OPEN LETTER TO SAMUELS - COLLUSION IN FRUAD

Moshe’ ben Maimon / Maimonides (1138, Cordoba Spain – 1204, Fustat, Egypt) -Historically renowned medieval Jewish codifier

March 19, 2008

Att Sandor Samuels
By Open Letter to the Los Angeles Jewish and/or Legal Communities and
By email and by fax to Bryan Cave, LLP

OPEN LETTER TO MR SANDOR SAMUELS – PRESIDENT OF BET TZEDEK - “HOUSE OF JUSTICE”
RE: Notice to cease and desist collusion in fraud and obstruction of justice, and to mitigate damages.
Timed response requested by Friday, March 21, 2008, 5:00pm

Mr Samuels:

On web pages of Bet Tzedek you described yourself as personally responsible for all litigation matters at Countrywide. You also pronounced your commitment to fight fraud throughout Southern California. Similarly, Mr Mozilo, in web pages still posted, advocates Corporate Ethics in Countrywide* and pronounces his commitment to fight fraud in Countrywide. Both Mr Mozilo and Mr Samuels are charged with the safeguard of integrity of operations at Countrywide as Officers, Mr Samuels also as Chief Legal Counsel, and Mr Mozilo also as Chair of the Internal Audit Committee.

Moreover, Mr Samuels recently filed a Notice of Person in Interest in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), when the case was in the courtroom of Judge Terry Friedman – former Executive Director of Bet Tzedek – “House of Justice”. And Judge Friedman to date refuses to file statements on the record regarding his relationships with Mr Samuels – current President of Bet Tzedek – “House of Justice” and David Pasternak – former President of Bet Tzedek –“House of Justice” – out of compliance with the California Code of Judicial Ethics.
Therefore, Zernik approached Mr Samuels in the past, and is approaching Mr Samuels again to cease and desist collusion in fraud with Samaan, and to mitigate damages to Zernik.

Countrywide’s wrongful and harmful collusion in fraud in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) was originally related to a letter, declarations, and documents submitted by Maria McLaurin, San Rafael’s Branch Manager, and an acquaintance of JR Lloyd - Samaan’s husband:
a. 11-6-06 Letter by Maria McLaurin with an attached Countrywide document – these documents were submitted as an exhibit to 11-6-06 Parks Supplemental Declaration, part of Samaan’s Sur Reply to Defendant Zernik motion to expunge lis pendens, heard Nov 9, 2006
b. 5-23-07 Declaration by Maria McLaurin with an attached Countrywide document – these documents were submitted as evidence in Samaan’s opposition to Zernik’s motion to expunge lis pendens, heard, July 23, 2007.
c. 5-23-07 Declaration by Maria McLaurin, described above, was filed a second time in Plaintiff Samaan’s Motion for Summary Judgment, heard Aug 9, 2007
d. 8-3-07 Supplemental Declaration by Maria McLaurin, filed in Plaintiff Samaan’s Reply brief in her motion for summary judgment, heard Aug 9, 2007. In this declaration McLaurin also refers to the document purported to be a copy of a fax transmission of a purchase contract from Parks to Countrywide on Oct 25, 2004, 5:03pm.

Such declarations and documents filed by Maria McLaurin were critical to Samaan’s case, since her claims, far fetched as they were, had no documentary evidence whatsoever in Samaan’s loan file. In order to fabricate such readings into documents from the loan file, Maria McLaurin entered a number of critical false and deliberately misleading statements in her letter, declarations, and in the identification of the respective Countrywide documents.
Shifting litigation on Samaan’s failure to perform on her 2004 contract to the unbelievable arena of Samaan’s loan underwriting, provided great advantages to Samaan:
a. Defendant Zernik had no part in this process, and relied entirely on information provided by Samaan and Countrywide, almost 2 years after the fact.
b. Samaan had access through her husband, JR Lloyd (unlicensed, but active as “Originator”) to San Rafael Branch Manager who was able, willing, and ready to produce such false declarations.
c. Countrywide’s legal department was willing to collude in the fraud by providing false information, and deleting critical information from Subpoena production.
d. Countrywide’s top officers – Samuels and Mozilo – refused to act in any way to stop such fraud.

