07-12-07 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Declaration of Joseph Zernik re: Ex Parte Proceedings by Attorney David Pasternak

8/9/2019 07-12-07 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Declaration of Joseph Zernik re: Ex Parte Proceedings by Attorney David Pa

1/27

Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 27

U N IT E D S T A T E S D IS T R IC T C O U R TC E N T R A L D I S T R I C T O F C A L I F O R N I A

OlgiUl/y > lgn o d b y Jo ",p hI t:mlk

...-.::::.. _ J ) O N; cn = Jo s ep hZ r m ik ,) . ~ l - :~ d =j I 1 2 3 4 5 @e a rt h l i n k .

nt \ c;: ;USD ate : iO o 8.0 4 .t5 12 :0 8:2 0

.()7 ' tX1

JI:

J A C Q U E L I N E C O N N O R E T A LD e fe n d a n ts

r C ) c ; )

: .; - : ~ -J

- ~

z ~ ~: :. ~r r ~ ., . -" ._. "IF - ,: ' :

iIII

D A T E : A P R I L15 , 200 8

N O T I C E O F D E C 1 1 ,2 0 0 7 P L A I N T I F F 'S

D E C L A R A T I O N R E : E X P A R T E

A P P E A R A N C E S B Y R E C E I V E R

P A S T E R N A K A N D A N O T H E R

I N C O G N I T O A T T O R N E Y IN L A S C

C O U R T S O F J U D G E S H A R T - C O L E A N D

C O L L I N S , T O I S S U E G A G O R D E R SA G A IN S T P L A I N T I F F , T O P R E V E N T

m M F R O M E X E R C I S I N G P R O T E C T E D

S P E E C H - H I S O W N D E F E N S E A S

D E F E N D A N T I N P RO P E R IN L A S C .

F I L E D IN U .S . D I S T R I C T C O U R T IN

S U P P O R T O F P L A I N T I F F R E Q U E S T T O

C O N T IN U E , A L T E R N A T I V E L Y T O

C O N S O L I D A T E H E A R I N G S

N o. C V -0 8 -0 1 5 5 0 -V A P -C W

H O N C . W O E H R L E , J U D G El a i n t i ffJ O S E P H Z E R N I K

1 J o s e p h Z e m i k

2 2 415 S a in t G e o r g e S t.

L o s A n g el es , C A 9 0 0 2 7

3 T el: (3 1 0 ) 4 3 5 9 1 0 74 F ax : (8 0 1 ) 998 0 9 1 7

jz 1 2 3 4 5 @ e a r th l in k .n e t

5 P la in ti ff6 in p r o pe r

7

8

9

10

11

1 2

13

14

1 5

16

17

18

1 9

2 0

21

22

23

24

25

26 T O A L L P A R T I E S A N D T H E I R C O U N S E L S O F R E C O R D :

27 P L E A S E T A K E N O T I C E o f th e fo llo w in g do c u m e n t, p re v io u s ly fil ed in L A S e in

2 8 Sa m a a n v Zer n ik (S C 0 8 7 4 0 0 ) - -1 -

N O T I C E O F P L A IN TI F F 'S D E C L A R A TI O N IN R E : D E C 7 , 20 0 7 E XP A R T E S

. '

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIg""'1y>lgnod by _ p hj Zemlk

~ _ , J) O N ; c n = J o 1 e p h Z ~ I k ,) .' ' ~ L . : ~ d = j I 1 2 3 . 5 @ J e a r t h l i n k .

( j \ ( : - ~

Date:2008.04.15 12:08:20-{)7'1

JI:

JACQUELINE CONNOR ET ALDefendants

r n C): ' : ; ~ -. l

- ~

n . ~ . ,

"'"';'"'.

r- '- , )l , . ; ~ 'c:

: . : ~ . ?:' - . J( ~. ~ . I

f P, ' --nr-

;III

DATE: APRIL 15, 2008

FILED IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REQUEST TO

CONTINUE, ALTERNATIVELY TOCONSOLIDATE HEARINGS

NOTICE OF DEC 11,2007 PLAINTIFF'SDECLARATION RE : EX PARTEAPPEARANCES BY RECEIVERPASTERNAK AND ANOTHER

INCOGNITO ATTORNEY IN LASCCOURTS OF JUDGES HART-COLE AND

COLLINS, TO ISSUE GA G ORDERSAGAINST PLAINTIFF, TO PREVENT

m M FROM EXERCISING PROTECTEDSPEECH - H IS O WN DEFENSE AS

DEFENDANT IN PRO PER IN LASC.

No. CV-08-01550-VAP-CWHON C. WOEHRLE, JUDGElaintiff

JOSEPH ZERNIK

1 Joseph Zemik2 2415 Saint George St.

Los Angeles, CA 90027

3 Tel: (310) 43591074 Fax: (801) 998 0917

[email protected] Plaintiff6 in pro pe r

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:

27 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE of the following document, previously filed in LASC in

28 Samaan v Zemik (SC087400) - -1-

NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN RE: DEC 7, 2007 EX PARTES


2/27


N O T IC E O F N O T I C E O F D E C 1 1 ,2 0 0 7 P L A IN T I F F 'S D E C L A R A T IO N R E : E X

P A R T E A P P E A R A N C E S B Y R E C E IV E R P A S T E R N A K A N DA N O T H E R

I N C O G N IT O A T T O R N E Y IN L A S C C O U R T S O F J U D G E S H A R T -C O L E A N D

C O L L IN S , T O IS S U E G A G O R D E R S A G A IN S TP L A IN T I F F , TO P R E V E N T I D M

F R O M E X E R C IS I N G P R O T E C T E D S P E E C H - H I S O W N D E F E N S E A S

D E F E N D A N T I N P R O P E R IN L A S C .

1

2

3

4

5

6 This docum ent is fil ed in U nited Sta tes C ourt , Los A ngele s in su pport o f

7 P la in ti ff 's ex p arte applicatio n to continue hearings on M otions to D ism iss,

8 alternativ ely - to conso lidate hearin gs.

9 A t the tim e P la in t if f w rote th is declara tion he already raise d substantial

10 concerns that none o f th e ju d g es w ho served as Presid ing Judges after Judge C onnor

11 w as duly assigned. P la in t if f asked each and every one o f themin ex parte appearances

12 to notic e him o f th e ir assignm ent order, but none did. H ow ever, m ore recently

J O S E P H Z E R N IK

P la in ti f fi n p r o p e r

21

13 P lain tiff re alized that Judge H art-C ole, beyond havin g no due assignm ent, was also a

14 ju dge o f a lim ited civil departm ent. Sam aan v Z em ik is a civil unlim ited case. H ow

15 the case ended up in her hands? I t is still le ft an am biguous le gal situation. P la in tiff

16 has been dem anding from the C le rk 's O ffice (D efendant W it ts ) for several m onth s

17 certificate s o f th e A ssignm ent O rders (at the fee stip ula ted in R ule so f C ourt $15.00

18 per docum ent) o f th e H onora ble Judges, alte rnatively - certificates that no such orders

19 exist on file . The LA SC has so far refuse d to pro vid e any certifi cation- one w ay or

20 th e other.

D ated: A pril 14th

, 2008

22 R espectfu lly subm itted.

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

N O T IC E O F P L A IN T IF F 'S D EC L A R A TIO N IN R E : D EC 7 , 20 0 7 E X PA RTE S

NOTICE OF NOTICE OF DE C 11,2007 PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION RE : EXPARTE APPEARANCES BY RECEIVER PASTERNAK AND A N O m E R

INCOGNITO ATTORNEY IN LASC COURTS OF JUDGES HART-COLE AND

COLLINS, TO ISSUE GA G ORDERS AGAINST PLAINTIFF, TO PREVENT ID MFROM EXERCISING PROTECTED SPEECH - H IS O WN DEFENSE ASDEFENDANT IN PRO PER IN LASC.

1

2

34

5

6 This document is filed in United States Court, Los Angeles in support of

7 Plaintiffs ex parte application to continue hearings on Motions to Dismiss,

8 alternatively - to consolidate hearings.

