Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim's Intention to Proceed with Bankruptcy Case: #18-40567

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

Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky               Martha G. Bronitsky
William Lafferty                                        Trustee
Office of the United States Trustee       P.O. Box 5004
1301 Clay Street, Room 690N                Hayward, CA 94540
Oakland, CA 94612                                  Fax: 510-266-5589
Fax: 510-637-3220                                 vsilveira@oak13.com
Roger_Efrensky@cand.uscourts.gov
William_Lafferty@cand.uscourts.gov

Xavier Becerra                                           Tracy Hope Davis
Attorney General of California                 Office of the United States Trustee
1300 I Street, Suite 125                            450 Golden Gate Ave,Ste #05-0153
P.O. Box 944255                                       San Francisco, CA 94102
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550                 Fax: 415-705-3379
FAX No.: 916-324-8835                          Tracy_Davis@cand.uscourts.gov
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
cc: ; bcc
cc: Clerk Edward J. Emmons ; bcc
Faxed and Emailed

FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     April 3, 2018
NO PAGES: 2
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Intention to Proceed with Bankruptcy Case: #18-40567

Dear Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky, Martha Bronitsky, Alex Tse, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Xavier Becerra, and Tracy Hope Davis:

It was good to briefly speak with Ms Davis today, and simply want to reiterate and make plain that I have every intention of completing my bankruptcy petition and discharging the debt even if I have to refile it.

I would NOT be filing the petition if it were not for the claimed debts that were procured through fraud!

I am some what concerned how the correspondence from the court/trustee was ALL dated on the same date, postmarked on the same date, and use that date as the time certain for the responses to all the filings that are due to began. Starting a “running clock”.

This is some what startling since those documents were not mailed by the court/trustee on that date and I received them with very little time to prepare ALL those responses to the 106, 107 series forms required to be completed from the date of the correspondence. I had to find where the forms were, get them and some advise/help with them.

It takes longer to assemble all the data that is required and do so trying to be precise and inclusive then I was able to have in this case.

Again, I have every intention of completing my bankruptcy petition even if I have to refile it.

I just can’t have Ms. Bronitsky’s presence in this case since she has previously issued me checks drawn on her business account that have bounced for insufficient funds and others that had stopped payments applied to them of $9,889.04, I do not feel comfortable going forward with her as a trustee.

The court/trustee MUST review the theft of my money in the Wong case, compensate me for my loses, and change it’s assignment of this case to Bronitsky and make a more proper assignment in the future.

You are ALL being served and I will file this letter with the courts.

Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501

Plaintiff Opposition to any Tentative Ruling Issued by Judge Clay;Alleged denial of Challenge by Judge Clay; Reply by defendant Equinix

TO:  Judge Carvill
Judge Markman
Judge Clay
René C. Davidson Courthouse
Superior Court of Alameda County
Department 1
Department 6
Department 15
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Fax: (510) 267-1567
Fax: (510) 891-6276
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
dept.15@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov
MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Case No.: RG18888371
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay being assigned this case for all purposes
Hearing: CMC
Hearing Date: May 24, 2018
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Rene C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Department 6
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil
DATE:      March 22, 2018
RE:           Plaintiff’s Unavailability and Opposition to an Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding and CMC, Case No.: RG18888371.
Dear Judges Clay, Carvill, and Markman:
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”!
Herein is Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s notice of Opposition to any Tentative Ruling Issued by Judge Clay; receipt of an alleged denial of Challenge for Cause by Judge Clay on Saturday, March 31, 2018; and a reply by defendant Equinix to an alleged Vexatious Litigant Motion on March 31, 2018.
Plaintiff herein files this standing Opposition to any Tentative Ruling Issued by Judge Clay in this or any other matter that he might issue.
He has issued an order ALREADY deeming me a Vexatious Litigant in a proceeding yet to be heard and REFUSING to have that hearing on a date I can attend, yet DEMANDING the hearing be on a date I can NOT attend due to religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for over 30 years!
Clays Alleged Denial of Challenge for Cause
Judge Clay was NEVER served a challenge, whether he would like to treat any document filed and/or served on him or the court as such is merely an attempt to further his and the courts unfortunate, agenda of denying me justice.
When and if I file a challenge, he will know it!
My filings with the court relative to Clay was an attempt to address the humanity and fairness of due process and justice, and when it is denied, to acknowledge it and hold those whom have violated those premises to be held accountable.
It was an opportunity for Clay to accept his involvement in the many issues I have addressed over the years and just quietly move away from the light being shined on the many illegal atrocities continuing to date that are still outstanding and unresolved!
The judges mentioned have exhibited clear and gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, islamophobia, xenaphobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism; repeatedly advocated imprimaturs of the plaintiffs litigation theory; voiced a negative and derogatory opinion of al-Hakim; portrayed al-Hakim a liar and when he could not prove it he tried to create the lie that in his sole judgment is a lie in order to justify his calling al-Hakim a “liar”; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; has had illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim even through third parties; highjacked the hearings with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the Unruh and Bane Acts. These efforts of the judges can qualify as a Hate Crime under the Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights and the Bane Acts, while they are clear acts of religious bigotry and intolerance for which al-Hakim will not allow.
This is vitally important because this court and the judges herein mentioned have a history of corruption and repeatedly violating plaintiff’s rights under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California State Constitution and/or covering it up!
On March 29, 2018, I had to file another complaint with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS, regarding the continued corruption of this court cartel, the “COURTEL”.
Equinix to an alleged Vexatious Litigant Motion
With regards to a reply served by defendant Equinix to an alleged Vexatious Litigant Motion I received on March 31, 2018, I will NOT attempt to respond to it since I was NEVER served any motion to begin with.
As I said before, I have never been involved in and there are NO prior orders from ANY court that deems me a vexatious litigant!
As mentioned in the denied request “What prior orders does the court have regarding this case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on this case when NOTHING has been filed in this case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants have defaulted on?”
This is a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on my litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in my cases.
How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a fee waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So am I to understand that YOUR system is guilty before a hearing on this meritless motion is even heard?
Is that NOT a major violation of the Constitution and my basic civil right to innocence before PROVEN guilty??!!!
THIS MOTION SHOULD BE DROPPED IMMEDIATELY AND SANCTIONS ORDERED ON THE PARTY THAT FILED THIS FRIVOLOUS MOTION!

This motion is scheduled for Friday, April 6, 2018 as well as the CMC scheduled for Thursday, May 24, 2018.
The defendants and the court has been on notice for over 30 years that I have a long standing religious obligations that conflict with scheduled dates on Thursdays and Fridays making it impossible for me to attend any proceedings those days.


I am NOT available on either April 6, nor May 24, 2018 and CAN NOT attend.
I previously requested that the court continue those dates while I am available on any Monday or Wednesday even on April 4, 2018, at 10 AM since I will be in court that morning in another department and May 23, 2018.
While I have NOT been served any documents from anyone in this case and these issues have NOT been subject to any prior litigation, it is NOT possible that I could be deemed a vexatious litigant!
The court has failed and refused to respond, and with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda of finding me a vexatious litigant in this matter, where I have NEVER been served ANY motion papers, apparent to all!
As mentioned we will be presenting a motion to compel the answers to the summons, requests for production of documents and subpoena as we had intended to serve our first amended complaint AFTER receiving the responses that were due a month ago. The defendants have defaulted on both issues.
This is a complaint against my internet server host for 8 years of abusesthat includes but not limited to blocking our web server, ALL incoming and outgoing email, websites and website traffic to censor, suppress, conceal and cover up our exposing their corruption with charges of Fraud, Negligence, Censorship, Misrepresentation, Defect in Product, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceptive Trade Practices, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud by Concealment, California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 17200 et seq, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Discrimination in Violation of the Unruh Act, Nuisance, Abuse of Process, Fraud by Concealment, Violation of California False Advertising Law, Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceit, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices (UDAP), Unconscionability, California FDCPA (Rosenthal Act), Violation of Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), Elder Abuse, among others.
They are in a daily operation of mounting more and more damages as they have refused and failed to mitigate their damages from 8 years of the above tortious actions!
I have sent this notice via fax and email to the following parties: dept.14@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov, WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MMarkham@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, fax: 510-267-1567, 510-891-6276, Interserver Inc, Equinix (US) Enterprises Inc, Michael  Lavrik, mike@interserver.net, John Quaglieri, john@interserver.net, fax: 201-526-6605, Anna Hsia, fax: 415-636-5965, anna@zwillgen.com, kmostofizadeh@equinix.com,bgalvin@equinix.com
CONCLUSION
I request that this charade of vexatious litigant motion be dismissed and judge Clay recuse himself from this case and address the appeals issues presented and address the continued corruption and persecution I, my family, businesses, and communities we serve continue to suffer at your individual and collective gavels.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: April 2, 2018
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff
510-394-4501

Chad Finke’s Illegal Appeal’s Court Dismissal for Failure to Complete Designation of Record

