Thursday, November 1, 2007



Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007
From: joseph zernik


Mr Samuels, Mr Mozilo:

In June/July 2007, I approached both of you in request to refute fraudulent claims that were made by a Branch Manager Maria McLaurin, San Rafael in Samaan v Zernik. Such claims were mostly related to an unsigned, invalid, Underwriting Letter relative to a fraudulent loan application by Samaan in October 2004. That Underwriting Letter was not part of the loan file presented by Countrywide, and was not considered part of the loan file by the Legal Department. That Underwriting Letter was printed on October 26, 2007, and reflected Edge loan status of October 26, 2007, yet in court it was claimed to have been received on or around October 14, 2007.

Other questions pertained to Samaan's fraudulent loan application showing double "Date Received" stamps in the San Rafael Branch. The Legal Department claimed that there was no explanation for such, and that there was no internal audit report, no imaging report, no security report, etc for that incident.

I also approached Mr Samuels through his position at Bet Tzedek, free legal services, where he prominently called for action to prevent fraud in general, and real estate fraud in particular.

Refuting such fraudulent claims could be a matter of seconds or minutes for you.

But you chose to act differently.On July 6, 2007, Countrywide appeared in court before Judge Connor, for ex parte review of a propose Protective (gag) Order against me. And it appeared that such order was indeed issued to you by Judge Connor.

After my last email to you, your counsel again threatened me with action pursuant to that Protective Order.

I consider that whole episode one of the hallmarks of corruption of Judge Connor's Court by Countrywide, but I am still struggling to put the pieces together.

I addressed that question several times to your attorneys, but they refuse to answer, beyond a claim that no improper actions were taken. But such claims are inconsistent with the true facts in this matter. There is no way that I know of that a party, let alone a non-party (Countrywide was not a party, and Judge Connor denied me the right to file claims against Countrywide) can schedule an ex parte appearance in the West District on a day that the court is dark, at anytime other than 8:30am. Moreover, the ex parte in question was under the guise of Discovery Motion, and such motions were not allowed at the time it was heard.

I therefore suggested to your attorneys, that the answer to such questions, and many others, may reside with the Chief Legal Counsel, Mr Samuels, perhaps in some phone calls between Mr Samuels, Judge Goodman, and Judge Connor? I got no response after that.

After all, once Judge Connor was disqualified by me, pursuant to CCP section 170.3, on Sept 10, 2007, on claims amounting to fraud and deceit, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, willful misconduct, etc, which she chose not to oppose, she transferred the case, out of compliance with the law, to Judge Goodman.

Judge Goodman, on his part, engaged in dishonest conduct, and worse, presiding in this case without being duly assigned, as required by law. Beyond that, Judge Goodman took several weeks before he recalled his long-term close personal friendship with the Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide, and then recused himself on Oct 1, 2007.

Judge Goodman, too, transferred the case out of compliance with the law to Judge Biderman, who immediately recused himself.

But Judge Biderman forgot to disclose the reason for his recusal, as required by law. Is it possible that his recusal too, was related to close ties to Countrywide?

After my last email communication with you, I was again threatened by your attorneys with legal action pursuant to the Protective Order, presumably issued at your request by Judge Connor. However, I could not find in my files such an order signed by Judge Connor. Also, last Friday, I got to inspect the Court File, finally provided for my inspection after many months of denial of access, out of compliance with the law. I could not find there any signed protective order. My search included the secret Volume IV (continued), the existence of which the clerk's office previously tried to hide from me. What I did find there were proposed orders with a red marking on them "DENIED".The Minute Order of July 23, 2007, in contrast, suggests that such order was signed:"The proposed order is signed and effective as of this date. Counsel for Countrywide is ordered to give notice of this ruling"But I have never been noticed by Counsel for Countrywide. And when I asked your counsel last week for a copy of the signed order, the response was a complete silence.Again, I believe that if there is anybody who knows the answers to these questions, and the overall scheming in this episode, it would be Mr Samuels.