9 At the time Plaintiffwrote this declaration he already raised substantial

10 concerns that none of the judges who served as Presiding Judges after Judge Connor

11 was duly assigned. Plaintiff asked each and every one of them in ex parte appearances

12 to notice him of their assignment order, but none did. However, more recently

JOSEPH ZERNIK

Plaintiffin proper

21

13 Plaintiff realized that Judge Hart-Cole, beyond having no due assignment, was also a

14 judge of a limited civil department. Samaan v Zernik is a civil unlimited case. How

15 the case ended up in her hands? I t is still left an ambiguous legal situation. Plaintiff

16 has been demanding from the Clerk's Office (Defendant Witts) for several months

17 certificates of the Assignment Orders (at the fee stipulated in Rules of Court $15.00

18 per document) of the Honorable Judges, alternatively - certificates that no such orders19 exist on file. The LASC has so far refused to provide any certification - one way or

20 the other.

Dated: April 14 th , 2008

22 Respectfully submitted.

23

24

2526

27

28

-2-



3/27


1

2

3

S T A T E M E N T O F V E R I F IC A T I O N O F N O T I C E O F P L A IN T I F F 'SD E C L A R T I O N

D E C 1 1 ,2 0 0 7 R E : E X P A R T E A P P E A R A N C E S O N D E C 7 , 2 0 0 7 BE F O R E J U D G E S

H A R T - C OL E

A N DC O L L I N S

) . ~

8

4

5

11

I, J o s e p h Z e rn ik , a m D e fe n d a n t & C ross C o m p la in a n t in Sa m a a nv Z e r n ik

(S C 0 8 7 4 0 0 ) m a t te r h e a rd in L o s A n g e le s S u p e r io r C o u rt, W e s t D is t r ict, I a m a lso A p p e lla n t

6 in Z e r n ik v Lo s An g e le s Su p e r io r C o u r t: (B 2 0 3 0 6 3 ) , and also P la int i f f in Ze r n ik v C o n n o r e t

7 a l (C V 0 8 -0 1 5 5 0 ) m a t te r h e a rd in the U n i te d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u r t, Lo s A n g e le s , C a lifo rn ia .

I have re a d th e fo re g o in g N O T I C E O F P L A I N T IF F 'S D E C L AR A T I O N R E : E X

P A R T E A P P L IC A T I O N S O N D E C 7 , 2 0 0 7 B E F O R E J U D G EH A R T - C O L E A N D

9 C O L L I N S and I k n o w th e c o n te n t t h e r e o f to be true and c o rrec t .I t is c o r re c t b a s e d o n m y

10 ow n p e r so n a l kn o w le d g e as D e fe n d a n t in p ro per in said case . I m a k e th is d ec la ra tio n th

at

th e fo re g o in g is tru e and c o r re c t u n d e r p e n a l ty o f p e r ju ry p u r s u a n t to the law s o f C a lifo rn ia

12 and the U n i te d S ta te s .

E x e c u te d h e re in L os A n g e le s , C o u n ty o f L os A n g e le s , C a lifo rn ia , on th is 14

thday in

A pril , 2008 .14

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

J o s e p b Z e rn i k

P la i n t if fin p r o p e r

- 3 -

N O T ICE O F P L A IN T IF F 'S D E C L A R A T IO N IN R E: D E C 7, 2 007 E XP A R T E S

1

2

3

STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION OF NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S DECLARTIONDEC 11,2007 RE: EX PARTE APPEARANCES ON DEC 7,2007 BEFORE JUDGES

HART-COLE AND COLLINS

5

8

4

11

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

6 in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior Court: (B203063), and also Plaintiff in Zernik v Connor et

7 al (CV 08-01550) matter heard in the United States District Court, Los Angeles, California.

I have read the foregoing NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION RE: EX

PARTE APPLICATIONS ON DEC 7,2007 BEFORE JUDGE BART-COLE AND

9 COLLINS and I know the content thereofto be true and correct . I t is correct based on my

10 own personal knowledge as Defendant in pro per in said case. I make this declaration that

the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of California

12 and the United States.

Executed here in Los Angeles, County o f Los Angeles, California, on this 14th

day in

April, 2008.14

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Joseph ZernikPlaintiffin proper

-3-



4/27



5/27


6/27


C ourtr oo m as s is ta n t tha t sh e had to del iv e r it to the c le rk , and tha t it had to be

th e firs t it em on the ag e n d a pri o r to any th ing e lse . S he an sw e re d tha t sh ew as

no t su re it w ou ld be the fi rst tim e. T he cl er k , w ho en te re d a few m in u tes la te r,

tri ed to conv in ce m e o f the sa m e - that th ey w ou ld subm it it to Judge H art

C o le , bu t tha t sh e w a n te d to sta rt w ith th e ex parte firs t. I abso lu tely re fused .

T he clerk then w ent back to d is cu ss it w it h Ju dge H art C o le .

5 . In the m e a n w h ile I no ti ced th at the C o u rt F il e , V o lu m e IX , w hich I have

never seen . I t w as si tt ing th ere . S o I as ked to re v ie w it. In it I fo und intere st in g

in fo rm atio n :

6 . D e c e m b e r 4 , 2007 M I N U TE O R D E R

by JU D G E SE G A L :

T it le d : N O N A P P E A R A N C E C A S E R E V I E W - JU D G E R E C U S A L . I se rv ed

Ju dge S egal per 17 0.3 on N o v e m b e r 26 , 2007 . T o avert th at recusa l ,

Ju dge S egal rec u se d h im s e lf on 1 7 0 .3 (c) (l ), s in ce he d is c o ve re d th at he ow ned

som e C o u n try w id e sto ck . In it he w ro te that " Co u n tr ywid e is n o t a p a r ty . .. .

C o u n tr yw id e is j u s t a w itn ess " Y et he w as goi ng to recuse h im se lf to

" fu r th e r th e in te r e s t o f J u stic e " " by r e -a ss ig n m e n t o f th is ca se to a n o th e r

ju d ic ia l o ffic e r b y th e s u p e r vis in g ju d g e o f th is d is tri c t ' .. . and tha t he ha d

done hi s best so far , b u t" th e r ea so n s . . . . Ar o s e a n d w er e le a r n e d o f w ith in

th e p a s t fe w d a ys" .

7. T h is 12 -4 -07 m in u te o rd er w ould be deem ed d is honest by a re aso n ab lepers on

re v ie w in g the case . In re ce n t days Judge S egal recal le d his stock ho ld ingin

C o u n try w id e .. . Judge G oodm an befo re him rec alle d severa l w eeks afte rta k in g

th e case tha t he had a long te rm clo se fri en dsh ip w it h C o u n try w id e 's C hie f

L eg a l C ounse l. A nd w hile Judge S ega l clai m ed that C o u n try w ide w as mere ly

a w it ne ss in th is ca se , C oun try w id e w as lis te d in th e m aili ng li st o f the very

sa m e m inu te o rd e r com ing fr om his C ourtroom as " In te r ve n o r " . A nd on

C o u rtn e t - the w eb -b ase d , pub li c acces s syste m , C o u n try w id e 's d es ig na tio n

- 2 -

Courtroom assistant that she had to deliver it to the clerk, and that it had to be

the first item on the agenda prior to anything else. She answered that she was

not sure it would be the first time. The clerk, who entered a few minutes later,

tried to convince me of the same - that they would submit it to Judge Hart

Cole, but that she wanted to start with the ex parte first. I absolutely refused.

The clerk then went back to discuss it with Judge Hart Cole.

5. In the meanwhile I noticed that the Court File, Volume IX, which I have

never seen. I t was sitting there. So I asked to review it. In it I found interesting

information:

6. December4, 2007

MINUTE ORDERby JUDGE SEGAL:

Titled: NON APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW - JUDGE RECUSAL. I served

Judge Segal per 170.3 on November 26, 2007. To avert that recusal,

Judge Segal recused himself on 170.3(c)(l), since he discovered that he owned

some Countrywide stock. In it he wrote that "Countrywide is no t aparty....

Countrywide is just a witness " Yet he was going to recuse himselfto

''further the interest of Justice " "by re-assignment o f this case to another

judicia l offICer by the supervisingjudge o f this district' .. . and that he had

done his best so far, but" the reasons ... . Arose an d were learned of within

the past fe w days".

