Chair, Judicial Council of California Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments 350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102 Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205 Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Supervising Judge Michael Markman Executive Officer
Judge Stephen Kaus Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Kevin R. Murphy 1225 Fallon Street Room 209
Judge C. Don Clay Oakland, CA 94612
Judge Jeff Brand Fax: 510-891-6276
Judge Kim Colwell firstname.lastname@example.org
Judge Morris Jacobson
Judge Winifred Smith Charles Johnson
Judge Jon Rolefsen Beth Robbins
Judge Yolanda Northridge Deputy Clerk
Judge Dennis Hayashi First District Court of Appeal
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee 350 McAllister Street
Superior Court of Alameda County San Francisco CA 94102
Departments 1, 6, 511, and 518 Fax: 415-865-7309, 415-865-7209
René C. Davidson Courthouse Beth.Robbins@jud.ca.gov,
1225 Fallon Street Charles.Johnson@jud.ca.gov
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
email@example.com,WCarville@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov,firstname.lastname@example.org,KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, SKaus@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KMurphy@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov,YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov, DHayashi@alameda.courts.ca.gov, email@example.com,RFreedman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Director Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586 FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Director- No. District Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse 6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue 1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102 Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234 Fax No.: 415 522-3605
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
FAX No.: 916-324-8835
Fax No.: 916-322-4532, 916-323-5341, 916-324-5567, 916-319-9421cc: ; bcc ACLU, LCCR, East Bay Community Law Center, Bay Area Legal Aid, USC Gould School Of Law, Western Center On Law & Poverty, Electronic Frontier Foundation, National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, Equal Justice Society, Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center,
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
NO PAGES: 14
RE: Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness; and Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy in al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371; al-Hakim vs. EBMUD, Alameda County Case No. RG 14-740943; Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim VS. AT&T Corporation, RG17-788130
“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3 “The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Freedman, Grillo, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:
I have previously sent you ALL a 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint that was already outdated before I could file it!
This Complaint concerns, exposes and underscores the Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy in the cases of Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim involving Judges C. Don Clay, Stephen Kaus, Robert Freedman, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Ioana Petrou, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Jo-Lynne Lee, Paul Herbert, Kim Colwell, Kevin Murphy, and Michael Markman with Chad Finke,among others with the Manipulation of the record and Register of Actions; Obstruction of Justice, Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); the continued Fraud Upon The Court by Judges C. Don Clay and Wynne Carvill with Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law!
Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness is Contempt
But first I MUST address the reign of State sponsored TERROR I was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM!
The July 11, 2018, Hearing
At the recent July 11, 2018, hearing in the matters of al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371, al-Hakim entered the alcove leading into the courtroom and was stopped by the Sheriffs deputy and asked “who are you and where are you going?”. al-Hakim responded with his name and that he was there for a 3:00 p.m. hearing, and asked “aren’t you expecting us?”. The deputy responded “yeah, and inspecting you too!”al-Hakim thought that he had misheard him and asked “I didn’t hear you, what did you say?”, The deputy repeated “yeah, and inspecting you too!”. Still not understanding the need for such response, al-Hakim said “I’m sorry, could you repeat that?”The deputy again repeated “yeah, and inspecting you too!” in a very brash and challenging manner.
al-Hakim entered the courtroom and took a seat in the front row behind the railing of the court as there was already someone sitting at the defendants place at the hearing table, the clerk at her desk and the deputy sat at his desk near the front row of seats in the courtroom.
The deputy informs al-Hakim “you can’t sit in the first row, you have to move!”where upon al-Hakim moves across the courtroom to the second row of seats.
Judge Clay comes out of chambers and asks if they are ready to proceed, returns and takes the bench.
He calls for appearances of the parties and upon calling al-Hakim, while still standing, al-Hakim announces that“I have a challenge for you (Clay).”
Clay responds that he wants to go on with the matters, and asks if al-Hakim wants to be heard on the matters. al-Hakim, still standing holding the document in his hand extended toward Clay, responds that“you have been served a challenge and you must respond to it.”
The deputy blurts out “sit down and don’t interrupt the judge”, as if al-Hakim’s serving the challenge was somehow interrupting Clay and al-Hakim had NO RIGHT to do so.
Clay says “we have already started”
al-Hakim, while still standing holding the document in his hand extended toward Clay, reiterates that “there’s is no reporter so you can make the record anyway you choose, we haven’t done anything yet and I have challenged you (Clay) and you must answer it before you can proceed.”
Clay again responds that he wants to go on with the matters, and asks if al-Hakim wants to be heard on the matter of the subpoena and the vexatious litigant motion. al-Hakim, now sitting still holding the document in his hand extended toward the clerk, responds that “you have been served a challenge are you refusing to accept it?”
Clay angrily responds “I will deal with it later!” and nods approval to the deputy. al-Hakim handed the document to the deputy whom gave it to the clerk.
Clay asks al-Hakim how he viewed “the motion to compel the subpoena with the stay pending vexatious litigant motion?”
al-Hakim again stated that “you have been challenged you, you can only perform administrative duties and you must answer it before you can proceed in this case. I am NOT waiving any rights and insist that since I was NEVER served the motion by defendants, I have been prejudiced by appearing here and will NOT waive that prejudice”
Further, al-Hakim answered that “the Subpoena and Request for Production of Documents where supposed to have been answered by the defendants before February 12, 2018 and they failed and refused to do so, have defaulted by failing and refusing to answer the summons and complaint, and our motion to compel was unopposed.”
al-Hakim noticed a horrendous odor from behind him and turned is his seat to find the deputy standing over his left shoulder two feet away!