Maria McLaurin was the person most knowledgeable regarding Countrywide’s operations and procedures in the context of Samaan v Zernik. Therefore, the only way to undermine her false declarations and misrepresentation of documents was to approach higher management in Countrywide. For that purpose – Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels were requested in the past, and are requested again, to authenticate or repudiate critical documents that were misrepresented by Maria McLaurin:
a. The document attached to her 11/6/06 and her 5-23-07 declarations filed in court - misrepresented as a true and correct copy of an October 14, 2004 Underwriting Letter.
b. The document referenced in her 8-3-07 declaration – misrepresented as a copy of an Oct 25, 2004, 5:03pm fax transmission from Parks to Countrywide of the Purchase Contract.
c. The document attached to her 8-3-07 declaration – October 14, 2004 Underwriting Letter notifying suspension, misrepresented as an approval letter.

Sandor Samuels and Angelo Mozilo have refused so far to respond to any question regarding these documents for about a full year. Instead, they chose to take various actions in Samaan v Zernik, which are still pending review, and are alleged by Zernik to constitute abuse of his rights per the U.S. Constitution Amendments 1st, 5th, and 14th.

One must also recall that in early 2007 Defendant Zernik was often labeled “conspiracy theorist” for making allegations that Countrywide filed fraudulent documents in court, and also for making allegations that Countrywide was involved in a massive fraud against the U.S. Government.

More recently, NYT reported on Jan 8, 2008, a case of “recreated letters” filed by Countrywide in a Pennsylvania Court, and LAT reported on March 6, 2008, rebuke of Countrywide in a Texas court where ‘Countrywide and its lawyers showed "a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system’.

Therefore, Zernik’s allegations regarding Countrywide’s litigation methods are by now common public knowledge. And allegations of fraud against the US Government and against share-holders are under numerous investigations and litigations now. However, it appears that some Los Angeles Courts are more permissive or even supportive even today of Countrywide’s litigation methods, and of real-estate and mortgage fraud in general, compared to their peers elsewhere. One must wonder what part geographical differences among the courts may have in the fact that Los Angeles has become what is described in an FBI report the “epicenter” of a U.S. real estate and mortgage fraud epidemic that is a high national priority to fight.

Mr Samuels, please accept this letter as a demand that you and Mr Mozilo:
a. Review the letter, declarations, and documents (a-d, above) provided by Maria McLaurin, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, San Rafael Wholesale Branch Manager, for filing by Samaan in Samaan v Zernik, and inform Zernik if you - as individuals and in your capacities as officers of Countrywide - find them true and correct in all their statements and representations.
b. Review in particular the documents filed or referenced by Maria McLaurin (a-c, above), in Samaan v Zernik, and inform Zernik if you - as individuals and in your capacities as officers of Countrywide – are willing to authenticate these documents as represented by Maria McLaurin.

Please also accept this notice as a demand for Mr Samuels immediate resignation from the position of President of the Board of Bet Tzedek – “House of Justice”. The continued association of Mr Samuels name with the name of this organization is a disgrace to Bet Tzedek, a disgrace to the Jewish community, and a disgrace to Justice itself.

Please respond by Friday, March 21, 2008, 5:00pm.

Joseph Zernik

* Countrywide here denotes Countrywide Financial Corporation and/or any and all of its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, jointly and/or severally.

08-03-21 countrywide - judge bohm texas march 6-08 opinion

Case 05-90374 Document 248 Filed in TXSB on 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 40

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON SHOW CAUSE ORDERS OF
FEBRUARY 12. 2007 AND MAY 18. 2007

I. Introduction
The matter before this Court began with a routine motion to lift stay, but has spiraled into a lengthy ordeal which has cost the parties substantial time, attorneys' fees, and costs. Over one year ago, on February 6,2007, the Court sought a simple answer to a simple question-why was a motion to lift stay being withdrawn? The movant's attorney, rather than answer the question truthfully by admitting that the motion was based upon an incorrect payment history, attempted to conceal the truth from the court - that the motion should have never been filed. This rather narrow issue, precipitated an expansive proceeding. During several hearings over the past year, the court received evidence on a wide range of misconduct beyond this initial misrepresentation.

...

