectrum have paid tribute to Ginsburg
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, posted on Twitter : “Tonight, the flags are flying at half staff over the Capitol to honor the patriotism of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“Every woman and girl, and therefore every family, in America has benefitted from her brilliance.”
“Our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement.
“We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her – a tireless and resolute champion of justice.”
“Today, our nation mourns the loss of a titan of the law,” Trump said in a statement, adding that Ginsburg’s decisions “have inspired all Americans, and generations of great legal minds.”
Trump, who as a presidential candidate in 2016 called on Ginsburg to resign and said “her mind is shot” after she criticized him in media interviews, did not mention any potential plans about nominating a replacement.
President Donald J. Trump announced the following additions to his Supreme Court List:
Bridget Bade is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Prior to her appointment in 2019, Judge Bade was a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Arizona and an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Arizona.  Judge Bade served as a law clerk to Judge Edith H. Jones of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Judge Bade earned her B.A., summa cum laude, from Arizona State University and her J.D., cum laude, from Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.
Daniel Cameron is the 51st Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.  Before his election in 2019, Attorney General Cameron practiced law with Frost Brown Todd, LLC and served as Legal Counsel to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  He served as a law clerk to Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.  Attorney General Cameron received his B.S. from the University of Louisville and his J.D., cum laude, from the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law.
Tom Cotton is a United States Senator for the State of Arkansas.  Prior to his election in 2014, Senator Cotton served as a Member in the United States House of Representatives and in the United States Army, rising to the rank of Captain while serving in both Iraq with the 101st Airborne and in Afghanistan with a Provincial Reconstruction Team.  Prior to his military service, Senator Cotton practiced law at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.  Senator Cotton served as a law clerk to Judge Jerry Smith of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  He received his A.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard College and his J.D. from Harvard Law School.
Paul Clement is a partner with Kirkland & Ellis, LLP.  He previously served as Solicitor General of the United States and has argued over 100 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.  He served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge Laurence Silberman on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  Mr. Clement received his B.S.F.S., summa cum laude, from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service; his M.Phil. from Cambridge University; and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School.
Ted Cruz is a United States Senator for the State of Texas.  Prior to his election in 2012, Senator Cruz was a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP and served as Solicitor General of Texas.  Senator Cruz 
served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge J. Michael Luttig on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  Senator Cruz received his A.B., cum laude, from Princeton University and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School.
Stuart Kyle Duncan is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Before his appointment in 2018, he was a partner at Schaerr Duncan, LLP and General Counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.  Earlier in his career, Judge Duncan served as Solicitor General of Louisiana.  Judge Duncan served as a law clerk to Judge John M. Duhé, Jr., of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  He received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Louisiana State University; his J.D. from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at Louisiana State University; and his LL.M. from Columbia University Law School.
Steven Engel is the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice.  Prior to his appointment in 2017, Mr. Engel was a partner with Dechert, LLP and previously served in the Office of Legal Counsel as Deputy Assistant Attorney General.  Mr. Engel served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States and to Judge Alex Kozinski on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Mr. Engel earned his A.B., summa cum laude, from Harvard College; his M. Phil. from Cambridge University; and his J.D. from Yale Law School.
Noel Francisco is the former Solicitor General of the United States. Prior to his appointment in 2017, Mr. Francisco was a partner at Jones Day and served in the Office of Legal Counsel as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and as Associate Counsel to the President.  Mr. Francisco served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge J. Michael Luttig on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  Mr. Francisco received his B.A., with honors, from the University of Chicago and his J.D., with high honors, from the University of Chicago Law School.
Josh Hawley is a United States Senator for the State of Missouri.  Prior to his election in 2018, Senator 
Hawley served as Attorney General of the State of Missouri, was an Associate Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law, and was an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.  Senator Hawley served as a law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts on the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge Michael McConnell on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  He received his B.A., with honors, from Stanford University and his J.D. from Yale Law School.
James Ho is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  Prior to his appointment in 2018, Judge Ho was a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP and served as Solicitor General of Texas.  Judge Ho clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge Jerry Smith of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  He received his B.A., with honors, from Stanford University and his J.D., with high honors, from the University of Chicago Law School.
Gregory Katsas is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  Prior to his appointment in 2017, Judge Katsas served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President.  He was previously a partner at Jones Day and served in senior positions in the United States Department of Justice, including as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division and Acting Associate Attorney General.  Judge Katsas served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, both at the Supreme Court of the United and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and to Judge Edward Becker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  Judge Katsas earned his A.B.,cum laude, from Princeton University and his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School.
Barbara Lagoa is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  Before her appointment in 2019, Judge Lagoa was a Justice on the Supreme Court of Florida.  She also served as District Judge on the Florida Third District Court of Appeal and as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.  Judge Lagoa earned her B.A., cum laude, from Florida International University and her J.D. from Columbia Law School.
JudicialTyrannyChristopher Landau is the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the United Mexican States.  Prior to his appointment in 2019, Ambassador Landau was a partner with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and, before that, headed the Appellate Litigation Practice Group at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP.  Ambassador Landau served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, both on the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States.  He received his A.B., summa cum laude, from Harvard College and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School.
Carlos Muñiz is a Justice on the Supreme Court of Florida.  Prior to his appointment in 2019, Justice Muñiz served as General Counsel to the United States Department of Education and in various positions in the Florida State government, including as Deputy Attorney General and Chief of Staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi.  Justice Muñiz served as a law clerk to Judge Jose Cabranes on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to Judge Thomas Flannery on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Justice Muñiz received his B.A., with high honors, from the University of Virginia and his J.D. from Yale Law School.
