NOTICE TO THE COURT OF DEFENDANT THE HONORABLE TERRY FRIEDMAN, JUDGE, AND PARTIES IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) TO CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING
Filed in U.S. District Court in support of Plaintiff’s 1. Opposition to motions to dismiss, and 2. Requests for reconsideration of: a) Request for TRO and/or OSC denied 3/21/08 b) Request to compel LASC to allow access to books of court, particularly – Book of Judgment
Date: July 28, 2008
TO THE COURT, TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
Please take notice of Plaintiff’s
NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING, FILED WITH THE COURT OF DEFENDANT THE HONORABLE TERRY FRIEDMAN, AND PARTIES IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400).
A. Purpose of this Notice
1. This Notice to Cease and Desist is served by email today, July 28, 2008, on parties in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), matter heard in LASC, in the hope that they finally cease racketeering.
2. This notice is also faxed to the Office of Presiding Judge Czuleger, in support of a request that he finally take control of this matter, stop the vigilante hearings by Judge Friedman, and have this case heard by a judge who is duly assigned, as required by law.
3. This notice is also served today by email, July 28, 2008, with appropriate face page on parties in Zernik v Connor et al (2:2008cv01550) matter heard in U.S. District Court, LA, in support of Plaintiff Zernik’s opposition to motions to dismiss complaint. This notice presents “a set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations” as per Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73:
"A complaint must be sustained, and cannot be dismissed, if relief can be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Nothing more than the complaint's allegations are needed to confer standing at this stage."
4. This notice is also filed and served in Zernik v Connor et al in support of Zernik’s ex parte request for reconsideration of the March 21, 2008 Minute Order that denied Temporary Restraining Order and/or Order to Show Cause against Defendant Friedman.
5. This notice is also faxed to members of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, to keep them posted in this matter, involving allegations of well-established, wide-spread corruption and racketeering in the largest Superior Court in the U.S., and congressmen/congresswomen representing Los Angeles County, in hope that they take action to bring LA County back into the fold of the U.S. Constitution, and act to compel the LA Superior Court to allow access to Books of Court, as required by law – in and of itself a substantial reform in the courts of LA.
B. Request for Leniency as Pro Se
In filing this paper Plaintiff Zernik requests special leniency as a pro se litigant - for his "inartful pleading" Erickson v Pardus, 2007. In particular, Zernik is not qualified in assessing the validity of legal theories. Zernik asks that the U.S. District Court ignore any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory claimed herein, and do take into consideration the claims themselves, if they can support some other valid theory, as per Haddoc 1985.
C. The Enterprise at the LASC
By now it is evident that –
1. West District of LASC is a renegade court – running in parallel two litigation tracks – i) the LASC Track per se, and ii) the Enterprise Track.
2. Past and present Supervising Judges, Assistant Supervising Judge, and Judges jointly engaged in operating the Enterprise Track at the LASC West District.
3. The LASC has denied access to public records that are the Books of Court, possibly as far back as 25-30 years, out of compliance and in violation of the law: U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), California Constitution, Article 1, §3(b)(1), California Public Record Act – California Government Code, § 6250-6270.
4. Hiding the Books of Court is essential for the Enterprise. Review of the Index of All Cases, Calendar of the Court, Registers of Actions, and Book of Judgments is essential for estimating the scope and age of the Enterprise, and the identity of the judges who are active as part of it in the various courts of LASC.
5. The enterprise is enabled through Sustain – the fraudulent case management system introduced 25-30 years ago, without any public oversight, out of compliance and in violation of the law: Rule Making Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071 – 2077.
6. In parallel - the LASC fraudulently established an oral rule of court: “Sustain is privileged – for the Court only”. This rule was articulated to Plaintiff Zernik by both Defendant the Honorable Supervising Judge Rosenberg and the office of Presiding Judge Czuleger. Such oral rule of court is out of compliance and in violation of the law: Rule Making Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071 – 2077, California Rules of Court, Rule 2.500 et seq.
7. Some of Sustain features provide evidence that the system was designed from the start as a fraudulent case management system. Other features demonstrate divergence and drift of the system in the various court houses, and failure to maintain the integrity of the code over the decades, in a manner that is contrary to any reasonable good management practices.
8. Judges of the LASC listed here as Defendants routinely engage in secret rulings and/or reversal of their open court rulings in the electronic court file in Sustain, with no notice or service to parties to the litigation, out of compliance and in violation of the law.
9. Review of Sustain data also reveals that the LASC does not practice any docketing quality assurance whatsoever, in a manner that is contrary to any reasonable good management practices.