Furthermore, I still expect your response regarding the overall range of fraudulent claims by Maria McLaurin in Samaan v Zernik, and my claims that Maria McLaurin, and the San Rafael Branch, were involved in massive approval of fraudulent loans around 2004, in the billions of dollars per year. Such could not have happened without your knowledge. Moreover, starting December 2006, I noticed the Legal Department of such conduct, but I have no evidence that Countrywide has taken any action in this regard ever since. Not even to correct the fraudulent subpoena production of documents in Samaan v Zernik!

When was Samaan's loan application first received by Countrywide?

Why was that "Date Received" stamp defaced?

Why was Samaan's loan application suspended on October 14, 2004?

Did Samaan ever re-submit valid loan applications (1003) as stipulated in Underwriting Letter of Oct 14, 2004, by Underwriter Frazier?

Did Samaan ever sign disclosures, as required by law?

Was McLaurin's typo, which fraudulently stated Samaan's income at $4,000,000 in her exception request to Mr Gadi ever corrected? The Legal Department kept refusing to provide the original document.

How could McLaurin submit an Exception Request with fraudulent credit determination without valid 1003's and without valid Clues report?

How could Maria McLaurin assume the Underwriter authority in this loan on October 25, 2004 and issue Underwriting Letters with conditional approval, starting Oct 29, 2004, in violation of the conditions stipulated by Frazier - the Underwriter duly assigned to this loan application, and Gadi - Underwriting Division Support Office?

Was Samaan's loan ever fully approved by Countrywide?

Did Samaan ever provide acceptable explanation for the fraudulent employment information identified by Underwriter Diane Frazier, who soon after that lost her job?

How come none of this was ever covered by an Internal Audit or External Audit report, if I am to believe the Legal Department?

Mr Samuels and Mr Mozilo - I look forward to full explanation of your conduct in this case.

Joseph Zernik


Priority: normal
Subject: Violation of Court Order
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 20:45:47
From: "Amberg, John W."
To: "joseph zernik"

Dr. Zernik:

Your November 1, 2007 email to Countrywide officers Sandor Samuels and Angelo Mozilo is in direct violation of the court-imposed Protective Order, which prohibits you from contacting any Countrywide officers or employees regarding this matter. Pursuant to the Court's order, you have been directed to contact only Countrywide's counsel of record.

Any allegations of impropriety regarding the Protective Order are wholly without merit. You were present at the hearing on July 23, 2007 when Judge Connor granted Countrywide's Motion for a Protective Order. You have been on notice of Judge Connor's ruling since that time.

Your willful and deliberate violation of the Protective Order will not be tolerated. You are not to communicate with the officers or employees of Countrywide, and are to confine your communications to designated counsel. This email shall serve as written notice that if you continue to violate the Court's Order, Countrywide will seek all available remedies against you including monetary sanctions and contempt.

John W. Amberg

Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:29:37
To: "Amberg, John W." ,, Todd_Boock@Countrywide.Com
From: joseph zernik

Nov 1, 2007

Mr Amberg
Ms Moldawski
Mr Boock:


I repeatedly requested that you provide me a copy of that purported order, but you refused to do so. Similarly, you failed to notice me of such purported order as ordered by the Court on July 23, 2007. And you notice below fails to do so either.

Review of the Court File failed to produce a copy either.

The primary purpose of my communication with the officers, particularly the Chief Legal Counsel, was to find out perhaps they have a copy of that purported Order, which is nowhere to be found.

Given my experience with the Connor Court, and with the LA Superior Court, West Division, I will find it difficult to believe that such an order ever existed. E.g., a similar situation exists relative to the Order to Appoint Referee Judge O'Brien.