Clay asks if al-Hakim agreed that the vexatious motion stay the proceedings?” wherein al-Hakim answers that the motion was allegedly filed on February 16, 2018, and still has NEVER been served despite numerous requests for it and the the answers were due before February 12, 2018. They were in default already and you do not have the authority to retroactively grant them a stay after the fact”
With the unmerciful stench emanating from his vaginal region and his sweat seemingly dropping on al-Hakim’s back, al-Hakim turned is his seat facing the deputy standing over his left shoulder two feet away whom appeared to be trying to read al-Hakim’s documents at the table. al-Hakim asked the deputy “would you like a seat”as he pulled out the seat next to him and offered it to the deputy. Clay makes the comment “you don’t want to do that!”, where upon the deputy is now standing over al-Hakim where he can’t move at all!
al-Hakim responded “do what, what are you thinking I want to do? I want to know why he has to stand over me behind my back. I don’t believe that that is normal in any courtroom”Clay responds “well, yes it is”.al-Hakim states “you are saying that he stands in this same position, two feet behind the plaintiff, in every case that you have?”
Clay says “well”
The odor now is at “hold your breath level!!” and al-Hakim doesn’t want to say that.
al-Hakim says “I don’t believe that, I have been in your courtroom over 20 times, I am familiar with the courts attempts at intimidation and this most certainly is one!”
Again Clay nods to the deputy and he retreats a few steps but stays in striking range of al-Hakim who is seated 40 feet away and 3 feet below Clay sitting on the bench.
This was clearly planned prior to al-Hakim appearing in court and was choreographed by Clay to provoke and instill terror and fear in al-Hakim during the hearing!!
Clay’s actions in this manner along with the deputy’s deadly pungent mix from his crotch-rot on that hot day, left more than a lingering quality, impression, and feeling of stench warfare attaching to Clay an odor of terror and suspicion.
This use of these heinous tactics to incite violence that apparently already in the forefront of Clay’s mind with the comment “you don’t want to do that!”, with the highly offensive odors to sicken, immobilize, and drive al-Hakim away from the courtroom as an enemy of the State was in and of itself utterly odious and wicked.
The deputy took his seat, wrote a note to Clay and delivered it to him.
Clay then announces that “I am going to deny the motion to compel”.
Clay’s own extraordinary, forced rendition, his own government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial holding of al-Hakim as a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly being interrogated UNDER DURESS carried out by the sheriffs, government with the consent of the court!
al-Hakim felt the threat of being hit in the back of the head at all times, for any comment or slight movement, or signal from Clay, to provoke violence to result with injury or death to al-Hakim! The expected harm was made to compel al-Hakim to do something against his will or to be considered wrong in Clay’s sole judgment to “sic his attack dog” on al-Hakim; especially this wrongful threat made by Clay and his deputy to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by al-Hakim to Clay’s mercy without real volition. With this oppression and persecution indelibly etched in his mind, heart and soul, al-Hakim now KNOWS the smell of TERROR!!
Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness is Contempt
It must be stipulated that Judge Clay’s actions fraud violated canons 1, 2A, and 2B(2), and constituted prejudicial misconduct at the very least and treated al-Hakim in a manner in violation of canons 1, 2A, and 3B(4) and reflected a prejudgment of him and a lack of impartiality, contrary to canon 3B(5). Judges Clay’s abusive conduct must draw harsh criticism from the Judicial Regulators in a decision arising out of these charges of the “atmosphere of unfairness” created by the judge’s denial of plaintiff’s civil rights, right to due process, biased administration of justice, erroneous rulings, lies, deception, threats, retaliation, and caustic, condescending remarks of the plaintiff. (People v. Urias (July 31, 2006, G035179 [2006 WL 2128631] [nonpub. opn.]).)
Judge Clay purported to exercise his authority at that hearing in which he violated al-Hakim’s civil rights, has admittedly acting with personal interest in the outcome under the color of law 18 USC §242. The Judges willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability she would continue her unethical behavior if she were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future. That judge Clay, before whom the hearing aforesaid action was pending is prejudiced against al-Hakim or the interest of the party so that affiant cannot or believes that he cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before this judge. al-Hakim request and have a standing objection to ANY involvement of Judge Clay in this and ANY other matter.
Given the FABRICATED PRIOR VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER in the Denial of the Request Fee Waiver dated March 5, 2018 that does NOT exist, AND the TWO FABRICATED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDERSof July 23, 2018, and August 3, 2018, Clay issued proclaiming that the EBMUD action was dismissed for al-Hakim filing Challenges against the judges, YET THAT HAD NOT HAPPENED, is irrefutable evidence of the continued Fraud Upon The Court by Judges C. Don Clay and Wynne Carvill with Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law!
The Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy
At a recent July 18, 2018, hearing in the matters of al-Hakim v. EBMUD, al-Hakim v. AT&T, judge Grillo revealed the obvious conspiracy of Carvill, Markman, Kaus and himself in the very first minute of the hearing stating he had read in al-Hakim’s opposition to his OSC that he was dismissed for failure to answer the challenge within 10 days.That issues was NOT in al-Hakim’s opposition and was the nexus for Grillo’s fabricating his story for recusal which was intended to be an ambush of al-Hakim.