TO:  Judge Michael Markman          Judge Kim Colwell
Judge Wynne Carvill                        Judge Jeff Brand
Judge Kim Colwell                            Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Jon Rolefsen                          Departments 511 and 507
Judge Evelio Grillo                             Hayward Hall of Justice
Judge Morris Jacobson                    24405 Amador Street
Judge C. Don Clay                             Hayward, CA 94544
Judge Winifred Smith                       FAX #: 510-690-2824
Judge Yolanda Northridge
Judge Stephen Pulido
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee
Judge Kevin R. Murphy
Superior Court of Alameda County
Departments 1, and 511
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.507@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov,EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KMurphyalameda.courts.ca.gov, JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov,YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
Chad Finke                                      Judge Lesley Holland
Executive Officer                            Superior Court of San Joaquin County
Superior Court of California          Departments 31and 12
County of Alameda                        Stockton Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street Room 209       222 E. Weber Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612                        Stockton, California 95202
Fax: 510-891-6276                        Fax: (209) 992-5667
cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Martin Hoshino                                  Victoria B. Henley
Director                                              Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California           Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue                 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688      San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586                   FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov             Victoria.Henley@jud.ca.gov
John.Wordlaw@jud.ca.gov
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye             Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California           Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments                   350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                                 San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                            Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205          Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Alex Tse                                        Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                   Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                 U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                     6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue           1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102           Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234            FAX No.: 415 522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                    Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov            Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov
Xavier Becerra
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
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
Faxed and Emailed bcc:
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     April 2, 2018
NO PAGES: 3 +  4 page Filed stamped copy of Designation of Record on Appeal Form
RE:        Appellant al-Hakim’s Letter regarding Chad Finke’s Illegal Appeal’s Court Dismissal for Failure to Complete Designation of Record on Appeal, Rule of Court 8.130, al-HAKIM VS CSAA- Wellpoint, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #C811337, California Appeals Court Case# 153640, California Supreme Court Case# S-247169
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
This fact is live and well in this complaint as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:
On Saturday, March 31, 2018, I received a letter from the Appeals Court dated March 27, 2018, stating that my appeal in the above case is dismissed for failure to cure the default of not filing the designation of record on appeal form.
The letter states that on February 22, 2018, the court notified me of the default and the case could be dismissed if it was not cured. It also states that on March 12, 2018 Chad Finke of the superior court issued a certificate opining that I had failed to remedy the default within the time allowed by law.
The document requested was provided to the appeals clerk in the Oakland office when I filed the appeal on February 12, 2018, including an additional, more exhaustive designation of the record filed on pleading paper.The clerk returned the designation of record form because it was on the form for “limited” cases. Later that day I sent the correct form to her and three others in the appeals office via email as she requested.
I went to the Oakland appeals office to get a filed stamped copy of the document and the same clerk (can’t discern what her name is from her signature) informed me then that she had received the completed designation of record form but could not file it because it was emailed. She had no answer when I asked her why she requested me to email it if she wasn’t going to file it. She said that she had the filed stamped written version of the designation of record and printed out a copy for me.
I returned to the Oakland office and filed the completed designation of record form and received a filed stamped copy on March 8, 2018, a copy of which is attached that I sent to Ms. Annie Reasoner and Mr. Charles Johnson of the Appeals court via fax email (ann.reasoner@jud.ca.gov, (Charles.Johnson@jud.ca.gov).
I have no idea why this case has been dismissed when I submitted the document requested and would like the default cured, and an answer to that question.
It seems that this is just another example of the continuing fraud at the hand of Chad Finke whom has been served at least 3 subpoenas and request for production of documents, and 7 other request that has been made of the Court to respond under California Rules of Court 10.500, FOIA, Brown Act- California Public Records Act Request (PRA), and Ethics Complaints with NO RESPONSE from the court nor the court administration, as well as the Judicial Council and Commission on Judicial Performance with the same non response.
Given that we have had no response from these authorities refusing to comply with the subpoenas and administrative requests, I have no choice but to file actions with the responsible agencies to discover this information and resolve the legal concerns expressed for years.
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.
Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Opposition to Assigning case to Martha Bronitsky, Case: #18-40567

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

Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky               Martha G. Bronitsky
William Lafferty                                        Trustee
Office of the United States Trustee       P.O. Box 5004
1301 Clay Street, Room 690N                Hayward, CA 94540
Oakland, CA 94612                                  Fax: 510-266-5589
Fax: 510-637-3220                                 vsilveira@oak13.com
Roger_Efrensky@cand.uscourts.gov
William_Lafferty@cand.uscourts.gov

Xavier Becerra                                           Tracy Hope Davis
Attorney General of California                 Office of the United States Trustee
1300 I Street, Suite 125                            450 Golden Gate Ave,Ste #05-0153
P.O. Box 944255                                       San Francisco, CA 94102
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550                 Fax: 415-705-3379
FAX No.: 916-324-8835                          Tracy_Davis@cand.uscourts.gov
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
cc: ; bcc
cc: Clerk Edward J. Emmons ; bcc
Faxed and Emailed

FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     March 28, 2018
NO PAGES: 3
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Opposition to Assigning case to Martha Bronitsky, Case: #18-40567

Dear Chief Judge Roger L. Efrensky, Martha Bronitsky, Alex Tse, Phyllis J. Hamilton, Xavier Becerra, and Tracy Hope Davis:

I am the debtor in the above referenced case and have spoken with advisors regarding Ms. Bronitsky’s presence in this case and I have resolved that since she has previously issued me checks drawn on her business account that have bounced for insufficient funds and others that had stopped payments applied to them of $9,889.04, I do not feel comfortable going forward with her as a trustee.

In 1980-94, I owned and operated a computer store in downtown Oakland that was bombed and burglarized by Oakland Police officers and members of the force.
I caught them and one plead guilty, another was convicted and I was awarded restitution and attorneys fees in that case.

The officer that plead guilty Kailey Wong, he and his wife Susan filed bankruptcy (Case #9542893) wherein that case was assigned to Bronitsky.

On December 8, 1998 Martha Bronitskys’ office sent authorization to Fidelity National for payment of $9,889.04 of my money (Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, “CRD 080164”) to Eugene Schneider from their escrow account for the refinancing of the above mentioned debtors home and to close-out this case.

I contacted her office at least twelve times by phone (my records are available) and seven times by fax/letter (see her file and the U.S. Federal Court file) and it is clear that Mrs. Bronitsky knew or should have known that Mr. Schneider was not and had not ever my attorney.I requested that she immediately issue my $9,889.04 check to me. Her office informed me that they would not provide any justification for her actions.

In January-March, 1999 I attempted to address this issue with Mark L. Pope, Linda Ekstrom-Stanley, and Carol Roth among others, wherein it was just covered-up!

We have been assembling the necessary data to go forward with the filing to resolution and intend to contest the alleged debts of:
CSAA-Wellpoint Asset Recovery as this alleged debt was procured through fraud that is continuing;
USDOJ as this alleged debt was paid in 1978;
National Collection Agency as we DO NOT KNOW who they represent and we have issued debt buyers demands upon them and they have failed and refused to respond;
Alliance Credit/Bank 1, T. Miller as this alleged debt was procured through fraud and recently dismissed in court;

We are still investigating other claims and liens.

I ask that the court review the theft of my money in the Wong case, compensate me for my loses, and change it’s assignment of this case to Bronitsky and make a more proper assignment.

You are ALL being served and I will file this letter with the courts.

Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501

Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Unavailability and Opposition to an Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding and CMC.

TO:     Judge Carvill
Judge Markman
Judge Clay
René C. Davidson Courthouse
Superior Court of Alameda County
Department 1
Department 6
Department 15
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Fax: (510) 267-1567
Fax: (510) 891-6276
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
dept.15@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov
MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Case No.: RG18888371
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay being assigned this case for all purposes
Hearing: CMC
Hearing Date: May 24, 2018
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Rene C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Department 6
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil
DATE:      March 22, 2018
RE:           Plaintiff’s Unavailability and Opposition to an Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding and CMC, Case No.: RG18888371.
Dear Judges Clay, Carvill, and Markman:
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Convict judge Freedman lives by and practices this credo today!
Herein is Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s opposition to an Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding.
I have searched the Register of Actions in this case and ALL other possible cases I have ever been involved in and found there is NO prior order from ANY court that deems me a vexatious litigant!
I did however find that there is a motion for same scheduled for Friday, April 6, 2018 as well as the CMC scheduled for Thursday, May 24, 2018.
This is notable because the defendants and the court has been on notice for over 30 years that I have a long standing conflict of schedules on Thursdays and Fridays.
I am NOT available on either April 6, nor May 24, 2018.
I am herewith requesting that the court continue those dates while I am available on any Monday or Wednesday even on April 4, 2018, at 10 AM since I will be in court that morning in another department and May 23, 2018.
While I have NOT been served any documents from anyone in this case and these issues have NOT been subject to any prior litigation, it is NOT possible that I could be deemed a vexatious litigant!
THIS MOTION SHOULD BE DROPPED IMMEDIATELY AND SANCTIONS ORDERED ON THE PARTY THAT FILED THIS FRIVOLOUS MOTION!
We will be presenting a motion to compel the answers to the summons, requests for production of documents and subpoena as we had intended to serve our first amended complaint AFTER receiving the responses that were due a month ago. The defendants have defaulted on both issues.
This is a complaint against my internet server host for Fraud, Negligence, Censorship, Misrepresentation, Defect in Product, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceptive Trade Practices, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud by Concealment, California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal Bus & Prof Code §§ 17200 et seq, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Discrimination in Violation of the Unruh Act, Nuisance, Abuse of Process, Fraud by Concealment, Violation of California False Advertising Law, Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Breach of Implied Warranty, Deceit, Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices (UDAP), Unconscionability, California FDCPA (Rosenthal Act), Violation of Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), Elder Abuse, among others.
They are in a daily operation of mounting more and more damages as they have refused and failed to mitigate their damages from years of the above tortious actions!
The ONLY way I was aware of this is because I recently filed a fee waiver request for Reporters transcripts, Expert testimony, Jury Fees, after having been approved for a previous waiver.
I just received a notice of the waiver being denied citing my being deemed a Vexatious Litigant and a court motion pending for an alleged Vexatious Litigant proceeding.
I can’t tell from the signature who endorsed the denied waiver but it may be judge Carvill.
I have NEVER been deemed as such, NEVER received any such notice and am unaware of this pending process which needless to say is without ANY merit!

