IN MEMORIAM: Mama- I CAN'T BREATHE, Blacks Killed by Police from 1968 – 2020

RENÉE ATER

Public Scholar

IN MEMORIAM: I CAN’T BREATHE

May 29, 2020

I am angry. I am anguished. I am heartbroken.

I am hallowed out.

I am sick and tired of police needlessly killing black and brown people. Some police still see black men as threats, to brutalize, to contain, to remand. They have stereotyped our grandfathers, fathers, husbands, sons, and nephews, as monsters, subject to violence and death. They have killed our grandmothers, mothers, wives,

daughters, and nieces. Every time I watch the video of George Floyd’s death, my heart weeps. Who in their right mind, kneels on another human’s neck and ignores desperate pleas of “I Can’t Breathe”? Where is the humanity of these white police officers? Policing should not be predicated on brutal force and a complete disdain for black life. White supremacy has no place in the criminal justice system, in government, in the White House, in the United States. Black lives matter every second, every minute, every hour, every day.

IN MEMORIAM                   

The universe shrank 

when you went away.

Every time I thought your name,

stars fell upon me. 

— Henry Dumas (poet, social activist, teacher)

Andre Maurice Hill, May 23, 1973 – December 22, 2020

Columbus, Ohio

Shot: December 22, 2020, Columbus Police Officer

Casey Christopher Goodson Jr., January 30, 1997 – December 4, 2020

Columbus, Ohio

Shot: December 4, 2020, Franklin County Sheriff Deputy 

Angelo “AJ” Crooms, May 15, 2004 – November 13, 2020

Cocoa, Florida

Shot: November 13, 2020, Brevard County Sheriff Deputies

Sincere Pierce, April 2, 2002 – November 13, 2020

Cocoa, Florida

Shot: November 13, 2020, Brevard County Sheriff Deputies

Marcellis Stinnette, June 17, 2001 – October 20, 2020

Waukegan, Illinois

Shot: October 20, 2020, Waukegan Police Officer

Jonathan Dwayne Price, November 3, 1988 – October 3, 2020

Wolfe City, Texas

Tasered/Shot: October 3, 2020, Wolfe City Police Officer

Dijon Durand Kizzee, February 5, 1991 – August 31, 2020
Los Angeles, California

Shot: August 21, 2020, Los Angeles County Police

Rayshard Brooks, January 31, 1993 – June 12, 2020
Atlanta, Georgia

Shot: June 12, 2020, Atlanta Police Officer

Carlos Carson, May 16, 1984 – June 6, 2020
Tulsa, Oklahoma

Pepper Sprayed/Shot in Head: June 6, 2020, Knights Inn Tulsa Armed Security Guard, former sergeant and detention officer with the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office

David McAtee, August 3, 1966 – June 1, 2020

Louisville, Kentucky

Shot: June 1, 2020, Louisville Metropolitan Police Officer

Tony “Tony the TIger” McDade, 1982 – May 27, 2020
Tallahassee, Florida

Shot: May 27, 2020, Tallahassee Police Officers

George Perry Floyd, October 14, 1973 – May 25, 2020

Powderhorn, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Knee on neck/Asphyxiated: May 25, 2020, Minneapolis Police Officer 

Dreasjon “Sean” Reed, 1999 – May 6, 2020

Indianapolis, Indiana

Shot: May 6, 2020, Unidentified Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer

Michael Brent Charles Ramos, January 1, 1978 – April 24, 2020

Austin, Texas

Shot: April 24, 2020, Austin Police Detectives

Daniel T. Prude, September 20, 1978 – March 30, 2020

Rochester, New York

Asphyxiation: March 23, 2020, Rochester Police Officers

Breonna Taylor, June 5, 1993 – March 13, 2020

Louisville, Kentucky

Shot: March 13, 2020, Louisville Metro Police Officers 

Manuel “Mannie” Elijah Ellis, August 28, 1986 – March 3, 2020

Tacoma, Washington

Physical restraint/Hypoxia: March 3, 2020, Tacoma Police Officers

William Howard Green, March 16, 1976 – January 27, 2020

Temple Hills, Maryland

Shot: January 27, 2020, Prince George’s County Police Officer

John Elliot Neville, 1962 – December 4, 2019

Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Asphyxiated (hog-tied in prone position)/Heart Attack/Brain Injury: December 2, 2019, Forsyth County Sheriff Officers 

Atatiana Koquice Jefferson, November 28, 1990 – October 12, 2019

Fort Worth, Texas

Shot: October 12, 2019, Fort Worth Police Officer 

Elijah McClain, February 25, 1996 – August 30, 2019
Aurora, Colorado

Chokehold/Ketamine/Heart Attack: August 24, 2019, Aurora Police Officers and Paramedic

Ronald Greene, September 28, 1969 – May 10, 2019

Monroe, Louisiana

Stun gun/Force: May 10, 2019, Louisiana State Police

Javier Ambler, October 7, 1978 – March 28, 2019
Austin, Texas

Tasered/Electrocuted: March 28, 2019, Williamson County Sheriff Deputy

Sterling Lapree Higgins, October 27, 1981 – March 25, 2019
Union City, Tennessee

Choke hold/Asphyxiation: March 24-25, 2019, Union City Police Officer and Obion County Sheriff Deputies

Gregory Lloyd Edwards, September 23, 1980 – December 10, 2018

Brevard County Jail, Cocoa, Florida

Kneed, Punched, Pepper Sprayed, Tasered, and Strapped into a restraint chair with a spit hood over his head/Failure to Provide Medical Care: December 9, 2019, Brevard County Sheriffs

Emantic “EJ” Fitzgerald Bradford Jr., June 18, 1997 – November 22, 2018

Hoover, Alabama

Shot: November 22, 2018, Unidentified Hoover Police Officers

Charles “Chop” Roundtree Jr., September 5, 2000 – October 17, 2018

San Antonio, Texas

Shot: October 17, 2018, San Antonio Police Officer 

Chinedu Okobi, February 13, 1982 – October 3, 2018

Millbrae, California

Tasered/Electrocuted: October 3, 2018, San Mateo County Sheriff Sergeant and Sheriff Deputies 

Anton Milbert LaRue Black, October 18, 1998 – September 15, 2018

Greensboro, Maryland

Tasered/Sudden Cardiac Arrest: September 15, 2018, Greensboro Police Officers

Botham Shem Jean, September 29, 1991 – September 6, 2018

Dallas, Texas

Shot: September 6, 2018, Dallas Police Officer 

Antwon Rose Jr., July 12, 2000 – June 19, 2018

East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Shot: June 19, 2018, East Pittsburgh Police Officer 

Saheed Vassell, December 22, 1983 – April 4, 2018

Brooklyn, New York City, New York

Shot: April 4, 2018, Four Unnamed New York City Police Officers

Stephon Alonzo Clark, August 10, 1995 – March 18, 2018

Sacramento, California

Shot: March 18, 2018, Sacramento Police Officers 

Dennis Plowden Jr., 1992 – December 28, 2017

East Germantown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Shot: December 27, 2017, Philadelphia Police Officer

Bijan Ghaisar, September 4, 1992 – November 27, 2017

George Washington Memorial Parkway, Alexandria, Virginia

Shot: November 17, 2017, U.S. Park Police Officers   

Aaron Bailey, 1972 – June 29, 2017

Indianapolis, Indiana

Shot: June 29, 2017, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officers 

Charleena Chavon Lyles, April 24, 1987 – June 18, 2017 

Seattle, Washington

Shot: June 18, 2017, Seattle Police Officers

Fetus of Charleena Chavon Lyles (14-15 weeks), June 18, 2017 

Seattle, Washington

Shot: June 18, 2017, Seattle Police Officers

Jordan Edwards, October 25, 2001 – April 29, 2017

Balch Springs, Texas

Shot: April 29, 2017, Balch Springs Officer 

Chad Robertson, 1992 – February 15, 2017

Chicago, Illinois

Shot: February 8, 2017, Chicago Police Officer 

Deborah Danner, September 25, 1950 – October 18, 2016

The Bronx, New York City, New York

Shot: October 18, 2016, New York City Police Officers

Alfred Olango, July 29, 1978 – September 27, 2016

El Cajon, California

Shot: September 27, 2016, El Cajon Police Officers 

Terence Crutcher, August 16, 1976 – September 16, 2016

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Shot: September 16, 2016, Tulsa Police Officer 

Terrence LeDell Sterling, July 31, 1985 – September 11, 2016

Washington, DC

Shot: September 11, 2016, Washington Metropolitan Police Officer 

Korryn Gaines, August 24, 1993 – August 1, 2016

Randallstown, Maryland

Shot: August 1, 2016, Baltimore County Police

Joseph Curtis Mann, 1966 – July 11, 2016

Sacramento, California

Shot: July 11, 2016, Sacramento Police Officers 

Philando Castile, July 16, 1983 – July 6, 2016

Falcon Heights, Minnesota

Shot: July 6, 2016, St. Anthony Police Officer 

Alton Sterling, June 14, 1979 – July 5, 2016

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Shot: July 5, 2016, Baton Rouge Police Officers 

Bettie “Betty Boo” Jones, 1960 – December 26, 2015

Chicago, Illinois

Shot: December 26, 2015, Chicago Police Officer 

Quintonio LeGrier, April 29, 1996 – December 26, 2015

Chicago, Illinois

Shot: December 26, 2015, Chicago Police Officer 

Corey Lamar Jones, February 3, 1984 – October 18, 2015

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

Shot: October 18, 2015, Palm Beach Gardens Police Officer 

Jamar O’Neal Clark, May 3, 1991 – November 16, 2015

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Shot: November 15, 2015, Minneapolis Police Officers 

Jeremy “Bam Bam” McDole, 1987 – September 23, 2015

Wilmington, Delaware

Shot: September 23, 2015, Wilmington Police Officers 

India Kager, June 9, 1988 – September 5, 2015

Virginia Beach, Virginia 

Shot: September 5, 2015, Virginia Beach Police Officers

Samuel Vincent DuBose, March 12, 1972 – July 19, 2015

Cincinnati, Ohio

Shot: July 19, 2015, University of Cincinnati Police Officer 

Sandra Bland, February 7, 1987 – July 13, 2015

Waller County, Texas

Excessive Force/Wrongful Death/Suicide (?): July 10, 2015, Texas State Trooper

Brendon K. Glenn, 1986 – May 5, 2015

Venice, California

Shot: May 5, 2015, Los Angeles Police Officer 

Freddie Carlos Gray Jr., August 16, 1989 – April 19, 2015

Baltimore, Maryland

Brute Force/Spinal Injuries: April 12, 2015, Baltimore City Police Officers 

Walter Lamar Scott, February 9, 1965 – April 4, 2015

North Charleston, South Carolina

Shot: April 4, 2015, North Charleston Police Officer 

Eric Courtney Harris, October 10, 1971 – April 2, 2015

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Shot: April 2, 2015, Tulsa County Reserve Deputy 

Phillip Gregory White, 1982 – March 31, 2015

Vineland, New Jersey

K-9 Mauling/Respiratory distress: March 31, 2015, Vineland Police Officers

Mya Shawatza Hall, December 5, 1987 – March 30, 2015

Fort Meade, Maryland

Shot: March 30, 2015, National Security Agency Police Officers

Meagan Hockaday, August 27, 1988 – March 28, 2015

Oxnard, California

Shot: March 28, 2015, Oxnard Police Officer

Tony Terrell Robinson, Jr., October 18, 1995 – March 6, 2015

Madison, Wisconsin

Shot: March 6, 2015, Madison Police Officer 

Janisha Fonville, March 3, 1994 – February 18 2015

Charlotte, North Carolina

Shot: February 18, 2015, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer

Natasha McKenna, January 9, 1978 – February 8, 2015

Fairfax County, Virginia

Tasered/Cardiac Arrest: February 3, 2015, Fairfax County Sheriff Deputies

Jerame C. Reid, June 8, 1978 – December 30, 2014

Bridgeton, New Jersey

Shot: December 30, 2014, Bridgeton Police Officer 

Rumain Brisbon, November 24, 1980 – December 2, 2014

Phoenix, Arizona

Shot: December 2, 2014,  Phoenix Police Officer 

Tamir Rice, June 15, 2002 – November 22, 2014

Cleveland, Ohio

Shot: November 22, 2014, Cleveland Police Officer 

Akai Kareem Gurley, November 12, 1986 – November 20, 2014

Brooklyn, New York City, New York

Shot: November 20, 2014, New York City Police Officer 

Tanisha N. Anderson, January 22, 1977 – November 13, 2014

Cleveland, Ohio

Physically Restrained/Brute Force: November 13, 2014, Cleveland Police Officers

Dante Parker, August 14, 1977 – August 12, 2014

Victorville, California

Tasered/Excessive Force: August 12, 2014, San Bernardino County Sheriff Deputies

Ezell Ford, October 14, 1988 – August 11, 2014

Florence, Los Angeles, California

Shot: August 11, 2014, Los Angeles Police Officers

Michael Brown Jr., May 20, 1996 – August 9, 2014

Ferguson, Missouri

Shot: August 9, 2014, Ferguson Police Officer 

John Crawford III, July 29, 1992 – August 5, 2014

Beavercreek, Ohio

Shot: August 5, 2014, Beavercreek Police Officer 

Tyree Woodson, July 8, 1976 – August 2, 2014

Baltimore, Maryland

Shot: August 2, 2014, Baltimore City Police Officer

Eric Garner, September 15, 1970 – July 17, 2014

Staten Island, New York

Choke hold/Suffocated: July 17, 2014, New York City Police Officer 

Dontre Hamilton, January 20, 1983 – April 30, 2014

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Shot: April 30, 2014, Milwaukee Police Officer 

Victor White III, September 11, 1991 – March 3, 2014

New Iberia, Louisiana

Shot: March 2, 2014, Iberia Parish Sheriff Deputy

Gabriella Monique Nevarez, November 25, 1991 – March 2, 2014

Citrus Heights, California

Shot: March 2, 2014, Citrus Heights Police Officers

Yvette Smith, December 18, 1966 – February 16, 2014

Bastrop County, Texas

Shot: February 16, 2014, Bastrop County Sheriff Deputy

McKenzie J. Cochran, August 25, 1988 – January 29, 2014

Southfield, Michigan

Pepper Sprayed/Compression Asphyxiation: January 28, 2014, Northland Mall Security Guards

