Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
From: joseph zernik
Subject: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION WHERE YOUR COUNSELS FAIL TO RESPOND
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!
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.
HOW DID THAT EX PARTE COME INTO BEING?
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?
WAS THE PROTECTIVE ORDER JUST ONE MORE HOAX BY COUNTRYWIDE AND JUDGE CONNOR?
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.
WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THE RAMPANT FRAUD IN SAN RAFAEL, AS SHOWN IN SAMAAN'S LOAN APPLICATION?
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.
...AND HERE IS THE RESPONSE OF THEIR ATTORNEY:
Subject: Violation of Court Order
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 20:45:47
From: "Amberg, John W." jwamberg@BryanCave.com
To: "joseph 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
...AND FINALLY MY REPLY:
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:29:37
To: "Amberg, John W."
From: joseph zernik
Subject: VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER? WHAT COURT ORDER? HAVE YOU SEEN IT LATELY?
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Nov 1, 2007
RE: VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER? WHAT COURT ORDER? HAVE YOU SEEN IT LATELY?
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.