Martha Pacold is a Judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Prior to her appointment in 2019, Judge Pacold served as both Deputy General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury.  Earlier in her career, Judge Pacold was a partner at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, LLP and served as Counsel to the Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice.  Judge Pacold served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court of the United States, to Judge Jay Bybee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to Judge A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  Judge Pacold earned her B.A., with highest distinction, from Indiana University, and her J.D., with honors, from the University of Chicago Law School.
Peter Phipps is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  Prior to his elevation in 2019, Judge Phipps served as United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  Before taking the bench, Judge Phipps served as Senior Trial Counsel in the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division at the United States Department of Justice.  Judge Phipps served as a law clerk to Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  He earned both his B.S. and his B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Dayton and his J.D. from Stanford Law School.
Sarah Pitlyk is a Judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Prior to her appointment in 2019, Judge Pitlyk was Special Counsel at the Thomas More Society and in private practice at Clark & Sauer, LLC.  Ms. Pitlyk served as a law clerk to then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  She received her B.A., summa cum laude, from Boston College; her M.A.’s from Georgetown University and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium; and her J.D. from Yale Law School.
Allison Jones Rushing is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  Prior to her appointment in 2019, Judge Rushing was a partner at Williams & Connolly, LLP.  Judge Rushing clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court of the United States, Judge David Sentelle on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and then-Judge Neil Gorsuch on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  Judge Rushing earned her B.A., summa cum laude, from Wake Forest University and her J.D., magna cum laude, from Duke University School of Law.
Kate Todd is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President.  Before her appointment in 2019, she served as Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel of the United States Chamber Litigation Center and as a partner at what was previously Wiley Rein & Fielding, LLP.  Ms. Todd served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court of the United States and Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  Ms. Todd earned her B.A., with distinction, from Cornell University and her J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School.
Lawrence VanDyke is a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Prior to his appointment earlier this year, Judge VanDyke served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the United States Department of Justice.  Earlier in his career, Judge VanDyke served as both Solicitor General of Nevada and Solicitor General of Montana.  Judge VanDyke served as a law clerk to Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  He earned his B.S., with highest honors, from Montana State University; his B.Th., summa cum laude, from Bear Valley Bible Institute; and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School.
Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil

Bigot Brand Contempt Threat, Disparages al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at May 1, 2019 Hearing!

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: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205             Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Presiding Judge Wynne Carville                  Chad Finke
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                                        cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
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
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,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,dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.511@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.518@alameda.courts.ca.gov, 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, dept.19@alameda.courts.ca.gov,RFreedman@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
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
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov                Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                         Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov
Barbara.Valliere@usdoj.gov
sara.Winslow@usdoj.gov
Brent and Sarah Hanson                        Anthony S. Leung, Christopher Leung
Green Key Investments                           Green Key Investments
508 Dimm Street                                    110 Franklin Street, Suite # 2
Richmond, CA 94805                             Oakland, CA 94607
                                                                 mrchrisleung@gmail.comXavier Becerra
Xavier Becerra
Attorney General of California
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
FAX No.: 916-324-8835
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Sean.McCluskie@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
Laura.Stuber@doj.ca.gov
Kelli.Evans@doj.ca.gov
Marina.Soto@doj.ca.gov
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:     May 2, 2019
NO PAGES: 14
RE:        Bigot Brand Contempt Threat, Disparages al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at May 1, 2019 Hearing

“In another religion they honor people who serve like you with Sainthood!”” – Economics Professor Adeel Malik,Oxford University, England and World Renowned News Expert Commentator, speaking about Abdul-Jalil and the Aaron & Margaret Wallace Foundation.

GOD sent me an ANGEL” – Hammer, speaking about Abdul-Jalil.

“Jalil, YOU ARE A TZADIK (SAINT)!”– Barry Barkan, Live Oak Institute and
  Ashoka Fellow at Ashoka Foundation:Innovators for the Public

 

“I thank God for you and for bringing you into my life and for the ministry you have been given to help the people of God!”– Pastor L. J. Jennings, Kingdom Builders Christian Fellowship, speaking about Abdul-Jalil and AMWF

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Hayashi, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Brand, Freedman, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:
Bigot Brand OUTRIGHT LIES in Disparaging al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at May 1, 2019 Hearing
At the hearing on May 1, 2019, upon being called, al-Hakim served Brand a Challenge for Cause, upon which he complained that he had filed an answer to the previous challenge served on him just 48 hours ago, but he did NOT provide nor serve that answer on the parties present. He then announced that he would take a brief recess to read the new challenge.
Brand recalls the case, fully intent on jailing al-Hakim for contempt, nods to the the sheriffs deputy seated in the jury box next to al-Hakim, lights into al-Hakim for serving the challenge, affirming that he was going to proceed with the matters at hand regardless of the challenge that he felt could not be any different from the challenge served on him just 48 hours ago! As he is doing so, the sheriffs deputy leaves the jury box and approaches al-Hakim seated at the plaintiff’s table.
al-Hakim responded by illustrating and addressing Brand’s bigotry in his disparagement, denigration, and deprecation of al-Hakim, his religious practice of Islam and Islam had occurred just 48 hours ago at the hearing on April 29, 2019! al-Hakim dramatically argued Brand’s INDEFENSIBLE act of referring to al-Hakim’s weekly religious obligation as “I know that you say you have a religious Holiday every Tuesday and Thursday?!”in Brand’s attempts to cast aspersions on al-Hakim, his religion and it’s practice as frivolous, a Frat party, to impugn, vilify, traduce and portray al-Hakim as a nefarious hypocrite! At this point, the sheriffs deputy is standing arms distance away from al-Hakim seated at the plaintiff’s table.