Jordan Baker, 1988 – January 16, 2014

Houston, Texas

Shot: January 16, 2014, Off-duty Houston Police Officer

Andy Lopez, June 2, 2000 – October 22, 2013

Santa Rosa, California

Shot: October 22, 2013, Sonoma County Sheriff Deputy

Miriam Iris Carey, August 12, 1979 – October 3, 2013

Washington, DC

Shot 26 times: October 3, 2013, U. S. Secret Service Officer

Barrington “BJ” Williams, 1988 – September 17, 2013

New York City, New York

Neglect/Disdain/Asthma Attack: September 17, 2013, New York City Police Officers

Jonathan Ferrell, October 11, 1989 – September 14, 2013

Charlotte, North Carolina

Shot: September 14, 2013, Charlotte-Mecklenburg  Police Officer 

Carlos Alcis, 1970 – August 15, 2013

Brooklyn, New York City

Heart Attack/Neglect: August 15, 2013, New York City Police Officers

Larry Eugene Jackson Jr., November 29, 1980 – July 26, 2013

Austin, Texas

Shot: July 26, 2013, Austin Police Detective 

Kyam Livingston, July 29, 1975 – July 21, 2013

New York City, New York

Neglect/Ignored pleas for help: July 20-21, 2013, New York City Police Officers

Clinton R. Allen, September 26, 1987 – March 10, 2013

Dallas, Texas

Tasered and Shot: March 10, 2013, Dallas Police Officer

Kimani “KiKi” Gray, October 19, 1996 – March 9, 2013

Brooklyn, New York City, New York

Shot: March 9, 2013, New York Police Officers

Kayla Moore, April 17, 1971 – February 13, 2013

Berkeley, California

Restrained face-down prone: February 12, 2013, Berkeley Police Officers

Jamaal Moore Sr., 1989 – December 15, 2012

Chicago, Illinois

Shot: December 15, 2012, Chicago Police Officer 

Johnnie Kamahi Warren, February 26, 1968 – February 13, 2012

Dothan, Alabama

Tasered/Electrocuted: December 10, 2012, Houston County (AL) Sheriff Deputy

Shelly Marie Frey, April 21, 1985 – December 6, 2012

Houston, Texas

Shot: December 6, 2012, Off-duty Harris County Sheriff’s Deputy 

Darnisha Diana Harris, December 11, 1996 – December 2, 2012

Breaux Bridge, Louisiana

Shot: December 2, 2012, Breaux Bridge Police Office

Timothy Russell, December 9. 1968 – November 29, 2012

Cleveland, Ohio

137 Rounds/Shot 23 times: November 29, 2012, Cleveland Police Officers 

Malissa Williams, June 20, 1982 – November 29, 2012

Cleveland, Ohio

137 Rounds/Shot 24 times: November 29, 2012, Cleveland Police Officers 

Noel Palanco, November 28, 1989 – October 4, 2012

Queens, New York City, New York

Shot: October 4, 2012, New York City Police Officers

Reynaldo Cuevas, January 6, 1992 – September 7, 2012

Bronx, New York City, New York

Shot: September 7, 2012, New York City Police Officer 

Chavis Carter, 1991 – July 28, 2012

Jonesboro, Arkansas

Shot: July 28, 2012, Jonesboro Police Officer

Alesia Thomas, June 1, 1977 – July 22, 2012

Los Angeles, California

Brutal Force/Beaten: July 22, 2012, Los Angeles Police Officers

Shantel Davis, May 26, 1989 – June 14, 2012

New York City, New York

Shot: June 14, 2012, New York City Police Officer 

Sharmel T. Edwards, October 10, 1962 – April 21, 2012

Las Vegas, Nevada

Shot: April 21, 2012, Las Vegas Police Officers 

Tamon Robinson, December 21, 1985 – April 18, 2012

Brooklyn, New York City, New York

Run over by police car: April 12, 2012, New York City Police Officers

Ervin Lee Jefferson, III, 1994 – March 24, 2012

Atlanta, Georgia

Shot: March 24, 2012, Shepperson Security & Escort Services Security Guards

Kendrec McDade, May 5, 1992 – March 24, 2012

Pasadena, California

Shot: March 24, 2012, Pasadena Police Officers 

Rekia Boyd, November 5, 1989 – March 21, 2012

Chicago, Illinois

Shot: March 21, 2012, Off-duty Chicago Police Detective 

Shereese Francis, 1982 – March 15, 2012

Queens, New York City, New York

Suffocated to death: March 15, 2012,  New York City Police Officers

Jersey K. Green, June 17, 1974 – March 12, 2012

Aurora, Illinois

Tasered/Electrocuted: March 12, 2012, Aurora Police Officers

Wendell James Allen, December 19, 1991 – March 7, 2012

New Orleans, Louisiana

Shot:  March 7, 2012, New Orleans Police Officer

Nehemiah Lazar Dillard, July 29, 1982 – March 5, 2012

Gainesville, Florida

Tasered/Electrocuted: March 5, 2012, Alachua County Sheriff Deputies

Dante’ Lamar Price, July 18, 1986 – March 1, 2012

Dayton, Ohio

Shot: March 1, 2012, Ranger Security Guards

Raymond Luther Allen Jr., 1978 – February 29, 2012

Galveston, Texas

Tasered/Electrocuted: February 27, 2012, Galveston Police Officers

Manual Levi Loggins Jr., February 22, 1980 – February 7, 2012

San Clemente, Orange County, California

Shot: February 7, 2012, Orange County Sheriff Deputy 

Ramarley Graham, April 12, 1993 – February 2, 2012

The Bronx, New York City, New York

Shot: February 2, 2012, New York City Police Officer 

Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., April 12, 1943 – November 19, 2011

White Plains, New York

Tasered/Electrocuted/Shot: November 19, 2011, White Plains Police Officers

Alonzo Ashley, June 10, 1982 – July 18, 2011

Denver, Colorado

Tasered/Electrocuted: July 18, 2011, Denver Police Officers 

Derek Williams, January 23, 1989 – July 6, 2011

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Blunt Force/Respiratory distress: July 6, 2011, Milwaukee Police Officers

Raheim Brown, Jr., March 4, 1990 – January 22, 2011

Oakland, California

Shot: January 22, 2011, Oakland Unified School District Police

Reginald Doucet, June 3, 1985 – January 14, 2011

Los Angeles, California

Shot: January 14, 2011, Los Angeles Police Officer 

Derrick Jones, September 30, 1973 – November 8, 2010

Oakland, California

Shot: November 8, 2010, Oakland Police Officers 

Danroy “DJ” Henry Jr., October 29, 1990 – October 17, 2010

Pleasantville, New York

Shot: October 17, 2020, Pleasantville Police Officer 

Aiyana Mo’Nay Stanley-Jones, July 20, 2002 – May 16, 2010

Detroit, Michigan

Shot: May 16, 2010, Detroit Police Officer 

Steven Eugene Washington, September 20, 1982 – March 20, 2010

Los Angeles, California

Shot: March 20, 2010, Los Angeles County Police

Aaron Campbell, September 7, 1984 – January 29, 2010

Portland, Oregon

Shot: January 29, 2010, Portland Police Officer 

Kiwane Carrington, July 14, 1994 – October 9, 2009

Champaign, Illinois

Shot: October 9, 2019, Champaign Police Officer 

Victor Steen, November 11, 1991 – October 3, 2009

Pensacola, Florida

Tasered/Run over: October 3, 2009, Pensacola Police Officer 

Shem Walker,  March 18, 1960 – July 11, 2009

Brooklyn, New York

Shot: July 11, 2009, New York City Undercover C-94 Police Officer

Oscar Grant III, February 27, 1986 – January 1, 2009

Oakland, California

Shot: January 1, 2009, BART Police Officer 

Tarika Wilson, October 30, 1981 – January 4, 2008

Lima, Ohio

Shot January 4, 2008, Lima Police Officer 

DeAunta Terrel Farrow, September 7, 1994 – June 22, 2007

West Memphis, Arkansas

Shot: June 22, 2007, West Memphis (AR) Police Officer 

Sean Bell, May 23, 1983 – November 25, 2006

Queens, New York City, New York

Shot: November 25, 2006, New York City Police Officers 

Kathryn Johnston, June 26, 1914 – November 21, 2006

Atlanta, Georgia

Shot: November 21, 2006, Undercover Atlanta Police Officers

Ronald Curtis Madison, March 1, 1965 – September 4, 2005

Danziger Bridge, New Orleans, Louisiana

Shot: September 4, 2005, New Orleans Police Officers 

James B. Brissette Jr., November 6, 1987 – September 4, 2005

Danziger Bridge, New Orleans, Louisiana

Shot: September 4, 2005, New Orleans Police Officers 

Henry “Ace” Glover, October 2, 1973 – September 2, 2005

New Orleans, Louisiana

Shot: September 2, 2005, New Orleans Police Officers 

Timothy Stansbury, Jr., November 16, 1984 – January 24, 2004

Brooklyn, New York City, New York

Shot: January 24, 2004, New York City Police Officer 

Ousmane Zongo, 1960 – May 22, 2003

New York City, New York 

Shot: May 22, 2003, New York City Police Officer 

Alberta Spruill, 1946 – May 16, 2003

New York City, New York

Stun grenade thrown into her apartment led to a heart attack: May 16, 2003, New York City Police Officer

Kendra Sarie James, December 24, 1981 – May 5, 2003

Portland, Oregon

Shot: May 5, 2003, Portland Police Officer

Orlando Barlow, December 29, 1974 – February 28, 2003

Las Vegas, Nevada

Shot: February 28, 2003, Las Vegas Police Officer 

Nelson Martinez Mendez, 1977 – August 8, 2001

Bellevue, Washington

Shot: August 8, 2001, Bellevue Police Officer

Timothy DeWayne Thomas Jr., July 25, 1981 – April 7, 2001

Cincinnati, Ohio

Shot: April 7, 2001, Cincinnati Police Patrolman 

Ronald Beasley, 1964 – June 12, 2000

Dellwood, Missouri

Shot: June 12, 2000, Dellwood Police Officers  

Earl Murray, 1964 – June 12, 2000

Dellwood, Missouri

Shot: June 12, 2000, Dellwood Police Officers 

Patrick Moses Dorismond, February 28, 1974 – March 16, 2000

New York City, New York

Shot: March 16, 2000, New York City Police Officer 

Prince Carmen Jones Jr., March 30, 1975 – September 1, 2000

Fairfax County, Virginia

Shot: September 1, 2000, Prince George’s County Police Officer

Malcolm Ferguson, October 31, 1976 – March 1, 2000

The Bronx, New York City, New York

Shot: March 1, 2000, New York City Police Officer 

LaTanya Haggerty, 1973 – June 4, 1999

Chicago, Illinois

Shot: June 4, 1999, Chicago Police Officer

Margaret LaVerne Mitchell, 1945 – May 21, 1999

Los Angeles, California

Shot: May 21, 1999, Los Angeles Police Officer

Amadou Diallo, September 2, 1975 – February 4, 1999

The Bronx, New York City, New York

Shot: February 4, 1999, New York City Police Officers 

Tyisha Shenee Miller, March 9, 1979 – December 28, 1998

Riverside, California

Shot: December 28, 1998, Riverside Police Officers

Dannette “Strawberry” Daniels, January 25, 1966 – June 7, 1997

Newark, New Jersey

Shot: June 7, 1997, Newark Police Officer

Frankie Ann Perkins, 1960 – March 22, 1997

Chicago, Illinois

Brutal Force/Strangled: March 22, 1997, Chicago Police Officers

Nicholas Heyward Jr., August 26, 1981 – September 27, 1994

Brooklyn, New York City, New York

Shot: September 27, 1994, New York City Police Officer 

Mary Mitchell, 1950 – November 3, 1991 

The Bronx, New York City, New York

Shot: November 3, 1991, New York City Police Officer

Yvonne Smallwood, July 26, 1959 – December 9, 1987

New York City, New York

Severely beaten/Massive blood clot: December 3, New York City Police Officers

Eleanor Bumpers, August 22, 1918 – October 29, 1984

The Bronx, New York City, New York

Shot: October 29, 1984, New York City Police Officer

Michael Jerome Stewart, May 9, 1958 – September 28, 1983

New York City, New York

Brutal Force: September 15, 1983, New York City Transit Police 

Eula Mae Love, August 8, 1939 – January 3, 1979

Los Angeles, California

Shot: January 3, 1979, Los Angeles County Police Officers

Arthur Miller Jr., 1943 – June 14, 1978

Brooklyn, New York City, New York

Chokehold/Strangled: June 14, 1978, New York City Police Officers

Randolph Evans, April 5, 1961 – November 25, 1976

Brooklyn, New York City, New York

Shot in head: November 25, 1976, New York City Police Officer

Barry Gene Evans, August 29, 1958 – February 10, 1976

Los Angeles, California

Shot: February 10, 1976, Los Angeles Police Officers

Rita Lloyd, November 2, 1956 – January 27, 1973

New York City, New York

Shot: January 27, 1973, New York City Police Officer

Henry Dumas, July 20, 1934 – May 23, 1968

Harlem, New York City, New York

Shot: May 23, 1968, New York City Transit Police Officer

*************************************************

NOTE 

This memorial is in honor of those unarmed black and brown people killed by the police, sheriff deputies, and security guards. The list is organized by most recent incident of police brutality (David McAtee and George Perry Floyd) and then moves back in time. I have listed each person by their name; birth and death dates; the location of their death; the means of death, date of death, and name of the police department. 

I culled the names from a variety of online sources including Black Lives Matter’s protests; Wikipedia; Black Past; Dangerous Objects, a website run by Mercy Garriga, that investigates cases of excessive use of force and death by the police force; and Professors Cassandra Chaney and Ray V. Robertson’s essay “Armed and Dangerous? An Examination of Fatal Shootings of Unarmed Black People by Police.” I have included women from the #SaveHerName project because we often ignore the injustices and violence that black women experience from the police: police brutality is real for women as it is for men. 

