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.