7. This 12-4-07 minute order would be deemed dishonest by a reasonable person

reviewing the case. In recent days Judge Segal recalled his stock holding in

Countrywide .. . Judge Goodman before him recalled several weeks after taking

the case that he had a long term close friendship with Countrywide's Chief

Legal Counsel. And while Judge Segal claimed that Countrywide was merely

a witness in this case, Countrywide was listed in the mailing list of the very

same minute order coming from his Courtroom as "Intervenor". And on

Courtnet - the web-based, public access system, Countrywide's designation

-2-


7/27


w as changed under Judge S ega l fr om In te rv en or to " D e fe n d a n t ' , fo r no reason

a t a ll. A s I w as to ld a w hil e ago by the C lerk in Judge G o o d m a n 's C ourt- no

clerk w ou ld do any thing like th at (change designations, add or rem ove parties)

on h is o r her ow n .

8 . C ourt R e p o r te r A n g e la M ap (D ep t phone -310 288 1210) to ok no tes o f the

hearing in D ep t X .

9 . Judge L in da H art a ssu m e d the bench , and sta rted by d ec la rin g that m y

fil ing per C C P 170 .6 w as d ism issed , since I had already filed per C C P 170.6

against Judge C o n n o r on Ju ly 1 2 ,2 0 0 7 .

10. I ex p la in e d to Judge H art C o le th at I had never fil ed C C P 170 .6 w ith

Judge C onnor. W hat I file d w ith Judge C onnor on July 12, 2007 w as perC C P

170 .3 . H o w e v e r, Judge C onnor, d ishonestly , in o p en -c o u rt declared that it

w as a fili ng p e r C C P 170 .6 , and th at it w as un tim ely , th e re fo re d ism issed .

T h e section n u m b e r 170 .6 w as never even m entioned in the w ho le paper.

W hat h a p p en ed in the C o u rtro o m w as fu ll y d o cu m e n ted in an h o n e s t tr anscrip t.

11 . A s usual, Judge C o n n o r created a vastly d if fe ren t reco rd in the Ju ly 12 ,

2007 M inu te O rder, w h ic h w as h idden from m e unti l m uch la te r. In th e minu te

o rder, she firs t o f a ll h id the d isq ua lif ic a tio n under an u n re la te d titl e , ina very

leng thy m in u te o rder - sam e m aneuvers she used fo r th e S ep t 10 , 2007

d is q u a lif ica tio n m inu te o rd er. B u t on Ju ly 1 2 ,2 0 0 7 , she a lso started from

c la im in g it w as C C P 170 .6 , and then sh ifted to C C P 170 .3 - to fit the paper

reco rd on m y filin g .

12 . R e g a rd le ss o f the m an eu v e rs - a reasonab le person w ould deem that it w as

a case o f a j u d g e w ho re fused to be recused . M y read ingo f the law w as th at

the S u p e rv isin g J u d g e w as supposed to rem ove her from the case. B u t noneo f

that ever happened . I a lso ho ld tha t there w as good cause a p p a re n t to vacate a ll

o f Judge C o n n o r 's ru lin g s , o rders, and ju d g m e n ts fo llow ing that day , bu t no

-3 -

was changed under Judge Segal from Intervenor to "Defendant', for no reason

at all. As I was told a while ago by the Clerk in Judge Goodman 's Court - no

clerk would do anything like that (change designations, add or remove parties)

on his or her own.

8. Court Reporter Angela Map (Dept phone -310 288 1210) took notes of the

hearing in Dept X.

9. Judge Linda Hart assumed the bench, and started by declaring that my

filing per CCP 170.6 was dismissed, since I had already filed per CCP 170.6

against Judge Connor on July 12,2007.

10. I explained to Judge Hart Cole that I had never filed CCP 170.6 withJudge Connor. What I filed with Judge Connor on July 12,2007 was per CCP

170.3. However, Judge Connor, dishonestly, in open-court declared that it

was a filing per CCP 170.6, and that it was untimely, therefore dismissed.

The section number 170.6 was never even mentioned in the whole paper.

What happened in the Courtroom was fully documented in an honest transcript.

11. As usual, Judge Connor created a vastly different record in the July 12,

2007 Minute Order, which was hidden from me until much later. In the minute

order, she first of all hid the disqualification under an unrelated title, in a very

lengthy minute order - same maneuvers she used for the Sept 10, 2007

disqualification minute order. But on July 12,2007, she also started from

claiming it was CCP 170.6, and then shifted to CCP 170.3 - to fit the paper

record on my filing.

12. Regardless of the maneuvers - a reasonable person would deem that it was

a case of a judge who refused to be recused. My reading of the law was that

the Supervising Judge was supposed to remove her from the case. But none of

that ever happened. I also hold that there was good cause apparent to vacate all

of Judge Connor's rulings, orders, and judgments following that day, but no

-3-


8/27


Judge in W es t D is tr ic t w ou ld overru le ano th e r. I tr ie d to expl ain all o f thatto

Judge H ar t C ol e in w ay o f exp la in in g w hy I w as en titl ed to her rec usa l p e r

170 .6 .

13 . A few m in u tes af te r th e start o f the hearing w ith Judge H art -C o le , I no ti ced

a new C ouns el s ta n d in g ri gh t at m y side in fr on t o f the ju d g e . I w as w el l

versed at su ch sh e n an ig a n s fro m Judge C onnor 's C ourt , w here co rp o ra te

c o u n se ls fo r C o u n tr y w id e w ere do ing th at rou tinel y - so as not to be id entif ied

in the tr an scr ip t as be in g th ere . W hile th ey su bm it te d b ri efs an d att endedany

hea ri ng fr om Ju ly 6 to A ugust 9 ,2 0 0 7 , one ca nno t fi nd C ou n tr y w id e 's nam e in

any m inu te order.

14 . I s to p p ed rig ht aw ay , and addresse d Jud ge H art-C o le and asked i f she

w ou ld p lease in tro du ce th e g en tle m an w ho had j u s t jo i n e d us. T he Judgew as

vi si bl y upset tha t I d id tha t , and sa id angril y : "W e w ill do in tr o d u c ti o n s

la ter . .. ". I sa id : " I th o u gh t in tro du c ti on s com e befo re th e a rg u m en ts " .Ju dge

H art C o le re fu se d to in troduce th is new par ty a t th e hea ring .

15 . Judge L in d a H art C o le th en sa id she ne eded to ta ke tim e o f f to lookin to m y

c la im s re g a rd in g no t fili ng 170.6 w it h Judge C onnor. D uring th e recess I

asked the g e n t le m a n on m y side fo r h is nam e and he re fu sed to g iv e m eth at

in fo rm ati on . B ut he did exp lain th at he w as re p rese n ti n g M a ra E sc ro w !I then

as ked h im h o w he e n ter e d the C ourt lik e tha t. H e answ ered that he w as abit

la te . I a s k e d h im i f it w as a cce p ta b le in tha t C ourtr oom fo r a party (and he was

no t a par ty ) to e n te r th e w ell li ke that in the m id d le o f a heari ng , since I w as no t

fa m ilia r w it h th is C ourt ro om . T he gen tl em an w ou ld no t answ er . I then asked

h im i fp e rh a p s by chan ce he had d is cu sse d the case ex parte w ith JudgeH art

C o le in a d v a n ce o f the hearin g , and th ey had an " u n d e rs ta n d in g " that he w ou ld

j o i n the h e a ri n g lik e that, u n in tr o du ced . A gai n , he w ou ld no t answ er.

- 4 -

Judge in West District would overrule another. I tried to explain all of that to

Judge Hart Cole in way of explaining why I was entitled to her recusal per

170.6.

13. A few minutes after the start of the hearing with Judge Hart-Cole, I noticed

a new Counsel standing right at my side in front of the judge. I was well

versed at such shenanigans from Judge Connor's Court, where corporate

counsels for Countrywide were doing that routinely - so as not to be identified

in the transcript as being there. While they submitted briefs and attended any

hearing from July 6 to August 9,2007, one cannot fmd Countrywide's name in

any minute order.14. I stopped right away, and addressed Judge Hart-Cole and asked if she

would please introduce the gentleman who had just joined us. The Judge was

visibly upset that I did that, and said angrily: "We will do introductions

later .. . ". I said: "I thought introductions come before the arguments". Judge

Hart Cole refused to introduce this new party at the hearing.