Defendants then offer that the challenges are a contempt of court, wherein al-Hakim states: “you have held proceedings in this matter while there is a stay in place from the vexatious motion and have asked for a warrant for my arrest, this proceeding is a attempt to provoke and provide an opportunity for an arrest for contempt. This vexatious proceeding is just your defense strategy to prevent further exposure and prosecution of your corruption and bigotry!”. Brand responds that “I could not disagree with you more, the court takes every opportunity to accommodate every religion”.
Brand, now confronted with the clear line of bigotry that he has gone FAR beyond, trips and falls over it as he can NOT in good conscience order al-Hakim arrested for contempt as it would prove al-Hakim’s point of his bigotry!
Brand is NOTHING BUT A MISERABLE, PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, INCAPABLE OF THE TRUTH!
If Brand can make such a statement as “I could not disagree with you more, the court takes every opportunity to accommodate every religion”, then how does that comport that with his actions in the Green Key case where he DID NOT RESPOND to over THIRTEEN (13) communications, contacts, documents, faxes and emails, including TWO phone calls and voicemail messages, and hand delivered documents to him over a three week period requesting a continuance, proceeded despite the notices and issued a default against al-Hakim in favor of Green Key?
Green Key Defaulted, Failure to Appear Three Times
In the Green Key Case, Brand ignored the fact al-Hakim did NOT received any response from the court to his over THIRTEEN (13) communications, contacts, documents, faxes and emails, including TWO phone calls and voicemail messages, and hand delivered the documents with a court filed letter requests to his clerks Scott Sanchez and Cynthia Trinidad over three weeks PRIOR to the January 2, 2019 and January 3, 2019, hearings to request a reservation number to file an ex-parte motion for a continuance of the hearings he was unable to attend as the court and plaintiffs are and have been aware for over 30 years that al-Hakim has religious obligations on Tuesdays and Thursdays that do not allow for his presence in court which included the hearing, and proceeded despite the notices and issued a default against al-Hakim in favor of Green Key. Judge Brand, and Colwell before him, their Department 511 clerks and court administrations continuing fraud, corruption and collusion being solely responsible for this case as filed, NOT Green Key. They have been the sole force behind moving this litigation forward for them, as Green Key has failed to appear THREE TIMES consecutively without notice nor reason submitted to the court nor al-Hakim, have not filed an opposition to the motion to vacate the default writ of execution, and have NOT been issued a default nor al-Hakim being granted his motion to vacate the default taken against him!
Brand, who admitted that the last two continuances given to Green Key had NOTHING to do with the case, attempts to sit in SOLE judgment of his, the Department 511 clerks and court administration’s OWN Continuing Fraud, Corruption and Collusion committed on HIS and their OWN part!
The last Green Key defaulted, failure to appear was at the February 25, 2019, hearing, over two months ago, yet to date Brand has NOT issued an order despite the fact they failed to appear THREE TIMES consecutively without notice, and did not file an opposition to the motion to vacate the default writ of execution! On April 3, April 15, and April 17, 2019, al-Hakim sent two faxes and emails each time to the court and opposing parties requesting the order from the uncontested, defaulted motion. That’s TEN REQUESTED NOTICES and it has yet to be served even though it was unopposed and thrice defaulted for failure to appear.
Due to the illegal eviction from the defaulted Green Key case, al-Hakim was forced out of his home with only two days to move and was unable to take anything! Of note is the fact he left all his personal and business computers, files that are now in the custody and control of the opposition. al-Hakim has NONE of the files he had accumulated over his life of years! Green Key has taken complete and total custody and control of ALL al-Hakim’s entire lifetime possessions, accumulation of ALL personal, family, and business belongings, things, property, goods, personal effects, assets, chattels, movables, valuables, EVERYTHING!! Over $800,000 in value that has been destroyed by Green Key and MUST BE REPLACED!!!
Four times al-Hakim has demanded the return of EVERYTHING, ALL ITEMS LEFT IN THE HOUSE, WITHOUT ANY DAMAGE TO THEM! Green Key has NEVER responded to the demand. We are sure the items of interest are in the control of the courts partners, law enforcement!
This places an intolerable burden on al-Hakim and makes it impossible to present this document in a concise and cogent manner without the necessary documentary support.
THIS BEGS THE QUESTION WHY IS BRAND FAVORING THEM AND NOT ISSUING THE ORDER UNTIL HE HAS SHACKLED AL-HAKIM WITH BEING DEEMED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT UNABLE TO PURSUE ANT LITIGATION AGAINST HIM, THEM OR ANYONE ELSE?!!!
Bigot Brand Disparages al-Hakim’s Religious Practice of Islam at April 29, 2019 Hearing
At the hearing on April 29, 2019, Brand disparaged, denigrated, and deprecated, al-Hakim and his religious practice of Islam by referring to al-Hakim’s weekly religious obligation as “I know that you say you have a religious Holiday every Tuesday and Thursday?!”.
This bigoted, ignorant, thoughtless, irresponsible, caustic remark left al-Hakim shocked, speechless and dumbfounded! al-Hakim, humiliated at the utterance finally stumbled out “I have NEVER said that I have a religious Holiday every Tuesday and Thursday!”Brand says “Well I know you have said something like that”. al-Hakim responds “I have religious obligations every Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, they are NOT Holidays”.
Irate at the fact that he MUST conform with the law to at least a minimum, Brand asks al-Hakim “when will you be available for an appearance”, wherein al-Hakim responded “the first Monday or Wednesday after June 20, 2019”. Brand states that “you will be gone for Ramadan?”and al-Hakim says “yes, I noticed you of that fact a month ago”. Brands retorts in a very snide, rude manner “I know, I was just asking”and al-Hakim responded “I was just answering”. Brand asks “when does it start?”, al-Hakim responds “Sunday”. Brand then orders the parties to appear two days later on May 1, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.
