How many Insults, Excuses and Fake Apologies are Blacks, Minorities to take from Joe Biden?

How many insults, excuses and fake apologies are Black Voters supposed to take from Joe Biden as he risks alienating Black voters after race remarks? 
It’s not about his age. It’s about whether he has offended black voters.
At a convention for Black and Hispanic journalists, a Black reporter asked Joe Biden whether he has taken a cognitive test.
This was Biden’s response: “No, I haven’t taken a test. Why the hell would I take a test? Come on, man! That’s like saying you, before you got in this program, you’re taking a test whether you’re taking cocaine or not. What do you think, huh? Are you a junkie?”
Had that answer come from President Trump it would have been blasted, virtually nonstop, as blatantly racist. But the Biden campaign was basically allowed to brush off the query as “preposterous” rather than address the appropriateness of the words spoken by Trump’s Democratic challenger. Besides the matter of relatively low-key media coverage of Biden’s over-wrought objections to a perfectly valid question posed to a 77-year-old presidential candidate, it raises another serious political issue: How many more insults will Black voters take from Biden in the interest of defeating Trump? And at this point, wouldn’t a failure to select a Black woman as his running mate be the ultimate insult? Biden’s credibility as Barack Obama’s friend and vice president can go only so far.
“He’s making us all nervous,” said Joyce Ferriabough Bolling, a media and political strategist, about Biden’s recent gaffes. “I think some of his responses are just plain sloppy.” And Ferriabough Bolling knows sloppy and what it’s like to clean it up. She was Jesse Jackson’s New England press secretary when Jackson was running for president in 1984 and referred to Jews as “Hymies” and New York City as “Hymietown” during a conversation with a Washington Post reporter. Today, she defends Biden the same way she defended Jackson — saying she knows “what’s in his heart,” no matter how awkwardly those feelings may be expressed. In contrast, she said, “Trump doesn’t make gaffes”; in other words, he’s as racist as he sounds.
But Ferriabough Bolling has her forgiveness limits, too. Last May, she chided Biden after his “You ain’t Black” quip to Charlamagne tha God, cohost of the radio show “The Breakfast Club.” As she wrote in a Boston Herald column, “You definitely don’t want black folks to feel taken for granted and so disillusioned that they sit out the election.” And she still worries about that, especially with young Black voters.
During that convention of Black and Hispanic journalists, Biden also made some waves when, in response to a question about engagement with Cuba, he said, “Unlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community, with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things.” For that, he’s also forgiven, on the same essential grounds that he’s not Trump. Or as Jeffrey Sanchez, a former state representative and longtime Biden supporter, put it, “He’s not the shell of a human being that’s in the president’s office right now.” Sanchez — now a senior adviser at the public affairs firm Rasky Partners — said he applauds the discussion of diversity in the Black and Latino communities, and that Biden’s record of fighting for health care and economic justice is what matters. 
An answer Joe Biden gave in the Houston Debate might come back to haunt him.
Biden had been performing effectively throughout the first half of the debate, then the subject turned to the matter of race and inequality, and moderator Linsey Davis posed this question to Biden:
“In a conversation about how to deal with segregation in schools back in 1975, you told a reporter, “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather, I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation and I”ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.” You said that some 40 years ago. But as you stand here tonight, what responsibility do you think that Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in our country?”
There was a smile (some called it a “smirk”) on Biden’s face as he listened to the question. And he answered her this way:
“Well, they have to deal with the “look”, there’s institutional segregation in this country. From the time I got involved, I started dealing with that. Redlining banks, making sure we are in a position where, look, you talk about education. I propose is we take the very poor schools, triple the amount of money we spend from $15 to $45 billion a year. Give every single teacher a raise to the $60,000 level. Number two, make sure that we bring in to help the teachers deal with the problems that come from home. The problems that come from home, we have one school psychologist for every 1,500 kids in America today. It’s crazy. The teachers are “I’m married to a teacher, my deceased wife is a teacher. They have every problem coming to them. Make sure that every single child does, in fact, have 3-, 4- and 5-year-olds go to school. Not day care, school. Social workers help parents deal with how to raise their children. It’s not like they don’t want to help, they don’t know what to do. Play the radio, make sure the television, excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the make sure that kids hear words, a kid coming from a very poor school, a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time we get there.”
The post-debate commentariat pounced on the “record player” comment, noting that it suggested a lack of familiarity with more modern-day devices, like the eight-track tape or Walkman. It was viewed mostly as a proxy for his age, a self-inflicted wound from a candidate stuck somewhere in the 1970s technologically. But by Friday morning, attention had begun to shift to the broader and far more culturally fraught implications of what Biden was saying: Did he mean that black parents depended on an army of white people with degrees to help them raise their kids?
Anand Giridharadas, an author and editor-at-large at TIME magazine, helped trigger a Twitterstorm about the nature of Biden’s comments. “Right now, somewhere, in some newsroom, some brilliant journalist ought to be pitching a big analytical story parsing Joe Biden’s statement and explaining why it was so troubling and ignored by so many people. It is a textbook example of the racism that is still respectable.”
There’s some anecdotal evidence that other journalists are already on the case. New York magazine writer Rebecca Traister wrote:
“Yes. Syntactically this reminded me of the viral Miss Teen USA answer from years ago. But the substance of what he was trying to say was much worse.” Journalist David Rothkopf wrote: “This is an important and accurate thread. I don’t believe Joe Biden is a bad person. I just think this once again reveals that he is not of this era or suited to lead for nearly the decade ahead.” New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie joined the thread as well, while also noting the meandering nature of Biden’s words.
At the risk of stating the obvious: Biden’s lead in the polling rests in substantial measure on his enormous strength in the African-American community. It is why he is far ahead in South Carolina (where black people cast the majority of Democratic primary votes), while doing much less well in Iowa and New Hampshire. It is why sustaining that strength is crucial to his chances; over the past decades, no Democrat has won the prize without winning the lion’s share of the African-American vote. Eroding that support is crucial to the hope of Trump, which is why Kamala Harris went after him back in June on his self-proclaimed ability to work with Southern segregationists.
And it suggests that if the Twitterstorm gains salience over the next several days “if his comments are interpreted as cluelessly condescending at best” it poses a serious danger to his prospects.
For those troubled by Biden’s sometimes cringe-worthy statements, Sanchez said, “Look where he puts his heart. I have faith in him. I have faith in what he’s done and what he’s going to do.”
To Ferriabough Bolling, “Anything is better than Trump. And Biden is better than most because of his relationship with Obama.” Still, an insurance policy beyond he’s-better-than-Trump would help. “With all the gaffes lending themselves to various interpretations, a woman of color as vice president becomes a necessity, especially in this climate,” said Ferriabough Bolling.
Biden wouldn’t be where he is without Black voters. Representative James Clyburn helped set up the South Carolina primary win that resurrected Biden’s candidacy and turned him from loser into nominee. Once he said he would choose a woman as a running mate, several smart, accomplished, and politically savvy Black women made the short list. After much jockeying, the reveal is said to be imminent. If a Black woman isn’t the final choice, Biden will have a lot more explaining to do.
And answers like the ones he gave last week won’t be so easy to forgive and forget.
Biden has some resources to deploy here. His embrace of Barack Obama, and the former president’s obvious affection for him, may insulate him from the criticism. And he has an army of African-American allies, who see him as a fighter for racial justice going back decades. Whether they jump to his defense, or begin to create distance, will be a sign of whether this is a passing firestorm or something much, much worse.
Kamala Harris, also known as “Hillary Clinton in blackface” from the comparison between Harris and Clinton, “#BlackHillary” trended , “light-skinned Hillary”; Black Lives Matter movement and other critics have trolled her on Twitter with the hashtag #Kamalaisacop; advocates for criminal justice reform say her office was part of the problem, not the solution; Harris violated defendants’ constitutional rights by failing to disclose they knew about the tainted drug evidence in her crime lab scandal that resulted in the dismissal of over 1,000 drug cases; laughed when she said she smoked marijuana, yet opposed recreational pot while she convicted over 2000 people for having marijuana; oppossed independent investigations of police shootings; opposed racism in the legal system and the mandatory use of body cameras by police: California reduce its prison population by 33,000 inmates Harris argued in court that releasing them would drastically reduce their prison labor pool (seriously!); there were 600,000 truant students in elementary schools, she passed a law making it a criminal misdemeanor for parents or guardians of truant children that could face a $2000 fine or up to one year in jail; She’s shut down websites of sex workers and prosecuted those involved, then moved to decriminalize sex work in a “massive shift; authored numerous policies that disproportionately harmed Black and Latino defendants; fake feminist! who is Jamaican/Indian who identifies and passed as a black woman.
Abdul-Jalil

Are The TRUTH of Biden Harris Clashes, Political Records Supposed to just Disapear?