10. The custom of entering Minute Orders in court file without service and notice to parties, wide-spread at the LASC, is also essential for the Enterprise. Such practice is out of compliance and in violation of the law: California Rules of Court, Rule 1.20 et seq.
11. Ambiguation of the nature and location of the Book of Judgments (“or equivalent”) as well as ambiguation of the nature of Notice of Entry of Judgment were also critical for the Enterprise. The latter was largely achieved over a couple of decades of review courts decisions. The former is practiced out of compliance and in violation of the law.
12. Combined, the Enterprise generates multiple litigation realities – i) in open court, ii) in paper court file, iii) in secret Sustain records. Such multiplicity of litigation realities is out of compliance and in violation of any concept of Due Process, as guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
13. Review of the Books of Court is likely to demonstrate the real estate fraud is the specialty of the Enterprise. Plaintiff identified at least two cases involving real estate in addition to Samaan v Zernik, where there is evidence of racketeering.
14. The Enterprise reflects wide-spread public corruption that is well established in the largest Superior Court in the U.S.
15. Judges of the Superior Court vary largely in their understanding of the machination of the Enterprise. Judge Connor’s conduct demonstrates detailed and deep understanding of the Enterprise, while conduct of Judges Segal and more so Friedman indicates more superficial understanding.
D. Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) as an Enterprise Track case
By now it is evident that –
1. The case represents a unique collaboration of the Enterprise with the racket at Countrywide.
2. The case was designated for the Enterprise Track since before the complaint was submitted on Oct 25, 2005. Additional discovery is likely to confirm that it was never indexed. The courts are obfuscating in allowing Zernik access to the Index of All Cases, as required by law.
3. Defendant the Honorable Judge Jacqueline Connor was never issued a valid Re-assignment Order. The purported Nov 1, 2005 Minute Order by the then Supervising Judge, the Honorable Linda Lefkowitz is a case of fraud. In fact it is dated Jan 30, 2006, a date when Judge Lefkowitz no longer served as Supervising Judge, and had no authority to assign the case. Therefore, Judge Connor presided with no authority and no immunity at all.
4. Judge Connor and other judges listed as Defendants in U.S. Court action, are with no immunity at all, as per §1983, based on the following principles:
a. The Supreme Court has held that federal law controls the immunity analysis under §1983 even if the matter in question is pending in state court – Howlett v Rose, 496 U.S. .356, 369 (1990):
‘A state court may not deny a federal right, when the parties and controversy are properly before it, in the absence of “valid excuse”’
- b. The Supreme Court has held that individuals sued in their official capacity are not entitled to assert individual immunity defenses in that regard. The distinction being that personal-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon government official for actions taken under color of state law. Official-capacity suits, in contrast, “generally represent only another way of pleading an action against the entity of which the official is agent” Kentucky v Graham 473 U.S. 159 (1985).
c. The “Functional Approach” to immunity analysis puts the burden of proving immunity on the officials sued:
“Officials who seek exemption for personal liability have the burden of showing that such an exemption is justified by overriding considerations of public policy…” Forrester v White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 (1988).
d. Immunity of judges was limited by the Supreme Court in Stump v Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-362 (1978)and also in Mireles v Waco, 112 S. Ct. 286, 288 (1991) such that acts in the clear absence of a court’s jurisdiction are not entitled to immunity, and only judicial acts are protected.
e. Even judges who are absolutely immune for damages may be subject to suit for declaratory and injunctive relief – Consumers Union 446 U.S. at 731-34, 736.
f. “Qualified Immunity” exists for public officials only for their “good faith” actions, where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” Harlow v Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Mitchell v Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).
5. Defendant Judge Connor engaged in obstruction and racketeering since before her the first proceedings in which she presided – Jan 30, 2006 – when she recorded Defendant’s Demurrer pursuant to the Statute of Frauds as i) Overruled, ii) Granted, and iii) Invalidated Minute Order – all at once.
6. Records and declarations produced by Countrywide were essential to the fraud, and Att Mohammad Keshavarzi (Sheppard, Mullin et al), Maria McLaurin (Countrywide Branch Manager), and Jae Arre Lloyd (Samaan’s husband and a Countrywide business associate) conspired to design such fraudulent claims as detailed in their email correspondence of Nov 3-6, 2006. Neither of these three were named Defendant in U.S. Court action so far.