Such experiences are not limited to Judge Connor, either. I have repeatedly requested to see the Assignment Orders of Judges Goodman, Biderman, and Segal (I know it is difficult to keep up sometimes), and to be noticed of such. The response I got from Judge Segal was that I was unrealistic if I expected that he would confront his Supervisor Judge and ask for an Assignment Order. And in response to my demand to be noticed of such orders, the response I got in a letter dated Oct 30, 2007, from Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg was such:
"Be advised that your case was properly assigned to Judge John Segal."

As you know, I am no lawyer, and have no formal legal education. But I tend to suspect that none of these orders ever existed, and that communications such as the one quoted above by the Supervising Judge, and yours below, especially when directed at Defendant in pro per, may be deemed dishonest, deliberately misleading, or fraudulent.

As always, I would be glad to receive from you a copy of the Court Order, and be noticed of such, as required by law. I promise you that once noticed of such order, and see in the notice a copy of the true and correct order, I would obey it as ordered. Until such time, I do not think that there is any foundation by law for your notice below, and I request that you immediately retract it.

As always, I would be glad to receive Mr Samuels response regarding the other instances of fraud and deceit perpetrated against me and against the Federal Government, as shown in Samaan v Zernik.

Joseph Zernik

Angelo Mozilo
Sandor Samuels

Monday, October 29, 2007


On Friday, October 26, 2007, I appeared in Santa Monica in Department "O" before the Honorable Judge John Segal in pro per (that is representing myself without an attorney - definitely not recommended for anybody).

The purpose of my appearance, for the third time, was to try to get the Honorable Judge John Segal to clearly state one simple fact:

Was he ever duly assigned, as required by law, as Presiding Judge in Samaan v Zernik?

For the last 3 judges in this case:
1) Judge Allan Goodman
2) Judge Biderman
3) Judge John Segal
I cannot find the required assignment anywhere in the file. I believe that this aberration is the result of an attempt, rather crude, to hide the disqualification of judge #2, Connor, since if they issue a formal assignment, is must state the name of the judge who had been previously assigned to the case, and the section of the code by which that assignment was terminated. The code for Connor's termination is CCP 170.3, and it is not the best for judges to keep on their resume...

To make the pronouncement of such the desired statement easier for Judge Segal, I offered two proposed court orders for him to choose from:
a) that he was duly assigned as the presiding judge in samaan v zernik.
b) that he was not duly assigned as the presiding judge in samaan v zernik.

And... Judge Segal decided not to sign either...
He is rather consistent in his position of keeping it a secret. After all, if he is presiding over the case without the legal assignment, he is out of compliance with the law (what kids call he is breaking the law, but we don't talk like that...).However, in the first time I came to court to present him this question, he complained that I was not reasonable, since he said that I was suggesting that he had to confront the supervising judge (the president of the santa monica courthouse) and demand the correct legal assignment. I responded that I never expected anything like that from a judge, but he could always resign. In my writing, I also reminded him that the oath of judge in california does include a commitment to uphold and protect the constitution, but does not contain any language about upholding and protecting your supervisor...

in pro per

Sunday, October 21, 2007


The week of Oct 15-19 was overshadowed by the service, Monday, Oct 15, 2007, of filings on Judge John Segal. These were not the typical filing per CCP §170.3, for immediate disqualification, such as served on Sept 10, 2007, on Judge Connor.

Reminder: the filing on Judge Connor listed allegations amounting to: Fraud, Deceit, Adulteration of Court Records, Conspiracy, Dishonesty, Obstruction of Justice... etc. Combined, one may deem such as an allegation of Corruption of Office.

The filing on Judge Segal was substantially different. It was titled as follows:
Notice to Judge Segal to Cease and Refrain from Acting as Presiding Judge in Samaan v Zernik Absent Due Assignment as Required by Law; Alternatively, If Such Assignment was Provided - Filing for the Purpose of Immediate Disqualification of the Honorable Judge Segal Pursuant to CCP § 170.3, and Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Zernik in Support Thereof

The reason for the difference was that after Connor, neither Goodman, nor Biderman, nor Segal were duly assigned as Presiding Judges in Samaan v Zernik, as required by law. In two Ex Parte applications, on Oct 10 and Oct 11, 2007, Judge Segal was asked to furnish documentation of his assignment order, as required by law, or alternatively - to correct this situation, which left him with no valid authority in Samaan v Zernik.