˜I believe them”: From supporting Biden’s sexual assault accusers to policing, where Kamala Harris has clashed with running mate
“I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it”
Is it just me or are WE ALL supposed to just be “Thooopid” and act as if ALL the insincere, fake, scripted and repeated apologetic excuses from Joe Biden for 47 years of “selling out” and the “please overlook my lies, fraud and corruption” from Kamala Harris’ “humping her way to POWER” (how old was Willie Brown when they were “screwing” and wasn’t/isn’t Rock Harmon gay?) Are the TRUTH of Biden vs Harris clashes and their political records supposed to just disappear?
Mr. Trump’s campaign has been keen to highlight the former US vice-president’s political baggage from a long career as a Washington insider – and tar him as out of touch with the mainstream of the modern Democratic party.
Joe Biden announced Kamala Harris as his running mate for the presidential election, but his pick of the California senator comes after the pair have sparred multiple times over differing views and EACH HAS THEIR OWN POLITICAL BAGGAGE!!
Although Mr Biden has since formerly said he holds no “grudges” against his running mate for what she’s previously said against his campaign, her past remarks have still dominated the news cycle.
The Independent has rounded up the four key moments Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris have clashed ahead of being named on the same presidential ticket.
Mandatory School Busing
Kamala Harris went out swinging against Joe Biden during the first Democratic presidential debate.
The California senator saw her chance to fluster the former vice president, who was leading among all Democratic candidates, and she found Mr Biden’s weakness: his past Senate record on mandatory busing in the 1970s.
Biden’s Work with Bigoted Senators on Segregation and Busing
Senator Kamala Harris raised his past work with bigoted senators, and his previous opposition to a policy combating segregation in schools.
He said she had “mischaracterized” his position, insisting he had entered politics to champion civil rights.
Harris pilloried Mr Biden for having recently reminisced about working with two Democratic senators who favored racial segregation.
Turning to him, she said she did not believe he was a racist, but added: “It was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country.”
She also took him to task for working “with them [racist senators] to oppose bussing” – a policy of driving white children by bus to majority-black schools and vice versa, in the mid-1970s.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/embed/p07fdnkc/48796148
The policy aimed to undo the negative effects of Jim Crow-era racial segregation. Segregation of public schools was outlawed in 1954, but the racial inequality it fostered persisted.
“There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me,” Ms Harris said during the debate while targeting Mr Biden for opposing mandatory busing.
Mr Biden bristled: “It’s a mischaracterization of my position across the board. I did not praise racists. That is not true”of his position in the Senate, but it went down as the most contentious moment between the politicians during the presidential campaign.
He said he ‘detested” the segregationists’ views, following a backlash.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/embed/p07fgrbb/48796148
He also said he was only against bussing being mandated by the federal government, but had no problem with it at state level.
The comments thrust segregationist policies onto a national stage, and Ms Harris again repeated her criticisms against the former vice president at the following debate.
“Had I been in the United States Senate at that time, I would’ve been completely on the other side of the aisle, and let’s be clear about this: had those segregationists their way, I would not be a member of the United States Senate,” she said. ‘so on that issue, we could not be more apart.”
Insults Black voters take from Biden in the Interest of Defeating Trump
Had the many, many racial insults come from President Trump it would have been blasted, virtually nonstop, as blatantly racist. But the Biden campaign has basically been allowed to brush off the query as “preposterous” rather than address the appropriateness of the words spoken by Trump’s Democratic challenger. Besides the matter of relatively low-key media coverage of Biden’s over-wrought objections to perfectly valid questions posed to a 77-year-old presidential candidate, it raises another serious political issue: How many more insults will Black voters take from Biden in the interest of defeating Trump? And at this point, the ultimate insult is Biden’s reliance on any credibility as Barack Obama’s friend and vice president can go only so far!
Sexual assault allegations against Mr Biden
In April 2019, prior to Mr Biden entering the presidential race, reports surfaced of the former vice president inappropriately touching women.
When asked by reporters, Ms Harris said she believed the women who spoke out against her now-running mate.
“I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it,” she said.
Multiple women accused Mr Biden of inappropriately touching them, including one Nevada politician who said the former vice president came up to her at a 2014 campaign stop and kissed the back of her head. This encouraged Mr Biden to release a video addressing the allegations against him.
‘social norms are changing. I understand that, and I”ve heard what these women are saying. Politics to me has always been about making connections, but I will be more mindful about respecting personal space in the future. That’s my responsibility and I will meet it,” he said.
Then Tara Reade, a former aide to Mr Biden, came forward about allegations of sexual assault when he was a US senator, all of which he has vehemently denied.
Ms Harris, who was a potential vice president candidate at the time, was asked about the allegations, saying Ms Reade “has a right to tell her story”.
“And I believe that and I believe Joe Biden believes that, too,” she said on the San Francisco Chronicle podcast.
The attack prompted Harris” sharpest spike in the polls, but she soon faded and ended her campaign in December.
Harris, 55, has several potential advantages as a vice presidential candidate. She is a woman of color “” her mother was born in India, her father in Jamaica “” which could help Biden connect better with the Democratic Party’s base. As a senator and former attorney general of the nation’s most populous state, she may be seen as more prepared than some to assume the top job.
One downside is that deep blue California is in the bag for Biden in the November election, so Harris wouldn’t deliver a home-field advantage in a swing state.
Harris also weighed in Friday on allegations by former Biden staffer Tara Reade, who said Biden sexually assaulted her when she worked in his Senate office in 1993.
Reade said Biden “pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers,” according to the New York Times. Last year, Reade was among several women who said Biden had inappropriately touched them or invaded their personal space. Reade made the assault allegations in a podcast interview.
Biden has not personally addressed the allegations, but his campaign has denied them.
Harris said the case raises “a bigger structural issue, frankly, which is that women must be able to speak without fear of retaliation.”
The senator said she could “only speak to the Joe Biden I know. He’s been a lifelong fighter, in terms of stopping violence against women.” She pointed to his lead role in passing the Violence Against Women Act in the Senate in 1994.
“The Joe Biden I know is somebody who really has fought for women and empowerment of women and for women’s equality and rights,” Harris said.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that she believes women who say they felt uncomfortable after receiving unwanted touching from former Vice President Joe Biden.
“I believe them and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it,” Harris said at a presidential campaign event in Nevada.
“He’s going to have to make that decision for himself. I wouldn’t tell him what to do,” Harris said.
Several women have come forward to allege that Biden has touched them inappropriately.
Former Nevada state lawmaker Lucy Flores, a Democrat, made the first accusation last week in an essay in New York magazine’s The Cut. Amy Lappos told the Hartford Courant that Biden also touched her inappropriately at a 2009 fundraiser in Connecticut.
Two additional women, Caitlyn Caruso and D. J. Hill, came forward Tuesday, sharing their experiences with The New York Times.
Biden has not commented publicly on the accusations, when in response to Flores’s allegation he said in a statement that he has “offered countless handshakes, hugs, expressions of affection, support and comfort.”
“And not once “never” did I believe I acted inappropriately,” Biden added. “If it is suggested I did so, I will listen respectfully.”
Medicare for All
Another prominent debate moment between Ms Harris and Mr Biden happened when discussing the American healthcare system.
This was a point of contention among many of the Democratic candidates at the time, with voters able to draw a distinct line between those who were for a plan like Medicare for All, which Ms Harris supported, versus those like Mr Biden who wanted to expand on the Affordable Care Act.
After listening to voters, Ms Harris devised her own Medicare-for-All plan that would take 10 years to implement and involved slowly transitioning every American over into a single-payer system.
“I listened to the American families who said four years is just not enough to transition into this new plan, so I devised a plan where it’s going to be 10 years of a transition. I listened to American families who said “I want an option that will be under your Medicare system that allows a private plan,”” the California senator said during a debate after changing her plan multiple times throughout her campaign.
Mr Biden, who has been a proponent of keeping private health insurance for those who want it while expanding on the Affordable Care Act, disagreed at the time.
“Well, my response is that the senator has had several plans so far. And any time someone tells you you”re going to get something good in 10 years, you should wonder why it takes 10 years,” he said.
“If you noticed, there is no talk about the fact that the plan in 10 years will cost $3 trillion. You will lose your employer-based insurance. And in fact, you know, this is the single most important issue facing the public.”
Bringing more Police to the Streets
In 2002, then-Senator Joe Biden penned an op-ed for the Delaware State News that reacted to the rising national crime rate, which was happening for the first time in 10 years. What was his solution to the rise in crime? More police on the streets.
“What works in the fight against crime? It’s simple ““ more police on the streets,” he wrote. “Put a cop on three of four corners and guess where the crime is going to be committed? On the fourth corner, where the cop isn’t. More cops clearly means less crime.”
This was during the “tough on crime” era of the Democratic party in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Now Mr Biden stands as a presidential candidate of a major political party during a time in the country where there is a nationwide call for police reform. Although his views have likely altered since that op-ed, Mr Biden did state he was not for the ‘defund the police” movement taking over on the far left of his party.
But his running mate has said she would be for “reimagining” police in the US.
“I think that a big part of this conversation really is about reimagining how we do public safety in America which I support which is this: we have confused the idea that to achieve safety, you put more cops on the street instead of understanding to achieve safe and healthy communities,” Ms Harris said.
“That’s how I think about this,” she added. “You know, in many cities in America, over one-third of their city budget goes to the police. So, we have to have this conversation, what are we doing? What about the money going to social services? What about the money going to helping people with job training? What about the mental health issues that communities are being plagued with for which we”re putting no resources?”
Biden on Social Security
Joe Biden has repeatedly advocated for cuts to Social Security, not to protect and expand it.
Biden’s mixed record of support for the US government’s social welfare program for retirees has been a theme as reform of such so-called “entitlement” programs has long been a political bugaboo for candidates as well as elected officials, and Mr Biden’s decades-long career has laid bare this point. A senator before his stint as vice-president, Mr Biden argued that Social Security should be subject to government austerity. “When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well,” he said in 1995. “I meant every single solitary thing in the government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time.”
When challenged on this record on the campaign trail, Mr Biden has flat-out denied backing Social Security cuts. His campaign has said that, if elected, a President Biden would expand the program, paying for it through a tax on the wealthy.
Biden on Abortion Rights
“Joe Biden in the past has voted for what is called the Hyde Amendment, that said that women could not use Medicaid dollars in order to protect their reproductive rights and get an abortion.
An exit poll analysis by the political forecast website FiveThirtyEight found that white women were the single largest voting group that turned around Mr Biden’s campaign fortunes.
Given the importance of female voters, it is hardly surprising that Mr Biden’s votes on reproductive health would be scrutinized. The former vice-president’s positions on abortion have “transformed” over the past few decades. As a senator in 1981, he voted to support an amendment that would have allowed states to overturn the landmark Supreme Court ruling guaranteeing the US right to abortion. As recently as last year, he said he still supported the Hyde Amendment (which forbids public money from being used for abortions), but reversed course after it became clear he was the only Democrat in the field who did so.
Abortion access is an important issue for Democratic women, but denunciation of Mr Biden’s record appears to go only so far. A YouGov/Economist poll finds that support from women overall for the former vice-president is slightly higher with women older than 45 and it is this group that votes more reliably.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/embed/p085lcjk/51803885
Trade Deals
‘does anybody think that Joe can go to Michigan or Wisconsin or Indiana or Minnesota and say vote for me, I voted for those terrible trade agreements?”
The anti-free trade line worked in 2016, when the same criticism of Hillary Clinton helped Trump.
Mr Biden has said he stands by his vote for the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), which critics say hollowed out manufacturing in the US. However, Mr Biden has argued that he is a “fair trader” who believes that “we should treat other countries in a way they treat us”, rather than a “free trader”.
The argument against Mr Biden looks to be less effective this time around than four years ago. According to a recent Gallup poll, 67% of self-described Democrats now say that Nafta has been beneficial for the US.
The debate has not played out in the general election, however. Trump will and has already talked about Joe’s record on trade. “Just looking at the facts – if you’re going into the heartland of America… it’s hard to make the case, when Trump has made trade such an important part of his agenda.”
Big Money
Trumps’ sharpest lines against Mr Biden have been against the former vice-president’s ties to moneyed interests. Mr Biden “bailed out the crooks on Wall Street who nearly destroyed our economy 12 years ago”.
Trump has hit out at Mr Biden for taking money from well-heeled backers.
Biden has positioned himself as a champion of the masses, arguing that it is not him, but Mr Trump who is in the pockets of Wall Street.
At one point, he said he would eschew taking money from political action committees – private groups that can donate big money to campaigns with little oversight – but was forced to reverse course when his White House hopes were looking anaemic before Super Tuesday. A campaign spokeswoman defended the decision, saying: “Those who are dedicated to defeating Donald Trump are organizing in every way permitted by current law”.
Iraq War
“Joe is going to have to explain to the American people – who are so tired of endless wars which have cost us too many lives, destabilized too many regions around the world, have cost us trillions of dollars – why he was a leader in getting us involved in the war in Iraq.
On this point, Mr Biden has conceded. “It was a mistake, and I acknowledge that,” he has said.
Given the primary season results so far, it would appear that despite voters’ mixed feelings over the war (half of Americans think it was a mistake, according to Gallup), this particular error of judgement is not costing Mr Biden much – so many people made the same wrong judgment and, politically speaking, it was so long ago.
It has been weaponized by Mr Trump given the president’s losing battle to reduce the American military footprint in the region, it could be a risky one for him – but that has never stopped Mr Trump from throwing a punch.
Biden a Career Politician- 47 years and counting!
Mr Biden then brought up his two terms as vice-president to Barack Obama, America’s first black president.
Mr Biden, 76, was also confronted on an issue he presents as one of his strengths – political longevity.