Perhaps more astonishing, within days of that hearing, on July 23, 2018, Clay issues TWO ORDERS proclaiming that the EBMUD action was dismissed for al-Hakim filing Challenges against the judges, YET THAT HAD NOT HAPPENED!!
This is at least the FOURTH time Clay has engineered, authored and endorsed fabricated orders as evidence of his fraud on the court and unbridled disregard and disrespect for the Rule of Law!
Grillo’s July 18, 2018 Filed Answer Adventure a Complete Fabrication!”
Prior to the cases being called, Grillo consulted with the court reporter regarding her services and she confirmed that she was there to transcribe the “al-Hakim criminal case”. Grillo suggested again that the case she was there for included three parties and he would give her notice when to go on the record, wherein again she stated that she was there for the “al-Hakim criminal case”.
Grillo called both cases, and upon announcing my appearance, I announced I was serving a challenge on Grillo wherein he announced “I know what you are going to do, but I have something that will make it unnecessary. I noticed in your opposition somewhere that you had raised the fact that I had failed to file and serve an answer striking your challenge for cause within the 10 day limit, I am accepting the dismissal and al-Hakim is right, all my orders and rulings are voided.. I did file an answer but somehow it was not posted or served, there was no proof of service”.
al-Hakim stated that “I am serving this challenge”, Grillo stated “I know that, but it will not be necessary, I am accepting (170.3 non-answer) dismissal”. He says “I checked the register of actions and didn’t see your challenge posted”, al-Hakim answered “neither is your answer striking it”.
Grillo claims his non answer and 170.3 dismissal is based on the fact he read that in al-Hakim’s opposition to the Order to Show Cause and realized he had NOT filed and served a timely answer striking the challenge, and was accepting the dismissal and al-Hakim is right wherein all his orders and rulings are voided.
Grillo says “I know that, that’s why I’m asking if you have a filed copy of the challenge?” al- Hakim said “I do”. Grillo asks “can I see it?” al-Hakim responded “I don’t have it with me”.
Grillo asks “can you get a copy of it?”, I responded “I would have to go get it”. Grillo asks “when can you get it?”
al-Hakim responded “I can get it and be back in an hour, before noon”. Grillo said “I did file an answer on July 9, 2018” and al-Hakim said “it would not be timely as it would have to be filed by July 6, 2018”.
Grillo insisted and required that al-Hakim provide a filed stamped copy of the challenge of June 27, 2018 stating that “I don’t want this to happen again and I don’t have a filed copy.”
al-Hakim said that “I’ve filled challenges in the courtroom and received a copy filed stamped by the clerk, all I have to do is serve it” “you aren’t denying being served the challenge, you got your copy?” Grillo admits “No, I did get it”.
al-Hakim returned to the court wherein Grillo announced that he had received the filed copy of the challenge from al-Hakim filed via email and it was filed in the AT&T case. Grillo admitted he concluded AT&T matter with defendants in al-Hakim’s absence, recounted the preposterous story of his answer being filed in the AT&T case but not in the EBMUD case. Clearly he had second thoughts about leaving the AT&T case and contrived a means to stay in it by filing an alleged answer in that case while I was away getting the filed copy of the challenge.
Grillo then claimed that there was clerical error in filing the challenge in the AT&T case not EBMUD, so by law he can correct the error and continue in AT&T case because he only needs to file the answer striking order by July 9, 2018, not serve it. al-Hakim corrected him that in fact if he filed the answer July 9, 2018, it would not be timely as it would have to be filed by July 6, 2018, and it MUST be served or al-Hakim wouldn’t know about it. al-Hakim reiterates that once he was served the new challenge it was inappropriate to proceed in any capacity beyond administrative duties and he was served the challenge.
Grillo says “I did file an answer but somehow it was not posted or served, there was no proof of service”. He asks his clerk to check the court register of actions for the pdf of the answer and she responded that there was an answer filed but no proof of service- just filed blank pages beyond his alleged answer. al-Hakim requested to see and get a copy of the alleged answer, Grillo did not respond. al-Hakim reminded Grillo that “you have been served a new challenge” and Grillo tried to evade service by accepting non-answer dismissal, then tried to change to acceptance in only the EBMUD case. Grillo continued the case to later at 1:30 p.m.
Where upon return al-Hakim appeared and Grillo informs him that he is going to recuse himself in both cases and has been in contact with Presiding Judge Carvill and Supervising Judge Markman all morning regarding transferring this case to Judge Kaus and he was going to file a complaint regarding the clerks office not properly filing or serving the challenge and answer striking challenge.
al-Hakim asked him “whom are you going to file the complaint with” he responded “judge Markman, and if you want to file a complaint you can do so as well” I asked whom should I file a complaint with and he said “Markman”. al-Hakim stated “this story is a complete fabrication!”
al-Hakim stated that his complaint wasn’t just going to be against the clerks office as as he stated to Grillo “you noticed in my opposition somewhere that I had raised the fact that you had failed to file and serve an answer striking your challenge for cause within the 10 day limit.” Grillo said yes, I did, that’s what prompted this dismissal”.
al-Hakim stated “there is no reference to the dismissal for not timely filing an answer in the opposition!” This is a complete fabrication!