15. Judge Linda Hart Cole then said she needed to take time of f to look into my

claims regarding not filing 170.6 with Judge Connor. During the recess I

asked the gentleman on my side for his name and he refused to give me that

infonnation. But he did explain that he was representing Mara Escrow! I then

asked him how he entered the Court like that. He answered that he was a bit

late. I asked him if it was acceptable in that Courtroom for a party (and he was

not a party) to enter the well like that in the middle of a hearing, since I was not

familiar with this Courtroom. The gentleman would not answer. I then asked

him ifperhaps by chance he had discussed the case ex parte with Judge Hart

Cole in advance of the hearing, and they had an "understanding" that he would

join the hearing like that, unintroduced. Again, he would not answer.

-4-


9/27


16 . I m e nt io n ed to h im th at I com m un ica te d w ith L iz C ohen the E s c row

O ffice r. H e sa id th at he w ou ld p re fer i f ! co m m u n ica te d w ith h im in st ead . I

the n su g g e s ted that he p rovi de m e w it h hi s busin ess car d , so th at I cou ld do

that. H e refuse d again .

17. A reas o na b le p e rs o n rev iew ing th e case as a w ho le w ou ld conclude tha t th is

w as again a cas e o f d ish o n es t ju d g e , w ho offe re d p re fe ren tia l tre atm en t toa

co rp o rat io n a g a in s t an ind iv idua l , a ll ow ing them to rem ain h idden , no t even

id en tif ied as a part y , bu t part ic ip ate in a hearin g . M oreover, it w as p ro b ab le

th at the w h o le u rg e n t heari ng w as sta ged fo r the benefito f th is gentlem an .

18. O ne m ay no tic e th at thi s ex part e w as call ed to g ive the C o ur t ' s ap pro va l to

th e es c ro w ag re em en t, and to an agreem en t to in dem nify M ar a E sc ro w in

re la ti o nsh ip to th is tra ns a ct io n , and to gag m y free sp eech . A s rev iew ed below ,

the reas on p ro v id ed for m y gag , w as tha t as long as I co m m u n ic a te d w ith th e

E sc ro w o ff ic er it w as likel y th a t the dea l w ou ld no t go throug h . In sh ort, the

E sc ro w o f f ic e r n o t ic e d th e sam e defe cts th at I d id in the A p p o in tm e n to f th is

R eceiver. T here w as no clai m tha t I ever said any th ing fa ls e o r de fa m atory .

W hat I said w as p ri m ar il y th at there is g re at c o n c e rn fo r d ishonesty and abuse

of the o ffic e o f th e re c ei v e r in th is p ar ti cu la r cas e , and I d em a n d ed th at the

E scrow O ffi ce r and o the rs tak e add itio nal care in th e ir ac tions.

19. I the re fo re hol d and beli ev e that th e ex part e court a pp ea ra n ce w as aim ed to

show th e C o u n se l for M ara E sc ro w that the deal w as sa n ct io n ed by the Court .

N o t th a t anybody w ho w it n e sse d that C ou rt a pp e ara n ce w ou ld be p ersuad ed

tha t th e dea l w as c o m p li an t w it h th e la w , bu t sur ely it w as clea r that a g roup o f

ju d g e s in W est D is tr ic t w ere de te rm ined to m ake th is happen , w ith in therealm

o f the law or ou ts id e o f it .

20 . In the tim e left o f the re ce ss, I w ro te by hand a m otio n fo r d is q ualifi ca tio n

o f ju d g e H a r t C o le per C C P 170 .3 , based on he r d is ho n es ty in re lat io n sh ipto

-5 -

16. I mentioned to him that I communicated with Liz Cohen the Escrow

Officer. He said that he would prefer i f ! communicated with him instead. I

then suggested that he provide me with his business card, so that I could do

that. He refused again.

17. A reasonable person reviewing the case as a whole would conclude that this

was again a case o f dishonest judge, who offered preferential treatment to a

corporation against an individual, allowing them to remain hidden, not even

identified as a party, but participate in a hearing. Moreover, it was probable

that the whole urgent hearing was staged for the benefit of this gentleman.

18.One may notice that this ex parte was called to give the Court 's approval to

the escrow agreement, and to an agreement to indemnify Mara Escrow in

relationship to this transaction, and to gag my free speech. As reviewed below,

the reason provided for my gag, was that as long as I communicated with the

Escrow officer it was likely that the deal would not go through. In short, the

Escrow officer noticed the same defects that I did in the Appointment o f this

Receiver. There was no claim that I ever said anything false or defamatory.

What I said was primarily that there is great concern for dishonesty and abuse

o f the office o f the receiver in this particular case, and I demanded that the

Escrow Officer and others take additional care in their actions.

19. I therefore hold and believe that the ex parte court appearance was aimed to

show the Counsel for Mara Escrow that the deal was sanctioned by the Court.

No t that anybody who witnessed that Court appearance would be persuaded

that the deal was compliant with the law, but surely it was clear that a group of

judges in West District were determined to make this happen, within the realm

of the law or outside of it.

20. In the time left of the recess, I wrote by hand a motion for disqualification

o f judge Hart Cole per CCP 170.3, based on her dishonesty in relationship to

-5-


10/27


th e p arti c ipa tio n o f C ou nse l fo r M ara E scrow . I served it upon th e C ourtro om

assistan t. T ha t w ay now the ju d g e had the o p tion o f recusin g per 1 70.3 or

170 .6 .

21 . Ju dge H ar t C o le fi na lly cam e back , and ann oun ce d that sh e decided tha t I

w as rig h t, and she w as recuse d per 170 .6 .

2 2 . A ro und 10 :3 0am Jud ge L in d a H ar t- C ol e o rdered us to im m ed ia te lygo to

S an ta M onica to co n ti nu e th e hear in g th ere . In iti a lly sh e o rdered us to see

Jud ge F riedm an , bu t th an it tu rned ou t h e w as busy , an d sh e ord ere d u s tog o to

Ju dg e C ollin s . S he said w e had to be th ere w ith in 30 m in u tes.

23 . I p ro te s te d an d sa id that there w as a p ro ced ure tha t m ust be follow ed fo r

no ti ci ng ex p art e ap p e ara n ces , an d th at th ey m us t no tice m eo f the app earance

befo re Ju d ge C ol li n s in S an ta M onica .

24 . In respon se, Jud ge H art -C o le o rdere d M r P ast er n ak to no tic e m e .H e d id

no t d o so , obv io usly he had no m eans to do so in su ch a rush . O n th e w ayto

the e leva to rs , I a g a in in fo rm ed h im tha t th is w as a ll o u to f com pliance w ith th e

law . H e sa id he w as n o t g o ing to a rgu e w it h m e , and th at I be tt er be th ere

w ith in 3 0 m inu tes.

25 . T he unn am ed g e n tl e m a n rep resen tin g M ara E scrow w as w at ch inga ll o f

th is, and I th o u g h t th at I saw on h is face an app ear anceo f am azem en t.

26 . I asked h im i f h e w as g o in g to fo ll ow us to S an ta M o nica, and h e lo oked

shy , bu t e v e n tu a lly sa id th a t w e w ou ld m ee t in S an ta M onica.

2 7 . It to ok m e a go od 4 5 m in b ef o re I w as in th e C ourt roo m in S an ta M onica .

W hen I ap p ro a c h e d th e bu ild in g door, the sh eriffs , w h o al l k now m e (aspart o f

o ngo in g h a ras sm en t, any w h ere I go , a s h er if f m u st es co rt m e) , st a rte d calli ng

m e, to le t m e kno w th at Judg e C olli n s had a lready starte d th e hearing w it hou t

m e, it w as th at ru shed .

-6 -

the participation of Counsel for Mara Escrow. I served it upon the Courtroom

assistant. That way now the judge had the option of recusing per 170.3 or

170.6.

