2008-05-27 Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-01550) Dkt # 062 First Amended Complaint

8/9/2019 2008-05-27 Zernik v Connor (2:08-cv-01550) Dkt # 062 First Amended Complaint

1/75

Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 50

-fTo

Digitally signedbyJ0 SePh Joseph ZernikI ii., ON: cn=Joseph Zernik,. ) ~ : i 1 = j Z ~ 3 4 5 @ e a r t h lZe rn'

I;;. 1 ' 1 1 l ! ~ t . c ~ ~ U 5/ I \ . ' ~ Date;2'110S.05.15" 10:30:28 -


2/75


1

21

11

2 COMPLETE LIST OF DEFENDANTS:3 Jacqueline Connor, Allan Goodman, John Segal, Linda Hart-Cole, Patricia4 Collins, Terry Friedman, and Gerald Rosenberg - individually and in his/her5 official capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, West Districtand6 Los Angeles County and Los Angeles Superior Court, West District7 andDebbie Witts - individually and in her official capacity as Court Manager, Civil8 Unlimited, the Superior Court ofLos Angeles Country, West District9 andVivian Jaime - individually and in her official capacity as Courtroom Clerk,10 Department I, the Superior Court ofLos Angeles Country, West DistrictandRetired Judge Gregory O'Brien - individually and in his capacity as Proposed12 Referee, and13 ADR Services, Inc - as a corporation, and its capacity as a neutral provider thatemployed Retired Judge O'Brien,14 and15 David Pasternak - individually and in his official capacity as Receiver in Samaan v16 Zernik (SC087400)and17 Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels - individually and in their capacities as Officers18 ofCountrywide Financial Corporationand19 Countrywide Home Loans, Inc20 andMara Escrow Companyand22 Thomas Brown - individually and as a partner in Brown and White, LLPand23 Zacharty Schorr - individually, and as principal of Schorr Law24 andLilit Vardanian - individually25 Doe 1-2026 Defendants2728 --2--

ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL. , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


3/75


1 COMES NOW, PlaintiffJOSEPH ZERNIK, and hereby filing his FIRST2 AMENDED COMPLAINT against the parties listed above for severe and protracted3 abuse ofPlaintiffs U.S. Constitutional rights for Due Process, for Free Speech, and4 for Possession in the litigation ofthe Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Los Angeles5 County Superior COUlj-from Oct 2005 to. the present. ')-. A.1 _6 ~ ' ) l . . ~ , I rV\l rr- 1>G t'\'\ ~ J V (l..v) I)M, ,L ./ !a. AmendedFirst Complaintfiled in Conjunction ~ i t h M o t i ~ n for Leave t I7 File8 Plaintiffis filing this First Amended Complaint in conjunction with a Request9 for a Leave to File First Amended Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 15(a), filed under a10 separate cover. This First Amended Complaint also addresses issues raised in11 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Complaint filed by Defendants - namely - claims of12 immunity of the judges, receiver and proposed referee and the Younger doctrine as a13 reason for the US Court to abstain from any action in this case.141516

b. Requestfo r AffirmativeAction - Access to Trial Court Litigation Recordsand to Amend this Comlaint again Once Such Access is Allowed.

Plaintiff filed with this Court last week a Requestfor AffirmativeAction - Courtaction to allow Plaintiffaccess to Public Records that are his own Trial Court

2122 rights in this litigation.

1718 Litigation Records. Denial of access to such records was and is central to the abuse19 inflicted upon Plaintiff by Defendants. Moreover, such denial of access is again20 placing Defendants in advantageous position in this litigation. Defendants should not

be allowed to benefit from the outcome of their abuse ofPlaintiffs constitutional

232425262728

fit:Plaintiffis hereby repeating his request that this Court provide reliefas it deems

1. to allow Plaintiffaccess to his litigation records, as detailed inDocket #_ ,Designation ofRecords on ConsolidatedAppeal.

-3-ZERNIK vCONNOR ETAL ,VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT


4/75


1 2. to allow Plaintiff to amend this Complaint again once such access to records is2 provided.

4

9

3

10

c. Request for Leniency as Pro SeIn filing this First Amended Complaint Plaintiffrequests special leniency as a

5 pro se litigant - for his "inartfulpleading" (Erickson v Pardus, 2007). In particular, I6 am not qualified in assessing the validity of legal theories. I ask the court to ignore7 any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory I claim, and do take into consideration the8 claims themselves, if they can support some other valid theory. Haddoc 1985.

d. Requestfo r Incorporation by Reference ofExhibits Previously FiledPlaintiffrequests that this court incorporate by reference all ofPlaintiff's filings

11 that are on the Docket.

I.PARTIES

1. PlaintiffJosep Zernik is a natural person residing at 2415 Saint George Street,Los Angeles County, California.

19

22

25

23

2021

2. Defendant Jacqueline Connor, is a natural person residing and employed in Los18 Angeles County, California, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik(SC087400) from November 1,2005 to September 10,2007.

