OPEN LETTER- PASTERNAK

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

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

- prominent Modern Jewish leader and civil rights activist

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

March 15, 2008

Los Angeles Jewish Community and/or

Los Angeles Legal Community

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

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

Joseph Zernik

March 15, 2008

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

Former President, "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek

Receiver in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

By Email and by Fax

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

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

Mr Pasternak:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The California Code of Judicial Ethics also says:

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

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

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

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

The California Code of Judicial Ethics also says:

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

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

California Code of Civil Procedure ?170.3 says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

(6)(A) For any reason:

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

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

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

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

....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Rules of Court say:
2008 California Rules of Court

Rule 3.1179. The Receiver

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

(1)Is neutral;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. December 7, 2007 Mara Escrow Indemnity Agreement

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

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

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

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

G. December 7, 2007 Gag Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K. Mistrial in Samaan v Zernik

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph Zernik

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

Justice Louis D. Brandeis by Andy Warhol (1980)

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

March 13, 2008

Dear Friend:

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

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


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

The concluding statement says:

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


Joseph Zernik

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

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

March 10, 2008

Dear Friend:

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

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

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

LUNAR ECLIPSE IN LOS ANGELES, FEB 22, 2008

(Photo by SB)

The Big Sleaze

COUNTRYWIDE IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK

COUNTRYWIDE IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK – COMPILATION OF DATA

I.

Nature of the Case

Formally – Real Property Rights, a real estate dispute between Samaan and Zernik
In Fact – Countrywide is the dominant entity in this case.

II .
At a Glance

• Total pages filed by Countrywide so far (rough conservative estimate) ~ 3,000
• Total number of different party designations for Countrywide listed below - 12
• Number of judges whose disqualification openly involved Countrywide so far - 4
• Estimated personal annual income of Sandor Samuels – Party in Interest – many millions
• Estimated personal annual income of Angelo Mozilo – Party in Interest - many millions
• Value of the real property in question, or its ownership to Countrywide, Samuels, and/or
Mozilo – None
• Damages to Countrywide from the publication Jan 8, 2008 of one case of filing fraudulentdocuments in court - -Billions

III.
Designations of Countrywide1 in Court Papers

Lacking in Foundation

1. Transcripts

Date _________Judge_________ Designation
Aug 9, 2007_____ Connor__________ Countrywide
Aug 2, 2007 _____Segal___________ Plaintiff
Aug 1, 2007 _____Segal____________Plaintiff
July 23, 2007____ Connor __________Defendant

2. Minute Orders

Date________ _Judge _________Designations

Jan 15, 2008____ Friedman________ None

(Countrywide’s counsel listed as if it were counsel for Defendant Zernik, Countrywide is not mentioned by name)
Dec 4, 2007_____ Segal____________ Intervenor, Defendant, “not
a party”, “a witness”
Nov 14, 2007____ Segal____________ Intervenor
Nov 9, 2007 _____Segal____________ Intervenor
Nov 5, 2007_____ Segal____________ Intervenor
Oct 26, 2007____ Segal ____________Intervenor
Oct 23, 2007____ Segal____________ Intervenor
Oct 17, 2007_____ Segal____________ Intervenor
Oct 11, 2007 _____Segal____________ Intervenor
Oct 10, 2007_____ Segal____________ Intervenor
Aug 09, 2007____ Connor___________ Defendant
July 6, 2007_____ Connor___________ Non-party

REMOVED PER REQUEST

THANKS TO FRIENDS AND TOTAL STRANGERS!

Help arrived in the last two years from friends and total strangers, after our paths mysteriously crossed each other.

THANKS!