21. Judge Hart Cole finally came back, and announced that she decided that I

was right, and she was recused per 170.6.

22. Around }0:30am Judge Linda Hart-Cole ordered us to immediately go to

Santa Monica to continue the hearing there. Initially she ordered us to see

Judge Friedman, but than it turned out he was busy, and she ordered us to go to

Judge Collins. She said we had to be there within 30 minutes.

23. I protested and said that there was a procedure that must be followed fornoticing ex parte appearances, and that they must notice me of the appearance

before Judge Collins in Santa Monica.

24. In response, Judge Hart-Cole ordered Mr Pasternak to notice me. He did

not do so, obviously he had no means to do so in such a rush. On the way to

the elevators, I again informed him that this was all out of compliance with the

law. He said he was not going to argue with me, and that I better be there

within 30 minutes.

25. The unnamed gentleman representing Mara Escrow was watching all of

this, and I thought that I saw on his face an appearance of amazement.

26. I asked him i fhe was going to follow us to Santa Monica, and he looked

shy, but eventually said that we would meet in Santa Monica.

27. It took me a good 45 min before I was in the Courtroom in Santa Monica.

When I approached the building door, the sheriffs, who all know me (as part of

ongoing harassment, anywhere I go, a sheriff must escort me), started calling

me, to let me know that Judge Collins had already started the hearing without

me, it was that rushed.

-6-


11/27


28. W h e n I w a lk ed in , M r Pa s te rn a k w as rea d in g an em ail tha t I hadsen t to th e

E sc ro w O ff ic er a b ou t th e R e ce iv e r. T here w as n ot h in g th e re in pa r ti c ula r th at

ju s t if ie d th e ex pa r te . T h e re w as n ot h in g th er e th a t w as u n tr ue o r u nr e a son a b le .

J u d g e C o ll in s lo o k ed b o re d by th e w h ol e p ro ce d u re .

29 . T he m y st er y g en tle m an w as als o th ere , st an d in g and w a tc h in g .

3 0 . A s s o o n as I w a lk ed in , I s er v ed J u dg e C o ll in s w ith a fi lin g perC CP 17 0.3

th a t I w ro te by h an d o n th e w ay. E x h i b it 3 is a tru e and c o rr ec t copy o f this

fi li ng . J u dg e C o ll in s ju s t ign o re d it.

3 1 . O n c e M r P as te rna k f in is he d rea d in g th at e m ail , J u dg e C o ll in s ask ed m e if I

w a n t e d to say a n y th in g . I r e sp o nd e d by sa y in g th at I n e ed e d ti m e to o rga n iz e

m y res p o n s e , s in ce I s a w th at p a c ka g e fo r th e fi rs t tim e th a t m o rn ing . Ju dg e

C ol li ns h a d no u se for an y de la y , an d she s ta te d tha t I ha d s in ce 8 :30 a mto

re vi e w th at p a c ka g e . I co r re c t ed her, and st at ed tha t s in ce 8 :3 0 -1 0 :3 0 Iw as in

a c o u r t ap p ea ran c e , and at 10 :30 I w as o rd e re d to dr iv e im m ed ia te ly toS a nt a

M on ic a , so tha t I ha d no ti m e at all to re v ie w the p a ck a ge . S he re p ea ted h e r

s ta tem e n t t h a t I had sin ce 8 :3 0 a m to r ev ie w the pa cka g e.

32 . I t h e n s ta rt ed by c la im in g th at the ap p ea ran c e w as ou t o f c o m pl ia nce w ith

th e la w , si nc e I n e v e r go t n ot ic e fo r s uc h an ap p e a ran c e , and ha n dl in g firs t

am e n d m en t re s tri ct io n s li ke tha t is u n he a rd of. Sh e d id no t re sp o n d . I adde d

th a t J u dg e H a rt -C o le o rde re d M r P a s te rn ak to n ot ic e m e o f th is a p pe a ra n ce, bu t

th a t h e h ad di so b e ye d th e C o u r t ord er .

3 3 . M r P a s ter na k a rg u ed th at w h a t J u dg e H art - C o l e w a nt e d hi m to not ic e w as

th e m in u te s o f the a p p ea ra n ce in B e ve r ly H il ls , no t th e u pc o m in g m e e ti n gin

S a n ta M o n ic a. I r e pe a te d m y c la im th at thi s w as an ex p ar te w ith no no tic e . I

a d d ed tha t e v e n i f ! w e re an a tt or n ey , I do u b t tha t any a tt o rn ey in to w n w o u ld

ag re e to re v ie w th at pa c k a g e in les s th an a day or tw o , w h il e I had h ar d ly any

ti m e at a ll . I fu rt he r m e n t io n e d th at J ud g e C o ll i n s ha d no C o ur t Fi le , and had

- 7 -

28. When I walked in, Mr Pasternak was reading an email that I had sent to the

Escrow Officer about the Receiver. There was nothing there in particular that

justified the ex parte. There was nothing there that was untrue or unreasonable.

Judge Collins looked bored by the whole procedure.

29. The mystery gentleman was also there, standing and watching.

30. A s s oon as I walked in, I served Judge Collins with a filing per CCP 170.3

tha t I wrote by hand on the way. Exhibit 3 is a t rue and correct copy of this

filing. Judge Collins just ignored it.

31. Once Mr Pasternak finished reading that email, Judge Collins asked me if I

wanted to say anything. I responded by saying that I needed time to organizemy response, since I sa w that package for the first time that morning. Judge

Collins ha d no use for any delay, and she stated that I had since 8:30amto

review that package. I corrected her, and stated that since 8:30-10:30 I was in

a court appearance, and at 10:30 I was ordered to drive immediately to Santa

Monica, so tha t I had no time at all to review the package. She repea ted he r

statement that I ha d since 8:30am to review the package.

32. I t hen started by claiming that the appearance was out of compliance with

the law, since I never got notice for such an appearance, and handling first

amendment restrict ions like that is unheard of. She did not respond. I added

that Judge Hart-Cole ordered Mr Pasternak to notice me of this appearance, but

that h e h ad disobeyed the Court order.

33. Mr Pasternak argued that what Judge Hart -Cole wanted hi m to notice was

the minutes of the appearance in Beverly Hills, not the upcoming meeting in

Santa Monica. I repea ted my cla im that this was an ex parte wi th no notice. I

added that even i f ! were an attorney, I doubt that any attorney in town would

agree to review that package in less than a day or two, while I had hardly any

time at all. I further mentioned that Judge Coll ins had no Court File, and had

-7-


12/27


no chance to review either the Court File or the material submitted with the ex

parte.

34. Judge Collins was getting upset with me, and she said that there was no

need for the Court File, she is just ruling on the ex parte. She then went on to

say that it is beginning to go over her lunch break , and that it was my fault, that

I did not drive faster from Beverly Hills , and she needed to conclude this. She

asked that I make some statements on the issue itself.

35. I then stated that it was not at all clear what is the justification for this ex

parte procedure, what is the rush that required violation of my rights .

36. Judge Collins referred that question to Mr Pasternak. To my surprise his

response was basically that he needed the money, that he was Iowan funds . I

I protested that none of this was a reason for compromising my civil rights .

37. I then again asked what was the need to restrict my free speech, and then

Mr Pasternak said that he was concerned that if! talked with Escrow or the

Title Company , or the Lender, they would not agree to do business with him!

He never said that anything I said was untrue, or defamatory ,etc.

38. I had a list of other issues to review, but the judge was rushed for lunch ,and she just signed the copies of the order .

39. For example - the agreement to indemnify Mara Escrow in this deal

appears inherently illogical. If Mara Escrow, or the Escrow Officer feel that

the agreement was generated by a court operating outside the law, then adding

another assurance by the same court would not make any difference.

40. Otherwise , the request to defer paying taxes was particularly disturbing. It

confirmed most of my concerns about the actions of M r Pasternak , Mr

Keshavarzi, and Judge Segal. At the end of this sale, the Receiver would be

left with close to $1 million dollars in cash , out of which several hundred

thousands are owed in taxes . The request to defer the taxes means that the

-8-

no chance to review either the Court File or the material submitted with the ex

parte.

