ALLEGED CORRUPT LOS ANGELES JUDGES

Page building in progress...

Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR

JOHN SEGAL Judge, LA Superior Court. Racketeering under the guise of court litigation was alleged.In Galdjie v Darwish, he ran a purported bench-trial in a real estate matter, on Defendant who was misled to appear in the Culver City Municipal Court for a purported case of the Superior Court of California. He remained anonymous in court records, listed only as - “Muni Judge.” was entered.

LISA HART-COLE Judge, LA Superior Court In Samaan v Zernik she tried to force herself as Presiding Judge with no Assignment Order. In collusion with Att DAVID PASTERNAK she attempted to run proceedings where Att RICHARD ORMOND (Buchalter Nehmer) appeared incognito, none of the three agreed to disclose the name of the attorney, or the name of his client, while he was standing in the well in front of the judge in proceedings. Later it turned out that the client was Mara Escrow, a subsidiary of Old Republic Title Insurance Co. The three of them were trying to approve an Indemnity Agreement for future criminalities for Mara Escrow. (see Patricia Collins).

JACQUELINE CONNOR Judge, LA Superior Court Alleged to be a key person in the LA-JR (alleged LA Judiciary-Racket). Best remembered for her role in derailing the First Rampart Trial (2000). Some say that she did it to save the convicted police from prison sentence. Others say that she did it to save herself, since they were likely to talk had they been imprisoned for long terms. In Samaan v Zernik she was engaged in various alleged fraud from the bench, in collusion with Att JAY STEIN, MOHAMMAD KESHAVARZI (Sheppard Mullin), JOHN AMBERG and JENNA MOLDAWSKY (Bryan Cave, LLP), and others, to benefit Countywide Financial Corporation, and one of its “loan originators” – a convicted felon. Engaged in production of false trial court records on a routine basis. She ignored any semblance of the evidence code, and any notion of due process. She threaten an attorney, to induce his cooperation against his client, and used hate language in relationship to party in trial, but refused to disqualify.

GREGORY O”BRIEN Retired Judge, False Neutral In Samaan v Zernik he tried to force himself as Referee, with no Appointment Order, as part of collusion in alleged corrupt conduct of judge CONNOR. Later – he filed a Proposed Order, with no Motion, in collusion with Atty MOHAMMAD KESHAVARZI (Sheppard Mullin) and Judge ALLEN GOODMAN. Wrote letters to the judges in the case, with no authority at all. Deliberately disregarded any notion of the law.

GERALD ROSENBERG

Judge, LA Superior Court

08-11-09 Oct 31, 2008 Order issued by Judge Friedman - Fraud by the Court.