At the age of twenty-four, a friend introduced me to the radical and astonishingly beautiful poetry and writing of Henry Dumas. His poetry serves as the epitaph for this memorial; Dumas is the last entry on this list, shot by New York City Transit Police on May 23, 1968.

— Renée Ater, May 29, 2020

**Many thanks to Cecilia Wichmann and Mary Savig for their fact checking of this list, including adding birth dates from the Social Security Death Index and links to additional news stories. 

*************************************************

SOURCES

Dangerous Objects

https://www.dangerousobjects.org/

Black Past

https://www.blackpast.org/tag/race-and-justice-black-lives-matter/

Say Her Name: Resisting Police Brutality Against Black Women

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53f20d90e4b0b80451158d8c/t/55a810d7e4b058f342f55873/1437077719984/AAPF_SMN_Brief_full_singles.compressed.pdf

Everyday Harm: Black Women and a History of Police Violence

Unarmed People of Color Killed by Police, 1999-2014

https://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-color-killed-by-police-1999-2014-1666672349

82 Black Men and Boys Killed by Police

“Armed and Dangerous? An Examination of Fatal Shootings of Unarmed Black People by Police” 

http://www.jpanafrican.org/docs/vol8no4/8.4-5-CCRR.pdf

Mothers Against Police Brutality

Color of Change
https://colorofchange.org/about/

Clinton R. Allen Speak Out 2018

Families United 4 Justice Network

https://fu4jgroup.website/index.html

Mapping Police Violence

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

Fatal Force, Washington Post

2020: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/

2019: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/

2018:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/

2017: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/

2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2016/

2015: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/

”What We’ve Learned About Police Shootings 5 Years After Ferguson,” Washington Post, August 9, 2019

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/09/what-weve-learned-about-police-shootings-years-after-ferguson/?arc404=true

The Counted, The Guardian, 2015 and 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/counted-us-police-killings

Fatal Encounters

Stolen Lives: Killed by Law Enforcement

http://www.stolenlives.org/book.html

Police Brutality Cases (PBC), Open Lab at City Tech

The Center for Homicide Research, Police Shootings Database

Three Words. 70 Cases. The Tragic History of ‘I Can’t Breathe.’

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/28/us/i-cant-breathe-police-arrest.html

Nearly 250 Women Have Been Fatally Shot By Police Since 2015

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/investigations/police-shootings-women/

Alameda County Judge Admonished for Embroilment in Cases

The commission found Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch’s prior discipline an aggravating factor in deciding to admonish him.

Judge Frank Roesch, Alameda County Superior Court...Photo by Jason Doiy.3-23-06.040-2006Judge Frank Roesch, Alameda County Superior Court. (Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM)

An Alameda County judge was publicly admonished Thursday for becoming embroiled in two cases that were both overturned on appeals.

The Commission on Judicial Performance found Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch “displayed a lack of the dispassionate neutrality and the courtesy to others that is expected of judges” while overseeing both a 2015 jury trial and a 2017 property title matter.

“Although Judge Roesch believed, based on faulty assumptions, that his intervention in each case was justified, it is the misguided manner in which he attempted to address his misassumptions, and the discourteous way he comported himself toward those appearing in court before him, that is the basis for this discipline,” the commission wrote.

Roesch’s attorney, Long & Levit partner David McMonigle, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

During the 2015 jury trial, Roesch repeatedly quizzed an insurance adjuster testifying in the case and then suggested she had perjured herself, according to a transcript provided by the commission. After the witness retained an attorney and asserted a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, Roesch ordered her to announce that in front of the jury. The judge did not allow cross-examination of the adjuster.

Roesch should not have required the witness to assert her Fifth Amendment rights in front of the jury, nor should he have required a “blanket” declaration, the commission wrote. In 2018, the First District Court of Appeal, citing “several errors” by Roesch overturned the jury verdict.

Roesch said he allowed the witness to invoke a blanket privilege because he thought he had “buy-in from counsel in the case,” according to the commission’s report.

“Having attorneys agree to something the law does not permit does not obviate the judge’s duty to respect and comply with the law,” the commission wrote. “The judge’s action in this regard constituted an intentional disregard of the law.”

In 2017, Roesch engaged in an extensive debate with an attorney representing a client seeking a quiet title judgment. After repeatedly questioning whether anyone would pay supplemental taxes on the property, despite assurances from the new owner that he would, Roesch dismissed the case with prejudice. The First District reversed the ruling.

The commission found that Roesch displayed poor demeanor and became embroiled in the matter.

“Judge Roesch argued that he was merely exercising his ‘gatekeeping’ function because he believed there should have been a probate proceeding to transfer the property,” the commission wrote. “Even if the judge had been correct about his concerns, he could have conveyed those concerns to the parties and counsel without resorting to unduly harsh language.”

The commission found Roesch’s prior discipline an aggravating factor in deciding to admonish him. Roesch, appointed by Gov. Gray Davis in 2001, received a private advisory letter in 2011 for making discourteous remarks to a self-represented litigant.

Nine of the 11 commissioners voted to publicly admonish Roesch. One member, Kay Cooperman Jue, would have imposed a private admonishment. Commissioner Sarah Kruer Jager did not participate in the matter.

Bigot Brand Disparages al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at April 29, 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
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 1, 2019
NO PAGES: 3
RE:        Bigot Brand Disparages al-Hakim Religious Practice of Islam at April 29, 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 Disparages al-Hakim 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.)
Brand Holds Proceedings in Violation of Stay Due to His Vexatious Litigant Motion
CCP 391.6 reads: “Except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 391.3, when a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is filed prior to trial the litigation is stayed, and the moving defendant need not plead, until 10 days after the motion shall have been denied, or if granted, until 10 days after the required security has been furnished and the moving defendant given written notice thereof. When a motion pursuant to Section 391.1 is made at any time thereafter, the litigation shall be stayed for such period after the denial of the motion or the furnishing of the required security as the court shall determine.”
Thus, this litigation is STAYED until the court issues a ruling on the merits of the motion for vexatious litigant. After the court rules on the vexatious litigant motion, the parties may pursue litigation.
Brand has attempted to hold proceedings and Defendants have filed order for an appearance and examination and a civil subpoena duces tecum and bench warrant set for April 8, 2019, before Brand when the court and defendants are aware that there is a stay in place during the pendency of a vexatious proceeding.
Defendants claim in the Background of their ex-parte application:
“The order and a civil subpoena duces tecum were served personally on the judgment debtor on February 25, 2019. The judgment debtor attempted to decline service and discarded the papers. See Exhibit 3. The judgment debtor has previously claimed a religious obligation precluding his attendance at court on days other than Mondays or Wednesdays. Wellpoint seeks an order re setting the order for appearance and examination proceeding to April 8th or 10th 2019 or the next available Monday or Wednesday as may be convenient to the court.”
Defendants claim in their ex-parte application Points and Authorities at ¶ 3:
Judgment debtor al-Hakim has been difficult to serve and even tried to refuse personal service twice in this proceeding within the last year. Bradley Dec. ~ 8 and Exhibit 3”
Defendants then claim in their ex-parte application Declaration at ¶ 5:
“The order for appearance and examination and a civil subpoena duces tecum for records was personally served on judgment debtor al-Hakim, although he attempted to refuse service and left the papers in the court’s stairwell.”
Defendants then claim in their ex-parte application Declaration at ¶ 8:
“I believe judgment debtor al-Hakim has been difficult to personally serve. Service has been a problem in this case with judgment debtor al-Hakim claiming that he does not receive documents served on him by mail (after complaining about receiving unsigned proofs of service) or even posted on the real property he used to own. I personally served judgment debtor al- Hakim with written discovery requests. He tried to refuse service. He later claimed he was not served. The process server who personally served the order for appearance and examination and civil subpoena reported similar problems with an attempt to refuse service. To maintain jurisdiction over the judgment debtor if he were to fail to appear for the continued hearing date, I ask that the court order a bench warrant but stay issuance pending the re-set hearing date.”
Defendants contention of an admitted failed attempt to serve al-Hakim with an “announced service” and leaving the alleged service “in the stairwell”.         According to their proof of service, the server SCOTT M. FEELY of SWIFT ATTORNEY SERVICE admits in his attached proof:
“THE SUBJECT WAS SERVED IN THE STAIRWELL – REFUSED TO TAKE THE DOCUMENTS. THE SUBJECT DID NOT WANT TO ACCEPT, SERVER ANNOUNCED SERVICE AND DROPPED THE DOCUMENTS ON THE FLOOR OF THE STAIRWELL. THE SUBJECT WAS POSITIVELY ID’D BY JOHN BRADLEY. Attempt made by: SCOTT M. FEELY. Attempt at: ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERlOR CT., DEPT. 511 24405 AMADOR STREET Hayward, CA 94544.”
This DOES NOT constitute proper service, quite the contrary, it’s admission of failing and refusing to do so! I was NEVER served anything, NEVER had anyone come up to me attempting to, NEVER saw anyone, and if anything occurred behind me as I went up the stairs, I NEVER looked back from the time I left the courtroom!
The imaginary service game of lies and deceit by defendants is constantly on FULL display in his racist, Islamophobic, Xenophobic specious vitriol  that are NOT covered under any litigation privilege! He volleys back and forth between lying as a lawyer and lying as a debt collector, which he does all the time. He dodges back and forth claiming he served al-Hakim then admits three times in the same document that he has problems doing so and has failed to, yet asks Brand to support him with a warrant for al-Hakim’s arrest!
It should be noted by the court that the proceedings that Brand has conducted since February 28, 2019, are ALL moot as there is a stay that accompanies your now THIRD ordered vexatious litigant motion. As such al-Hakim will not be attending the proposed April 8, 2019 hearing that is subject to the stay.
Reason for Late Submission of Opposition to Vexatious Litigant OSC
Plaintiff Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s (Plaintiff, al-Hakim) filed Brief in Opposition to the THIRD Order to Show Cause in the Alleged Vexatious Litigant Proceeding CCP 391(b)(3) in six months. The opposition is supported by the Memorandum, al-Hakim Declaration and Appendix attached in support of the brief. The opposition was submitted the last week of the hearing not out of neglect nor al-Hakim being remise, but for two reasons:
1)     a. because he waited to receive the orders from the February 25, 2019 hearings from the court on the six motions pending in the CSAA case. The six orders where served March 26, 2019, well AFTER the scheduled filing of the initial opening brief in this matter of March 21, 2019, so that they would evade being included in same,
b.  and the order from the February 25, 2019 hearing, unopposed, uncontested, three times failed to appear, defaulted motion to vacate the unlawful detainer/writ of execution in the Green Key case. 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. Thats TEN REQUESTED NOTICES and it has yet to be served even though it was unopposed and thrice defaulted for failure to appear.
2) 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 total possession and control of ALL al-Hakim’s possessions, 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.
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! 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!!!
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?!!!
Defendant has not met their burden to show that al-Hakim is a “vexatious litigant” Under Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 39I(b)(2), or 391(b)(3).
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 “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

Immediate Preliminary and Permanent Injunction Unlawful, Illegal Eviction!

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
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, 916-319-9421
cc: ; 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:     January 30, 2019
NO PAGES: 3
RE:        Immediate Preliminary and Permanent Injunction preventing underlying Defendants Green Key Investments L.L.C. and CSAA-Wellpoint Unlawful, Illegal Eviction!
cc: ; 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:     November 30, 2018
NO PAGES: 16
RE:        Clay’s Denial Hearing Dates, Reservation Numbers, State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness; and Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy in al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371
“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3 “The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Hayashi, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Brand, Freedman, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:
I have NOTreceived any correspondence from the courts even though I filed a formal change of Address with the U.S. Postal Service. If you have sent any correspondence since January 12, 2019, it is a good likelihood that I have NOTreceived it and should be sent again to the new address above.
ALL correspondence as well as ALL our forty years of business and personal property, inventory, supplies, etc., is now in the hands of the defendants Green Key Investments L.L.C. and CSAA-Wellpoint as we had two (2) days to move!
This includes ALL personal and business effects, computers and accessories, jewelry, artwork, audio and video recorder equipment and tapes, chandeliers, silver and china ware, valuables, clothing, household goods, bedroom goods, kitchen ware, ALL food goods, supplies, gardening and pool supplies, tools, our non-profit inventory, accessories and supplies, among other things
I filed therein, seeking an immediate preliminary and permanent injunctionpreventing underlying Defendants Green Key Investments L.L.C. and CSAA-Wellpoint from enforcing the sale of my home and my being evicted from same. This aspect of the case demands immediate attention.
Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501

Requesting Results of Supreme Court Investigation of California Appeals Court Action