7. Critical to these fraudulent claims were the following:
- a. Countrywide fraudulent record – Real Estate Contract purportedly faxed from Parks (Washington State) to Countrywide (Northern California) on Oct 25., 2004, 5:03pm. In fact it was faxed on that date and that time from Samaan to Jae Arre Lloyd.
b. Countrywide fraudulent record – Oct 26, 2004 Invalid Underwriting Letter, which was falsely represented as dated from mid-October 2004.
c. Fraudulent declarations by Maria McLaurin, including one in which she established the Underwriting Letter listed above as a case of “recreated letter” similar to the Countrywide case in Pennsylvania, widely publicized on or around Jan 8, 2008.
8. This real estate fraud and racketeering was perpetrated with full knowledge and cooperation of Defendants in U.S. Court action - Sandor Samuels – Chief Legal Counsel, and Angelo Mozillo – President, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Inc.
9. On July 6, 2007 Judge Connor ran proceedings unique in their abuse of Defendant’s civil rights – off the record hearing on a gag order to benefit Countrywide, under the guise of Protective Order. Such proceedings were falsely documented, and continued on July 23, 2007, still off the record. From that date on, Countrywide has been appearing routinely in Samaan v Zernik, fraudulently designating itself “Non-Party”, out of compliance and in violation of the law – California Rules of Court, Rule 1.6 Definitions and Use of Terms: (15) “Person”, (16) “Party”.
10. Attorneys John Amberg and Jenna Moldawsky (Bryan Cave, LLP) representing Countywide, knowingly colluded in racketeering in such proceedings. Not named so far in U.S. Court action.
11. Between July 12, 2007 and July 23, 2007, in her conflicting acts in statements in open court, in papers secretly entered in paper court file, and in records secretly entered in the electronic court file in Sustain, Defendant Connor engaged in fraud and deceit relative to her disqualification on July 12, 2007 by Plaintiff Zernik.
12. On August 9, 2007 Defendant Connor simultaneously ran multiple frauds:
- a. Presiding in a fraudulent Summary Judgment hearing, where her findings as Trier of Facts were deliberately upside-down from start to finish,
b. Initiating the fraud and deceit relative to entry of judgment, when in fact, judgment was never entered, out of compliance and in violation of the law – California Code of Civil Procedure, §664:
“If the trial has been had by the court, judgment must be entered by the clerk, in conformity to the decision of the court, immediately upon the filing of such decision. In no case is a judgment effectual for any purpose until entered”, and
c. Denying Plaintiff, there Defendant Zernik, the right to amend claims and enter compulsory claims of fraud and deceit against Countrywide, against Samaan, and against Mara Escrow.
d. In the aftermath, on Aug 14, 2007, Defendant Connor entered in court file the fraudulent, back-dated Aug 9, 2007 Minute Order, with neither certificate of service nor notice of entry of order as required by law California Rules of Court, Rule 1.20 et seq. In such minute order she fraudulently claimed that Judgment by Court was served on the parties in open court on Aug 9, 2007. In fact, only two out of four parties were present in court on that day, therefore service in open court could not be completed, and of the two, one – Att Keshavarzi - later stated in open court on Nov 9, 2007 that he had never seen the Aug 9, 2007 judgment by court and was never served the Aug 9, 2007 judgment by court. Furthermore, there is no certificate of service upon the parties and no notice of entry signed by the Clerk on this record. Therefore, such minute order amounts to hearsay and an invalid court record.
13. On Sept 10, 2007 and Sept 11, 2007, Judge Connor again engaged in multiple frauds:
- a. In transferring the case to Judge Goodman after her 2nd disqualification by Defendant Zernik, with no authority at all,
b. By secretly entering on Sept 11, 2007, after disqualification, with no notice to parties, a back-dated Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order, recording a fictitious hearing where she ruled that there was no fraud in Countrywide records.
14. Defendant the Honorable Judge John Segal, never had an assignment order, and all of his acts as Presiding Judge in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) were of the nature of fraud and deceit, with no authority and no immunity at all.
15. Defendant Segal was fully aware of the fact that no judgment was entered, and so were Defendant David Pasternak, and Att Mohammad Keshavarzi.
16. Regardless, they engaged in fraud and deceit under the guise of legal proceedings, in a fraudulent motion to appoint Pasternak as “Receiver” – purportedly to enforce the execution of a judgment that was never executable at all.
17. Judge Segal and Att Pasternak engaged in intimidation, retaliation, and
harassment of Plaintiff Zernik, there Defendant, and a victim/witness/informer of racketeering, through several hearings in November 2007.
18. Defendants Segal and Pasternak engineered forced entry into Defendant’s property, and taking of property for private use with no compensation to Defendant at all.
19. Defendant Pasternak proceeded to engage in further conspiracy with Defendant Mara Escrow, and Att Richard Ormond (Buchalter Nemer) – not named Defendant in U.S. Court action so far, for fraudulent conveyance of title of the property.