It was clear that Brand has an agenda to move the VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Superior Court Criminal/Civil Vexatious Entrapment Litigation Strategy to completion before al-Hakim takes retreat for Ramadan so that they can gain another uncontested appeals verdict knowing al-Hakim will NOT be able to respond before June 15, 2019!
It MUST be noted that Brand had TWO sheriff’s deputies in the wings of the jury box waiting with orders in hand!
Brand attempts to cast aspersions on al-Hakim’s religion and it’s practice as frivolous, a Frat party, or Rave, to impugn, vilify, traduce and portray al-Hakim as a carouser, party animal, nefarious hypocrite, insincere. This is perhaps the HIGHEST ranking tenet in the pillars of Islam and is mandated, commanded upon ALL muslims! al-Hakim is long established at this, over 60 years, is recognized and honored world wide for his service, is consulted and relied on for his service to the Islamic community and humanity at large!
Brand and the judges have deprive al-Hakim of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law and penalize him because of his religious beliefs! requiring al-Hakim to abandon his religious beliefs and practices in order to receive benefits. discriminates against al-Hakim and Muslims violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
This divisive case highlights the vast difference between the reality and the rhetoric of religious freedom, which is often considered to be the ideal that promotes harmony and equality in the judicial system. But, history suggests that it does lead to more conflict due to the biases and prejudices of those same justices echoing the view that religious freedom brings inequality and disunity so the government and courts systematically enact mainstream practices favoring particular races and faiths for cause and preventing religious freedom and liberty!
Brands prejudice is pathological and projects a personality syndrome linked with racism as well to establish and cultivate his own race, class and religious supremacy based on favoritism towards his own perceived group, their admiration, sympathy, and trust of his ingroup, the “Courtel”.
BRAND CAN NOT SERVE IN ANY CAPACITY IN ANY AL-HAKIM MATTERS!
Repression of al-Hakim and First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion
The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law. In recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution to keep the government out of religion– to guarantee the separation of church and state. This fundamental freedom is a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can’t penalize you because of your religious beliefs.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not require a person to abandon their religious beliefs in order to receive benefits. Sherbert v. Verner, in which a Seventh-day Adventist was fired because she wouldn’t work on Saturdays. The state denied her jobless benefits, saying she was fired for cause. The Supreme Court ruled that disqualifying her from benefits “solely because of her refusal to accept employment in which she would have to work on Saturday contrary to her religious belief, imposes an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion.” She got her benefits.
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb – Congressional Findings and Declaration of Purposes
(a) Findings The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) PurposesThe purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 – Free Exercise of Religion Protected
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
(Pub. L. 103–141, § 3, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488.)
This action is PURELY RETALIATORY
Judge Jeff Brand, other judges listed herein, court clerks and superior court administration, in concert with unscrupulous Federal, Sate County and local judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies (“entities”) have committed over 150 violations under United States and California State Constitutions against Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim that have been graphically detailed and documented over 40 years! (United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, VIII, XIV, For Violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Under Color Of State Law; Section 1983).
This PURELY RETALIATORY, unjust, illegal act of revenge, calculated to foreclose on al-Hakim’s civil rights as promised to protect those judges and these underhanded entities known and documented to have repeatedly violated the law for years and just like Brand, they have been, are and will be a defendant and witness in those expected proceedings!! This is their collective legal defense effort to eliminate any possibility of that ever happening!
Brand has a challenge matter still pending, has NOT issued a ruling in Green Key default after their failing and refusing to file an opposition to the motion to vacate the writ of execution awarded to them by default taken against al-Hakim and THREE (3) failures to appear to oppose that motion, unlawfully evicting al-Hakim from his 40 year home, thereby strategically delaying the order to avoid further evidence of fraud on the court and to defeat this alleged vexatious litigant action wherein the judges and courts have acted as defendants CSAA co-counsel and CSAA has acted as judges counsel and government agent/informant for 20 years! BRANDS ACTIONS IN THIS CASE ARE INDEFENSIBLE! THUS THIS VEXATIOUS ACTION.
Brand installed the motion practice schedule to evade evidence of fraud on the court with the long pending six (6) CSAA orders so they could not be presented in this action.
The vexatious motion was filed on February 28, 2019, with opening brief due March 22, 2019, and reply brief due April 5, 2019, and the hearing set for April 19, 2019. Brand finally issued the long pending six (6) orders on March 24, 2019; three days AFTER the submission due date for the opening brief.
al-Hakim waited to receive the orders BEFORE filing the opposition/reply brief to include the orders as further evidence of Brands fraud on the court and exposing THIS frivolous motion as his sole defense for his, the judges, and court administration continuing fraud, corruption and conspiracy.
Court Scheduled Proceedings to Take Default against al-Hakim in VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their “Muslim Ban”
Brand even had the hearing set for Thursday, April 18, 2019 and then changed it to Friday, April 19, 2019, both dates that Brand knows al-Hakim will NOT be able to attend due to a 40 year religious commitments know to Brand, defendants and the court, in another effort to take a default against al-Hakim. On April 3, April 15, and today, April 17, 2019, al-Hakim sent two faxes and emails each time to the court and opposing parties announcing the fact the court has scheduled these proceedings in furtherance of their VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their Muslim Ban and requesting the hearing date be changed to a Monday or Wednesday. Thats TEN REQUESTED NOTICES FOR A CONTINUANCE and they were NOT answered. Finally, later on April 17, 2019, al-Hakim received an email from the department 511 clerk stating “Abdul-Jalil – Emailing the department is not sufficient notice for a continuance. If you need help obtaining a continuance please feel free to seek counsel or contact the self help center. This email address is only for people seeking reservations.”. (see April 17, 2019 email from Dept 511 under Exhibit 1)
This response clearly establishes their intent to take a default by design! The court can not complain about the cost of litigation in al-Hakim cases when they are responsible for the constant motions to continue, when they would not address the fact THEY chose the date without any input from al-Hakim knowing that he could NOT attend and rather than make a mutual accommodation, they suggest that he seek legal aid in filing a motion to continue! A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY SOLELY TO PERSECUTE AL-HAKIM AND REWARD THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS!