The typical pattern - what initially appears as reuslting from incompetence or ignorannce, turns out to hide fraud by the court.
.
Nov 7, 2008
.
John Clarke,
Clerk/Executive Officer
Los Angeles Superior Court
Fax: 213 621 7952
Fax & Hand Delivery
.
RE: 1) Notice to cease and desist, 2) Demand to immediately withdraw filing of
false and deliberately misleading notice in re: continuance of case conference,
and order to notice, dated Oct 31, 2008, signed in your name, and presumably
authorized by you, 3) Demand that the clerk take corrective action to remove
the court file in Samaan v Zernik from the possession of Judge Terry
Friedman, pursuant to CCP §170.3 et seq.
.
Mr Clarke:
.
A letter dated Nov 5, 2008, in RE: Notice re: continuance of hearing, filed October 31, 2008, was faxed and hand delivered to your office, expressing concern regarding what appeared as merely a defective notice1, filed and noticed by the Court of the Honorable Judge Terry Friedman.
.
A letter dated Nov 6, 2008 in RE: Request to verify integrity of trial court litigation records, listing numerous records in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) that are false and deliberately misleading. was hand delivered to your office yesterday. It pointed out the central role of the ministerial arm of the court in the various frauds seen in Samaan v Zernik, and it called upon you to verify a partial list of such false records.
.
A. New findings regarding the Notice and Order to Notice dated Oct 31, 2008
And today, I find it imperative to write to you again, after I managed to get hold of Mr Puig, Deputy Clerk, who claimed to be authorized by you, and therefore signed the October 31, 2008 notice and order:
When I asked him for the reason for the strange order – to notice all other parties, he indicated that it was really unnecessary, since he noticed all parties himself, presumably with the same order – to notice all other parties. “It is just a computer form…” he said.
.
When I asked him which were the parties noticed, he looked it up on Sustain, and read to me the list:
a. Joseph Zernik – Defendant – well, that is an incorrect listing, since I am Cross-Complainant as well.
b. Nivie Samaan – Plaintiff – he got that right.
c. Countrywide –Defendant - Att Sanford Shatz – well, well, well, that is false and deliberately misleading listing, or in plain language - fraud.
.
With that he finished listing the parties as shown on the system today. The listing of parties on the system is missing two parties:
d. Michael Libow – Cross Defendant - Att. Robert Shulkin
e. Coldwell Banker – Cross Defendant – Att Robert Shulkin
.
When I asked Deputy Clerk Puig what authority or documentation he had that Judge Friedman had any authority in this case, perhaps some Assignment Order, that led him to conclude that he was in compliance with the law in making such order on me, he responded:
“Dr Zernik, you are going out on a tangent, and I am not going to go there with you, you know that the file is in this department.”
.
I tried to explain to him the difference between a judge grabbing a court file as his own, out of compliance and in violation of the law, and a case being duly assigned to a judge. But that distinction seemed lost on him. He complained I was arguing. I explained to him that I had no problem with him whatsoever, I assumed he wanted to keep his job, so he did what he was told. It was just that I was checking what was the legal basis for his conduct, which was none.
.
One would expect that a Deputy Clerk to whom you delegated your authority would at least be able to distinguish between adequate and inadequate notices. Delegating your authority to such Clerk Deputies who are unable or untrained to make that distinction is gross negligence on your part, and abuse of my civil rights.
.
B. Demand to immediately take corrective action to remove the court file of Samaan
v Zernik (SC087400) from Judge Terry Friedman per CCP §170.3.
Mr Clarke: Such abuse of my rights pursuant to Amendment 5 & 14 to the U.S. Constitution is conducted in your name under your authority! Please immediately perform your duties, and take corrective action to remove the court file from Judge Terry Friedman’s Court pursuant to CCP §170.3!
.
A person familiar with the case as a whole would probably conclude – as usual, what was made to appear as incompetence by clerks, was in fact fraud by a judge. Judge Friedman most likely decided to provide Countrywide standing in a proceeding where Countrywide has no standing at all. On the other hand, for all I know, he already negotiated some deal with Coldwell Banker that relieved them of the
need to appear at all. And it was this complete change in the makeup of the parties in this case, extreme abuse of my rights for Due Process, per Amendment 5 and 14 to the U.S. Constitution, that was hidden bythis strange notice.
.
Frauds by the court related to the listing of the parties have been a routine feature of this litigation.
.
Perhaps the epitome of such frauds can be seen in two cases:
1. Ex parte proceeding in a dark court (see below) – July 6, 2007
Countrywide was fraudulently listed by the Court as Plaintiff, since it had no standing. But Countrywide, creatively claimed to be “Non-Party”, and blamed me for having no reason to claim that it colluded with Samaan in fraud against me. Yet at the same time, Angelo Mozilo - President/CEO, and more so Sandor Samuels- Chief Legal Officer, absolutely refused to answer the request to verify or repudiate a couple of key records2,3 provided by Countrywide to Samaan.
.
Judge Connor had referred to my claims as “conspiracy theory”. But that ceased when by April 2007, I got the correspondence where Countrywide, Sheppard Mullin, and Samaan’s husband (Lloyd) were devising the fraudulent claims4. And by now I have a nationally acclaimed fraud expert confirm the fraud in one of these two records.
.
A month later, when I got to see some records for the first time, I realized that less than 3 weeks after the abusive ex parte proceeding in the dark court, , on July 24, 2007, Judge Connor entered a series of fraudulent records in page 1 of Case History. One of them, prominently planted on page 1, stated:
.
.......07/24/04 ..............Document Filed
.......................................Opposition
.......................................Real Parties in Interest
.......................................(BY COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS)6
.
That entry was fraudulently dated to a date that preceded the date of filing of the complaint (Oct 25, 2005), and the true date was invisible in printouts of the Case History in Sustain.
.
That was my first evidence that Sustain, the court’s case management system was built to defraud (see below). I then filed a record with the court dedicated to demonstrating some of the frauds in the Case History.
.
A few months later, the entry disappeared, without a trace7 – again an example of fraud in Sustain. Case History was retroactively revised with no nunc pro tunc or any other notation of the adulteration…no notice, no service… no indication by whose authority, when and why…
.
And the real purpose of this fraudulent entry, most likely was to inform all who looked at the case that the case was a “Countrywide Track” case. Therefore, Countrywide was “Real Parties in Interest”.
.
2. Judge John Segal’s responses to disqualification – December 4, 2007
In response to my Statement of Disqualification for a Cause, filed Nov 26, 2007 (fraudulently registered in Sustain, as merely a “Notice”), Judge Segal decided to recuse on his own, and filed a fraudulent Answer, in which he again adamantly defended Countrywide – as merely a witness… But in the same record itself, Countrywide is also fraudulently listed once as “Defendant” and once as “Intervenor“.