Their collective conduct caused this Court to issue two Show Cause Orders. This Memorandum Opinion discusses how their actions in the case at bar have shown a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system. 1

OPEN LETTER- PASTERNAK

OPEN LETTER TO ATT. DAVID PASTERNAK - FORMER PRESIDENT OF "HOUSE OF JUSTICE" - BET TZEDEK

Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907, Warsaw ?- 1972, USA)

- prominent Modern Jewish leader and civil rights activist

"Here and there we find those who refuse to remain silent behind the safe security of stained glass windows" - MLK on Rabbi Heschel

March 15, 2008

Los Angeles Jewish Community and/or

Los Angeles Legal Community

RE: OPEN LETTER TO ATT DAVID PASTERNAK, FORMER PRESIDENT, "HOUSE OF JUSTICE" - BET TZEDEK & RECEIVER IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)

Copied below is my letter sent by email and by fax to Att Pastternak himself.

Joseph Zernik

March 15, 2008

Att David Pasternak
Pasternak, Pasternak & Patton, A Law Corporation

Former President, "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek

Receiver in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

By Email and by Fax

RE: Notice to cease and desist and to mitigate damages.

Timed response requested by Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 5:00pm

Mr Pasternak:

Please note - this notice is not part of any discovery process in Samaan v Zernik (LA Superior Court), neither is it part of any discovery process Zernik v LA Superior Court (California Court of Appeals), nor in Zernik v Connor (US District Court).

This notice is copied to Members of the Board of Directors of Bet Tzedek - "House of Justice", calling upon them, jointly and/or severally, to exercise their fiduciary duties and to review the over-extended term of Sandor Samuels as President of the Board.

This notice is also copied to persons in the Los Angeles Jewish community and various Los Angeles law firms, calling upon such to review their relationship and support for Bet Tzedek - "House of Justice", in itself a worthy charity, under the presidency of Sandor Samuels.

Please accept this letter as a notice to cease and desist from any conduct resulting in any further abuse of Defendant Zernik?s rights for free speech, for due process (including the right for protected speech in defense of himself as Defendant in pro per), and for possession - per the US Constitution (Amendment 1st, 5th, and 14th), as a protest of past abuses of such rights, and as an attempt to safeguard against further abuses.

Please also accept this letter as a demand to mitigate damages, among other ways - by providing the information requested below.

A. Authority of Judge Terry Friedman(former Executive Director ? ?House of Justice - "Bet Tzedek") in Samaan v Zernik

California Rules of Court say:
2008 California Rules of Court Rule 8.770. Substitute judge where trial judge unavailableWhenever by these rules any act is required to be done by the judge who tried the case, and such judge is unavailable or unable to act at the time fixed therefor, the act shall be done by another judge of the same court, to be designated by the presiding judge thereof, or if there is no judge of the court available to act, then the act shall be done by a judge designated by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.

1) Based on your own current best legal judgment, did Judge Terry Friedman ever secure a valid re-assignment order in Samaan v Zernik after the disqualification of Judge Hart-Cole, herself of dubious authority?

The California Code of Judicial Ethics also says:

E. DisqualificationA judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law. In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or theirlawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.

2) Based on your own current best legal judgment, was Judge Terry Friedman, former Executive Director, "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek, required by the Code of Judicial Ethics to disqualify himself, of his own volition, in Samaan v Zernik, in relationship to the involvement of Att David Patterson ? former President, "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek, and Att Sandor Samuels ? current President, "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek?

3) Since he did not disqualify of his own volition and did not disqualify in response to two filings by a party per CCP §170.3, based on your own current best legal judgment, was Judge Terry Friedman required by California Code of Judicial Ethics to enter, of his own volition, statement(s) on the record regarding his relationship with Att David Patterson, former President, Bet Tzedek- "House of Justice", and Att Sandor Samuels ? current President, Bet Tzedek- "House of Justice"??

4) Since he did not enter such statements on the record of his own volition, based on your own current best legal judgment, was Judge Terry Friedman required to enter such statements in response to requests by a party?

The California Code of Judicial Ethics also says:

(5) Under no circumstance shall a judge accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan ifthe donor or lender is a party whose interests have come or are reasonably likelyto come before the judge. A judge shall discourage members of the judge's familyresiding in the judge's household from accepting similar benefits from parties who have come or are reasonably likely to come before the judge.

5) Based on your own current best legal judgment - was Judge Terry Friedman required to enter statements regarding gifts, funds, loans, or valuable goods or services that he or family members residing in his household may have accepted from Att Pasternak or Att Samuels, once requested to do so by a party?

California Code of Civil Procedure ?170.3 says:

(a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true:

(1)(A) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding....?