Grillo said that “well that’s not what we are talking about, I have accepted the recusal, the issue is moot and all the confusion regarding the answer and service, I will address it with judge Markman”. al-Hakim again stated that “the entire reason that prompted this dismissal was because you noticed in my opposition somewhere that I had raised the fact that you had failed to file and serve an answer striking your challenge for cause within the 10 day limit but there is no reference to the dismissal for non answer in the opposition!”
al-Hakim reminded Grillo that “you have been served a new challenge” and Grillo tried to evade service by accepting non-answer dismissal, stating it was moot” and al-Hakim said the issues addressed in this challenge will endure far beyond today and I’ve served you”.
We have witnessed at least five times where the register of actions and record were altered even after the fact by the judges and clerks in al-Hakim’s cases.
His entire sham of filing an answer and 170.3 dismissal was a fabrication based on the fact he read that in opposition and realized he had NOT filed and served a timely answer striking the challenge, that was NOT in the opposition!
Grillo admitted that he had spoken with both Judges Carvill and Markman regarding his “Adventure” with the answer and it begs the answers to how were they involved in this matter, from it’s inception to it’s assignment to Kaus; to the alleged complaint against the clerks office that Grillo said he was going to file to asking al-Hakim to file his complaint, that al-Hakim will file against them ALL. There is clearly a case of fraud on the court, fabricating what is now evidence given the time and IP of the device that uploaded the alleged answer, fabricating the record and register of actions, and conspiracy, among others!
Carvill has been uniquely involved in this and other matters of al-Hakim’s and is still subject to the ongoing appeal and investigation of the criminal activities of him, judges Freedman, Petrou, Jacobson, Rolefson, Colwell, Markman, Grillo, Clay, Finke and Superior Court Clerks and Administration among others. As it regards the ongoing appeal, the underlying case that rendered the appeal was decided in al-Hakim’s favor after 22 years of litigation and found to declare Carvill and the other five judges that sat in the case without knowing anything about it while ruling in it solely on the script prepared by law clerk Phil Abar, ALL TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN FRAUD ON THE COURT AND OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE!!! SINCE THIS SCRIPT WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ONE JUDGE TO ANOTHER THERE WAS OBVIOUS COLLUSION, ILLEGAL EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, CORRUPTION, CONSPIRACY, AMONG OTHERS, and grounds for disqualification under CALIFORNIA CCP §170.6, CCP §§170.1-5 et. seq.; CCP §170.1(6)(A)(iii)), (CCP § 170.3 (c) (1)), the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8), 3C, 3D(1), 3E, 3E(1), 3E(2), 4, 4D(1) and 4(E); DUE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. §242; Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§182, subd. (a)(5); Fraud On The Court- Federal Code 60; Code of Civil Procedure §§ 60, § 47, § 4541, § 425.16, § 355, 356, 473, 475, § 3523, § 3528 Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180; First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment U. S. Constitution; California Constitution by the first clause of Article I, section 13; Article VI, section 4 1/2; Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3)
Kaus Discrepancies Clearly Indicate He was Being Untruthful
In my effort to “trust, but verify!”, I have established above some startling revelations regarding what Kaus knew or should have known that disprove his many “I don’t know anything about that” comments to the questions al-Hakim put to him at the August 29, 2018 hearing.
With ALL the communications wherein EACH one discussed Judge Grillo’s July 18, 2018 “Filed Answer Adventure was a Complete Fabrication!”, he could NOT be unaware of what happened and he had to read the many documents because they also addressed the fact al-Hakim would be unavailable for two scheduled hearings due to Eid al-Adha. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM NOT TO KNOW THESE THINGS!
His being told he was being assigned the case in the afternoon when Grillo said it at the 9:00am hearing is very shocking as well and smacks of the same corruption, collusion, and conspiracy al-Hakim has referenced for years and makes the afternoon assignment hearing appear to be an ambush! This has happened with Carvill in the past.
Most recently in the al-Hakim v. Interserver Equinix, Case: #RG18888371 matter that 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, he issued an vexatious litigant order on July 23, 2018 and again on August 3, 2018, that orders: “However, given the order dismissing the case in Alameda County Case No. RG 14-740943” and “as well as the recent and numerous challenges filed in this case at issue, the court continues the hearing on this motion for the parties to address the import of these decisions and to explain (with evidence and/or request for judicial notice in support) whether plaintiff should be declared vexatious given the circumstances.”
The order was with an extended 60 day briefing schedule when the vexatious litigant motion was to be heard. The scheduling was the product of judge Clay trying to extend the motion practice to allow for the verification of his information in his order includes “secret evidence” of the dismissal of the al-Hakim vs. EBMUD action, Alameda County Case No. RG 14-740943. This matter has NOT been dismissed so it begs the question “what does Clay know?, how he knows it?, when did he find this out?, who he discussed this with?”
Further it underscores the corruption, collusion, and conspiracy of in the case of al-Hakim involving Judges Clay, Stephen Kaus, Robert Freedman, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Ioana Petrou, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Jo-Lynne Lee, Paul Herbert, Kim Colwell, Kevin Murphy, Michael Markman, among others and their “handling of the EBMUD matter that has NOT been dismissed!