On Oct 10, 2007, Judge Segal practically consented that he had no due assignment order, but argued that it was unreasonable for me, Defendant, to expect him to get into a conflict with his supervisor, Judge Rosenberg, whose duty it was to issue such orders of assignment.

On October 11, 2007, Judge Segal was more evasive, but in response to repeated questions if he had received a Minute Order of Assignment he never responded with a "yes".

A person reviewing this case as a whole, may reasonably entertain the doubt, or even conclude, that such neglect to issue Assignment Orders, is part of a concerted effort not to allow any records documenting Connor's disqualification.

On Wed, Oct 17, 2007, Judge Segal responded with:
Order Striking Statement of Disqualification and Verified Answer of Judge John L Segal.

This response never addressed anywhere the question of the missing Assignment Order and it does not provide the foundation for Judge Segal's authority either. Neither did it address any of the specific examples of dishonesty and partiality or at least appearance of partiality, that were listed in the filing.

A person reviewing the case as a whole, is likely to entertain the doubt and also conclude that Judge Segal's response was dishonest.

Sunday, October 14, 2007


Sheppard Mullin is a large law firms with branches in most large cities in the US, and quite pricy too. Att. Keshavarzi is a young associate in Sheppard Mullin, and Paul Malingagio is the Managing Partner.

Samaan, who bounced twice a check for $10,000 in September of 2004, and with that made a first mark on that botched transaction. But by some estimates, she is said to have spent now over $600.000 in legal fees.

How can it be?

Doesn't it defy logic?

in pro per!
in LA!

October 14, 2007

Mr Malingagio, Managing Partner
Sheppard, Mullin, et al
Los Angeles

Mr Malingagio:

Please respond by Monday, October 15, 2007, 5:00pm, pursuant to CCP 128.7, to my request (attached) that you withdraw offending filings by Keshavarzi and Mussig in Samaan v Zernik:
a) Ex parte application of October 11, 2007
b) Motion for Summary Judgment of August 9, 2007

I know that the natural instinct is to circle the wagon. But there is also the possibility of seriously considering the claims in the attached letter, and then reacting differently.

I am copying here a few of the first and last lines:

Review (attached) shows that so far 4 judges presiding in Samaan v Zernik have been recused or disqualified, another judge resigned as referee. And then you have the neutral agency, ADR - resigned as well, stating:

“…shall decline any further reference as to this case.”

In addition, the current position of Bryan Cave LLP is unusual - I have received no substitution of attorney note from them,but they abruptly stopped responding to any communications regarding Samaan v Zernik, stating:

“We decline to get further involved in this matter.”

1) None of this would have happened unless Keshavarzi, an extremely dishonest counsel, had met Judge Connor, a uniquely corrupt judge, in Samaan v Zernik, a case involving a dazzling, unique combination of mind-boggling acts of fraud and deceit of multiple types, by Samaan, Parks, and Countrywide, against Zernik, against the US government, and also against each other!

A sample fraud, which constitutes a small fraction of the whole, to whet your appetites:
2) In my opposition to Countrywide's motion to gag me, I mentioned a specific fraud technique, where Maria McLaurin was bypassing Regulation B using Countrywide's Edge (computerized underwriting monitoring) system, to the tune of approximately $0.5 billion per year of government-backed fraudulent loan around 2004! Mr Malingagio – through your taxes you too will pay back part of it! And this was a very small fraction of the fraud per year taking in the San Rafael Branch under the tutelage of Maria McLaurin. In its reply, Countrywide did not claim that I was lying, fabricating, erroneous, or out of my mind. They only claimed that my estimates may not be accurate!

