9th CIRCUIT PETITION INTRO

Petition filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal on Wed June 25, 2008, in San Francisco

Introduction

EMERGENCY PETITION brought before this Honorable Court, on its face concerns claims that by issuing a May 15, 2008 Minute Order (DOC #57) that prohibited Petitioner from filing any papers in Court, and by failing to rule on a Petitioner’s request for reconsideration in the subsequent June 6, 2008 Minute Order (DOC #63), the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles effectively set a gag order on Petitioner – designated Plaintiff in the District Court action - which was and is in defiance of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, such gag order and other measures by U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, together with acts that were meant to appear as human errors or accidents, had one clear intent – to derail legal action by Petitioner in such Court in Zernik v Connor et al (CV-08-01550-VAP-CW) and allow expedient dismissal of such action, where the LA Superior Court, Supervising Judge of the West District and several Judges of same court, together with Countrywide and two of its officers, Mozillo and Samuels, are designated Defendants.

Such gag order was also meant to prevent Petitioner from filing any additional papers and claims, typically filed under seal. Therefore, Petitioner brought with him such claims and papers that he was prevented from filing in the U.S. District Court in LA, and is therefore presenting them to the 9th Circuit Appellate Court in San Francisco.

Such papers set forth claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (Civil RICO) against the LA Superior Court, the Supervising Judge of the West District and several Judges of same court, against Countrywide, Mozillo, and Samuels. Such claims stem from conduct of that Court and Countrywide in Samaan v Zernik, matter heard in the LA Superior Court, West District. Additionally, such papers include claims based on the Federal False Claims Act against Countrywide, and claims of violations of the Federal Rule-Making Enabling Act by the LA Superior Court. The claims assert that Countrywide engaged in racketeering in relationship to the underwriting of government-backed residential loans, and in legal action related to the underwriting of such loans. The claims assert that the LA Superior Court engaged in racketeering in relationship to the Local Rules of Court, Books of Court, Registers of Actions, and Indexes of All Cases, which deprived millions of their Due Process rights daily, for many years. The claims also assert collusion in such racketeering by the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District. Evidence suggests that the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, knew at least about certain parts of the scheme for some years, and in certain ways either provided tacit approval, alternatively – failed to act upon its duties pursuant to California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3D(1) – upon being reliably informed to take action to stop such conduct by other members of the Judiciary. Combined – the claims describe what may be deemed upon review widespread public corruption per 18 U.S.C. § 666 (2007).

In both Countrywide and the LA Superior Court, large computerized database management systems – Edge in Countrywide, and Sustain in LA Superior Court, which first became popular in the 1980’s, played a central role in enabling the racketeering schemes.

The claims raise substantial public policy issues:
1. Ongoing need for reform of Government in the Los Angeles County, California.
2. Failure of the political system that allowed such conditions in the LA Superior Court to emerge and prevail for about quarter of a century so far.
3. Failure of the legal community in Los Angeles, including two top 20 law schools (USC and UCLA), to prevent emergence of such conditions, or alarming appropriate authorities.
4. Urgent need for legal/regulatory framework for periodic review of large database management system that were installed starting in the 1980’s, particularly – systems that are in public institutions.
5. Urgent need for legal/regulatory framework relative to the funding, construction, installation, and maintenance of such computerized systems – with approval of specifications, logic verification, fidelity of digital signature and date data, and long term security and integrity of the code being critical issues to be address and be opened to public scrutiny.
6. Urgent need to review methods to enforce quality assurance and compliance with docketing rules, which emerge as an area prone to abuse by the judiciary.
7. Urgent need for legal/regulatory framework relative to the funding, construction, installation, and maintenance of such computerized systems in courts. Petitioner holds that such framework exists within the Rule-Making Enabling Law, but that the courts ignore such law. Of immediate concern is the currently initiated installation of the CCMS by the California Judicial Council, and compliance, or lack thereof, with the Rule-Making Enabling Law in this respect.
8. Urgent need to generate a U.S., alternatively California road map for transitioning certain segments of the financial and real estate communities, probably other parts of the markets into the routine use of digital signatures as part of fax transmissions.

The Petition also includes an urgent request for Petitioner’s protection from harassment/intimidation/retaliation of victim/witness/informer.

WHERE DO I GO FROM HERE?

WHERE DO I GO FROM HERE?

Go drink coffee on La Brea...

A hectic week, with two petitions denied in 9th Circuit Court of Appeal... and two critical records missing altogether from the docket there... surprise surprise...

Let's see how the twists and turns go on from here...

TO ATT DAVID PASTERNAK - FORMER PRES HOUSE OF JUSTICE - BET TZEDEK

LETTER TO ATT DAVID PASTERNAK
- FORMER PRES HOUSE OF JUSTICE - BET TZEDEK


June 12, 2008

Att D Pasternak
Att E Pasternak
Att J. Patton
Pasternak Pasternak & Patton
By Fax and By Email:

TIMED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 5:00PM
COME ONE COME ALL TO THE JUSTICE BALL – JULY 19, 2008![1]


RE: Please provide reasonable explanations – an open letter[2],[3],[4]

Att Pasternak and Att Patton:Records and information recently uncovered raise serious concerns regarding the conduct of Att David Pasternak, Partner in your law firm, and former President of the House of Justice – Bet Tzedek, a prominent Jewish charity5, relative to events that were designed to benefit Countrywide and Sandor Samuels, the Immediate Past President of the House of Justice- Bet Tzedek, and included dubious judicial acts to benefit Countrywide and Sandor Samuels by Judge Jacqueline Connor, Judge Allan Goodman, Judge John Segal, Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Judge Patricia Collins, Judge Gerald Rosenberg, and Judge Terry Friedman – former Executive Director of the House of Justice – Bet Tzedek, who continues to refuse to either recuse or file Statements on the Record per the California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3E(2).[5]
1. An adulterated legal document, bearing Att Pasternak’s signature, was recorded on Dec 17, 2007 as Grant Deed on the property at 320 South Peck in the office of the Registrar/Recorder[6].
a. Please provide reasonable explanation for the origin of this adulterated legal record found in the office of the Recorder/Registrar.
i. Was it signed by Att Pasternak in its current form?
ii. Was it acknowledged by the Notary in its current form?
iii. Does Att Pasternak deem the record in its current form, as found now in the office of the Registrar/Recorder a valid legal record that he executed?
iv. If so, what is the legal foundation for such conduct by Att Pasternak?

