Dear Clerk:
 
 
          Please accept this concise letter in lieu as a formal petition for rehearing the Court's judgment entered on June 19, 2018 in the above-entitled case. 
 
 
          No matter what or how the immoral, corrupt and deceptive court and judicial system hardly tried to deceive themselves to betray the "Constitution" that [no] longer exist[s] in the real world, or rather "held with the letter of the law in the dumpster", the substantial central question they maneuvered to escape and avoid is obviously clear concerning, whether the corrupt disqualified Judge Esther Salas [h]as any jurisdiction over Google matter [t]o enter any orders after her recusal motion from both cases against the idiotic and moronic "FBI" agency and the Google gang monopoly was filed and pending nine (9) days prior to her retaliatory modification and dismissal orders.  The law unambiguously says she must [NOT]. 
 
  
          The other secondary basic question is whether a personal "property" of an email address should be seized or taken without notice or due process of the law or searched and placed under spying surveillance without [a] search warrant on the solely obvious basis of religious belief and national origin.  The final question is whether a corporation can modify the caption based on a conversion occurred after the lawsuit was long filed.  The Court failed miserably to answer any of these essential questions concerning the public in and out the U.S.  Instead, the Court strayed into prohibited land to attack the pleading of the Complaint itself, which is irrelevant to the aforementioned significant question of law presented to the Court.  It went further to ignore the important question the appeal stemmed from to rumble around the contexts of the complaint, not the merits in the absence of filing an opposition to challenge Defendants' frivolous arguments due depriving him from affording the right and opportunity to respond as the Plaintiff, the opposing party for their defective service both the Court and the Defendants were fully aware of, as argued, for which prejudicial factor was harmful to the Plaintiff's cause where this Court tried to play game around to unpersuasively shift the blame from one direction to another to escape answering the main question of law regarding the strayed disqualified and divested jurisdiction Judge Esther Salas [op. 5, 2].  The appellate court [is] refrained from instigating "argument" on behalf of either party.  The defective service was raised below and above and ignored.  The Appellees failed to raise their argument below or above to counter.  [I]f it [not] raised below, [i]t must [be] waived above [.]  This is the logical principle the "Kangaroo Court" everywhere abides by and adheres to before the U.S. ever known to the "judicial" world.  Assuming, if failure to respond meant unfavorable judgment, so should the Court apply it equally to the Appellees who failed to respond to this appeal.  In fact, neither of their appearance nor business disclosure filing in this Court was ever served upon the Plaintiff.  We learned about through your front desk computer at the Clerk's Office.  The Appellees have no way to prove otherwise.  The burden of proof of service is always on the "professional liar" affiant, [not] the challenger of the service for which remained irrelevant to the core question and subject of disqualification and divested jurisdiction of the judge under appeal [w]ho entered two orders while out of authority, jurisdiction and discretion according to the law the Court reluctant or rather refused to abide by and adhere to for [no] apparent reason.  To affirm then is to shame yourselves and your judiciary, plain and simple.
 
 
          In contrast to this Court awkward doctrine, the Florida Supreme Court recently reinforced its position that the primary policy of the courts should be to see that cases are decided on their merits and not dismissed due to "mere technicalities."  In making this strong statement, the court significantly dulled the sharp edge of motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, which is not the case here, as erroneously interpreted below and above.  The court realized that the continuous existence of dismissal Rule threatens the goal of every attorney in the state to improve the image of their profession and of their judicial system "in the eyes of the public", as we perfectly argued time after time.  Allowing cases to be dismissed on technicalities and against the plain language of the rule is inconsistent with that goal and the courts' interpretation of the constitutional right to access the courts [.]    
  
 
          Although Rule 12(d) under which Appellees' dismissal motion was filed, mandates, "All parties must [be] given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion" for which both the District and the Circuit overlooked.  It further mandates "a party that makes a motion under this rule must [not] make another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the party but omitted from its earlier motion," Rule 12(g)(2) for which the Appellees violated and the District Court failed to abide by its mandatory language to render both decisions below and above void.  Henceforth, in that Abulkhair was [not] "given any opportunity to present any material that is pertinent to the motion”, notwithstanding Google made another motion in violation, and prohibited by the Rule.  [T]he record does [not] lie [.]
  