Who filed this motion, when, and what proof of service have they filed?
When is this motion being heard, in what department and by whom?
As mentioned in the denied request “What prior orders does the court have regarding this case or myself that could possibly have any bearing on this case when NOTHING has been filed in this case but my summons and subpoena which the defendants have defaulted on?”
This is a fabricated motion to allow the court an opportunity to enact it’s motive to impose unjust measures on my litigation and destroy any remote chance of justice in my cases.
How is the justice system that you run in this county allowed to deny an application for a fee waiver because an unknown motion is “pending”? So am I to understand that YOUR system is guilty before a hearing on this meritless motion is even heard?
Is that NOT a major violation of the Constitution and my basic civil right to innocence before PROVEN guilty??!!!
I have already opposed Judge C. Don Clay’s assignment to the above referenced case for all purposes in Department 6. Judge Clay sits on the Superior Court Appeals Division judiciary and I have two matters that are currently before that panel and he has much greater value there as opposed to hearing this matter. I would hate to think that this is just another example of the ongoing manipulation of the assignment of judges I my cases that I have brought to the attention of various authorities.
This matter was initially assigned on January 11, 2018 to Judge Stephen Kaus yet without any notice, appearances, rulings, or recusals, it was reassigned to judge Clay.
I have had numerous occasions to interact with Judge Clay over the years and in virtually every one it has been in regards to a complaint of judicial misconduct requesting an investigation that is part of the opinion rendered by Administrative Judge Lesley Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden that is at the heart of this opposition as it is center focus of the appeal referenced below. Judge Clay is tainted with information that would disqualify him from that interaction and I would NOT be comfortable with him acting in a judicial capacity in this case. In the complaints that were submitted to him, some complaining about him, he did nothing to respond to nor address the issues of the complaints, which suggest that he was simply complicit and participated in their cover up.
On one occasion he responded to a traffic warrant that was issued for my arrest by judge Tigar in the appeals division after I appealed a decision by judge Tabor whom proceeded not to respond to the appeal. After I requested the case be dismissed in the interest of justice six months AFTER the default and the Tigar warrant, judge Clay granted the dismissal.
In another matter in the appeals court, I had paid $315 in advance for a transcript that was critical to my case and the court reporters refused to prepare it. Without the transcript I was unable to present the major aspect of my case and it was dismissed for that reason. Judge Clay manage to have the court administration to refund only $280 of the prepaid $315 fee for the denied transcript.
I thank him for both those gestures as no one else has done anything similar even when they were demanded by law to do so.
However, Judge Clay sits on the Superior Court Appeals Division judiciary and I have two matters that are currently before that panel with discovery issues and one involves Presiding Court Judge Wynne Carvill wherein the discovery is directly related to the need for additional information and documents as ordered by Administrative Judge Lesley Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden. In judge Holland’s order/opinion he specifically refers to “criminal conduct”.
In Judge Holland’s DECISION RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE JENNIFER MADDEN. CCP §§ 170.1 and 170.3(c)1. Alameda Court Case No.: No.OCV-0574030; Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17, Filed April 11, 2017, he plainly states “Mr. al-Hakim’ s personal knowledge of these circumstances is not adequately demonstrated in his declaration.” and “Nowhere does al-Hakim offer competent evidentiary support”.
Holland discusses crimes that were committed, criminality, wherein he mentions various parties that have been named. This fact alone opens up discovery into those matters that he says are not and can not be contained in transcripts.
He writes in a footnote on page 4 of his decision of the challenge for cause of judge Madden:
“This alleged investigation in this case is described in broad terms in the Statement: “[Judge] Madden has been, is and will irrevocably tainted and will/must be a NAMED defendant, witness, and attorney with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office (DA) that is involved in these two, 30 year, ongoing legal cases and investigation by the U.S. and California State Attorney Generals involving the DA’s office and the Oakland City Attorney fraud that Nancy O’Malley, Kamala Harris, and Judge Kim Colwell is also named in that is directly involved in these same case attempting to be put before her to serve as judge and trier of fact in!” (Sic.) Statement, 3:25-4:4.”
On May 9, 2017, Judge Wynne Carvill issued an “Order for Stay Pending Appeal” pursuant to CCP §§ 916, and a Case Management Conference set for November 8, 2017.
It should be noted that al-Hakim has filed THREE (3) request for production of documents and subpoenas as well as SIX (6) Requests for Production of Documents, in various forms of under California Rules of Court 10.500, FOIA, Brown Act- California Public Records Act Request (PRA), and Ethics Complaints with NO RESPONSE on the Superior Court Administration, and the Judicial Council.
Just as important is the fact that Defendant, as the moving party, has the burden of establishing grounds for disqualification based on facts, that they know are not inscribed in the transcripts.
The most profound element that has come out of this is judge Holland’s comments as follows:
”Here, Mr. al-Hakim alleges a litany of serious misconduct or outright criminality – by persons other than Judge Carvill, He complains of past mistreatment by numerous judges (and at least one commissioner) apparently because they ruled against him in other cases as well as the instant case.
Al-Hakim’s attack is not limited to judicial officers. He accuses numerous other persons and agencies of serious wrongdoing.”
Judge Lesley Holland criminality comments portray perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
The Judicial disciplinary bodies have a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If Defendant somehow thinks his civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how is he going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give him a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Is Defendant suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?
As those discovery matters and cases move forward, I would NOT want to have them compromised by judge Clay being involved in this current case, or vice-versa.
On November 13, 2017, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim sent a fax and email as follows:
Judge Kevin R. Murphy- Dept. 10               Irwin J. Eskanos
Judge C. Don Clay- Dept. 6                         4 Orinda Way, Suite 180 -C
Judge Michael M. Markman- Dept. 2          Orinda, CA 94563
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee- Dept. 18                FAX NO. (925) 791-1444
APPELLATE DIVISION Irwin@essventures.com
Superior Court of Alameda County myrna@theacsinc.com
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
KMurphy@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.10@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept6@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept2@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Judge Kevin R. Murphy Fax: 510-891-6276; Judge C. Don Clay Fax: 510-891-6276, Judge Michael M. Markman Fax: 510-263-4309, Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee Fax: 510-891-5304
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     November 10, 2017
NO PAGES:     5 pages
RE:        Defendants Request to Formally Open Discovery in Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., MILLER VS HAKIM, Case: #OCV0574030, Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17
Dear Appellate Judges Murphy, Clay, Markman and Lee:
I am sending you ALL as well as plaintiff’s this fax and email to request that the court formally open discovery and formally recognize our discovery requests filed with the court in this matter.
Attached please find Defendants Request to Formally Open Discovery in Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., MILLER VS HAKIM, Case: #OCV0574030, Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17.
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501
In that 5 page letter, I complained about the discovery issues pertinent to the cases here being compromised by Judge Colwell attempting to rule on these appeals matters in HER superior court. That includes the third party respondents attempted to being allowed NOT to respond to the request for production of documents and subpoenas. It even references the court administration removing the third parties from the docket and register of actions as if the never existed only to have to “admit error” when it became obvious that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff were caught and had subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
This fact was reported to Appellate Judges Murphy, Clay, Markman and Lee yet they did nothing!
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye Orders Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County
On Monday, January 22, 2018 the hearing scheduled on the Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Renewed Judgment and for Terminating Sanctions and other relief, and Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., in MILLER VS HAKIM, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #OCV0574030 was continued by the Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, to February 8, 2018, in Dept. 511 at 9:00 a.m.
The Chief Justice. She wrote:
“THE HONORABLE JOHN B. ELLIS, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, is hereby assigned to sit as a Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, on the following date(s):
January 8, 2018 To February 8, 2018.
and until completion and disposition of any specific open motion or other matter pending in a case before the judge at the time the assignment ends. Any further motions or other matters in the case may be heard only pursuant to a separate appointment order.
Dated: January 8, 2018”
This essentially amounts to a Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County which al-Hakim OPPOSES because it does NOT hold the corruptors and abusers accountable for their continued actions! This is merely a inconvenient way out for them! 
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!
However, on January 23, 2018 Judge Colwell issued an Order calendaring the Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment, Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions (See Colwell’s Order under Ex “B”, page 2) as follows:
“ORDER (1) PLACING MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT BACK ON CALENDAR AND (2) STATING COURT’S UNDERSTANDING OF EFFECT OF ORDER OF 1/11/18.
On 1/31/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion for terminating sanctions. This was set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 10/11/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion to compel discovery. These were set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 12/13/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a challenge to Judge Krashna. On 1/8/18, the Chief Justice assigned the challenge to Judge Ellis in Solano County. On 1/18/18, Judge Ellis issued his decision.
ORDER

The court ORDERS that the motion of al-Hakim to vacate and set aside the judgment under CCP 473 is PLACED ON CALENDAR for 2/8/18. It appears that the court somehow dropped the matter and never decided the motion. The court may correct its ministerial errors. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 181, 185; Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1199,1204.)
The court ORDERS that its understanding of the 1/8/18 order of the Chief Justice is that the order assigned the challenge of Judge Krashna to Judge Ellis in Solano County but did not assign all pending motions to Judge Ellis. There was no request to assign all motions to an out of county judge. Judges in the Superior Court, Alameda County, will continue hearing the motions in this case.”
The order was dated January 23, 2018 and the proof of service was filed and mailed on January 29, 2018.
Additionally, there were orders issued January 24, 2018 by Colwell both the same day and proof of service was the same day January 29, 2018 calendaring the Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions.” This effort on behalf of Colwell is another “power grab” in an effort to conceal and further cover up that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Even though she had NO authority to administer, rule, or decide the case until AFTER February 8, 2018, on February 6, 2018 Colwell issued a tentative ruling in the case, I opposed that tentative ruling the same day, she held my ex-parte hearing February 7, 2018, to continue the matter and I was granted that continuance to February 26, 2018. She totally usurped the power of the Chief Justice and independently determined the outcome of the matters properly before Judge Ellis alone!
The hearing resulted in Judge Colwell “granting” my motion to vacate and set aside the renewed judgment after a 22 year struggle for justice! But it is a pyrrhic victory as she did NOT award fees, costs, sanctions as plead, but attempted to dismiss the discovery aspects of the case as “moot” since the case is over! She did this because the discovery is directly related to the need for additional information and documents as by ordered by Judge Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden. In his order/opinion he specifically refers to “criminal conduct” on behalf of Judge Colwell that she nows seeks to award herself a “plea bargain with a get-out-of-jail-free card!”. I opposed the ruling and it is scheduled to be heard on Monday, February 26, 20018 in department 511.
The tragedy of how these motions were continuously and mysteriously “dropped” from the calendar even AFTER SEVEN complaints, is subject of the corruption investigation right now and is a reason that the Chief Justice took the case away from Colwell and her court administration to begin with! Judge Ellis upon his review was taken aback when he reviewed this case as there was NO logical reason why this has continually happened in al-Hakim’s cases.
Manipulative Judicial Assignments
al-Hakim knows that Clay “was not only a new judge but also had views indicating … that he would be overly impressioned by Carvill, Markham, Freedman, Jacobson, Rolefson and the Superior Court cartel.” al-Hakim is concerned someone may have improperly arranged for the transfer of the case to that judge in order to insure a continuum of Freedman’s wrath as opposed to al-Hakim receiving a fair trial that he might receive before a different judge of the superior court. Cleary Grillo lacks the appearance of fairness and al-Hakim seeks to be heard by a judge whose impartiality and fairness toward him cannot reasonably be questioned.
In one case Judge Grillo and Petrou declared the “Peremptory Challenge is denied because a peremptory challenge to Judge Paul D. Herbert was accepted and once a peremptory challenge has been accepted, the party that filed the peremptory challenge may not file another, CCP section 170.6(a)(4)”.
Judge Paul D. Herbert was NOT eligible for peremptory challenge because was irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action as he has been, is and will be a defendant, witness, attorney and partner of the law firm of Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley PC that is directly involved in this same case attempting to be put before him to serve as judge and trier of fact in! While Herbert was an attorney and partner at Ropers, they served as defense counsel for CSAA in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau. et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 811337-3, and in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 821885-2, where the defendants were represented by the law firm of Willoughby, Stuart & Bening and where Ropers were the hostile intervener for CSAA where he directly participated in the unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains from their fraud. There is currently a $600,000 lien by Ropers and CSAA as part of their unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains on the same property in question here damaged by EBMUD!
Both Presiding Judge Morris Jacobson and the Supervising Judge Jon Rolefson knew he was disqualified from consideration even for a peremptory challenge and he can NOT just arbitrarily “accept” a peremptory challenge, that’s illegal and designed to exhaust al-Hakim’s challenge, while denying his right to a fair trial, due process and clear violation of his civil rights! By doing so, she attempts to eliminate the challenge as it pertains to Petrou.
This is the second time this “manipulative judge assigning” tactic has been employed by the Superior Court Administration, the Presiding and Supervising Court Judges of assigning case to judges that they know are conflicted, tainted, bias and prejudice such that they could not survive any challenge for cause in order to force al-Hakim to waste a peremptory challenge then assign the tainted judge of their intended choice.
al-Hakim has already stated that both that Presiding Judge Jacobson and the Supervising Judge Rolefson will continue to violate the local court’s policy against bias, and prejudice.
Absent their disqualification, these judges and their colleagues on the Superior Court will assure that retaliatory reassignment occurs in plaintiff’s case in order to attempt to extend their cover-up of discriminatory animus against plaintiff. That has now happened with the assignment of the case to Petrou after Herbert while aiding Judges Petrou, Clay, Carvill, Herbert Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains!
Judge Petrou after Herbert’s assignment to this case coupled with Freedman’s actions along with Judges Jacobson and Rolefson violate Canons 2 and 3 of the California Code of Judicial Conduct, which provide that a “judge should perform the duties of judicial office impartially…” “Statutes governing disqualification for cause are intended to ensure public confidence in the judiciary and to protect the right of litigants to a fair and impartial adjudicator – not to safeguard an asserted right, privilege or preference of a judge to try or hear a particular dispute.” (Curle v. Superior Court (Gleason) (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 103.
Judges Petrou, Herbert, Jacobson, Rolefson, the Superior Court, and Judicial Council with Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!
al-Hakim KNOWS that unless this process is transparent and ALL the herein mentioned judicial officials are impartial and unbiased, former Presiding Alameda County Superior Court Judges Yolanda Northridge, Barbara J. Miller, George Hernandez, Winifred Smith, C. Don Clay, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Paul Herbert and Judge Jon Rolefson, with Stephen Brick, Kim Colwell, and retired Judges David Lee, Richard Hodge and Michael Ballachey; former U.S. Attorneys Joe Russoniello, Melinda Haag; the U. S. and California State Attorney Generals, the U. S. Federal District Courts Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken, Thelton E. Henderson, Jon Tigar; California Court of Appeal -First District, Presiding Judge Barbara J. R. Jones, Judges Kennedy, James Richman, Henry Needham, Susan Graham, Mary Quilez, Diana Herbert, Dick Sandvick; the California Courts of Appeal -First District, Alameda Superior Court Appeals Division- Mrs. Johnson-Cannon Appeals Clerk, Nancy Adams, Anita Lippman, Ruby Atwall, and ALL former and current employees; The California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; Victoria Henley, Chad Finke, Yvette Trevino, Bernadette Torivio and; The California Judges Association, Ronald G. Overholt, these judges and their colleagues in the Courts will assure that retaliation occurs in al-Hakim’s cases in an attempt to extend their cover-up of discriminatory animus against him.
Perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
The Judicial disciplinary bodies handed judge Tigar a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If I somehow think my civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how am I going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give me a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Am I suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?
I have sent this notice via fax and email to the following parties: dept.14@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov, WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MMarkham@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, fax: 510-267-1567, 510-891-6276, Interserver Inc, Equinix (US) Enterprises Inc, Michael  Lavrik, mike@interserver.net, John Quaglieri, john@interserver.net, fax: (201) 526-6605, Anna Hsia, fax: (415) 636-5965, anna@zwillgen.com, kmostofizadeh@equinix.com,bgalvin@equinix.com.
CONCLUSION
I request that this charade of vexatious litigant motion be dismissed and judge Clay recuse himself from this case and address the appeals issues presented as I have many unanswered questions for this court and Judges Carvill, Clay, Grillo, 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.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: March 19, 2018
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay’s assignment to Case No.: RG18888371