2. Based on a reliable hearsay (Zernik is still denied access to his own Court File records), it could now be concluded, as was suspected all along:
In November 2007 - Judge John Segal and Att Pasternak engaged in deliberately misleading conduct, claiming to execute a Judgment that was never entered[7]. They continued to do so, even after Defendant in Samaan v Zernik issued a number of notices that he considered the motion to appoint Pasternak Receiver based on an invalid judgment, and with no reference to either a judgment or any section of the code, as an act of fraud.

a. Please provide reasonable explanation for the legal foundation of the office of Receiver and for Pasternak assuming such office when no Judgment was entered in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400).

3. Dec 7, 2007, was marked by proceedings in the LA Superior Court that amounted to severe abuses of Zernik’s civil rights per the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and were single-handedly engineered by Pasternak. Among other abuses - counsel was standing between Zernik and Pasternak in proceedings in Dept X before Judge Hart Cole. Counsel, Pasternak, and Judge Hart –Cole repeatedly refused to identify Counsel either by name or by party he represented. That refusal is also reflected in the Reporter’s Transcript, edited as it is. Through recently gained access to the Judge Hart-Cole Dec 7, 2007 Minute Order, it was clarified: Counsel was Att Ormond, appearing for Mara Escrow. Less than an hour after that proceeding was concluded, in yet another abusive proceeding, in the Court of Judge Collins, clearly documented in Reporter’s transcript, Att Ormond and Att Pasternak misrepresented Att Ormond in Court as Counsel for Pasternak.
a. Please provide reasonable explanation for the true nature of Att Ormond appearance in these two ex parte proceedings.

4. In yet another abuse of Due Process, records recently uncovered show that Judge Hart Cole secretly vacated, with no notice to parties[8], her Dec 7, 2007 Minute Order including her recusal that was noticed by Att Pasternak as valid.

a. Please provide reasonable explanations:
i. Was Att Pasternak aware that the order he was noticing was vacated or invalidated by the time he notice it?
ii. Alternatively - was he aware that the order was vacated or invalidated at a later time without notice to parties?
iii. Given that the order was vacated or invalidated, Att Pasternak’s notice is without foundation, and may be deemed misleading. Would he take initiative to invalidate or vacate his own notice, so as not to propagate further misleading records in Samaan v Zernik?


5. In yet another abuse of Due Process, records recently uncovered show that Judge John Segal secretly vacated, with no notice to parties3, his Nov 5, 2007 Minute Order which authorized the 4-day notice hearing on appointment of recorder with no entered judgment and with no reference to any section of the code. Att Pasternak noticed his own appointment as Receiver in the resulting Nov 9, 2007 hearing.

a. Please provide reasonable explanations:
i. Was Att Pasternak aware that the Nov 5, 2007 Minute Order that was the legal foundation for the Nov 9, 2007 hearing and his appointment, was secretly vacated at the time that he noticed Judge Segal’s Order appointing Pasternak Receiver? Alternatively - was Pasternak aware that the order was vacated or invalidated at a later time without notice to parties?
ii. Given that the order was vacated or invalidated, Att Pasternak’s notice is without foundation, and may be deemed misleading. Would he take initiative to invalidate or vacate his own notice, so as not to propagate further misleading records in Samaan v Zernik?

6. Given that no Judgment was ever entered, it appears that Att Pasternak is in the leading role of an elaborate Court House/Real-estate Fraud scheme:
a. It started with the illicit involvement of Countrywide as “non-party”/” Defendant”/ “Plaintiff”/”Intervenor” in this case, and the "off the record" gag-order proceedings under Judge Connor for the benefit of Countrywide, and on with
b. A Judgment by Court that was false and deliberately misleading judicial act, and that by now must be deemed stale and tainted, and on with
c. Abuse of the deliberately ill-defined Los Angeles County Local Rules of Court, and a Court that holds its “Judgment Books or equivalents” as a "privileged" records and routinely denies any public access to such Books of Court that must be a Public Records in the first place, and on with
d. And on with Entry of Judgment that was deliberately made by Judges Connor, Segal, Friedman and others into a mystery act, where by both the spirit and the letter of the law Entry of Judgment must be a public act, and on with
e. Nov 2007 Short-notice Motion to Appoint Pasternak Receiver, that appears as deceptive conduct by Att Pasternak and Judge Segal in when viewed through transcripts that were heavily edited, and on with
f. Att Pasternak, under Judge Segal guidance, engaging in forcible entry into a private property, that is Zernik’s home on Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, while threatening Zernik with use of force if he resisted, and on with,
g. Att Pasternak, after Judge Segal’s recusal, issuing gag orders to restrict protected speech against Zernik to prevent him from legally defending himself against such aggression, in legal proceedings on Dec 7, 2007 before Judge Hart-Cole and Judge Collins, that defy any notion of Civil Rights, and on with,
h. Att Pasternak proceeding to engage in Taking of Private Property by a public agency for private use, possibly with the full knowledge of Judge Terry Friedman, but surely with the full knowledge of Judges Hart-Cole and Judge Collins, and on with
i. Att Pasternak engaging in recording of an adulterated legal document as a Grant Deed at the office of the Recorder/Registrar[9] with no authority at all, and on with,
j. Att Pasternak’s misrepresentation to Samaan, to Mara Escrow, and to United Title, that he concluded a true and correct, legitimate transfer of title from Zernik to Samaan, and that way gaining control of Samaan's funds, and on with
k. Att Pasternak keeping the proceeds from the sale of the property under his own control, and drawing from such funds from time to time for his own personal gain and enrichment, also paying Countrywide, etc, all under a scheme to mislead Zernik, the true owner of the property, to believe that the Property was legitimately sold as part of the execution of a true, valid, entered judgment for specific performance.

a. Please provide reasonable explanation why Att Pasternak considers that the he is holding any of Zernik’s funds in the first place.

TIMED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2008, 5:00PM.