 
          Here, however, Abulkhair stated grounds in his response sufficient to have precluded dismissal.  Abulkhair argued he filed a motion to recuse Judge Esther Salas from his both matters against the FBI and Google in particular and this motion [w]as still pending [.]  As all sister courts everywhere has observed as in  Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky, 781 So.2d 1063 (Fla.2000), the Florida Supreme Court held the trial Judge [must] immediately rule on [a] motion [t]o recuse, even though [t]he movant does not request [a] hearing, and can[not] rule on [a] motion [t]o dismiss while [t]he recusal motion [is] pending [.]   Accordingly, the disqualified amateur Judge Esther Salas lacked jurisdiction and failed to abide and adhere to this undisputable principle when and where [s]he ruled on the Appellees' motion [t]o dismiss while [t]he recusal motion [was] pending [,] so this Court followed her footsteps to affirm the wrong that [is] based [on] wrong cannot be "modified" nor dignified to be right [.]  The reversal is the only cure, not the "amended complaint" as erroneously asserted below and above.  If you have the desire to challenge the law and beat our meritorious legitimate argument, please make sure to follow the constitution and the letter of the law [as] it [is] written since your opinion demonstrated anything [but] law [.]    
   
 
          In fact, Abulkhair moved to recuse Judge Esther Salas from his both matters against the "FBI" and "Google" on *("February 28, 2018")* and the record does [not] show an order on the recusal motion prior entering her "swift" dismissal on (March 9, 2018) before even the time to respond to the "second motion" expired of this pend[ing] matter, recusal motion, and dismissal motion.  All of which was pending, at that point in time.  This is the same corrupt irresponsible Judge who neglected the FBI matter for two consecutive years without showing any activity or issuing any orders.   As a matter of fact, in her defiance to all of the federal and state laws and statutes, the disqualified "Judge Esther Salas" has waited two (2) months after to snoop and analyze first all of Abulkhair's arguments submitted to the Circuit in four (4) different appellate briefs during that period to finally deny her recusal "without prejudice" on *("April 20, 2018")* to please and appease the Appellees in both matters.  This matter may have been resolved and Abulkhair regain his email had Judge Salas respected the law and recused herself except for her ego to "follow" an order.  However, Abulkhair also was seeking review of her dismissal order entered in the "FBI" case and alerted the District and Appellees of the defective service involved during the time frame that formed the basis for the motion to dismiss as the blatant record clearly showed.  At this crucial juncture, the disqualified Judge Esther Salas lacked jurisdiction to enter any orders in the within matter [,] and can[not] rule on [a] motion [t]o dismiss while [t]he recusal motion [is] pending but her recusal [.]   This specific recusal order [is] absent from the record prior [t]o her "modify caption" and "dismissal" orders for which rendered both void to be reversed without regard.  This is the rule of law this Court tried to maneuver around and to deviate itself from to render us the ultimate winner "[i]n the eye of the public", and more importantly though, "[i]n the eye of [t]he law" [.]
  
 
          [T]o make our point crystal clear, one way or another, [w]e w[o]n with merit despite the frivolous opinion under review and all other will follow.  We compelled the wrongdoers along with the perverters of justice to disgracefully depart and deviate without regard from their constitution, law, principle, value they may "hypocritically" assert or "pretend" to adhere to in their effort to deceive the outside world which no longer buys.  Thanks to our admirable valor language !![!]  To this end, this pure petition must be published to urge and encourage an honest motivated conscientious experienced attorney at international law to file on our behalf civil lawsuits and criminal charges against Google and the FBI in the International Court relying on the same complaints, facts and events published through the internet, except applying and complying with the international laws instead of the U.S. which no courts abide by within since "the land of the cowards" can [not] produce those possess the virtue of moral courage fearing retaliation from their own "democratic" government.  We hereby must warn and put "Google" on [a] Notice to cease and desist surrounding our publications with its commercial ads from placing them around or between the paragraphs.  If they attempt to defy this notice or distort the publication by any method, each ad and violation would cost them "one billion dollars" to deter them.  Now, the "obtuse" brains can understand the definition of emphasizing and highlighting "[a] free email account" purpose.
 
  
          In contrast to the Court's erroneous finding that "The only way to cure the defects in his complaint was to file an amended complaint" [op. 5, 2], which was [a] nice try to excuse failure to answer the more important questions they faced for the first time.  Abulkhair cannot file any amended complaint to be adjudicated before the same disqualified judge whose recusal sought and [was] pend[ing] while actively challenging her recusal.   In her ferocious and retaliatory challenge, Judge Esther Salas dismissed this matter after nine (9) days while her recusal motion [w]as filed and pend[ing].   Please revisit another law school out of the U.S. to learn more about the law and the proper interpretation of the law that way far from an "obtuse" self-centered mind [.]
 