TO:     Judge Carvill
Judge Markman
Judge Clay
René C. Davidson Courthouse
Superior Court of Alameda County
Department 1
Department 6
Department 15
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
Fax: (510) 267-1567
Fax: (510) 891-6276
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
dept.15@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov
MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Case No.: RG18888371
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay being assigned this case for all purposes
Hearing: CMC
land CA 94612
Department 6
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil
DATE:      March 12, 2018
RE:           Plaintiff’s Opposition to Judge C. Don Clay’s assignment to Case No.: RG18888371.
Dear Judges Clay, Carvill, and Markman:
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Convict judge Freedman lives by and practices this credo today!
Herein is Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s opposition to Judge C. Don Clay’s assignment to the above referenced case for all purposes in Department 6. Judge Clay sits on the Superior Court Appeals Division judiciary and I have two matters that are currently before that panel and he has much greater value there as opposed to hearing this matter. I would hate to think that this is just another example of the ongoing manipulation of the assignment of judges I my cases that I have brought to the attention of various authorities. I will discuss that later.
This matter was initially assigned on January 11, 2018 to Judge Stephen Kaus yet without any notice, appearances, rulings, or recusals, it was reassigned to judge Clay.
I have had numerous occasions to interact with Judge Clay over the years and in virtually every one it has been in regards to a complaint of judicial misconduct requesting an investigation that is part of the opinion rendered by Administrative Judge Lesley Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden that is at the heart of this opposition as it is center focus of the appeal referenced below. Judge Clay is tainted with information that would disqualify him from that interaction and I would NOT be comfortable with him acting in a judicial capacity in this case. In the complaints that were submitted to him, some complaining about him, he did nothing to respond to nor address the issues of the complaints, which suggest that he was simply complicit and participated in their cover up.
On one occasion he responded to a traffic warrant that was issued for my arrest by judge Tigar in the appeals division after I appealed a decision by judge Tabor whom proceeded not to respond to the appeal. After I requested the case be dismissed in the interest of justice six months AFTER the default and the Tigar warrant, judge Clay granted the dismissal.
In another matter in the appeals court, I had paid $315 in advance for a transcript that was critical to my case and the court reporters refused to prepare it. Without the transcript I was unable to present the major aspect of my case and it was dismissed for that reason. Judge Clay manage to have the court administration to refund only $280 of the prepaid $315 fee for the denied transcript.
I thank him for both those gestures as no one else has done anything similar even when they were demanded by law to do so.
However, Judge Clay sits on the Superior Court Appeals Division judiciary and I have two matters that are currently before that panel with discovery issues and one involves Presiding Court Judge Wynne Carvill wherein the discovery is directly related to the need for additional information and documents as ordered by Administrative Judge Lesley Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden. In judge Holland’s order/opinion he specifically refers to “criminal conduct”.
In Judge Holland’s DECISION RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE JENNIFER MADDEN. CCP §§ 170.1 and 170.3(c)1. Alameda Court Case No.: No.OCV-0574030; Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17, Filed April 11, 2017, he plainly states “Mr. al-Hakim’ s personal knowledge of these circumstances is not adequately demonstrated in his declaration.” and “Nowhere does al-Hakim offer competent evidentiary support”.
Holland discusses crimes that were committed, criminality, wherein he mentions various parties that have been named. This fact alone opens up discovery into those matters that he says are not and can not be contained in transcripts.
He writes in a footnote on page 4 of his decision of the challenge for cause of judge Madden:
“This alleged investigation in this case is described in broad terms in the Statement: “[Judge] Madden has been, is and will irrevocably tainted and will/must be a NAMED defendant, witness, and attorney with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office (DA) that is involved in these two, 30 year, ongoing legal cases and investigation by the U.S. and California State Attorney Generals involving the DA’s office and the Oakland City Attorney fraud that Nancy O’Malley, Kamala Harris, and Judge Kim Colwell is also named in that is directly involved in these same case attempting to be put before her to serve as judge and trier of fact in!” (Sic.) Statement, 3:25-4:4.”
On May 9, 2017, Judge Wynne Carvill issued an “Order for Stay Pending Appeal” pursuant to CCP §§ 916, and a Case Management Conference set for November 8, 2017.
It should be noted that al-Hakim has filed THREE (3) request for production of documents and subpoenas as well as SIX (6) Requests for Production of Documents, in various forms of under California Rules of Court 10.500, FOIA, Brown Act- California Public Records Act Request (PRA), and Ethics Complaints with NO RESPONSE on the Superior Court Administration, and the Judicial Council.
Just as important is the fact that Defendant, as the moving party, has the burden of establishing grounds for disqualification based on facts, that they know are not inscribed in the transcripts.
The most profound element that has come out of this is judge Holland’s comments as follows:
”Here, Mr. al-Hakim alleges a litany of serious misconduct or outright criminality – by persons other than Judge Carvill, He complains of past mistreatment by numerous judges (and at least one commissioner) apparently because they ruled against him in other cases as well as the instant case.
Al-Hakim’s attack is not limited to judicial officers. He accuses numerous other persons and agencies of serious wrongdoing.”
Judge Lesley Holland criminality comments portray perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
The Judicial disciplinary bodies have a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If Defendant somehow thinks his civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how is he going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give him a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Is Defendant suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?
As those discovery matters and cases move forward, I would NOT want to have them compromised by judge Clay being involved in this current case, or vice-versa.
On November 13, 2017, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim sent a fax and email as follows:
Judge Kevin R. Murphy- Dept. 10               Irwin J. Eskanos
Judge C. Don Clay- Dept. 6                         4 Orinda Way, Suite 180 -C
Judge Michael M. Markman- Dept. 2          Orinda, CA 94563
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee- Dept. 18                FAX NO. (925) 791-1444
APPELLATE DIVISION Irwin@essventures.com
Superior Court of Alameda County myrna@theacsinc.com
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
KMurphy@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.10@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept6@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept2@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Judge Kevin R. Murphy Fax: 510-891-6276; Judge C. Don Clay Fax: 510-891-6276, Judge Michael M. Markman Fax: 510-263-4309, Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee Fax: 510-891-5304
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     November 10, 2017
NO PAGES:     5 pages
RE:        Defendants Request to Formally Open Discovery in Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., MILLER VS HAKIM, Case: #OCV0574030, Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17
Dear Appellate Judges Murphy, Clay, Markman and Lee:
I am sending you ALL as well as plaintiff’s this fax and email to request that the court formally open discovery and formally recognize our discovery requests filed with the court in this matter.
Attached please find Defendants Request to Formally Open Discovery in Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., MILLER VS HAKIM, Case: #OCV0574030, Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17.
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501
In that 5 page letter, I complained about the discovery issues pertinent to the cases here being compromised by Judge Colwell attempting to rule on these appeals matters in HER superior court. That includes the third party respondents attempted to being allowed NOT to respond to the request for production of documents and subpoenas. It even references the court administration removing the third parties from the docket and register of actions as if the never existed only to have to “admit error” when it became obvious that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff were caught and had subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
This fact was reported to Appellate Judges Murphy, Clay, Markman and Lee yet they did nothing!
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye Orders Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County
On Monday, January 22, 2018 the hearing scheduled on the Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Renewed Judgment and for Terminating Sanctions and other relief, and Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., in MILLER VS HAKIM, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #OCV0574030 was continued by the Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, to February 8, 2018, in Dept. 511 at 9:00 a.m.
The Chief Justice. She wrote:
“THE HONORABLE JOHN B. ELLIS, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, is hereby assigned to sit as a Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, on the following date(s):
January 8, 2018 To February 8, 2018.
and until completion and disposition of any specific open motion or other matter pending in a case before the judge at the time the assignment ends. Any further motions or other matters in the case may be heard only pursuant to a separate appointment order.
Dated: January 8, 2018”
This essentially amounts to a Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County which al-Hakim OPPOSES because it does NOT hold the corruptors and abusers accountable for their continued actions! This is merely a inconvenient way out for them! 
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!
However, on January 23, 2018 Judge Colwell issued an Order calendaring the Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment, Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions (See Colwell’s Order under Ex “B”, page 2) as follows:
“ORDER (1) PLACING MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT BACK ON CALENDAR AND (2) STATING COURT’S UNDERSTANDING OF EFFECT OF ORDER OF 1/11/18.
On 1/31/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion for terminating sanctions. This was set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 10/11/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion to compel discovery. These were set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 12/13/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a challenge to Judge Krashna. On 1/8/18, the Chief Justice assigned the challenge to Judge Ellis in Solano County. On 1/18/18, Judge Ellis issued his decision.
ORDER