(2)(A) The judge served as a lawyer in the proceeding, or in any other proceeding involving the same issues he or she served as a lawyer for any party in the present proceeding or gave advice to any party in the present proceeding upon any matter involved in the action or proceeding.?

(B) A judge shall be deemed to have served as a lawyer in the proceeding if within the past two years:

(i) A party to the proceeding or an officer, director, or trustee of a party was a client of the judge when the judge was in the private practice of law or a client of a lawyer with whom the judge was associated in the private practice of law.

(ii) A lawyer in the proceeding was associated in the private practice of law with the judge.

(C) A judge who served as a lawyer for or officer of a public agency that is a party to the proceeding shall be deemed to have served as a lawyer in the proceeding if he or she personally advised or in any way represented the public agency concerning the factual or legal issues in the proceeding.

(3)(A) The judge has a financial interest in the subject matter in a proceeding or in a party to the proceeding

...

(6)(A) For any reason:

(i) The judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice.

(ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial.

(iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

(B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may be grounds for disqualification

....

6) Since Judge Terry Friedman has refused to enter any such statements, based on your own current best legal judgment, was Judge Friedman required by law to disqualify when asked to do so by a party by filings per CCP §170.3?

7) Since he so far has refused to disqualify in response to filings per CCP ?170.3, best on your own current best legal judgment, do you deem Judge Friedman at present as holding valid authority as presiding judge in Samaan v Zernik?

B. David Pasternak?s (former President, "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek) Authority as Receiver in Samaan v Zernik

8) Based on your own current best legal judgment - do you hold valid authority as Receiver pursuant to California Code and California Rules of Court in Samaan v Zernik?

9) If you deem your authority in Samaan v Zernik invalid, based on your own current best legal judgment ? wouldn?t it be advisable for you to mitigate damages by immediately resigning your duties as receiver in Samaan v Zernik?

10) If you deem your authority in Samaan v Zernik invalid, based on your own current best legal judgment - wouldn?t it be advisable for you to mitigate damages by immediately entering a statement, of your own volition, declaring your own current best legal judgment regarding the disposition of such funds upon your resignation, if any?

11) If you do deem your authority in Samaan v Zernik valid, based on your own current best legal judgment - what is the source of your authority as Receiver (if any) in Samaan v Zernik per California Code and/or Rules of Court?

12) Based on your own current best legal judgment - for what specific purpose, and on what legal foundation did you acquire, as Receiver, the authority to issue loans, with no specific requirement to obtain separate court authorization, and in unlimited sums, in the name of Defendant Zernik in Samaan v Zernik?

C. Continued Refusal of the Court to Release Defendant?s Funds Which are His Proceeds from the Sale of His Residence by the Court.

California Rules of Court say:
2008 California Rules of Court

Rule 3.1179. The Receiver

(a) Agent of the court The receiver is the agent of the court and not of any party, and as such:

(1)Is neutral;

(2)Acts for the benefit of all who may have an interest in the receivership property; and

(3)Holds assets for the court and not for the plaintiff or the defendant.

13) Based on your own current best legal judgment - what is the legal foundation for the Court?s right to continue to hold Defendant's funds?

14) At present, does any party other than Zernik in Samaan v Zernik have any legitimate interest in these funds?If so, what is the legal foundation of such interests?

15) In a hearing before Judge Terry Friedman, you indicated your willingness to release funds you are holding, originally over $700,000, to Defendant Zernik, and your desire to be relieved of your duties in Samaan v Zernik ASAP. Based on your own current best legal judgment, is there any particular writing or any other action required of Defendant Zernik that would be necessary to allow you to release these funds to Defendant Zernik and to be relieved of your duties as receiver?

D. Receipt of Valid Court Order for Payment of Sanctions against Zernik and in favor of Countrywide

18) Please inform Defendant Zernik immediately if you received or when you will receive a notice of order for sanctions (exceeding $16,000) from any source that you deem valid and sufficient for payment purposes (relative to purported sanctions against Defendant Zernik by Judge Friedman), based on your best legal judgment.

E. December 7, 2007 Ex Parte Appearances before Judge Hart-Cole (Limited Department, Beverly Hills, and Judge Collins, Unlimited Department, Santa Monica)

19) Based on your own current best legal judgment, did Judge Hart-Cole (Limited Department, Beverly Hills) ever hold any valid authority in Samaan v Zernik?