  
          If, in fact, the District Court divested its jurisdiction in the first place to dismiss the case at the time its orders were entered, its dismissal must be rendered [t]o be annulled and voided.  Henceforth, this Court's baseless affirmation must be rendered the same as well.  In essence, the Court failed or rather avoided to answer the basic and key question surrounding the inevitable recusal and disqualification factor of the disqualified Judge Salas since there is [no] single case law available to support its amateur ruling except to ignore the central question altogether.  Otherwise, this compelling petition would have been prevented and obviated [.]    
 
       
          The "smart" Court for its satanic bogus reason to ("affirm") ignored the Plaintiff's extraordinary meritorious response to its inquiry dated and filed (May 28, 2018) under the "FBI" Appeal Case No. 18-1930 to separate both appeals concerning [t]he same disqualified Judge where Abulkhair decisively made his powerful point crystal clear that the corrupt ignorant Judge Esther Salas defied the federal and state law which divested her jurisdiction and discretion over both of Abulkhair's matters, specifically, Google's case upon filing her recusal motion on *("February 28, 2018")* since the matter was pending and no order was issued yet.  The separation of both appeals from being handled and ruled by the same appellate team was an undeniable harmful error since both cases [are] married in judgment and fate from the moment "Google" had decided [t]o pass over Abulkhair's email "password" with[out] a search warrant or [t]he FISA Order [t]o the "federal", [not] "state" agency, "FBI" to spy, freeze, and eventually seized it, directed and ordered by the FBI until the corrupt judiciary woke up to realize the seriousness of the issue they brought forward to deal with for which effects everybody everywhere around the globe.  At this crucial juncture, Judge Salas possessed [no] authority whatsoever [t]o issue any orders regarding this matter when and where the federal and state law unequivocally mandated, as indicated in Abulkhair's (May 28, 2018) letter brief mentioned above in paragraph 13 and 14 attached hereto to be part of the record of this appeal as already "filed" under the "FBI" matter [:] 
 
 
[W]henever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and filed a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge [shall] proceed [no] further therein, [but] another judge shall [be] assigned to hear such proceeding [.] Id.
 
[W]hile the motion is pending, the judge whose disqualification is sought [shall] make [no] further [orders] and take [no] further [action] on the case, except for good cause stated in the order in which such action is taken [.]  Id.
                             
 
The Court henceforth was fooling itself when its "unpersuasive" finding opined in its shadow footnote [op. 5, fn. 3] countered that the [disqualified] under recusal Judge Esther Salas "should have recused herself", as "Abulkhair argues" where the law contradicts its "bald findings" and otherwise to render its "unpersuasive" opinion frivolous at best.  In other words, if the law ("recusal law") [is] "unpersuasive" enough to be considered by the "Third Circuit Court of Appeals", what, if any, law or otherwise, would be more "persuasive" to rely upon to recuse the disqualified, biased, incompetent, and obtuse Judge Esther Salas.  The law is not only "persuasive" –– [but] mandated to recuse the disgraced disqualified obtuse Judge Esther Salas forthwith.  However, because you chose to betray the Constitution and the Laws you have sworn to uphold, [t]he deviation from the "rule of law" was the obvious result.  The "Kangaroo Court anywhere would [not] permit [a] disqualified judge to issue any further orders while his jurisdiction is divested pending recusal, as clearly [is] the case here [t]o shame this Court forever.  The challenged judge is [not] authorized to pass on the question of disqualification.  CAL. CIV. PRO. CODE § 170.3(C)(1) (West Supp. 1993) [.] 
  
 
"[W]hether disqualification of [a] judge hinges on [a] statute or on [a] rule, [the court] adheres to the liberal construction of that statute or rule in favor of [t]he right [t]o disqualify [.]" Id.
 