C. Notice to cease and desist
Mr Clarke: Please take notice and immediately cease and desist conduct carried out in your name, and claimed to be with your authority, which upon review is very likely to be found as
a) Negligence per state law,
b) Deprivation of rights under color of law - 42 USC §1983,
c) Mail Fraud - 18 USC §1341, d) Obstruction of Justice - 18 USC §1503 and e) Racketeering - RICO 18 USC §1961–1968.
.
D. Demand to immediately withdraw filing of false and deliberately misleading
notice in re: continuance of case conference, and order to notice, dated Oct 31,
2008, signed in your name, and presumably authorized by you.
Mr Clarke: Please immediately withdraw this fraudulent notice. It is null and void anyway. It fails to list all parties, it was never adequately served, and it was entered into court file out of compliance and in violation of California Rules of Court, Rule 1.219, with a defective proof of service.
This is exactly the type of frauds in the court file that my letter from yesterday requested that you
review and indicate which of the records was entered with your authority and in compliance with your
instructions, and which you consider entered not by your authority and instructions.
.
E. Background – LA’s two dominant racketeering groups in joint action
Notice to cease and desist conduct that upon review is likely to be deemed racketeering per Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 18 USC § 1961–1968, by Countrywide, a group of judges of
the LA Superior Court who subscribe to the "subcult of criminality" tolerated in the ranks of LA County
justice system, and white collar crime persons affiliated with Countrywide as "loan originators".
The foundation of such racketeering per 18 USC 1962 is (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a
pattern (4) of racketeering activity. The conduct here is of an organized group of judges, clerks, and
sheriffs, on the one hand, and Countrywide and its affiliated "loan originators" on the other; the
enterprise is the use of the court setting for conducting robbery under the guise of legitimate court
actions, and at the same time intimidating and retaliating against a victim/informer/witness; the
pattern - is actions such as yours, through clerks that sent notices, or compiled records into a
completely fraudulent court file, and racketeering activity here consisted of predicated acts per 18 USC 1961 related to robbery per state law,
mail fraud per 18 USC §1341,
wire fraud per 18 USC §1343,
financial institution fraud
18 USC §1344,
obstruction of justice 18 USC §1503,
retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant 18 USC §1513,
engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity 18 USC §1957.
.
You must be aware that the core of Samaan v Zernik is the ongoing efforts by high officials at
Countrywide to conceal the evidence presented in this case of the systemic, deliberate fraud against the U.S. government, including wire/fax fraud as a routine mechanism for assembling fraudulent loan applications, all part of the operations of Countrywide for the issuance of grossly unworthy government-backed residential loans.
.
These two core groups normally conduct their business separately: Activity of such judges at time was found to center around drug trade – as one could find reports that the Honorable Judge Connor was tightly tied to the Rampart CRASH unit, and she went out on a limb to protect them (and probably protect herself as well) in the First Rampart Trial. Those police were in turn engaged in what was described as “heinous crimes”10 of framing innocent people, extracting forced confessions through torture, and sentencing them to long prison terms. Such judges were also found involved in real estate frauds under the guise of litigation in LA Superior Court, e.g. Galdjie v Darwish case where Judge John Segal, Judge Patricia Collins, and Attorneys David Pasternak and Mark Green (all involved also in Samaan v Zernik) were involved in collusion with a convicted criminal Manouchehr Galdjie.
Countrywide’s core activity was in defrauding the U.S. government on the one hand, and defrauding mhomeowners who defaulted on their loans on the other11.
.
F. The big picture – the true story of Samaan v Zernik
I had no business with Countrywide whatsoever, I did not even recognize the name until Nov-
December 2006, over a year after the initiation of this fraudulent litigation. But Samaan's husband, Jae Arre Lloyd (formerly Timothy Lloyd Morrow), who I am informed, was convicted of crimes following
the theft of the medical benefits funds of Skyline Funding, a corporation based in the San Fernando
Valley, was a "loan originator" for Countrywide.
1. The mortgage scam all set up in September 2004
The initial fraud was not aimed against me either I believe. Lloyd set Samaan as a straw buyer for my Beverly
Hills residence in September 2004 with the goals of a) defrauding the U.S. Government b) defrauding
Countrywide share holders (in collusion with Countrywide management) and c) laundering monies derived from
the Skyline Funding heist. I was just an incidental fraud subject in that original scheme. Had it gone through, I
would have never been aware of it at all. neither would I have been harmed.
Accordingly, Samaan presented to me a fraudulent Prequalilification Letter, to induce me to enter a
contract. Consequently, she filed fraudulent loan applications with Countrywide. She was a cosmetics
sales woman in a department store, with no qualifications whatsoever to purchase my $1.8 millions
property. To me she represented that she was making her living as a successful realtor. In
Countrywide's loan applications she was exclusively earning her income as the president and sole