The court ORDERS that the motion of al-Hakim to vacate and set aside the judgment under CCP 473 is PLACED ON CALENDAR for 2/8/18. It appears that the court somehow dropped the matter and never decided the motion. The court may correct its ministerial errors. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 181, 185; Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1199,1204.)
The court ORDERS that its understanding of the 1/8/18 order of the Chief Justice is that the order assigned the challenge of Judge Krashna to Judge Ellis in Solano County but did not assign all pending motions to Judge Ellis. There was no request to assign all motions to an out of county judge. Judges in the Superior Court, Alameda County, will continue hearing the motions in this case.”
The order was dated January 23, 2018 and the proof of service was filed and mailed on January 29, 2018.
Additionally, there were orders issued January 24, 2018 by Colwell both the same day and proof of service was the same day January 29, 2018 calendaring the Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions.” This effort on behalf of Colwell is another “power grab” in an effort to conceal and further cover up that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Even though she had NO authority to administer, rule, or decide the case until AFTER February 8, 2018, on February 6, 2018 Colwell issued a tentative ruling in the case, I opposed that tentative ruling the same day, she held my ex-parte hearing February 7, 2018, to continue the matter and I was granted that continuance to February 26, 2018. She totally usurped the power of the Chief Justice and independently determined the outcome of the matters properly before Judge Ellis alone!
The hearing resulted in Judge Colwell “granting” my motion to vacate and set aside the renewed judgment after a 22 year struggle for justice! But it is a pyrrhic victory as she did NOT award fees, costs, sanctions as plead, but attempted to dismiss the discovery aspects of the case as “moot” since the case is over! She did this because the discovery is directly related to the need for additional information and documents as by ordered by Judge Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden. In his order/opinion he specifically refers to “criminal conduct” on behalf of Judge Colwell that she nows seeks to award herself a “plea bargain with a get-out-of-jail-free card!”. I opposed the ruling and it is scheduled to be heard on Monday, February 26, 20018 in department 511.
The tragedy of how these motions were continuously and mysteriously “dropped” from the calendar even AFTER SEVEN complaints, is subject of the corruption investigation right now and is a reason that the Chief Justice took the case away from Colwell and her court administration to begin with! Judge Ellis upon his review was taken aback when he reviewed this case as there was NO logical reason why this has continually happened in al-Hakim’s cases.
Manipulative Judicial Assignments
al-Hakim knows that Clay “was not only a new judge but also had views indicating … that he would be overly impressioned by Carvill, Markham, Freedman, Jacobson, Rolefson and the Superior Court cartel.” al-Hakim is concerned someone may have improperly arranged for the transfer of the case to that judge in order to insure a continuum of Freedman’s wrath as opposed to al-Hakim receiving a fair trial that he might receive before a different judge of the superior court. Cleary Grillo lacks the appearance of fairness and al-Hakim seeks to be heard by a judge whose impartiality and fairness toward him cannot reasonably be questioned.
In one case Judge Grillo and Petrou declared the “Peremptory Challenge is denied because a peremptory challenge to Judge Paul D. Herbert was accepted and once a peremptory challenge has been accepted, the party that filed the peremptory challenge may not file another, CCP section 170.6(a)(4)”.
Judge Paul D. Herbert was NOT eligible for peremptory challenge because was irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action as he has been, is and will be a defendant, witness, attorney and partner of the law firm of Ropers Majeski Kohn and Bentley PC that is directly involved in this same case attempting to be put before him to serve as judge and trier of fact in! While Herbert was an attorney and partner at Ropers, they served as defense counsel for CSAA in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau. et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 811337-3, and in Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim v. Rescue Industries, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 821885-2, where the defendants were represented by the law firm of Willoughby, Stuart & Bening and where Ropers were the hostile intervener for CSAA where he directly participated in the unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains from their fraud. There is currently a $600,000 lien by Ropers and CSAA as part of their unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains on the same property in question here damaged by EBMUD!
Both Presiding Judge Morris Jacobson and the Supervising Judge Jon Rolefson knew he was disqualified from consideration even for a peremptory challenge and he can NOT just arbitrarily “accept” a peremptory challenge, that’s illegal and designed to exhaust al-Hakim’s challenge, while denying his right to a fair trial, due process and clear violation of his civil rights! By doing so, she attempts to eliminate the challenge as it pertains to Petrou.
This is the second time this “manipulative judge assigning” tactic has been employed by the Superior Court Administration, the Presiding and Supervising Court Judges of assigning case to judges that they know are conflicted, tainted, bias and prejudice such that they could not survive any challenge for cause in order to force al-Hakim to waste a peremptory challenge then assign the tainted judge of their intended choice.
al-Hakim has already stated that both that Presiding Judge Jacobson and the Supervising Judge Rolefson will continue to violate the local court’s policy against bias, and prejudice.
Absent their disqualification, these judges and their colleagues on the Superior Court will assure that retaliatory reassignment occurs in plaintiff’s case in order to attempt to extend their cover-up of discriminatory animus against plaintiff. That has now happened with the assignment of the case to Petrou after Herbert while aiding Judges Petrou, Clay, Carvill, Herbert Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains!
Judge Petrou after Herbert’s assignment to this case coupled with Freedman’s actions along with Judges Jacobson and Rolefson violate Canons 2 and 3 of the California Code of Judicial Conduct, which provide that a “judge should perform the duties of judicial office impartially…” “Statutes governing disqualification for cause are intended to ensure public confidence in the judiciary and to protect the right of litigants to a fair and impartial adjudicator – not to safeguard an asserted right, privilege or preference of a judge to try or hear a particular dispute.” (Curle v. Superior Court (Gleason) (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1057, 103.
Judges Petrou, Herbert, Jacobson, Rolefson, the Superior Court, and Judicial Council with Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!
al-Hakim KNOWS that unless this process is transparent and ALL the herein mentioned judicial officials are impartial and unbiased, former Presiding Alameda County Superior Court Judges Yolanda Northridge, Barbara J. Miller, George Hernandez, Winifred Smith, C. Don Clay, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Paul Herbert and Judge Jon Rolefson, with Stephen Brick, Kim Colwell, and retired Judges David Lee, Richard Hodge and Michael Ballachey; former U.S. Attorneys Joe Russoniello, Melinda Haag; the U. S. and California State Attorney Generals, the U. S. Federal District Courts Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken, Thelton E. Henderson, Jon Tigar; California Court of Appeal -First District, Presiding Judge Barbara J. R. Jones, Judges Kennedy, James Richman, Henry Needham, Susan Graham, Mary Quilez, Diana Herbert, Dick Sandvick; the California Courts of Appeal -First District, Alameda Superior Court Appeals Division- Mrs. Johnson-Cannon Appeals Clerk, Nancy Adams, Anita Lippman, Ruby Atwall, and ALL former and current employees; The California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; Victoria Henley, Chad Finke, Yvette Trevino, Bernadette Torivio and; The California Judges Association, Ronald G. Overholt, these judges and their colleagues in the Courts will assure that retaliation occurs in al-Hakim’s cases in an attempt to extend their cover-up of discriminatory animus against him.
Perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains in violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
The Judicial disciplinary bodies handed judge Tigar a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If I somehow think my civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how am I going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give me a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Am I suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?
I have sent this notice via fax and email to the following parties: dept.14@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov, WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkham@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, fax: 510-267-1567, 510-891-6276.
CONCLUSION
I request that judge Clay recuse himself from this case and address the appeals issues presented as I have many unanswered questions for this court and Judges Carvill, Clay, Grillo, 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.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: March 9, 2018
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
Plaintiff

MORE al-Hakim’s PROOF of Judge Kim Colwell Fraud in al-HAKIM VS CSAA

TO:  Judge Michael Markman          Judge Kim Colwell
Judge Wynne Carvill                        Judge Jeff Brand
Judge Kim Colwell                            Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Jon Rolefsen                          Departments 511 and 507
Judge Evelio Grillo                            Hayward Hall of Justice
Judge Morris Jacobson                   24405 Amador Street
Judge C. Don Clay                           Hayward, CA 94544
Judge Winifred Smith                      FAX #: 510-690-2824
Judge Yolanda Northridge
Judge Stephen Pulido
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee
Judge Kevin R. Murphy
Superior Court of Alameda County
Departments 1, and 511
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.507@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov,EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KMurphyalameda.courts.ca.gov, JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov,YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
Chad Finke                                      Judge Lesley Holland
Executive Officer                            Superior Court of San Joaquin County
Superior Court of California          Departments 31and 12
County of Alameda                        Stockton Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street Room 209       222 E. Weber Avenue
Oakland, CA 94612                        Stockton, California 95202
Fax: 510-891-6276                        Fax: (209) 992-5667
cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Martin Hoshino                                   Victoria B. Henley
Director                                                Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California             Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue                  455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688      San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586                   FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov             Victoria.Henley@jud.ca.gov
John.Wordlaw@jud.ca.gov
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye             Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California           Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments                   350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                                 San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                            Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205          Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Alex Tse                                           Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                     Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                   U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                       6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue             1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102             Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234              FAX No.: 415 522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                       Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                 Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov
Xavier Becerra                                      Matthew A. Brega
Attorney General of California             Director- D C. S. S.
1300 I Street, Suite 125                        Alameda County District Attorney
P.O. Box 944255                                   5669 Gibraltar Drive
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550             Pleasanton, CA 94588-8547
FAX No.: (916) 324-8835                    Fax No.: 925 468-9008
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov                 Matthew.Brega@acgov.org
Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov            Sue.Eadie@acgov.org
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov                  Ann.Deim@acgov.org
Faxed and Emailed bcc:
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     March 12, 2018
NO PAGES: 2 plus 16 page 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, California Appeals Court Case# 153510, California Supreme Court Case# S-247169.
“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3“The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
This fact is live and well in this complaint as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Carvill and Markman, Mr. Hoshino, Mr. Finke, Ms. Henley and Associate Justices of the Court:
At the hearing in Department 511 of Alameda County Superior Court before Judge Kim Colwell on the Order to Show Cause for sale of dwelling Colwell denied al-Hakim’s homestead of $175,000 ever existed, even though the defendants provided proof of it themselves (See schedule A of Litigation Guaranty attached under Ex A) and the homestead itself as proof  (See al-Hakim’s Homestead attached under Ex A); denied the current value of the District Attorney’s office filed liens for his children since 1992 (See Liens and Support Billings attached under Ex B); rejected of al-Hakim’s own sworn affidavit stating where he lives even though she sent correspondence to al-Hakim at the SAME ADDRESS in 2006 while an attorney(See 2006 Letter from Colwell attached under Ex C); without any evidence provided by anyone to contradict the 40 years of court correspondence sent to al-Hakim at the SAME address.
al-Hakim demonstrated that:
Plaintiff’s Homestead, Senior Liens DENIED BY Colwell
al-Hakim Homestead                                                  $175,000.00
Harun al-Hakim ACCT: 0010274454–;                     $107.403.73 (to date)
Bari al-Hakim-Williams ACCT: 0010044308–1;      $8,226.90 (to date)
She ignored these costs factors to order the sale of the dwelling while knowing that her fraud has cause irreparable harm to me, my family, our businesses, our community and those we serve.
Something must be done about this immediately!
Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501