3. Defendant Allan Goodman, is a natural person residing and employed in LosAngeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) fromSeptember 10 to October 3, 2007.

4. Defendant John Segal is a natural person residing and employe in Los Angeles24 County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from October 5 to

December 4,2007.

121314151617

262728 -4-

ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT


5/75


1 5. Defendant Linda Hart-Cole is a natural person residing and mployed in Los2 Angeles County, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from3 December 4 to December 7, 2007.4 6. Defendant Patricia Collins is a natural person residing and employed in Los5 Angeles County, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC87400) on6 December 7, 2007.7 7. Defendant Terry Friedman is a natural person residing and employed in Los8 Angeles County. He held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC87400) from9 December 7, 2007 to the present.

1011 8. Defendant Gerald Rosenberg is a natural person residing and employed in Los12 Angeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in his13 autority as Supervising Judge, Superior Court for the County ofLos Angeles.14 9. Defendants LA Superior Court and Los Angeles County - is part of the judicial15 branch of the State ofCalifonria, and is employer of the Judges and Court16 personnel listed above.17 lO.Defendant DebbieWitts is a natural person residing and employed in Los18 Angeles County, she acted in relationship to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in her19 autority as Court Manager, Superior Court for the County ofLos Angeles, West20 District, Civil Unlimited.21 11.Defendant Vivian Jaime is a natural person residing and employed in Los22 Angeles County, she acted in relationship to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in her23 autority as Courtroom Clerk, Superior Court for the County ofLos Angeles, West24 District, Department 1.25 12.Defendant Retired Judge Gregory O'Brien is a natural person residing and26 employed in Los Angeles County, he acted in relationship to Samaan v Zemik in27 the capacity ofProposed Referee.28 -5-

ZERNIK vCONNOR ETAL ,VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


6/75


II.JURISDICTIONAL BASIS1. Plaintiffclaims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III 2 which extends the

jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution.-6-

1 13 .Defendant ADR Services, Inc is a neutral services provider to the Los Angeles2 Superior Court, and as such it provided Retired Judge O'Brien's services as3 proposed referee for Samaan v Zernik.4 14.Defendant David Pasternak is a natural person residing and employed in Los5 Angeles County, he acted as Receiver from Nov 9, 2007 to the present.6 IS.Defendant Sandor Samuels is a natural persons residing and employed in Los7 Angeles County, he is an Officer ofCountrywide Financial Corporation and Chief8 Legal Counsel, who directs the Legal Division that serves also Countrywide Home9 Loans, Inc.

10 16.Defendant Angelo Mozilo is a natural persons residing and employed in Los11 Angeles County, and is an Offider ofCountrywide Home Loans, Inc.12 17.Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, is a finacial services corporation,13 subject to New York jurisdiction.14 18.Defendant Mara Escrow Company is an escrow company.15 19.Defendant Thomas Brown - is a natural person residing and employed in Los16 Angeles County, and is a partner in Brown and White, LLP17 20.Defendant Zachary Schorr - is a natural person residing and employed in Los18 Angeles County, and is the principal of Schorr Law.19 21. Lilit Vardanian - is a natural person residing and employed in Los Angeles20 County21 22.Defendants Doe 1-20 are natural persons, they acted in relationship to Samaan v22 Zernik (SC087400) in their autority as staffofthe Superior Court for the County of23 Los Angeles, West District.2425262728

ZERNIK vCONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


7/75


a. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc - subject to New York jurisdiction

1 2. Plaintiffbrings this suit pursuant to Title 42 U.S. Code 1983 for violations of2 certain protections guaranteed to him by the First (Free Speech), Fifth (Due3 Process), and Fourteenth (Due Process and Possession) Amendments of the4 Federal Constitution, by defendants acting as officials of the State ofCalifomia5 under the color oflaw of the State ofCalifomai in their capacity as a Judges, Court6 Manager, and Courtroom Clerk, Proposed Referee, and Receiver, respectively, in7 the Superior Court ofLos Angeles County.8 3. Plaintiffalso claims federal jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.C. Code 1331 - for a9 Federal Question, and U.S. Constitution, Art. III, 2 and Title 28 U.S. Code

10 1332, which extend to cases involving diversity ofjurisdictions among the States.11 Here, majority ofDefendants are employed in Los Angeles County, Califomia, but12 the corporations involved include:131415 4. Plaintiff also claims federal jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.C. Code 1331 - for a16 Federal Question:171819202122232425262728

a. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 18U. S. Code 1962(c) - for an interstate enterprise;

b. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 15U.S. Code 45 - unlawful, unfair methods of competition;

c. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 18U.S. Code 1343 - fraud by wire, radio, or television;

d. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 31U.S. Code 3729 - false claims;

e. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 18U.S. Code 1512 - tampering with witness, victim, or an informant;