Joseph Zernik
Defendant and Cross Complainant
in pro per

FROM CONSPIRACY THEORY TO COMMON WISDOM... JAN 8, 2008

NEW YORK (AP) - Shares of Countrywide Financial Corp. plummeted Tuesday after a New York Times report said the mortgage lender fabricated bankruptcy documents and a Lehman Brothers analyst said the company is unlikely to return to prior profitability levels.
Shares of Countrywide fell $2.17, or 28.4 percent, to $5.47 Tuesday. Earlier in the session,
shares bottomed out at an all-time low of $5.05 after speculation the company was planning to file for bankruptcy itself. Countrywide later denied the rumors.
Countrywide shares have already lost about 26 percent of their value since the beginning of
the year. Since the beginning of 2007, shares of Countrywide have plummeted about 84
percent.
According to the New York Times article, Countrywide "recreated" letters claiming a borrower owed the company $4,700, even though the borrower was under bankruptcy protection.
Countrywide said in a statement documents were not recreated, and that it was not trying to pass off the letters as being sent borrower. Instead, the letters were printed with dates that listed when payment adjustments were made to the borrower's escrow The case is one of 300 bankruptcy cases in western Pennsylvania where Countrywide's practices are being scrutinized.
The nation's largest mortgage lender has been trying to cope with a worsening housing market and rising delinquencies and defaults, among subprime mortgages given to customers with poor credit history.
Countrywide posted $1.2 billion in losses in the third quarter of 2007 because of the weakening mortgage market. Countrywide million during that quarter to cover rising defaults among loans.
The lender essentially shut down its subprime lending operations and is instead focusing on originating loans that conform to Fannie Freddie Mac guidelines. Because the loans meet the criteria of two government-sponsored entities, they are considered safe investments.
But they are also less profitable. Lehman Brothers analyst Bruce Harting cut his fourth-quarter earnings estimate for Countrywide share from 36 cents per share.
"While Countrywide's transition to originating mostly GSE conforming mortgages has reduced balance sheet risk caused by its originations, the dramatic decline in Countrywide's earnings power this transition has caused has kept Countrywide's creditors company's liquidity," Harting wrote in a research note.
Harting said Countrywide will face additional pressure because the weakness in the overall housing market has depressed totally © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

