Wednesday, January 16, 2008



By phone they explained that they had to be defensive...
And below they state that I have to get permission from Countrywide to publish my press release...

My press release was out for a week on PRWeb, and actually had nice visibility statistics... until today...

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:52:33 -0800

To: "PRWeb Direct"

From: joseph zernik

Subject: Re: FW: dispute hold of PRWeb release 617791

I find your note below misleading and offensive. I never implied Countrywide was a party. I stated that as defendant, I hold that Countrywide provided Plaintiff with fraudulent documents, "and Countrywide claims it is merely a witness." If I read it correctly, what you say is that Countrywide did not challenge the statement regarding fraudulent documents, but claimed it implied it was a party? Does not make sense to me...In fact, in various documents in Samaan v Zernik the court designated Countrywide any of the following:

  • Defendant
  • Cross-complainant
  • Intervenor
  • Objector
  • Real Party in Interest
  • Non-Party

It appears that the Court, like PRWEB was bending over backwards to accommodate countrywide.

Joseph Zernik

At 04:16 PM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
Hello Mr. Zernik,

We are notifying you that we have put the press release 617791 entitled"Samuels - Countrywide Chief Legal Counsel to Answer Today in Case InvolvingAlleged Fraudulent Documents" on Dispute/Hold status.PRWEB releases are taken off line and put on Dispute/Hold when and if weare notified of potentially libelous information or a serious inaccuracythat affects a person, company or organization named in the release.Releases may also be put on hold when we learn that the information in arelease may violate copyright law or PRWEB's Terms of Service or when weare informed that the submitter does not have authorization to releaseinformation on behalf of the organization or person named in the release.In this case, we have been informed by Countrywide that this releaseinaccurately implies that Countrywide and Mr. Samuels are a party to thecase Samaan v. Zernik, which is in fact incorrect and therefore misleading.Since PRWEB relies on users to submit accurate information in theirpress releases, we cannot be the arbiters of whether to put the releaseback in circulation. We will only take the release off dispute hold whenand if both parties submit to us that the original or revised releaseshould be taken off Dispute/Hold.

Thank you.

For your reference, our terms of service are located at
Again, PRWEB editors will not get involved in approving or modifying the release further until and unless both you and Countrywide contact us,asking us to put this release back on line.
If you have other questions orconcerns, please contact us.


Nicole Albright--

PRWeb Editorial StaffPRWeb International, Inc.2084



Is everybody and his brother ADHD?
Let's get focused for a minute for a change...

Jan 16, 2008

Mr Angelo Mozilo - by email
Mr Sandor Samuels - by email


I am in receipt of a letter from Att Amberg on your behalf, a letter replete with false and deliberately misleading statements. As usual - it is just a distraction. I previously listed two documents that were key in the real estate fraud you perpetrated against me:

a) Document falsely and misleadingly represented as an Underwriting Letter dated October 14, 2004 or mid-October 2004, and
b) Document falsely and misleadingly represented as the product of fax communication from Parks in Washington State to Countrywide (a financial institution) in California (hence across state lines) on October 25, 2004, 5:03 pm.

It has been almost a year since I first asked you to state whether such and their like are genuine documents or fraudulent documents. Why don't you finally provide the straight answer instead of having Mr Amberg send redundant meaningless letters?

Mr Samuels and Mr Mozilo - there is some fundamental misunderstanding in our communications. The NYT published an article a couple of days ago regarding Mr Mozilo, where the opening paragraph stated: "All that money and nowhere to go...". In response I sent a letter to the editor where I stated that the preamble is likely to end up being invalid, and therefore the rest of the article may become meaningless. Gentlemen, I am doing my best so that you would end up separated from at least some of that money and also from the freedom to go...

The notion that I am harassing Countrywide and its employees is absurd- you are perpetrating real estate against me in collusion with Nivie Samaan, Mohammad Keshavarzi of Sheppard Mullin, and others. I am communicating only with the two of you, to the best of my knowledge I have never sent a note to any other employee (except Att Boock, copied below) in many many months.

The notion that my statements were false and defamatory, or that I would retract them was likewise misguided. I address these communications to you, Mr Samuels and Mr Mozilo (...not Countrywide, ...not employees, ...not executives, just you two as individuals), and I suggest that you two immediately take the necessary legal action if the two of you indeed feel confident that you did not collude in real estate fraud against me, and that there was no wire/fax fraud and mortgage fraud included in it as well. Making such statements regarding innocent individuals would be outrageous indeed.

The statements that Judge Connor entered a Protective (gag) Order on July 23, 2007, was in denial of reality, or hallucinatory in nature. In fact, Mr Amberg for all practical purposes admitted that he had never seen any order like that. Likewise, there is no such order in the paper Court File, and no such order is listed as "entered" in Sustain under Case History. In fact, the case of the Protective (gag) Order is one of only three that I consider qualified in the top category of "Connor Classic" - and that is from a Judge Jacqueline Connor, who is a master con-artist! (In case you are curious, the other two are: Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, and Sept 5, 2007 Order Appointing a Referee - all three were missing in action...).

I fully agree with the statement: "Judge Friedman clearly stated that the Protective Order remains in full force and effect." A Protective Order that never existed, remaining in full force and effect, is still non-existent for all practical purposes. It is just an indication of Judge Friedman's work ethics, that he made such a statement regarding an Order that he had never seen... Rubber stamp does not even come close to describing that skill...

Finally - regarding your concerns that this communication is part of discovery in Samaan v Zernik - please rest assured - this letter is only an attempt to focus ongoing investigations in several states and direct investigators to the individuals and documents that would provide the road map for the sub-prime catastrophe.

Joseph Zernik

Office of California Attorney General
Office of Illinois Attorney General
Office of New York Attorney General
Office of Massachusetts Attorney General

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:43:05 -0800

To: Todd Boock

From: Joseph Zernik

Subject: Samaan v Zernik

Hi Todd -

A while ago I sent you a message predicting that Samaan v Zernik will stay with us for a while, and that in a few years we may be asked to explain Samaan v Zernik in one investigation or another...

Well as things go this time around, it is much faster than I predicted, and I have already provided your name to investigators as the person most qualified to explain the integrity, or lack thereof ,of the subpoena production by Countrywide...

Joseph Zernik