"Pass the torch" Joe Biden
“Pass the torch” Joe Biden

Mr Swalwell said: “I was six years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic convention and said, ‘It’s time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans.’
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/embed/p07fdh08/48796148
“That candidate was then-Senator Joe Biden. Joe Biden was right when he said it was time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans 32 years ago – he’s still right today.”
Mr Biden, who would be the oldest president ever elected, retorted: “I’m still holding on to that torch.”
He has also faced criticism for flip-flopping on abortion rights, and for calling Vice-President Mike Pence “a decent guy”.
Harris Political Baggage
Kamala Harris, also known as “Hillary Clinton in blackface” from the comparison between Harris and Clinton, “#BlackHillary” trended , “light-skinned Hillary”; Black Lives Matter movement and other critics have trolled her on Twitter with the hashtag #Kamalaisacop; advocates for criminal justice reform say her office was part of the problem, not the solution; Harris violated defendants’ constitutional rights by failing to disclose they knew about the tainted drug evidence in her crime lab scandal that resulted in the dismissal of over 1,000 drug cases; laughed when she said she smoked marijuana, yet opposed recreational pot while she convicted over 2000 people for having marijuana; opposed independent investigations of police shootings; opposed racism in the legal system and the mandatory use of body cameras by police: California reduce its prison population by 33,000 inmates Harris argued in court that releasing them would drastically reduce their prison labor pool (seriously!); there were 600,000 truant students in elementary schools, she passed a law making it a criminal misdemeanor for parents or guardians of truant children that could face a $2000 fine or up to one year in jail; She’s shut down websites of sex workers and prosecuted those involved, then moved to decriminalize sex work in a “massive shift; authored numerous policies that disproportionately harmed Black and Latino defendants; fake feminist! who is Jamaican/Indian who identifies and passed as a black woman.
Harris’ history as a prosecutor and attorney general in the state of California was a touchy subject and cause for concern long before her presidential campaign, and is being recirculated in the 2020 presidential and vice presidential debates.
“The concerns are overblown, yes, no question,” Harris told CBS News. But she was unable to escape addressing her controversial history; it took center stage during the second Democratic debates last year. When the topic of criminal justice reform arose, Harris bore the brunt of criticism from her fellow candidates, including Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.
Democratic Debate: Tulsi Gabbard Goes After the Party, Tangles With Kamala Harris | NBC New York:

Harris has failed in her views on Criminal Justice Reform (you can read her full policy on her website here) and Police Brutality in the wake of the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and countless other Black Americans. So, let’s try to clear up this controversy. Here are the important things to know about Kamala Harris’ history as attorney general:
Harris served as Attorney General twice.
Harris’ first go-around was as the district attorney general of San Francisco. Her term lasted seven years, from 2004 to 2011. Then, from 2011 to 2017, she went on to serve the state of California as attorney general before taking on the role of Senator.
Failed “Back on Track” Initiative
The “Back on Track” initiative was one her most successful programs.
As district attorney in 2005, Harris launched an initiative to reduce recidivism among first-time drug-trafficking defendants. The program, known as “Back on Track”, lasts 12-18 months and provides its participants with a personal responsibility plan (PRP). Their PRP will consist of setting goals around employment, parenting and receiving an education, instead of serving jail time. Participants are also required to serve 220 hours of community service. Graduating from the program requires each participant to find a job, enroll in school full time, and comply with all terms of their PRP.
‘shutting the revolving door of the criminal justice system requires innovative, results-driven policies and initiatives that help offenders get their lives back on track,” Harris said.
Failed Racial Bias and Police Brutality Reform.
In 2015, under Harris’ jurisdiction as state attorney general, California became the first statewide agency to adopt a body camera program and also enforced a “first of its kind” law enforcement training. The then-presidential candidate reminded people of her work during one of the debates.
However, what wasn’t mentioned is that wearing the body camera was not mandatory for all local police officers in the state, only those working directly for Harris. According to PBS, that same year Harris warned against a “one-size-fits-all” solution. “I as a general matter believe that we should invest in the ability of law enforcement leaders in specific regions and with their departments to use [their] discretion to figure out what technology they are going to adopt based on needs that they have and resources they have,” Harris told the Sacramento Bee.
And the training Harris referred to is known as “Principled Policing: Procedural Justice and Implicit Bias.” The course totaled eight hours and consisted of ‘six areas that focus on policing approaches that emphasize respect, listening, neutrality and trust, while recognizing and addressing implicit biases that can be barriers to these approaches,” according to a press release from the attorney general’s office. According to press release, a little over 90 applicants from 30 agencies applied for the course.
Failed on Prison Reform.
In 2011, the Supreme Court demanded the state of California reduce its prison population by 33,000 inmates in the next two years due to overpopulation resulting in starvation, inhumane treatment and even death, according to NPR. However in 2014, according to the LA Times, federal judges “ordered that all nonviolent second-strike offenders be eligible for parole after serving half their sentence.”
As stated by the LA Times, most of those prisoners were working as groundskeepers, janitors and kitchen staff. Harris’ lawyers argued in court that releasing them would drastically reduce their prison labor pool (seriously!). However, Harris told BuzzFeed that she was ‘shocked” to hear their defense. “I was very troubled by what I read. I just need to find out what did we actually say in court,” she said.
Her stance on Marijuana.
In 2010, Harris was staunchly opposed to the use of recreational marijuana. ‘spending two decades in court rooms, Harris believes that drug selling harms communities,” her then campaign manager Brian Brokaw told Capitol Weekly. “Harris supports the legal use of medicinal marijuana but does not support anything beyond that.”
In 2015, at the California Democrats Convention, she called for an end to the federal ban on medical marijuana, but withheld the term legalization. It wasn’t until 2018, as Senator, that she co-signed Senator Corey Booker’s Marijuana Justice Act”.
“Right now in this country people are being arrested, being prosecuted, and end up spending time in jail or prison all because of their use of a drug that otherwise should be considered legal,” Harris said in a press release. “Making marijuana legal at the federal level is the smart thing to do, it’s the right thing to do. I know this as a former prosecutor and I know it as a senator.”
The Failed Anti-Truancy Policy
In her 2011 inauguration speech, Harris pointed out that in 2010 there were 600,000 truant students in their elementary schools alone. In an effort to remediate this issue, she passed a law making it a criminal misdemeanor for parents to allow their children (kindergarten through eighth grade) to miss more than 10 percent of school days, without an excuse. The parents or guardians of truant children could face a $2000 fine or up to one year in jail. “We are putting parents on notice,” Harris said at her 2011 inauguration. “If you fail in your responsibility to your kids, we are going to work to make sure you face the full force and consequences of the law.”
However, this policy ended up generalizing the truancy issue, placing blame on parents with circumstances outside their control. Harris has since apologized for criminalizing parents in a Pod Save America interview. “This was never the attention,” she said. “I regret that that has happened and the thought that anything I did could have led to that.”
Failed Criminalization of Sex Workers.
In 2016, she was one of the leaders in the downfall of the classified ads website, Backpage.com. In her filings, she charged the site owners for money laundering, pimping, and conspiracy to commit pimping. A majority of sex workers used the site to find clients who needed an escort, other services, and many of them deemed it was one of the safest options to overall vet new clients. She said recently that she has “no regrets” about getting it shut down.
She’s recently spoke on matters of decriminalization of sex work, saying she supported the movement, which some have called a “massive shift.” In an interview with The Root last year, she said: “There is an ecosystem around that that includes crimes that harm people, and for those issues, I do not believe that anybody who hurts another human being or profits off of their exploitation should be free of criminal prosecution. But when you’re talking about consenting adults, we should consider that we can’t criminalize consensual behavior.”
Abdul-Jalil