PROOF of Judge Kim Colwell Fraud in al-HAKIM VS CSAA- Wellpoint

TO:
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye            Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California          Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments                  350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                                San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                          Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4205, 415-865-4391, 415-865-4586
Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.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

Judge Wynne Carvill- Dept. 1                           Chad Finke
Judge Michael M. Markman- Dept. 14             Executive Officer
Superior Court of Alameda County                  Superior Court of Alameda County
René C. Davidson Courthouse                          René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street                                              1225 Fallon Street Room 209
Oakland CA 94612                                             Oakland, CA 94612
Fax: 510-891-6276                                            Fax: 510-891-6276
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov,                   cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
Faxed and Emailed CC: Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra

FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: March 12, 2018 
NO PAGES: 2 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, California Appeals Court Case# 153510, California Supreme Court Case# S-247169.

“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” 
Matthew 7:1-3 “The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
This fact is live and well in this complaint as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Carvill and Markman, Mr. Hoshino, Mr. Finke, Ms. Henley and Associate Justices of the Court: 

At the hearing in Department 511 of Alameda County Superior Court before Judge Kim Colwell on the Order to Show Cause for sale of dwelling Colwell denied al-Hakim’s homestead of $175,000 ever existed, even though the defendants provided proof of it themselves (See schedule A of Litigation Guaranty attached under Ex A) and the homestead itself as proof  (See al-Hakim’s Homestead attached under Ex A); denied the current value of the District Attorney’s office filed liens for his children since 1992 (See Liens and Support Billings attached under Ex B); rejected of al-Hakim’s own sworn affidavit stating where he lives even though she sent correspondence to al-Hakim at the SAME ADDRESS in 2006 while an attorney (See 2006 Letter from Colwell attached under Ex C); without any evidence provided by anyone to contradict the 40 years of court correspondence sent to al-Hakim at the SAME address.

al-Hakim demonstrated that:
Plaintiff’s Homestead, Senior Liens DENIED BY Colwell
al-Hakim Homestead $175,000.00
Harun al-Hakim ACCT: 0010274454–; $107.403.73 (to date)
Bari al-Hakim-Williams ACCT: 0010044308–1;  $8,226.90 (to date)

She ignored these costs factors to order the sale of the dwelling while knowing that her fraud has cause irreparable harm to me, my family, our businesses, our community and those we serve.

Something must be done about this immediately!

Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.
 
Respectfully,
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501
ajalil1234@gmail.com

Charges of Impropriety with Judge Evelio Grillo

TO:   Judge Michael Markman       Judge Kim Colwell
Judge Wynne Carvill                      Judge Jeff Brand
Judge Kim Colwell                          Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Jon Rolefsen                         Departments 511 and 507
Judge Evelio Grillo                           Hayward Hall of Justice
Judge Morris Jacobson                  24405 Amador Street
Judge C. Don Clay                           Hayward, CA 94544
Judge Winifred Smith                      FAX #: 510-690-2824
Judge Yolanda Northridge
Judge Stephen Pulido
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee
Judge Kevin R. Murphy
Superior Court of Alameda County
Departments 1, and 511
René C. Davidson Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
WCarvill@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.507@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov, WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov, KMurphyalameda.courts.ca.gov, JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov, YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
Chad Finke                                     Xavier Becerra
Executive Officer                           Attorney General of California
Superior Court of California         1300 I Street, Suite 125
County of Alameda                        P.O. Box 944255
1225 Fallon Street Room 209     Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Oakland, CA 94612                      FAX No.: (916) 324-8835
Fax: 510-891-6276                      Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov    Peter.Southworth@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
Martin Hoshino                                Victoria B. Henley
Director                                             Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California          Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue                455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688    San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586                  FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov             Victoria.Henley@jud.ca.gov
John.Wordlaw@jud.ca.gov
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye         Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California       Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments               350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                             San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                        Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205       Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Alex Tse                                         Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                   Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                 U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                     6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue            1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102            Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234             FAX No.: 415 522-3605
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                      Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov            Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov
“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”
bcc
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     March 1, 2018
NO PAGES: 3
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Charges of Impropriety with Judge Evelio Grillo in the matters of al-Hakim v. EBMUD, Case: #RG14740943, and al-Hakim v. AT&T Inc., Case: #RGl7881130; and VERY SERIOUS blatant court administrative “errors”.
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order” with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
This fact is live and well in this complaint as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markham and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, and Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:
On several occasions I have expressed my ongoing concern for Judge Evelio Grillo’s sitting in the matters referenced above to Judges Markham and Carvill as well as several rather blatant court administrative “errors” that are completely unacceptable in Departments 15, 20, 507, and 511 to former Presiding Court Judge Morris Jacobson, and Supervising Judge Jon Rolefson.
Just yesterday I had a hearing before Judge Grillo in the al-Hakim v. EBMUD and totally out of the dark, he also calls the al-Hakim v. AT&T Inc case that was NOT on the calendar!
I was shocked because there was NEVER any notice of the proceeding to the parties which is probably why the defendants did not appear and did NOT contest the tentative ruling none of us knew about!
How does this continue to happen on a bi-weekly basis in this court?
He blatantly perjured himself in open court to the extent I was embarrassed for him!
Changing orders, issuing orders after removal from a case, changing tentative rulings, changing the title of motions, calendaring motions that were NOT requested, removing motions from the calendar without notice, calendaring motions without notice, 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?”
As the matter pertains to Judge Grillo sitting in the al-Hakim v. EBMUD, the courts assigned him to this case wherein after 3 court days of having the matter he reads, reviews, research’s, and writes a tentative ruling that is IDENTICAL to the 7 page ruling issued by tainted Judge Robert Freedman AFTER his second challenge for cause! What happened to Freedman’s first tentative ruling that was a few sentences on a page, and what happened in between the fists ruling and the fourth that caused the change????!!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT THE CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE!!!
In his vindictive retaliation against me and his depraved agenda of persecution, Freedman appointed himself “deputy defense counsel” and attacked al-Hakim’s complaint in support of the defenses demurrer that the defense did not and could not raise themselves!
So how does judge Grillo manage to come to the same wording in his 7 page tentative ruling after only 3 court days with the case as Freedman did after 2 years with it??!!!
Even more upsetting is the fact that the same 7 page tentative ruling was issued by judge Ioana Petrou in her independent review of the case as well. Three different judges, a tentative ruling that was a few sentences on a page to 7 pages, the same 7 page ruling issued by those three different judges without the benefit of a single letter from the alphabet, not a single word being added to the pleadings, testimony, evidence, argument, nor any legally approved open communications regarding the issues raised herein. Or has there been some illegal, unapproved secret communications regarding the issues raised herein?
Clearly I am unwilling to move forward with judge Griilo sitting in this as well as any other case given that he’s merely judge Freedman’s stooge adopting his racist, islamophobic, xenaphobic, hate induced agenda (Freedman made comments in open court regarding al-Hakim being Muslim at a hearing!) to deny al-Hakim his human and civil rights, and due process under the law. I do not feel that the process of my having to exhaust my rights to a fair and impartial hearing should be used up on peremptory challenges nor challenges for cause of judges that are tainted and conflicted in these matters due to their previous involvement, i.e., judges Freedman, Rolefson, Colwell, Krashna, Herbert, Petrou!
You can accept this letter as a peremptory challenge and a challenge for cause of judge Grillio because his tainted and conflicted status as advocate judge sitting in name face, place and stead for judge Freedman is unacceptable and a clear violation of the law and cannons as it pertains to impartiality, bias, prejudice, collusion, corruption, civil rights and due process.
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.
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.
Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501

Letter Demanding Investigation of interference of Judge Kim Colwell and her operation of Department 511