In further defiance of Clay’s orders regarding the dismissal of the EBMUD action, the Tentative Ruling made September 11, 2018 by Judge Stephen Kaus, he states that “Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil Al-Hakim has engaged in a practice of filing peremptory challenges and challenges for cause to the case’s judicial assignment on the day of a hearing. In response, the judicial officers have had to postpone the hearing in order to address Al-Hakim’s objections first. EBMUD’s demurrer and this motion have been set and re-set for hearing as a result of Al-Hakim’s judicial challenges. Judicial challenges themselves are not, however, evidence a want or delay of prosecution. A party is entitled to challenge a judicial officer for cause or bias. Nor has EBMUD has not offered evidence that Al-Hakim’s peremptory challenges were offered in bad faith. The challenges appear to be filed in an earnest belief that the judges of this Court ought to be disqualified from deciding this case and that each successive challenge will overcome the prior’s shortcomings. The result of this may be considered “delay” under CCP section 583.410 and Rule of Court 3.1342. EBMUD has offered no evidence that this delay has resulted in significant or material prejudice. On the other hand, the Court hopes and encourages both parties to take this new judicial assignment as a good time to wipe the slate clean, forgive any earlier acrimony, and proceed to resolve and adjudicate the claims raised by the Complaint in normal order and good faith. Al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated. EBMUD deserves a chance to develop and present its defense. Both parties deserve the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law. In short, this case deserves a chance to proceed on its merits, and now is an opportune time as any to do so.”
Judge Kaus admits to the courts acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law!
Clay’s Own Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding
Clay’s July 23, 2018 and August 3, 2018, vexatious litigant order is an unlawful attempt to force al-Hakim to endure a SECOND motion and hearing, now CLAY’S OWN MOTION, yet the same defendants motion, by adding Clay’s OWN information gained through his investigation, corruption, collusion, and conspiracy with other judicial, governmental, and legal entities sources. It is established law that a litigant can NOT be forced to undertake more than one vexatious litigant proceeding in any 12 month period.
Clay has independently taken it upon himself to grant defendants a “do over” with his August 3, 2018 vexatious litigant order “continuing the matter”, the second motion on the matter, is now a second bite at the apple for CLAY and CARVILL, when the original motion was DENIED JULY 11, 2018, NOT CONTINUED!!
The illegal order issued 23 DAYS LATER, subjects al-Hakim to double jeopardy in this matter being tried again, now CLAY’S OWN MOTION, yet the same defendants motion, by adding Clay’s OWN information gained through his investigation, corruption, collusion, and conspiracy with other judicial, governmental, and legal entities sources at Clay’s direction, Clay’s instruction, and before Clay again as the trier of fact, that is alleged “fact” solely in his opinion, fact that he has personally provided defendants! The law is established and clear in that a litigant CAN NOT be forced to endure more than one vexatious litigant motion in a 12 month period and this is the COURTS motion now, NOT the defendants.
Now Clay is representing Carvill’s and his own interests in this matter BEFORE HIMSELF as judge makes Clay a litigant, and his asking defendants to defend his being challenged as part of their do over, at his direction and instruction is specious, larcenous!
The most important result of that hearing is that Clay has officially made himself a defendant and fourth element in this case. Though currently sitting as the judge in this matter he is now a witness, defendant, co-defense counsel and deputy defense judge ruling in matters that he has lied, committed several instances of fraud on the court and has been deceitful about and is personally involved in with Carvill, in this action that was brought by the defendants BEFORE HIM and now has appointed defendants counsel as his own counsel to defend his Challenges for Peremptory and Cause with Striking Orders to establish HIS right to sit and rule in the same matters that HE and Carvill are personally involved in and HE sits in judgment of HIMSELF and Carvill BEFORE HIMSELF against his challenges for removal that HE WILL RULE ON! His actions has the unfortunate consequence of making the judge a litigant, obliged to the defense counsel providing this opportunity to defend himself as the sitting judge of the litigants appearing before him in the case. ( Kerr v. United States District Court, supra, 426 U.S. at pp. 402-403 [48 L.Ed.2d at p. 732].) Judges should be umpires rather than players. This is a travesty and a mockery of justice with clear conflict while it wreaks of corruption and collusion!
Clay does NOT employ nor enforce the Interest of Justice, but the Interest of Judges!
Clay does NOT employ the rule of law, rather his law of the ruler!
Clay thinks he IS the RULER OF LAW!
Further, this brings under scrutiny what else Clay knew or should have known, what he did that he should not have done, what he didn’t do that he should have done.
Given the corruption, collusion, and conspiracy of in these cases of al-Hakim involving Judges Clay, Stephen Kaus, Robert Freedman, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Ioana Petrou, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Jo-Lynne Lee, Paul Herbert, Kim Colwell, Kevin Murphy, Michael Markman, among others and their “handling of the EBMUD matter that has NOT been dismissed and Judge Grillo’s July 18, 2018 “Filed Answer Adventure was a Complete Fabrication!” and al-Hakim’s complaint against the superior court and clerks offices for their continuing fraud on the court, was one of the reasons for this assignment to Kaus entails a dramatic sequence of events and ex-parte communications that are not and have not been made public that have an immeasurable impact on these and other cases that now involve the on going actions of Judges Robert Freedman, Ioana Petrou, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Wynne Carvill, Kim Colwell, Mark Markman, Evelio Grillo, C. Don Clay, Chad Finke and Superior Court Clerks and administration among others.