COUNTRYWIDE FRAUD - NYT JAN 8, 2008

FROM CONSPIRACY THEORY TO COMMON WISDOM... NYT JAN 8, 2008

Fraud in the courtroom - common litigation strategy by Countrywide

January 8, 2008
Lender Tells Judge It ‘Recreated’ Letters
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
The Countrywide Financial Corporation fabricated documents related to the bankruptcy case of a Pennsylvania homeowner, court records show, raising new questions about the business practices of the giant mortgage lender at the center of the subprime mess. The documents three letters from Countrywide addressed to the homeowner claimed that the borrower owed the company $4,700 because of discrepancies in escrow deductions. Countrywide’s local counsel described the letters to the court as “recreated,” raising concern from the federal bankruptcy judge overseeing the case, Thomas P. Agresti. “These letters are a smoking gun that something is not right in Denmark,” Judge Agresti said in a Dec. 20 hearing in Pittsburgh. The emergence of the fabricated documents comes as Countrywide confronts a rising tide of complaints from borrowers who claim that the company pushed them into risky loans. The matter in Pittsburgh is one of 300 bankruptcy cases in which Countrywide’s practices have come under scrutiny in western Pennsylvania. Judge Agresti said that discovery should proceed so that those involved in the case, including the Chapter 13 trustee for the western district of Pennsylvania and the United States trustee, could determine how Countrywide’s systems might generate such documents. A spokesman for the lender, Rick Simon, said: “It is not Countrywide’s policy to create or ‘fabricate’ any documents as evidence that they were sent if they had not been. We believe it will be shown in further discovery that the Countrywide bankruptcy technician who generated the documents at issue did so as an efficient way to convey the dates the escrow analyses were done and the calculations of the payments as a result of the analyses.” The documents were generated in a case involving Sharon Diane Hill, a homeowner in Monroeville, Pa. Ms. Hill filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in March 2001 to try to save her home from foreclosure. After meeting her mortgage obligations under the 60month bankruptcy plan, Ms. Hill’s case was discharged and officially closed on March 9, 2007. Countrywide, the servicer on her loan, did not object to the discharge; court records from that date show she was current on her mortgage. But one month later, Ms. Hill received a notice of intention to foreclose from Countrywide, stating that she was in default and owed the company $4,166.
Court records show that the amount claimed by Countrywide was from the period during which Ms. Hill was making regular payments under the auspices of the bankruptcy court. They included “monthly charges” totaling $3,840 from November 2006 to April 2007, late charges of $128 and other charges of almost $200. A lawyer representing Ms. Hill in her bankruptcy case, Kenneth Steidl, of Steidl and Steinberg in Pittsburgh, wrote Countrywide a few weeks later stating that Ms. Hill had been deemed current on her mortgage during the period in question. But in May, Countrywide sent Ms. Hill another notice stating that her loan was delinquent and demanding that she pay $4,715.58. Neither Mr. Steidl nor Julia Steidl, who has also represented Ms. Hill, returned phone calls seeking comment. Justifying Ms. Hill’s arrears, Countrywide sent her lawyer copies of three letters on company letterhead addressed to the homeowner, as well as to Mr. Steidl and Ronda J. Winnecour, the Chapter 13 trustee for the western district of Pennsylvania. The Countrywide letters were dated September 2003, October 2004 and March 2007 and showed changes in escrow requirements on Ms. Hill’s loan. “This letter is to advise you that the escrow requirement has changed per the escrow analysis completed today,” each letter began. But Mr. Steidl told the court he had never received the letters. Furthermore, he noticed that his address on the first Countrywide letter was not the location of his office at the time, but an address he moved to later. Neither did the Chapter 13 trustee’s office have any record of receiving the letters, court records show. When Mr. Steidl discussed this with Leslie E. Puida, Countrywide’s outside counsel on the case, he said Ms. Puida told him that the letters had been “recreated” by Countrywide to reflect the escrow discrepancies, the court transcript shows. During these discussions, Ms. Puida reduced the amount that Countrywide claimed Ms. Hill owed to $1,500 from $4,700. Under questioning by the judge, Ms. Puida said that “a processor” at Countrywide had generated the letters to show how the escrow discrepancies arose. “They were not offered to prove that they had been sent,” Ms. Puida said. But she also said, under questioning from the court, that the letters did not carry a disclaimer indicating that they were not actual correspondence or that they had never been sent. A Countrywide spokesman said that in bankruptcy cases, Countrywide’s automated systems are sometimes overridden, with technicians making manual adjustments “to comply with bankruptcy laws and the requirements in the jurisdiction in which a bankruptcy is pending.” Asked by Judge Agresti why Countrywide would go to the trouble of “creating a letter that was never sent,” Ms. Puida, its lawyer, said she did not know. “I just, I can’t get over what I’m being told here about these recreations,” Judge Agresti said, “and what the purpose is or was and what was intended by them.” Ms. Hill’s matter is one of 300 bankruptcy cases involving Countrywide that have come under scrutiny by Ms. Winnecour, the Chapter 13 trustee in Pittsburgh. On Oct. 9, she asked the court to sanction Countrywide, contending that the company had lost or destroyed more than $500,000 in checks paid by homeowners in bankruptcy from December 2005 to April 2007. Ms. Winnecour said in court filings that she was concerned that even as Countrywide had misplaced or destroyed the checks, it levied charges on the borrowers, including late fees and legal costs. A spokesman in her office said she would not comment on the Hill case.
O. Max Gardner III, a lawyer in North Carolina who represents troubled borrowers, says that he routinely sees lenders pursue borrowers for additional money after their bankruptcies have been discharged and the courts have determined that the default has been cured and borrowers are current. Regarding the Hill matter, Mr. Gardner said: “The real problem in my mind when reading the transcript is that Countrywide’s lawyer could not explain how this happened.”

FROM "CONSPIRATORIAL THEORY" TO COMMON WISDOM...LOS ANGELES TIMES, DEC 14, 2007

2 states probe Countrywide home loans
The Calabasas lender says California and Illinois have issued subpoenas.
By E. Scott Reckard and Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers December 14, 2007
The nation's No. 1 mortgage lender, Countrywide Financial Corp., is under investigation by California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and the attorney general's office in Illinois, the Calabasas company said Thursday.
Countrywide said it had received subpoenas for documents from California and Illinois but declined to elaborate, citing company policy. It said it was cooperating in the two probes.