34. Judge Collins was getting upset with me, and she said that there was no

need for the Court File, she is just ruling on the ex parte. She then went on to

say that it is beginning to go over her lunch break, and that it was my fault, that

I did not drive faster from Beverly Hills, and she needed to conclude this. She

asked that I make some statements on the issue itself.

35. I then stated that it was not at all clear what is the justification for this ex

parte procedure, what is the rush that required violation of my rights.

36. Judge Collins referred that question to Mr Pasternak. To my surprise his

response was basically that he needed the money, that he was low on funds. I

I protested that none of this was a reason for compromising my civil rights.

37. I then again asked what was the need to restrict my free speech, and then

Mr Pasternak said that he was concerned that ifI talked with Escrow or the

Title Company, or the Lender, they would not agree to do business with him!

He never said that anything I said was untrue, or defamatory ,etc.

38. I had a list of other issues to review, but the judge was rushed for lunch,and she just signed the copies of the order.

39. For example - the agreement to indemnify Mara Escrow in this deal

appears inherently illogical. If Mara Escrow, or the Escrow Officer feel that

the agreement was generated by a court operating outside the law, then adding

another assurance by the same court would not make any difference.

40. Otherwise, the request to defer paying taxes was particularly disturbing. I t

confirmed most of my concerns about the actions of Mr Pasternak, Mr

Keshavarzi, and Judge Segal. At the end of this sale, the Receiver would be

left with close to $1 million dollars in cash, out of which several hundred

thousands are owed in taxes. The request to defer the taxes means that the

-8-


13/27


receiver and the ju d ge s con spiri ng w ith him and M r K es hav arz i, alrea dy no w

ha ve in m ind an ou tl an d is h spendi ng pl an , up to $1 m illion , and ther ef o re fee l

tha t th e R ece iv er ha s to take a loan in m y nam e fro m th e G ove rnm ent at gre at

expe nse to m e.

41. A reasonab le person , upon rev ie w in g the w hole case , w o u ld co nc lude that

F ri da y , D ec em b er 7 , 2007, w as a day w hen m y con sti tu ti onal rig hts for Free

Spe ech , fo r D ue P roce ss o f the Law , an d for Poss essio n, w ere abuse d like no

other day in th is li t ig atio n, an d again - fo r a corporat e cl ie n t - M ar a E sc row

w ho is not eve n a party in thi s li tig ati on .

I m ak e th is de c la ra ti on under penalty o f perj u ry acc ord in g to th e la w s o f the

St at e o f C alifo rnia. S ig ned he re , in Los Fel iz , C alif o rn ia , D ec em b er 11, 2007.

) . ~

J O S E P H Z E R N I K

P E T I T I O N E R

i n p ro p e r

-9 -

receiver and the judges conspiring with him and Mr Keshavarzi, already now

have in mind an outlandish spending plan, up to $1 million, and therefore feel

that the Receiver has to take a loan in my name from the Government at great

expense to me.

41. A reasonable person, upon reviewing the whole case, would conclude that

Friday, December 7, 2007, was a day when my constitutional rights for Free

Speech, for Due Process of the Law, and for Possession, were abused like no

other day in this litigation, and again - for a corporate client- Mara Escrow

who is not even a party in this litigation.

I make this declaration under penalty of perjury according to the laws of theState of California. Signed here, in Los Feliz, California, December 11, 2007.

) . ~

JOSEPH ZERNIKPETITIONER

in pr o pe r

-9-


14/27


E x h i b i t 1xhib it 1


15/27


1 Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhDDefendant in Pr o Pe r

2 2415 Saint George StreetLos Feliz CA 90027

Digitallysigned byJoseph ZernikON:cn=Joseph

~ . . 1J t:e rn ik,) . ~ L .~ 1 1 1 ~ n = J Z 1

hlirlk:ne t;e=USDate: 2007:12.0707:29 :11 -08'00'

34

5

6

7

8

SUPERIOR COURT OF TH E STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FO R TH E COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

9 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual ,

10

11 v.

Plaintiff ,

Defendants.

15 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual,

12 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an indiv idual, and DOES 1through 20, inclusive ,

13

18 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIALBROKERAGE; MICHAEL LIBOW , an

19 individual,

FRIDAY DECEMBER 7,078:00 AMDEPARTMENT WE-XBEVERLY HILLS

AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONOF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN SUPPORTTHEREOF

DATE:TIME:PLACE:

FILING FO R THE PURPOSE OFIMMEDIATE PEREMPTORYCHALLENGE OF JUDGE INDEPARTMENT X, BEVERLY IDLLSCOURT HOUSE, FO R ANY HEARING,WHETHER BASED ON A TEMPORARY,PERMANENT, OR LACKING IN

ASSIGNMENT TO THIS CASE,

Cross-Defendants.

Cross-Complainant ,

v .

16

17

20

21

22

23 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24

25

26

27

28

FILING FOR THE PURPOSE OFIMMEDIATE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE

FO R A JUDGE IN DEPARTMENT X ,BEVERLY IIILLS COURTHOUSE .

1 Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhDDefendant in Pr o Pe r

2 2415 Saint George StreetLos Feliz CA 90027

Digitally signed byJoseph ZernikDN: cn=Joseph

" ' : : L . /} .lernik,) . ~ L . ! I 1 ; l ~ n = j Z 1

...,hlil'ik:nef;:t-=U5Date: 2007:12.0707:29:11 -08'00'

34

5

6

7

8

SUPERIOR COURT O F T HE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FO R TH E COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

9 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual,

10

11 v.

Plaintiff,

15 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual,

12 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, and DOES Ithrough 20, inclusive,

13

18 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIALBROKERAGE; MICHAEL LTBOW, an

19 individual,

FRIDAY DECEMBER 7,078:00AMDEPARTMENT WE-XBEVERLY HILLS

AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONOF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN SUPPORTTHEREOF

DATE:TIME:PLACE:

FILING FO R THE PURPOSE OFIMMEDIATE PEREMPTORYCHALLENGE OF JUDGE INDEPARTMENT X, BEVERLY IDLLSCOURT HOUSE, FO R AN Y HEARING,WHETHER BASED ON A TEMPORARY,PERMANENT, OR LACKING IN

ASSIGNMENT TO THIS CASE,

Cross-Defendants.

Cross-Complainant,

v.

16

17

20

21

22

23 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

24

25

26

27

28

FILING FO R THE PURPOSE OFIMMEDIATE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE

FOR A JUDGE IN DEPARTMENT X,BEVERLY HILLS COURTHOUSE.


16/27


1 T O A L L P A R T I E S A N D T H E IR C O U N S E L S O F R E C O R D: P le ase tak e

2 no ti ce :

3 D e fe n da n t a n d C ro ss - c o m p l a in a n t J o se p h Z e rn i k h e reb y m ov es th a t th is case be

D E C L A R A T IO N O F JO S E P H Z E R N I K

m a na g em en t sy s te m , in c o n sp ira c y w ith her cle rk , M s Ja im e.

1) I o b je ct to an y h e a r in g or any tr ia l be fore an y J u d g e o f L A S u p e ri o r C ou rt .

S u p e rv is in g Ju dg e , all re q u est s fo r su ch w ere d e ni e d w it h o u t a ny ju s tific a ti o n .

p ro v ide d g o od cause o b vi o u s for o v er ru lin g or v a ca ti n g . Y et, as e x p lain e d in a d v an c e by

co u rt r e v ie w a m ot io n to va c at e is out o f c om p lia nc e and in v io la ti o n o f thelaw .

re la ti ve to S am a a n v Z e rn ik , in part th ro u g h w ro n g d oi ng inS u s t a i n - th e C o u rt 's case

I , D E F E N D A N T A N D C R O S S -C OM P L A IN A N T J O S E P H Z E R N IK , D E C L A R E

A S F O L L O W S :

2) T H IS M O T I O N IS M A D E P U R S U A N T o r C C P 170 .6 on the g ro u n d th a t th e

5) In a d d iti on , I ho ld an d b e li ev e th at Judg e C o n n o r e n g a g ed in a du lte ra ti o n o f cou rt rec ord s

6) I hol d th a t Su s ta in d a ta is part o f m y c ou r t f il e , and a p u b li c re co rd .