owner of a company that engaged in retail sales of Tarot cards, anointment oils, divining objects, and
crystal balls to followers of the psychic and the occult, her income was stated in some records as
$400,000 per year, in others $4,000,000 per year.
2. Failure of the mortgage scam, and fax fraud is exposed – October 2004
The original scheme failed due to resistance by senior underwriter at Countrywide San Rafael, Diane
Frazier, who on October 6, 2004 a couple of days after Samaan’s loan applications arrival, documented
the employment fraud, and demanded a "reasonable explanation". Moreover, Samaan’s applications
were unique, because they included also fraud against Countrywide – she wrote her loans with lona
fees of 0%, where 0.75% was due, translating to somewhere around $12,000 discount. Diane Frazier
thought that Countrywide management would stand behind her at least on the latter fraud. The Branch
Manager, Maria McLaurin, was closely associated with Lloyds, who funneled customers herway, and
she had a “special arrangement” with him. A savvy business woman, it is unlikely that she gave
Samaan the $12,000 discount for nothing. Where was the quo of the quid pro quo? In Spain? In Mexico?
Diane Frazier did not understand early enough that in Countrywide “nobody can touch Maria
McLaurin”, and she paid for that with her own job.
A key witness, wit ness, with tremendous potential to harm Countrywide, even today she lives in fear,
her life entirely controlled by Countrywide.
I knew of course nothing of all these events, which transpired entirely between Samaan and
Countrywide. Samaan never said a thing. And her Loan Broker (or at least that is what we thought it
was), which as I found out later, never picked up the phone when my realtor called, just kept on
stringing us from day to day. When I ended up not being able to secure my next dwelling, with closing 10 days away, I gave Samaan a “Notice to Buyer to Perform”.
While faxing the notice to Victor Parks, my realtor realized that the fax was in fact forwarded to
Samaan’s fax number after it connected – the digital display showed her number instead of Parks’. We realized that all this time, Samaan was impersonating her Loan Broker. In the following days there was no response to emails that requested explanation.12
I realized that I was trapped with professional white collar crime group. Samaan refused to perform, but also refused to bail out of the deal with her escrow money, and I ended up canceling escrow.
3. Samaan files complaint against me at the LA Superior Court, and court fraud
off to a good start– October 2005
Review of the court file would most likely lead a reasonable person to conclude that the complaint, written by Attorney Jay Stein, was reviewed by Judge Jacqueline Connor even before it was filed. The reason is that on her first proceeding in this case, on January 30, 2006, Judge Connor engaged in convoluted frauds that showed familiarity with the details of the fraudulent case.
Who was the connection? Att. Jay Stein? More likely Lloyds, from his excellent experience in his
criminal litigation?
.
4. The strange story of Sustain – the court’s case management system
Within a couple of months after my first appearance in court, I was zoomed on the system as focus of
fraud activity. I have practically no formal training in computers, but some high level college classes in
computer science, which I took as a kid, on a mainframe with punch-cards, left some deposit… and in
recent years I traced several computer frauds.
It took time to uncover the many levels of fraud in Sustain. The learning curve went like this:
.
5. Samaan spills the beans, and a new counsel arrives – Mohammad Keshavarzi of
Sheppard Mullin
.
6. Something is wrong –and my counsel – Charles Cummings- Sullivan Workman
& Dee offers $25,000 to have him leave the office - November-December 2006
.
7. No way to find an attorney who’d file fraud and deceit counter- claims in Judge
Connor’s Court
.
8. Resorting to a minor attorney- who is caught in a major deceit- Zachary Schorr
.
9. Trying a major league attorney – who is caught in conduct that is unbecoming –
Thomas Brown- Brown and White
.
10. Countrywide appears – Real Parties in Interest & Att Richard Green – Green &
Marker
.
11. I follow the Brandies Brief and become “radioactive”
.
12. Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg – and physical harassment finally entitle
me to see some of my own court file
.
13. Judge Jacqueline “Rampart” Connor quits with perfect timing – September 2008
.
14. Judge Allan Goodman experiences a short bout of honesty – October 2008
.
15. Judge Joseph Biderman – the only judge who just said “No”
.
16. Judge John–“the Rogue”- Segal, Att David Pasternak, and Att Mohammad
Keshavarzi – the Receiver scan.
.
17. Judge Lisa Hart-Cole – and incognito appearance of Richard Ormond –
Buchalter Nemer
.
18. Assistant Supervising Judge Patricia Collins – 2 gag orders, one fraudulent
indemnity agreement, one fraudulent grant deed, and assorted abusive
measures, just in time for lunch…
.
19. Pasternak engages in Fraudulent Conveyance of Title – December 2008
.
20. Judge Terry “Vigilante” Friedman – January – March 2008
.
21. The U.S. District Court, LA – U.S. Judge Virginia Phillips and Magistrate Carla
Woehrle – protector of civil rights? – nah – a Summons scam instead - March –
June 2008
.
22. The 9th Circuit – the big disappointment - June 2008
.
23. The Rampart immersion program
.
24. 4th of July, 2008 – a call for Congress to restore the Bill of Rights in LA
.
25. More frauds certified – but the redemption – only in the movies
.
26. California Court of Appeal, 2nd District – the Judgment Scam at its peak
.
27. Which is the true highest court of the land? Reality TV? Or maybe the movies?

