THANK YOU!

THANK YOU!

TO THE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN

STAFF OF CONGRESSMEN & CONGRESSWOMEN

ON THE HOUSE AND SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES!

NOTICE TO JUDGE FRIEDMAN: CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING

NOTICE TO THE COURT OF DEFENDANT THE HONORABLE TERRY FRIEDMAN, JUDGE, AND PARTIES IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) TO CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING

Filed in U.S. District Court in support of Plaintiff’s 1. Opposition to motions to dismiss, and 2. Requests for reconsideration of: a) Request for TRO and/or OSC denied 3/21/08 b) Request to compel LASC to allow access to books of court, particularly – Book of Judgment

Date: July 28, 2008

TO THE COURT, TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:

Please take notice of Plaintiff’s
NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING, FILED WITH THE COURT OF DEFENDANT THE HONORABLE TERRY FRIEDMAN, AND PARTIES IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400).

A. Purpose of this Notice
1. This Notice to Cease and Desist is served by email today, July 28, 2008, on parties in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), matter heard in LASC, in the hope that they finally cease racketeering.

2. This notice is also faxed to the Office of Presiding Judge Czuleger, in support of a request that he finally take control of this matter, stop the vigilante hearings by Judge Friedman, and have this case heard by a judge who is duly assigned, as required by law.

3. This notice is also served today by email, July 28, 2008, with appropriate face page on parties in Zernik v Connor et al (2:2008cv01550) matter heard in U.S. District Court, LA, in support of Plaintiff Zernik’s opposition to motions to dismiss complaint. This notice presents “a set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations” as per Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73:
"A complaint must be sustained, and cannot be dismissed, if relief can be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Nothing more than the complaint's allegations are needed to confer standing at this stage."

4. This notice is also filed and served in Zernik v Connor et al in support of Zernik’s ex parte request for reconsideration of the March 21, 2008 Minute Order that denied Temporary Restraining Order and/or Order to Show Cause against Defendant Friedman.

5. This notice is also faxed to members of the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, to keep them posted in this matter, involving allegations of well-established, wide-spread corruption and racketeering in the largest Superior Court in the U.S., and congressmen/congresswomen representing Los Angeles County, in hope that they take action to bring LA County back into the fold of the U.S. Constitution, and act to compel the LA Superior Court to allow access to Books of Court, as required by law – in and of itself a substantial reform in the courts of LA.
///
B. Request for Leniency as Pro Se
In filing this paper Plaintiff Zernik requests special leniency as a pro se litigant - for his "inartful pleading" Erickson v Pardus, 2007. In particular, Zernik is not qualified in assessing the validity of legal theories. Zernik asks that the U.S. District Court ignore any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory claimed herein, and do take into consideration the claims themselves, if they can support some other valid theory, as per Haddoc 1985.
///

C. The Enterprise at the LASC
By now it is evident that –

1. West District of LASC is a renegade court – running in parallel two litigation tracks – i) the LASC Track per se, and ii) the Enterprise Track.

2. Past and present Supervising Judges, Assistant Supervising Judge, and Judges jointly engaged in operating the Enterprise Track at the LASC West District.

3. The LASC has denied access to public records that are the Books of Court, possibly as far back as 25-30 years, out of compliance and in violation of the law: U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), California Constitution, Article 1, §3(b)(1), California Public Record Act – California Government Code, § 6250-6270.

4. Hiding the Books of Court is essential for the Enterprise. Review of the Index of All Cases, Calendar of the Court, Registers of Actions, and Book of Judgments is essential for estimating the scope and age of the Enterprise, and the identity of the judges who are active as part of it in the various courts of LASC.

5. The enterprise is enabled through Sustain – the fraudulent case management system introduced 25-30 years ago, without any public oversight, out of compliance and in violation of the law: Rule Making Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071 – 2077.

6. In parallel - the LASC fraudulently established an oral rule of court: “Sustain is privileged – for the Court only”. This rule was articulated to Plaintiff Zernik by both Defendant the Honorable Supervising Judge Rosenberg and the office of Presiding Judge Czuleger. Such oral rule of court is out of compliance and in violation of the law: Rule Making Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071 – 2077, California Rules of Court, Rule 2.500 et seq.

7. Some of Sustain features provide evidence that the system was designed from the start as a fraudulent case management system. Other features demonstrate divergence and drift of the system in the various court houses, and failure to maintain the integrity of the code over the decades, in a manner that is contrary to any reasonable good management practices.

8. Judges of the LASC listed here as Defendants routinely engage in secret rulings and/or reversal of their open court rulings in the electronic court file in Sustain, with no notice or service to parties to the litigation, out of compliance and in violation of the law.

9. Review of Sustain data also reveals that the LASC does not practice any docketing quality assurance whatsoever, in a manner that is contrary to any reasonable good management practices.

10. The custom of entering Minute Orders in court file without service and notice to parties, wide-spread at the LASC, is also essential for the Enterprise. Such practice is out of compliance and in violation of the law: California Rules of Court, Rule 1.20 et seq.

11. Ambiguation of the nature and location of the Book of Judgments (“or equivalent”) as well as ambiguation of the nature of Notice of Entry of Judgment were also critical for the Enterprise. The latter was largely achieved over a couple of decades of review courts decisions. The former is practiced out of compliance and in violation of the law.

12. Combined, the Enterprise generates multiple litigation realities – i) in open court, ii) in paper court file, iii) in secret Sustain records. Such multiplicity of litigation realities is out of compliance and in violation of any concept of Due Process, as guaranteed by the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

13. Review of the Books of Court is likely to demonstrate the real estate fraud is the specialty of the Enterprise. Plaintiff identified at least two cases involving real estate in addition to Samaan v Zernik, where there is evidence of racketeering.

14. The Enterprise reflects wide-spread public corruption that is well established in the largest Superior Court in the U.S.

15. Judges of the Superior Court vary largely in their understanding of the machination of the Enterprise. Judge Connor’s conduct demonstrates detailed and deep understanding of the Enterprise, while conduct of Judges Segal and more so Friedman indicates more superficial understanding.
///

D. Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) as an Enterprise Track case
By now it is evident that –

1. The case represents a unique collaboration of the Enterprise with the racket at Countrywide.

2. The case was designated for the Enterprise Track since before the complaint was submitted on Oct 25, 2005. Additional discovery is likely to confirm that it was never indexed. The courts are obfuscating in allowing Zernik access to the Index of All Cases, as required by law.