Related Stories
FULL COVERAGE: SOUTHLAND HOUSING MARKET
U.S. investigates Countrywide fees
Groups protest Countrywide actions
Freddie Mac woes may hit Countrywide
Countrywide critics slam board's pay
Countrywide mortgage volume falls 48%
Credit downgrade would have dire effects, Countrywide says

A spokesman for Brown said he couldn't comment. The attorney general has said he was taking a broad look into the lending practices of mortgage bankers and mortgage brokers and what roles they might have played in the mortgage meltdown crisis.
The investigation in Illinois, which was first reported in the New York Times, grew out of a probe into broker One Source Mortgage, which the state has charged with luring borrowers into loans they couldn't afford. Countrywide was the chief provider of these loans known as payoption mortgages which allow a borrower to pay less than the full interest that comes due each month, sending the loan balance up.
A former employee of One Source told investigators that the only Countrywide loan the broker tried to sell was the payoption type because the rebates were so huge, said Veronica Spicer, an assistant Illinois attorney general in the consumer protection division.

IN THE REALM OF DELUSIONAL CLARITY, THE ROAD TO SALVATION IS ONLY TROUGH STATISTICS...

FROM WRIT PETITION TO THE COURT OF APPEAL:

SLEEZY YET CURIOUS AMERICANA

In the realm of delusional clarity the way to salvation is through statistics...

From submission to the California Court of Appeal:

Racetrack

An array of sleezy, yet curious Americana. The photography of Lisa Kereszi is raw and fantastic (reviewed by by Josh Rubin)

NOTHING AS ENDEARING AS A LECTURE ON THE LAW (and ethics) FROM A CRIMINAL...Part II

Angelo Mozilo
Chairman of the Board, CEO,
Chairman of Internal Audit Committee,
Countrywide

Corporate Responsibility
Countrywide's Code of Business Ethics

A Message from the CEO


Countrywide's Code of Business Ethics reflects the company's existing culture and serves as a guide for our directors, officers and employees in their daily activities. In all of our business practices, we are committed to doing the right thing. As a result, Countrywide has a strong reputation for integrity with its customers, business partners, shareholders and its own employees.


A culture of "corporate" ethics can only be built on a strong foundation of "personal" ethics. For this reason, we expect all of our directors, officers and employees to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects Countrywide's commitment to acting ethically and in compliance with the law. Every director, officer and employee is held accountable for complying with this Code.


The very nature of our business dictates a high level of respect for the confidentiality and privacy of customer and business partner information. We are also dedicated to ensuring the accuracy of our financial reporting and all other documentation that we prepare. We have strict policies prohibiting activities that conflict with the interests of Countrywide, our shareholders and our ability to provide unsurpassed service to our customers.


As Countrywide takes its place among the foremost diversified financial services providers, we will continue to set the industry standard for excellence and integrity.


Sincerely,
Angelo R. Mozilo
Chairman and CEO
Countrywide Financial Corporation

NOTHING AS ENDEARING AS A LECTURE ON THE LAW FROM A CRIMINAL...Part I

Mohammad Keshavarzi from Sheppard Mullin et al writing to me:

At 12:58 PM 2/6/2008, you wrote:
I learned today that you have been contacting the staff at the court of appeal. Such ex parte communication is improper. In the future plaintiff needs to be part of your communication with any court.
333 South Hope Street48th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071-1448213.620.1780 office213.620.1398 faxhttp://www.sheppardmullin.com/ Moe Keshavarzi213.617.5544 direct 213.443.2910 direct faxMKeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com Bio

And here is my response, definitely too long...

Moe:

You cannot be serious -

Do you mean you would like to accompany me anytime I go to the clerk's office to pay or copy file records?
Am I supposed to schedule any trip to the clerk's office with you in advance? How about when I call the courtroom assistant for scheduling? Would you expect it to be done by a conference call?
Would such rules apply only to me, or also to you and Countrywide?

Just so I do not dismiss this as ridiculous, please provide the details of the specific communications that you consider as improper and the subject of your email below, as well as the code section or rule of court that is the basis for your unfounded claim.

Needless to say, you have conducted numerous ex parte communications out of compliance and in violation of the law, with, for one example, Judge O'Brien as documented in transcript of Aug 30, 2007 and elsewhere. Similarly, it was just ridiculous watching Judge Goodman try to pretend he had no idea where the Proposed Order you "lodged" with him on September 14, 2007 came from. He should have taken some acting classes before trying to pull off something like that.