Recently, when I sent some request to a fraud analysts, he returned it to me, and stated that I had
already more than enough fraud certificates. He said that I got to realize that a case like mine could
never be adequately and truthfully handled by the U.S. court system. Something to the effect that
finding truth and justice in court is something that exists only in the imaginations of ignorant people.
He explained to me that my only chance for justice is through the movies or TV, and that my case has a
very good chance, because of the confluence of interesting factors- the sub-prime crisis, and
Countrywide’s leader are here engaged in corruption of the court, a group of judges is obstructing
justice in concert, as a group activity. LA is always of interest, and then again – the story connects to
the Rampart scandal, and this season a new major movie is coming out on a related subject – B.I.G.
Scandalous.
.
There fore, this very letter to the Clerk will also be filed in court, as part of a request to allow media in the court, since I would like to have the option to run a couple of test episodes for reality TV shows, or as material for movie making. The story as a whole would be described as a hybrid of: China Town (the Blue Ribbon report states that corruption levels in LA County justice system are comparable to those during the Water Wars period), LA Confidential (never saw it, but was told that it fits right there), and Reality TV. I hope that all participants would enjoy their new status as celebrities if we make it as a reality TV show.
Together we can make it, but it requires team work! The worst is if people would start acting out of character just because of the camera. No waving hi to the folks at home please!
.
28. The white vans of the FBI/LAPD? & my sex life in Los Feliz – January- October
2008 (chapter deleted from court filing)
29. KNBC, Att Richard Fine, and the LA County Track – ends October 2008
30. Adjunct cases – Parks v Zernik – Feb – April 2008
31. Adjunct cases – Liu v Zernik –Judge Elizabeth White, & Att Christopher Olsen - is
it or isn’t it an Enterprise Track?
.
Thank you for your help. Allowing current conditions to persist is a disgrace to this court, and affront to the Bill of Rights, possibly the most significant achievement of American culture, and an insult to Justice itself.
.
.
Joseph Zernik