20) Did you issue a notice of the ex parte appearance before Judge Hart-Cole on December 7, 2007 to Counsel for Mara Escrow?

21) Were you part of any discussion or advance agreement with Judge Hart-Cole and/or Counsel for Mara Escrow that he would be allowed to appear incognito, never being introduced, and his participation never mentioned in the transcript?

22) Based on your own best legal judgment, did Judge Hart-Cole, in Beverly Hills, on December 7, 2007, have any authority whatsoever, after being disqualified on that day, to issue an order for an ex parte hearing, within 30 minutes, in Santa Monica Courthouse?

23) Based on your own best legal judgment, did you provide Defendant Zernik proper notice and other due process rights relative to your ex parte appearance before Judge Collins in Santa Monica Courthouse on December 7, 2007?

24) Based on your own best legal judgment, did Judge Hart-Cole, in Beverly Hills, on December 7, 2007, have any authority whatsoever, after being disqualified on that day, to transfer the case or re-assign the case to Judge Terry Friedman an order for an ex parte hearing, within 30 minutes, in Santa Monica Courthouse?

F. December 7, 2007 Mara Escrow Indemnity Agreement

25) Were you ordered by Judge Hart-Cole or any other judge to draft the indemnity agreement for Mara Escrow and bring it to Court approval on December 7, 2007, or was it an act of your own volition, based on your own then best legal judgment?

26) Based on your own current best legal judgment, do you consider this indemnity agreement an adequate and appropriate indemnity agreement? Do you consider it valid?

27) Based on your own current best legal judgment, did Judge Collins, with short (30 min) notice, and with no access to court file in Samaan v Zernik, have reasonable understanding of the orders and stipulations that you brought for her approval in your ex parte appearance with attorney from Mara Escrow on December 7, 2007?

28) Based on your own current best legal judgment, if you hold that indemnity agreement inadequate, inappropriate, and/or invalid, wouldn't it be advisable for you in order to mitigate damages, to immediately move to vacate such an indemnity agreement?

G. December 7, 2007 Gag Order

29) Were you ordered by Judge Hart-Cole or any other judge to draft the gag order and bring it to Court approval on December 7, 2007, or was it an act of your own volition, based on your own then best legal judgment?

30) Based on your own current best legal judgment, is Defendant Zernik still bound by the gag order you drafted and brought to court approval on December 7, 2007, prohibiting him from speech with Escrow and Title Companies? Was it a gag order that was infinite in time, or was gag order expired by now?

31) Based on your own current best legal judgment, is there any conduct advisable for you at present in order to mitigate damages to Defendant Zernik, if any, resulting from such December 7, 2007 gag order?

H. December 2007 Transfer of Title of Defendant Zernik?s Property at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills

32) Which specific California Code sections and/or California Rules of Court did you follow in procedures you undertook for the transfer of the title of Zernik's real property at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, to Plaintiff Nivie Samaan and/or others?

33) Who did you transfer the title of the property to? When? On what legal grounds?

34) Did the procedures that you undertook in transferring the title madate the presentation of a certified and/or authenticated Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court before a County or State official or agency in order to effectuate such a transfer of title? If presentation of a Judgment was required, please provide Defendant Zernik a copy of the certified and/or authenticated Judgment by Court that you used for this purpose. If not ? please provide copies of the documents that you used to establish and certify your valid authority to transfer such title.

35) Were you explicitly instructed by Judge Segal, or any other judge to use those specific procedures based on such specific Code Sections and/or Rules of Court, and those specific documents to establish and certify your authority for the transfer of the title of Defendant Zernik?s property, or were those procedures that you undertook of your own volition, and documents that you chose to present of your own volition, based on your own then best legal judgment?

36) Based on your own current best legal judgment, were these procedures appropriate and adequate? Do you consider them valid?

37) What conduct, if any, do you consider advisable, based on your current best legal judgment, to mitigate damages to Zernik from your conduct relative to taking possession of his home and the transfer of the title to the property to others in December 2007?

