COMPUTERS AND THE COURTS

Below is a passage from a document that was scheduled to be filed with the U.S. District Court Friday, May 16, 2008. Filing is delayed per explicit Court Order not to file any documents with the Court.

1. Regarding Case Management Systems

Similar to voting machines, court case management systems can improve the administration of justice, or allow wholesale abuse of Due Process. Plaintiff hopes that this court take action not only for providing his own personal relief, but as an opportunity to review a “serious question” of public interest, which presented extraordinary circumstances. As a result of such review, this court may reach some opinions that would make substantial impact on the justice system in California and beyond.

Plaintiff believes that there is an urgent need for review of case management systems used in the courts, based on his findings with the limited data and resources available to him. Main areas that may need review and eventually new rules include:

• 
  a. Rules must be developed regarding the development and introduction of new systems.

Plaintiff believes that the introduction of Sustain in the LA Superior Court, over 20 years ago, was a major change in the Rules of Court. But there is no indication that it was treated that way. Likewise, there is no indication that the introduction of the new system, CCMS, by the California Judicial Council is treated as such (Docket #56). As an example – it is unreasonable that there is no reference at all to Sustain in the written Rules of Court of Los Angeles County, based on a word search.

The United States Rule Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. § 2071 says:

• 
  (b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment.
  Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.

No new case management system should be allowed before giving public notice and an opportunity for comment. However, when it comes to computer systems, public comment is incapacitated absent detailed information regarding system specifications. Therefore, rules must be developed regarding the method of presentation of such systems for public comment (similar to rules regarding presentation of building plans for public comment). The logic of the programming code may need to be reduced to a set of assertions in natural language. Moreover, in consultation with experts from the field of mathematics and logic, standardized presentations may be developed, and methods of certification, to ensure that such presentations in natural language are true and correct reflection of the code. In addition, it may be necessary to certify that the logic of the system is consistent with the legal code that is implemented in it. Mathematical and logical methods such as “formal verification” and “simulation verification” may be utilized.

• 
  b. State of the Art Security and Signage Measures Must be Implemented.
  

Based on the little that Plaintiff has learnt about the system, it is reasonable to assume that it was modified over the years, and that such modifications were not uniform in all locations of the Court. Any ad hoc changes in the system are a major risk to its integrity, and rules must be developed to safeguard the systems against such changes in the code.

The system as it is operated now implements User ID’s and passwords. But such are hidden from public view in the Audit Files. That is in violation of the law relative to implementation of electronic and digital signatures. Such laws as the United States E-sign Act of 2002 and the California regulations regarding electronic signatures mandate that wherever such signatures were traditionally open to public view – and they definitely were open to public view in traditional Books of Court - they must be made accessible for public inspection also in their digital permutation.

Digital signatures must be introduced such that electronic filing (such as in Pacer) or Minute Orders (such as in Sustain) are accompanied by the party’s or the judge’s and the clerk’s digital signature, respectively, where traditionally the “wet” hand-signature would be imprinted in a traditional Books of Court.

• 
  c. Lessons must be distilled from the traditional paper-based systems

It appears that with the computerized revolution, the traditional systems were discarded without giving them a second thought. Primary consideration should be given to strengthening the ministerial arm of the court, as a counter balance to the judicial, with highly educated and skilled clerks in key positions. The authorities of the judicial and the ministerial arms should be carefully prescribed and segregated, to generate appropriate checks and balances.

• 
  d. CMS’s Must be Utilized to Safeguard Due Process and to Monitor the Quality and Integrity of the Courts.

The significance of correct docketing must be emphasized, and the systems must not allow easy ways to bypass the menu-driven, rule-based docketing. Without accurate docketing, the system is useless. With accurate docketing the system can become a valuable instrument in safeguarding Due Process. The contribution of the ministerial staff in this process needs to be emphasized, and their personal accountability for each act of docketing, which must bear a personal digital signature that is easily visible.


2. The Common Feature – The Culture of Silence

The California Court of Appeal surely offered helpful advice when it stated that

• 
  “true remedy is in filing an appeal from order for appointment of receiver”.

But in fact one must deem the Justices of the California Court of Appeal, like the Judges of the LA Superior Court, in violation of the California Code of Ethics Canon 3D(1).

They all knew of the unethical conduct and the abuse perpetrated on Plaintiff by Judges of LA Superior Court, but none followed the Code, which is clear cut in its directive.

Canon 3D(1) says:

• D. Disciplinary Responsibilities
  (1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate authority.*
  

None of the judges involved took or initiated appropriate corrective action.

Plaintiff believes that best explanation for what takes place in the LA Superior Court is found in a paper by Erwin Chemerinsky -The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles County Guild Practitioner, 121, 2000.