LA - Fraud Capital, USA

Does the LA Sup Court per chance have anything to do with it? .

.
In January 2007, visiting the FBI in Los Angeles, I heard for the first time that LA was Fraud Capital, USA. Later I heard other variations elsewhere - but the fact does have statistical backing – almost every year LA ends up in first or second place in the fraud list of the FBI.
.

• Does the LA County Superior Court have anything to do with it?

.
I realized, too late, that LA is the capital of fraud in the U.S., that was my first lesson from the FBI in Jan 2007. Well – I thought maybe it had to do with the high number of immigrants like me, may be we bring crime with us… maybe the people create conditions that are not sufficiently prohibitive for fraud, since there is not tradition of generations…etc etc.. But that was shown many times in the past to be falsehood.
.
Maybe the justice system in LA County is not tough enough, many people believe that tougher law enforcement is the right answer to crime. Maybe tougher law enforcement is needed? I don’t think so.
.
Later, in the same month, when I was trying to find a new attorney who would file counter claims for fraud and deceit, and could not find any in this town, I realized that there is something else. Eventually, as I learn a few month later (Att Rothstein and Att Lovett) and much later from the anonymous letter of the criminal defense attorney and from reading the 2006 Rampart report, I realized that Judge Connor, and some other judges, will never rule in favor of a claim of fraud and deceit, and moreover, they would retaliate against an attorney who files such claims.
.
I then thought that I solved the mystery. The court- by being lax on frauds, created conditions that are a permissive for fraud, which tend to increase the number of frauds, most likely indirectly, over time...
.
It took a few more months, and I finally realized that the judges, and Judge Connor most likely is their leader, are racketeering themselves. My current working hypothesis is that the judges of the LA Superior Court created atmosphere that is coercive for fraud. Professionals such as attorneys, realtors, escrow officers know that if they would not cooperate with the fraud, they are likely to suffer retaliation, and eventually join the fraud. It is also easy to see how in litigation like this, a ruling of the judge which would find fault in the conduct of and escrow company, can jeopardize its license. Therefore, if escrow company knows in advance that the court would never rule in favor of the fraud victim, it may feel that it must cooperate, as a defense measure.
.

Case Study #1
Liz Cohen, Escrow Officer, Mara Escrow .
Richard Ormond, Counsel, Buchalter Nemer .
In early December I talked and corresponded with Liz Cohen, Escrow Officer, after I realized that David Pasternak, fraudulently appointed by Judge Segal as "Receiver", initiated on behalf of the court a fraudulent escrow process with her. As a result she apparently refused to cooperate with the court in the fraud. That was at least what Pasternak claimed in court.
.
Therefore, it was necessary for Pasternak and the LA Sup Court to generate on Dec 7, 2007, in a double ex parte proceedings, out of compliance and in violation of the law:
.
a. Gag orders on me to prohibit communication with Escrow and Title companies

b. An indemnity agreement under court blessing, to induce Mara Escrow to engage in the fraud.
.
c. Assortment of abusive financial measures against me, to intimidate, and harass me.
.
Mara Escrow and its legal counsel, apparently did not feel all at ease about such court procedure:
.
To wit -
With support from Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, and in violation of the law, Att for Mara Escrow, Richard Ormond (Buchalter Nemer), appeared in court during the proceedings incognito. Neither he, nor the judge, agreed to reveal either his identity or the identity of his client.
.
Question: Did I file a complaint with the California State Bar Association?
Answer: No, why bother, where the bar stands on the issue you can hear in the NBC video below.
.