I. Conduct of Att Mohammad Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin et al, LLP) Counsel for Plaintiff, and Att John Amberg and Jenna Moldawsky (Bryan Cave, LLP), Counsels for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Sandor Samuels, and Angelo Mozilo

38) In relationship to the transfer of title to Defendant Zernik?s residence, in relationship to the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP ?437c, or in any other instance, did you have sufficient evidence to either reasonably suspect or reasonably conclude that Att Mohammad Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin et al) engaged in what may be deemed misconduct? Any conduct that may be deemed extrinsic or intrinsic fraud and/or deceit and/or an attempt at fraud and/or deceit? Any conduct that may be deemed in violation of the California State Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct? If so, wouldn't it be advisable for you to mitigate damages to Zernik by entering on your own volition a statement to that effect in Samaan v Zernik?

39) In relationship to the sanctions requested and imposed against Defendant Zernik and in favor of Countrywide, and in relationship to Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt against Defendant Zernik, or in any other instance, did you have sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the Att John Amberg and/or Jenna Moldawsky (Bryan Cave, LLP) engaged in what may be deemed misconduct? Any conduct that may be deemed extrinsic or intrinsic fraud and/or deceit and/or an attempt of fraud and/or deceit? Any conduct that may be deemed in violation of the California State Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct? If so, wouldn?t it be advisable for you to mitigate damages to Zernik by entering on your own volition a statement to that effect in Samaan v Zernik?

J. Conduct of Judges of the LA Superior Court in Samaan v Zernik

40) Did you have sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that any judge(s) or staff of the LA Superior Court engaged in Misconduct and/or Willful misconduct in Samaan v Zernik? If so, wouldn?t it be advisable for you to mitigate damages to Zernik by entering on your own volition a statement to that effect on the record in Samaan v Zernik?

K. Mistrial in Samaan v Zernik

41) Best on your own current best legal judgment, and the facts as known to you, should Samaan v Zernik be deemed mistrial? Why?

42) If you hold that Samaan v Zernik should be deemed mistrial, wouldn?t it be advisable for you, in order to mitigate damages, to enter of your own volition a statement to that effect on the record in Samaan v Zernik?

L . Fiduciary Duties of the Members of the Board and President of the Board of "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek

43) Based on your own current best legal judgment, and based on your experience as Member of the Board and President of ?House of Justice? ? Bet Tzedek ? what is the advisable conduct of the Members of the Board, jointly and/or severally pursuant to their fiduciary duties, under the current circumstances?

44) Based on your own current best legal judgment, and based on your experience as Member of the Board and President of ?House of Justice? ? Bet Tzedek ? what is the advisable conduct of the current President of the Board, Sandor Samuels, Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide, pursuant to his fiduciary duties, under the current circumstances?

Please respond by Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 5:00pm.

Joseph Zernik

LET'S GIVE JUSTICE (AND BET TZEDEK) A CHANCE...

Justice Louis D. Brandeis by Andy Warhol (1980)

"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time we fail to protest" -Elie Wiesel

March 13, 2008

Dear Friend:

I would like to share with you that a public record was filed in Santa Monica Court on March 12, 2008:

"Notice to the Honorable Judge Friedman to Cease and Desist, Alternatively - Filing for Immediate Disqualification per CCP §170.3".


This public record addresses issues related to justice by the Bet Tzedek - "House of Justice" team: Sandor Samuels - current President (also Chief Legal Counsel, Countrywide Financial Corporation), Att. David Pasternak - former President , and the Honorable Judge Terry Friedman - former Executive Director.

The concluding statement says:

'This episode, where the current President of the “House of Justice”, the former President of the “House of Justice”, and the former Executive Director of the “House of Justice” are actively colluding in fraud and/or obstruction, is a farce of Justice.'


Joseph Zernik

To view an enlarged, easily readable image of any of the documents in this blog, just click on the document's image.

JUSTICE BY BET-TZEDEK - THE "HOUSE OF JUSTICE" TEAM

March 10, 2008

Dear Friend:

As a person related to Bet Tzedek - the "House of Justice", the Jewish, and/or the legal community, I wanted to share with you a short public record, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court on March 7, 2008, describing justice by a "House of Justice" team - Sandor Samuels - current President (also Chief Legal Counsel, Countrywide Financial Corporation), Att. David Pasternak - former President , and the Honorable Judge Terry Friedman - former Executive Director.

The concluding statement says:
'This episode, where the current President of the “House of Justice”, the formerPresident of the “House of Justice”, and the former Executive Director of the “House ofJustice” are actively colluding in fraud and/or obstruction, is a farce of Justice.'

Joseph Zernik
To view a larger image of any of the pages, just click on the image.