3. Defendant the Honorable Judge Jacqueline Connor was never issued a valid Re-assignment Order. The purported Nov 1, 2005 Minute Order by the then Supervising Judge, the Honorable Linda Lefkowitz is a case of fraud. In fact it is dated Jan 30, 2006, a date when Judge Lefkowitz no longer served as Supervising Judge, and had no authority to assign the case. Therefore, Judge Connor presided with no authority and no immunity at all.

4. Judge Connor and other judges listed as Defendants in U.S. Court action, are with no immunity at all, as per §1983, based on the following principles:

• 
  a. The Supreme Court has held that federal law controls the immunity analysis under §1983 even if the matter in question is pending in state court – Howlett v Rose, 496 U.S. .356, 369 (1990):
  ‘A state court may not deny a federal right, when the parties and controversy are properly before it, in the absence of “valid excuse”’
  
• b. The Supreme Court has held that individuals sued in their official capacity are not entitled to assert individual immunity defenses in that regard. The distinction being that personal-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon government official for actions taken under color of state law. Official-capacity suits, in contrast, “generally represent only another way of pleading an action against the entity of which the official is agent” Kentucky v Graham 473 U.S. 159 (1985).
  
  c. The “Functional Approach” to immunity analysis puts the burden of proving immunity on the officials sued:
  “Officials who seek exemption for personal liability have the burden of showing that such an exemption is justified by overriding considerations of public policy…” Forrester v White, 484 U.S. 219, 224 (1988).
  
  d. Immunity of judges was limited by the Supreme Court in Stump v Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-362 (1978)and also in Mireles v Waco, 112 S. Ct. 286, 288 (1991) such that acts in the clear absence of a court’s jurisdiction are not entitled to immunity, and only judicial acts are protected.
  
  e. Even judges who are absolutely immune for damages may be subject to suit for declaratory and injunctive relief – Consumers Union 446 U.S. at 731-34, 736.
  f. “Qualified Immunity” exists for public officials only for their “good faith” actions, where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” Harlow v Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Mitchell v Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).
  

5. Defendant Judge Connor engaged in obstruction and racketeering since before her the first proceedings in which she presided – Jan 30, 2006 – when she recorded Defendant’s Demurrer pursuant to the Statute of Frauds as i) Overruled, ii) Granted, and iii) Invalidated Minute Order – all at once.

6. Records and declarations produced by Countrywide were essential to the fraud, and Att Mohammad Keshavarzi (Sheppard, Mullin et al), Maria McLaurin (Countrywide Branch Manager), and Jae Arre Lloyd (Samaan’s husband and a Countrywide business associate) conspired to design such fraudulent claims as detailed in their email correspondence of Nov 3-6, 2006. Neither of these three were named Defendant in U.S. Court action so far.

7. Critical to these fraudulent claims were the following:

• a. Countrywide fraudulent record – Real Estate Contract purportedly faxed from Parks (Washington State) to Countrywide (Northern California) on Oct 25., 2004, 5:03pm. In fact it was faxed on that date and that time from Samaan to Jae Arre Lloyd.
  
  b. Countrywide fraudulent record – Oct 26, 2004 Invalid Underwriting Letter, which was falsely represented as dated from mid-October 2004.
  
  c. Fraudulent declarations by Maria McLaurin, including one in which she established the Underwriting Letter listed above as a case of “recreated letter” similar to the Countrywide case in Pennsylvania, widely publicized on or around Jan 8, 2008.
  

8. This real estate fraud and racketeering was perpetrated with full knowledge and cooperation of Defendants in U.S. Court action - Sandor Samuels – Chief Legal Counsel, and Angelo Mozillo – President, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Inc.

9. On July 6, 2007 Judge Connor ran proceedings unique in their abuse of Defendant’s civil rights – off the record hearing on a gag order to benefit Countrywide, under the guise of Protective Order. Such proceedings were falsely documented, and continued on July 23, 2007, still off the record. From that date on, Countrywide has been appearing routinely in Samaan v Zernik, fraudulently designating itself “Non-Party”, out of compliance and in violation of the law – California Rules of Court, Rule 1.6 Definitions and Use of Terms: (15) “Person”, (16) “Party”.

10. Attorneys John Amberg and Jenna Moldawsky (Bryan Cave, LLP) representing Countywide, knowingly colluded in racketeering in such proceedings. Not named so far in U.S. Court action.

11. Between July 12, 2007 and July 23, 2007, in her conflicting acts in statements in open court, in papers secretly entered in paper court file, and in records secretly entered in the electronic court file in Sustain, Defendant Connor engaged in fraud and deceit relative to her disqualification on July 12, 2007 by Plaintiff Zernik.

12. On August 9, 2007 Defendant Connor simultaneously ran multiple frauds:

• a. Presiding in a fraudulent Summary Judgment hearing, where her findings as Trier of Facts were deliberately upside-down from start to finish,
  
  b. Initiating the fraud and deceit relative to entry of judgment, when in fact, judgment was never entered, out of compliance and in violation of the law – California Code of Civil Procedure, §664:
  “If the trial has been had by the court, judgment must be entered by the clerk, in conformity to the decision of the court, immediately upon the filing of such decision. In no case is a judgment effectual for any purpose until entered”, and
  
  c. Denying Plaintiff, there Defendant Zernik, the right to amend claims and enter compulsory claims of fraud and deceit against Countrywide, against Samaan, and against Mara Escrow.
  
  d. In the aftermath, on Aug 14, 2007, Defendant Connor entered in court file the fraudulent, back-dated Aug 9, 2007 Minute Order, with neither certificate of service nor notice of entry of order as required by law California Rules of Court, Rule 1.20 et seq. In such minute order she fraudulently claimed that Judgment by Court was served on the parties in open court on Aug 9, 2007. In fact, only two out of four parties were present in court on that day, therefore service in open court could not be completed, and of the two, one – Att Keshavarzi - later stated in open court on Nov 9, 2007 that he had never seen the Aug 9, 2007 judgment by court and was never served the Aug 9, 2007 judgment by court. Furthermore, there is no certificate of service upon the parties and no notice of entry signed by the Clerk on this record. Therefore, such minute order amounts to hearsay and an invalid court record.