Case Study #2
Michael Libow, Real Estate Salesperson, Coldwell Banker, Beverly Hills.
On October 18, 19, 20, 2004, my realtor, Michael Libow, from Coldwell Banker, Beverly Hills was still acting relatively honestly. He recorded the fact that Samaan engaged in Wire/Fax Fraud against me and against him. Later I found out that she also engaged in Fax/Wire Fraud against Countrywide, a financial institution (in collusion with Countrywide branch manager). On October 18, 19, 20, 2004, Michael Libow also reveal to me and discussed with me the issue of the fax/wire fraud.
.
But by Oct 22, 2004, Michael Libow was already working in collusion with Samaan and her fraud, and invited me to the office of escrow to sign papers there, with Gail Hershowitz.
.
And later on during litigation:
.
Michael Libow would not agree to authenticate or provide any declaration regarding the wire/fax fraud on Oct 18-20, 2004, although his email to that effect was included in his discovery.
.
Michael Libow would not agree to provide any information regarding the origin of document that Samaan presented as the authentic contract faxed from Parks to Countrywide, Monday, Oct 25, 2004.
.
Michael Libow would not agree to provide any information regarding the origin of the document that was found in his discovery and Mara Escrow discovery, at times called “the clean copy”, which is clearly the product of adulteration. When asked about it, Gail Hershowitz claimed it came from Libow.
.
· What happened to Michael Libow between Oct 20 and Oct 22, 2004?
.
· Was he threatened?
.
· Did he suddenly see the light?

NOTICE TO JUDGE FRIEDMAN: CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING

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.

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.

I. Preliminary Estimate of Damages Claimed and Awards to be Requested in U.S. District Court Action

Damages Claimed
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

Additional Potential Awards in Related Actions:
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:

_______________________
Joseph Zernik
Plaintiff
in pro per

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION

I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant & Cross-Complainant in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) matter heard in Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, I am also Appellant in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior Court (B203063 – noticed 10/5/07 and B204544 – notice 12/10/07), matters currently in preparation of records on appeal for California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, and also Plaintiff in Zernik v Connor at al (2:2008cv01550), matter heard in U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.
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.

_______________________
Joseph Zernik
Plaintiff
in pro per

FOURTH OF JULY, 2008 PRESS RELEASE

FOURTH OF JULY, 2008 - PRESS RELEASE

DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND RELATED AUTHORITIES

By Joseph Zernik, of the People of the United States of America and of the People of California. Submitted through the AHRC web site and other services. Litigation records from various courts and other records to substantiate serious allegation below can be found at the AHRC Directory. Same and other records can also be viewed directly on Pacer, the U.S. Courts case management system (2:2008cv01550). Additional records are available in the clerk’s office of Los Angeles Superior Court (SC087400), California Court of Appeal, 2nd District (B203063), and U.S. Court of Appeal, 9th Circuit (08-72714). No scans of pleadings available online for the latter three courts. Additional records can be found under blog site In Pro Per in LA, and at a personal web site of Dr Zernik.
Signed here in the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California, 3rd of July, 2008.

jz
______________________________
Joseph Zernik


WELL-ESTABLISHED RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE AT THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
Evidence for wide-spread, long-term corruption in the largest County Court in the U.S.A.

The Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) and Mr Pasternak – an Officer of the LASC - who at present is at the center of racketeering activity described below, engaged in frauds in litigation, in taking of real property of Defendant Zernik with no entry of judgment, in fraudulent conveyance of title of said property, and in harassment and Intimidation of a Defendant Zernik – a victim, an informer, and a witness. The conduct of the LASC and Mr Pasternak was and is in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968).

History: This racket was established in LASC about 25-30 years ago, with the introduction of the then new Case Management System – Sustain, with no public oversight, in violation of the U.S. Rule-Making Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2071 – 2077). Concomitantly, the LASC then eliminated the Books of Court as Public Records, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Amendments 1st, 5th, and 14th. The conduct of the Judges of the LASC at that time, and any Judges of the LASC ever-since was out of compliance with the law.

Relationships with Other Racketeering Enterprises: The conduct of the LASC Racket in this particular case was in tight collaboration with another racketeering enterprise – Countrywide Financial Corporation, including any and all of its affiliates and subsidiaries, jointly and/or severally (Angelo Mozillo, Sandor Samuels, Maria McLaurin, Sanford Shatz, Todd Boock), Pacific Mortgage Consultants (Jae Arre Lloyd, Victor Parks, Nivie Samaan), Mara Escrow (Liz Cohen), and United Title Company, and the law firms of Sheppard Mullin et al (Mohammad Keshavarzi, Paul Malingagio), Buchalter Nemer (Richard Ormond), and Bryan Cave, LLP (John Amberg, Jenna Moldawsky).