VENDETTA- TARGETED al-HAKIM with “Muslim Ban”

stop-corruption

MEDIA ADVISORY

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.” “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 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.” “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 Stephen Kaus, Tentative Ruling made September 11, 2018.
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!
al-Hakim’s Declaration to Bigoted Judge Brand Order to Show Cause to DECLARE ABDUL- JALIL AL-HAKIM a Vexatious Litigant: Brand OSC Vex Litg Decl copy
al-Hakim’s Opposition to Bigoted Judge Brand Order to Show Cause to DECLARE ABDUL- JALIL AL-HAKIM a Vexatious Litigant: Brand OSC Opposition to Vexatious Litigant copy
VENDETTA- TARGETED al-HAKIM with “Muslim Ban”

Court Scheduled Proceedings to Take Default against al-Hakim in VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their “Muslim Ban”
Brand even had the hearing set for Thursday, April 18, 2019 and then changed it to Friday, April 19, 2019, both dates that Brand knows al-Hakim will NOT be able to attend due to a 40 year religious commitments know to Brand, defendants and the court, in another effort to take a default against al-Hakim. On April 3, April 15, and today, April 17, 2019, al-Hakim sent two faxes and emails each time to the court and opposing parties announcing the fact the court has scheduled these proceedings in furtherance of their VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their Muslim Ban and requesting the hearing date be changed to a Monday or Wednesday. Thats TEN REQUESTED NOTICES FOR A CONTINUANCE and they were NOT answered. Finally, later on April 17, 2019, al-Hakim received an email from the department 511 clerk stating “Abdul-Jalil – Emailing the department is not sufficient notice for a continuance. If you need help obtaining a continuance please feel free to seek counsel or contact the self help center. This email address is only for people seeking reservations.”. (see April 17, 2019 email from Dept 511 under Exhibits)
This response clearly establishes their intent to take a default by design! The court can not complain about the cost of litigation in al-Hakim cases when they are responsible for the constant motions to continue, when they would not address the fact THEY chose the date without any input from al-Hakim knowing that he could NOT attend and rather than make a mutual accommodation, they suggest that he seek legal aid in filing a motion to continue! A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY SOLELY TO PERSECUTE AL-HAKIM AND REWARD THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS!
Brand, the judges, the court administrations, and opposing parties actions have altered the course of litigation in scheduling proceedings on dates they know plaintiff can not attend and refusing to schedule proceedings on dates that he can attend, delaying and denying reservation numbers to file motions, failing to file or respond to plaintiff’s filing of oppositions and contesting to rulings and orders, demanding documents they already have or have better access to than al-Hakim, adding and removing proceedings from the docket and register of actions without any proceedings or authority, continuing the atmosphere of intolerable TERROR in furtherance of their corruption and agenda of hate induced persecution and entrapment, with their version of the targeted “al-Hakim Muslim Ban” (see 2/25/19 Brand Challenge at ¶¶ 20, Page 36-38) compounded with the Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption (see 2/25/19 Brand Challenge at ¶¶ 3, Page 23-25) has irreparably and irretrievably altered the legal outcome of the proceedings herein questioned!
Respectfully,
Abdul-Jalil

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

TO:  Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye          Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
Chair, Judicial Council of California               Supreme Court of California
Comm. Judicial Appointments                       350 McAllister Street, Room 1295
455 Golden Gate Ave.                                     San Francisco, CA 94102-4797
San Francisco, CA 94102                                Fax: (415) 865-7181
Fax: 415-865-4200,415-865-4205             Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov
Presiding Judge Wynne Carville                  Chad Finke
Supervising Judge Michael Markman         Executive Officer
Judge Stephen Kaus                                    Superior Court of Alameda County
Judge Kevin R. Murphy                                1225 Fallon Street Room 209
Judge C. Don Clay                                        Oakland, CA 94612
Judge Jeff Brand                                          Fax: 510-891-6276
Judge Kim Colwell                                        cfinke@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Judge Morris Jacobson
Judge Winifred Smith                                 Charles Johnson
Judge Jon Rolefsen                                     Beth Robbins
Judge Yolanda Northridge                          Deputy Clerk
Judge Dennis Hayashi                                 First District Court of Appeal
Judge Jo-Lynne Q. Lee                               350 McAllister Street
Superior Court of Alameda County            San Francisco CA 94102
Departments 1, 6, 511, and 518                   Fax: 415-865-7309, 415-865-7209
René C. Davidson Courthouse                    Beth.Robbins@jud.ca.gov,
1225 Fallon Street                                        Charles.Johnson@jud.ca.gov
Oakland CA 94612
FAX #: 510-891-5304, 510-891-6276, 510-267-1567
dept.1@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WCarville@alameda.courts.ca.gov, MMarkman@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JRolefsen@alameda.courts.ca.gov, EGrillo@alameda.courts.ca.gov,MJacobson@alameda.courts.ca.gov, JBrand@alameda.courts.ca.gov,CClay@alameda.courts.ca.gov,WSmith@alameda.courts.ca.gov,dept.6@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KColwell@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.511@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.518@alameda.courts.ca.gov, SKaus@alameda.courts.ca.gov,KMurphy@alameda.courts.ca.gov,JLee@alameda.courts.ca.gov,YNorthridge@alameda.courts.ca.gov, DHayashi@alameda.courts.ca.gov, dept.19@alameda.courts.ca.gov,RFreedman@alameda.courts.ca.gov
Martin Hoshino                                      Victoria B. Henley
Director                                                  Director-Chief Counsel
Judicial Council of California               Commission on Judicial Performance
455 Golden Gate Avenue                    455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688         San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
FAX NO. 415-865-4586                     FAX NO. (415) 557-1266
Martin.Hoshino@jud.ca.gov               Victoria.Henley@jud.ca.gov
John.Wordlaw@jud.ca.gov
Alex Tse                                                  Phyllis J. Hamilton
Director- No. District                            Chief District Judge
U. S. Attorney’s Office                          U. S. District Court- No. Division
Federal Courthouse                              6th Floor Oakland Courthouse- 2
450 Golden Gate Avenue                     1301 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94102                     Oakland, CA 94612
Fax No.: (415) 436-7234                      Fax No.: 415 522-3605
charles.oconnor@usdoj.gov                Phyllis_Hamilton@cand.uscourts.gov
stacey.geis@usdoj.gov                         Richard_Wieking@cand.uscourts.gov
alex.Tse@usdoj.gov                              Joseph_Spero@cand.uscourts.gov
joshua.Eaton@usdoj.gov
Barbara.Valliere@usdoj.gov
sara.Winslow@usdoj.gov
Brent and Sarah Hanson                        Anthony S. Leung, Christopher Leung
Green Key Investments                           Green Key Investments
508 Dimm Street                                    110 Franklin Street, Suite # 2
Richmond, CA 94805                             Oakland, CA 94607
                                                                 mrchrisleung@gmail.comXavier Becerra
Xavier Becerra
Attorney General of California
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
FAX No.: 916-324-8835
Xavier.Becerra@doj.ca.gov
Sean.McCluskie@doj.ca.gov
Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov
Laura.Stuber@doj.ca.gov
Kelli.Evans@doj.ca.gov
Marina.Soto@doj.ca.gov
Fax No.: 916-322-4532, 916-323-5341, 916-324-5567, 916-319-9421cc: ; bcc ACLU, LCCR, East Bay Community Law Center, Bay Area Legal Aid, USC Gould School Of Law, Western Center On Law & Poverty, Electronic Frontier Foundation, National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms, Equal Justice Society, Center for Constitutional Rights, Southern Poverty Law Center,
Faxed and Emailed
FROM:     Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE:     May 2, 2019
NO PAGES: 14
RE:        Bigot Brand Contempt Threat, Disparages al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at May 1, 2019 Hearing