Alleged Prior Vexatious Litigant Order and Proceeding
a) On March 3, 2018, al-Hakim filed a form FW-003, Request Fee Waiver for Additional Superior Court Fees and Costs for a peace officer to testify in court, Court-appointed interpreter fees for a witness, jury fees and expenses, fees for court-appointed experts, and Other fees per (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.56.)
b) al-Hakim received a denial of the FW-003, Request Fee Waiver for Additional Superior Court Fees and Costs dated March 5, 2018, with reason given as follows:
“(2) The court denies your request because the information you provided on the request shows that you are not eligible for the fee waiver you requested (spec reasons): Other (specify reasons): Plaintiff has been deemed a vexatious litigant. The Court has a motion set to address this issue pursuant prior Orders issued related to this litigation. The request is denied without prejudice.”
At the July 11, 2018, hearing Clay denied he issued the Fee Waiver denial order including the clause: “Plaintiff has been deemed a vexatious litigant. The Court has a motion set to address this issue pursuant prior Orders issued related to this litigation”as he stated at the hearing as follows:
al-Hakim says “and I want to know where is this prior order of the court finding me as a vexatious litigant, I don’t know if it came from them (defendants) or you (Clay)”. Clay shakes his head and says“I don’t know anything about it”,wherein al-Hakim says “it needs to be produced or this court is engaged in Fraud on the Court”, Clay again shakes his head and says “I don’t know anything about it”, wherein al-Hakim says “it’s yours, or Carvill or Finke’s signed order, I have presented that fact too many times for you NOT to know anything about it. Who issued the order if you didn’t?”. Clay again shakes his head and says “It’s not mine”. The order clearly bears his signature!!
Clay and Administrative staff Fraud on the Court
a) Clay, judges Carville and Markman and his administrative staff has committed Fraud on the Court in violation of Federal Code 60 and Code of Civil Procedure § 60, § 47, § 4541 § 425.16, Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Local Rule 180.
Fraud on the Court, or Fraud upon the Court, is where a material misrepresentation has been made to the court, or by the court itself. The main requirement is that the impartiality of the court has been so disrupted that it can’t perform its tasks without bias or prejudice.
Some examples of fraud on the court include:
• Fraud in the service of court summons (such as withholding a court summons from a party)
• Corruption or influence of a court member or official
• Judicial fraud
• Intentionally failing to inform the parties of necessary appointments or requirements, in efforts to obstruct the judicial process
• “Unconscionable” schemes to deceive or make misrepresentations through the court system
It’s important to note that fraud on the court only involves court officials or officers of the court, such as judges or court-appointed attorneys. The fraud must be directed at the “judicial machinery” itself. Fraud on the court generally does NOT mean:
• Fraud between the two opposing parties
• Submission of fraudulent documents
• Perjury or false statements by witnesses
Fraud on the court is one of the most serious violations that can occur in a court of law. If fraud on the court occurs, the effect is that the entire case is voided or cancelled. Any ruling or judgment that the court has issued will be void. The case will usually need to be retried with different court officials, often in an entirely different venue.
For the official who acted in fraud upon the court, they may very well be required to step down from their position and may even be subjected to criminal consequences like a fine or a jail sentence. It could also result in other serious consequences, such as an attorney being disbarred, or a judge being removed from service.
If a court official is found to be biased or prejudiced even before fraud occurs, they are required to excuse themselves from the case, and a different official must be appointed. In some jurisidictions, a trial tainted by fraud on the court will be vacated or set aside for a certain time period (such as two years), to be “reopened” at a later date.
Given the FABRICATED PRIOR VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDER in the Denial of the Request Fee Waiver dated March 5, 2018 that does NOT exist, AND the TWO FABRICATED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT ORDERSof July 23, 2018, and August 3, 2018, Clay issued proclaiming that the EBMUD action was dismissed for al-Hakim filing Challenges against the judges, YET THAT HAD NOT HAPPENED, is irrefutable evidence ofthe continued Fraud Upon The Court by Judges C. Don Clay and Wynne Carvill with Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law! Again, this is at least the FOURTH time Clay has engineered, authored and endorsed fabricated orders as evidence of his fraud on the court and unbridled disregard and disrespect for the Rule of Law!
Clay’s Total Disregard for The Rule of Law in Challenges
In Total Disregard for The Rule of Law, On Two Occasions Clay Failed and Refused to Timely File an Answer Striking both Challenges on Peremptory Bias Grounds Pursuant to California Civil Code §170.6 and otherwise “For Cause” Pursuant to California Civil Code §§170.1-170.5 Before Ruling on The Matters.
At the July 11, 2018, hearing, I filed a Challenge for Cause against Judge Clay while on the bench and he tried to evade the service and move into the case. I insisted that upon being served the challenge, he could only perform administrative duties relative to the case, that he could not hear anything regarding the case as he was challenged and had to answer first. He ignored that discussion of whether he could only perform administrative duties or he could even hear any matters and again tried to proceeded into the case. al-Hakim remained resolute and insisted that he accept service unless he was refusing service, wherein he acknowledged the Challenges, and still moved into decided crucial matters WITHOUT referring the case answering.
Judge Clay’s Conduct and Actions
A. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 170-170.4
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 170-170.4 reads as follows:
170.1. (a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true:
(1) (A) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.