Accomplices: Two additional banking institutions acted in ways that assisted the conduct of the racket in this particular case – Union Bank of California, and USC Credit Union. The Office of Los Angeles Registrar/Recorder established standards of care that are compatible with the conduct of such rackets and out of line with plain reason.

California Court of Appeal, 2nd District (CCA2): The CCA2 has taken an identical position to that of the LASC in this case - hiding it Books of Court – Index of All Cases, Calendar of the Court, Registers of Actions. The CCA2 is also insisting on a rushed hearing an appeal on a Judgment with no documentation of its entry, out of compliance with the law and California Rules of Court. The CCA2 also refused to allow Appellant Zernik access to his own litigation records at the LASC in preparing his opening brief. The CCA2 refused to adequately list the parties and attorneys in this case. There are other indications of tight collaboration of the racketeering enterprise in the LASC with the CCA2. Again, the instrument underlying this collaboration is the LASC’s case management system – Sustain. The LASC and the CCA2 are therefore renegade Courts.

U.S. District Court, Los Angeles and Riverside (USDCLA): A related case was filed in the USDCLA on March 5, 2008, when Zernik, Defendant at the LASC, sued the LASC and its judges. With it Zernik filed a request for protection through a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the judges of the LASC. Initially a series of judges of the USDCLA recused themselves. Eventually Judge Virginia Phillips, of U.S. District Court, Riverside, accepted the case. However, her conduct in this case remains questionable. She failed to rule on the case from early March 2008, when Plaintiff Zernik approached the U.S. Courts in an emergency request for protection, until March 21, 2008, when the request became moot, after Judge Terry Friedman of LASC had sufficient time to proceed with his abusive conduct, with no valid authority at all. And then again – Judge Phillips’ March 21, 2008 Minute Order appears complicit with the actions of the racketeering enterprise, and requires further investigation, since it provides evidence that she was aware of certain details of the racket that Plaintiff Zernik himself was not aware of at that time. Judge Phillips referred the case to Magistrate Carla Woehrle in USDCLA. Conduct of Magistrate Woehrle is unequivocally aimed at assisting the racket and preventing its exposure. Her actions focused mostly on attempts to undermine Pacer, the honest Register of Actions of the U.S. Courts, and blocking Defendant Zernik access to the court by setting on him on May 15, 2008, a gag-order prohibiting him from any filing in that court, in violation of the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. At the same time she resisted any requests to compel the LASC, Defendant in the US Court action - to allow Plaintiff Zernik access to his litigation records in the LASC.

Present Conditions in this Case: The evidence is overwhelming that the LASC, including Judges Connor, Goodman, Segal, Rosenberg, Hart-Cole, Collins, and Friedman, with assistance by Officers of the Court Pasternak and O’Brien engaged in racketeering in the taking of Zernik’s property with no valid entry of judgment. The main instrument that facilitated the enterprise of the racket and shows the pattern of racketeering activity is the case management system – Sustain, installed 25-30 years ago. Various features in the design of that program demonstrate that it was created with the intention of running such a racket in the court. Beyond that, the program as it appears today shows clear evidence that integrity of the code was not safeguarded over the years. The LASC and Mr Pasternak continue to act as if there was or is legal foundation to their conduct. At the same time, they continue to hide the Books of Court: Book of Judgments, Index of All Cases, Calendar of the Court, and Registers of Actions. On June 3, 2008 Assistant Presiding Judge McCoy sent a response to Zernik’s request for certifying either the entry of judgment or non-entry of judgment. Judge McCoy refused to provide either!

Demands for Immediate Actions: The LASC and the CCA2, with Mr Pasternak presently at the center of their racketeering conduct, must be immediately stopped by the proper authorities. Failure to do so is abdication of the Rule of Law in Los Angeles County. Mr Pasternak, the LASC, and CCA2 must not take any further action in this matter prior to review and discovery of the Books of Court by the appropriate authorities. In addition, Defendant Zernik and the Public at Large must have access to Books of Court and other records of the LASC and CCA2 that are Public Records, prior to any further action by these two courts in this matter. Until such time these are renegade courts.
The USDCLA and Magistrate Carla Woehrle must also immediately cease any action in the related case until further investigation of conduct of the Magistrate by the appropriate authorities, for collusion in racketeering.
///
END