Sincerely,






Joseph Zernik

CC:
Att R Ormond- Counsel for Mara Escrow
Bank of America – Members of the Board’s Risk Reduction Committee
Bryan Cave, LLP - Counsel for Countrywide, Sandor Samuels, Angelo Mozillo
Commission on Judicial Performance – Re: Countrywide: Beyond financial Recklessness – corruption of the courts
FBI, Los Angeles – Sections on White Collar Crime, Racketeering, Public Corruption
FBI, Washington DC – White Collar Crime, Racketeering, Public Corruption, Sub-Prime Investigation
Media
Presiding Judge Czuleger – LA Superior Court
Sheppard Mullin - Counsel for Samaan
Supervising Judge Rosenberg – LA Superior Court, West District
Various Individuals and Organizations - Los Angeles Legal CommunityVarious Individuals and Organizations- Los Angeles Jewish Community

[1] http://www.bettzedek.org/thejusticeball/index.html - Bet Tzedek Web Site
[2] This Open Letter is meant in part as acting upon to Prof Erwin Chemerinky’s (Founding Dean, Univ of California, Irvine) protest of the Los Angeles “Culture of Silence” in his review of the Rampart Scandal Guild Practitioner, 121, 2000.
[3] Documents that are part of the evidence for claims listed here are posted at http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/, and also at http://home.earthlink.net/~jz12345/COUNTRYWIDE/

[4] This letter is written in part to reliably inform the public, and also to reliably inform California Judges, so that they may exercise the requirements burdened upon them pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics – to initiate action to prevent violations of Judicial Ethics by other judges or lawyers, once reliably informed of such violations. Additional evidence is provided on the referenced web site, and further evidence can be provided by email per request.
California Code of Judicial Ethics:
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.
(2) Whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a lawyer has violated
any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge shall take
appropriate corrective action.
[5] http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/ - California Code of Judicial Ethics
E. Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law.
(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.
[6] The record itself, that is an adulterated legal document, signed by Att David Pasternak is posted at
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/

[7] The record itself, that is a Judgment by Court pursuant to CCP §437c by Judge J Connor is posted at http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
[8] Secretly Vacating, or Voiding of Public Judicial Acts:
According to Court records was exercised by all judges involved in this case, including:
Judge Jacqueline Connor:
a. Jan 30, 2006 - Order overruling demurrer on statute of frauds
Judge Terry Friedman:
a. Jan 30, 2008 - Order denying request to release funds – which would have terminated the appointment of Att Pasternak as well.
b. March 19, 2008 – Order refusing to disqualify for a cause while refusing to file a statement on the record regarding his ties to Samuels and Countrywide and possible financial benefits.
Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg:
a. Dec 26, 2007 – Order denying a series of requests to establish conditions meeting basic provisions of Due Process of the Law). Typically, it was done as a counter-measure for outrageous judicial acts in open court that blatantly defied the Law.
Judge Allan Goodman:
a. Oct 3, 2007 – Order of self-recusal after about a month of pressing with no valid assignment order, and confirming his long term close friendship with Sandor Samuels.
Judge Lisa Hart-Cole:
a. Dec 7, 2007 – Order recusing self per peremptory challenge
Technically – such voiding or vacating is executed in the “privileged” Court record in “Sustain” – the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Case Management System, which is an instrument of fraud on the public. Apparently, the judges believe that secretly voiding their own outrageous public judicial acts absolves such transgressions (like lying with your fingers crossed behind your back).
There are also good reasons to assume, or at least entertain the doubt, that such beliefs are also shared by the Justices of the California Court of Appeal, who most likely are privy to the Electronic Court File records in Sustain (which parties and counsel never see), as an “informal brief”, with no notice to parties.
It is entirely reasonable to assume, or at least entertain the doubt, that such beliefs are also shared by the California Commission on Judicial Performance, which never shares with the public the input received from the Judiciary in response to Public complaints.
Review of Sustain records, which are not shared with Counsel and Parties, also reveals that the Los Angeles routinely engages in misrepresentation of Court Records through: – a. back-dating of records, b. entering minute orders into the electronic Court File records with no counterparts in the paper Court File records, and though such secret records, supplementing the Court File record with false and deliberately misleading information. If each such act is deemed Predicated Act per RICO (18 U.S. Code §1061- 1968), then Samaan v Zernik (SC0875400) has sufficient fully documents Predicated Acts to convict the LA Superior Court many times over.
A few examples:
a. Nov 1, 2005 Minute Order Reassigning the Case to Judge J Connor, thus dated in Public Record, is truly dated Jan 30, 2006 in the Electronic File records.
b. Jan 30, 2006 Demurrer on Statute of Frauds: was OVERRULED in Open Court by Judge J Connor, but was both GRANTED and VACATED in Electronic File Court records.
c. July 6, 2007 Gag Order Proceedings by Judge J Connor, to benefit Countrywide, held in open court, were defined in Electronic File Court records as “off the record” proceedings.


[9] Supervisor in the Real Estate Recording Department of LA Registrar/Recorder explained that since March 2008 the department no longer accepts records with white-outs in notary’s acknowledgement section (other parts - white-outs are still apparently ok)

PASTERNAK - ADULTERATED RECORD

Predicated Acts per RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

ADULTERATED LEGAL RECORD AT THE OFFICE OF LOS ANGELES RECORDER/REGISTRAR, SIGNED BY ATT. DAVID PASTERNAK- FORMER PRES BET TZEDEK -

HOUSE OF JUSTICE

THE DOCUMENT WAS COPIED FROM RECORDS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDER REGISTRAR

INVALIDATION Friedman's Order Striking and Answer

Predicated Acts per RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

SECRET INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS

2. Judge Friedman's Order Striking and Answering Disqualification - for a Cause,

Paper Court File - dated 3/19/08

In paper Court File records- dated 3/19/2008.
Here - in electronic Court File recrods -
Invalidated with a Date of 00/00/00

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR ENLARGED VIEW

INVALIDATION Friedman's Release of Funds

Predicated Acts per RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

SECRET INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS:

1. Judge Friedman's Denial of Release of Funds.

b. In electronic Court File Records - Dated 00/00/00

1. Judge Friedman's Denial of Release of Funds:

In paper Court File records dated - 1/30/08

Here - from electronic Court File Records -

Invalidated with a date of: 00/00/00

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR ENLARGED VIEW.

SECRET INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS: 1. Judge Friedman's Denial of Release of Funds - a. From paper Court File - dated 1/30/2008

Predicated Acts per RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

SECRET INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS

1. Judge Friedman's Denial of Release of Funds

a. From paper Court File - dated 1/30/2008

SECRET INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS:
1. Judge Friedman's Denial of Release of Funds -

a. From paper Court File -

Valid Date - 1/30/2008

BACK-DATING Connor Re-assignment

Predicated Acts per RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

SECRET BACK-DATING OF LITIGATION RECORDS:

1. Re-assignment to Judge Jacqueline A. Connor:

b. In electronic Court File - True Date: 1/30/06

SECRET BACK-DATING OF LITIGATION RECORDS -
1. Re-assignment to Judge Jacqueline A Connor
b. Minute Order from electronic Court File -
Notice True Date of 1/30/06

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR ENLARGED VIEW

BACK-DATING Connor Re-assignment

Predicated Acts per RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)

SECRET BACK-DATING OF LITIGATION RECORDS

1. Re-assignment Order to Judge Jacqueline

a. Connor: a. In Paper Court File - False Date : 11/1/2005

SECRET BACK-DATING OF LITIGATION RECORDS:
1. Minute Order: Reassignment to Judge Jacqueline A. Connor

A. From paper Court File -

Notice False Date of 11/1/2005

CLICK ON THE IMAGE FOR ENLARGED VIEW

NO VALID LITIGATION RECORDS

HOW COMES THERE ARE NO VALID TRIAL COURT LITIGATION RECORDS IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK?