TO:
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye            Beth Robbins
Supreme Court of California                     Charles Johnson
350 McAllister Street, Room 1295           Deputy Clerk
San Francisco, CA 94102-4797               First District Court of Appeal
Fax: 415-865-4205, 415-865-7181,       350 McAllister Street
415-865-4391, 415-865-4586                San Francisco CA 94102
Tani.Cantil-Sakauye@jud.ca.gov              Fax: 415-865-7309, 415-865-7209
Beth.Robbins@jud.ca.gov, Charles.Johnson@jud.ca.gov
Faxed and Emailed
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: January 7, 2019 
NO PAGES: 5
RE: Appellant al-Hakim’s Letter Requesting Results from Supreme Court Investigation of the Court of Appeal’s Action in, al-HAKIM VS CSAA- Wellpoint, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #C811337, California Appeals Court Case# 153640, California Supreme Court Case# S-250997.
“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” 
Matthew 7:1-3 “The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Associate Justices of the Court, Beth Robbins, and Charles Johnson: 
On November 7, 2018, Pursuant to Rule 28(g) of the California Rules of Court, WE, the The AARON AND MARGARET WALLACE FOUNDATION, NOWTRUTH, my family, our businesses, my community, those we serve, and I, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim, submitted a letter requesting an investigation of and urging both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal to grant review of the Court of Appeal’s decision in al-HAKIM VS CSAA- Wellpoint (2018) California Appeals Court Case# 153510, and now California Supreme Court Case# S-250997.
We have received NO response from either of you and your response and the admissions of the facts, evidence, testimony, and proof from your findings of what happened in this incident has a drastic effect on this case as it will NOT “go away” merely because you chose to ignore it! We DEMAND ANSWERS TO THIS CONTINUING CRIME!
This is my THIRD letter and the Appeals Court has failed and refused to answer the question regarding their inaction in providing ANY proof of their having EVER served ANY notice of any kind of their receiving the motion to dismiss, NOTHING served on plaintiff even remotely noticing the motion, no briefing schedule, no schedule of motion practice and this clearly should have been the practice of the courts as it has before with Anne Reasoner and Truefiling. I NEVER received any email, or U. S. postal mail from Anne Reasoner or the appeals court nor any electronic service from TrueFiling as I usually would.
On October 9, 2018, I sent a two page fax and email to Beth Robbins and Charles Johnson, Deputy Clerks of the First District Court of Appeal entitled “Request for Information/Investigation Non-Service of Notice, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim vs. Superior Court, Appeals case: Appeal Case No.A153640, Superior Court case No.: C-811337”.
I specifically asked of Ms. Robbins and Mr. Johnson:
I was NEVER served any filing notice of any type from the Appeals Court of any motion to dismiss by CSAA, no briefing schedule, no schedule of motion practice, and this clearly should have been the practice of the courts as it has before with Anne Reasoner and Truefiling. I NEVER received any email, or U. S. postal mail from Reasoner or the appeals court nor any electronic service from TrueFiling, which is the norm, and there is NO RECORD of any type that any of them sent any notice of any type to me! 
How is it possible for this to even happen and the court does NOT acknowledge that it IS a reason for the unopposed motion, and there is NO RECORD of any type that the appeals court EVER sent ANY notices of any type regarding the motion to dismiss to me?!
I respectfully ask the court to conduct and provide an extensive Information/Investigation to explain “what happened?”.
Judge Tigar Criminal Legal Charges

On October 12, 2018, they sent a reply that merely mentions that the defendants had submitted a proof of service dated June 22, 2018, that was allegedly served via mail and electronically to two different email addresses, 1) one that he has admitted to the courts that he has been blocked from sending email to for years due to his giving that email address to a commercial business without my knowledge or approval and 2) the other email address he knows is not mine. There NEVER was any U.S. mail nor personal service of any documents.
However, what is most notable is the Appeals Court has failed and refused to answer the question regarding their inaction in providing ANY proof of their having EVER served ANY notice of any kind of their receiving the motion to dismiss, NOTHING served on plaintiff even remotely noticing the motion, no briefing schedule, no schedule of motion practice and this clearly should have been the practice of the courts as it has before with Anne Reasoner and Truefiling. I NEVER received any email, or U. S. postal mail from Reasoner or the appeals court nor any electronic service from TrueFiling.
I asked that you investigate this aspect of this colossal failure and provide the information as to what happened but you have refused to do that, instead you want to ignore it and covered it up!
The Appeals court, Judge Barbara Jones and the court clerks are blocking and providing interference for judge Kim Colwell to make her “end run” and complete her fraud and corruption in her Order for sale of my Dwelling BEFORE the Motion to Vacate the Order, which was uncontested by defendants, was to be heard and has been continued by the court under an illegal Appeals stay since February 2018. 
My Motion to Vacate the Order granting the sale of plaintiff home is NOT an appealable order and is NOT subject to the automatic stay pending appeals, just as the defendants motion for sale of the dwelling with an undertaking is NOT subject to the automatic stay, which Colwell ruled the sale of dwelling could and did go forward, yet she has continued to delay the resolution to plaintiff’s motion to vacate that was uncontested by defendants! This would reverse the ruling made by Judge Colwell for the sale of the Dwelling!!!
For the last Six months Colwell has been begging the Appeals court to expedite the Remitter in the motion to dismiss so she can quickly rule on the motion to vacate with a denial! 
To deny such a serious motion when the appeals court was willfully and intentionally derelict in their NON-SERVICE of ANY notices to al-Hakim and CSAA obvious fraud, there is NO place for this in modern society much less in a courtroom before the people! It is even more enlightening in respects to the calumny deceit and denial of due process employed in it, that al-Hakim have complained of for years. This order in response to al-Hakim’s actions of merely invoking his rights to petition the courts was the very epitome of specious retaliation and heinous denial of due process FORCED on al-Hakim by defendants.
The Appeals courts actions depriving al-Hakim of litigation due him is unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of al-Hakim, caused by the policies and practices of CSAA, which acts described herein have caused damages to al-Hakim with these Constitutional violations of al-Hakim’s rights.
The Appeals courts actions are repressive and has denied al-Hakim’s civil rights and due process, an equal opportunity to participate in unbiased pursuit of his legal claims as if these are still the dark days of American history when Black people had no rights at all!; This conduct and ongoing corruption of CSAA has resulted in Constitutional violations of al-Hakim’s rights, is tantamount to a scheme to hinder, deny and defraud al-Hakim.
The right for a litigant to challenge the fraud and corruption of the court and CSAA is second only to The GREATEST right a litigant has enshrined in the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to a fair trial! al-Hakim will ALWAYS continue the SLAVE DRIVEN FOUR HUNDRED YEAR fight for civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process, equal protection, equal access to an unbiased legal process as is his OBLIGATION AND RIGHT under the U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, VIII, and XIV!
California Supreme, Appeals, and Superior Courts Corruption

Defendants obtained TWO orders that were the product of their non-service litigation strategy of fraud and deceit when:

  1. they moved the Bankruptcy court and held a hearing on May 16, 2018, when they knew I had served prior notice on ALL the courts 6 weeks earlier that I would be in the annual retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan from May 14, 2018 until June 20, 2018 and unavailable to respond to any litigation and got a judgment without notice nor serving any documents; and
  2. this motion to dismiss that was granted!

On January 31, 2018, I filed a 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint and it is already outdated.The Complaint concerns the Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Demand for Removal of Judges For Cause; Due to Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law; 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)); Fraud Upon The Court by Judge Kim Colwell; and to Vacate ALL Rulings and Orders Issued IN THE MATTERS OF: al-Hakim v. EBMUD, al-Hakim v. CSAA; and Miller v. al-Hakim.
On February 9, 2018, I sent you and Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS a 117 page complaint concerning the Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Demand for Removal of Judges For Cause; Due to Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law; 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)); Fraud Upon The Court by Judge Kim Colwell; and to Vacate ALL Rulings and Orders Issued IN THE MATTERS OF: al-Hakim v. EBMUD, al-Hakim v. CSAA; and Miller v. al-Hakim. It is already out dated.
An example of their tactic of non-service of motion papers and conspiring with the court clerks working for them and causing a civil problem is on September 20, 2018 the Dept. 511 court clerks feigned getting any notice of the opposition and the court ruled that since there was no opposition to the tentative ruling thus it is  adopted as “unopposed”. Clearly there were THREE NOTICES filed with the court clerk and this still happened. 
Again on October 11, 2018, Plaintiff was forced to file another Complaint against the court and Department 511 clerks for same with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton- Chief District Judge, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Freedman, Grillo, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse- Director, U. S. Attorney’s Office, Xavier Becerra-Attorney General of California, Martin Hoshino- Director Judicial Council of California, Victoria Henley- Director Chief Counsel Commission on Judicial Performance, Chad Finke- Executive Officer Superior Court of Alameda County and 90 OTHERS, that CSAA- Wellpoint and “Department 511 Still Engaging in Perverting and Obstructing Justice, and Due Administration of the Law in Tentative Ruling issued in two motions of September 20, 2018”!
I implore this court to investigate this matter of the Appeals Court evading the proper response to their refusal to serve any notice of any kind to plaintiff regarding the defendants motion to dismiss and make those finding available to part of the record on appeal as it may explain/prove why the motion was uncontested!
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.
 
Respectfully,
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501
ajalil1234@gmail.com

Judge "Con Don" Clay’s Denial Hearing Dates,Reservation Numbers;State Sponsored TERROR,Oppression,Persecution and Unfairness