In it he states:

• "Police officers in the CRASH unit in the Rampart Division of the Los Angeles Police Department framed innocent individuals by planting evidence and committing perjury to gain convictions. Innocent men and women pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit and were convicted by juries because of the fabricated cases against them. Many individuals were subjected to excessive police force and suffered very serious injuries as a result.
  Any analysis of the Rampart Scandal must begin with an appreciation of the heinous nature of what the officers did. This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states. It occurred in Los Angeles….
  … the … report is lacking in the following ways:
  · First – it fails to identify the scope of the problem, and indeed, minimizes its scope and nature.
  · Second, the report fails to recognize that the central problem is the culture of Los Angeles Police Department… the “Code of Silence”..
  · Third - the …report fails to consider the need for structural reforms…
  · Fourth – the problems in the… disciplinary system are unduly minimized…"
  

Much of what is stated above is directly applicable to the LA Superior Court, in particular the statement regarding the “Culture of Silence”.

Chemerinsky concludes with a statement that is also applicable here:

• 
  "No single reform can be sufficient. Reform is not an event, but a process that will take many years to complete…"
  

in pro per

in LA

MOVIE REVIEW: WEB OF DECEPTION (1989)

Some Culture for a Change -

MOVIE REVIEW: WEB OF DECEPTION (1989)

REQUEST FOR A STATEMENT ON THE RECORD

May 14, 2008

Hi [redacted]:

I hope that you accept my request below as reasonable under the circumstances. No offense is intended, and I hope that no offence is perceived.

Given the unusual nature of my case, which involved multiple disqualifications of Los Angeles Superior Court judges and multiple recusals of United States District Court judges, I have recently filed requests with the judges that currently involved in my case, to file Statements on the Record pursuant the amended provision (effective January 1, 2008) of California Code of Judicial Ethics.

Canon 3E(2) says:

• (2) In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that is reasonably relevant to the question of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification.

I filed such requests with:

a. The Honorable Terry Friedman, Judge

• Los Angeles Superior Court

b. The Honorable J Mosk, PJ Turner and J Armstrong, Justices

• Division 5, Second Appellate District, California Court of Appeal

c. The Honorable C Woehrle and V Phillips, Judges

• United States District Court, Central District of California
  

Judge Friedman refuses to comply with this request and other provisions of the law pertaining to disqualification, Judges Mosk, Turner, and Armstrong denied my request, and Judges Woehrle and Phillips have not responded yet.

Given your interest in Jewish observance I have modified the request as follows.

Request:
I ask that you provide a Statement on the Record (written and hand signed, fax is ok) and disclose information (or lack thereof) that is reasonably relevant to the question of Gnevat ha-Da-at under the Code of Jewish Ethics, relative to our professional relationship, even if you believe that there is no actual basis for concern in this regard.

Joseph Zernik

WHERE IN THE WORLD IS ERWIN CHEMERINSKY?

If you want to figure out LA, you got to figure out the Rampart Scandal, and Bernard Parks, and Chemerinsky…

Sara, the old (that means about my age) black lady at Kinko’s, is trying to teach me some commonsense. She told me a few months ago that the two most corrupt cities in the U.S. were Chicago and Los Angeles. The difference, however, she said – was that in Chicago, corruption was sophisticated, in Los Angeles – it was crude…

I told her that it was downright insulting... Everybody and his brother likes to hack down LA as a place with no culture… Now, on top of everything else, our home grown corruption was not sophisticated enough…

I was unprepared for it at all, I must say. My encounters with the law were mostly with individuals that I grew to appreciate or even admire …

Prof Chemerinsky is scheduled to come back to California as the new founding dean of the new law school at Irvine. Before he left USC for Duke, I had the opportunity to meet him a few times. I remember taking the kids years ago to watch moot court, which was one of his classes. He created a case that was both challenging and entertaining, and it played to a full house...

If I remember correctly, it started with a town with home grown crime and gangs.

• First – the town decided to create a list of gang members or suspects to be maintained by the town’s police.
• Second – they decided to pass a regulation that those on the list were not allowed to be found standing in public areas in a group of more than two.
• Third – the town decided to launch a remedial initiative, and create special schools for gang members, and to make them effective, the Department of Education decided to experiment with separate boys girls schools, since teen pregnancy was identified as an aggravating factor in the social context of gangs and crime. The town actually allocated some extra resources to these two schools, and those on the list maintained by the police had priority if they chose to enroll in these schools.