Also, I still am waiting to hear how the ex parte hearing of July 6, 2007 by Countrywide, to issue a gag order against me from talking with practically anybody and his brother about Countrywide and Sandor Samuels' corruption, was scheduled in a special court session, for a non-party listed on that day as Plaintiff (one of Judge Connor's innocent small random errors). The only plausible explanation I know of is through an ex parte communication with Judge Connor. Indeed, courtroom assistant told me that the unusual scheduling came directly from Judge Connor. And the only response from attorneys for Countrywide so far was that it involved "nothing improper". And of course, the ruling on July 6, 2007, to allow Countrywide to file moving papers after my deadline for the opposition was just standard due process of the law - the original intent of the framers of the constitution...

Otherwise, it is always a pleasant surprise to learn about the law and regulations from an attorney who appears specialized in providing services beyond the law. Your conduct in Samaan v Zernik, e.g. - the fabrication of fraudulent claims between Nov 3 and Nov 6, 2006, as documented in the 3-ways correspondence with Jae Arre (Samaan's husband - couldn't he pick up a name that reads less fabricated if he wanted to hide his previous identity?) and McLaurin (Countrywide's San Rafael Branch Manager - "the untouchable"), amounts to fraud and deceit - run of the mill criminal conduct.

Unfortunately, you cannot expect every court and every judge to be as cooperative in criminal conduct as Judge Connor. And in that case too, you completely misread the situation. Judge Connor had no interest and no intention of benefiting you or Samaan, only Countrywide. Her decision to award Samaan the right to purchase the property in a declining market, with no attorney fees, is just one indication of that. You were just a collateral beneficiary in a corrupt court action, where the only intent was to cater to any and all of Countrywide's wishes, for a fee, one must assume.

Recently I have been wondering what an attorney, who is versed in the law, like you, would put as the odds that Mozilo and Samuels would end up in jail...

Joseph Zernik
Defendant & Cross Complainant
in pro per

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? WHERE?

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? WHERE?

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 athttp://www.prweb.com/tos.php

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.

Best,

Nicole Albright--

PRWeb Editorial StaffPRWeb International, Inc.2084

TRYING TO GET INVESTIGATORS FOCUSED...

TRYING TO GET INVESTIGATORS FOCUSED...

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

Gentlemen:

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

CC:
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

BET TZEDEK - DINNER GALA

BET TZEDEK -- HOUSE OF JUSTICE

On January 22, 2008, at Hyatt Regency Century Plaza, Bet Tzedek, a Jewish Legal Services will hold its 20th Annual Dinner Gala.

Of interest, President of the Board Sandor Samuels is colluding in fraud with Gala Chair Att David Pasternak. Details of the fraud were coordinated by two other attorneys at Countrywide – Todd Boock and Sandy Shatz, who identified themselves as Jewish observant, and threatened action if called to court during Passover, and thereby avoided discovery. The case is being reviewed before former Bet Tzedek Executive - Judge Terry Friedman of LA Superior Court, who on Friday, January 11, 2008 refused to be disqualified... Two of the direct beneficiaries of the fraud are still to join the Jewish charity – Mohammad Keshavarzi of Sheppard Mullin, and Nivie Samaan.

Tom Waits will make a rare Los Angeles appearance and perform a few songs. Dinner Tickets are $400.00 each, for more information call: call (323) 549-5813, or email tmumba@aol.com

SANDOR SAMUELS

A PERSONAL MESSAGE FROM SANDOR SAMUELS

Call Bet Tzedek
By Sandor Samuels
BT Board President 2006-2007

Whom do you call if you are elderly and someone is trying to evict you from your apartment or your house?

Whom do you call if you are a holocaust survivor and are being denied your rightful reparations?

Whom do you call if you need to care for an abandoned grandchild or niece or nephew?

Whom do you call if you live in a nursing home and are being denied appropriate care or treatment?

And whom do you call if you are being denied your rightful wages or are being forced to work in substandard conditions?

The answer to these and other legal problems afflicting the poor and the elderly in our community is a resounding BET TZEDEK. I’m proud to be the President of the Board of Directors of such an organization.

I’m especially proud of Bet Tzedek Shabbat, a new outreach campaign that we conducted on March 17th and 18th. On March 17th and 18th, Bet Tzedek’s message was delivered in congregations all across the southland. Rabbis and members of Bet Tzedek’s Board of Directors delivered a drash – a sermon – for Parshat Ki Tisa, the portion containing the thirteen attributes of God. These attributes include compassion, kindness and mercy. The message is simple yet powerful: All who are in need, come and we will try to help.