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
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:     November 30, 2018
NO PAGES: 16
RE:        Clay’s Denial Hearing Dates, Reservation Numbers, State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness; and Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy in al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371
“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3 “The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Freedman, Grillo, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:On January 29, 2018, I have previously sent you ALL a 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint that was already outdated before I could file it and filed another on February 9, 2018, February 22, 2018, March 1, 2018, March 12, 2018, and April 2, 2018.
On August 24, 2018, I sent you all a 125 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint against Judges C. Don Clay, Stephen Kaus, Robert Freedman, Morris Jacobson, Jon Rolefson, Evelio Grillo, Ioana Petrou, Wynne Carvill, Frank Roesch, Jo-Lynne Lee, Paul Herbert, Kim Colwell, Kevin Murphy, and Michael Markman with Chad Finke, among others with the Manipulation of the record and Register of Actions; Obstruction of Justice, Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); the continued Fraud Upon The Court by Judges C. Don Clay and Wynne Carvill with Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law!
On September 24, 2018, I sent you all a 14 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint against Judge C. Don “Con Don” Clay detailing his State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness in his courtroom at a July 11, 2018 hearing using his Sheriffs deputy.
Today, I am attaching herewith a new 140 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint against Judge C. Don Clay detailing his State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness in his courtroom as he TRIPLED DOWN WITH THREE Sheriffs deputy’s and the denial of requested hearing dates and reservation numbers to file any litigation
Con Don’s reign of State sponsored TERROR al-Hakim was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM, has expanded!
Clay is refusing to provide reservation numbers for al-Hakim to file and to hear ANY litigation of ANY type on a Monday or Wednesday. 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 harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption as the uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules regarding Motions clearly have a double standard!
al-Hakim’s Religion and religious obligations on those days are NOT going to change for judge Clay. 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 harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption as the uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules regarding Motions clearly have a double standard!
Clay’s continuing criminal harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption in his uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 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 from this Court is necessary to prevent this abuse.
Clay’s 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.
1. Clay, the Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness in Courtroom
The July 11, 2018, Hearing
At the recent July 11, 2018, hearing in the matters of al-Hakim v. Interserver, Case No.: RG18888371, al-Hakim entered the alcove leading into the courtroom and was stopped by the Sheriffs deputy and asked “who are you and where are  you going?”. al-Hakim responded with his name and that he was there for a 3:00 p.m. hearing, and asked “aren’t you expecting us?”. The deputy responded “ yeah, and inspecting you too!” al-Hakim thought that he had misheard him and asked “I didn’t hear you, what did you say?”, The deputy repeated “ yeah, and inspecting you too!”. Still not understanding the need for such response, al-Hakim said “I’m sorry, could you repeat that?” The deputy again repeated “ yeah, and inspecting you too!” in a very brash and challenging manner.
al-Hakim entered the courtroom and took a seat in the front row behind the railing of the court as there was already someone sitting at the defendants place at the hearing table, the clerk at her desk and the deputy sat at his desk near the front row of seats in the courtroom.
The deputy informs al-Hakim “you can’t sit in the first row, you have to move!” where upon al-Hakim moves across the courtroom to the second row of seats.
Judge Clay comes out of chambers and asks if they are ready to proceed, returns and takes the bench.
He calls for appearances of the parties and upon calling al-Hakim, while still standing, al-Hakim announces that “I have a challenge for you (Clay).”
Clay responds that he wants to go on with the matters, and asks if al-Hakim wants to be heard on the matters. al-Hakim, still standing holding the document in his hand extended toward Clay, responds that “you have been served a challenge and you must respond to it.”
The deputy blurts out “sit down and don’t interrupt the judge”, as if al-Hakim’s serving the challenge was somehow interrupting Clay and al-Hakim had NO RIGHT to do so.
Clay says “we have already started”
al-Hakim, while still standing holding the document in his hand extended toward Clay, reiterates that “there’s is no reporter so you can make the record anyway you choose, we haven’t done anything yet and I have challenged you (Clay) and you must answer it before you can proceed.”
Clay again responds that he wants to go on with the matters, and asks if al-Hakim wants to be heard on the matter of the subpoena and the vexatious litigant motion. al-Hakim, now sitting still holding the document in his hand extended toward the clerk, responds that “you have been served a challenge are you refusing to accept it?”
Clay angrily responds “I will deal with it later!” and nods approval to the deputy. al-Hakim handed the document to the deputy whom gave it to the clerk.
Clay asks al-Hakim how he viewed “the motion to compel the subpoena with the stay pending vexatious litigant motion?”
al-Hakim again stated that “ you have been challenged you, you can only perform administrative duties and you must answer it before you can proceed in this case. I am NOT waiving any rights and insist that since I was NEVER served the motion by defendants, I have been prejudiced by appearing here and will NOT waive that prejudice”
Further, al-Hakim answered that “the Subpoena and Request for Production of Documents where supposed to have been answered by the defendants before February 12, 2018 and they failed and refused to do so, have defaulted by failing and refusing to answer the summons and complaint, and our motion to compel was unopposed.”
al-Hakim noticed a horrendous odor from behind him and turned is his seat to find the deputy standing over his left shoulder two feet away!
Clay asks if al-Hakim agreed that the vexatious motion stay the proceedings?” wherein al-Hakim answers that the motion was allegedly filed on February 16, 2018, and still has NEVER been served despite numerous requests for it and the the answers were due before February 12, 2018. They were in default already and you do not have the authority to retroactively grant them a stay after the fact”
With the unmerciful stench emanating from his vaginal region and his sweat seemingly dropping on al-Hakim’s back, al-Hakim turned is his seat facing the deputy standing over his left shoulder two feet away whom appeared to be trying to read al-Hakim’s documents at the table. al-Hakim asked the deputy “would you like a seat” as he pulled out the seat next to him and offered it to the deputy. Clay makes the comment “you don’t want to do that!”, where upon the deputy is now standing over al-Hakim where he can’t move at all!
al-Hakim responded “do what, what are you thinking I want to do? I want to know why he has to stand over me behind my back. I don’t believe that that is normal in any courtroom” Clay responds “well, yes it is”. al-Hakim states “you are saying that he stands in this same position, two feet behind the plaintiff, in every case that you have?”
Clay says “well”
The odor now is at “hold your breath level!!” and al-Hakim doesn’t want to say that.
al-Hakim says “I don’t believe that, I have been in your courtroom over 20 times, I am familiar with the courts attempts at intimidation and this most certainly is one!”
Again Clay nods to the deputy and he retreats a few steps but stays in striking range of al-Hakim who is seated 40 feet away and 3 feet below Clay sitting on the bench.
This was clearly planned prior to al-Hakim appearing in court and was choreographed by Clay to provoke and instill terror and fear in al-Hakim during the hearing!!
Clay’s actions in this manner along with the deputy’s deadly pungent mix from his crotch-rot on that hot day, left more than a lingering quality, impression, and feeling of stench warfare attaching to Clay an odor of terror and suspicion.
This use of these heinous tactics to incite violence that apparently already in the forefront of Clay’s mind with the comment “you don’t want to do that!”, with the highly offensive odors to sicken, immobilize, and drive al-Hakim away from the courtroom as an enemy of the State was in and of itself utterly odious and wicked.
The deputy took his seat, wrote a note to Clay and delivered it to him.
Clay then announces that “I am going to deny the motion to compel”.
Clay’s own extraordinary, forced rendition, his own government-sponsored abduction and extrajudicial holding of al-Hakim as a foreign criminal or terrorist suspect covertly being interrogated UNDER DURESS carried out by the sheriffs, government with the consent of the court!
al-Hakim felt the threat of being hit in the back of the head at all times, for any comment or slight movement, or signal from Clay, to provoke violence to result with injury or death to al-Hakim! The expected harm was made to compel al-Hakim to do something against his will or to be considered wrong in Clay’s sole judgment to “sic his attack dog” on al-Hakim; especially this wrongful threat made by Clay and his deputy to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by al-Hakim to Clay’s mercy without real volition. With this oppression and persecution indelibly etched in his mind, heart and soul, al-Hakim now KNOWS the smell of TERROR!!
OCTOBER 3, 2018, CLAY WAS SERVED A 140 COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE (see attached) DETAILING WHY HE SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN ANY MATTER CONCERNING ME, AND SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED!!
The October 3, 2018, Hearing
Rather than conduct the October 3, 2018 hearing in a manner that is routinely expected in civil society, Clay triples down on the terror and has THREE Sheriffs Deputies in the courtroom and then proclaims that it is “normal” for him to have that many in his courtroom, and further, that one is positioned behind the plaintiff’s seat!
At the October 3, 2018, hearing, al-Hakim entered the courtroom and took a seat to the right side of the room. There was deputy C. Arnold seated at his normal desk. Shortly after another deputy enters the courtroom, walks over to the seated deputy says “I got a call” and asks “is everything alright?” He replies yes in a solemn way. The deputy then retreats to the back of the courtroom and sits adjacent to al-Hakim on the other side.
Shortly after a third deputy enters the courtroom, walks over to the seated deputy and speaks with him then retreats to the back of the courtroom and sits behind al-Hakim.
The defendants were seated at their position at the table, and the plaintiff’s side had a bag with a keyboard, and some devices plugged into the audio system hanging out of/attached to the microphone. It appeared to be a covert recording device made to appear as if someone had left their stuff on the table.
Clay comes out and the parties make their appearance, wherein al-Hakim serves the challenge.
Clay asks “did you see my tentative ruling?” I am going to deny the motion to continue” “when I set a deadline, I mean it”,
After an extensive discussion with Defendant pleading “He has filed numerous challenges, including against you. That’s enough to declare him a vexatious litigant”, “he has sued the DA, Attorney General,City Attorney and filed appeals”
Clay says regarding their deficient moving papers “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” “you are going to have to work harder”,
“He filed complaints with me when I was presiding court judge” “he’s a litigator in his own way”
“you didn’t read the orders” “you haven’t carried your burden to declare him a vexatious litigant” , “you haven’t proven he’s a vexatious litigant”, “you just haven’t done enough to declare him a vexatious litigant”
Clay asked al-Hakim “do you want to be heard?”, wherein al-Hakim replied “no, I will not waive the prejudice, misconduct and abuse of the court and the defendants in their default and failed answer to the order” “anything I would say would just be under duress given the previous and current conditions in the courtroom with your three security guards”. Clay exclaims “they are not security, they’re sheriffs!”
al-Hakim states “I have been in your courtroom over 20 times and I have never seen a deputy standing right behind the party during a hearing.” and you have THREE deputies in the courtroom right now!”
Clay says “that’s normal, I may even have more!” al-Hakim says “for a civil ex-parte motion at 3:00 p.m.? I don’t believe that! Clay says ” It’s true”
THAT IS A BLATANT, BOLD FACED LIE!!!As a consequence, I would like to have the records from the Superior Court and Sheriffs offices detailing the number of deputies assigned to and in attendance in his courtroom daily for the last 10 years to substantiate his personal testimony of these facts!
al-Hakim hereby moves that the case and hearing, which involves a contested issue of law or fact, and which has been assigned to C. Don Clay, Judge of the above-entitled Court, be reassigned from that Judge, and that no matters hereinafter arising in this cause be heard or assigned to Judge C. Don Clay, on the ground that said judge is irreparably conflicted, tainted, biased, and  prejudiced against the plaintiff in this action where unless and until these issues can of Judge Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness with Courtroom Security can be fairly resolved BEFORE the next hearing scheduled IN DEPARTMENT 6, BEFORE JUDGE CLAY, I CAN NOT in good conscience OUT OF FEAR, agree to APPEAR with ANY of the continuing outstanding conditions referenced in this complaint regrading Clay’s State sponsored TERROR I was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM!
Clay has subverted, obstructed, perverted and defeated the course of justice, committed fraud on the court, harassment and retaliation, where these actions, including Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness with Courtroom Security, violates his right to due process and civil rights. In light of its history and application, it is a violation of § 51 of the California Civil Code for a business establishment to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation, religious affiliation, or political or religious beliefs, including speech expressing those beliefs.
This action precludes plaintiff from retaining his unbiased rights pending the resolution of his claims as he battles the harassment he continues to experience and the courts retaliation against plaintiff by harassing him and taking adverse judicial actions against him, in major part because he reported the very obvious agenda of Clay and other judges Fixing Cases against him because he is Muslim  and Black, a Whistleblowerexposing their criminal corruption; weaponizing vindictive rulings in furtherance of their agenda; 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.
Clay’s State Sponsored Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness is Contempt
It must be stipulated that Judge Clay’s actions fraud violated canons 1, 2A, and 2B(2), and constituted prejudicial misconduct at the very least and treated al-Hakim in a manner in violation of canons 1, 2A, and 3B(4) and reflected a prejudgment of him and a lack of impartiality, contrary to canon 3B(5).  Judges Clay’s abusive conduct must draw harsh criticism from the Judicial Regulators in a decision arising out of these charges of the “atmosphere of unfairness” created by the judge’s denial of plaintiff’s civil rights, right to due process, biased administration of justice, erroneous rulings, lies, deception, threats, retaliation, and caustic, condescending remarks of the plaintiff. (People v. Urias (July 31, 2006, G035179 [2006 WL 2128631] [nonpub. opn.]).)
Judge Clay purported to exercise his authority at that hearing in which he violated al-Hakim’s civil rights, has admittedly acting with personal interest in the outcome under the color of law 18 USC §242. The Judges willful misconduct, bad faith, mistreatment, retaliation and “atmosphere of unfairness” determines that there is a high probability she would continue her unethical behavior if she were to continue in a judicial capacity in the future. That judge Clay, before whom the hearing aforesaid action was pending is prejudiced against al-Hakim or the interest of the party so that affiant cannot or believes that he cannot have a fair and impartial hearing or trial before this judge. al-Hakim request and have a standing objection to ANY involvement of Judge Clay in this and ANY other matter.
2. Clay FIXING CASES in Furtherance of Corruption Agenda
Judge Clay has been and is “fixing”this case against al-Hakim attempting to protect the defendants as he has 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 over 30 years, while REFUSING to have those proceedings on a date al-Hakim can attend, yet!
There is currently a CMC scheduled on December 12, 2018, and al-Hakim had requested THREE times to have a “Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion to Vacate Orders made by Judge Clay” on the SAME DATE, yet the requests were DENIED by deflecting the requests to his own rule Department 6 Information.
Defendants new counsel substituted in, and filed Motions to Strike and a Demurrer without the required Meet and Confer per Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 and did so without any court delay and scheduled to be heard on Friday, December 7, 2018, a date that the defendants and the court is aware al-Hakim unavailable to attend. Clay REFUSED TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO DATE the CMC is scheduled on December 12, 2018, so that all motions could be heard.
Clay’s 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.
al-Hakim Denied Litigation Right in Violation of Civil Right to Due Process, Duplicitous Double Standard
On April 25, 2018 al-Hakim sent an 8 page notice to Judges Clay, Carvill, Markman, Department 6, and Defendants requesting a Reservation for Ex-Parte Motion to Continue Hearings set for May 4, 2018, May 24, 2018, and June 14, 2018 during the Holy Month of Ramadan. al-Hakim requested that Ex-Parte hearing on a Monday or Wednesday PRIOR to May 10, 2018.
The court has failed and refused to respond, and with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda of finding me a vexatious litigant in this matter, where I have NEVER been served ANY motion papers, apparent to all!
al-Hakim requested “If the court will not honor this request, I would like an Ex-Parte hearing for a continuance for any Monday or Wednesday PRIOR to May 10, 2018.”
After THREE requests, Clay agreed to hear the Ex-Parte matter on Wednesday, May 2, 2018.
At that May 2, 2018, hearing Clay asked al-Hakim about his religious obligations wherein al-Hakim responded that they are “every Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays due to religious commitments, and this is a permanent obligation, as the obligation does not vary.
On August 13, 2018, al-Hakim sent notice to Judges Clay, Carvill, Markman, Department 6, and Defendants requesting a Reservation for Ex-Parte Motion for Return of Property, Server AMWFTRUST.ORG, al-HAKIM v. Interserver Equinix, Case: #RG18888371. FOUR request were ignored by Clay directing al-Hakim to Clay’s ExParte rule in the Department 6 Information which states:
ExParte Schedule:
Applications are considered only on moving papers and any written response. Email Dept. 6 to advise when papers will be filed and give notice to other side and advise same that written opposition must be filed in 24 hours.
Plaintiff reminded the court that he had previously had an ex-parte motion heard on Wednesday, May 2, 2018. Clay again ignored the request an al-Hakim had to file his ex-parte motion, submit it for Clay’s review for a month, and it was denied WITHOUT REASON NOR EXPLANATION
Yet, the defendants were able to have an instant ex-parte hearing October 3, 2018 on their failure to comply with the courts ordered vexatious litigant motion without any requirements.
On October 24, 2018, al-Hakim sent a 3 page notice to Judges Clay, Carvill, Markman, Department 6, and Defendants requesting a “Reservation Number to File Noticed Motion to Vacate Orders made by Judge Clay, Atmosphere of TERROR, Oppression, Persecution and Unfairness in Courtroom, al-HAKIM v. Interserver Equinix, Case: #RG18888371” to file a noticed motion to vacate the orders made by Judge Clay and would like the hearing to be held on December 3, or 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. to accommodate the court.
al-Hakim received an email from Kristi Hereth, Department 6 Courtroom Clerk stating “Motions are heard on the 1st and 3rd Friday of the Month. Previously the Court agreed to accommodate your request to have the matter heard mid-week due to your religious obligations that month. Please provide a few good dates on a 1st or 3rd Friday and I will notify you of the reservation number.”
al-Hakim responded “As the court is aware I am unavailable on Fridays which is why I proposed the Monday or Wednesday dates. I have now scheduled a matter for December 3, 2018 at 3:00 p.m, so that would leave December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter.
    As previously discussed, this is a permanent obligation,it was NEVER a one month accommodation made by the court and that fact has been established several times before and since, as the obligation does not vary, which is why we have had ALL our proceedings, hearings, ex-parte and otherwise on one of those days, usually a Wednesday at 3:00 p.m. to accommodate the court. So can you please just issue a reservation number and date on a Monday or Wednesday?
    I would appreciate it if we could move beyond the constant fabricated “conflict” and harassment with the dates each time I make a request and have to reaffirm the same issue with dates.”
On October 29, 2018, al-Hakim received an email from Kristi Hereth, Dept.6 Clerk stating “Please see Dept. 6’s rules regarding Motions.”
Department 6 Information which states:
L&M Schedule:
SJ are heard at 9 AM on 2nd Fri. & other mtns at 10 AM on 1st/3rd Fri. Email Dept. 6 for reservations. Include case name & no., title of motion and identity of moving party. Courtesy copies of all L&M pleadings are to be submitted directly to Dept 6.
al-Hakim responded “I am aware of the uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules regarding Motions, just as the court is aware I am unavailable on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays which is why I proposed the Monday or Wednesday dates.
Additionally, Defendants new counsel have filed Motions to Strike and a Demurrer scheduled to be heard on Friday, December 7, 2018, that the court is aware I am unavailable to attend and I request December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter to hear ALL the motions.
I am requesting to scheduled the motion on December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or December 10, 2018, December 12, 2018 or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter.
Is the court refusing to provide a reservation number to hear the motion on ANY of those date or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter?
My Religion and religious obligations on those days are NOT going to change for judge Clay.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 harassment, obstruction of justice, denial of due process and corruption as the uniquely applied and enforced Dept. 6 rules regarding Motions clearly have a double standard!
Again, I am requesting to schedule ALL the motions on December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or December 10, 2018, December 12, 2018 or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter.
I remain very, very concerned about Clay’s heightening TERROR TACTICS in the courtroom and unless and until this issue can be fairly resolved BEFORE the next hearing scheduled IN DEPARTMENT 6, BEFORE JUDGE CLAY, I CAN NOT in good conscience, OUT OF FEAR, agree to APPEAR with ANY of the continuing outstanding conditions referenced in that complaint regrading Clay’s State sponsored TERROR I was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM!”
THREE request were ignored by Clay directing al-Hakim to Clay’s Law and Motion rule and Plaintiff has NEVER had any response from Clay regarding his “Request for a Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion to Vacate Orders made by Judge Clay”!
On October 28, 2018, Defendants new counsel substituted in, and filed Motions to Strike and a Demurrer without the required Meet and Conferper Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 and did so without any court delay and scheduled to be heard on Friday, December 7, 2018, a date that the defendants and the court is aware I am unavailable to attend.
If defendants had met and conferred they would have been advised of the fact they are aware that plaintiff is unavailable to attend any proceedings on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays due to religious commitments, and as previously discussed, this is a permanent obligation, as the obligation does not vary, which is why we have had ALL our proceedings, hearings, ex-parte and otherwise on one of those days, usually a Wednesday at 3:00 p.m. to accommodate the court.
al-Hakim filed FOUR “Request for a Reservation Number to File a Noticed Motion to Vacate Orders made by Judge Clay” and request December 5, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. or a Monday or Wednesday thereafter to hear ALL the motions. The court ignored al-Hakim’s request again.
There should have been NO further delay on the part of the court or the judges mentioned herein to prevent al-Hakim from being made whole since the defendants haven stolen their server server and absconded with 10 years of corporate data of the business we serve including Intellectual Property, Proprietary Data, and Trade Secrets.