There are no valid Trial Court Litigation Records in Samaan v Zerniks because:

1) The Minute Orders, as shown in paper Court File, are almost without exception back-dated and therefore invalid

Sustain allowed the Judges to back-date Minute Orders. For example - Minute Order: Re-Asssignment to Judge Jacqueline A. Connor, a key document, purportedly establishing the authority of Judge Connor in this case, appears in the paper Court File with a date of 11/1/2005. This document is in fact dated 1/30/2006, almost 3 month later, as seen in the electronic file of that Minute Order.

Two sets of documents were submitted to the California Court of Appeal this week -

• a) Minute Orders with dates as shown in paper Court File
• b) Minute Orders with dates as shown in electronic Court File.

There are hardly any documents where these two dates match. Such cannot be valid Litigation Records.

2) The Minute Orders that are shown in paper Court File, were almost without exception entered without the Clerk's Certificate of Mailing to parties and without a Notice of Entry, as required by law, and therefore are invalid

In many of the Minute Orders, a note was included "Notice Waived" without any base at all. Such waive could not be possibly valid, since in most proceedings only 2 out of 4 parties were present. Therefore, the 2 parties that were not present could not possiby waive notice.

Ovbiously, the Court could not execute Notice as required by law - the parties would certainly have noticed it when the mail would arrive at times months, other time weeks after the time listed in the Clerk's Certificate of Mailing

3) The document that the Superior Court presented both in United States Court and in Court of Appeal as the valid Litigation Record -Case Summary, is diclaimed by the Court itself an not a formal Court document at all.

The Superior Court, fraudulently tried to present in both United States District Court and in California Court of Appeal a document titled "Case Summary", from the online Courtnet system, as the valid litigation record.
But the Superior Court itself disclaims this document as invalid.
See <http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil>.

• 
  Case Summary
  
• The Courts and County of Los Angeles declare that information provided by and obtained from this site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis and typically by parties of record and participants, does not constitute the official record of the court. Any user of the information is hereby advised that it is being provided as is and that it may be subject to error or omission. The user acknowledges and agrees that neither the Los Angeles Superior Court nor the County of Los Angeles are liable in any way whatsoever for the accuracy or validity of the information provided.

4) The Superior Court is avoiding ever presenting the Sustain report titled: "Case History", which the Court itself is using as "Register of Actions".

The Superior Court established a custom that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, U.S. Code, California Code and California Rules of Courts - it keeps electronic litigation records as confidential and does not allow access to such to litigants and counsels.

The Los Angeles Superior Court falsely claims:

• "Sustain data are privileged - for the Court only"

And strangely enough, the Court has been able to get away with that for years.

The Superior Court is avoiding ever presenting the "Case History" report from Sustain since this document presents evidence for misconduct by the Judiciary - false and deliberately misleading litigation records.

In Summary:

• The Minute Orders are invalid records with evidence of deliberate insertion of false and misleading dates, and no valid notice to parties of their entry.
• The Case History from Sustain is never presented by the Court as a litigation record - for a good reason - it includes evidence of misconduct by the Judiciary.
• The Case Summary report that is presented in Court by LA Superior Court is disclaimed by the same court as not a valid litigation record.

SUSTAIN

SUSTAIN - THE LA SUPERIOR COURT'S CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Excerpts from a document filed with the California Court of Appeal , 2nd District.

d. Sustain Incorporates Some Features that Should Never be
Allowed in CMS – Such as Secret Invalidation of Records.

The feature that is most disturbing, is the ability of the judiciary, or possibly
others, to invalidate or vacate records with no notice to parties. Such is
implemented by changing the date of entry of the document, after the fact,

into 00/00/00, or 33/33/33 – applying to an order or a document that was
already filed, entered, and noticed, an invalid entry date. Practically all judges in Samaan v Zernik resorted to this disturbing feature:

i. Item #27, Exh p25 May 14, 2007 Defendant’s Ex Parte
Application to Shorten Time to Hearing Motion for Reconsideration- secretly invalidated…

The Ex Parte application was a proceeding “off the record”, and later the
minute order was vacated as well. The application by Zernik, Defendant in
LASC, was for reconsideration of serious sanctions set on him (>$2,000) by
Judge Connor, in a situation that in and of itself resulted from denial of access
to Court File records and Minute Orders and dishonest conduct by Att
Keshavarzi. The decision to set the sanctions was somewhat unusual, and the
denial of the motion for shortened hearing on reconsideration could have been
seen as rather harsh as well. The records were eliminated.
None of this could be figured out from Case Summary in Courtnet. None of
this could be figured out using any of the records typically provided to litigants
in LASC.

ii. Item #52, Exh p55, Sept 20, 2007 Defendant’s Ex Parte Application for Due Process and Proposed Referee O’Brien “lodged” Motion for Appointment as Referee - secretly invalidated…

The record shows that this minute order was invalidated after April 30, 2008
by changing the entry date to “00/00/00”. Judge Goodman was with no
authority at that time, and whether he or anybody else invalidated this minute
order, it was a case of falsification of litigation records.

iii. Item #53, Exh p56, OCT 3, 2007 Disqualification of Judge Goodman – secretly invalidated…

Judge Goodman never realized that Countrywide was involved in this case
until about a month after taking over as Presiding Judge. That is very difficult
to accept at face value. But once he realized that, and given his “long term
close personal friendship with the chief legal counsel of
Countywide”, he immediately recused himself.
One must commend his honesty, even if he was late to remember his friends.
But then again, careful inspection of the records shows that he vacated the
minute order after it was issued and noticed to parties… and that he forgot to
notice the parties of the fact that he vacated that order.
One must note that Judge Goodman was with no authority at all after his
recusal, including no authority to vacate his own Minute Order. Therefore, if
he himself did it, or anybody else in the LASC did it, it was an act of
falsification of litigation records.

iv. Item #67, Exh p 65, Nov 5, 2007 Judge Segal’s Ex Parte For Shortened Notice Hearing On Plaintiff’s Motion For Appointment Of A Receiver – secretly invalidated…

This is the minute order of Plaintiff’s ex parte to shorten time for hearing on
appointment of receiver. Given the ruling was on Nov 5, 2007, opposition was
due on Nov 6, 2007, that is the next day. Judge Segal decided to generously
allow Defendant two extra days till Nov 8, 2007.