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

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

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

 

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

Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Hayashi, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Brand, Freedman, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:
Bigot Brand OUTRIGHT LIES in Disparaging al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at May 1, 2019 Hearing
At the hearing on May 1, 2019, upon being called, al-Hakim served Brand a Challenge for Cause, upon which he complained that he had filed an answer to the previous challenge served on him just 48 hours ago, but he did NOT provide nor serve that answer on the parties present. He then announced that he would take a brief recess to read the new challenge.
Brand recalls the case, fully intent on jailing al-Hakim for contempt, nods to the the sheriffs deputy seated in the jury box next to al-Hakim, lights into al-Hakim for serving the challenge, affirming that he was going to proceed with the matters at hand regardless of the challenge that he felt could not be any different from the challenge served on him just 48 hours ago! As he is doing so, the sheriffs deputy leaves the jury box and approaches al-Hakim seated at the plaintiff’s table.
al-Hakim responded by illustrating and addressing Brand’s bigotry in his disparagement, denigration, and deprecation of al-Hakim, his religious practice of Islam and Islam had occurred just 48 hours ago at the hearing on April 29, 2019! al-Hakim dramatically argued Brand’s INDEFENSIBLE act of referring to al-Hakim’s weekly religious obligation as “I know that you say you have a religious Holiday every Tuesday and Thursday?!”in Brand’s attempts to cast aspersions on al-Hakim, his religion and it’s practice as frivolous, a Frat party, to impugn, vilify, traduce and portray al-Hakim as a nefarious hypocrite! At this point, the sheriffs deputy is standing arms distance away from al-Hakim seated at the plaintiff’s table.
Defendants then offer that the challenges are a contempt of court, wherein al-Hakim states: “you have held proceedings in this matter while there is a stay in place from the vexatious motion and have asked for a warrant for my arrest, this proceeding is a attempt to provoke and provide an opportunity for an arrest for contempt. This vexatious proceeding is just your defense strategy to prevent further exposure and prosecution of your corruption and bigotry!”. Brand responds that “I could not disagree with you more, the court takes every opportunity to accommodate every religion”.
Brand, now confronted with the clear line of bigotry that he has gone FAR beyond, trips and falls over it as he can NOT in good conscience order al-Hakim arrested for contempt as it would prove al-Hakim’s point of his bigotry!
Brand is NOTHING BUT A MISERABLE, PATHOLOGICAL LIAR, INCAPABLE OF THE TRUTH!
If Brand can make such a statement as “I could not disagree with you more, the court takes every opportunity to accommodate every religion”, then how does that comport that with his actions in the Green Key case where he DID NOT RESPOND to over THIRTEEN (13) communications, contacts, documents, faxes and emails, including TWO phone calls and voicemail messages, and hand delivered documents to him over a three week period requesting a continuance, proceeded despite the notices and issued a default against al-Hakim in favor of Green Key?
Green Key Defaulted, Failure to Appear Three Times
In the Green Key Case, Brand ignored the fact al-Hakim did NOT received any response from the court to his over THIRTEEN (13) communications, contacts, documents, faxes and emails, including TWO phone calls and voicemail messages, and hand delivered the documents with a court filed letter requests to his clerks Scott Sanchez and Cynthia Trinidad over three weeks PRIOR to the January 2, 2019 and January 3, 2019, hearings to request a reservation number to file an ex-parte motion for a continuance of the hearings he was unable to attend as the court and plaintiffs are and have been aware for over 30 years that al-Hakim has religious obligations on Tuesdays and Thursdays that do not allow for his presence in court which included the hearing, and proceeded despite the notices and issued a default against al-Hakim in favor of Green Key. Judge Brand, and Colwell before him, their Department 511 clerks and court administrations continuing fraud, corruption and collusion being solely responsible for this case as filed, NOT Green Key. They have been the sole force behind moving this litigation forward for them, as Green Key has failed to appear THREE TIMES consecutively without notice nor reason submitted to the court nor al-Hakim, have not filed an opposition to the motion to vacate the default writ of execution, and have NOT been issued a default nor al-Hakim being granted his motion to vacate the default taken against him!
Brand, who admitted that the last two continuances given to Green Key had NOTHING to do with the case, attempts to sit in SOLE judgment of his, the Department 511 clerks and court administration’s OWN Continuing Fraud, Corruption and Collusion committed on HIS and their OWN part!
The last Green Key defaulted, failure to appear was at the February 25, 2019, hearing, over two months ago, yet to date Brand has NOT issued an order despite the fact they failed to appear THREE TIMES consecutively without notice, and did not file an opposition to the motion to vacate the default writ of execution! On April 3, April 15, and April 17, 2019, al-Hakim sent two faxes and emails each time to the court and opposing parties requesting the order from the uncontested, defaulted motion. That’s TEN REQUESTED NOTICES and it has yet to be served even though it was unopposed and thrice defaulted for failure to appear.
Due to the illegal eviction from the defaulted Green Key case, al-Hakim was forced out of his home with only two days to move and was unable to take anything! Of note is the fact he left all his personal and business computers, files that are now in the custody and control of the opposition. al-Hakim has NONE of the files he had accumulated over his life of years! Green Key has taken complete and total custody and control of ALL al-Hakim’s entire lifetime possessions, accumulation of ALL personal, family, and business belongings, things, property, goods, personal effects, assets, chattels, movables, valuables, EVERYTHING!! Over $800,000 in value that has been destroyed by Green Key and MUST BE REPLACED!!!
Four times al-Hakim has demanded the return of EVERYTHING, ALL ITEMS LEFT IN THE HOUSE, WITHOUT ANY DAMAGE TO THEM! Green Key has NEVER responded to the demand. We are sure the items of interest are in the control of the courts partners, law enforcement!
This places an intolerable burden on al-Hakim and makes it impossible to present this document in a concise and cogent manner without the necessary documentary support.
THIS BEGS THE QUESTION WHY IS BRAND FAVORING THEM AND NOT ISSUING THE ORDER UNTIL HE HAS SHACKLED AL-HAKIM WITH BEING DEEMED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT UNABLE TO PURSUE ANT LITIGATION AGAINST HIM, THEM OR ANYONE ELSE?!!!
Bigot Brand Disparages al-Hakim’s Religious Practice of Islam at April 29, 2019 Hearing
At the hearing on April 29, 2019, Brand disparaged, denigrated, and deprecated, al-Hakim and his religious practice of Islam by referring to al-Hakim’s weekly religious obligation as “I know that you say you have a religious Holiday every Tuesday and Thursday?!”.
This bigoted, ignorant, thoughtless, irresponsible, caustic remark left al-Hakim shocked, speechless and dumbfounded! al-Hakim, humiliated at the utterance finally stumbled out “I have NEVER said that I have a religious Holiday every Tuesday and Thursday!”Brand says “Well I know you have said something like that”. al-Hakim responds “I have religious obligations every Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, they are NOT Holidays”.
Irate at the fact that he MUST conform with the law to at least a minimum, Brand asks al-Hakim “when will you be available for an appearance”, wherein al-Hakim responded “the first Monday or Wednesday after June 20, 2019”. Brand states that “you will be gone for Ramadan?”and al-Hakim says “yes, I noticed you of that fact a month ago”. Brands retorts in a very snide, rude manner “I know, I was just asking”and al-Hakim responded “I was just answering”. Brand asks “when does it start?”, al-Hakim responds “Sunday”. Brand then orders the parties to appear two days later on May 1, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.
It was clear that Brand has an agenda to move the VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Superior Court Criminal/Civil Vexatious Entrapment Litigation Strategy to completion before al-Hakim takes retreat for Ramadan so that they can gain another uncontested appeals verdict knowing al-Hakim will NOT be able to respond before June 15, 2019!
It MUST be noted that Brand had TWO sheriff’s deputies in the wings of the jury box waiting with orders in hand!
Brand attempts to cast aspersions on al-Hakim’s religion and it’s practice as frivolous, a Frat party, or Rave, to impugn, vilify, traduce and portray al-Hakim as a carouser, party animal, nefarious hypocrite, insincere. This is perhaps the HIGHEST ranking tenet in the pillars of Islam and is mandated, commanded upon ALL muslims! al-Hakim is long established at this, over 60 years, is recognized and honored world wide for his service, is consulted and relied on for his service to the Islamic community and humanity at large!
Brand and the judges have deprive al-Hakim of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law and penalize him because of his religious beliefs! requiring al-Hakim to abandon his religious beliefs and practices in order to receive benefits. discriminates against al-Hakim and Muslims violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.
This divisive case highlights the vast difference between the reality and the rhetoric of religious freedom, which is often considered to be the ideal that promotes harmony and equality in the judicial system. But, history suggests that it does lead to more conflict due to the biases and prejudices of those same justices echoing the view that religious freedom brings inequality and disunity so the government and courts systematically enact mainstream practices favoring particular races and faiths for cause and preventing religious freedom and liberty!
Brands prejudice is pathological and projects a personality syndrome linked with racism as well to establish and cultivate his own race, class and religious supremacy based on favoritism towards his own perceived group, their admiration, sympathy, and trust of his ingroup, the “Courtel”.
BRAND CAN NOT SERVE IN ANY CAPACITY IN ANY AL-HAKIM MATTERS!
Repression of al-Hakim and First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion
The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law. In recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution to keep the government out of religion– to guarantee the separation of church and state. This fundamental freedom is a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment gives you the right to worship or not as you choose. The government can’t penalize you because of your religious beliefs.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not require a person to abandon their religious beliefs in order to receive benefits. Sherbert v. Verner, in which a Seventh-day Adventist was fired because she wouldn’t work on Saturdays. The state denied her jobless benefits, saying she was fired for cause. The Supreme Court ruled that disqualifying her from benefits “solely because of her refusal to accept employment in which she would have to work on Saturday contrary to her religious belief, imposes an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion.” She got her benefits.