But it so happened that the boys school filled up quickly, whereas the girls school was not that popular…
The end of the story was that a boy who was a self declared gang member, thus eligible for a place at the special school, decided to try to enroll in the girls school, since the boys school was full. When he was turned down, for being a boy, AND a gang-member to top it off, he sued the town for discrimination…

I also remember a reception for Justice Kennedy. His visit included participation in Prof. Chemerinsky constitutional law class. After the small reception, Justice Kennedy gave a lecture. Naturally, I took a seat at the very back, since I knew I was going to fall asleep, and I did not want to appear offensive. But I clearly recall, before falling asleep, I was smiling to myself concluding that the guy was a subversive type…. agent provocateur!

It was the height of the conservative revolution, and the country was in the midst of non-stop bashing of activist judges. Justice Kennedy lectured on a topic that couldn't be more boring – the development of tort law in medieval England. But the message was loud and clear – the whole field of Torts was the outcome of judicial activism…

The diagnosis was accurate, I believe, since years later, I recall reading in the newspaper a report about a visit by Justice Kennedy to Congress. The unusual event was necessitated for the periodic request by the justices for congress to award them with a salary increase. But since such visits by Justices to Congress are not very frequent, Justice Kennedy took advantage of the open microphone, and instead of trying to convince the lawmakers of the need for more Gouda for the Justices, he gave them a piece of his mind -- that a situation where the U.S. had the highest percentage the population incarcerated, compared to any other democracy, signaled a need for a fundamental reevaluation of the system. Definitely subversive!!!

Anyway, if you really want to figure out Los Angeles, you got to figure out the Rampart Scandal of 2003, and with it the Bernard Parks, who is not running for office again, and Erwin Chemerinsky, who is finally coming back to Southern California. I realized some time ago that I got to do my homework, and I went back to reading on that year and the Rampart Scandal of 2003. To my surprise, I quickly realized that the definitive paper was of course by Chemerinsky.

And for those readers who suffer from Adult Onset ADHD, like me, here it the long and short of it:

Erwin Chemerinsky
THE RAMPART SCANDAL AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Guild Practitioner, 121, 2000.

1) The Long
"Police officers in the CRASH unit in the Rampart Division of the Los Angeles Police Department framed innocent individuals by planting evidence and committing perjury to gain convictions. Innocent men and women pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit and were convicted by juries because of the fabricated cases against them. Many individuals were subjected to excessive police force and suffered very serious injuries as a result.

Any analysis of the Rampart Scandal must begin with an appreciation of the heinous nature of what the officers did. This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states. It occurred in Los Angeles….

… the … report is lacking in the following ways:

• First – it fails to identify the scope of the problem, and indeed, minimizes its scope and nature.
• Second, the report fails to recognize that the central problem is the culture of Los Angeles Police Department… the “Code of Silence”..
• Third - the …report fails to consider the need for structural reforms…
• Fourth – the problems in the… disciplinary system are unduly minimized…"

2) The short
"No single reform can be sufficient. Reform is not an event, but a process that will take many years to complete…"

EARLY PERSPECTIVE ON LOS ANGELES

From the New Republic

http://www.csi.uottawa.ca/~debruijn/qa.txt

Tekst 7
L.A. story

To the editors,

I believe that Harold Meyerson missed the point (` Falling Down,' May 3). What is really missing in Los Angeles is not more or less politics. Rather, it is the foundation politics is based upon---a feeling of Social Contract.

The reason T.V. stations do not broadcast L.A. political news and events is probably that they discovered a complete lack of interest from their audience. And the reason the audience is not interested in L.A. politics is that the voters have reduced their expectations from the state, the county and the city to a minimum. Meyerson gives the indicators himself: flight from the crumbling public school system, increasing reliance on private policing, walling-in and gating of private communities and dismemberment of the welfare system.

Thus, in contrast with other communities in the United States, voters in L.A. do not expect to improve or resurrect these basic functions of government (protection, education, welfare). Instead, in growing numbers they vote for propositions that effectively dismantle the system by eliminating its funding and opt for any possible privately funded substitutes. These feelings were the basis for the tax revolt and Proposition 13, which in itself accelerated the process. These feelings also explain the reason for the expected defeat of the current measure to increase the number of LAPD cops, or the large support for the California school voucher measure, which may deliver the final blow to the public education system. Southern California, with its multicultural and multi-ethnic structure, is not likely to develop a cohesive Social Contract in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is not likely to be pursuing the Swedish Welfare State model, or anything close. Instead, new democratic models may need to be pursued, models that would delegate maximum tax and government responsibilities to reasonable size communities---still the functioning backbone of this area. Interest in politics will follow.