A legitimate Minute Order was issued and incorporated in paper Court file, but
the electronic Court File data shows it was invalidated by changing the entry
date to 33/33/33. No notice was given to litigants.

v. Item #78, Exh p 73 DEC 7, 2007 -Ex Parte Proceedings Before The Honorable Lisa Hart- Cole – secretly invalidated…

The record indicates that Judge Hart-Cole followed the same routines. By the
time she was recused, her records show that she already set the grounds for
running a hearing on Receiver’s ex parte application as an “off the record”
proceeding. In addition, after issuing the minute order of her own recusal and having a clerk mail it out, which was also entered in the paper court-file, same Minute Order was vacated without making any explicit record of it, just changing the document date to “00/00/00”.

One must note that Judge Hart-Cole was with no authority after her recusal,
including no authority to vacate her own Minute Order. Therefore, if she
herself did it, or anybody else in the LASC did it, it was an act of falsification of
litigation records.

vi. Item #83, Exh p 78, Supervising Judge Rosenberg, Dec 26, 2008 Minute Order Denying Appellant’s Ex Parte for Due Process – secretly invalidated…

On December 26, 2008, Appellant appeared before the Supervising Judge, to
ask for his civil rights to be restored – access to litigation records, vacating of

false records, etc. Judge Rosenberg denied it all wholesale. But then he
vacated his own Minute Order with no notice to Appellant.

vii. Item #90, Exh p 83, Judge Friedman, Jan 30, 2008 Appellant’s Ex Parte Application to Release Funds that are his Proceeds from the Sale of his Home against his Will, and are Held by the Court with no Legal Authority – secretly invalidated…

On Jan 30, 2008, Appellant appeared Ex Parte before Judge Friedman, and
asked that the Court release his funds, originally ~$800,000, but ever
vanishing, held by the Court with no due authority.

Judge Friedman immediately denied the application, with prejudice, and
warned Appellant that if he asks for it again, Judge Friedman would impose
sanction.

Later – Judge Friedman vacated this order. Therefore, on May 19, 2008,
Appellant came again ex parte to ask for release of his funds. Judge Friedman
was not in that day, so Appellant was seen by Judge Tarle, who denied the
application, with prejudice again.

e. Sustain allows the Judiciary to Run Proceedings “of the record” without notice to parties.

This litigant of course would never have participated in any of these
proceedings, had he known that they were off the record.

i. Item #13 Exh p13 – 10/31/06-11/9/06 Defendant’s Motion To Expunge Lis Pendens – “off the record”

Combined, these records demonstrate the proceedings of Defendant’s Motion
to Expunge Lis Pendens, which was managed entirely as an “Off the Record “
procedure. This abuse of the system is pervasive throughout the records, and
is directly tied to the assignment of multiple independent Events to a single
time slot.

An adequately verified Case Management System should not have allowed
such to be practiced. The abuse of the system is also tied to the assignment of
adjudication “Motion Denied” to an Event that was “Case Management
Conference”. Again, a adequately verified Case Management System should
not have allowed that entry.

None of this evidence could ever be found by Appellant had he relied on Case
Summary – the document filed by Defendants as the “Docket”. It appears that
Courtnet and Case Summary rely heavily on text editing, but have minimal
assertions and limitations that are built into the software – in short – it would
tolerate almost anything, but it is not the formal record of the litigation.
None of this could be figured out using records typically provided to
litigants in LASC.

ii. Item #11, Exh p 11, 13, 15, Oct Nov 2006 – Trial Setting Conference – “off the record”

The Trial Setting Conference was a proceeding “off the Record”, and no trial
date was ever adequately entered in Sustain, while Judge Connor continued to
manipulate trial dates and to switch between Jury and Non-Jury trials, until

after she was disqualified, Sept 10 2007, when she finally formally entered trial
date into the system at around 4:30pm.
In between, Summary Judgment hearing was conducted less than 30 days
before trial date, as set at that time, with no explicit notice or permanent
record of such. Note the date of entry of Minute Order is not consistent among
the several pages of the Minute Order, changing in the last page from
November 9, 2006 to January 16, 2007.

None of this could ever be figured out from Case Summary in Courtnet. None
of this could be figured out using records typically provided to litigants in
LASC.

iii. Item #31, July 6, 2007 - Indeterminate Party Countrywide Ex Parte Application For A Protective Order – “off the record”

Zernik often asked, but never got the answers:

• 
  • How could Countrywide be Non Party, Defendant, Plaintiff, Cross-
  Defendant, Intervenor, all at the same time?
• 
  • How could the ex parte application of July 6, 2007 be scheduled in the
  first place, at a time that no Discovery Motions were allowed, by a nonparty, at a time that the court was dark?
  

Now Zernik knows, that the answer is that this was another “off the record”
proceeding. For that reason, the Protective Order that was the outcome of this
hearing was never issued, never recorded, never produced, and never noticed
to Zernik.

But when so desired, such a non-existent Protective Order was deemed by
Judge Friedman very recently – in Feb 2008 - as being “in full force and
effect”, although the order was never seen by that time or after.
Judge Friedman later also found such a non-existent order as the legal
foundation for setting serious sanctions against Zernik exceeding $22,000,
and finding Appellant in Contempt of the Court, all through a Bench Trial,
where Judge Friedman, Triar of Facts, admitted evidence that is writings
produced by Countrywide, with no authentication at all, as was the case with
Judge Connor in Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens and Motion for Summary
Judgment .

Combined – while courts around the United States rebuke Countrywide
litigation practices, that were documented around the country to include filing
of false and misleading documents, the LASC continues abuse of Plaintiff’s
rights for Speech, Due Process, and Possession, all based on such fraudulent
Countrywide documents.

The right to file mandatory counter claims for fraud, or to have a chance for a
fair hearing on motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7 on such fraudulent
documents were consistently denied.

None of this could be discovered based on :”Case Summary”, or records
normally provided to litigants in the LASC.

f. Sustain allowed Judge Connor to file fictitious Minute Orders.

Appellant believes that the integrity of courts in the English speaking countries
depended to a large degree on the checks and balances in the power of Judges
and Clerks. A Judge could write an order, but could never enter it.
On the basis of the partial data provided, Appellant believes that such
distinctions were eliminated in Sustain. The only power remaining with the
clerk to stop an invalid order is to refuse to mail it out.