(6) (A) For any reason:
(i) The judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice.
(ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial.
(iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.
(B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification.
170.3. (a) (1) If a judge determines himself or herself to be disqualified, the judge shall notify the presiding judge of the court of his or her recusal and shall not further participate in the proceeding, except as provided in Section 170.4, unless his or her disqualification is waived by the parties as provided in subdivision (b).
(2) There shall be no waiver of disqualification if the basis therefor is either of the following:
(A) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.
(4) If grounds for disqualification are first learned of or arise after the judge has made one or more rulings in a proceeding, but before the judge has completed judicial action in a proceeding, the judge shall, unless the disqualification be waived, disqualify himself or herself, but in the absence of good cause the rulings he or she has made up to that time shall not be set aside by the judge who replaces the disqualified judge.
(c) (1) If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself refuses or fails to do so, any party may file with the clerk a written verified statement objecting to the hearing or trial before the judge and setting forth the facts constituting the grounds for disqualification of the judge. The statement shall be presented at the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts constituting the ground for disqualification. Copies of the statement shall be served on each party or his or her attorney who has appeared and shall be personally served on the judge alleged to be disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers.
(5) A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within five days of notification of the judge’s answer, by a judge selected by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is unable to act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible. No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may be made against the judge selected to decide the question of disqualification.
170.4. (a) A disqualified judge, notwithstanding his or her disqualification may do any of the following:
(3) A party may file no more than one statement of disqualification against a judge unless facts suggesting new grounds for disqualification are first learned of or arise after the first statement of disqualification was filed. Repetitive statements of disqualification not alleging facts suggesting new grounds for disqualification shall be stricken by the judge against whom they are filed.
This petition convincingly presents the case for all and judicial recusal under Code of Civil Procedure sections 170.1- 170.4 above, specifically 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(C). n1 (Stats. 1984, ch. 1555.) This proceeding touches upon the core of the judicial process — the appearance of objectivity of the decision maker — requiring a careful balancing of the affected interests. The court must consider both the public’s right to be assured of the fair, but yet efficient, resolution of disputes and the parties’ right to a decision based upon the court’s objective evaluation of the facts and law. (See In re United States (1st Cir. 1981) 666 F.2d 690, 694.) The tension between the appearance of fairness and efficiency should be self-evident. The difference between the appearance of fairness generally and the perception of fairness as seen by a party or his or her counsel should also be self-evident. With ever mounting litigation, judicial disqualification has and will undoubtedly continue to increase as will those of judicial disqualification during trial. This case is ripe for such ruling as you must understand judge Clay has repeatedly avoided, failed and refused to file and serve a written answer striking to the Challenges before he ruled on the matters heard that day and remained in the case over al-Hakim’s objections; continued to make critical rulings that negatively impacted al-Hakim’s case causing irreparable harm, far beyond simple administrative duties; he admitted striking the Second Challenge filed and served on July 11, 2018; he avoided, failed and refused to abide by the law wherein he did NOT recuse himself from hearing the motions that day; he avoided, failed and refused to abide by the law established that he could ONLY perform basic administrative duties until the challenge was heard by a judge; and this resulted in the granting of al-Hakim’s Motion to Compel . Judge Clay did not review the issues as plead by al-Hakim in those motions nor the Challenges as required by law or he would have discovered both legal authority and supporting evidence for the court to rule in plaintiff’s favor and such conduct, actions and personality “make a world of difference when it comes to rulings on evidence, the temper of the courtroom, the tolerance for a proffered defense, and the like.” ( Chandler v. Judicial Council (1970) 398 U.S. 74, 137 [26 L.Ed.2d 100, 137-138, 90 S.Ct. 1648] (dis. opn. of Douglas, J.).) Nonetheless the proper performance of judicial duties does require a judge to withdraw from a matter every time an advocate positively asserts the objective and fair judge appears to be biased. The duty of a judge to sit where not disqualified is equally as strong as the duty not to sit when disqualified. (See Laird v. Tatum (1972) 409 U.S. 824 [34 L.Ed.2d 50, 93 S.Ct. 7] On the facts of this case, you must grant this writ.
Prejudicial Misconduct in continuing to Preside over the Case
Clay committed prejudicial misconduct in continuing to preside over the case, conduct hearings,conducted his own investigation; colluded, conspired and issued an order and make substantive rulings, not just administrative rulings, without having filed a written verified answer to al-Hakim’s challenge despite her personal knowledge of the relevant facts, evidence, testimony and circumstances for his disqualification and recusal that he failed and refused to answer.
al-Hakim had contested his continued sitting in the case and indicated his intent to file an appeal for same. These facts indicate that Clay’s purported concern about his failure to file a response and al-Hakim’s intent to file an appeal for Clay’s many failures was merely a pretext for his decision to independently take it upon himself to grant his own vexatious litigant order “continuing the matter”, the second motion on the matter, is now a second bite at the apple for CLAY and CARVILL, when the original motion was DENIED JULY 11, 2018, NOT CONTINUED!!