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb – Congressional Findings and Declaration of Purposes
(a) Findings The Congress finds that—
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) PurposesThe purposes of this chapter are—
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
42 U.S. Code § 2000bb–1 – Free Exercise of Religion Protected
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
(Pub. L. 103–141, § 3, Nov. 16, 1993, 107 Stat. 1488.)
This action is PURELY RETALIATORY
Judge Jeff Brand, other judges listed herein, court clerks and superior court administration, in concert with unscrupulous Federal, Sate County and local judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies (“entities”) have committed over 150 violations under United States and California State Constitutions against Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim that have been graphically detailed and documented over 40 years! (United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, VIII, XIV, For Violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Under Color Of State Law; Section 1983).
This PURELY RETALIATORY, unjust, illegal act of revenge, calculated to foreclose on al-Hakim’s civil rights as promised to protect those judges and these underhanded entities known and documented to have repeatedly violated the law for years and just like Brand, they have been, are and will be a defendant and witness in those expected proceedings!! This is their collective legal defense effort to eliminate any possibility of that ever happening!
Brand has a challenge matter still pending, has NOT issued a ruling in Green Key default after their failing and refusing to file an opposition to the motion to vacate the writ of execution awarded to them by default taken against al-Hakim and THREE (3) failures to appear to oppose that motion, unlawfully evicting al-Hakim from his 40 year home, thereby strategically delaying the order to avoid further evidence of fraud on the court and to defeat this alleged vexatious litigant action wherein the judges and courts have acted as defendants CSAA co-counsel and CSAA has acted as judges counsel and government agent/informant for 20 years! BRANDS ACTIONS IN THIS CASE ARE INDEFENSIBLE! THUS THIS VEXATIOUS ACTION.
Brand installed the motion practice schedule to evade evidence of fraud on the court with the long pending six (6) CSAA orders so they could not be presented in this action.
The vexatious motion was filed on February 28, 2019, with opening brief due March 22, 2019, and reply brief due April 5, 2019, and the hearing set for April 19, 2019. Brand finally issued the long pending six (6) orders on March 24, 2019; three days AFTER the submission due date for the opening brief.
al-Hakim waited to receive the orders BEFORE filing the opposition/reply brief to include the orders as further evidence of Brands fraud on the court and exposing THIS frivolous motion as his sole defense for his, the judges, and court administration continuing fraud, corruption and conspiracy.
Court Scheduled Proceedings to Take Default against al-Hakim in VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their “Muslim Ban”
Brand even had the hearing set for Thursday, April 18, 2019 and then changed it to Friday, April 19, 2019, both dates that Brand knows al-Hakim will NOT be able to attend due to a 40 year religious commitments know to Brand, defendants and the court, in another effort to take a default against al-Hakim. On April 3, April 15, and today, April 17, 2019, al-Hakim sent two faxes and emails each time to the court and opposing parties announcing the fact the court has scheduled these proceedings in furtherance of their VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their Muslim Ban and requesting the hearing date be changed to a Monday or Wednesday. Thats TEN REQUESTED NOTICES FOR A CONTINUANCE and they were NOT answered. Finally, later on April 17, 2019, al-Hakim received an email from the department 511 clerk stating “Abdul-Jalil – Emailing the department is not sufficient notice for a continuance. If you need help obtaining a continuance please feel free to seek counsel or contact the self help center. This email address is only for people seeking reservations.”. (see April 17, 2019 email from Dept 511 under Exhibit 1)
This response clearly establishes their intent to take a default by design! The court can not complain about the cost of litigation in al-Hakim cases when they are responsible for the constant motions to continue, when they would not address the fact THEY chose the date without any input from al-Hakim knowing that he could NOT attend and rather than make a mutual accommodation, they suggest that he seek legal aid in filing a motion to continue! A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY SOLELY TO PERSECUTE AL-HAKIM AND REWARD THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS!
Brand, the judges, the court administrations, and opposing parties actions have altered the course of litigation in scheduling proceedings on dates they know plaintiff can not attend and refusing to schedule proceedings on dates that he can attend, delaying and denying reservation numbers to file motions, failing to file or respond to plaintiff’s filing of oppositions and contesting to rulings and orders, demanding documents they already have or have better access to than al-Hakim, adding and removing proceedings from the docket and register of actions without any proceedings or authority, continuing the atmosphere of intolerable TERROR in furtherance of their corruption and agenda of hate induced persecution and entrapment, with their version of the targeted “al-Hakim Muslim Ban” has irreparably and irretrievably altered the legal outcome of the proceedings herein questioned! (see VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY DECEIT”; and VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption)
VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “MUSLIM BAN” by ”FIXING CASES” in Furtherance of Corruption Agenda, IS PURE RETALIATION
The judges, clerks and court administration has been and are “fixing”cases against al-Hakim attempting to protect the opposition as they have scheduled proceedings DEMANDING the hearing be on a date al-Hakim can NOT attend due to religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for nearly 40 years, while REFUSING to have those proceedings on a date al-Hakim can attend! (see VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM PERSECUTION, “MUSLIM BAN” by ”FIXING CASES”, al-Hakim Declaration at Page 12-14;“Opposition to Case Fixing”, filed April 4, 2018, in al-Hakim v. Interserver Inc., RG18-888371)
On April 3, April 15, and April 17, 2019, al-Hakim sent two faxes and emails each timeto the court and opposing parties announcing the fact the court has scheduled these proceedings Friday, April 19, 2019, a date that Brand knows al-Hakim will NOT be able to attend due to a 40 year religious commitments know to Brand, defendants and the court, in another effort to take a default against al-Hakim in furtherance of their VENDETTA Targeting al-Hakim with their Muslim Ban and al-Hakim requested the hearing date be changed to a Monday or Wednesday. After TEN REQUESTED NOTICES FOR A CONTINUANCE and they were NOT answered. Finally, later on April 17, 2019, al-Hakim received an email from the department 511 clerk stating “Abdul-Jalil – Emailing the department is not sufficient notice for a continuance. If you need help obtaining a continuance please feel free to seek counsel or contact the self help center. This email address is only for people seeking reservations.”.
This response clearly establishes their intent to take a default by design as the court suggest that he seek legal aid in filing a motion to continue! A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY SOLELY TO PERSECUTE AL-HAKIM AND REWARD THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS!
If it is NOT possible to have litigation with the schedule proposed when the court is open EVERYDAY, the time is free and the court is paid to be there, then bigotry, Islamophobia, and Xenophobia are the specious basis for this continued Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption, Manipulation of the record and Register of Actions; Obstruction of Justice, Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); the continued Fraud Upon The Court by Judge Brand regarding Motions clearly have a double standard! al-Hakim’s Religion and religious obligations on those days are NOT going to change for judge Brand nor the court.
al-Hakim has had to make multiple requests, once THIRTEEN times, another SEVEN TIMES to have a “Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion and Ex-Parte motion to be heard on the SAME DATE as litigation previously scheduled, yet the requests were IGNORED/DENIED, and one resulted in the issuing of a default against al-Hakim by scheduling dates that the defendants and the court were aware al-Hakim was unavailable to attend.
The court has failed and refused to respond with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda of hate apparent to all!
The judges and court administration’s continuing criminal harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption in his uniquely applied and enforced court rules summarily denies al-Hakim’s rights to a fair hearing without any statutory or contractual basis authorizing such a ruling and places an intolerable burden on him, denying his legitimate and undeniable rights and strikes at the heart of his fundamental civil rights and due process under the law, guaranteed by the United States Constitution and California Constitution. No statute in California authorizes the court to deny a right that is uncontroverted while in the process denying such precious fundamental rights of due process and justice. The use of judicial power to permit such injustice raises significant legal questions, and an order is necessary to prevent this abuse.
The judges mindless denials further expose and demonstrate the courts agenda of judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution, fixing cases against al-Hakim because he is Muslim  and Black, a Whistleblower; appointing themselves a Real Primary Party of Interest to the litigation with their OWN agenda; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; engaging in the defense of opposing parties; the denial of due process, obstruction of justice, the harassment, provocation, and government sponsored terror, the gross examples of white class and privileged bias, prejudice, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, hate induced, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, favoritism, bigotry and racism, al-Hakim continues to experience with the courts retaliation against plaintiff by taking adverse judicial and legal actions against him as punishment of al-Hakim, his family, businesses, and communities they serve continue.
Brand has begun the specious vexatious litigant action to foreclose on al-Hakim’s civil rights to eliminate any further threat he poses to their “honor” and position, while denying al-Hakim any opportunity for truth, fair relief, and justice against them in the “legal system”! The court has heeded al-Hakim’s intentions to not only litigate his cases but some directly involve the corruption naming judges dating back nearly 40 years and the courts can not afford nor will they allow this to happen! They will shut down al-Hakim at ALL COST!
The cases and hearings, which involves contested issues of law or fact, and which had been assigned to Judge Brand, should NEVER have been assigned and no matters hereinafter arising should be heard or assigned to Judge Brand, on the ground that he is irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and prejudiced against the plaintiff.
Brand does not provide any answers to the Challenges served on him because he can’t afford to incriminate himself until finally he decided NOT to answer a Green Key challenge until over a month after the Challenge was served, thereby consenting to the Challenge. al-Hakim incorporated those entire challenges therein until such time as he answers the challenges!
VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Aware Superior Court Criminal/Civil Vexatious Entrapment Litigation Strategy
al-Hakim is aware that the Superior Court administration and judges have been working with law enforcement in a covert criminal undercover sting operation trying to entrap, frame and incriminate him in criminal activity that is fostered by the hearings in his cases that are selectively being recorded by the court reporter whom arbitrarily goes on and off the record at the judges silent instruction, thereby editing the proceedings while in progress, to charge, try, convict, incarcerate and eliminate al-Hakim! The main purpose for the courts using this tactic and employing “court observers”, colluding with the opposing parties and the entities mention in the “WRIT RACKET” criminal, civil, vexatious entrapment defense litigation strategy with third parties was to enable the filing of the vexatious motion. These entities colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, co-counsel, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of al-Hakim through the illegal use of public funds!The court costs of addressing the challenges can NOT be a consideration when the courts has deviated far from the norm of standard litigation by employing their own private court observers, reporters, and agents in their cause to fabricate a case against al-Hakim and the vexatious motion.
Judge Kaus admits to the courts acrimony and animus toward al-Hakim, and asks to wipe the slate clean and move forward in good faith as al-Hakim deserves a chance to have his claims adjudicated with the rights to fair procedure and due process guaranteed to them by law! But it took four challenges and multiple rulings challenged for fraud on the court, abuse of discretion, bias, prejudice, perjury, and failing to disclose conflicts of interest for Kaus to finally recuse retroactive to his assignment because he failed and refused to disclose a know conflict in these cases that now have to re-litigated at a heavy cost to the parties and the court!
VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “Illegal” Proceedings are Corruption
Based on the matters contained herein, on the United States and California State Constitutional rights and on this document filed herewith, al-Hakim’s cases, these entire “illegal proceedings” are solely for the purpose of the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities illegally utilizing the full force and resources of the government in a covert criminal undercover sting operation by fostering, fabricating and manipulating any filing, pleading, argument, facts, truth, faxes, emails, phone calls, voicemail messages, letters, hearings, request, reservation numbers, motion practice, motion titles, ex-parte applications, hearings, parties, appearances, continuances, schedules, proceedings, register of actions, Court Domainweb, statements, evidence, testimony, documents, word, inference, vague reference, or gesture that they can remotely interpret as evidence of any remote action they seek to advocate to incriminate, charge, try, convict, incarcerate and eliminate al-Hakim!
These are cases that al-Hakim has filed, they are his cases, NOT the courts, nor judges, nor law enforcement, nor government, nor legal entities in power! Yet they have hijacked al-Hakim, his religion, his truth, his family; their home, their lives; their personal, real, and business property; his businesses; his community; those they serve; his cases; his rights; his freedom; his pursuit of happiness; justice; the Constitution; his very existence! (See Entire “Illegal” Proceedings are Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption at page 138)
VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM Grand, Systemic and Endemic Corruption
This Grand corruption is systemic and endemic in ALL al-Hakim cases involves the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in power colluding and conspiring using the judicial arm of government whom perform and serve in the roles as suspect, culprit, criminal, evidence, testimony, facts, truth, perjury, investigator, witness, defendant, conspirators, corruptors, colluders, co-counsel, judge, jury, executioner, as the opposition party with their agenda of criminal corruption and persecution to the detriment and oppression of al-Hakim through the illegal use of public funds!
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which further disqualifies the judge. al-Hakim again renews the request for those affected Judges to disqualify themselves, ALL of them, including ALL those named herein.
The fact that the trial court, the judges, clerks, and court administration are parties is an insuperable moral, ethical, and legal obstacle since they are more than a nominal party. (People v. Cimarusti, supra, 81 Cal. App.3d 314, 320; U.S. Financial v. Sullivan (1974) 37 Cal. App.3d 5, 12, fn. 6 [112 Cal. Rptr. 18].)
al-Hakim 2005 U. S. A. G., DOJ- and Judge Clay’s 56 Federal Corruption Complaints
“I don’t care about challenges, they don’t mean anything to me, I’m not scared of them!”. “He has said that he files complaints, files challenges to document the actions of the court”. “He filed complaints with me when I was presiding court judge”, “his work is quite good, better than many of the attorney’s that has appeared before me!”, “he’s a litigator in his own way”
Judge C, Don Clay on al-Hakim’s challenges and 56 complaints filed with and against him over the years
In July, 2005, al-Hakim filed a Federal Corruption Complaint with the United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, of a hate crime of Islamophobia and Xenophobia committed against him during the trial al-Hakim v. CSAA and Rescue, et. al”  in Superior Court of Alameda County, California.
al-Hakim’s initial investigation of his USDOJ demanded a change in this criminal, tactical policy of isolation, victimization, criminalization and the attempted entrapment of al-Hakim as the continuing victim, including the use of government initiated, Nixon era “White House Plumbers” and CoIntelpro style dirty tricks!
This State sponsored persecutory terror and civil conspiracy has brought into play Federal, Sate County and local judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies (“entities”) to further their continued investigation of al-Hakim whom has been surveilled for years and continues today with the compromising of many agents and informants covers due to their sloppiness. These actions of these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities and agencies are just one example of the continuing efforts of law enforcement to silence and eliminate al-Hakim, even by death, as their “enemy of the State” adversary when al-Hakim has caught and exposed them as they have been entrapped in their own criminal snares!
The FIFTY SIX (56) complaints listed in the 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE against judge Clay is only a small sample of documentation since 1980, and more recently 2000, al-Hakim has filed and served a variety of letters, formal complaints, legal actions and legal challenges with the United States Attorney General’s Office- Department of Justice; Federal and California State Judges, their ruling bodies and Associations; the Alameda County Superior Court of California, United States Attorney’s Office- Northern District; United States District Court- Northern Division, Attorney General of California, Alameda County District Attorney; City of Oakland and Oakland City Attorney; Federal, State and local law enforcement; Federal, State and local politicians; regarding the many blatant civil rights violations, fraud, criminal activities and corruption of these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities that was widely distributed over the internet and posted on many websites. (see 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE of Judge Clay filed OCTOBER 3, 2018, and “al-Hakim 56 Complaints listed Document Communications with Clay Detail Corruption and Cover UP!”, filed December 19, 2018, both in al-Hakim v. Interserver Inc., RG18-888371)
“WRIT RACKET”
al-Hakim has filed multiple complaints for years against Justices Jones, Burns, James Humes, Terence Bruiniers, Sandra Margulies, Anthony Kline, and Kathleen Banke as well as Challenges for Cause against Associate Justice James Richman and Henry Needham, Jr. whom apparently sit in this group but has not openly participated in the decisions.
al-Hakim has filed multiple complaints for years against California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, former Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Federal Chief District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, and former Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken also.
In these matters, it has been established and admitted that there has been illicit ex parte collusion and conspiracy between Superior Court judges Wynne Carvill, Kim Colwell, Jeff Brand, Robert Freedman, Frank Roesch, Stephan Kaus, Mike Markman, Don Clay, Stephan Pulido, Ioana Petrou, Yolanda Northridge, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Kevin Murphy, Jo-Lynne Lee, Scott Patton, David Krashna, Jennifer Madden, Sue Alexander, Glenn Oleon, George Hernandez, Tara Desautels, Leo Dorado, Dennis Hayashi, Julia Spain, several commissioners, and the Superior Court Administration of Chad Finke and the Appeals court with the judges mentioned above. Three of the judges have offered the same unsolicited.
Additionally, Judges Ronni MacLaren, Frank Roesch and Jo-Lynne Lee issued ORDERS OF SELF DISQUALIFICATION/REFUSAL pursuant to C.C.P. §170.1 (a)(6)(A)(ii) and C.C.P. §170.1 (a)(6)(A)(iii). This fact demonstrates that there has been and continues to be pervasive illegal ex-parte communications between the judges regarding al-Hakim because al-Hakim has NEVER had any contact with some judges that recused.
These superior court judges have conspired with the appellant courts to independently take it upon themselves to broadcast their “dog whistle signal to the appeals court” to deny al-Hakim’s petition and issue orders in their support forcing al-Hakim into the “WRIT RACKET”! This is NOT having a trial, this is being “railroaded by the court in a case that is ALREADY fixed against you!”
This action are part of what litigants have come to know as the “WRIT RACKET” instituted by the legal system, judges, courts, the judicial administrative and regulatory agencies, both State and Federal!
These entities have made such a mockery of justice that now these judges do not hesitate to deny or violate a litigants rights and defy them to file a writ knowing that the Supreme Court, Appeals Court, Superior Court Administration, the Judicial Council, and the Commission on Judicial Performance, will cover up and white-wash their criminal activity! These criminal justices are forcing appellants into the Appeals Court cemetery for civil rights, where the Rule of Law is Overruled and Outlawed, the death of due process, where justice is a miscarriage, the treason of truth, the homicide of human rights, the dumpster for denial, where litigants rights are banished to rot in oppression, and die!
al-Hakim’s legal opponents, CSAA and others are engaged in corruption and conspired, consorted, colluded, conceived and employing this “WRIT RACKET” criminal entrapment defense litigation strategy with third parties, other judicial, governmental, law enforcement and legal entities employees, associates, members, agents, contractors, and informants of the U. S. Attorney General- Northern California, Homeland Security (NSA), F.B.I., U. S. Federal Court- Northern California District, California State Supreme Court, California State Appeals Court, Governor of California, California Attorney General, Alameda County District Attorney, Oakland City Attorney, California State Senator, California Congressperson, Alameda County Supervisors, Mayor of Oakland, Oakland City Councilpersons, Alameda County Superior Court, Judicial Council of California, among others, inciting the courts acrimony, animus, and persecution of al-Hakim with judicial calumny deceit!