But then again, it appears that the LA Superior Court holds minute orders
valid even when they are not mailed out to litigants or served in any other way,
in defiance of basic notions of Due Process, or any logic at all.
Judge Connor entered two entirely fictitious Minute Orders:

i. July 9, 2007, Minute Order – Motion for Reconsideration –

The minute order describes a telephonic hearing of motion for reconsideration
that never took place. Apparently this was to replace the minute order that she
vacated, and here she granted the motion for reconsideration. None of it was
reported to litigants – no minute order was mailed out. Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order – Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7/Disqualification Of Judge Connor
The record for this proceeding is of critical significance:
It was represented in minute order and also in a letter from Att Keshavarzi to
Retired Judge O’Brien as a proof that Judge Connor ruled that none of Zernik’s
claims of fraud in Countrywide’s documents was valid. And numerous attempts of Zernik to vacate this record, which was entered with no authority at all, and which defies truth and justice, were always denied.

An “on the record” hearing on the Motion for Sanctions per CCP §128.7
could have overturned the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP
§437c.

Careful analysis of the record in Case History now shows:
Defendant’s filing of statement of disqualification was entered (p105) as:

• 9/10/07 Document Filed
  Miscellaneous-Other MEMO
  Defendant, & Defendant in Pro Per
  

Instead of using the correct menu selection in Sustain:

• 9/10/07 Document Filed
  Affidavit of Prejudice
  

Judge Connor ran the recusal on her own motion as the only “on the record”
proceeding in this case. Both the affidavit of prejudice and the motion for sanctions per CCP §128.7 were merely “off the record” proceedings in this case.

1) This proceeding is also instructive in examining the use of Courtnet
“Case Summary” – the web-base, publicly-accessible system to
mislead. Under “Proceedings” in Case Summary, the following entry appears:

• Proceeding: Recusal (Motion for Sanctions) – Motion
  Granted

Obviously, the phrasing is deliberately tangled, to mislead, but the overall
impression is that the hearing was on the Recusal, which was granted. That is
of course the opposite of the record created in Sustain.

And on Aug 30, 2007 Appellant Took Part in What he
Thought was a Status Conference, and in Fact was
Registered as a Hearing on a Motion.

i. Item #45, Exh p 47, Aug 30, 2007 - Status Conference

This proceeding presents an entirely new deception technique: Although the
proceeding was announced as a status conference, here without defendant’s
knowledge, it is defined as a “hearing”. During the proceeding itself, Judge
Connor a couple of times referred to the conference as a “hearing” of a
“motion”. Each time defendant protested that there was no motion before the
court, but Judge Connor did not explain her secret intention – to record the
status conference as a motion to appoint an escrow referee, instead of a
unilateral court appointment. Yet the appointment was going to be a defective
one. The language of the minute order is deliberately defective:

• “The Court appoint Honorable Greg O’Brien,
  Retired Judge as Referee. The court will
  prepare the order to appointing discovery
  referee”

There may be judges who write like this, but not Judge Connor, who is possibly the sharpest in the Santa Monica Court House, and by far te best writer.
On the record there was an adequate order appointing O’Brien discovery
referee, issued secretly in chambers July 27, 2007, and never noticed. But
none of that was ever mentioned. The ingenuity here is in the ability to self eface and appear dum .. when it is useful.

Absurd as it may sound: during the conference, defendant, who by now was
familiar with Judge Connor’s conduct asked her on the record ‘to be diligent in
completing an appointment in compliance with the law’ and offered the use of
ADR forms. Judge Connor, on the record, explained that she had no intention
of issuing an appointment in compliance with the law.

Later, retired Judge O’Brien, on Sept 7, 2007, will present defendant with this
defective minute order as the sole source of his authority as an escrow referee
to seize defendant’s property.

Obviously, the Order Appointing Referee, marked in Case History (P103) as
signed and entered, was either the same, alternatively – it was some secret
order, like the one from July 27, 2007, that was never noticed to anybody,
including Judge O’Brien.

In “Event Complete” (P103), one notes that in this case the “Hearing-Other”, which Defendant participated in without even being aware of it, was in fact the “on the record” proceeding in this case. The “Status Conference” was in fact an “off the record” proceeding here.

At the end of the “Event” note, and also at the end of “Event Complete” one
finds a manually entered comment as part of the language of the minute order:
“jt 9-07-07”

Obviously, Jury Trial (albeit, the record indicates parties agreed to non-jury
trial) date was still manually carried, not entered in Sustain, and here Judge
Connor forgot that just two days earlier she continued it to Jan 11, 2008.

h. On Sept 14, 2007, the Supervising Judge, the Hon Rosenberg, secretly filed documents in the file, with no notice to litigants.

On page 113 in Case History one finds the following entry:

• 09/14/07 Document Filed
  Memo
  Miscellaneous- Other
  Dism-Plaintiff In Pro Per
  (2) Documents received by facsimile
  service and filed per the direction of the
  Supervising Judge of the West District
  the Honorable Gerald Rosenberg.
  Filed By ZERNIK, JOSEPH Defendant
  

The record copied above, in full, is probably the reduced essence of the use of
Sustain as an instrument of fraud on Defendant Zernik in the West District, LA
Superior Court:

• 1. The notice is cryptic and deliberately misleading.
• 2. No notice was given to litigant of this unusual filing.
  3. Nobody expected that Zernik would ever lay his hands on Case
  History by Sustain. In fact, among the numerous attorneys Zernik
  questioned on this point, none ever obtained Sustain records during
  litigation, except that some, but a minority, get Minute Orders at times.
• 4. The honorable Gerald Rosenberg is:
  Not – Zernik, Joseph - Defendant, and also
  Not - Dism-Plaintiff in Pro Per
  

This unusual filing is nothing less than direct intervention by the Supervising
Judge, who preached to Defendant Zernik his lack of authority to even vacate
the groundless minute order filed after disqualification by a judge lacking in
authority at all. Obviously the Supervising Judge is authority to hear motions
to vacate judicial acts, under the stipulations prescribed by law.

To this day Defendant Zernik does not know what documents were filed by
Judge Rosenberg, but an educated guess suggests that they were papers
including the proposed order for appointment of O’Brien as Escrow Referee,
produced by Plaintiff’s Counsel and O’Brien, together, as a remedy for the
deliberately defective orders produced by Judge Connor. Of course there was
nothing to prevent Plaintiff from filing the proposed order with a motion per
Due Process.