This is what we do at Bet Tzedek: try to help all who come to us. On Bet Tzedek Shabbat, nearly 10,000 congregants heard our call for more volunteers. And you, too, can be part of Bet Tzedek.

Please display the same attributes of compassion, kindness and mercy by volunteering your time to help further Bet Tzedek’s mission. Read more about our work in this e-newsletter and on our website. Then call Bet Tzedek’s Volunteer Coordinator, Robin Sommerstein, at 323-549-5814 or email her at
rsommerstein@bettzedek.org to get involved.

Thanks to the following synagogues and churches for participating in Bet Tzedek Shabbat:

Adat Ari El
Beth Hillel
Beth Jacob Congregation
Beth Shir Shalom
B'nai Benet (Simi Valley)
B'nai David
B'nai Horim
Leo Baeck Temple
St. Peter's Italian Church
Sinai Temple
Stephen S. Wise
Temple Adat Elohim
Temple Aliyah
Temple Beth Am
Temple Isaiah
Temple Israel of Hollywood
Temple Judea
University Synagogue

Samuels - Countrywide (CFC) Chief Legal Counsel to Answer Today, Friday, in Alleged Fraudulent Documents Case

Samuels - Countrywide (CFC) Chief Legal Counsel to Answer Today, Friday, in Alleged Fraudulent Documents Case

A hearing in Santa Monica on Friday, January 11, 2008, 8:30am will review Countrywide's role in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). Defendant claims that the case is founded fraud through documents provided by Countrywide. Countrywide claimed and the court concurred it was "merely a witness". CFC President, Angelo Mozilo, and Chief Legal Cousel, Sandor Samuels, so far refused to answer regarding the documents in question. However, on December 28, 2007, Saumuels filed a "Notice of Interested Person" in the case. In response, Defendant Zernik noticed an ex parte application "for an order to show cause why Mr Samuels should not have to answer... regarding the two alledgedly fraudulent Countrywide documents.", to be heard Friday, Jan 11, 2008, 8:30am, in Santa Monica, California. Recusals/disqualification statements of at least 3 judges were to CFC. Samuels stated that he is an acquaintance of the current presiding judge.

Beverly Hills, CA () January 11, 2008 -- Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) stems from the failed attempt of Samaan to purchase Zernik's residence in 2004. Defendant claims that the case is based on invalid fraudulent Countrywide* (CFC) documents:

a) An alleged invalid Underwriting Letter, dated October 26, 2004, which was introduced as evidence in court, allegedly misrepresented as a valid Underwriting Letter dated October 14, 2004. Defendant claims that this Underwriting Letter was never part of the official 2004 Loan File produced by Countrywide in response to subpoenas. Defendant claims that the document was added to the file only in April 2007, almost 3 years after the transaction under review.

b) An alleged invalid faxed copy of a Real Estate Purchase Contract with an alleged fraudulent fax header imprint, bearing no ID or phone number, as required by FCC Regulation. Plaintiff represented in court that the document was faxed from Victor Parks, Loan Broker in Washington State to Countrywide in San Rafael, California, on October 25, 2004, 5:03pm, as shown in the fax header time stamp. Defendant alleges that fax logs show that the document was in fact the product of fax transmission between Plaintiff, Nivie Samaan, and her husband, JR Lloyd, both in Los Angeles, as part of a convoluted fax/wire fraud involving Countrywide.

Both documents originated from sub-prime Countrywide Home Loan, San Rafael Branch with support declarations by Branch Manager Maria McLaurin. Media reports from litigation in New York earlier this week, quoted Countrywide attorneys stating letters they submitted as evidence in court were "recreated" documents. Both Countrywide officers declined so far to take any action or answer any questions regarding the allegations of fraudulant documents in Samaan v Zernik.