JOSEPH ZERNIK
Beverly Hills, California
`The New Republic', May 31, 1993

Q48 What do `the indicators' (paragraph 2) point to?
A The dwindling interest of the media in L.A. to report on political disputes.
B The growing incompetence of the L.A. authorities in dealing with crime.
C The shrinking faith of the L.A. population in the public services provided.
D The tendency of sections of the community to place themselves outside L.A. law.

Q49 Which of the following ideas is expressed in paragraph 3?
A In L.A. basic social services are being undermined as a result of voters' preferences.
B In L.A. social unrest has clearly led to chaotic governmental policies.
C The social divide in L.A. has now grown beyond the point of hope for improvement.
D Voters in L.A. are only prepared to consider measures which are aimed at the common good.

Q50 What do Mr Zernik's observations in paragraph 4 amount to?
A Decentralisation of power on a local level will set L.A. on the road to recovery. B Problems such as those of L.A. will dissolve if the authorities step up urbanisation.
C The Swedish Welfare State model is too complex to be acceptable for southern California.

IN PRO PER IN LOS ANGELES: BOOK CLUB READING RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR THE WEEKEND OF MAY 3, 2008 OUR BOOK CLUB READING RECOMMENDATIONS ARE:

1. FILE SYSTEM FORENSIC ANALYSIS

2. DIGITAL EVIDENCE and COMPUTER CRIME

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE OPERATION OF SUSTAIN IN WEST DISTRICT- SANTA MONICA.

May 2, 2008

D. Brett Bianco, Court CounselSuperior Court of California, County of Los Angeles111 North Hill Street, Suite 546Los Angeles, California 90012213.217.4960 facsimilebbianco@lasuperiorcourt.orgBy Email and by fax

URGENT- TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE
RE: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – LITIGATION RECORDS
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE OPERATION OF SUSTAIN IN WEST DISTRICT- SANTA MONICA.
REQUEST FOR A COPY OF USER’S MANUAL FOR SUSTAIN.
TIMED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY MONDAY, 5:00PM

Mr Bianco:

I am writing to you again to request clarifications regarding the operation of Sustain in West District, Santa Monica, which appears substantially different from the operation of the system in other locations. The questions arising from analysis of the reports are critical to understanding of the records of litigation in “Samaan v Zernik”. Therefore, I request that you provide the required responses by the time indicated.

I would also be grateful if the court could provide a user’s manual, FOR PAY, so that I could continue my study of such records independently.
Here are preliminary questions that require urgent response:

a. Does the LA Superior Court hold that Sustain, as operated in West District, Santa Monica, complies with California Rules of Court, Chapter 2: Public Access to Electronic File Records?

b. Does the LA Superior Court hold that rules of court implemented in Sustain, as operated in West District, Santa Monica, are all part of the written and published California Rules of Court and Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court?

c. Regarding “Oral Rules of Court” that do not appear in either California Rules of Court or Los Angeles Country Local Rules of Court, such as “Sustain data are privileged – for the Court Only”:

• 1. Does the LA Superior Court hold that such rules comply with the US Rule Enabling Act 28 USC §2071 ?
• US Rule Enabling Act 28 USC §2071(b) says:
• (b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.
  …
  (d) Copies of rules prescribed under subsection (a) by a district court shall be furnished to the judicial council, and copies of all rules prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall be furnished to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and made available to the public.
  (e) If the prescribing court determines that there is an immediate need for a rule, such court may proceed under this section without public notice and opportunity for comment, but such court shall promptly thereafter afford such notice and opportunity for comment.
• 2. Were Rules of Court involved in the operation of Sustain in Santa Monica ever published?
• 3. Were such rules prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment?

d. Regarding Rules of Court implemented in the operation of Sustain in Santa Monica, such as:

• The assignment of date of “00/00/00” to a document , an order, or a ruling; and
• The assignment of date of “33/33/33” to a document , an order, or a ruling
  
  1. Who holds the authority to rule that a paper filed with the court would be at a later time designated as dated “00/00/00” or “33/33/33”?
• 2. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court are such determinations made?
• 
  3. How is the Due Process requirement for “Notice” implemented relative to such determinations or rulings?
  

e. Regarding the input of “Events” that require adjudication in Sustain:

• 
  1. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court is it determined how many independent events requiring adjudication may be scheduled simultaneously under one calendar event?
• 
  2. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court is the “Completion” of such Events, and the recordation of the outcome of adjudication implemented for such independent events requiring adjudication that were scheduled simultaneously under one calendar event
• 
  3. Who holds the authority to rule that a paper filed with the court would be designated as generating an “Event” versus generating just a “Document Filed”?
• 
  4. Pursuant to what code section or Rule of Court are such determinations made?
• 
  5. How is the Due Process requirement for “Notice” implemented relative to such determinations or rulings?

f. Relative to financial transactions implemented in Sustain:

• 
  1. Pursuant to what California Code and what Section, alternatively pursuant to what Rule of Court is it determined which papers require a fee of $40.00, and how is the fee itself determined?
• 
  2. Is there a periodic audit of financial transactions I Sustain? By whom?

Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated!

Joseph Zernik

CC:
Ms Avelina Richardson, Clerk’s Office Supervisor
Mr Frank Klunder, IT Department Director

REQUEST FOR LITIGATION RECORDS FROM LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

May 2, 2008

D. Brett Bianco, Court Counsel
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
111 North Hill Street, Suite 546
Los Angeles, California 90012
213.217.4960 facsimile
bbianco@lasuperiorcourt.org
By Email and by fax


URGENT- TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE - Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – LITIGATION RECORDS

Mr Bianco:
I am writing to you again to inform you of the refusal of Santa Monica Clerk’s Office to provide essential litigation records, and to request your help in ensuring that such records are immediately provided, and that abuse of my rights pursuant to the US Constitution, Amendment 5th and 14th, is immediately put to an end.
This is a far cry from a request for “secretarial functions” as you termed it in your April 4th, 2008 letter.
For many months I and my counsels were denied any access to litigation records in “Samaan v Zernik” as evidenced by verified declarations by legal services providers who tried to gain such access on my behalf, and my attorneys’ behalf, unsuccessfully. These services providers are surely familiar with the arrangements for payment, pick up, etc.
In recent months, as always, I am struggling to obtain access to my litigation records. The Court of Judge Terry Friedman has repeatedly refused to notice Minute Order, in abuse of my Due Process rights, and has insisted that I have to obtain them one by one (and guess when and how many were issued) from the Clerk’s office.
To keep myself informed, even if after the fact, I try periodically to obtain comprehensive set of Minute Orders and Case History from Sustain. Such efforts have always been stalled and delayed. In the past two weeks I am attempting to obtain the Minute Orders for the period of Jan 1, 2008- to present, and Case History in Sustain - to present. After many delays, legal services provider finally obtained these documents from the Clerk’s office.
However, a third critical document is still missing. Such document was promised, but was never provided. Such document was to be a printout from Sustain, including:
a) The ID Number of each Action.
In Sustain – most often the number first appears with the Journal Entry – documenting the initial payment at the time of filing for a motion, and such number defines the start of a new register Event in Sustain.
All such numbers are omitted from all printouts that I have ever received from West District, Santa Monica. But such numbers do appear in printouts of West District, Beverly Hills Actions.
b) The Time of filing and Entry and Titles of papers filed by parties in conjunction with such Event
In Sustain – most often such are entered as Document Filed.
c) Calendar information of the hearing, or no appearance review in chambers.
In Sustain – most often such are entered as Events
d) Time and succinct summary of judicial acts in the action.


In Sustain – such data are most often entered as Event Complete, simply stating: Denied, Granted, Granted in part, etc.
To the best of my knowledge such printout is termed in Sustain Register of Actions, and it is a critical litigation record. The quintessential feature of the Register of Actions is the appearance of the register numbers. Other features may or may not appear in a given printout.
I was promised such a printout yesterday, and I made necessary arrangements for pay and pickup, but such was not provided to the legal services providers. I asked for it again today by phone from John.
I again ask that you ensure that I am immediately provided with such printout.
I am also copying Mr Klunder, Director of the Court’s IT Department, on this communication, in hope that he would help and shed light on the name of the most appropriate Sustain report that includes the information described above.


Joseph Zernik
CC:
Ms Avelina Richardson, Clerk’s Office Supervisor
Mr Frank Klunder, IT Department Director

ARLAND ON COUNTRYWIDE

EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN AND MEN

(2006)

SOLD

http://jonathanarland.com/

CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL RESISTANCE – GREAT AMERICAN TRADITIONS

From Puritans through Thoreau and Martin Luther King to rave parties, Presidents Carter and Eisenhower...

Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) Author of "Resistance to Civil Government" (1849)

Writing in Foreign Affairs (Human Rights and the American Tradition, 1978), Arthur Schlesiger states:
“Human rights -- roughly the idea that all individuals everywhere are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on this earth -- is a relatively modern proposition. Political orators like to trace this idea to religious sources, especially to the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition. In fact the great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights in the contemporary sense -- not only for their acquiescence in poverty, inequality and oppression, but for their addiction to slavery, torture, wartime atrocities and genocide.”

One may very well differ.

Already in the Five Books of Moses, one may find discussion of various forms of government and branches of government, with clear limits set on their discretion, and consequently – on their legitimacy.