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
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
Judge Kevin R. Murphy- Dept. 10                Chad Finke
Judge C. Don Clay- Dept. 6                         Executive Officer
Judge Michael M. Markman- Dept. 2         Superior Court of California
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee- Dept. 18               County of Alameda
APPELLATE DIVISION                                   1225 Fallon Street Room 209
Superior Court of Alameda County             Oakland, CA 94612
René C. Davidson Courthouse                    Fax: 510-891-6276
1225 Fallon Street                                         cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Oakland CA 94612
KMurphy@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov,
JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov, CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.10@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept6@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept2@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Judge Kevin R. Murphy Fax: 510-891-6276; Judge C. Don Clay Fax: 510-891-6276, Judge Michael M. Markman Fax: 510-263-4309, Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee Fax: 510-891-5304
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     February 22, 2018
NO PAGES: 15
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s Letter Demanding Investigation of interference of Judge Kim Colwell and her operation of Department 511, the Superior Court of Alameda Administration and Chad Finke, and the Judicial Council in ALL the matters of Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, including but not limited to al-HAKIM VS CSAA- Wellpoint, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #C811337, California Appeals Court Case# 153510, California Supreme Court Case# S-247169.
“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3“The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew
In the Dred Scott decision Chief Justice Taney wrote, blacks had been “regarded as beings of an inferior order”with “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
This fact is live and well in this complaint as practiced by those who’s conduct demonstrate it unmercifully!
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Murphy, Clay, Markman, and Lee, Mr. Hoshino, Mr. Finke, Ms. Henley and Associate Justices of the Court:
I was in Department 511 of Alameda County Superior Court yesterday and was appalled by the treatment I received! I will address that at another time when I’m dealing with Judge Colwell and the continued corruption of her staff there and the process for having an Ex-Parte hearing.Something must be done about this immediately as I served her Challenge while on the bench wherein she denied it WITHOUT READING A WORD ANDshe rejected a motion for a stay in proceedings yesterday even though the order she issued for sale of my home is in appeals now, and has scheduled the sale by the County Sheriff’s for March 9, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. She said the stay, if issued, “has no affect in her Superior Court!”
Now I want to address the constant “Power Grab” and incessant meddlingin my cases by Judge Colwell.
As part of the ongoing judicial administrative appeal in the cases of the challenged judges Carvill and Madden, I filed discovery motions to compel documents from Third Party Respondents that address the issues raised and opened to discovery by Judge Holland in his sworn affidavit in the judicial administrative hearing that is in appeals now.
As there is NO OTHER WAY to obtain the documents from the Third Party Respondents, judge Colwell, who is subject of and to those request, attempts to deny the discovery as “moot”.
The motion to compel discovery is NOT moot as it addresses the APPEALS issues raised by Judge Holland in his sworn affidavit striking the challenges to Judges Carvill and Madden and does not affect the substance of the Miller v al-Hakim case and is NOT subject to dismissal as “moot” by Colwell who was mentioned by name in Hollands order citing “CRIMES” by judges! Colwell merely seeks to shut down the discovery into her own criminal activity and that of the others she wants to cover up for and protect!
Her/Their ruling states:
“MOTION FOR DISCOVERY The motions of defendant Al-Hakim to compel discovery from third parties are DROPPED as moot.”
The motion to compel third party discovery is NOT moot and is NOT subject to dismissal as “moot” by Colwell!
In August and September 2017 we served and filed Request for Production of Documents and Subpoena’s on third parties the Superior Court, Judicial Council, Oakland City Attorney, Alameda County District Attorney and Alameda County Department of Child Support Services, Twitter, Google, Interserver, Equinix, and plaintiff J P Morgan Chase Bank, (Respondents).
In Judge Holland’s DECISION RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE JENNIFER MADDEN. CCP §§ 170.1 and 170.3(c)1. Alameda Court Case No.: No.OCV-0574030; Judicial Council Assignment # 1050144-17, Filed April 11, 2017, he plainly states “Mr. al-Hakim’ s personal knowledge of these circumstances is not adequately demonstrated in his declaration.” and “Nowhere does al-Hakim offer competent evidentiary support”.
Holland discusses crimes that were committed, criminality, wherein he mentions various parties that have been named. This fact alone opens up discovery into those matters that he says are not and can not be contained in transcripts.
He writes in a footnote on page 4 of his decision of the challenge for cause of judge Madden:
“This alleged investigation in this case is described in broad terms in the Statement: “[Judge] Madden has been, is and will irrevocably tainted and will/must be a NAMED defendant, witness, and attorney with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office (DA) that is involved in these two, 30 year, ongoing legal cases and investigation by the U.S. and California State Attorney Generals involving the DA’s office and the Oakland City Attorney fraud that Nancy O’Malley, Kamala Harris, and Judge Kim Colwell is also named in that is directly involved in these same case attempting to be put before her to serve as judge and trier of fact in!” (Sic.) Statement, 3:25-4:4.”
On May 9, 2017, Judge Wynne Carvill issued an “Order for Stay Pending Appeal” pursuant to CCP §§ 916, and a Case Management Conference set for November 8, 2017.
To date we have been denied ANY reporters transcripts or clerks notes, yet we have a court waiver for transcripts.
We have maintained for years that the evidence most important, relevant, and mandatory in this case lies in the file cabinets of various parties we have referenced in our filings of the Challenges in question.
All the Third Party Respondents has failed and refused to serve any response to Defendant al-Hakim’s Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, under per CCP 2031, and Subpoena and thus the Court should make an Order Compelling the Responses and imposing Monetary and other Sanctions for failure to respond.
These documents are necessary to investigate and prepare this case for motions, hearings, trial and this appeal.
The records of Third Party Respondents are relevant to the claims in this action and are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendants have a compelling need for Third Party Respondents records that overcomes any possible objections of the responding parties.
Defendants are unable to obtain Third Party Respondents’s complete records any way other than through the properly served Demand for Production of Documents and Subpoena.
These documents are necessary to investigate and prepare this case for motions, hearings, trial and any appeal.
Defendant is informed and believe that said records are essential to the defense and will facilitate the ascertainment of true facts and a fair trial in this matter. (People v. Superior Court [Barrett], supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1315-1316.) The are needed ASAP. Failure to comply with a Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Subpoena may be punished as contempt. (Penal Code § 1331; Chapman v. Superior Court (1968) 261 Cal.App.2d 194, 199; 19 In Re Garcia (1974) 41 Cal.App.4th 997, 999.)
I petition the Alameda County Superior Court for an order directing Respondents to appear before the Court at a specified time and place to show cause why they have not produced or permitted the inspection or copying of the documents demanded by the Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Subpoena which are currently in the possession of the Respondents and to thereafter enter an order compelling Respondents to comply with the Demand for Production of Documents, Set One, and Subpoena.
I am informed, believe, and thereon allege that based on my knowledge of the multiple cases files, and those referenced in previous court filings, testimony, evidence, including F.B.I. and confidential informants reports, that there exist good cause for the production of the above records. Moreover, that there is a reasonable likelihood that the records will disclose relevant and material information.
It should be noted that we have filed THREE (3) subpoenas and SEVEN (7) Requests for Production of Documents, in various forms of under California Rules of Court 10.500, FOIA, Brown Act- California Public Records Act Request (PRA), and Ethics Complaints with NO RESPONSE on the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, California State Attorney General, the Oakland City Attorney, Superior Court Administration, and the Judicial Council.
Just as important is the fact that we, as the moving party, has the burden of establishing grounds for disqualification based on facts, that we know are not inscribed in the transcripts.
The most profound element that has come out of this is judge Holland’s comments as follows:
”Here, Mr. al-Hakim alleges a litany of serious misconduct or outright criminality – by persons other than Judge Carvill, He complains of past mistreatment by numerous judges (and at least one commissioner) apparently because they ruled against him in other cases as well as the instant case. Al-Hakim’s attack is not limited to judicial officers. He accuses numerous other persons and agencies of serious wrongdoing.”
Judge Lesley Holland criminality comments portray perhaps the single most important reason why the Council, Judge Victoria Henley; Marshall B. Grossman, Andrew Blum, and Jay Linderman and the Commission on Judicial Performance; and these heads of the disciplinary bodies responsible for taking corrective action in these cases, has been so derelict in doing so, is because they are inextricably placed in the legal paradox where every judge, court administrator, attorney, law firm, defendant and their agents having been involved in committing these crimes, opens the way to legally setting aside every case they were ever involved with and potentially being reversed at an untold cost of money, integrity and irreparable loss of public confidence in the legal system.
These judicial officials are willfully blind, bias, prejudice, shrouded in fraud, and has perviously been involved in this matter while covering up the corruption and failing and refusing to move these same cases forward for investigation and not providing the requested results of Freedman’s investigation and defendants illegal activities in the CSAA and Rescue cases while aiding Judges, Superior Court and Meyers Nave unjust enrichment and ill gotten gainsin violation of their own local court rules and the policies of the Judicial Council of California, of which they are members and which establishes “Fairness and Access” policies for all California courts.
The Judicial disciplinary bodies handed judge Tigar a blank check drawn against al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom to a person whom, when he so decided, declare not merely any law, statue, ordinance, etc. to be inapplicable, or irrelevant, but then, as he so decided, declare them mis-entitled and entitle them as he chose to dispose of them as he wished. If you think this, hyperbole or hysteria… check the section of entitling orders in the complaints. If I somehow think my civil and human rights, right to due process, property, pursuit of happiness and freedom have not been lost, exactly how am I going to convince Ronald M. George of The California Supreme Court, Barbara Jones of The California Appeals Court,Victoria Henley of The California Judicial Council, Ronald G. Overholt of The California Judges Association, The Alameda County Presiding Court Judge Yolanda Northridge to give me a fair and just court hearing to prove they are not? Am I suppose to think these Judicial bodies are going to help and be fair now?
To that end, I have had to request a corrections three times and to the Tentative Ruling issued just December 7, 2017 allegedly by Judge Madden as the ruling is defective on it’s face. The ruling fails to mention the Motions to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena served and filed upon Third Parties that were present for that calendared motion hearing on December 7, 2017. There was no “motion for terminating sanctions” scheduled for hearing yesterday.
The six other parties present were a little confused regarding the proceedings as none of us were there for the alleged “motion for terminating sanctions” as announced in the court and shown in the Tentative Ruling.
On October 2, 2017, I made and received a reservation number to file Motions (plural, multiple)to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc. in this matter. Although the motions were the same, there were multiple, separate third parties.
We also had scheduled a Case Management Conference hearing in this matter at the same time on November 8, 2017 at 9:15 A.M. That also was not mentioned in the Tentative Ruling.
We ALL would like some clarity and direction from the court as to this matter so that we can move forward ASAP.
As we mentioned in ALL our correspondence and filings since August 16, 2016 with the court since we have appeared, we made a formal challenge for cause in the courtroom and stated we also intend to file litigation regarding Judge Colwell’s continued improper presence in ANY and ALL matters that concerns US as it is clear her finger prints are all over this case and others while she has been involved in a previous matter that is still outstanding and will be served as a defendant, witness, and conspirator with an irreparable conflict. These concerns will be addressed!
At the hearing on November 8, 2017 al-Hakim reminded Colwell of her conflict saying “I confirmed that there are documents that state that fact least 15 times”. She laughs saying “that’s a lot”. al-Hakim stated “you are involved in this very same case before you”. “How?”.
al-Hakim stated “in Judge Hollands affidavit in the decision on the challenges to judge Carvil and Madden, he discusses crimes that were committed, criminality, were he mentions various parties”. Colwell says “Who?”. al-Hakim informed her “he mentions the District Attorney, Oakland City Attorney, California Attorney General and various judges”.
She states “that doesn’t involve me”. al-Hakim replied “yes it does, you were named as well”. Colwell contorts “What do you mean?”. al-Hakim read “he named you personally.” As the court crowd collectively exulted “OOOOOUUUuuuu!” she blurts out “that’s enough, that’s enough!!” then turns to the court clerk and says “call the Sheriff in here!!”. She adds “I’m going to pass on this case until I can check this out.”
The Sheriff Deputy comes into the court.
After being in chambers with another case parties, she calls us back up and announces that “I have checked everything and found nothing in judge Hollands decision or the files that mention or relate to me and I see no conflict. So I can hear this matter.” Clearly from just the information I have presented here, that is NOT true!!
Her/Their ruling states:
“The court did not hear the matter on 2/22/17 because al-Hakim filed challenges. The court dropped the motion by mistake. On 1/23/18, the court corrected its error and placed the motion back on calendar for 2/8/18.”
This statement is intentional FALSE!