13. On Sept 10, 2007 and Sept 11, 2007, Judge Connor again engaged in multiple frauds:

• a. In transferring the case to Judge Goodman after her 2nd disqualification by Defendant Zernik, with no authority at all,
  
  b. By secretly entering on Sept 11, 2007, after disqualification, with no notice to parties, a back-dated Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order, recording a fictitious hearing where she ruled that there was no fraud in Countrywide records.

14. Defendant the Honorable Judge John Segal, never had an assignment order, and all of his acts as Presiding Judge in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) were of the nature of fraud and deceit, with no authority and no immunity at all.

15. Defendant Segal was fully aware of the fact that no judgment was entered, and so were Defendant David Pasternak, and Att Mohammad Keshavarzi.

16. Regardless, they engaged in fraud and deceit under the guise of legal proceedings, in a fraudulent motion to appoint Pasternak as “Receiver” – purportedly to enforce the execution of a judgment that was never executable at all.

17. Judge Segal and Att Pasternak engaged in intimidation, retaliation, and
harassment of Plaintiff Zernik, there Defendant, and a victim/witness/informer of racketeering, through several hearings in November 2007.

18. Defendants Segal and Pasternak engineered forced entry into Defendant’s property, and taking of property for private use with no compensation to Defendant at all.

19. Defendant Pasternak proceeded to engage in further conspiracy with Defendant Mara Escrow, and Att Richard Ormond (Buchalter Nemer) – not named Defendant in U.S. Court action so far, for fraudulent conveyance of title of the property.

20. Defendant Pasternak proceeded to engage in fraud and deceit relative to an invalid grand deed that he purportedly presented for Court approval on Dec 7, 2007, before the Defendant the Honorable Judge Lisa Hart-Cole and the then Defendant Assistant Supervising Judge, the Honorable Patricia Collins. Both Defendants Hart-Cole and Collins knowingly colluded with the Enterprise.

21. Defendant Pasternak produced yet another invalid fraudulent grant deed that he recorded in the Office of Recorder/Registrar on Dec 17, 2007. It is likely that upon further discovery Notary Public Lisa Khaleydjian be found in collusion with such fraud relative to the fraudulent grant deeds.

22. Defendant the Honorable Judge Terry Friedman, never had an assignment order, and all of his acts as Presiding Judge in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) were of the nature of fraud and deceit, with no authority and no immunity at all.

23. On Jan 11, 2007, at Countrywide’s request. Defendant Friedman fraudulently ruled that the “Protective Order…”, which Defendant Connor deliberately avoided signing and entering, was “..in full force and effect”. He then proceeded on Feb 15, 2007 and March 7, 2008, to fraudulently set sanctions exceeding $22,000 on Defendant Zernik and find him in contempt, relative to purported violations in 2007 of such ex post facto order.

24. Judge Friedman was also disqualified three times, and in none of the cases complied with the law- California Code of Civil Procedure §170.3.

25. Judge Friedman intends to continue presiding in proceedings on July 29, 2008 in Samaan v Zernik, in which he is likely to order distribution of funds, purportedly received by the court for the sale of Zernik’s home, back to Samaan.

26. Request filed with Presiding Judge Czuleger to enforce the law of the land, to put an end to Defendant Terry Friedman’s vigilante conduct in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and to allow a hearing before the Presiding Judge in this matter, or any other judge, duly assigned, is still to be answered.

G. Additional Support Evidence for Allegations Detailed Above
Plaintiff Zernik filed in the various respective courts records documenting various parts of the overall narrative related above. In addition, Zernik filed records documenting hundreds of false and deliberately misleading litigation records produced by the judges of the Los Angeles Superior court, in support of his allegations of racketeering.

H. Additional Discovery Needed
Definitive evidence will be found upon review of the LASC Book of Judgments, Index of All Cases, Calendars of the Courts, and Registers of Actions. And precisely for that reason, all three courts are obfuscating on allowing Zernik access to inspect and review the Book of Judgments, as required by law. Regardless, whether or not such access is allowed, sufficient evidence is being produced to the point that such evidence would not be essential. However, Zernik will continue to demand access to the Book of Judgment in all three courts - since continued obfuscation of the three courts to allow access to the Book of Judgments, a basic First Amendment right, is likely to serve as prime evidence of the incapacity of the Judiciary to regulatregulate itself in matters involving corruption of the courts.

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

Damages Claimed
1. Equity in the Property ………… ~$900,000
Zernik assume he will never see a penny from the equity of the purported sale.
2. Tax Liability ………… ~$300,000
Zernik is likely to be saddled with tax liability for the purported sale even if he does not see a penny of the proceeds. Receiver Pasternak deliberately avoided paying tax at the closing of the fraudulent escrow, so that he would be left with maximum cash.
3. Notes Liability ………… $?
In one of the hallmarks of the abusive/retaliatory appointment of the receiver, Defendant Segal authorized Defendant Pasternak, appointed outside of any legal framework, to issue unlimited notes in Zernik’s name at hefty interest.
4. Legal Services ………… ~$400,000
Some of the legal expenses are still in disputed charges on American Express Card (~$60,000) and Visa Card ($6,000) for fraudulent services of Att Zachary Schorr, Defendant in U.S. Court action.
5. Other Legal Expenses ………… ~$50,000
6. Lost Income (Nov 2006 to July 2008) ………… ~$350,000
7. Automobile and Related Expenses ………… ~$100,000
TOTAL ………… ~$2,100,000

Additional Potential Awards in Related Actions:
1. Pain and Suffering .. to be determined
2. Punitive Damages ... to be determined
3. Qui Tam Award …to be determined
4. Civil Rico Award … triple regular awards

Dated: July 28, 2008

Respectfully submitted by:

_______________________
Joseph Zernik
Plaintiff
in pro per

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION

I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant & Cross-Complainant in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) matter heard in Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, I am also Appellant in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior Court (B203063 – noticed 10/5/07 and B204544 – notice 12/10/07), matters currently in preparation of records on appeal for California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, and also Plaintiff in Zernik v Connor at al (2:2008cv01550), matter heard in U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.
I have read the foregoing Notice to Cease and Desist and I know the content thereof to be true and correct. It is true and correct based on my own personal knowledge as Defendant & Cross Complainant, as Appellant, and as Plaintiff in pro per, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon information and belief, and as to to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well.
I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of California and the United States.
Executed here in Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, on this 28th day in July, 2008.