Similarly, on Dec 13, 2007, Judge Friedman signed an order, Appellant still
does not know for sure what it was. With no advance notice at all, this proposed order was moved for a hearing on

Sept 20, 2007, see row #52 below, during what was noticed as Case
Conference. An introductory comment by Judge Goodman, was obviously
disingenuous, when he claimed had no idea where the papers came from (yet
he brought them for immediate hearing).

i. A person Reviewing the Case as a Whole Would Also Reasonably Entertain the Doubt that Sustain, as Operated in Santa Monica, but not in Beverly Hills, Allows Financial Mismanagement or Worse.

The record from Dec 7, 2007, Ex Parte in Beverly Hills before Judge Hart –
Cole is unique, since it shows that the system in Beverly Hills is set to print
the register number of the action (here - #BH490068002). Register
numbers were deleted from all the Santa Monica clerk’s printouts. This is
further evidence that the Santa Monica system was especially suitable for
abuse of Due Process. But since the register numbers are tied to payment for moving party, all Journal Entries in Santa Monica, typically for $40.00 each, are with no ID
number.

j. 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.

k. 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.

l. 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:
  O First – it fails to identify the scope of the problem,
  and indeed, minimizes its scope and nature.
  O Second, the report fails to recognize that the
  central problem is the culture of Los Angeles Police
  Department… the “Code of Silence”..
  O Third - the …report fails to consider the need for
  structural reforms…
  O 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…"
  

1. progress by the Judicial Council, in order to avoid errors made in the
introduction of Sustain in LASC over 20 years ago. In particular, this complaint emphasizes the unusual mode of operation of Sustain, the case management system in the West District, Los Angeles Superior Court, which different than its use in Central District. Moreover, Appellant shows significant differences in the usage pattern even between Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, both court houses of the West District.

3. Open Questions:

• Is there any Correlation, or Even Cause and Effect Relationship
  between These Unusual Rules of LASC, and the Unusual Events
  Surrounding Entry of Judgment in Samaan v Zernik?
  
• Is there any Correlation, or Even Cause and Effect Relationship
  between These Unusual Rules of LASA and the Fact that LA County was Designated by the FBI “Epicenter” of the “Real Estate Fraud Epidemic”?
  

Appellant states that he believes that a reasonable person, reviewing Samaan v
Zernik as a whole would be hard pressed not to conclude that the answer is
“Yes” to both questions. The Court of Judge Connor was not only permissive of
Real Estate Fraud - it was supportive of it.

And the succession of judges the presided in Samaan v Zernik after her, all
with no Reassignment Order and with no authority at all, engaged in dishonest
conduct in attempts to cover up the whole affair and stand by a colleague,
instead of standing by the Law and the Constitution, as they have vowed to do
in their Oath.

Interviews with at least a couple of dozen attorneys who were experienced in
Real Estate litigation also revealed that they all had unanimous opinion –
under no circumstances would any of them agree to claim fraud and deceit in a
Real Estate litigation in the Santa Monica court, regardless if it is true or not.
The excuses were far fetched. Eventually, an older attorney, Larry Rothstein
provided a straight forward answer:

”First – the Judge will never listen to a claim of fraud,
and second – the Judge will only hold it against you.”

Indeed, when Appellant insisted on exposing the fraud in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400), Judge Connor explained in open court to Appellant’s newly
retained counsel on Aug 21, 2007 – that she considered Appellant “A Pest”
and that she ”treat[ed] him accordingly”.

Appellant entered a comment to that effect in his Aug 30, 2007 Case Management Statement, expecting that Judge Connor would finally recuse herself. But Judge Connor only made a comment about Appellant ‘throwing it in her face’, and Appellant had to file for recusal for cause again on Sept 10, 2007. Only then Judge Connor finally recused.

g. This California Court of Appeal Should Declare Samaan V Zernik
Mistrial

The issues reviewed here, do not involve the finding of facts in the Aug 9,
2007 Motion for Summary Judgment hearing, where Judge Connor was
Triar of Facts, a whole subject in and of itself, which is one of the subjects of
underlying the appeal from the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court pursuant to
CCP §437c.

The issues reviewed here also do not involve the circumstances surrounding
the appointment of Att David Pasternak as Receiver. In an unusual generous
comment, this Court of Appeal itself wrote that:

“Petitioner’s true remedy is in an appeal from the Order Appointing Receiver”

The issues reviewed here also do not involve the determination of the Courts of
Judge Segal and Judge Friedman to rob Appellant of his home equity,
proceeds from the sale of his home against his will, purportedly pursuant to
the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court for Specific Performance. Those funds are
indefinitely held by the Court with no legal foundation at all.

The issues reviewed here also do not involve the fraudulent conveyance of real
property title by Receiver Pasternak recently uncovered by Appellant. Since
Receiver Pasternak, following the Appointment Order by Judge Segal, was
determined to convey title to the property without any reliance on the Aug 9,
2007 Judgment by Court, he needed to avail himself to practices that are out of
compliance with the law, including straight forward fraud. [As a reminder -
Receiver Pasternak appears as one of the LASC’s favorite receivers, by the
sheer number of transactions showing under his name in the Registrar’s office,
and the number of cases showing in review of LASC records, all regardless of
his own declaration of his exorbitant fees.]

This review of the operation of Sustain – LASC CMS – in the Santa Monica
Court House is submitted to the California Court of Appeal in support of the
motions named below, and concurrently with them:

1) Request for Reconsideration of Appellant’s Petition of April 1, 2008,
amended April 4, 2008, in which Appellant requested that the Court of
Appeal take corrective action to stop conduct of other judges that is in
violation of the California Code of Ethics, Canon 3D(1), and was denied
with no explanation at all. This review of the operations of Sustain – the
LASC provides plenty of additional examples of unethical conduct by
judges relative to Samaan v Zernik, which Appellant himself was not
aware of and did not have appropriate evidence for at the time of filing
that Petition, as a result of the LASC’s ongoing denial of access to
litigation records.

2) Request to Set Aside the Court of Appeal’s ruling on Appellant’s January
24, 2008 Petition in Re: Judge Friedman’s response to Affidavits of
Perjury for Cause on Jan 11 and Jan 15, 2008, which was denied on the
basis of timeliness relative to the Jan 11, 2008 Affidavit. In view of the
dishonesty in the stated Date of Entry on the Minute Orders of both Jan
11 and Jan 15, 2008 this court may consider that Petition timely relative
even to the Jan 11, 2008 Affidavit.

3) Request for Reconsideration of Appellant’s request that the Justices of
the Court of Appeal who decide this case file a Statement on the Record
relative to their relationships with the judges named here, given the
unusual nature of this case. Appellant requests alternatively, that any
Justice that served as a Judge in the LASC since the introduction of
Sustain, recuse from this case.