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye Orders Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County
On Monday, January 22, 2018 the hearing scheduled on the Motions to Vacate and Set Aside Renewed Judgment and for Terminating Sanctions and other relief, and Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Subpoena, etc., in MILLER VS HAKIM, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #OCV0574030 was continued by the Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, to February 8, 2018, in Dept. 511 at 9:00 a.m.
The Chief Justice. She wrote:
“THE HONORABLE JOHN B. ELLIS, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Solano, is hereby assigned to sit as a Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, on the following date(s):
January 8, 2018 To February 8, 2018.
and until completion and disposition of any specific open motion or other matter pending in a case before the judge at the time the assignment ends. Any further motions or other matters in the case may be heard only pursuant to a separate appointment order.
Dated: January 8, 2018”
This essentially amounts to a Change of Judge/Venue to Solano County which al-Hakim OPPOSES because it does NOT hold the corruptors and abusers accountable for their continued actions! This is merely a inconvenient way out for them! 
If Chief Justice can order a change of venue in one case that has suffered the same corruption and abuses as the others, then she should do so with the others!!
However, on January 23, 2018 Judge Colwell issued an Order calendaring the Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment, Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions (See Colwell’s Order under Ex “B”, page 2) as follows:
“ORDER (1) PLACING MOTION TO VACATE RENEWAL OF JUDGMENT BACK ON CALENDAR AND (2) STATING COURT’S UNDERSTANDING OF EFFECT OF ORDER OF 1/11/18.
On 1/31/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion for terminating sanctions. This was set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 10/11/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a motion to compel discovery. These were set for 1/24/17 and has been continued to 2/8/18.
On 12/13/17, defendant al-Hakim filed a challenge to Judge Krashna. On 1/8/18, the Chief Justice assigned the challenge to Judge Ellis in Solano County. On 1/18/18, Judge Ellis issued his decision.
ORDER
The court ORDERS that the motion of al-Hakim to vacate and set aside the judgment under CCP 473 is PLACED ON CALENDAR for 2/8/18. It appears that the court somehow dropped the matter and never decided the motion. The court may correct its ministerial errors. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Ca1.4th 181, 185; Aspen Internat. Capital Corp. v. Marsch (1991) 235 Cal. App. 3d 1199,1204.)
The court ORDERS that its understanding of the 1/8/18 order of the Chief Justice is that the order assigned the challenge of Judge Krashna to Judge Ellis in Solano County but did not assign all pending motions to Judge Ellis. There was no request to assign all motions to an out of county judge. Judges in the Superior Court, Alameda County, will continue hearing the motions in this case.”
The order was dated January 23, 2018 and the proof of service was filed and mailed on January 29, 2018.
Additionally, there were orders issued January 24, 2018 by Colwell both the same day and proof of service was the same day January 29, 2018 calendaring the Motion to Compel and the Motion for Terminating Sanctions.” This effort on behalf of Colwell is another “power grab” in an effort to conceal and further cover up that Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Even though she had NO authority to administer, rule, or decide the case until AFTER February 8, 2018, on February 6, 2018 Colwell issued a tentative ruling in the case, I opposed that tentative ruling the same day, she held my ex-parte hearing February 7, 2018, to continue the matter and I was granted that continuance to February 26, 2018. She totally usurped the power of the Chief Justice and independently determined the outcome of the matters properly before Judge Ellis alone!
The hearing resulted in Judge Colwell “granting” my motion to vacate and set aside the renewed judgment after a 22 year struggle for justice! But it is a pyrrhic victory as she did NOT award fees, costs, sanctions as plead, but attempted to dismiss the discovery aspects of the case as “moot” since the case is over! She did this because the discovery is directly related to the need for additional information and documents as by ordered by Judge Holland in his ruling on the Challenges against Judges Carvill and Madden. In his order/opinion he specifically refers to “criminal conduct” on behalf of Judge Colwell that she nows seeks to award herself a “plea bargain with a get-out-of-jail-free card!”. I opposed the ruling and it is scheduled to be heard on Monday, February 26, 20018 in department 511.
The tragedy of how these motions were continuously and mysteriously “dropped” from the calendar even AFTER SEVEN complaints, is subject of the corruption investigation right now and is a reason that the Chief Justice took the case away from Colwell and her court administration to begin with! Judge Ellis upon his review was taken aback when he reviewed this case as there was NO logical reason why this has continually happened in al-Hakim’s cases.
Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have ignored the rule of law, undermined public safety and compromised the justice system by fabricating, altering, manipulating, and tampering with the record have actually prevented the orderly administration of justice. As Faretta recognized, the record can only be read as an attempt to abuse the dignity of the courtroom and impugn the integrity of the rule of law as their actions “deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct” (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46. at pp. 834-835, fn. 46 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581, fn. 46]) that threatens to subvert the core concept of a trial.
Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Judge Colwell and her administrative staff is guilty of manipulating the calendar, changing motions and the calendar weekly, without any pleadings nor notice! I have asked before “Why and how did this motion manage to be removed from the calendar, by who and when? This also happened with the recent motions to compel as they were left off the calendar but mysteriously the motion to vacate and set aside the renewed judgment and the motion for terminating sanctions and other relief was placed on the calendar! On both the last two hearing dates the Case Management Conferences were also left off the calendar and tentative rulings! on 12/13/17 hearing the court will decide that motion.
The complaints involve the court Department Clerk’s administration mishandling of motions with them being mis-titled or changing the title of motions as filed, calendared unwanted motions without notice or cause, calendared motions without notice, motions being dropped from the calendar without notice, parties missing from rulings without notice or cause, parties being removed without notice or cause, changing orders, changing tentative rulings, calendaring motions that were NOT requested, posting tentative rulings AFTER the scheduled hearing time, deleting items from the register of actions, and falsifying the record (for appeal), are VERY SERIOUS threats to the Rule of Law as practiced by the acceptable courts in America! Perhaps even MORE dangerous is the silence that pervades the court when asked “Why, How and by Whom?”
I have many unanswered questions for this court and Judges Carvill, Jacobson, Rolefson, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution I, my family, businesses, and communities we serve continue to suffer at your individual and collective gavels.
Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have entered information into the court’s computers to make it appear that the register of actions and record on appeal would not reflect what actually occurred in the cases. In some cases, the fraudulently created/altered records made it appear that certain matters had been dismissed or certain parties were NEVER apart of an action or motion.
The actions of falsifying court records had been complained of to Colwell and the presiding and supervising judges to no avail!
Given that I have had no response from the judges, nor the court administration, including Chad Finke refusing to comply with three subpoenas and request for production of documents and the Judicial Council with the same, I have no choice but to file actions with the responsible agencies to discover this information and resolve the legal concerns expressed for years.
Colwell and her Court Administration perverts or obstructs justice, or the due administration of the laws.
Under section 182, subdivision (a)(5), it is a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit any act “to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.” (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
I have always stated that Judge Colwell has been, is and will be a NAMED defendant, witness, and conspirator from her work as attorney and partner of the law firm of Meyers Nave that is directly involved in the herein mentioned crimes as Colwell obtained intimate knowledge and information regarding disputed evidentiary facts known to defense counsel and the judges she represented for years as Colwell served as defense counsel for three retired judges in this CSAA case; participated in their preparation and defense litigation strategy regarding their subpoenas; communicated with plaintiff al-Hakim regarding same; served as defense counsel for those judges while working as a law partners at Myers Nave with managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case files; wherein Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams- while Oakland City Attorney- gave the case files to CSAA lead defense counsel for 18 months; Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case file gave them to then Judge David Lee- Colwell’s client- for the CSAA trial without informing the court that the defendants had custody of the case files for 18 months breaking the chain of custody; Colwell’s managing partner Jayne Williams who was responsible for fabricating evidence and planting that evidence in the case file was evidence that related to the contamination of al-Hakim’s home; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware of the fabricated and planted evidence and that it related to the contamination of al-Hakim’s home; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA intervened into the underlying Rescue case in violation of the law AFTER her client Judge Lee had dismissed them when they presented a fabricated order allegedly signed by her client Judge Richard Hodge; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA intervened into the underlying Rescue case in violation of the law AFTER her client Judge Lee had dismissed them when they presented a fabricated order allegedly signed by her client Judge Richard Hodge; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that the fabricated and planted evidence was the ONLY evidence presented at trial by CSAA; participated in CSAA’s preparation and defense litigation strategy regarding their involvement with the fabricated and planted evidence, chain of custody of City of Oakland case files, CSAA fabricated Hodge’s order; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA constructed fraudulent fabricated evidence in 1999 and planted that evidence favorable to the defendants in the files SIX years AFTER the case was closed; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA engaged in spoliation of remaining evidence in the court files from 1991; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that CSAA fostered witness testimony based on this planted evidence in the al-Hakim v CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware that the fraudulent fabricated evidence was created thru EXTRINSIC FRAUD with accompanying testimony procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious acts; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they engaged in actions to destroy the litigation of al-Hakim’s legal case; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they engaged in actions to coverup their unlawful acts; at all times Colwell had personal knowledge and was aware they committed, aided and abetted this criminal activity with this unpardonable breach in the chain of custody of the court files to accommodate the defendants litigation strategy in both the CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case.
This case is the currently a $600,000 lien by Ropers and CSAA as part of their unjust enrichment and ill gotten gains on a property! NOW WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH THE SAME MATTER BEFORE HER TO ADJUDICATE AND ACT AS DEPUTY DEFENSE COUNSEL TO AFFIRM HER COMPENSATION RULING FROM THE BENCH!!!
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL BY THE DEFENDANTS CSAA WAS THE FABRICATED NOTES PLANTED IN THE CASE FILE BY COLWELL’S MANAGING PARTNER AT MEYERS NAVE AND GIVEN TO JUDGE TIGAR AND HER CLIENT JUDGE DAVID LEE AT TRIAL!!!
For these reasons, and because Judge Colwell is a material, percipient eye witness concerning her conversation, communication, correspondence, actions with her clients, partners, co-workers, employees, defendants, and experts, contend that Judge Colwell must be disqualified for cause pursuant to section 170.1, subdivision (a)(1) (the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts) and (a)(6) (a person aware of the facts reasonably might entertain a doubt whether the judge would be able to be impartial). An example of disqualification for personal knowledge is found in People v Avol (1987) 192 CA3d Supp 1, 6, 238 CR 45 (judge’s ex parte inspection of property violated defendant’s right to controvert evidence, but did not violate due process right or require reversal given overwhelming evidence and complete lack of showing of prejudice that might have required recusal).
Something must be done about this immediately as the scheduled sale by the County Sheriff’s is set for March 9, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. She said the stay, if issued, “has no affect in her Superior Court!”
The discovery must go forward to complete the appeals process.
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.
Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501