Brand, the judges, the court administrations, and opposing parties actions have altered the course of litigation in scheduling proceedings on dates they know plaintiff can not attend and refusing to schedule proceedings on dates that he can attend, delaying and denying reservation numbers to file motions, failing to file or respond to plaintiff’s filing of oppositions and contesting to rulings and orders, demanding documents they already have or have better access to than al-Hakim, adding and removing proceedings from the docket and register of actions without any proceedings or authority, continuing the atmosphere of intolerable TERROR in furtherance of their corruption and agenda of hate induced persecution and entrapment, with their version of the targeted “al-Hakim Muslim Ban” has irreparably and irretrievably altered the legal outcome of the proceedings herein questioned! (see VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY DECEIT”; and VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption)
VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “MUSLIM BAN” by ”FIXING CASES” in Furtherance of Corruption Agenda, IS PURE RETALIATION
The judges, clerks and court administration has been and are “fixing”cases against al-Hakim attempting to protect the opposition as they have scheduled proceedings DEMANDING the hearing be on a date al-Hakim can NOT attend due to religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for nearly 40 years, while REFUSING to have those proceedings on a date al-Hakim can attend! (see VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM PERSECUTION, “MUSLIM BAN” by ”FIXING CASES”, al-Hakim Declaration at Page 12-14;“Opposition to Case Fixing”, filed April 4, 2018, in al-Hakim v. Interserver Inc., RG18-888371)
On April 3, April 15, and April 17, 2019, al-Hakim sent two faxes and emails each timeto the court and opposing parties announcing the fact the court has scheduled these proceedings Friday, April 19, 2019, a date that Brand knows al-Hakim will NOT be able to attend due to a 40 year religious commitments know to Brand, defendants and the court, in another effort to take a default against al-Hakim in furtherance of their VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their Muslim Ban and al-Hakim requested the hearing date be changed to a Monday or Wednesday. After TEN REQUESTED NOTICES FOR A CONTINUANCE and they were NOT answered. Finally, later on April 17, 2019, al-Hakim received an email from the department 511 clerk stating “Abdul-Jalil – Emailing the department is not sufficient notice for a continuance. If you need help obtaining a continuance please feel free to seek counsel or contact the self help center. This email address is only for people seeking reservations.”.
This response clearly establishes their intent to take a default by design as the court suggest that he seek legal aid in filing a motion to continue! A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY SOLELY TO PERSECUTE AL-HAKIM AND REWARD THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS!
If it is NOT possible to have litigation with the schedule proposed when the court is open EVERYDAY, the time is free and the court is paid to be there, then bigotry, Islamophobia, and Xenophobia are the specious basis for this continued Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption, 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 Judge Brand regarding Motions clearly have a double standard! al-Hakim’s Religion and religious obligations on those days are NOT going to change for judge Brand nor the court.
al-Hakim has had to make multiple requests, once THIRTEEN times, another SEVEN TIMES to have a “Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion and Ex-Parte motion to be heard on the SAME DATE as litigation previously scheduled, yet the requests were IGNORED/DENIED, and one resulted in the issuing of a default against al-Hakim by scheduling dates that the defendants and the court were aware al-Hakim was unavailable to attend.
The court has failed and refused to respond with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda of hate apparent to all!
The judges and court administration’s continuing criminal harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption in his uniquely applied and enforced court rules summarily denies al-Hakim’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing such a ruling and places an intolerable burden on him, denying his legitimate and undeniable rights and strikes at the heart of his fundamental civil rights and due process under the law, guaranteed by the United States Constitution and California Constitution. No statute in California authorizes the court to deny a right that is uncontroverted while in the process denying such precious fundamental rights of due process and justice. The use of judicial power to permit such injustice raises significant legal questions, and an order is necessary to prevent this abuse.
The judges mindless denials further expose and demonstrate the courts agenda of judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, fixing cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim  and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue.
Brand has begun the specious vexatious litigant action to foreclose on al-Hakim’s civil rights to eliminate any further threat he poses to their “honor” and position, while denying al-Hakim any opportunity for truth, fair relief, and justice against them in the “legal system”! The court has heeded al-Hakim’s intentions to not only litigate his cases but some directly involve the corruption naming judges dating back nearly 40 years and the courts can not afford nor will they allow this to happen! They will shut down al-Hakim at ALL COST!
The cases and hearings, which involves contested issues of law or fact, and which had been assigned to Judge Brand, should NEVER have been assigned and no matters hereinafter arising should be heard or assigned to Judge Brand, on the ground that he is irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff.
Brand does not provide any answers to the Challenges served on him because he can’t afford to incriminate himself until finally he decided NOT to answer a Green Key challenge until over a month after the Challenge was served, thereby consenting to the Challenge. al-Hakim incorporated those entire challenges therein until such time as he answers the challenges!
VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Aware Superior Court Criminal/Civil Vexatious Entrapment Litigation Strategy
al-Hakim is aware that the Superior Court administration and judges have been working with law enforcement in a covert criminal undercover sting operation trying to entrap, frame and incriminate him in criminal activity that is fostered by the hearings in his cases that are selectively being recorded by the court reporter whom arbitrarily goes on and off the record at the judges silent instruction, thereby editing the proceedings while in progress, to charge, try, convict, incarcerate and eliminate al-Hakim! The main purpose for the courts using this tactic and employing “court observers”, colluding with the opposing parties and the entities mention in the “WRIT RACKET” criminal, civil, vexatious entrapment defense litigation strategy with third parties was to enable the filing of the vexatious motion. These entities colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, co-counsel, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of al-Hakim through the illegal use of public funds!The court costs of addressing the challenges can NOT be a consideration when the courts has deviated far from the norm of standard litigation by employing their own private court observers, reporters, and agents in their cause to fabricate a case against al-Hakim and the vexatious motion.
Judge Kaus admits to the courts acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law! But it took four challenges and multiple rulings challenged for fraud on the court, abuse of discretion, bias, prejudice, perjury, and failing to disclose conflicts of interest for Kaus to finally recuse retroactive to his assignment because he failed and refused to disclose a know conflict in these cases that now have to re-litigated at a heavy cost to the parties and the court!
VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “Illegal” Proceedings are Corruption
Based on the matters contained herein, on the United States and California State Constitutional rights and on this document filed herewith, al-Hakim’s cases, these entire “illegal proceedings” are solely for the purpose of the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities illegally utilizing the full force and resources of the government in a covert criminal undercover sting operation by fostering, fabricating and manipulating any filing, pleading, argument, facts, truth, faxes, emails, phone calls, voicemail messages, letters, hearings, request, reservation numbers, motion practice, motion titles, ex-parte applications, hearings, parties, appearances, continuances, schedules, proceedings, register of actions, Court Domainweb, statements, evidence, testimony, documents, word, inference, vague reference, or gesture that they can remotely interpret as evidence of any remote action they seek to advocate to incriminate, charge, try, convict, incarcerate and eliminate al-Hakim!
These are cases that al-Hakim has filed, they are his cases, NOT the courts, nor judges, nor law enforcement, nor government, nor legal entities in power! Yet they have hijacked al-Hakim, his religion, his truth, his family; their home, their lives; their personal, real, and business property; his businesses; his community; those they serve; his cases; his rights; his freedom; his pursuit of happiness; justice; the Constitution; his very existence! (See Entire “Illegal” Proceedings are Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption at page 138)
VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption
This Grand corruption is systemic and endemic in ALL al-Hakim cases involves the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in power colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, co-counsel, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of al-Hakim through the illegal use of public funds!
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which further disqualifies the judge. al-Hakim again renews the request for those affected Judges to disqualify themselves, ALL of them, including ALL those named herein.
The fact that the trial court, the judges, clerks, and court administration are parties is an insuperable moral, ethical, and legal obstacle since they are more than a nominal party. (People v. Cimarusti, supra, 81 Cal. App.3d 314, 320; U.S. Financial v. Sullivan (1974) 37 Cal. App.3d 5, 12, fn. 6 [112 Cal. Rptr. 18].)
al-Hakim 2005 U. S. A. G., DOJ- and Judge Clay’s 56 Federal Corruption Complaints
“I don’t care about challenges, they don’t mean anything to me, I’m not scared of them!”. “He has said that he files complaints, files challenges to document the actions of the court”. “He filed complaints with me when I was presiding court judge”, “his work is quite good, better than many of the attorney’s that has appeared before me!”, “he’s a litigator in his own way”
Judge C, Don Clay on al-Hakim’s challenges and 56 complaints filed with and against him over the years
In July, 2005, al-Hakim filed a Federal Corruption Complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him during the trial al-Hakim v. CSAA and Rescue, et. al”  in Superior Court of Alameda County, California.
al-Hakim’s initial investigation of his USDOJ demanded a change in this criminal, tactical policy of isolation, victimization, criminalization and the attempted entrapment of al-Hakim as the continuing victim, including the use of government initiated, Nixon era “White House Plumbers” and CoIntelpro style dirty tricks!
This State sponsored persecutory terror and civil conspiracy has brought into play Federal, Sate County and local judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies (“entities”) to further their continued investigation of al-Hakim whom has been surveilled for years and continues today with the compromising of many agents and informants covers due to their sloppiness. These actions of these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies are just one example of the continuing efforts of law enforcement to silence and eliminate al-Hakim, even by death, as their “enemy of the State” adversary when al-Hakim has caught and exposed them as they have been entrapped in their own criminal snares!
The FIFTY SIX (56) complaints listed in the 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE against judge Clay is only a small sample of documentation since 1980, and more recently 2000, al-Hakim has filed and served a variety of letters, formal complaints, legal actions and legal challenges with the United States Attorney General’s Office- Department of Justice; Federal and California State Judges, their ruling bodies and Associations; the Alameda County Superior Court of California, United States Attorney’s Office- Northern District; United States District Court- Northern Division, Attorney General of California, Alameda County District Attorney; City of Oakland and Oakland City Attorney; Federal, State and local law enforcement; Federal, State and local politicians; regarding the many blatant civil rights violations, fraud, criminal activities and corruption of these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities that was widely distributed over the internet and posted on many websites. (see 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE of Judge Clay filed OCTOBER 3, 2018, and “al-Hakim 56 Complaints listed Document Communications with Clay Detail Corruption and Cover UP!”, filed December 19, 2018, both in al-Hakim v. Interserver Inc., RG18-888371)
“WRIT RACKET”
al-Hakim has filed multiple complaints for years against Justices Jones, Burns, James Humes, Terence Bruiniers, Sandra Margulies, Anthony Kline, and Kathleen Banke as well as Challenges for Cause against Associate Justice James Richman and Henry Needham, Jr. whom apparently sit in this group but has not openly participated in the decisions.
al-Hakim has filed multiple complaints for years against California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, former Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Federal Chief District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, and former Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken also.