Plaintiff had made over TEN requests for defendants to transfer/migrate our entire server AMWFTRUST.ORG, including ALL intellectual property, ALL proprietary property, Trade Secrets, ALL financial property and data, ALL email, email list, media, data, and websites for ALL our clients to another host and need full access to it for that purpose. The costs associated with building the sites is over $150,000, some media can NOT be reproduced, the data CAN NOT be reproduced and the costs are impossible to calculate at this time, and increasing every moment!
Clay is engaging in censorship, concealment, suppression of evidence, obstruction of justice, among other charges, in their agenda to silence our efforts in exposing their corruption and cover up!
al-Hakim has notified Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, U. S. DOJ Chief Alex Tse, AG Xavier Becerra, District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, Victoria Henley, Chad Finke, Martin Hoshino and OTHERS, while also filing and serving THREE formal notices on Judges Carvill, and Clay, Chad Finke and the Superior Court Administration via personal service, fax and email each; and the defendants that I will attend to my religious commitments that has been known to the defendants and the court for over 30 years! I have requested that the court continue those dates while I am available on any Monday or Wednesday. The court has failed and refused to respond, and with their scheduling seeking an uncontested order, thereby making their agenda apparent to all!
Clay’s agenda is effectively “banning” al-Hakim from pursuing ANY litigation he is rightfully entitled to that the corrupt judges do not want exposed!
This Issue Presents An Actual Controversy
al-Hakim argues that the issues raised in this motion presents an actual controversy. The court ordered that this matter be investigated and both Judges Rolefson and Freedman has refused, and engaged now the courts attempt to cover up their transgressions when they are exposed for being guilty of willful corrupt misconduct, they refused to acknowledged plaintiff’s memorandum filled with the courts abuses by Petrou and ALL those referenced herein with that of Meyers Nave and Ropers in both the CSAA and Rescue cases and by Judges Jacobson and Rolefson and previously Freedman. This matter is of the character which the principles of U.S. Const. amend. I, V, VI, and XIV, as adopted by the Due Process Clause, protect. This is a clear denial of al-Hakim Family’s rights under the United States and California State Constitution.
The court’s denying plaintiff’s rights thereto in defiance of the law implicates the fundamental issues of  violating plaintiff’s right to due process and civil rights AND CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO HIS CASE. The court has let their personal convictions interfere with the duty to be scrupulously fair as the exclusive trier of fact. ( People v. Cook, (1983), 33 Cal.3d at p. 408; People v. Friend, (1958), 50 Cal.2d at pp. 577-578.) There is no question that Judge Petrou is violating this tenant of fairness and further SHE CAN NOT SERVE IN THIS MATTER.
Judge Clays presence in this case, summarily denies plaintiff’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 from this Court is necessary to prevent this abuse.
There are also grounds for disqualification under Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085; on the ground of misconduct, prejudicial misconduct, bias, and prejudice in violations of Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.0-170.5; specifically 170, subd. (a)(5); 170, subd. (e); 170.1, subdivision (a)(2); 170.1, subdivision (a)(6)(C); 170.3, subd. (c)(1); 170.3, subd. (c)(5); 170.3, subd. (d); 170.l(a)(6), §170.l(a)-6(B), §170.3(a)(1)-4(c), and §170.4(a)-(3); the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct 1, 2, 2A, 2B(2), 3B(2), 3B(4), 3B(5), 3B(8) and 3C( a corresponding Federal Statute, 28 United States Code section 455(a) adopted by Congress in 1974); Business and Professions Code sections 6068, subdivisions (b) and (f), 6103 and 6106 and former rule 7-105(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 8, 18; see Cal. Code Jud. Ethics, canon 3D(1).); and violates al-Hakim’s fundamental civil rights and due process under the law guaranteed by the United States Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, and XIV, and as applicable to this state of California Constitution by the first clause of Section 13 of Article I;  Article VI, section 13, as a “miscarriage of justice.”; Article VI, section 18, subd. (d)(3).
It has come to the attention of Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim that Judge Clay in adopting and invoking his present modus operandi and agenda has deep conflicts of interest regarding the herein cited matters, requiring his recusal or disqualification, on grounds of conflict of interest, bias, prejudice, a minimum appearance of impropriety and other grounds, making it likely that a person aware of the facts could reasonably entertain a doubt as to the ability of the judge to be impartial.
3. al-Hakim 56 Complaints listed in OCTOBER 3, 2018, 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE Document Communications with Clay Detail Corruption and Cover UP!
al-Hakim has pointed out to Clay that he has been addressing the misgivings of Clay, the court, and others for over 40 years, before the time that Clay has been serving as a judge and there have been many, many complaints, 56 complaints listed in the 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE (see attached), that al-Hakim has made to and about him and the July, 2005, al-Hakim filed 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 has had many contacts, conversations, exchanged voice mail messages, faxes, emails, filed and served documents with and on Clay and his clerk Elaine Kabling on April 18, 2012; April 19, 2012; May 1, 2012, May 15, 2012; August 22, 2012; September 4, 2012, regarding a personal meeting on the open fraud investigation involving the Oakland City Attorney, various Judges, the District Attorney’s Office, their producing documents, resolving the many outstanding issues, that al-Hakim had previously spoke with Rich Cowan, met with Dan Lindhiem, the City Administrator regarding some of these issues.
That includes a matter where Clay was involved where al-Hakim was returned $280 by the clerk for a transcript that he paid $320, but lost the appeal because the court did not have the transcript! *(This was a case where the DA admitted that hey had misappropriated funds paid to them in trust for al-Hakim’s daughter that were diverted to someone else and other monies unaccounted for. The case was turned over to the State Attorney General due to conflict of interest with the DA and in the interest of justice.)
At the July hearing, al-Hakim stated that he is NOT a “deal maker” and will ALWAYS defend himself and fight for his rights that so many others of his race, and religion have died in this 400 year struggle and still die for on a daily basis. al-Hakim stated that defendants have defaulted in answering the summons, complaint, subpoena and request for production, they say they have no relationship with al-Hakim but they do not disclose their relationship with their co-defendants, they do not have a defense and it’s too late to mount one on the heels of a vexatious litigant motion that is untimely, after the fact.
al-Hakim, knowing Clay’s background and reputation as a lawyer who was NOT a litigator nor a formidable defender of truth, justice or civil rights, but instead as a “colored boy who could play the game in Black-Face for the “MAN”, the White Man’s system”, a “Coon”, a “deal maker” and “bag man” for judges; his work with “settling/buying off” cases for guilty drug dealers, hustlers and enterprising criminals with the street handle of “Con Don”; and his brief, failed attempt at being an entertainment and sports agent while at the same time al-Hakim was established as the FIRST SUPER AGENT representing many of the worlds greatest athletes and entertainers, and the founder of sports and entertainment marketing industry. Clay’s former law partner Clinton White, a former judge that was brought onto the bench under the auspices of judge Stan Golde, was a friend of al-Hakim’s and a big interest in Oakland baseball. al-Hakim was an friend of judge Golde and his sons Matt and Ivan as well as judge White and his son Bennie. Judge Golde was Clay’s entrée into the bench as with judge White. William G. “Billy” Hunter, a personal friend, confidant, partner and co-worker of Clay’s, tried to force al-Hakim to take him under his wing and teach him the art of sports and entertainment representation at the request of then mayor Lionel Wilson- a friend of al-Hakim’s, and when al-Hakim refused, at Hunters insistence, al-Hakim was investigated by the IRS that lead to al-Hakim’s victory over them and a tax code being named after him, wherein al-Hakim made Law Review and his contracts classes being taught in most leading major Graduate Business and Law Schools in the nation. al-Hakim later had to “bailout” Hunter in a contract that he had negotiated with M. C. Hammer for Patrick Bates with the Oakland Raiders that was a disaster! al-Hakim not only represented Hammer, but established his sports and entertainment production, management and boxing promotion firms. Had this blunder by Hunter been known to the public and NBA Players Association, Hunter would NOT have gotten that job and that fact is still a major consideration in his law suit against the NBA Players Association in Hunter’s firing. Oddly enough when Hunter sued the NBAPA, he chose to file that suit in Alameda County and guess who the judge was that was assigned the case?, Yeah, CLAY!! But we are NOT supposed to think that there was no collusion, conspiracy or ex-parte communications! Well, here is an email exchange between Clay and Hunter. In an exhibit filed with the motion, Andrew Kassof presented a record of emails exchanged between Hunter and C. Don Clay, the presiding judge of the Superior Court of Alameda County, where Hunter filed his lawsuit. The emails in April 2012 indicated a friendly, sympathetic relationship between Hunter and the judge.
In one email, Clay wrote to Hunter, in an apparent reference to Fisher: “This guy and his advisors still think that they can out think you! They will never give up! You know always to be on the alert! Keep up the fight! We will continue to pray for you!”
Hunter responded:“C Don thanks so much for the support. I now know how Obama feels, since he has to contend with this bs on a daily basis. I have urged the [board] to conduct an extensive audit to shutdown Derek Fisher. Keep me in your prayers.”
Further, al-Hakim represented Dean Hodges and 75 Girls Records, Jive Records, Zomba Music, Dangerous Music, Oaktown Records, the record company, producers and publishing companies that owned the rights to an artist that Clay represented, Too $hort. al-Hakim was a driving force in the Oscar Grant activities including formulating and enacting the Anniversary Memorial that brought BART to the event as a sponsor and to the speakers podium in unison and harmony that is universally credited with being the movement that established peace in the streets and lead to the settlement of the two claims of the family. Clay was a judge in that case.
The 56 complaints listed in the 140 PAGE COMPLAINT and CHALLENGE is only a small sample, but since 1980, and more recently 2000, as a matter of documentation, 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.
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 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 complaint, drafted and filed by al-Hakim in pro per, has broad based support from Democrats and Republicans, was submitted by Congresswoman Barbara Lee with the offices of Congressmen John Conyers, and Charles Rangel, reviewed by several legal experts, with advocacy by former Republican Senator J. C. Watts, a client of al-Hakim’s, is moving forward with the investigation and charges of criminal extrinsic fraud upon the court of the State of California, fabricating and planting fabricated evidence, spoliation of evidence against defendants/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Ron Cook and the law firm of Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; defense counsel Steve Barber and the law firm of Ropers Majeski; and many others.
The complaint addresses the concern that a Superior Court Judges’ conduct rose to the level of consideration for a Federal Crime and a Civil Rights violation because the bench upon which the judge rules is “under the color of law” and certainly the violation of anyone’s civil rights is a federal crime. “Muslims, just as any other group, can not be afraid to speak up when their rights have been abridged. If one does not speak up, then the transgressions goes unreported and the perpetrator goes on to harm again unchecked, it does not matter whom the transgressor is”said al-Hakim. The complaint, perhaps even more importantly, not only requested Merrily Friedlander, Chief of the Civil Rights Division, to make an investigation of a judicial hate crime, but also the many other civil rights and due process violations of judicial misconduct, and attorney extrinsic fraud upon the court and law that are themselves directly the matters complained. J. C. Watts in asking “What does a supposed terrorist act in Russia have to do with the negligent contamination of a home in America?”posed the argument that there must be consideration of and a response to the many issues in the complaint.
The investigation concerns trial Judge David C. Lee’s allowance of the illegal product of the spoliated evidence and unclean hands by defendant/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Cook and Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; and the Oakland City Attorney’s Office run by John Russo to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony, and fostered it’s use to prejudice the jury. During the trial, testimony revealed that there were numerous documents and photos of a very damning nature to the defense and AAA as the hostile intervener, that were missing, altered, or incomplete.
The complaint against then Oakland City Attorney John Russo and the City Attorney’s staff including Mark Morodomi, Randy Hall, Janie Wong, Anita Hong, Sophia Li, Demetruis Shelton, Elizabeth Allen, Erica Harrold and Michele Abbey; former Oakland and current San Leandro City Attorney Jane Williams and former employee Pat Smith; was for their fraudulently fabricating evidence in 1999 and planting that evidence favorable to the defendants in the case files SIX years AFTER the case was closed, engaged in spoliation of remaining evidence in the court files from 1991, fostering Rescue trial Judge David C. Lee’s allowance of the illegal product of fabricated and planted evidence, spoiliated evidence and unclean hands by defendant/hostile intervener AAA Insurance; Ron Cook and Willoughby, Stuart & Bening; defense counsel Steve Barber and the law firm of Ropers Majeski; the other underlying defendants; and the Oakland City Attorney’s Office; to be admitted as evidence, subjected to testimony based on this planted evidence in the al-Hakim v CSAA and the underlying Rescue Rooter case that was created thru EXTRINSIC FRAUD with accompanying testimony procured thru admitted suborned and solicited perjurious acts and fostered it’s use to prejudice the jury. During the Rescue trial, testimony revealed that there were numerous documents and photos of a very damning nature to the defense and AAA as the hostile intervener, that were missing, altered, or incomplete, and providing the case file to defendants Stephan Barber and Ron Cook for nearly a year, Russo and your office failed to notify the court of this unpardonable illegal breach in the chain of custody of the file, and engaged in actions to destroy the litigation of my legal case; Russo and your office engaged in actions to coverup your unlawful acts; as you committed, aided and abetted this criminal activity.
After review in the U. S. Attorney General Office, the case was thought of as being so egregious that even the infamous Bradley Schlozman, whom is now fired and facing Federal indictment with resigned former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez for removing Democratic attorneys from the U. S. Attorneys Generals offices nationwide, sent al-Hakim a letter referring the matter (because of jurisdictional limitations) to then California State Attorney General- now Governor Jerry Brown, California State Bar Association, the California State Judicial Council, and California State Insurance Commissioner for investigation and prosecution. And these were Republican Judges and attorney’s being complained of!
Full Story with Videos and Documents at http://tinyurl.com/ljk8av
The Alameda County District Attorney (DA), the Attorney General of The State of California (AG) and the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) and their judicial team of covert illicit participants the putative accounting expert that created and complied the entire presumptively inadmissible product and evidence of admitted fraud and bribery, the accounting report used as the sole basis for the judgment by Commissioner Glenn Oleon despite the fact he knew it was the product of fraud.
al-Hakim and Family assert that good cause exists to question the legality of the standing of ALL the Parties including the Attorney General of The State of California (AG), Kamala Harris, whom substituted in as Attorney of Record allegedly representing The People of The State of California, et. al., In The Interest of Justice in this case for the Alameda County District Attorney (DA) and the Alameda County Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) as they exercised a clearly illegal conflict of interest in misrepresenting the family, conducting a complete trial to defend their illegal actions and evidence before admitting the conflict AFTER the trial was completed. This act makes them ALL a co-conspirator in the DCSSs continuing fraud upon The People of The Sate of California, the Superior Court and the al-Hakim Family, continuing their persecution of our family. They did not have standing then and CAN NOT NOW!
Then California Attorney General and now Governor Jerry Brown, responsible for carrying out the investigation of Oakland City Attorney John Russo, former Oakland and current San Leandro City Attorney Jayne Williams, former District Attorney Tom Orloff, current District Attorney Nancy E. O’Malley, Alameda County Superior Court, the State Appeals and Supreme Court judges, and various corporate defendants in this case is himself defending some of the criminals and covering up the very same corruption he is supposed to be investigating and prosecuting! Once served with the complaint, he denied rejecting it for investigation and NEVER moved forward with it.
In addition to the 56 listed complaints served on Clay over the years, al-Hakim has had many contacts, conversations, exchanged voice mail messages, faxes, emails, filed and served documents with and on Clay and his clerk Elaine Kabling on April 18, 2012; April 19, 2012; May 1, 2012, May 15, 2012; August 22, 2012; September 4, 2012, regarding a personal meeting on the open fraud investigation involving the Oakland City Attorney, various Judges, the District Attorney’s Office, their producing documents, resolving the many outstanding issues, that al-Hakim had previously spoke with Rich Cowan, met with Dan Lindhiem, the City Administrator regarding some of these issues.
Clay’s current directive from Carvill is to preemptively obliterate, destroy ANY and ALL remaining legal options for al-Hakim to pursue his rightful truth and justice that will expose ALL his and Carvill’s many years of criminal corruption and cover up of those denials of his inherent civil rights, human rights, and basic decency afforded to anyone, everyone, in his effort to please the MAN!
Now Clay is representing Carvill’s and his own interests in this matter BEFORE HIMSELFas judge makes Clay a litigant.
The most important result of that hearing is that Clay has officially made himself a defendant and fourth element in this case. Though currently sitting as the judge in this matter he is now a witness, defendant, co-defense counsel and deputy defense judge ruling in matters that he has lied and has been deceitful about and is personally involved in with Carvill, in an action that was brought by the defendants BEFORE HIM to establish HIS right to sit and rule in the same matter that HE and Carvill are personally involved in and HE sits in judgment of HIMSELF and Carvill BEFORE HIMSELF! His actions has the unfortunate consequence of making the judge a litigant, obliged to the defense counsel providing this opportunity to defend himself as the sitting judge of the litigants appearing before him in the case. ( Kerr v. United States District Court, supra, 426 U.S. at pp. 402-403 [48 L.Ed.2d at p. 732].) Judges should be umpires rather than players. This is a travesty and a mockery of justice with clear conflict while it wreaks of corruption and collusion!
4. Defendants has Conspired, Consorted, Colluded and Conceived Litigation Strategy with Judicial, Law Enforcement, Governmental and Legal Entities.
The last 40 years al-Hakim has documented, filed and served court actions, filed and served complaints and filed and served correspondence memorializing and exposing the 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 to suffer at their individual and collective gavels and authorities.
al-Hakim proves where charges has shown that previously, under color of law, these judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities criminal corruption and persecution sought to deprive plaintiff of litigation due him contrary to the right to due process and immunity from takings without due process is a gross abuse of discretion in violation of the law that will violate plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under the First, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; First Clause of Section 13 of Article I of California Constitution, art. VI, § 4 1/2; California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 355, 356, 473, 475; Civ. Code, §§ 3523, 3528.
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through counsel Anna Hsia has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived their vexatious litigation strategy with third parties, Twitter and their law firm Perkins Coie LLP with counsel Winnie Hung; Google and their law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. with counsel Kelly M. Knoll; JP Morgan Chase Bank and their law firm Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, with counsel William E. Ireland, Brett G. Moore; Alameda County Superior Court Administration and Chad Finke; Alameda County District Attorney and Nancy O’Malley; Office of the Oakland City Attorney and Barbara J. Parker; Department of Child Support Services and director Matthew A. Brega; Judicial Council of California with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Victoria B. Henley, Martin Hoshino, Marshall Grossman.
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with other parties that in open court announced themselves as “court observers” when questioned “who are you and why are you here (in court)?”. The two that were there at that time refused to give their names or whom they worked for.
There were/are at least these three, two whom announced themselves as “court observers” that attended at least four hearings and openly consorted with the conspirators before and in court and at all times refused to give their names or whom they worked for.
There were/are at least these three other third party governmental authority “court observers” that has attended hearings in other al-Hakim matters that consorted with the opposing party conspirators.
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with third party governmental authorities.
On at least two occasions Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia, with their third party co-conspirators began to affect this vexatious litigation strategy by asking the court to order that plaintiff reveal his litigation strategy.
On at least two occasions Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia, with their third party co-conspirators began to affect this vexatious litigation strategy by asking plaintiff to reveal his litigation strategy and openly opined that this was a “corruption investigation”.
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsia has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy aimed at providing the court an opportunity to enact it’s agenda of foreclosing on al-Hakim’s legal rights as Hsia attempts to exercise “White Class Privilege” to stoke the ever present court corruption and animus toward al-Hakim to victory without doing nor proving anything else!
Co- Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsai has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities.
Defendants Equinix and Interserver, with and through their counsel Anna Hsai ADMITTED in open court at the October 3, 2018, hearing that she has conspired, consorted, colluded and conceived this vexatious litigation strategy with judicial, law enforcement, governmental and legal entities, and they were willing to file declarations and documents in support of the motion, accepted as including but not limited to Twitter and their law firm Perkins Coie LLP with counsel Winnie Hung; Google and their law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. with counsel Kelly M. Knoll; JP Morgan Chase Bank and their law firm Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP, with counsel William E. Ireland, Brett G. Moore; Alameda County Superior Court Administration and Chad Finke (Judicial Council of California with Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Victoria B. Henley, Martin Hoshino, Marshall Grossman); Alameda County District Attorney and Nancy O’Malley; Office of the Oakland City Attorney and Barbara J. Parker; and defendant Wellpoint-CSAA.
I remain very, very concerned about Clay’s heightening TERROR TACTICS in the courtroom and unless and until this issue can be fairly resolved BEFORE the next hearing scheduled IN DEPARTMENT 6, BEFORE JUDGE CLAY, I CAN NOT in good conscience, OUT OF FEAR, agree to APPEAR with ANY of the continuing outstanding conditions referenced in that complaint regrading Clay’s State sponsored TERROR I was entrapped in and FORCED to endure by Clay in his own personal torture chambers, HIS COURTROOM!
I am and will be subject to the continued fraud, corruption and collusion complained of in ALL the aforementioned herein and further, I request an OPEN hearing on these matters before an impartial judge.
This matter may need to be transferred to another county venue on fair trial grounds as provided by CCP §397(b) where the influence of the Judges, district attorney, city attorney and opposing litigants is not so inextricably intertwined with judicial interests.
Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501