The case is currently heard by Judge T Friedman, the 8th presiding judge in this case so far. In his "Notice of Interested Person" Samuels stated that he " is acquainted with Judge Terry B. Friedmanis" but stated that "They have not communicated about this lawsuit". Two previous judges, Allan Goodman and John Segal listed Countrywide as the reason for their disqualifications, after ruling in the case each for about a month. Judge Allan Goodman stated in his recusal that he had "a longstanding close personal relationship with the General Counsel of Countrywide".A third judge, Jacqueline Connor, was disqualified after presiding in the case for over a year. Defendant's filed statement, which led to Judge Connor's disqualification was based on the claim "Judge Connor routinely offers Plaintiff and Non-Party Countrywide preferential treatment". In her response in open court, Sept 10, 2007, Judge Connor, known also as the presiding judge in the first Rampart Trial stated:"I absolutely, adamantly deny and contest and dispute the allegations made by Mr. Zernik. I don't concede anything, but I believe in the interest of justice it is appropriate for me to recuse myself".

*Countrywide here denotes Countrywide Financial Corporation, Inc (CFC) and all its subsidiaries and affiliates, jointly and severally.

** Additinal court documents can be found at:
In Pro Per in LA

For additional information regarding this action contact:
Joseph Zernik, DMD,PhD

Email: 123456xyz @ gmail.com

NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPEARANCE FOR FRIDAY, JAN 11, 2008

Att. Keshavarzi and Att Shulkin, Samuels, Moldawsky and Boock:

I write to provide notice that at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, January 11, 2007, I will appear Ex Parte in Department J, of the West District of the Los Angeles County Superior Court located at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401, or whatever department will see the case:

1) TO IMMEDIATELY NOTICE ZERNIK OF JUDGE FRIEDMAN'S DUE ASSIGNMENT ORDER BY THE SUPERVISING JUDGE OR ANY OTHER WRITINGS THAT ESTABLISH THE AUTHORITY OF JUDGE FRIEDMAN AS JUDGE PURSUANT TO THE LAW OF CALIFORNIA OVER ZERNIK IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK

2) TO ALLOW ZERNIK FULL ACCESS TO HIS COURT FILE, PAPER AND ELECTRONIC ALIKE, PURSUANT TO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT Chapter 2. Public Access to Electronic Trial Court Records (2007)

3) TO VACATE A FRAUDULENT MINUTE ORDER OF SEPT 10, 2007 BY JUDGE CONNOR, PURSUANT TO CCP ?170.3(b)(4), AND IN DISREGARD OF LOCAL ORAL RULE OF COURT: NO JUDGE SHALL OVERRULE ANOTHER, WHICH IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.

4) TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MR SAMUELS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO ANSWER DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT ZERNIK?S QUESTIONS (ENCLOSED) REGARDING THE TWO ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT COUNTRYWIDE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE THE KEY DOCUMENTS IN ALLEGED FRAUDULENT CLAIMS IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK.
ZERNIK CLAIMS THAT SAMUELS MUST ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS REGARDLESS OF CUT OFF DATE FOR DISCOVERY IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK, PURSUANT TO:
- SAMUELS FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND HIS PUBLIC FIGURE STATUS AS - CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL OF COUNTRYWIDE, WHERE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN INVESTORS? EQUITIES IN COUNTRYWIDE AND OTHER CORPORATIONS ACROSS THE BOARD (unbound by discovery date cut off) WERE SHED IN RECENT DAYS FOLLOWING THE FINDING THAT COUNTRYWIDE FILED FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS IN A NY COURT REAL ESTATE LITIGATION, AND

- PRESIDENT OF BET TZEDEK, A JEWISH CHARITY FOR FREE LEGAL SERVICES, WHICH ADOPTED AS ITS MOTTO THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE FROM MICAH?S FAMOUS VERSE:
6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
(unbound by discovery cut off dates either)
AND WHERE SAMUELS PROFESSED HIS COMMITMENT TO FIGHT FRAUD OVER THE CHARITY'S WEB PAGES.

Please let me know if you plan to attend and whether you would oppose.

THE ALLEGED FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS CAN BE VIEWED AT:http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

JANUARY 8, 2008 - LETTER TO MOZILO AND SAMUELS RE: FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS INTRODUCED IN LOS ANGELES COURT

JANUARY 8, 2008 - GRETCHEN MORGENSON, NYT STORY RE: FRAUD IN COURT BY COUNTRYWIDE

CHART: COUNTRYWIDE SHARE PRICE

NOTICE OF A FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT FROM COUNTRYWIDE - UNDERWRITING LETTER

NOTICE OF A FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT FROM COUNTRYWIDE - FILED IN COURT BY SAMAAN