Deuteronomy, 17:14-20 includes Laws pertaining to Kings, which can be seen as setting the grounds for the conflict of Henry VIII and Thomas More, and also for the checks and balances among the branches of government:

”16: But he[the king] shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 18: And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:”

The return to Egypt may very well be read as a figurative prohibition on enslavement of subjects by the king, and big government is clearly disfavored.

Similarly, the Five Books of Moses do include clear commandment regarding the conduct during wartime, putting limits on atrocities, whether or not in a manner acceptable by contemporary standards. Such laws also distinguished in a meaningful way between wars that are an absolute must for the safety and security of the subjects, and wars that are declared at government’s discretion.
Deuteronomy 20:5-14
"5: And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it. 6: And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it? let him also go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it. 7: And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her. “…
10: When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11: And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. 12: And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: 13: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 14: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee."

The five books of Moses surely do not advocate “addiction to slavery”, on the contrary, they mandate emancipation of all slaves on the seventh year.
“…in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. 15:13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:”

And a verse from the Five Books of Moses (Leviticus), referring to the jubilee and the freeing of slaves is engraved on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia:

"Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof "

And in a clear commandment that surely resonated with the abolitionists states:
“23:15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: 23:16 He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.”

The Five books of Moses, also speak of the need to appoint judges who are impartial - an early code of judicial ethics:
Deuteronomy 16:18-20:
18: Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment. 19: Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. 20: That which is altogether just shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

One may also call Schlesiger to task for another incorrect statement in the same article:
“…humanitarianism -- the notion that natural rights have immediate, concrete and universal application - -- is a product of the last four centuries.”

The origins of this modern concept are often traced to a very clearly promulgated document, perhaps the most significant, early Modern document - Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s Oration on the Dignity of Man (1486), written when he was just 23 years of age, and surprisingly born out of his immersion in the study of Caballah and the Song of Solomon… And Pico’s Manifesto was in and of itself an act of civil resistance, since it was sent as the opening statement to a polemic letter to the Pope, and that and more landed him for some time in jail.

With all these disclaimers, one must still agree with Schlesinger that Human Rights and Civil Rights are a tradition that is deeply embedded in the American fabric.

These points are connected, of course through the Puritan tradition. It is no accident that the one of the early Puritan rebellious acts was unauthorized translations of the bible into the vernacular – English. Therefore, making it accessible to all members of the congregation. The insistence on accessibility of the law – engraved in the United States Constitution, as part of the 5th and the 14th Amendment – Due Process of the Law, can be traced back to that principle.

It is therefore no accident that Anabaptist congregations such as the Mennonites and the Quakerswere were at the forefront of abolition and anti war protests, as forms of civil resistance based on their religious convictions.

From there on, one may make an relatively small leap to the icon of Civil Resistance in the US and the world - Henry David Thoreau, and his "Resistance to Civil Government" (1848).

In it, to clearly distinguish himself from anarchist, Thoreau states:
“I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government” .

Thoreau’s clashes with government are not surprisingly centered on slavery and war. Thoreau’s own ideas were vastly influenced by Ralf Waldo Emerson, and Emerson himself was the product of a long line of Unitarian Ministers…closely tied (even in dispute) to Harvard Divinity School.

Summing his own philosophy, Emeson is said to have stated it to proclaim:

"the infinitude of the private man."

Emerson too, was a abolitionist, but his approach never culminated in the resistence that landed Thoreau in jail. On the contrary, Emerson is the one who paid Thoreau’s tax, to get him out of jail…

This difference is summed up in the tradition that relates the anecdote of Emerson’s visit with Thoreau in jail:
"What are you doing in there?" Emerson asked.
Thoreau replied: "What are you doing out there?"

In his eulogy

of Thoreau, Emerson said:

“He was a speaker and actor of the truth, born such, and was ever running into dramatic situations from this cause.”
And -

“No truer American existed than Thoreau.”

Thoreau and Civil Resistance became a popular culture icons again in the 1960’s, with MLK, the Baptist Minister, the civil rights movement, and the anti- Vietnam war protests. Joan Baez, for example, who grew up not far from Concord and Walden Pond, repeated the defiant act of Thoreau by refusing in 1964 to pay 60% of her tax bill, as an antiwar protest.

In recent years civil restistance have seen a new development – rave dance parties have become both in north America and in Europe the main instrument of civil resistance of the anti globalization movement, not the least because of the emphatically civil and non-violent nature of such protest.

In historical perspective, the Carter Presidency, for better and worse, is likely to be the judged as uniquely American phenomenon. In it, promotion of peace and civil rights sincerely became the corner stone of foreign policy of the leading superpower. Needless to say, in historical perspective, Jimmy Carter may also be judged to be the 20th century’s American president who was most religiously anchored.