_______________________
Joseph Zernik
Plaintiff
in pro per

Hammurabi

THE CODE OF HAMMURABI WAS WRITTEN ON STONE, BUT CLAY WAS THE MOST COMMON MEDIA - $1,000 CASH PRIZE FOR DIGITAL-AGE ANSWERS

And yet, Hammurabi (~1760BCE) is credited with generating a code - a deliberate attempt to eliminate ambiguity in the court room.

Hammurabi is known for the set of laws called Hammurabi's Code, one of the first written codes of law in recorded history. These laws were written on a stone tablet standing over six feet tall that was found in 1901. Owing to his reputation in modern times as an ancient law-giver, Hammurabi's portrait is in many government buildings throughout the world (Wikipedia).

With the transsition into the digital age, ~1980 (the emergence of dBase and large scale database management programs), the Los Angeles Superior Court managed to bring us further back then Hammurabi...

The essence of generating a code, for which Hammurabi is given the credit, is in reduced ambiguity in the courtroom. Today we call it Due Process, and it is inherently tied to civil rights and protection of the weak from the stronger, with transparency, and with elimination of corruption.

But the transision to the digital age, presumbaly progress, was accopanied by the opposite process - a deliberate attempt to increase ambiguity in the court room. Things that were simple and clear became elusive and abstract notions, and therefore - fertile ground for the growth of obstruction and corruption. Following are some basic questions you should ask any lawyer appearing before the Los Angeles Superior Court. This blogger is offering a bet of $1,000, that no attorney in Los Angeles County can umbigously answer the following simple questins relative to the Los Angeles County Superior Court:

1. What is the Book of Judgments (1. Book of Judgments)?


2. Where is the Book of Judgments?


3. Why it is hidden from the public in violation of the law?


4. What does it mean "to enter into the Book of Judgments" (2. Entry of Judgmennt)?


5. What does it mean to notice (to notify) that Judgment was entered into the Book of Judgment (3. Notice of Entry of Judgment)?

In the 30 years since the introduction of computers into the LA Superior Court, the Judiciary managed to ambiguate even a simple concept, at third degree of separation from the original one - Book of Judgments - which is by now a complete mystery to most.

How did the judiciary manage to pull off such a hoax on a county of millions?

Well - this is Los Angeles County!

How did the judiciary manage to pull off such a hoax on a one fo the largest legal communities in the U.S.?

Well- one must assume it was beneficial to the bigger, stronger offices.

How did the judiciary manage to pull off such a hoax over ACLU, the Califonia First Amendment Project, the California First Amendment Coalition, a number of excellent law schools with some of the finest constitutionnal law professors in the Country?

Go figure...

NOTICE TO RACKETEERS

NOTICE TO RACKETEERS

On Monday - another ex parte with Supervising Judge Rosenberg, calling upon him to vacate all of the Enterprise acts in Samaan v Zernik

Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:25:33 -0700

To: "Moe Keshavarzi" , robert.shulkin@camoves.com, bbianco@lasuperiorcourt.org, soverton@cmda-law.com, "Pasternak" , "Amberg, John W." , "Van Cleve, Peter D." , "Paul Malingagio" PMalingagio@sheppardmullin.com,

From: joseph zernik jz12345@earthlink.net

Subject: NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPEARANCE, AND NOTICE IN RE: KESHAVARZI'S NOTICE OF RULING JULY 17, 2008

"THE JUDGMENT WAS SET AND THE BOOKS WERE OPENED" Daniel 7:10

July 18, 2008

Att Amberg, Att. Keshavarzi, Att Pasternak, Att Shulkin:

This notice does not constitute any recognition of the LA Superior Court to engage as a Court in Samaan v Zernik SC087400. On the contrary, this notice is to alert parties to formal challenge to the authority of such court in this matter.

Judge Rosenberg was not present today in court. Therefore, the "ex parte" noticed for today will roll over to Monday.

I write to provide notice that at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, July 21, 2008, I will appear "Ex Parte" in the West District of the Los Angeles County Superior Court located at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401, in department A. before Supervising Judge Rosenberg, in RE: Samaan v Zernik, SC087400.

This ex parte requests that the Supervising Judge vacate all acts of judges including, but not limited to, Connor, Segal, and Friedman, and neutrals, such as Pasternak, who operated under the color of the court, all of whom were and are part of the Enterprise in and by the LA Superior Court.

Therefore, Keshavarzi's notice of ruling, dated July 17, 2008, is invalid on its face. And the fact that Terry Friedman continues to pretend to be Presiding Judge with valid authority in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) as a legitimate court action, is simply an attempt to continue living in denial.

Similarly, attorneys who generate or actively participate in such activity cannot expect to benefit from any "litigation privileges". Events, such as the one staged by Keshavarzi on July 17, 2008, 8:30am, were not part of any legitimate court action.

The bottom line remains the same as always: The Los Angeles Superior Court continues to hide the books of court, and refuses to allow Defendant in pro per to inspect and to copy the books of court, where evidence should be found that would conclusively show that this is a legitimate court action. The Los Angeles County Superior Court takes such absurd position for a reason - since inspecting the books of court would incriminate the court and the judges, and some attorneys as well...

In short- the Court is taking the 5th. (the king is naked...)

Please let me know if you plan to attend and/or oppose.

Joseph Zernik

U.S. Citizen

Victim of the Enterprise

in and by"Judges" of LA Superior Court and others

P.S.

While at court today, I again asked the Office of the Clerk to allow me to inspect and to copy litigation records of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), to determine if and when the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP 437c was entered.The Clerk insisted that for security reasons I was not allowed to see the data myself, and instead went back for a while (to call Connor?), then came back with copy the paper fraudulently marked "Minutes Entered Aug 9, 2007 County Clerk". That paper was fraudulently entered into the system on Aug 14, 2008, but was never even validly entered as a Minute Order. Furthermore - it is fraudulent in its content. Obviously, that paper is neither proof of entry of judgment, nor a valid Minute Order, merely one more predicated act of the Enterprise.

Darwish - another racketeering case

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR RACKETEERING IN THE LA SUPERIOR COURT

Case name: Manouchehr Galdjie v Barbara Kramer Darwish and David Darwish
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC052737

This is yet another real property case, in this instance - a rental property. Blogger believes that real property fraud is the specialty of the racketeering enterprise at the Los Angeles Superior Court.