7) A ll m y req u es ts fo r S u s ta in da ta in S a m a an v Z e rni k w ere den ied .

8 ) I w as to ld by S u p e rvi si n g Ju d ge G erald R o se nb e rg : S us ta in da ta isp riv ile ge d - for the

C o ur t on ly .

4 R E A S S IG N E D F R O M A N Y J U D G E IN L A S U P E R IO R C O U R T , WH O M A Y

5 C L A IM T H E R I G H T T O A C T A S P R E S ID IN G J U D G E IN T H ISC A SE ,

6 T E M P O R A R IL Y , O R O N A P E R M A N E N T B A S IS , A N D T H A T TI D S C A S E B E

7 S U B M IT T E D F O R A C H A N G E O F V E N U E O U T O F T H E L A S UP E R I O R C O U R T .

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

S u p e rv is in g J ud g e , G e ra ld R os e nb e rg e x p la in ed to m e tha t no ju dg e inL A S u p e ri o r

C o u r t w o u ld o ve r ru le a n o th e r .

16 3 ) Several ju d g e s in th is case m ade ru lings , is su e d or ders, and judg m e n t( s ) th a t w er e

17

18

194) I ho ld tha t s u c h c on d u c t, w h e re th e law p ro v id e and d e m a n d e d th at

a j u d g e fr o m the sam e

2 0

2 1

22

23

2 4

25

2 6

2 7

28F l U N G F O R T H E P U R P O S E O F

- 2 - IM M E D I A T E D IS Q U A L IF IC A T IO N O F T H E

H O N O R A B L E R ID G E S E G A L (C C P t 70 .3 )

C ase N o. S C 0 8 7 4 0 0

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD: Please take

2 notice:

3 Defendant an d Cross -complainant Joseph Zernik hereby moves that this case be4 REASSIGNED FROM ANY JUDGE IN LA SUPERIOR COURT, WH O MAY

5 CLAIM T HE R IG HT T O ACT AS PRESIDING JUDGE IN THIS CASE,

6 TEMPORARILY, OR ON A PERMANENT BASIS, AND THAT TillS CASE BE

7 SUBMITTED FO R A CHANGE OF VENUE OUT OF TH E LA SUPERIOR COURT.

8

Supervising Judge, Gerald Rosenberg explained to me that no judge in LA Superior

provided good cause obvious for overruling or vacating. Yet, as explained in advance by

Supervising Judge, all requests for such were denied without any justification.

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK

I, DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTJOSEPH

ZERNIK, DECLAREAS FOLLOWS:

1) I object to any hearing or any trial before any Judge of LA Superior Court.

2) THIS MOTION IS MADE PURSUANT OT CCP 170.6 on the ground that the

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 Court would overrule another.

16 3) Several judges in this case made rulings, issued orders, andjudgment(s) that were17

18

194) I hold that such conduct, where the law provide and demanded that ajudge from the same

court review a motion to vacate is out of compliance and in violation of the law.

relative to Samaan v Zemik, in part through wrong doing in Sustain - the Court's case

management system, in conspiracy with her clerk, Ms Jaime.

5) In addition, I hold and believe that Judge Connor engaged in adulteration of court records

6) I hold that Sustain data is part of my court file, and a public record.

20

21

22

23

24

25 7) All my requests for Sustain data in Samaan v Zernik were denied.26

8) I was told by Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg: Sustain data is privileged - for the27

Court only.28

FlUNG FOR TH E PURPOSE OF-2- IMMEDIATE DlSQUAUFICATION OF THE

HONORABLE JUDGE SEGAL (CCP 170.3)Case No. SC087400


17/27


1 9 ) 1 w as to ld the s a m e by s e n io r s t a f f in th e o fficeo f P re s id in g J u d g e Z u l le k e r (sp e ll in g ? ) .

2 10 )1 ho ld that s u c h ru le s - r e g a rd in g S u s ta in and re g a rd in g o v e r ru l ing e a c h o th e r are

3 u n w r it te n ru le s o f c o u r t in L A S u p e r io r C o u rt .

4 11)1 ho ld an d b e lie v e th at s u c h u n w rit te n R ille so f C o u rt , w h ic h w e re n e v e r s u b je c t to p u b lic

5 c h a l le n g e a re o n th e ir face o u t o f c o m p lia n c e and in v io la ti o no f th e law (F ederal C od e).

6

7 D ate d: D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 7

8

9

1011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

J O S E P H Z E R N IK , D E F E N D A N T A N D C R O S S

C O M P L A IN A N T

in p r o p erB y: _

J O S E P H Z E R N I K

D E F E N D A N T A N D C R O S S C O M P L A IN A N T

in p r o p e r

F l U N G F O R T H E P U R P O S E O F

-3 - I M M E D IA T E D IS Q U A L IF IC A T IO N O F T H EH O N O R A B L E JU D G E S E G A L (C C P 170 .3 )

Ca se N o. S C 0 87 4 00

1 9) I was told the same by senior staff in the office of Presiding Judge Zulleker (spelling?).

2 10)1 hold that such rules- regarding Sustain and regarding overruling each other are

3 unwritten rules of court in LA Superior Court.4 11)1 hold and believe that such unwritten Rules of Court, which were never subject to public

5 challenge are on their face out of compliance and in violation of the law (Federal Code).

6

7 Dated: December 7, 2007

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOSEPH ZERN1K, DEFENDANT AND CROSS

COMPLAINANT

in p ro p e rBy: _

JOSEPH ZERN1KDEFENDANT AND CROSS COMPLAINANT

in pr o p er

FlUNG FOR THE PURPOSE OF-3- IMMEDIATE DlSQUAUFICATION OF THE

HONORABLE JUDGE SEGAL(CCP 170.3)Case No. SC087400


18/27


. ) J] ; , ' G f ~{v'I'L

1- trl\ ~ s f C, (,'OltAh

LP erA u,()D2,l

.J

Digitally signedbyJosephZern lkONcn =Joseph Zernlk,

) ~ ~ ~ a l l = j Z 1 2 3 4 s@ e a r t h lI n k . l ' l~ t, c ; . U S

. 'Date : 2007.12.2910:06:04 -08'00

J j ; , ' b f ~{v'I'L1-lrl\ ( .sT: c,(,(jltA h-

LP erA u,()D2,l

t , Digitany signed byVJoseph Zernlk

ON: cn=Joseph Zemi'"

) ~

. ,~ . , m i a i . I.=jZ12.34s@earthli!ilnet.


19/27


~V11J

Oq7

~;:;JYN

J~

;V

,",p!(~h;;jJO11f

~:;JY'(\/

wV~

;VI,

~.I{,A()

/JY~\A

.U~1,ACl

L(.

j1V7~

7(

-~1I1;'!0C>

~HC

CZS1


20/27


21/27


r\1 )) J rr : ~tvl viI ) "36\17 ~Al 0 J--

' \ ~~ ftv 3 !/ rt' IN t(g) 1ft,; ) 1 ;./\ t{- VII V45 III ' , ~l . Trtf!;1/.

e> s- mJln 'f.I-f'I{) YJ/:I-I ( v ( ' ) / / ; 4 1-\-lbAYt' M -) F.'ry'/ y; {JA-mJ(, 1JJ.C>.0-'7 Ii (.,14 C In., l;I/1A~~ [ S ~?:>1 ) ) ' l- ()4},:-&11 i t , j 1 \ ! ) ) < f) f ~ 1jt"Y!,l. s f..