3) Connor refused to notice any of the blatant fraud. In fact, she endorsed it! Proofs of the multiple kinds of fraud brought in this case were just a distraction for her - a red herring indeed! She was too busy with her own little fraud and deceit to notice such big ones!

4) This unlikely meeting of the twain - Connor and Keshavarzi - in Samaan v Zernik, a case fraught with fraud, was not a chance occurrence, but one conceived and sponsored, directly or indirectly, by a person affiliated with Countrywide.

5) The explanation for the plethora of recent resignations is that a judge who would match Connor in dishonesty and corruption, and would agree to pick up this fraudulent claim where it was left by Connor against her will, is hard to come by. Even a close friend of Sandor Samuels, Judge Goodman, eventually did not have the guts to do it! It took him some four weeks, and some intensive review of the case, but eventually he decided he could not do it!

This matter is very likely to stay with us for some years to come, through Senate and House Investigating Committees and lawsuits of all kinds and types all over the continent, possibly intercontinental as well! And years later - through research paper of the Federal Reserve... And the enclosed document would always remain as an evidence to your small role in this big scandal. In a couple of years you may end up on a late night C-Span show, but the question is - in which role?

Joseph Zernik

Saturday, October 13, 2007

07-10-13 Brief Update (false escrow referee - retired Judge Gregory O'Brien).


On October 11, 2007 I received a fax indicating that Retired Judge O’Brien, who was acting as a Referee in Samaan v Zernik SC087400, resigned. A copy of that letter can be viewed at:

That letter states:
“..certain circumstances have arisen that make it imprudent for me to remain as the referee” and “Please also consider this letter to be on behalf of ADR Services, Inc., which shall decline any further reference as to this case.”

Judge Neidorf Judge, recused per CCP §170.6
· Judge Neidorf was recused following a peremptory challenge that allowed the assignment of Judge Connor to this case

Judge Connor Judge, disqualified per CCP §170.3, 9/10/07
· I filed a declaration, under penalty of perjury, including allegations amounting to willful misconduct, fraud and deceit, conspiracy, subversion of justice, etc…
· In her disqualification Judge Connor chose not to file any declaration to oppose my declaration.
The Court despite the allegations made in Mr Zernik’s declaration, without conceding the disqualification statement, the Court believes that in the interest of justice, the Court should recuse itself

Vivian Jaime Judicial Assistant to Judge Connor (“clerk”)
· With Judge Connor engaged in fraud and deceit against me, through the manipulation of entering and/or retrieving/display of data from the Court’s privileged file system, Sustain (see below).

Judge Goodman Judge, recused per §CCP170.1, 10/3/07
· Acted as Presiding Judge for several weeks without being duly assigned as required by law, in disregard of my protests
· In his recusal Judge Goodman stated:
This Court…. has a longstanding close personal relationship with General Counsel of Countrywide [- Sandor Samuels - jz]”.
Judge Biderman Judge, recused per CCP §170.1, 10/4/07
· Judge Biderman filed for recusal immediately upon transfer of the file to him (without being duly assigned as required by law).
· Judge Biderman failed to disclose the reason of his recusal.

Judge O'Brien - Referee, resigned, 10/11/07
· Judge O’Brien was never duly appointed as a referee, as required by law.
· Judge O’Brien conducted several ex parte communications and one ex parte conference with Att Keshavarzi, Sheppard Mullin, Counsel for Samaan
· Judge O’Brien declined to provide notice/minutes of such conference
· Judge O’Brien resigned after I protested his conduct in numerous communications.
· In his resignation he stated:
I know of no fact or appearance that would require my disqualification.“
ADR Services - Neutral services provider, resigned, 10/11/07
“…shall decline any further reference as to this case.”