1) The victims of the racketeering in this case are Defendants. Blogger does not know either Plaintiffs or Defendants, but would be grateful for any information that would allow him to establish contact with Defendants:

• Barbara Kramer Darwish
• David Darwish

2) The record of this litigation stretches from 05/27/98 to 11/02/06. The length of this litigation alone should justify further investigation.

2) Judges or court officer in this case are listed below. The length of this list alone makes this case an extreme that should be investigated:

• Alan B. Haber
• Robert M. Letteau
• David B. Finkel
• John H. Reid
• Candance D. Cooper
• Paul G. Flynn
• Patricia L. Collins
• David J. Pasternak
• Clerk (no name recorded), presiding in event
• Retired Judge (no name recorded), presiding in event
• Muni Judge (no name recorded), presiding in event
• John L Segal
• David J Pasternak, receiver

Comments:

1) With all of the above, not a single Assignment or Re-assignment Order is listed in this file.

2) No recusals or disqualifications are listed in this file. And yet, several motions to vacate are listed in this file, which imply some inordinate situations in the course of this litigation.

3) It appears that certain details were deleted from the record, yet no nunc pro tunc orders are listed in this file.

4) The paper court file of this case is overdue for transmission to the LA County archives, but it was not found there. Per the archive the paper court file is most likely stored by the Santa Monica Courthouse, outside of normal procedures.

Conclusions:

A reasonable person would conclude that the record in its current form is not the full and complete original record, but an adulterated record, where certain events were eliminated after being initially recorded. Yet no nunc pro tunc orders are listed in this file.

Notice:

Blogger does not hold any unique evidence. All evidence is distributed on a regular basis to several destination.

HIDDEN BOOK OF JUDGMENTS

LITIGATION OFF THE RECORD…AND WHERE EXACTLY IS THE BOOK OF JUDGMENTS?

On Thursday, July 17, 2008, Zernik will appear before supervising judge Rosenberg and demand to inspect and to copy the Book of Judgments

The only plausible explanation for the complete set of facts in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) a real property specific performance litigation, is that the case was designated by the leadership and judges of the LA Superior Court since before its inception for fraud under the guise of legitimate legal action in the court. Therefore, the case was never adequately registered as a true legal action in either the LA Superior Court or the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District. Accordingly, both courts are now hiding their books and refusing to allow Zernik to inspect and to copy the books of court, as required by law.
Since the case was never ran on the record, none of the judges had a valid assignment order, and with that – none of them has any immunity for their actions in this case.

These judges were caught engaging in criminal conduct. Did they do it for fun? For profit?

· Patricia Collins
· Jacqueline Connor
· Terry Friedman
· Allan Goodman
· Lisa Hart-Cole
· Gerald Rosenberg
· John Segal

On Thursday, July 17, 2008, 8:30am Zernik will appear before Supervising Judge Rosenberg and demand to inspect and to copy the Book of Judgments, which the court is keeping hidden, in violation of the law.

NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPEARANCE ON JULY 17, 2008

From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:36 AM
To: Moe Keshavarzi; robert.shulkin@camoves.com; bbianco@lasuperiorcourt.org; soverton@cmda-law.com; David J. Pasternak; Amberg, John W.; Van Cleve, Peter D.; Paul Malingagio
Subject: NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPEARANCE

July 16, 2008

Att Amberg, Att. Keshavarzi, Att Pasternak, Att Shulkin:

This notice does not constitute any recognition of the LA Superior Court to engage as a Court in Samaan v Zernik SC087400. On the contrary, this notice is to alert parties to formal challenge to the authority of such court in this matter.
I write to provide notice that at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 17, 2008, I will appear "Ex Parte" in the West District of the Los Angeles County Superior Court located at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401, in department A. before Supervising Judge Rosenberg, in RE: Samaan v Zernik, SC087400.

1) To demand that the court remove from its records a minute order dated June 2, 2008, entered by "Judge" Terry Friedman, purportedly striking Zernik's declaration of Mistrial of the same date:
a. The records of Samaan v Zernik are ongoing records of racketeering, and this record again tries to establish false legitimacy and validity to such records.
b. Mr Terry Friedman did not have any valid authority to enter legal records in this case at that time, had it been a true legal record of a true court case in LA Superior Court.
c. The entry was done with no notice to parties, in blatant violation of California Rules of Court, and therefore was and is invalid.
d. The record is nonsensical from the legal perspective, stating: "The Court strikes the declaration as having any legal effect. Further notice is not necessary"

2) To demand that the Supervising Judge, Gerald Rosenberg at the time of such appearance, produce Books of Court to inspect and to copy, as required by law per Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978). Such books or equivalents are on computers accessible from the courtroom, including, but not limited to:
a. Index of All Cases,
b. Calendars of the Courts,
c. Registers of Actions, and
d. Book of Judgments.

Such review is urgent and of the utmost significance, since the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) was and is managed all along "off the record" as part of racketeering enterprise operating inside the West District courthouse, and not as a legitimate court action of the State of California Superior Court of the Los Angeles County.

Please let me know if you plan to attend and/or oppose.

Joseph Zernik
U.S. Citizen
Victim of Racketeering
in and by "Judges" of LA Superior Court and others

URGENT REQUEST FOR HELP

“THE JUDGMENT WAS SET AND THE BOOKS WERE OPENED…” Daniel 7:10

דינא יתב וספרין פתיחו...דניאל ז:י

URGENT
REQUEST FOR CONGRESSIONAL ASSISTANCE
by
Joseph Zernik

What happens when the books are hidden? Adulterated Minute Orders, corrupt trial court litigation records, secret Off the Record proceedings, secret judicial orders, secret Off the Record cases.. see the data for yourself below

OUR GOAL IS TO OPEN THE JUDGMENT BOOKS
OF LA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE PUBLIC-AT-LARGE
TO INSPECT AND TO COPY, AS REQUIRED BY LAW
WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE FOURTH OF JULY!
WE SEEK SUPPORT STATEMENTS AND MORE HELP US
BRING LOS ANGELES BACK INTO THE FOLD
OF THE
U.S. CONSTITUTION!

Willing to help?
Public support is essential... Please help, see below under:
Willing to help?