  
 Here, neither the District nor the Circuit set forth the grounds on which the disqualified Judge Salas should remain on both matters as mandated and guided by the higher court for which placed the obligation to identify the existence of those grounds upon the judge himself, rather than requiring recusal only in response to a party affidavit. Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994) at 548, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L. Ed.2d 474 (Bold emphasis added).  Therefore, this specific factual and legal response must be taken into consideration to rely on this petition for rehearing to enable an adequate review based on the law, not the deviation from the law as apparently present here.  Additionally, in its failure or attempt to escape the answer of the other important question presented regarding "modify the case caption (to reflect Google's recent conversion from a corporation to a limited liability company)" playing dump lawless by asserting, "he has failed to show how he was prejudiced by that order [op. 5, fn. 3].  Before questioning any prejudicial effect on the part of Abulkhair, you should have questioned yourselves why the "garbage" Google rushed themselves to convert their business after Abulkhair's suit if there will be no "prejudice" involved [.]  We may need an "expert" or [a] philosopher to educate the "professional liars" that if someone sued another covered with a million dollars insurance policy, then he changed it after being sued to $100,000, he would be definitely prejudiced by [t]he illegal conversion.  Abulkhair had already made this argument crystal clear to them, but the other side temptation of corruption smelled overwhelming to prevent them from following and abiding by the law.  Once the "date" of the lawsuit preceding the conversion date, the order under appeal is annul, void, and must be reversed.  Abulkhair's lawsuit against Google gangs was filed before their conversion and therefore its caption must be remained as filed.   This is the rule of law you intended to defy and disgrace for the sake of corruption, plain and simple.  This was motivated you to get there in the first place, not to serve justice.  Otherwise, you would have been compelled to follow the "letter of the law" that the New Yorker Judge advised us about, [not] to protect those idiotic and moronic gangs and conspirators enjoying dancing with [a] "gun" in their "pocket" to fall on the floor and injure the innocence they sworn to protect.  Let us remind you again of his everlasting kind words or rather scold to take with you to your bed every night to be able to sleep comfortable [:]
  
 
"Every decision of the trial court was arbitrary and capricious, the entire case was held in a cloak of secrecy with the letter of the law in the dumpster."  Id.
 
 
Although this Court was rambling about Abulkhair's email password passed by "Google" through to the "FBI" concerning its poor understanding of what conspiracy scheme under the law, it certainly did [not] or rather failed to answer whether Google's action and misconduct was compelled under the issuance of [a] search warrant obtained by [t]he FBI to force its unwarranted invasion of Abulkhair's privacy under the federal and state constitution and law.  In this instance, [a] search warrant [must] be obtained in order to invade Abulkhair's own email property by either "Google" or the "FBI" [.]  [T]his is the law of [t]he land according to the latest highest court's ruling positively answered, [i]t must [be] so.  The highest court ruled that cell  phone data [is] protected from warrantless searches under the Fourth Amendment, so should apply to the email address data to reverse the order under appeal since Google fed and flooded the FBI with Abulkhair's email personal information and private texts to locate and chase him everywhere he goes.  The contemplated latest ruling [must] apply here, too [.]           
  
 
          In light of the recent decision of the highest court that, the phone like home protected from the unreasonable search without a search warrant, so must the email address.  For the same applicable case, contemplated reason and similar standard, this Court must refer and defer to the higher court and reverse itself –– or simply certify and refer the question of law to be answered by it on its behalf to avoid embarrassment of "Google" or the "FBI" [.]           
 
  
          The Court erred when it opined that "it contained only bald allegations" [op. 4, 1] when Abulkhair's claims on the contrary explicit with overwhelming facts and event[s] provided date[s] with occurrence[s] exceed[ed] any bogus "case law" requirement for which cannot be disputed by the Defendants.  The Court erred when it made this unethical "argument", [not] finding, on behalf of the "Appellees" to justify its wrong affirmation.  In the same trap, the Circuit erred when it opined, "because Appellees are private actors" [op. 3, 2] they are not binding by "the Privacy Act of 1974", "Constitution" or federal laws.  It even went one-step further to opine, "the Fourth Amendment does not protect against searches and seizures initiated by private actors" [op. 3, 2].  Wrong !![!]  In other words, the Court actually tried to say, if one of those judges entered this opinion was having a good time with his wife, and the landlord suddenly opened the door with his spare key without knocking, and found them naked to be embarrassed enough, this "private actor" landlord is free to invade his privacy without accountability or liability under the Privacy Act and the Constitution because the Fourth and the Fourteenth Amendment "applies to acts of the states, not to acts of private persons or entities" [op. 3, 2].   How infirm this obtuse mind and opinion is !![!]  But, as here, the "private actor" or "entity" Google conspired with a  federal agency, as the "FBI" to pass them a secret "password" to invade his privacy and private email to spy on his life, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment must apply with or without the consent of the perverters of Justice and the wrongdoers [t]o be held accountable for their acts and conduct.   Otherwise, the Constitution and Laws of which fail to protect their citizens must be "held in the dumpster" to honor its uselessness in reality to simplify a laughing farce all over the world at the U.S.  The Court erred with its infirm interpretation and misapplication of the constitution and law and should revisit another law school to better understand what the Constitution and Laws meant other than a deceptive hypocritical decoration in papers and on the walls [.] 
 