And uniquely American in historical perspective, no doubt, is also the defiant act of another American 2oth century president, who in historical perspective may be judged to be one of the greatest of that century - one, who as a youth rebelled against his Quaker parental tradition and enlisted in the military – Dwight Eisenhower. He ended up his presidency with a Farewell Address denouncing Military-Industrial Complex, and the danger it posed to American democracy. That address became of course a classic reference among those who advocate civil resistance for various causes, but the fact that such an address was made by a president, can clearly be defined as a uniquely American phenomenon, one that is rooted in the Quaker tradition he grew up in, and rebelled against – the tradition of civil resistance.

OPEN LETTER TO SAMUELS - COLLUSION IN FRUAD

Moshe’ ben Maimon / Maimonides (1138, Cordoba Spain – 1204, Fustat, Egypt) -Historically renowned medieval Jewish codifier

March 19, 2008

Att Sandor Samuels
By Open Letter to the Los Angeles Jewish and/or Legal Communities and
By email and by fax to Bryan Cave, LLP

OPEN LETTER TO MR SANDOR SAMUELS – PRESIDENT OF BET TZEDEK - “HOUSE OF JUSTICE”
RE: Notice to cease and desist collusion in fraud and obstruction of justice, and to mitigate damages.
Timed response requested by Friday, March 21, 2008, 5:00pm

Mr Samuels:

On web pages of Bet Tzedek you described yourself as personally responsible for all litigation matters at Countrywide. You also pronounced your commitment to fight fraud throughout Southern California. Similarly, Mr Mozilo, in web pages still posted, advocates Corporate Ethics in Countrywide* and pronounces his commitment to fight fraud in Countrywide. Both Mr Mozilo and Mr Samuels are charged with the safeguard of integrity of operations at Countrywide as Officers, Mr Samuels also as Chief Legal Counsel, and Mr Mozilo also as Chair of the Internal Audit Committee.

Moreover, Mr Samuels recently filed a Notice of Person in Interest in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), when the case was in the courtroom of Judge Terry Friedman – former Executive Director of Bet Tzedek – “House of Justice”. And Judge Friedman to date refuses to file statements on the record regarding his relationships with Mr Samuels – current President of Bet Tzedek – “House of Justice” and David Pasternak – former President of Bet Tzedek –“House of Justice” – out of compliance with the California Code of Judicial Ethics.
Therefore, Zernik approached Mr Samuels in the past, and is approaching Mr Samuels again to cease and desist collusion in fraud with Samaan, and to mitigate damages to Zernik.

Countrywide’s wrongful and harmful collusion in fraud in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) was originally related to a letter, declarations, and documents submitted by Maria McLaurin, San Rafael’s Branch Manager, and an acquaintance of JR Lloyd - Samaan’s husband:
a. 11-6-06 Letter by Maria McLaurin with an attached Countrywide document – these documents were submitted as an exhibit to 11-6-06 Parks Supplemental Declaration, part of Samaan’s Sur Reply to Defendant Zernik motion to expunge lis pendens, heard Nov 9, 2006
b. 5-23-07 Declaration by Maria McLaurin with an attached Countrywide document – these documents were submitted as evidence in Samaan’s opposition to Zernik’s motion to expunge lis pendens, heard, July 23, 2007.
c. 5-23-07 Declaration by Maria McLaurin, described above, was filed a second time in Plaintiff Samaan’s Motion for Summary Judgment, heard Aug 9, 2007
d. 8-3-07 Supplemental Declaration by Maria McLaurin, filed in Plaintiff Samaan’s Reply brief in her motion for summary judgment, heard Aug 9, 2007. In this declaration McLaurin also refers to the document purported to be a copy of a fax transmission of a purchase contract from Parks to Countrywide on Oct 25, 2004, 5:03pm.

Such declarations and documents filed by Maria McLaurin were critical to Samaan’s case, since her claims, far fetched as they were, had no documentary evidence whatsoever in Samaan’s loan file. In order to fabricate such readings into documents from the loan file, Maria McLaurin entered a number of critical false and deliberately misleading statements in her letter, declarations, and in the identification of the respective Countrywide documents.
Shifting litigation on Samaan’s failure to perform on her 2004 contract to the unbelievable arena of Samaan’s loan underwriting, provided great advantages to Samaan:
a. Defendant Zernik had no part in this process, and relied entirely on information provided by Samaan and Countrywide, almost 2 years after the fact.
b. Samaan had access through her husband, JR Lloyd (unlicensed, but active as “Originator”) to San Rafael Branch Manager who was able, willing, and ready to produce such false declarations.
c. Countrywide’s legal department was willing to collude in the fraud by providing false information, and deleting critical information from Subpoena production.
d. Countrywide’s top officers – Samuels and Mozilo – refused to act in any way to stop such fraud.