-----------------------------------------------

HIDDNE BOOKS

LA SUPERIOR COURT

Hidden Books result in:

• Adulteration of Minute Orders, secret invalidation of Minute Orders, secret Minute Orders that report fictitious hearings, etc...
• Off the Record proceedings for blatantly illegal purposes - e.g. Gag Orders...
• Off the Record cases, where the judiciary can engage in abuse at will...

EXHIBIT 1
Minute Orders in Samaan v Zernik - validity, or lack thereof

Note:

1. Paper - refers to paper court records, which are the records open to the public-at-large, litigants, and counsels (column 5)

2. Electronic - refers to electronic court records, which are hidden from the public-at-large, litigants, and counsels, and are available to the court and the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District (Column 6)

00/00/00 - cases of fraud by the Court on the parties - minute order that was secretly invalidated

33/33/33 - cases of fraud by the Court on the parties - minute order that was secretly invalidated

Minute Order #2 - a case of fraud by the court on the parties, a false and deliberately misleading Assignment Order of Judge Connor.

Minute Order #27 - a case of fraud by the court on Zernik, a false and deliberately misleading Minute Order of a hearing that was purportedly conducted "telephonically", but in fact never took place in reality. Pure fabrication of Judge Connor at a time that the California Court of Appeal was reviewing a Petition.

Minute Orders #35, 38 - a case of fraud, direclty related to the fraud on the Judgment that was never entered. These minute orders were generated to create the illusion of a judgment that was entered. But as seen in letter from the office of the Presiding Judge, the Court now is not willing to provide a certificate of entered judgment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willing to help?

1) Please enter your support statement, with name and address as comment. Comments will be printed and mailed to congress by July 14th, 2008.
2) Please email your friends and ask them to enter comments...
3) Please contact any of the congressional offices below and state your support

4) Please stay tuned for "Opening the Books" Beach-Party/demand for an honest court next week.

• 
  Where exactly is Jerry Brown, California Attorney General in all of this? Probably working on his campaign plans forBrown for Governor, disjioned from reality....





• Please call Mr Brown's office 916 324 5437 talk with Sue or Anna, and tell them you would never vote for Brown for anything if he goes on abandoning the basic civil rights of 9.5 million people in LA County.





• Attorney General web site says:





• Division of Public Rights This division serves Californians by safeguarding ... preventing fraudulent business practices, protecting consumers, preserving charitable assets and protecting civil rights.





• Division of Criminal Law This division carries out the constitutional and statutory mandate that the Attorney General represent the People of the State of California in criminal cases.

Congressional offices that are being approached for help, please call any of them, especially any that may represent you ask them to act to restore the civil rights of citizens in Los Angeles County:

1.
Congresswoman Diane Watson
Los Angeles Office
4322 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 302
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 323-965-1422
Fax: 323-965-1113

2.
Congressman Xavier Becerra
Attn: Caseworker
1910 Sunset Blvd., Suite 810
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: (213) 483-1425
Fax: 213-483-1429

3.
Congressman Howard L. Berman
14546 Hamlin Street, Suite 202
Van Nuys, CA 91411
Phone: (818) 994-7200
Fax: (818) 994-1050
4.
Senator Barbara Boxer
1700 Montomery Street, Suite 240
SF, CA 94111
Tel: 415 403 0100
Fax: 202 224 4264

5.
Congressman David Dreier
510 East Foothill Blvd, Suite 201
San Dimas, CA 91773
Office (909) 575-6226
Toll Free (888) 906-2626
Fax (909) 575-6266

6.
Senator Diane Feinstein
One Post Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 393-0707
Fax: (415) 393-0710

7.
Congresswoman Jane Harman
2321 E. Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3270
El Segundo, CA 90245
Phone: (310) 643 3636
Fax: (310) 643 6445

8.
Congressman Howard P. Buck McKeon
26650 The Old Road, Suite 203
Santa Clarita, CA 91381
ph: (661) 254-2111
fax: (661) 254-2380

9.
Congresswoman Grace Napolitano
11627 East Telegraph Road, #100
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Phone: 562-801-2134
Fax: 562-949-9144

10.
Congresswoman Laura Richardson
970 West 190th Street
East Tower, Suite 900
Torrance, CA 90502
Tel: (310) 538-1190
Fax: (202) 225-7924

11.
Hon Lucille Roybal-Allard
255 E. Temple St., Ste. 1860
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3334
Phone: (213) 628-9230
Fax: (213) 628-8578

12.
Hon Linda Sanchez
17906 Crusader Ave. Suite 100
Cerritos, CA 90703
Tel: 562-860-5050
Fax: 202-226-1012

13.
Congressman Adam Schiff
87 N. Raymond Ave. #800
Pasadena, California 91103
Phone: (626) 304-2727
Facsimile: (626) 304-0572

14
Congressman Brad Sherman
5000 Van Nuys Blvd. Suite 420
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 501-9200
FAX: (818) 501-1554

15
Congresswoman Hilda Solis
4716 Cesar Chavez Avenue, Bldg A
East Los Angeles, CA 90022
Phone: (323) 307-9904
Fax: (323) 307-9906

16.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Los Angeles Office
10124 South Broadway, Suite 1
Los Angeles, CA 90003
Phone: (323) 757-8900
Fax: (323) 757-9506

17.
Congressman Henry Waxman
8436 West Third Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90048
(323) 651-1040 (phone)
(818) 878-7400 (phone)
(323) 655-0502 (fax)

18.
Senator Patrick Leahy
Chair U S Senate Committee on the Judiciary
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, District of Columbia 20510
Phone: (202)224-4242 Fax:
Phone: (202) 225-5126
Fax: (202) 225-0072

19.
Senator Christopher Dodd, Chair
US Senate Committee on Banking ,
Housing and Urban Affairs
Washington, D.C. 20510
P: (202) 224-7391
F: (202) 224-5137

20.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, NY (Chair)
US Senate Subcommittee on
Administrative Oversight and the Courts
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Phone Schumer(202) 224-8352
Fax Schumer (202) 228-2260

21.
Senator Russell D. Feingold, WI (Chair)
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on The Constitution
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Majority Phone (202) 224-5573
Majority Office Fax (202) 228-0466

22.
Hon. Conyers Jr., Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

23.
Hon. Nadler, Chairman
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Civil Liberties
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
p/202-225-3951