The illegal order issued 20 DAYS LATER, subjects al-Hakim to double jeopardy in this matter being tried again, now CLAY’S OWN MOTION, yet the same defendants motion, by adding Clay’s OWN information gained through his investigation, corruption, collusion, and conspiracy with other judicial, governmental, and legal entities sources at Clay’s direction, Clay’s instruction, continue in the case to frustrate al-Hakim’s attempt to disqualify him. In so retaliating against al-Hakim, Colwell committed prejudicial misconduct. (See In re Rasmussen (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 536, 538 [236 Cal. Rptr. 152, 734 P.2d 988] [judge committed misconduct in “displaying a lack of impartiality to, and petty harassment of attorneys who filed affidavits of prejudice against him,” and in “discouraging the exercise of peremptory disqualification rights by inappropriate means”].)
The courts have generally held that a judgment or order rendered by a disqualified judge is void whenever brought into question. (See Giometti v. Etienne (1934) 219 Cal. 687, 689 [28 P.2d 913] [justice related to petitioner’s counsel]; Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 567 [6 P.2d 944] [judge owned stock in bank]; Lindsay-Strathmore I. Dist. v. Superior Court (1920) 182 Cal. 315, 333 [187 P. 1056] [judge had remote interest in subject matter]; T.P.B. v. Superior Court (1977) 66 Cal. App. 3d 881, 885-886 [136 Cal. Rptr. 311].)
Clay abused and misused the judicial process unlawfully in violation of [section 170.4, subdivision (d)].
Section 170.4, subdivision (d) provides that “[e]xcept as provided in this section, a disqualified judge shall have no power to act in any proceeding after his or her disqualification or after the filing of a statement of disqualification until the question of his or her disqualification has been determined.”
Section 170.4, subdivision (a) provides as follows: “A disqualified judge, notwithstanding his or her disqualification may do any of the following: [P] (1) Take any action or issue any order necessary to maintain the jurisdiction of the court pending the assignment of a judge not disqualified. [P] (2) Request any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and act in his or her place. [P] (3) Hear and determine purely default matters. [P] (4) Issue an order for possession prior to judgment in eminent domain proceedings. [P] (5) Set proceedings for trial or hearing. [P] (6) Conduct settlement conferences.”
Clay was disqualified to preside at any further proceedings because he failed and refused to file a written order striking the challenge for cause while knowing that he is prohibited from hearing such motions and had no jurisdiction to enter the orders at and after the hearing.”
Clay Did Not Answer Second Challenge BEFORE Ruling on Matters Passed upon His own Disqualification
Clay never had standing in this case to rule by virtue of not having timely answered, filed and served properly any acceptable answer to the Second Challenge BEFORE he ruled on the matters at the hearing July 11, 2018.
His actions proved every point al-Hakim has made in every one of the documents, motions, answers, replies, correspondence, and challenges filed with, for, and against Clay over the years, that he can not afford to answer any of the charges leveled against him because it will incriminate him and establish that Clay IS GUILTY OF ALL THE CHARGES al-Hakim has made.
al-Hakim immediately realized that under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§170.1(a)(4), 170.1(a)(8)(b)(ii) Judge Clay had a conflict of interest and was disqualified from acting, has a direct and unwaivable conflict of interest.
Judge Clay then proceeded to hear, took under submission, and decided the matters before the Court, those rulings could be dispositive of the entire case, which he apparently intends to preside in spite of his disqualification.
Judge Clay therefore “pass[ed] upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party” violating CCP 170.3(c)(5). “A judge may not pass on his own disqualification”, Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie 475 U.S. 813 (1986), Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988).
Clay Did NOT Timely Answer the Challenge, Consenting to the Challenge
On July 11, 2018, Clay was challenged pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 and for cause pursuant to sections 170.1 and 170.3. Upon being issued the Challenges Clay could only preform administrative duties yet, Clay did NOT refer the case out to another judge as required nor timely answer the Challenge at all, thereby consenting to the Challenge per CCP §170.3(c)(4) for failure to file an order striking the Challenge within 10 days.
Judge Clay Disqualified Per CCP §170.3(c)(4) for NOT Answering nor Striking Challenge and Statement of Disqualification Within Ten-Day Time Limit
Clay failed to answer or strike the July 11, 2018, Challenges wherein if the judge whose disqualification has been sought has made no answer within ten days, he or she is considered to have consented to the disqualification. CCP §170.3(c)(4); People v Superior Court (Mudge) (1997) 54 CA4th 407, 411, 62 CR2d 721.
A judge who does not strike the statement of disqualification within this ten-day time limit is deemed disqualified. Lewis v Superior Court (1988) 198 CA3d 1101, 1104, 244 CR 328. Once a judge strikes a statement of disqualification, the aggrieved party may seek a writ immediately without waiting for the ten-day period to elapse. Hollingsworth v Superior Court (1987) 191 CA3d 22, 26, 236 CR 193.
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!
Unless and until these issues can be fairly resolved BEFORE the hearing scheduled on SEPTEMBER 26, 2018, AT 3:00 P.M. IN DEPARTMENT 6, BEFORE JUDGE CLAY, I CAN NOT in good conscience OUT OF FEAR agree to APPEAR with ANY of the continuing outstanding conditions referenced in this complaint regrading Clay’s State sponsored TERROR I was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM!
I am and will be subject to the continued fraud, corruption and collusion complained of in ALL the aforementioned herein and further, I request an OPEN hearing on these matters before an impartial judge.
This matter may need to be transferred to another county venue on fair trial grounds as provided by CCP §397(b) where the influence of the Judges, district attorney, city attorney and opposing litigants is not so inextricably intertwined with judicial interests.