Bryan Cave LLP- Counsel for Countrywide, resigned, 10/2/07
· Participated in numerous appearances in court in front of Judge Connor, without establishing their legal standing in the case.
· Appeared in Court in an ex parte application for a Protective Order against me, before Judge Connor, in a special session of the Court outside of normal hours, where I was the only case on the agenda, at a time that Discovery Motions were not allowed in Samaan v Zernik.
· Their appearances and the involvement of Countrywide were most of the times concealed by Judge Connor by listing them in Minute Orders as either counsel for Plaintiff or Counsel for Defendant
· Both Judge Goodman and Judge Segal denied ex parte applications to correct such deceitful Court records generated by Judge Connor
· When most recently contacted regarding Samaan v Zernik, Bryan Cave’s response was:
We decline to get further involved in this matter


Sheppard Mullin et al, LLP- Counsel for Samaan
· Hearing of Motion for sanctions against Att Keshavarzi of Sheppard Mullin per CCP§128.7 is still pending. The motion passed 21-day safe harbor, and alleges the filing of offending documents and declarations under the hand signatures of counsels for Samaan.

Judge Segal - Acting Presiding Judge
· No documentary evidence found that he was duly assigned as required by law.
· When asked upon first appearance in court whether he had been duly assigned, as required by law, Judge Segal responded:
You don’t expect me to issue orders against my supervisor?”
· When asked upon second appearance in court whether he had been duly assigned, as required by law, Judge Segal responded:
I am the one asking questions in this Courtroom.”

Judge Rosenberg - Supervising Judge, West District, LA Superior Court
· Had two armed sheriffs physically harass me in his Courtroom, in an attempt to plant on my body a complaint that I had duly filed with the Supervising Judge. That complaint protested the fact that I had been denied access to the Court file of Samaan v Zernik, transcripts, minute orders, etc, for over six months. The Supervising Judge demanded that I withdraw that complaint. Regardless of harassment, I refused to withdraw that complaint.
· Repeatedly denied my requests for access to Samaan v Zernik data, out of compliance with the 14th Amendment. Such data are essential for my complaint against Judge Connor and for effective defense in Samaan v Zernik.

Judge Czuleger - Presiding Judge, LA Superior Court
· Complaints were filed with the Presiding Judge.
· No response received so far
· Staff in his office informed me that access to Sustain data would be denied.

California Commission on Judicial Performance
In a complaint to the Commission, I described the scope, the repetitiveness, the length of time of such violations, and the involvement of various ranks from the Supervising Judge to judicial assistants. I suggested that on this background, a full review of the West District as a whole would be in place, rather than limiting itself to review of complaints against individuals (judges), who fall under the authority of the Commission.
Of particular significance is the establishment of Sustain, which is probably operational for more than two decades now in the entire LA Superior Court. This is effectively the governing system for case management in the courts today, but the information in it is held “privileged to the Court only”. In contrast, Court Files and Court Book were always held pubic records pursuant to Due Process of the Law and the 14th amendment. Sustain, and its privileged status, out of compliance with the 14th amendment, allowed the manipulations by Judge Connor and her assistant Jaime. Continued denial of
In concluding review of all of the above, I also raised the question whether the West District, LA Superior Court should be considered a Corrupt Organization pursuant to US Racketeering laws. I left such questions for the consideration of the Commission
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts: PACER Service Center
CM/ECF LogoSee full size image

[] CM/ECFTim See full size image- []

"This case should demonstrate that the FBI will pursue all allegations of judicial corruption vigorously, as public corruption violations are among the most serious of all criminal conduct and can tear at the fabric of a democratic society," said John F. Pikus, special agent in charge of the Albany division, in a prepared statement.Superior Court of California - County of Los AngelesSuperior Court of California - County of Los Angeles
Courts: Courts of Appeal: 2nd District: Los Angeles and Ventura


[][][][][][][][][]Beyonce[][] Shirley Moore_See full size imageSee full size image Sandy Samuels Photo of the European Court of Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, France.graphic banner for FBI  Los AngelesSee full size image
European Court of Human Rights


Records & Identification Bureau BACK