Request for Investigation of Non Notice from California Appeals Court

TO:        Beth Robbins
Charles Johnson
Deputy Clerk
First District Court of Appeal
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco CA 94102
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: November 7, 2018 
NO PAGES: 4
RE: Appellant al-Hakim’s Request for Information/Investigation Non-Service of Notice, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim vs. Superior Court, Appeals case: Appeal Case No.A153640, Superior Court case No.: C-811337
Dear Ms. Robbins and Mr. Johnson: 
On October 9, 2018, I sent a two page fax and email to both Beth Robbins and Charles Johnson, Deputy Clerks of the First District Court of Appeal entitled “Request for Information/Investigation Non-Service of Notice, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim vs. Superior Court, Appeals case: Appeal Case No.A153640, Superior Court case No.: C-811337”.
I specifically asked of Ms. Robbins and Mr. Johnson:
I was NEVER served any filing notice of any type from the Appeals Court of any motion to dismiss by CSAA, no briefing schedule, no schedule of motion practice, and this clearly should have been the practice of the courts as it has before with Anne Reasoner and Truefiling. I NEVER received any email, or U. S. postal mail from Reasoner or the appeals court nor any electronic service from TrueFiling, which is the norm, and there is NO RECORD of any type that any of them sent any notice of any type to me! 
How is it possible for this to even happen and the court does NOT acknowledge that it IS a reason for the unopposed motion, and there is NO RECORD of any type that the appeals court EVER sent ANY notices of any type regarding the motion to dismiss to me?!
I respectfully ask the court to conduct and provide an extensive Information/Investigation to explain “what happened?”.
On October 12, 2018, you both sent a reply that merely mentions that the defendants had submitted a proof of service dated June 22, 2018, that was allegedly served via mail and electronically to two different email addresses, 1) one that he has admitted to the courts that he has been blocked from sending email to for years due to his giving that email address to a commercial business without my knowledge or approval and 2) the other email address he knows is not mine. There NEVER was any U.S. mail nor personal service of any documents.
However, what is most notable is they failed and refused to answer the question regarding their inaction in providing ANY proof of their having EVER served ANY notice of any kind of their receiving the motion to dismiss, NOTHING served on plaintiff even remotely noticing the motion, no briefing schedule, no schedule of motion practice and this clearly should have been the practice of the courts as it has before with Anne Reasoner and Truefiling. I NEVER received any email, or U. S. postal mail from Reasoner or the appeals court nor any electronic service from TrueFiling.
I asked that YOU investigate this aspect of this colossal failure and provide the information as to what happened but YOU refused to do that, instead YOU want to ignore it and it cover up!
The Appeals court, Judge Barbara Jones and the court clerks are blocking and providing interference for judge Kim Colwell to make her “end run” and complete her fraud and corruption in her Order for sale of plaintiff’s Dwelling BEFORE his Motion to Vacate the Order, which was uncontested by defendants, was to be heard and has been continued by the court under an illegal Appeals stay since February 2018. 
Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Order granting the sale of plaintiff home is NOT an appealable order and is NOT subject to the automatic stay pending appeals, just as the defendants motion for sale of the dwelling with an undertaking is NOT subject to the automatic stay, which Colwell ruled the sale of dwelling could and did go forward, yet she has continued to delay the resolution to plaintiff’s motion to vacate that was uncontested by defendants! This would reverse the ruling made by Judge Colwell for the sale of the Dwelling!!!
For the last three months Colwell has been begging the Appeals court to expedite the Remitter in the motion to dismiss so she can quickly rule on the motion to vacate with a denial! 
To deny such a serious motion when the appeals court was willfully and intentionally derelict in their NON-SERVICE of ANY notices to al-Hakim and CSAA obvious fraud, there is NO place for this in modern society much less in a courtroom before the people! It is even more enlightening in respects to the calumny deceit and denial of due process employed in it, that al-Hakim have complained of for years. This order in response to al-Hakim’s actions of merely invoking his rights to petition the courts was the very epitome of specious retaliation and heinous denial of due process FORCED on al-Hakim by defendants.
The Appeals courts actions depriving al-Hakim of litigation due him is unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference to the rights of al-Hakim, caused by the policies and practices of CSAA, which acts described herein have caused damages to al-Hakim with these Constitutional violations of al-Hakim’s rights.
The Appeals courts actions are repressive and has denied al-Hakim’s civil rights and due process, an equal opportunity to participate in unbiased pursuit of his legal claims as if these are still the dark days of American history when Black people had no rights at all!; This conduct and ongoing corruption of CSAA has resulted in Constitutional violations of al-Hakim’s rights, is tantamount to a scheme to hinder, deny and defraud al-Hakim.
The right for a litigant to challenge the fraud and corruption of the court and CSAA is second only to The GREATEST right a litigant has enshrined in the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to a fair trial! al-Hakim will ALWAYS continue the SLAVE DRIVEN FOUR HUNDRED YEAR fight for civil and human rights, the rights to the truth, justice, to evidence and testimony, to due process, equal protection, equal access to an unbiased legal process as is his OBLIGATION AND RIGHT under the U. S. Constitution Amendments I, V, VI, VIII, and XIV!
Defendants obtained TWO orders that were the product of their non-service litigation strategy of fraud and deceit when:

  1. they moved the Bankruptcy court and held a hearing on May 16, 2018, when they knew I had served prior notice on ALL the courts 6 weeks earlier that I would be in the annual retreat for the Holy Month of Ramadan from May 14, 2018 until June 20, 2018 and unavailable to respond to any litigation and got a judgment without notice nor serving any documents; and
  2. this motion to dismiss that was granted!