-7-ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL ,VERIFIED FffiSTAMENDED COMPLAINT


8/75


III.GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

f. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 18U.S. Code 1513 - retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant

g. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 18U.S. Code 1517 - obstructing examination of financial institution;

5. Defendants claim immunity as members of the judiciary, such claims are addressedbelow under

1. Defendant Jacqueline Connor, is a natural person residing and employed in LosAngeles County, California, she held the court file for Samaan v Zemik(SC087400) from November 1,2005 to September 10,2007. Her authority asPresiding Judge in Samaan vZemik is contested at least for part of the period of.During the period listed she engaged in violation ofPlaintiffs civil rights:

a. For free speechClaim #1- by allowing the July 6, 2007 and July 23, 2007 hearings by

Countrywide for a purported Portective (gag) Orderb. For Due ProcessClaim #2 - by denying Zernik access to Court File, to Minute Oders, to NoticesClaim #3- by deceiving Zernik by posting Trial Date only after her

disqualification while making false claims in that regard on April 22, 2007to deny extension ofDiscovery CutoffDate.

Claim #4 - by deceiving Zernik by entering judgment on Aug 28, 2007, butback-dating the entry to Aug 9, 2007

12345678 6. Defendants claim that this United States Court should abstain from action9 following the Younger Theory, such claims are addressed below__10111213141516171819202122232425262728

-8-ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL ,VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT


9/75


12345678910 2.1112131415161718 3.19202122232425262728

Claim #5 - by posting after disquaification a false and misleading Sept 10, 2007Minute Order denying Zemik's allegations that Countrywide's documentswere fraud.

Claim #6 - by allowing the July 6, 2007 and July 23, 2007 proceedings whereCountrywide apeared unlisted in Minute Orders and in court records, and itscounsels listed at times as for Defendant and at times as for Plaintiff.

c. For PossesionClaim #7 - by generating a false and misleading Aug 9, 2007 Summary

Judgment against ZemikDefendant Allan Goodman, is a natural person residing and employed in LosAngeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) fromSeptember 10 to October 3, 2007, his authority as Presiding Judge is contested forthat full period.He engaged in violation ofZemik's right for Due Process:

Claim #8 - he presided with no Re-assignement OrderClaim #9 - he failed to recuse himselfbased on his close personal friendship

with Sandor Samuels.Defendant John Segal is a natural person residing and employe in Los AngelesCounty, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from October 5to December 4, 2007. His authority as Presiding Judge is contested for that fullperiod. He engaged in abuse of Zemik's rights:d. For Due Process -Claim #10 - by presiding with no Re-assignment OrderClaim #11- by appointing a receiver for no reason at all and with no reference

to any section of the code, no reference to judgment, no reference topurchase contract.

e. For possession -Claim #12- by appointing a receiver with no legal foundation

-9-ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT


10/75


Claim #13- by ordering such a receiver to hold Zemik's equity indefinitely forno reason at all

Claim #14- by engaging in all the above even after Plaintiffs Counsel noticedhim that he did not recognize the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court.

Defendant Linda Hart-Cole is a natural person residing and mployed in LosAngeles County, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) fromDecember 4 to December 7, 2007. Her authority as Presiding Judge is contestedfor that full period. She engaged in abuse ofZemik's rights:

a. For Due Proces-Claim #15 - by allowing the Dec 7,2007 ex parte hearing for gag order defyinglogicClaim #16 - by allowing in that hearing counsel for Mara Escrow to appearincognito and refusing to introduce him.

Claim #17- by ordering after disqualification an ex parte hearing 30 min laterin santa monica with no authority at all.b. For Free Speech -

Claim #18 - by initiating such hearings on Dec 7, 2007Defendant Patricia Collins is a natural person residing and employed in LosAngeles County, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC87400) onDecember 7, 2007, and ruled in it in an ex parte appearance on that day in herauthority as Depute Supervising Judge, West District, Superior Court of theCounty ofLos Angeles. She egaged in violation ofZemik's rights:

a. For Free SpeechClaim #18 - she approved a Dec 7, 2007 gag order that defied logic.

b. For PossessionClaim #19 - she did so to prevent Zemik from defending his rights forpossession and therefore allowed his home to be seized.c. For Due Process -

12345 4.6789

101112131415161718 5.19202122232425262728

-10-ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL ,VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT


11/75


1 Claim #20 - she ran the Dec 7,2007 hearing in violation ofDue Process rights23 6. Defendant Terry Friedman is a natural person residing and employed in Los4 Angeles County. He held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC87400) from5 December 7, 2007 to the present. His authority as Presiding Judge is contested6 for that full period. He is engaging in continues to engage in violations of7 Zemik's rights:8 a. For Due Process9 Claim #21 - by allowing Countrywide to appear in court with no party

