All of this is bad enough. But it is made worse by the central irony hanging over this case: The reason the case is toxic is because the District Attorney and DCSS alleged “representing” the family, their creation and use of the presumptively inadmissible product and evidence of admitted fraud and bribery in the proceedings, the substantive merit of their paid testifying witness for admitted fraudulent evidence and testimony on that subject, the judgment as the illegitimate product of an partial court, conducting a complete trial to defend their illegal actions and evidence before admitting the conflict. For nearly a quarter century, the District Attorney and DCSS showered praise on itself and the judiciary, extolling its impartiality and independence in an effort to persuade this Court to award litigation in it’s favor. That effort succeeded. The Court concluded the case in their favor every time with dubious and illegal rulings that contravened procedural law despite the evidence and testimony as it had “everything to do with extorting money from al-Hakim and persecuting the family and nothing to do with the truth, facts or evidence.