(J3JfJ

IV lft1;, ~ l L ( P . U i l) '2 , l jV\ ~- r h ) Vlf11f {t J i ~11V


22/27


( 0 i

@ ~ P -< jL/ ; ( ) I F H ilt , ( ( ~(A ytJ ;/ ~ ~ i ~ / v , lv1 tr V ) / ) / ( ( ) ( I ~

f e n , . ) vi) u? ilv/t ~ [lvt'l'+fV (Jl /~ t o~ U/ 1. / J

11 ' ~A- q l) 1MAj-'C ) ()!J[ri' fllIlL J / Z(!J;~+ , ~{) . ~ Pf Lf ~f J4t ' v t: ; IT

(5).l 4b lr) 1ff14' T V\ 11 I IV( t /1 fL/ t: I)I1-Nt? ) v f) l( { l ~f L1 [ ,t ? L{ II/ ! ; ; f i llJllfT t ' ) I t ~ / ~ P w( ~ " 0- !1/l1..'J!L, r;

@ P- f t Y2 5 ~ ILp vi{vtil'i-< , THIS

cPs-G-

vVIi: L, yl- tJj50Wt"/el{ / ( i ' t o - c : (tJ1;,,1A-l fz::m ) t/O t ) ~ C/O l { IYL!) '1D~ e A( l 0 r 1f}vi7t;. ~I I


23/27


& [ ere L- i / f)lT}--v ) cf)G/c( P e l l n / ) 1 b I ( Vf V

1G~I J 11/ ~/

I

~ C0v ~ I if; f l / ~ 5~' J1nv11 l ? ccJ' ~)=t-o.;,

,,;> t /ft:J cit- J"TTfD !.If '" < " : > : [~ft;ft, r : }fllK s ( / ~ /D Tft;r; L l ~

-6~ l1tG . S Tf'frE ; ( j f ' t I / l v/ ~r h

fJECf;/v'>':Jh. 1--, W i , L u s~ ' 4[)

)~ - ) - - -U 1 : _

(i;5/ r [f'c& L- v f)lr}-v ) elk;l".t[;;L-t- I IV) 10 I (1/ ft/I G ~ lit) 1 / ~ /

}] I ~ C0v ~ I (7 f l / ~5 ~ ' J 1 n v 11l? C c J ' ~)W.;,

,,;>t/fI:J C'/- IJTfD l / f 'O M - ~ / ' / i f 1 c - n ;[, P

p ~rtt }fllKs ( / ~/D Tft;r; Ll ~'6'P lfrG' ST!'frE; 6 f ' (; / I ' l v / ~ r h

ftEctflt- ~ ~ h

L ~ )hJ1.,rv ill}


24/27


- - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - - ~


25/27


E x h i b i t 3xhibi t 3


26/27


NAME . ADDRESS A N DTELEPHONE NUMBER O F AT TORNEY(S)

JO S E P H Z E R N IK

421 5 S ain t G eo rge S tre et

L o s A ng ele s, C A 900 27

T : 310 43 5-9 10 7 F : 8 01 998 -0 91 7 E : jz I2 3 4 5 @ eart h lin k .n e t

UNIT ED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT O F CALIFORNIA

JO S E P H Z E R N IK

v.

JA C Q U ELIN E C O N N O R E T A L

PLAINTIFF (S) .

DEFENDANT(S).

CASE NUMBER

08-C V -01550-V A P-C W

PROOF O F SERVICE - ACKNOWLEDGMENTOF SERVICE

I. th e u nd ersign ed . ce r ti fy and d e cl ar e th at I am o ver th e ag e o f 18 years . em p lo y ed in the C ou nty o f

L os A n gele s, S tat e of C alifo rn ia , and no t a

p arty to th e ab o v e -e n tit le d cau se . O n A p ril 1 5 th 20 0 8 . I serv ed a tru e cop y of

Plai n titT Z ernik 's D ec lara ti o n R E: E X P A R T E A PPLIC A TIO N S O N D E C 7 ,2 00 7 F O R G A G O R D E R S

by p er so n a lly d e liv e r in g it to th e pe rson (s) in d ica ted b elo w in the mann er a s p ro v id e d in F R C iv P 5 (b); by

dep osi tin g it in the U n it ed S ta tes M ail in a sealed env elo pe w it h th e po st ag e th ereo n fu lly p re p a id to th e fo ll o w ing :

(lis t n am es an d ad d res se s fo r pe rson (s) serv ed . A tt ach ad d it ion al p ag esif n ecessary .)

P la ce o f M aili ng : L os A n geles. C alif orn ia

E xecu ted on A ~ (f..t, . 20 0 8 a t....::L::..:o;;;;.s.:..;A::.;;ng~e:.:..;le;.;:.s C al if o rn ia

P lea se ch eck on e o f th es e bo xes if se rv ic e is m ade b y m ail:

o I h ereb y c e r tify tha t I am a m em ber of th e B ar of th e U nite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o urt. C en tra l D is tric t of

C a lifo rn ia .

o I he reby c er ti fy th at I am e m p lo y e d in th e office of a m em ber o f th e B ar o f th is C o urt a t w ho se d ire c tio n th es e rv ic e w as m ade .

iii I hereby c er ti fy u nd er th e p e n a lty o f pe rju ry th at th e fo reg o ing is tr ue and co

Signa tu re 0 Person M a kin g Se r vi ce7 le C J VT Hit- I A .J

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE

I . . re ce iv ed a tr ue co py of th e w ith in d o c u m e n t on_

Signature

C V-40 (01 /0 0)

P a r ty Served

P R O O F O F S E R V IC E ACKNOWLEDGMENT O F S E R V IC E

NAME. ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF ATTORNEY(S)

JOSEPH ZERNIK4215 Saint George StreetLos Angeles, CA 90027T: 310 435-9107 F: 801 998-0917 E: [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH ZERNIK

v.JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL

PLAINTIFF (S),

DEFENDANT(S).

CASE NUMBER

08-CV-01550-VAP-CW

PROOF OF SERVICE - ACKNOWLEDGMENTOF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 years, employed in the County o fLos Angeles, , State of California, and not aparty to the above-entitled cause. On April 15th , 20 08 , I served a true copy ofPlaintiffZemik's Declaration RE : EX PARTE APPLICATIONS ON DEC 7,2007 FOR GAG ORDERSby personally delivering it to the person (s) indicated below in the manner as provided in FRCivP 5(b); bydepositing it in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with the postage thereon fully prepaid to the following:(list names and addresses for person(s) served. Attach additional pages if necessary.)

Place o f Mailing: Los A n g e l e s ~CaliforniaExecuted on A ~ (1..t2 ' 20 08 at. ...:L:.,:o;,;;.s.:..;A;;;,;;ng01,.;e;.;,;le;.;:.s , CaliforniaPlease check one of these boxes if service is made by mail:

o I hereby certify that I am a member of the Bar of the United States District Court, Central District ofCalifornia.

o I hereby certify that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar o f this Court at whose direction theservice was made.

iii I hereby certify under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and co

Signature 0 Person Making Service77eePr J? It- I A.J

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE

I, , received a true copy of the within document on _

Signature

CV-40 (01/00)

Party Served

PROOFOF SERVICE - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE


27/27


SERVICE LIST FO R ZERNIK V CONNOR ET AL (revised 4/6/08)

Sarah L OvertonCummings McClorey Davis Acho and Associates3801 University AvenueSuite 700Riverside, CA 92501951-276-4420Email : [email protected]

John W Patton, JrPasternak Pasternak & Patton1875 Century Park ESuite 2200Los Angeles, CA 90067-2523310-553-1500

Email : jwp@paslaw .com

Michael L WachtellBuchalter Nemer PC1000 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1500Los Angeles, CA 90017-2457213-891-5761Email : [email protected]

John AmbergBryan Cave, LLP120 Broadway, Suite 300Santa Monica, CA 90401 -2386Tel (3101 576-2100Fax (3101 576-2200Email : jwamberg@BryanCave .com

SERVICE LIST FO R ZERNIK V CONNOR ET AL (revised 4/6/08)

Sarah L OvertonCummings McClorey Davis Acho and Associates3801 University AvenueSuite 700Riverside, CA 92501951-276-4420Email: [email protected]

John W Patton, JrPasternak Pasternak & Patton1875 Century Park ESuite 2200Los Angeles, CA 90067-2523310-553-1500

Email: [email protected]

Michael L WachtellBuchalterNe mer PC1000 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1500Los Angeles, CA 90017-2457213-891-5761Email: [email protected]

John AmbergBryan Cave, LLP120 Broadway, Suite 300Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386Tel (3101 576-2100Fax (3101 576-2200Email: [email protected]

Documents

07-12-07 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Declaration of Joseph Zernik re: Ex Parte Proceedings by Attorney David Pasternak