On January 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint and it is already outdated.The Complaint concerns the Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Demand for Removal of Judges For Cause; Due to Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law; 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)); Fraud Upon The Court by Judge Kim Colwell; and to Vacate ALL Rulings and Orders Issued IN THE MATTERS OF: al-Hakim v. EBMUD, al-Hakim v. CSAA; and Miller v. al-Hakim.
On February 9, 2018, I sent Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Associate Justices of the Court and Judges Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Pulido, Grillo, Markman and Carvill, Alex Tse, Phyllis Hamilton, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS a 117 page complaint concerning the Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption; Manipulation; Obstruction of Justice in Motions for Peremptory Challenge; Demand for Removal of Judges For Cause; Due to Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law; 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)); Fraud Upon The Court by Judge Kim Colwell; and to Vacate ALL Rulings and Orders Issued IN THE MATTERS OF: al-Hakim v. EBMUD, al-Hakim v. CSAA; and Miller v. al-Hakim. It is already out dated.
An example of the defendants tactic of non-service of motion papers and conspiring with the court clerks working for them and causing a civil problem is on September 20, 2018 the Dept. 511 court clerks feigned getting any notice of the opposition and the court ruled that since there was no opposition to the tentative ruling thus it is  adopted as “unopposed”. Clearly there were THREE NOTICES filed with the court clerk and this still happened. 
Again on October 11, 2018, Plaintiff was forced to file another Complaint against the court and Department 511 clerks for same with Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton- Chief District Judge, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Freedman, Grillo, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse- Director, U. S. Attorney’s Office, Xavier Becerra-Attorney General of California, Martin Hoshino- Director Judicial Council of California, Victoria Henley- Director Chief Counsel Commission on Judicial Performance, Chad Finke- Executive Officer Superior Court of Alameda County and 90 OTHERS, that CSAA- Wellpoint and “Department 511 Still Engaging in Perverting and Obstructing Justice, and Due Administration of the Law in Tentative Ruling issued in two motions of September 20, 2018”!
I implore this court to investigate this matter of the Appeals Court evading the proper response to their refusal to serve any notice of any kind to plaintiff regarding the defendants motion to dismiss and make those finding available to part of the record on appeal as it may explain/prove why the motion was uncontested! 
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration. 
Respectfully,
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501

PROOF of Judge Kim Colwell Fraud in al-HAKIM VS CSAA; Complaint Department 511 Perverting and Obstructing Justice, and Due Administration of the Law; Judicial Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy

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
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:     October 11, 2018
NO PAGES: 5 plus Exhibits
RE:        Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim’s PROOF of Judge Kim Colwell Fraud in al-HAKIM VS CSAA- Wellpoint, Alameda County Superior Court Case: #C811337; Complaint of Department 511 Still Engaging in Perverting and Obstructing Justice, and Due Administration of the Law in Tentative Ruling issued in two motions of September 20, 2018.“JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED!!”
“Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Matthew 7:1-3“The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew”
Dear Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Judges Phyllis Hamilton, Jacobson, Rolefson, Carvill, Kaus, Colwell, Krashna, Clay, Lee, Murphy, Smith, Patton, Freedman, Grillo, Markman and Carvill; Alex Tse, Xavier Becerra, Ms. Henley, Mr. Finke, Mr. Hoshino and OTHERS:
I have previously sent you ALL a 117 page Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption Complaint that was already outdated before I could file it!
This Complaint concerns, exposes and underscores the Judicial and Superior Court Administration Corruption, Collusion, and Conspiracy in the cases of Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim involving Judges Wynne Carvill, Kim Colwell, and Michael Markman with Chad Finke,among others with the Manipulation of the record and Register of Actions; Obstruction of Justice, Conduct To Pervert or Obstruct Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and Conspiracy to Pervert or Obstruct Justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)); the continued Fraud Upon The Court by Judges Colwell and Wynne Carvill with Criminal Conduct In Violation of The Law!

On September 18, 2018, I previously filed and served notice via fax and email on the court that I had a Standing Opposition to ALL Tentative Rulings made in al-Hakim vs. CSAA, Case: #C-811337,and that I was unavailable for hearing on Thursday, September 20, 2018, and that the court has scheduled that hearing on a date they know I will not be available and requested that they continue the hearing to a date that they KNOW I will.
It is well established with the courts and defendants that plaintiff has a 50 year religious commitments and is unavailable on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, and that hearing was set for Thursday, September 20, 2018, 9:00 a.m., in Department 511, a date I can NOT attend.
For that reason, I requested that the hearings be continued to a Monday or Wednesday thereafter, with the understanding that he has court dates pending on September 26, 2018; October 3, 2018; October 15, 2018; October 22, 2018; and October 24, 2018, while awaiting dates for three other matters.
The court continued the dates, but issued an order that the tentative ruling was “uncontested”. That is NOT TRUE!
As stated, I contacted the court THREE times via fax and email PRIOR to the 4:00 PM deadline, and I have the faxes and emails to prove it!(See attached email from Scott Sanchez department 511 court clerk) In one email exchange on September 19, 2018, the department 511 court clerk replied to the filed opposition with a facetious question of “Do you have a case number?”; to which I replied “It’s in the Subject line, the REFERENCE: line and the body of the letter. Did you miss it somehow?”.
This intentionally erroneous ruling/order must be corrected immediately as clearly department 511 is still engaging in perverting and obstructing justice, and the due administration of the law.
One of the motions is a motion to vacate Colwell’s order granting the sale of my home which she has continued since April 2018, under the guise that it is subject to stay from the appeal, which it is NOT no differently than the motion to sell the home with an undertaking, in her effort to assure the home would be sold BEFORE the motion could be heard!
Judge Colwell and her court administrative staff has subverted and obstructed, perverted and defeat the course of justice, the due administration of the laws and administration of justice.
Judge Colwell and her administrative staff is guilty of manipulating the calendar, changing motions and the calendar weekly, without any pleadings nor notice! I have asked before “Why and how did this motion manage to be removed from the calendar, by who and when? This also happened with the recent motions to compel as they were left off the calendar but mysteriously the motion to vacate and set aside the renewed judgment and the motion for terminating sanctions and other relief was placed on the calendar! On both the last two hearing dates the Case Management Conferences were also left off the calendar and tentative rulings! on 12/13/17 hearing the court will decide that motion.
The complaints involve the court Department Clerk’s administration mishandling of motions with them being mis-titled or changing the title of motions as filed, calendared unwanted motions without notice or cause, calendared motions without notice, motions being dropped from the calendar without notice, parties missing from rulings without notice or cause, parties being removed without notice or cause, changing orders, changing tentative rulings, calendaring motions that were NOT requested, posting tentative rulings AFTER the scheduled hearing time, deleting items from the register of actions, and falsifying the record (for appeal), are VERY SERIOUS threats to the Rule of Law as practiced by the acceptable courts in America! Perhaps even MORE dangerous is the silence that pervades the court when asked “Why, How and by Whom?”
I have many unanswered questions for this court and Judges Carvill, Jacobson, Rolefson, Petrou, Herbert, Markham, and Freedman, among others, that MUST be addressed regarding the continued corruption and persecution I, my family, businesses, and communities we serve continue to suffer at your individual and collective gavels.
Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have entered information into the court’s computers to make it appear that the register of actions and record on appeal would not reflect what actually occurred in the cases. In some cases, the fraudulently created/altered records made it appear that certain matters had been dismissed or certain parties were NEVER apart of an action or motion.
The actions of falsifying court records had been complained of to Colwell and the presiding and supervising judges to no avail!
Given that I have had no response from the judges, nor the court administration, including Chad Finke refusing to comply with three subpoenas and request for production of documents and the Judicial Council with the same, I have no choice but to file actions with the responsible agencies to discover this information and resolve the legal concerns expressed for years.
Colwell and her Court Administration Perverts or Obstructs Justice, or the Due Administration of the Laws
Under section 182, subdivision (a)(5), it is a crime for two or more persons to conspire to commit any act “to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws.” (Pen.Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4570) 1 and conspiracy to pervert or obstruct justice (§ 182, subd. (a)(5)).
In 1950, the California Supreme Court explained the meaning of an act that perverts or obstructs justice, or the due administration of the laws:
“Generally speaking, conduct which constitutes an offense against public justice, or the administration of law includes both malfeasance and nonfeasance by an officer in connection with the administration of his public duties, and also anything done by a person in hindering or obstructing an officer in the performance of his official obligations. Such an offense was recognized at common law and generally punishable as a misdemeanor. Now, quite generally, it has been made a statutory crime and, under some circumstances, a felony.
Section 182, subdivision 5,[7] is a more general section making punishable a conspiracy to commit any offense against public justice. The meaning of the words ‘to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due administration of the laws’ is easily ascertained by reference either to the common law or to the more specific crimes enumerated in part I, title [7]. A conspiracy with or among public officials not to perform their official duty to enforce criminal laws is an obstruction of justice and an indictable offense at common law.
The Court of Appeal expanded upon Lorenson in Davis v. Superior Court (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 8 (Davis ).
In Davis, the Court of Appeal held that conduct that perverts or obstructs justice is not necessarily limited to crimes listed in part 1, title 7 of the Penal Code, nor are all crimes in that title necessarily crimes that pervert or obstruct justice:
“The reference [in Lorenson ] to ‘Crimes Against Public Justice’ does not necessarily exclude a crime not defined within the four corners of that part 1, title [7], of the Penal Code․  The court’s reference to such crimes was illustrative, rather than exclusionary;  the type of conduct with which title [7] principally deals falls within the category of acts ‘to pervert or obstruct justice.’
From Davis, the Attorney General relies on the sentence, “The court’s reference to such crimes [found in part 1, title 7 of the Penal Code] was illustrative, rather than exclusionary;  the type of conduct with which title [7] principally deals falls within the category of acts ‘to pervert or obstruct justice.’ ”  (Davis, supra, 175 Cal.App.2d at p. 16.)
The court ruled in Gallegos- Curiel, 681 F.2d at 1169 (“[T]he appearance of vindictiveness results only where, as a practical matter, there is a realistic or reasonable likelihood of prosecutorial conduct that would not have occurred but for hostility or a punitive animus towards the defendant because he has exercised his specific legal rights.) (citing Goodwin, 457 U.S. at 373, 384). The mere appearance of prosecutorial vindictiveness suffices to place the burden on the government because the doctrine of vindictive prosecution “seeks[s] to reduce or eliminate apprehension on the part of an accused” that she may be punished for exercising her rights. Ruesga-Martinez, 534 F.2d at 1369. As the district court noted, the “prophylactic” doctrine is designed, in part, “to prevent chilling the exercise of [legal] rights by other defendants who must make their choices under similar circumstances in the future.” United States v. DeMarco, 550 F.2d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 1977).
Colwell and the Dept. 511 court clerks have ignored the rule of law, undermined public safety and compromised the justice system by tampering with the record have actually prevented the orderly administration of justice. As Faretta recognized, the record can only be read as an attempt to abuse the dignity of the courtroom and impugn the integrity of the rule of law as their actions “deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct” (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 834-835, fn. 46. at pp. 834-835, fn. 46 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 581, fn. 46]) that threatens to subvert the core concept of a trial.
This scheme may have affected hundreds of cases and caused havoc in Superior Court – problems that are further complicated if the judge or clerk encouraged others to lie about the scheme.
The FBI should investigate this complaint of corruption by the judges, court administration, Colwell, the Dept. 511 court clerks and those with access to this sensitive information and hold them accountable for their actions.
There have been a litany of administrative abuses in these matters that is directly attributable to Colwell. This matter may need to be transferred to another county venue on fair trial grounds as provided by CCP §397(b) where the influence of the Judges, district attorney, city attorney and opposing litigants is not so inextricably intertwined with judicial interests.
Something must be done about this immediately!
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration.
Respectfully,
ABDUL-JALIL al-HAKIM
510-394-4501

Request for Information/Investigation Non-Service of Notice California Appeals Court

TO:        Beth Robbins
Charles Johnson
Deputy Clerk
First District Court of Appeal
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco CA 94102
FROM: Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
DATE: October 9, 2018 
NO PAGES: 2
RE: Appellant al-Hakim’s Request for Information/Investigation Non-Service of Notice, Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim vs. Superior Court, Appeals case: Appeal Case No.A153640, Superior Court case No.: C-811337
Dear Ms. Robbins and Mr. Johnson: 
On July 27, 2018, I received an Order from the Appeals Court dated July 16, 2018, dismissing the above action due to an “unopposed” June 22, 2018, motion to dismiss filed by Defendant-Respondent, CSAA- Wellpoint Asset Recovery LLC. The order is stamped  by P J Jones (Presiding Judge Barbara J. R. Jones) and filed by Charles D. Johnson, Clerk, on the same date.
I was NEVER served any motion to dismiss by CSAA, nor any motion to compel discovery by CSAA, and this is clearly a well established patterned litigation practice employed by them and I have brought this fact to the attention of the courts many, many times before as well as they historically NEVER have any supporting proof of service that is legally and properly executed, is always unsigned so that they are NOT under the penalty of perjury. The order is the unsavory product of CSAA’s unscrupulous, immoral fraud and that immorality has been drastically redefined in recent times, arguably the boundaries of what is judicially acceptable remain publicly policed!
I was NEVER served any filing notice of any type from the Appeals Court of any motion to dismiss by CSAA, no briefing schedule, no schedule of motion practice, and this clearly should have been the practice of the courts as it has before with Anne Reasoner and Truefiling. I NEVER received any email, or U. S. postal mail from Reasoner or the appeals court nor any electronic service from TrueFiling, which is the norm, and there is NO RECORD of any type that any of them sent any notice of any type to me! 
How is it possible for this to even happen and the court does NOT acknowledge that it IS a reason for the unopposed motion, and there is NO RECORD of any type that the appeals court EVER sent ANY notices of any type regarding the motion to dismiss to me?!
I respectfully ask the court to conduct and provide an extensive Information/Investigation to explain “what happened?”.
Call if you have any questions, and “Thank you” for your consideration. 
Respectfully,
Abdul-Jalil al-Hakim
510-394-4501