In these matters, it has been established and admitted that there has been illicit ex parte collusion and conspiracy between Superior Court judges Wynne Carvill, Kim Colwell, Jeff Brand, Robert Freedman, Frank Roesch, Stephan Kaus, Mike Markman, Don Clay, Stephan Pulido, Ioana Petrou, Yolanda Northridge, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Kevin Murphy, Jo-Lynne Lee, Scott Patton, David Krashna, Jennifer Madden, Sue Alexander, Glenn Oleon, George Hernandez, Tara Desautels, Leo Dorado, Dennis Hayashi, Julia Spain, several commissioners, and the Superior Court Administration of Chad Finke and the Appeals court with the judges mentioned above. Three of the judges have offered the same unsolicited.
Additionally, Judges Ronni MacLaren, Frank Roesch and Jo-Lynne Lee issued ORDERS OF SELF DISQUALIFICATION/REFUSAL pursuant to C.C.P. §170.1 (a)(6)(A)(ii) and C.C.P. §170.1 (a)(6)(A)(iii). This fact demonstrates that there has been and continues to be pervasive illegal ex-parte communications between the judges regarding al-Hakim because al-Hakim has NEVER had any contact with some judges that recused.
These superior court judges have conspired with the appellant courts to independently take it upon themselves to broadcast their “dog whistle signal to the appeals court” to deny al-Hakim’s petition and issue orders in their support forcing al-Hakim into the “WRIT RACKET”! This is NOT having a trial, this is being “railroaded by the court in a case that is ALREADY fixed against you!”
This action are part of what litigants have come to know as the “WRIT RACKET” instituted by the legal system, judges, courts, the judicial administrative and regulatory agencies, both State and Federal!
These entities have made such a mockery of justice that now these judges do not hesitate to deny or violate a litigants rights and defy them to file a writ knowing that the Supreme Court, Appeals Court, Superior Court Administration, the Judicial Council, and the Commission on Judicial Performance, will cover up and white-wash their criminal activity! These criminal justices are forcing appellants into the Appeals Court cemetery for civil rights, where the Rule of Law is Overruled and Outlawed, the death of due process, where justice is a miscarriage, the treason of truth, the homicide of human rights, the dumpster for denial, where litigants rights are banished to rot in oppression, and die!
al-Hakim’s legal opponents, CSAA and others are engaged in corruption and conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived and employing this “WRIT RACKET” criminal entrapment defense litigation strategy with third parties, other judicial, governmental, law enforcement and legal entities employees, associates, members, agents, contractors, and informants of the U. S. Attorney General- Northern California, Homeland Security (NSA), F.B.I., U. S. Federal Court- Northern California District, California State Supreme Court, California State Appeals Court, Governor of California, California Attorney General, Alameda County District Attorney, Oakland City Attorney, California State Senator, California Congressperson, Alameda County Supervisors, Mayor of Oakland, Oakland City Councilpersons, Alameda County Superior Court, Judicial Council of California, among others, inciting the courts acrimony, animus, and persecution of al-Hakim with judicial calumny deceit!
To understand the “WRIT RACKET”, one needs to know what a “racket” and “racketeering” mean and depict in the legal community and population at large. The definitions are:
Racket
“A racket is a planned or organized criminal act, usually in which the criminal act is a form of business or a way to earn illegal or extorted money regularly or briefly but repeatedly. A racket is often a repeated or continuous criminal operation.”
Racketeering
“Racketeering, often associated with organized crime, is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a “racket”) to solve a problem that wouldn’t otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service. Racketeering as defined by the RICO act includes a list of 35 crimes.”
Moreover, this is exactly what the judges meant by their “dog whistle” signal/statement at the hearings that they would rely on their “colleagues (in the Appeals Court)” to support their decision to ignore the Rule of Law knowing that the appellate judges would do just as Jones, Burns, Bruiniers, Margulies, Kline, Humes and Banke did, “cover-up for him”.
Brand and the courts actions are a content- and viewpoint- based restriction on speech and lacks any objective criteria for suppressing speech and censorship of constitutionally protected free speech, engage in discriminatory business practices with impunity in violation of the U. S. Constitution First Amendment and California Civil Code § 51, and Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution for Violations of Free Speech, provides: “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.” when Plaintiff‟s viewpoints, are protected speech under the California Constitution, where the court harassed Plaintiff by engaging in a severe and pervasive scheme to suppress his constitutional and statutory right to engage in protected activity, by executing against him punitive and adverse judicial actions, and termination of his basic rights to due process?
By operation and application of judges restrictions set forth herein has unlawfully deprived Plaintiff of their full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in violation of CCP §51 and abused its discretion and improperly prejudice al-Hakim, under color of law, the Judges sought to deprive him of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
These Constitutional violations of Plaintiff’s rights and prejudices Plaintiff suffered herein, when the judges denied his civil rights and due process, an equal opportunity to participate in unbiased pursuit of his legal claims, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, religion, whistleblowing activities, bias, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, prejudice, favoritism, bigotry and racism; 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; illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim; denied the appeal with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the rights guaranteed by U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV, Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Under Color Of State Law; Section 1983, Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts, and the Bane Acts.
When the conduct of the Judges was unreasonable and undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others, plaintiff’s injuries and the violations of his constitutional rights were directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of the Appeals Court, which were the moving force behind the acts described herein caused damages to plaintiff, and will continue to cause damage to plaintiff in violation of his civil rights, and due process and equal protection of the laws under the U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV by this denial of equal access to an unbiased legal process.
Given the principle involved in this case is not merely one of fairness to al-Hakim but also one of maintaining respect for the law and promoting confidence in the administration of justice. (As the United States Supreme Court stated in In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 [99 L. Ed. 942, 946, 75 S. Ct. 623, 625]: “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. … Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 [75 S. Ct. 11, 13].”)