20. Defendant Pasternak proceeded to engage in fraud and deceit relative to an invalid grand deed that he purportedly presented for Court approval on Dec 7, 2007, before the Defendant the Honorable Judge Lisa Hart-Cole and the then Defendant Assistant Supervising Judge, the Honorable Patricia Collins. Both Defendants Hart-Cole and Collins knowingly colluded with the Enterprise.
21. Defendant Pasternak produced yet another invalid fraudulent grant deed that he recorded in the Office of Recorder/Registrar on Dec 17, 2007. It is likely that upon further discovery Notary Public Lisa Khaleydjian be found in collusion with such fraud relative to the fraudulent grant deeds.
22. Defendant the Honorable Judge Terry Friedman, never had an assignment order, and all of his acts as Presiding Judge in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) were of the nature of fraud and deceit, with no authority and no immunity at all.
23. On Jan 11, 2007, at Countrywide’s request. Defendant Friedman fraudulently ruled that the “Protective Order…”, which Defendant Connor deliberately avoided signing and entering, was “..in full force and effect”. He then proceeded on Feb 15, 2007 and March 7, 2008, to fraudulently set sanctions exceeding $22,000 on Defendant Zernik and find him in contempt, relative to purported violations in 2007 of such ex post facto order.
24. Judge Friedman was also disqualified three times, and in none of the cases complied with the law- California Code of Civil Procedure §170.3.
25. Judge Friedman intends to continue presiding in proceedings on July 29, 2008 in Samaan v Zernik, in which he is likely to order distribution of funds, purportedly received by the court for the sale of Zernik’s home, back to Samaan.
I. Preliminary Estimate of Damages Claimed and Awards to be Requested in U.S. District Court Action
26. Request filed with Presiding Judge Czuleger to enforce the law of the land, to put an end to Defendant Terry Friedman’s vigilante conduct in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and to allow a hearing before the Presiding Judge in this matter, or any other judge, duly assigned, is still to be answered.
G. Additional Support Evidence for Allegations Detailed Above
Plaintiff Zernik filed in the various respective courts records documenting various parts of the overall narrative related above. In addition, Zernik filed records documenting hundreds of false and deliberately misleading litigation records produced by the judges of the Los Angeles Superior court, in support of his allegations of racketeering.
H. Additional Discovery Needed
Definitive evidence will be found upon review of the LASC Book of Judgments, Index of All Cases, Calendars of the Courts, and Registers of Actions. And precisely for that reason, all three courts are obfuscating on allowing Zernik access to inspect and review the Book of Judgments, as required by law. Regardless, whether or not such access is allowed, sufficient evidence is being produced to the point that such evidence would not be essential. However, Zernik will continue to demand access to the Book of Judgment in all three courts - since continued obfuscation of the three courts to allow access to the Book of Judgments, a basic First Amendment right, is likely to serve as prime evidence of the incapacity of the Judiciary to regulatregulate itself in matters involving corruption of the courts.
1. Equity in the Property ………… ~$900,000
Zernik assume he will never see a penny from the equity of the purported sale.
2. Tax Liability ………… ~$300,000
Zernik is likely to be saddled with tax liability for the purported sale even if he does not see a penny of the proceeds. Receiver Pasternak deliberately avoided paying tax at the closing of the fraudulent escrow, so that he would be left with maximum cash.
3. Notes Liability ………… $?
In one of the hallmarks of the abusive/retaliatory appointment of the receiver, Defendant Segal authorized Defendant Pasternak, appointed outside of any legal framework, to issue unlimited notes in Zernik’s name at hefty interest.
4. Legal Services ………… ~$400,000
Some of the legal expenses are still in disputed charges on American Express Card (~$60,000) and Visa Card ($6,000) for fraudulent services of Att Zachary Schorr, Defendant in U.S. Court action.
5. Other Legal Expenses ………… ~$50,000
6. Lost Income (Nov 2006 to July 2008) ………… ~$350,000
7. Automobile and Related Expenses ………… ~$100,000
TOTAL ………… ~$2,100,000
1. Pain and Suffering .. to be determined
2. Punitive Damages ... to be determined
3. Qui Tam Award …to be determined
4. Civil Rico Award … triple regular awards
Dated: July 28, 2008
Respectfully submitted by:
in pro per
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION
I have read the foregoing Notice to Cease and Desist and I know the content thereof to be true and correct. It is true and correct based on my own personal knowledge as Defendant & Cross Complainant, as Appellant, and as Plaintiff in pro per, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon information and belief, and as to to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well.
I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of California and the United States.
Executed here in Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, on this 28th day in July, 2008.
in pro per