To understand the “WRIT RACKET”, one needs to know what a “racket” and “racketeering” mean and depict in the legal community and population at large. The definitions are:
Racket
“A racket is a planned or organized criminal act, usually in which the criminal act is a form of business or a way to earn illegal or extorted money regularly or briefly but repeatedly. A racket is often a repeated or continuous criminal operation.”
Racketeering
“Racketeering, often associated with organized crime, is the act of offering of a dishonest service (a “racket”) to solve a problem that wouldn’t otherwise exist without the enterprise offering the service. Racketeering as defined by the RICO act includes a list of 35 crimes.”
Moreover, this is exactly what the judges meant by their “dog whistle” signal/statement at the hearings that they would rely on their “colleagues (in the Appeals Court)” to support their decision to ignore the Rule of Law knowing that the appellate judges would do just as Jones, Burns, Bruiniers, Margulies, Kline, Humes and Banke did, “cover-up for him”.
Brand and the courts actions are a content- and viewpoint- based restriction on speech and lacks any objective criteria for suppressing speech and censorship of constitutionally protected free speech, engage in discriminatory business practices with impunity in violation of the U. S. Constitution First Amendment and California Civil Code § 51, and Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution for Violations of Free Speech, provides: “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.” when Plaintiff‟s viewpoints, are protected speech under the California Constitution, where the court harassed Plaintiff by engaging in a severe and pervasive scheme to suppress his constitutional and statutory right to engage in protected activity, by executing against him punitive and adverse judicial actions, and termination of his basic rights to due process?
By operation and application of judges restrictions set forth herein has unlawfully deprived Plaintiff of their full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in violation of CCP §51 and abused its discretion and improperly prejudice al-Hakim, under color of law, the Judges sought to deprive him of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
These Constitutional violations of Plaintiff’s rights and prejudices Plaintiff suffered herein, when the judges denied his civil rights and due process, an equal opportunity to participate in unbiased pursuit of his legal claims, on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, religion, whistleblowing activities, bias, Islamophobic, Xenophobic, vindictive, retaliatory agenda, prejudice, favoritism, bigotry and racism; exhibited bad faith and deceit; denied al-Hakim’s civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process; illegal ex-parte communications regarding al-Hakim; denied the appeal with criminal intent under the color of law and authority in violation of the rights guaranteed by U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV, Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Under Color Of State Law; Section 1983, Unruh and Ralph Civil Rights Acts, and the Bane Acts.
When the conduct of the Judges was unreasonable and undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of others, plaintiff’s injuries and the violations of his constitutional rights were directly and proximately caused by the policies and practices of the Appeals Court, which were the moving force behind the acts described herein caused damages to plaintiff, and will continue to cause damage to plaintiff in violation of his civil rights, and due process and equal protection of the laws under the U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, XIV by this denial of equal access to an unbiased legal process.
Given the principle involved in this case is not merely one of fairness to al-Hakim but also one of maintaining respect for the law and promoting confidence in the administration of justice. (As the United States Supreme Court stated in In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 [99 L. Ed. 942, 946, 75 S. Ct. 623, 625]: “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. … Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 [75 S. Ct. 11, 13].”)
Where the court acted as described herein with reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights with the intent to injure, vex, annoy and harass Plaintiff, subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights with the intention of causing Plaintiff injury and depriving him of his constitutional rights when in these circumstances, there was denial of a substantial right rendered the ensuing commitment illegal because it is impossible for this or a reviewing court not to conclude that “a different result would have been probable if such error … or defect had not occurred or existed.”? (CCP § 475.)
Faced with the imminent threat of having to publicly confront the legal, professional, social, political and financial consequences of their twenty (20) years of GRAND CORRUPTION, filed this polemic nearly bare of supported facts or authorities, in this completely meritless motion, in a last ditch attempt to BAR al-Hakim from “coming for them” in proceedings which are finally approaching on the outstanding grand corruption matters by Brand enacting their entrapment strategy to declare al-Hakim a “vexatious litigant” in a matter brought by Brand, to heard by Brand, and judged by Brand and BRAND ALONE!!!
A determination of vexatious litigant status specifically under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §391(b)(3) requires somewhat more than a retaliatory judge conspiring with the defendant to complain that they perceive al-Hakim vexed to their mutual motive, interest, benefit, and opportunity is a reoccurring theme over the 20 years of this case where the defendants have represented the judges in this case against al-Hakim and the judges have likewise defended the defendants as “sitting judge for the defense” and “deputy defense counsel”! There are simply no meritorious grounds for this motion at all. The statutory criteria are clearly stated and easily understood. And in this case, Plaintiff show they are as far removed from meeting the statutory criteria as possible, which Brand either knew or should have known before filing this motion out of retaliation and desperation.
The court can best decide upon the merits of the plaintiffs’ motions by reviewing them on the law, not by relying entirely upon the opinion of Brand and the entities. Even a cursory review can only lead to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs’ claims are potentially meritorious.  And that in fact the tactics of the defendants, including Brand and the entities, are harassing and delaying the court and wasting its judicial resources, by preventing his actions from proceeding to due process and discovery.
VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY DECEIT”
al-Hakim has long been targeted by United States Attorney General’s Office- Department of Justice; Federal and California State Judges, their ruling bodies and Associations; the Alameda County Superior Court of California, United States Attorney’s Office- Northern District; United States District Court- Northern Division, Attorney General of California, Alameda County District Attorney; City of Oakland and Oakland City Attorney; Federal, State and local law enforcement; Federal, State and local politicians.
The targeting by Brand, the judges, Alameda County Superior Court Administration, Alameda County District Attorney, City of Oakland and their City Attorney, California Attorney General, Governor Jerry Brown, Senator Kamala Harris, CSAA, Wellpoint, EBMUD, AT&T, Equinix, Interserver, and others, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities in their VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM PERSECUTION, “MUSLIM BAN” by ”FIXING CASES” in Furtherance of their Corruption Agenda, IS PURE RETALIATION, with an aggressive campaign of calumny deceit, encouraged opposing parties to do all that they can to cause the ruin of al-Hakim, his family, their businesses, their business, real and personal property, his community and the clients they serve. Their tactics are more extreme than muckraking or character assassination, wherein the court and opposing parties fabricate and gathered negative, embarrassing or compromising information about al-Hakim, publish and disperse that information as widely as possible.
In the legal context, Brand, the judges and court administration, CSAA, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities are encouraged to use the process of litigation to “harass, deny and win using all tactics””The Law can be used very easily to harass and enough harassment on someone will simply push them to the thin edge, well knowing that he is not privileged, will generally be sufficient to cause their professional if not physical death, possible to annihilate him by destroying his credibility and moral character in all contexts leaving him a social and legal “pariah” in society incapable of being associated with or represented, and utterly ruin him.
One of the many things they did to al-Hakim was to offer compensation to bribe members of his family in an effort to take his real, personal and business property from him and to cause him great pain and suffering in hopes that he would perish. Ultimately, the court and CSAA proceeded to bludgeon Mr. al-Hakim with over-burdensome litigation tactics, as well as communicating with and intimidating his partners into abandoning him, leaving al-Hakim standing alone.
The court and CSAA intimidated, coerced, bribed, and otherwise elicited perjurious, slanderous, libelous and false statements from various people about al-Hakim and implied prurient activities. What al-Hakim did not know at that time, however, was the fact that agents, informants, and contractors acted for and on behalf of Brand, the judges and court administration, CSAA, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities by unethical and criminal means, instigated the acts, which gave, rise to the fraudulent, corrupt orders in underlying cases.
In doing so, Brand, the judges and court administration, CSAA, their contractors and agents (including its attorneys), with unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities actions precluded Mr. al-Hakim from ever having a fair opportunity in any of his cases, and makes it explicitly clear that he is anything but a vexatious litigant in that the unanswered challenges and orders replete with perjurious, incriminating statements were not only false but obtained through criminal conduct. In short the court instigated and committed criminal acts with these entire “illegal proceedings” solely for the purpose of the unscrupulous judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities illegally utilizing the full force and resources of the government in a covert criminal undercover sting operation by fostering, fabricating and manipulating any filing, pleading, argument, facts, truth, faxes, emails, phone calls, voicemail messages, letters, hearings, request, reservation numbers, motion practice, motion titles, ex-parte applications, hearings, parties, appearances, continuances, schedules, proceedings, register of actions, Court Domainweb, statements, evidence, testimony, documents, word, inference, vague reference, or gesture that they can remotely interpret as evidence of any remote action they seek to advocate to incriminate, charge, try, convict, incarcerate and eliminate al-Hakim, that DESTROYED his legitimate suits and then sought to have Mr. al-Hakim declared a vexatious litigant for seeking relief based on those criminal and civil violations of the law! (see VENDETTA- TARGETED AL-HAKIM “CAMPAIGN OF CALUMNY DECEIT”)
Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501