 
        Google does [not] fit the category or the meaning of a "private actor" under the existence law in sense of collecting and sharing personal and business data with other "agencies" federal and state globally with[out] their consent or knowledge to maintain for its basic business and record for which subjected itself to all state, federal, and international constitutions, laws and regulations whether the "obtuse" brains agree with this term and definition or disagree.   The unsurmountable and numerous lawsuits filed against the Defendant Google in the U.S. and overseas are the best testament of this fact.  As a matter of fact, they were recently compelled to pay fine of "$2 billion" in Europe and much more to pay for judgments entered against it all over the world simply because they do [not] have [a] corrupt judicial system like here to protect them there.
 
 
          When an outsider conspirator of the law act or conduct triggers a cause of action by conspiring with an insider conspirator whose under that law, both conspirators' action and conduct becomes automatically under the statutory requirement under the same law subjected themselves to all of its mandatory citations, obligatory duties, and penalties for its violation as well.
 
 
          Simply, if a "private actor" or business conspires with an insider banker to rob the bank, the federal law must apply equally to both together whether the outsider is [a] "federal actor" (employee) or not.  Since the subject matter and the circumstances remain the same, the same law must apply to both equally.  Otherwise, everyone can draft the law that fits his needs and desires to commit a crime and violate others' constitutional rights.  This is what Google or others dreaming of to escape justice.  Even in the absence of all of the above, once their business extended outside of their "California" State base, they must be subjected to all federal and state laws and constitutions whether they agree or not.  They are already subjected to all international laws and constitutions.  They were already compelled to pay a very high price for their satanic arrogance and violations committed against others according to their various websites.  Just "Google it"!![!]
 
  
[T]o correct the Court further to the contrary, "Google" ("a private actor") conspired with [a] "federal" agency, namely, the "FBI" ("a federal actor") [,] subjected it to be bound by and under all of the constitutions and laws of the U.S. federal and state, including the international laws and conventions the U.S. [is] signatory for which rendered its opinion baseless in light of the recent "cell phone" ruling.  Overall, the District Court lack[ed] jurisdiction to dismiss the "pleading" when its recusal was pending nine (9) days earlier.  [T]his is the law [.] 
 
  
          Ironically, when the IRS chases after a "federal" district court "chief judge" for [h]is failure or rather conceal[ing] his unreported "extra" income for years, this is not only alarming to the public, but an unquestionable indication of corruption, namely, bribery involved to swing "justice" and "judgment" to qualify himself for "pay-for-play", as perfectly appeared as mindfully understood, whether you agree or not.  Instead of cynically criticizing "$100 billion" suit [op.2, 2], we simply asked to answer the simple and specific question in accordance with the law relied upon and clearly provided and pointed out in our pleading for which question led directly to this appeal and remained under appeal unanswered.  If the Court have a desire to fail again as it appears, then please certify the question to the higher court to answer on its behalf to avoid any embarrassment with either "Google" or "FBI".  Abulkhair does [not] have the time [or] "waist" to "shake" [t]o sue anyone for "[o]ne single symbolic dollar" to make a statement to anyone.  His meritorious suits merely designed to bring the wrongdoers and corrupt to their knees to shame them in order to deter them and others out there to cease and desist their wrongdoing and misconduct.  If this signified message misunderstood from the "pleading", then a bench in a public park does [not] even fit to be seated on, not a court bench for those living with an obtuse mind [.]
 
  
Given the uncontroverted facts and the circumstances surrounding the issues involved and the magnitude impact of the substantial question of law presented here concerning the disqualification and recusal of the trial judge under appeal, the stakes cannot be stressed enough.  When the "president" of the county himself launches his own ferocious attacks and harsh criticisms towards his own "judicial system" by accusing "judges" of "corruption", then you must have a serious problem to deal with rather to hang the blame of the recusal factor on the litigants themselves regardless of Abulkhair or others say or do not say.  Thus, we can [NOT] trust the perverters of justice or eve[n] the ["SATAN"] Himself on our matters against the corrupt wrongdoers.  The District Court clearly does [not] have any jurisdiction to enter the orders under appeal according to the law and its recusal is long overdue warranted to be granted in the eye of the law and in the eye of the public to warrant granting the petition without regard [.]                            
  
 
CONCLUSION
 
  
          For the foregoing reasons and the uncontroverted facts and arguments, the petition for rehearing must be granted and the orders under appeal must be reversed.  
 
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
 
 
 
                                                         By:    /s/Assem A. Abulkhair, Pro Se   
 
                                                                       For The Plaintiff/Appellant