4) Request to rescind the filing of the Reporters’ Transcript and the Clerk’s
Transcript filed by the LASC. Both were filed with no counsel signature,
out of compliance with CCP §128.7, and both include false and
deliberately misleading records, again trying to cover up dishonest
conduct of judges. In particular, the Clerk’s Transcript includes a copy of
“Case Summary” from Courtnet, which in included where a Register of
Action should have been included.

This review is also submitted concurrently with a request for Receiver
Pasternak to resign as Receiver, for violation of the Oath he took when
assuming that position, by offering Appellant to support release of Appellant’s
funds held by Receiver, if Appellant drops the U.S. complaint against Att
Pasternak.

This review limited itself to the dishonest conduct involved in the docketing
and recording of litigation involved in the operation of the LASC’s Case
Management System – Sustain. And yet, the issues related to abuse of United
States Constitutional rights for Due Process revealed in this review are
sufficient in and of themselves to deem Samaan v Zernik Mistrial and vacate
all rulings, orders, and Judgments.
Appellant requests new rulings in the matters listed above, and suggests that a
just and appropriate ruling is to declare Samaan v Zernik Mistrial.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 20, 2008

_______________________________

JOSEPH ZERNIK
DEFENDANT & CROSS-COMPLAINANT
in pro per

A LETTER TO THE NATIONAL MANAGING PARTNER OF BRYAN CAVE LLP RE: COUNTRYWIDE

A LETTER TO THE MANAGING PARTNER OF BRYAN CAVE LLP, ST LOUIS - THE LARGEST AND PRIME OFFICE OF THE FIRM - ATTORNEYS FOR COUNTRYWIDE

5/16/08

Mr van Cleve
Managing Partner
Bryan Cave LLP
St. Louis
By fax: 314 259 2020

Timed response requested by May 23, 2008

RE: Litigation of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in LA Superior Court, Zernik v Connor (2:2008cv01550) in US District Court

Mr van Cleve:

As a courtesy, please be informed that on March 5, 2008 I filed complaint in United States District Court - Zernik v Connor et al (2:2008cv01550), and with it - complaint of public corruption with the appropriate authorities.
Countrywide, Angelo Mozillo, and Sandor Samuels, are named Defendants in this Federal case. Bryan Cave, Jenna Moldawsky, and John Amberg are not named as Defendants in the Federal complaint, but their role in this case may come under scrutiny, and become a source of liability for Bryan Cave. The role of some national law firms working with the Legal Division of Countrywide already came under scrutiny and rebuke in the 72-page, March 5, 2008 opinion of Judge Bohm, Houston, Texas.

In litigation of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Los Angeles Superior Court, Att Moldawsky and Amberg appeared before Defendant Connor, on July 6, and July 23, 2007, in proceedings that at that time were the worst abuse of Zernik's United States Constitutional rights for Due Process and Free Speech in that litigation. In those proceedings Bryan Cave asked for a Protective (gag) Order on behalf of Countrywide.

In particular the July 6. 2007 ex parte proceeding was at a time that the Court never heard ex parte proceedings, in a special session of the court, when the court was dark, and it was scheduled at least 3 days in advance. It asked for a discovery motion at a time that no discovery motions were allowed. Bryan Cave
refused to disclose how such a proceeding was ever scheduled, except to say that it involved "nothing improper".

Countrywide, claimed by Bryan Cave to be non-party, was listed on that day as "Plaintiff" in court records. In other court records, to this very day, Countrywide and Bryan Cave as its counsel, are listed interchangeably as: Defendant, Cross-Defendant, Intervenor, Objector, Plaintiff, all with no legal foundation at all.

More recently, in Jan-March 2008, Att Moldawsky and Amberg aggravated that abuse in proceedings before the Honorable Friedman, named Defendant Friedman in the Federal lawsuit. These proceedings were based on non-existent, purported July 23, 2007 Protective (gag) Order by Defendant Connor. That July 2007 order was never signed, never issued, never entered, never noticed in July 2007. Court file includes three copies of proposed orders by Bryan Cave from 2007, and one proposed joint stipulation, all unsigned. Two of the proposed orders are also marked in red Denied across the page.

That order was likewise never produced, even in the aberrant procedures before the Court of Defendant Friedman, in Jan-March 2008.
• On Jan 11, 2008 Bryan Cave attorneys had Defendant Friedman issue a statement that the July 2007 order "was in full force and effect".
• On Feb 15, 2008 they had Defendant Friedman set serious sanctions of >$16,000, which should have triggered the right for jury trial, base on that order
• On March 7, 2008 they had Defendant Friedman decree Contempt following OSC based on that order, in a proceeding where Bryan Cave acknowledged in open court never adequately serving summons, and additional sanctions of $7,000 were set, based on unauthenticated evidence that should have
never been admitted in this Bench Trial, where Defendant Friedman was Triar of Facts.

Bryan Cave attorneys were present in open court in proceedings in Jan - March 2008 where:
• Defendant Friedman denied any relationship with Defendant Samuels twice, on Jan 11 and Jan 15, in response to Affidavits of Prejudice - for Cause, while verified statement of Defendant Samuels, filed by Bryan Cave reflects a long term close acquaintance of Defendants Samuels and Friedman.
• Defendant Friedman continues to refuse to file Statement on the Record, as required by the California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3E(2), regarding his relationship with Samuels, or any financial benefits to him or to family members residing under the same household from Samuels or Countrywide.

Recent investigation clarified why Defendant Connor never issued the Protective Order requested by Bryan Cave in July 2007. Defendant Connor listed these proceedings as "off the record" in Court records. Therefore she could not issue any "on the record" orders from them.

Needless to say, Plaintiff Zernik holds the notion of "off the record" proceedings, held secretly so, without knowledge of a Party are an abomination of justice.

Please let me know whether Bryan Cave, Jenna Moldawsky, John Amberg, or anybody else at Bryan Cave was ever aware of such proceedings being held, or even being contemplated, at the LA Superior Court.

Your response on this matter is requested no later than May 23, 2008.

Joseph Zernik

CC: J. Modisett, Los Angeles

IT'S TIME AGAIN - FOR THE JUSTICE BALL

SUMMER'S BEST PARTY IS BACK!
A great party for a great cause, The Justice Ball returns to The Lot in West Hollywood on Saturday, July 19. Join more than 3,500 of your closest friends for a night of music, dancing, and so much more.

Visit The Justice Ball website: www.thejusticeball.org

You may be able to meet in person:
Immediate Past President - Sandor Samuel
Past President - David Pasternak
Former Executive Director - The Hon Terry Friedman