Where the court acted as described herein with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights with the intent to injure, vex, annoy and harass Plaintiff, subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intention of causing Plaintiff injury and depriving him of his constitutional rights when in these circumstances, there was denial of a substantial right rendered the ensuing commitment illegal because it is impossible for this or a reviewing court not to conclude that “a different result would have been probable if such error … or defect had not occurred or existed.”? (CCP § 475.)
Faced with the imminent threat of having to publicly confront the legal, professional, social, political and financial consequences of their twenty (20) years of GRAND CORRUPTION, filed this polemic nearly bare of supported facts or authorities, in this completely meritless motion, in a last ditch attempt to BAR al-Hakim from “coming for them” in proceedings which are finally approaching on the outstanding grand corruption matters by Brand enacting their entrapment strategy to declare al-Hakim a “vexatious litigant” in a matter brought by Brand, to heard by Brand, and judged by Brand and BRAND ALONE!!!
A determination of vexatious litigant status specifically under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §391(b)(3) requires somewhat more than a retaliatory judge conspiring with the defendant to complain that they perceive al-Hakim vexed to their mutual motive, interest, benefit, and opportunity is a reoccurring theme over the 20 years of this case where the defendants have represented the judges in this case against al-Hakim and the judges have likewise defended the defendants as “sitting judge for the defense” and “deputy defense counsel”! There are simply no meritorious grounds for this motion at all. The statutory criteria are clearly stated and easily understood. And in this case, Plaintiff show they are as far removed from meeting the statutory criteria as possible, which Brand either knew or should have known before filing this motion out of retaliation and desperation.
The court can best decide upon the merits of the plaintiffs’ motions by reviewing them on the law, not by relying entirely upon the opinion of Brand and the entities. Even a cursory review can only lead to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs’ claims are potentially meritorious.  And that in fact the tactics of the defendants, including Brand and the entities, are harassing and delaying the court and wasting its judicial resources, by preventing his actions from proceeding to due process and discovery.
VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY DECEIT”
al-Hakim has long been targeted by United States Attorney General’s Office- Department of Justice; Federal and California State Judges, their ruling bodies and Associations; the Alameda County Superior Court of California, United States Attorney’s Office- Northern District; United States District Court- Northern Division, Attorney General of California, Alameda County District Attorney; City of Oakland and Oakland City Attorney; Federal, State and local law enforcement; Federal, State and local politicians.
The targeting by Brand, the judges, Alameda County Superior Court Administration, Alameda County District Attorney, City of Oakland and their City Attorney, California Attorney General, Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Kamala Harris, CSAA, Wellpoint, EBMUD, AT&T, Equinix, Interserver, and others, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in their VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM PERSECUTION, “MUSLIM BAN” by ”FIXING CASES” in Furtherance of their Corruption Agenda, IS PURE RETALIATION, with an aggressive campaign of calumny deceit, encouraged opposing parties to do all that they can to cause the ruin of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, their business, real and personal property, his community and the clients they serve. Their tactics are more extreme than muckraking or character assassination, wherein the court and opposing parties fabricate and gathered negative, embarrassing or compromising information about al-Hakim, publish and disperse that information as widely as possible.
In the legal context, Brand, the judges and court administration, CSAA, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities are encouraged to use the process of litigation to “harass, deny and win using all tactics””The Law can be used very easily to harass and enough harassment on someone will simply push them to the thin edge, well knowing that he is not privileged, will generally be sufficient to cause their professional if not physical death, possible to annihilate him by destroying his credibility and moral character in all contexts leaving him a social and legal “pariah” in society incapable of being associated with or represented, and utterly ruin him.
One of the many things they did to al-Hakim was to offer compensation to bribe members of his family in an effort to take his real, personal and business property from him and to cause him great pain and suffering in hopes that he would perish. Ultimately, the court and CSAA proceeded to bludgeon Mr. al-Hakim with over-burdensome litigation tactics, as well as communicating with and intimidating his partners into abandoning him, leaving al-Hakim standing alone.
The court and CSAA intimidated, coerced, bribed, and otherwise elicited perjurious, slanderous, libelous and false statements from various people about al-Hakim and implied prurient activities. What al-Hakim did not know at that time, however, was the fact that agents, informants, and contractors acted for and on behalf of Brand, the judges and court administration, CSAA, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities by unethical and criminal means, instigated the acts, which gave, rise to the fraudulent, corrupt orders in underlying cases.
In doing so, Brand, the judges and court administration, CSAA, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities actions precluded Mr. al-Hakim from ever having a fair opportunity in any of his cases, and makes it explicitly clear that he is anything but a vexatious litigant in that the unanswered challenges and orders replete with perjurious, incriminating statements were not only false but obtained through criminal conduct. In short the court instigated and committed criminal acts with these entire “illegal proceedings” solely for the purpose of the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities illegally utilizing the full force and resources of the government in a covert criminal undercover sting operation by fostering, fabricating and manipulating any filing, pleading, argument, facts, truth, faxes, emails, phone calls, voicemail messages, letters, hearings, request, reservation numbers, motion practice, motion titles, ex-parte applications, hearings, parties, appearances, continuances, schedules, proceedings, register of actions, Court Domainweb, statements, evidence, testimony, documents, word, inference, vague reference, or gesture that they can remotely interpret as evidence of any remote action they seek to advocate to incriminate, charge, try, convict, incarcerate and eliminate al-Hakim, that DESTROYED his legitimate suits and then sought to have Mr. al-Hakim declared a vexatious litigant for seeking relief based on those criminal and civil violations of the law! (see VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY DECEIT”)
Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501