24,
Representative Barney Frank, Chair
House Financial Services Committee
Democratic Staff
2129 Rayburn House Office Building
Phone: (202) 225–4247

25.
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (NY), Chair
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions
and Consumer Credit
House Financial Services Committee
Democratic Staff
2129 Rayburn House Office Building
Phone: (202) 225–4247

26.
Rep. Melvin L. Watt (NC), Chairman
Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations
House Financial Services Committee
Democratic Staff
2129 Rayburn House Office Building
Phone: (202) 225–4247

27.
Rep Henry Waxman
Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Tel (202) 225-5051

28.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown
Office of Cal Att General
1300 "I' Street
SAC, CA 95814

29.
Michael B. Mukasey
U.S. Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C., 20530-0001

30.
Grace C. Becker
Acting Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530

CORRESPONDENCE IN RE: BOOK OF JUDGMENTS

THE ESSENCE OF RACKETEERING BY LA SUPERIOR COURT -

SECRET BOOK OF JUDGMENTS

June 3, 2008 Corrspondence with the office of the Clerk and the Presiding Judge, LA Superior Court & refusal of the Court to open its Book of Judgments for inspection, moreover - refusal to certify entry of judgment

June 3, 2008 Correspondence:

The Books of Court are by Law public records - but not in Los Angeles.

Copied below are two letters:

1) Letter from Zernik to Office of the Clerk of Los Angeles Superior Court-

Asking certification of either entry of jugment or non-entry of judgment. Such absurd request was needed in thhe first place since the court refuses to allow inspection of its Book of Judgments, in violation of the Law.

2) Response by the Assistant Presiding Judge - McCoy- Refusing to certify either entry or non-entry of the judgment.

The judgment in question is a fraudulent judgment issued by Judge Jacqueline Connor on Aug 9, 2007, as the core of the racketeering in this case. Thereafter, she stated repeatedly in writings and in open court that she entered the judgment on Aug 9, 2007.

The underlying Racket:

The Los Angeles Superior Court created also rules - never fully specified in writing, that allows entry of judgment with no written notice of entry of judgment, or so they would like to make the public believe.

Based on such non-existent judgment, Judge John Segal, and Judge Terry Friedman have move on to:

1) Take Defendant property that is his home with no legal foundation, through sheer threat of force.

2) Deprive Defendant of any compensation for such Taking.

The Racketeers:

This perversion of justice was not the making of one corrupt judge. Instead, it was the outcome of the coordinated conduct of a group of judges, comprising the majority of the judges in the Santa Monica Court House Civil Department. The judges involved in such racketeering are:

1) Jacqueline Connor

2) Allan Goodman

3) John Segal

4) Lisa Hart-Cole

5) Patricia Collins

6) Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg

7) Assistant Presiding Judge William McCoy

Colluding Racketeers at Countrywide:

Full partners in this racketeering are Countrywide Financial Corporation and its Officers and employees:

1) Angelo Mozillo

2) Sandor Samuels

3) Maria McLaurin

4) Sanford Shatz

5) Todd Boock

Countrywide had no business whatsoever with Defendant Zernik. Countrywide simply offered fraudulent records as a favor for a business partner - Jae Arre Lloyd, and his wife - Nivie Samaan.

1) June 3, 2008 Letter to the office of the Clerk requesting certification of either entry of judgment, alternatively - non-entry of judgment. (click on the image for larger view)

2) June 3, 2008 Response by Asisstant Presiding Judge McCoy . (click on the image for larger view)

BOOK CLUB

Racketeering

BOOK CLUB READING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE LONG WEEKEND OF JULY 4th

1) RICO State by State: A Guide to Litigation Under the State Racketeering Statutes by John E. Floyd
(Paperback - Mar 1, 1998)

2) The Upperworld and the Underworld: Case Studies of Racketeering and Business Infiltrations in the United States (Criminal Justice and Public Safety) by Robert J. Kelly
(Hardcover - Feb 28, 1999)

QUESTIONS FOR THE JEWISH COMMUNITY

OPEN QUESTIONS FOR THE JEWISH COMMUNITY IN LOS ANGELES
RACKETEERING AND THE JEWISH COMMUNITY

Is it possible that Bet Tzedek - the House of Justice- a prominent Jewish charity, is used as a cover up for some prominent Jewish Racketeers?

Prominent Jewish Racketeer related to Bet Tzedek:

a. Sandor Samuels - Chief Legal Counsel, Countrywide
immediate past President, Bet Tzedek

b. David Pasternak - Officer, Los Angeles Superior Court
past President, Bet Tzedek

c. Terry Friedman - Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
past Executive Direcor, Bet Tzedek

No known relationship to Bet Tzedek reported so far:
d. John Segal - Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court

AHRC POSTINGS

AHRC - AMERICAN HOMEOWNER'S RESOURCE CENTER-
POSTINGS RELATED TO SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)

Please notice the following links:

• AHRC -

http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news

• Lawsuit listing: Zernik v Connor et al.

http://www.ahrc.se/new/index.php/src/courts/sub/lawsuit/action/display/id/210

• Court records (a series of files uploaded at that site) documenting racketeering by:
• ____ Countrywide - Angelo Mozillo, Sandor Samuels, Maria McLaurin
• ____ Los Angeles Superior Court - Judges Jacqueline Connor, Allan Goodman, John Segal, Lisa Hart-Cole, Patricia Collins, Terry Friedman

http://www.ahrc.se/new/index.php/src/tools/sub/yp/action/display/id/2680

• Detailed description of racketeering by Judge Jacqueline Connor

http://www.ahrc.se/new/index.php/src/complaints/sub/hallshame/action/info/id/63?ASID=a9c621457b57917d9152744185da5235

Additional items will be listed as they are posted.

Flags

IMMEDIATE GOALS

Calling upon all people of good will...

IMMEDIATE GOALS

Within 10 working days after 4th of July 2008 bring Los Angeles County into the fold of the United States and the U.S. Constitution, by:

1) Opening the Books of Courts for public review and oversight, as required by law, and put an end to the racket by the Court. The Books of Courts include, but are not limited to:

• Books of Judgments
• Index of All Cases
• Calendars of the Courts
• Registers of Actions

2) Stopping operations of Sustain as it is -

The Court's Case Management System is at the core of the racketeering activity. It must either be fixed, or eliminated.