Maria McLaurin was the person most knowledgeable regarding Countrywide’s operations and procedures in the context of Samaan v Zernik. Therefore, the only way to undermine her false declarations and misrepresentation of documents was to approach higher management in Countrywide. For that purpose – Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels were requested in the past, and are requested again, to authenticate or repudiate critical documents that were misrepresented by Maria McLaurin:
a. The document attached to her 11/6/06 and her 5-23-07 declarations filed in court - misrepresented as a true and correct copy of an October 14, 2004 Underwriting Letter.
b. The document referenced in her 8-3-07 declaration – misrepresented as a copy of an Oct 25, 2004, 5:03pm fax transmission from Parks to Countrywide of the Purchase Contract.
c. The document attached to her 8-3-07 declaration – October 14, 2004 Underwriting Letter notifying suspension, misrepresented as an approval letter.

Sandor Samuels and Angelo Mozilo have refused so far to respond to any question regarding these documents for about a full year. Instead, they chose to take various actions in Samaan v Zernik, which are still pending review, and are alleged by Zernik to constitute abuse of his rights per the U.S. Constitution Amendments 1st, 5th, and 14th.

One must also recall that in early 2007 Defendant Zernik was often labeled “conspiracy theorist” for making allegations that Countrywide filed fraudulent documents in court, and also for making allegations that Countrywide was involved in a massive fraud against the U.S. Government.

More recently, NYT reported on Jan 8, 2008, a case of “recreated letters” filed by Countrywide in a Pennsylvania Court, and LAT reported on March 6, 2008, rebuke of Countrywide in a Texas court where ‘Countrywide and its lawyers showed "a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system’.

Therefore, Zernik’s allegations regarding Countrywide’s litigation methods are by now common public knowledge. And allegations of fraud against the US Government and against share-holders are under numerous investigations and litigations now. However, it appears that some Los Angeles Courts are more permissive or even supportive even today of Countrywide’s litigation methods, and of real-estate and mortgage fraud in general, compared to their peers elsewhere. One must wonder what part geographical differences among the courts may have in the fact that Los Angeles has become what is described in an FBI report the “epicenter” of a U.S. real estate and mortgage fraud epidemic that is a high national priority to fight.

Mr Samuels, please accept this letter as a demand that you and Mr Mozilo:
a. Review the letter, declarations, and documents (a-d, above) provided by Maria McLaurin, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, San Rafael Wholesale Branch Manager, for filing by Samaan in Samaan v Zernik, and inform Zernik if you - as individuals and in your capacities as officers of Countrywide - find them true and correct in all their statements and representations.
b. Review in particular the documents filed or referenced by Maria McLaurin (a-c, above), in Samaan v Zernik, and inform Zernik if you - as individuals and in your capacities as officers of Countrywide – are willing to authenticate these documents as represented by Maria McLaurin.

Please also accept this notice as a demand for Mr Samuels immediate resignation from the position of President of the Board of Bet Tzedek – “House of Justice”. The continued association of Mr Samuels name with the name of this organization is a disgrace to Bet Tzedek, a disgrace to the Jewish community, and a disgrace to Justice itself.

Please respond by Friday, March 21, 2008, 5:00pm.

Joseph Zernik

* Countrywide here denotes Countrywide Financial Corporation and/or any and all of its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, jointly and/or severally.

08-03-21 countrywide - judge bohm texas march 6-08 opinion

Case 05-90374 Document 248 Filed in TXSB on 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 40

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON SHOW CAUSE ORDERS OF
FEBRUARY 12. 2007 AND MAY 18. 2007

I. Introduction
The matter before this Court began with a routine motion to lift stay, but has spiraled into a lengthy ordeal which has cost the parties substantial time, attorneys' fees, and costs. Over one year ago, on February 6,2007, the Court sought a simple answer to a simple question-why was a motion to lift stay being withdrawn? The movant's attorney, rather than answer the question truthfully by admitting that the motion was based upon an incorrect payment history, attempted to conceal the truth from the court - that the motion should have never been filed. This rather narrow issue, precipitated an expansive proceeding. During several hearings over the past year, the court received evidence on a wide range of misconduct beyond this initial misrepresentation.

...

Their collective conduct caused this Court to issue two Show Cause Orders. This Memorandum Opinion discusses how their actions in the case at bar have shown a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal profession and judicial system. 1

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