I NTERMEDIATE GOALS

1) Found an organization of families and victims of racketeering by the Los Angeles Superior Court, and engage in long-term monitoring of the Court, to ensure its integrity.

2) Ensure that integrity of the judiciary and reform of the judiciary is a theme in this upcoming election campagn

OPEN QUESTIONS ...

OPEN QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD OF BET TZEDEK AND THE LEGAL COMMUNITY AT LARGE IN PREPARATION FOR THE JUSTICE BALL, JULY 19, 2008

Is there any truth to these absurd claims?

• The Los Angeles Superior Court and its honorable judges have been hiding its Books of Cout - Book of Judgments, the Index of All Cases and the Registers of Actions, all Public Records by law, for the last 25-30 years?
• The Los Angeles Superior Court and it honorable judges have been engaged in racketeering in the last 25-30 years, by creating false, deliberately misleading legal records, that the Court kept "privileged" on its secretive computer system - Sustain (and which by law must be Public Records)?
• The Los Angeles Superior Court and its honorable judges eliminated the Books of Court, Public Records by law, some 25-30 years ago, when they introduced the computerized system, Sustain, with no public oversight, in violation of the U.S. Rule Making Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. §2071 - 2077), and that Sustain from inception, was designed to defraud the public?
• The Los Angeles Superior Court also uses the Sustain to transfer records and "Informal Briefs" to the Court of Appeal, in violation of rules of court, and any concept of Due Process, with no notice or service to parties in such actions?
• Three of the past leaders of House of Justice - Bet Tzedek -- David Pasternak, Sandor Samuels, and Terry Friedman, were jointly involved in racketeering acts?

Is so:

• How come nobody in this large and prosperous legal community ever said anything in 25-30 years?
• Is it correct to conclude that there was not a single honest judge in Los Angeles in the last 25-30 years? Any honest judge facing such conditions had to report it to the appropriate authorities pursuant to the California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3D(2) and/or protested and/or resigned...
• 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.
• Is it true to conclude that the Court of Appeal , 2nd District must be deemed incollusion with this racket?
• Shouldn't the Board of Bet Tzedek, or its ethics committee, if there is one, look into the issue of conduct of its board members past and present and reach some conclusions?

Dated: July 4, 2008

By:

_________________

Joseph Zernik

pasternak racketeerring 08-

DAVID PASTERNAK - AN OFFICER OF THE COURT AND A RACKETEER

Quiz Questions:
(click on the image to enlarge view)
1. How many acts of racketeering (Predicated Acts per RICO - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) by David J Pasternak can you detect in the records on this page alone? (click on the images to enlarge view)

2. How many racketeers can you identify between the figures on the right and the narrative on the left, and how many Predicated Acts per RICO can you count for all combined?

First Prize - tickets for two for the Justice Ball, July 19, 2008, where the winner may have a chance to meet some of the leaders of the racketeering ring - Pasternak, Samuels, and probably some of the racketeers/judges as well...

1. Two Grant Deeds from Records of Samaan v Zernik, that are the Core of the Fraudulent Conveyance of the Property by Pasternak.

Grant Deed recorded by Pasternak 12/17/07
a. Was not at all the one "approved" by Court
b. Has the name of the Grantee covered by white-out and typed over - it is impossible to ascertain what, if any, was acknowledged by the Notary Public
c. Grantee: "David Pasternak for Joseph V Zernick [sic-jz] per case sc087400"lacking in legal foundation - a "case" is not a legal authority.

Court Approved Grant Deed
12/7/07
a. Was not at all the one recorded .
b. Instrument (left panel): Grantor is "Joseph Zernik, an unmarried man".
c. Notary Acknowledgement (right panel): Pasternak scribbled his own signature for the notary, but the seal is of notary Lisa Khalaydjian.
d. Notary Acknowledgement (right panel): Missing signature of Grantor , therefore the Notary acknowledged a blank instrument.

2. Combined, these instruments invalidate any purported appearance of validity that the instrument recorded with the Registrar might have had:
a. Obviously, an instrument executed by either David Pasternak and acknowledged by either Pasternak and/or Khalaydjian must not be trusted in this case. The record presented in court on December 7, 2007 inherently taints both Pasternak and Khalaydjian - Khalaydjian - for providing Pasternak with blank acknowledgments with her seal, and Pasternak for using such paper for fraudulent purposes.

b. Closer inspection shows that the record that was recorded in the office of the Registrar is dated Nov 27, 2007. Therefore, Pasternak already had it in his possession on Dec 7, 2007, when he presented the court the other instrument, in a deliberate attempt to deceive.

3. Dec 7, 2007 Proceedings before Judge Patricia Collins - Court Racketeering at its Worst:
a. Was part of racketeering by the LASC and its judges in this case - it was handled all along "off the books" (and that is why the books are concealed) - the "Guantanamo Bay in LA" procedure...

b. Was held as the second ex parte appearance for that morning, with no notice as required by law, 24 hours in advance.

c. Judge Collins had no idea regarding the case.

d. Judge Collins did not even have the court file of the case in the court room.

e. Judge Collins could not possibly read and comprehend the records that were brought for her approval - about 100 pages of complex financial and real estate records.

f. Judge Collins had no interest and did not even attempt to comprehend the matter. The appearance started in mid morning, and she was concerned that she would be late for lunch, as she stated herself.

g. In blatant defiance of the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Pasternak requested, and Judge Collins approved on that morning two ex parte gag-orders against Zernik, prohibiting him from speaking for his own defense, as Defendant in pro per

h. When asked to justify in court why such were urgent procedures that required ex parte applications, Pasternak responded that he needed more money, and as long as Zernik was allowed to speak, he could accomplish his [racketeering- jz] acts.

i. Pasternak requested, and Judge Collins approved a classic racketeering agreement - an indemnity agreement for Mara Escrow to entice the company to participate in racketeering activity with the court.

j. Judge Collins had her own racket on the side - while she signed the orders presented to her by Pasternak in court, she in fact invalidated all acts of that morning by the invalid recording of the proceeding in the Register of Action, where an invalid proceeding and an invalid adjudication were recorded. That was a typical maneuver by the judges of the LASC, they expected that the litigants abide by the illegal orders that they pronounced in court, but held themselves innocent, since they secretly invalidated such orders later in chambers - the "cross your fingers behind your back" maneuver...