10 desination and with no legal foundation.11 Claim #22 - by allowing motion for sanctions exceeding $16,000 based on a12 non-existing order13 Claim #23 - by allowing a OSC re: Contempt based on same14 b. For Free Speech -15 Claim #24 - by validating a non-existent gag order of July 23 2007 by Judge16 Connor17 c. For Possesion -18 Claim #25 - by refusing to release Zemik's home equity for no reason at all.19 7. Defendant Gerald Rosenberg is a natural person residing and employed in20 Los Angeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)21 and ruled in it in an ex parte appearances, and also acted relative to this case22 otherwise, in his autority as Supervising Judge, Superior Court for the County23 ofLos Angeles.24 a. For Due Process -25 Claim #26 - by refusing to issue any Re-assignment order for the last 5 judges26 Claim #27 - by refusing to allow Zemik access to electronic court file data27 Claim #28- by allowing physical abuse ofZemik in his courtroom on Aug 31,28 2007



12/75


1 8. Defendants LA Superior Court and Los Angeles County - is part of the2 judicial branch of the State ofCalifonria, and is employer of the Judges and3 Court personnel listed above. As such, is responsible for claims listed against4 the individual judges and court personnel.5 9. Defendant Debbie Witts is a natural person residing and employed in Los6 Angeles County, she acted in relationship to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in7 her autority as Court Manager, Superior Court for the County ofLos Angeles,8 West District, Civil Unlimited. She engaged and still engages in violation of9 Zemik's rights:10 Claim #29 - by refusing to allow Zemik access to court file11 Claim #30 - by refusing to certifY exisgtence or non-existence ofkey12 documents in court file13 Claim #31 - by failing to secure a court file that is a permanent secure public14 record.1516 to.Defendant Vivian Jaime is a natural person residing and employed in Los17 Angeles County, she acted in relationship to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in18 her autority as Courtroom Clerk, Superior Court for the County ofLos Angeles,19 West District, Department 1.20 Claim #32 - by colluding and connspiring with Judge Connor in violations of21 Zemik's due process rights.22 11. Defendant Retired Judge Gregory O'Brien is a natural person residing and23 employed in Los Angeles County, he acted in relationship to Samaan v Zemik in24 the capacity ofProposed Referee, his authority is contested for the full period of25 his involvement in Samaan v Zernik26 Claim #33 - according to plaintiff's counsel, he repeatedly engaged in ex parte27 communications with that counsel28



13/75


1 Claim #34 - he met with that counsel on Sept 10, 2007, and according to2 Plaintiffs counsel schemed with him to seize Zernik's residence based on3 entry of an "Oral Judgment'.4 12.DefendantADR Services, Inc is a neutral services provider to the Los Angeles5 Superior Court, and as such it provided Retired Judge O'Brien's services as6 proposed referee for Samaan v Zernik. It engaged in violations ofZernik's due7 process and possession rights -8 Claim #35 - by allowing O'Brien to engage in his dishonest connduct and9 obstruct justice.

10 13.Defendant David Pasternak is a natural person residing and employed in Los11 Angeles County, he acted as Receiver from Nov 9, 2007 to the present. His12 authority is contested for the full period ofhis involvement. He violated Zernik's13 rights:14 Claim #36 - by agreeing to an appointment as a receiver based on an order that15 is in blatant vioaltion ofdue process16 Claim #37- by moving for a gag order against zernik on Dec 7, 200717 Claim #38 - by generating two ex parte hearings on Dec 7, 2007, out of18 compliance with any standard ofDue Process;19 Claim #39 - by generating an ex parte hearing before Judge Hart-Cole, where a20 corporate attorney - for Mara Escrow- appeared incognito, and both said21 attorney and Judge Hart-Cole refused to identify either the attorney or his22 client.23 Claim #40 - by moving and obtaining gag orders to prevent PlaintiffZernik,24 Defendant in pro per in Samaan v Zernik, from speech that is protected as25 his speech for defense of himself.26 Claim #41- by moving and obtaining indeminity agreeement for Mara Escrow27 - at Plintiffs expense - to cajole it to participate in inherently fraudulent28 real property transaction. -13-

ZERNIK vCONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT


14/75


-14-

year.Claim #47 - He initiated the July 6, 2007 and July 23, 2007 hearings on gag

ordersClaim #48 - He initiated the hearing on sanctions on Feb 15,2008 and the

hearing on OSC on March 7, 2008Claim #49 - He is ultimately responsible for the obstruction oftestimony by

Diane Frazier.Claim #50 - He is ultimately responsible for the death threat against Zemik.Claim #51 - He is ultimately responsible for the repeated filing of false and

misleading documents by Countrywide's Legal Department in Samaan vZernik, and the refusal to correct such obstruction even after repeatedrequrests.

1 Claim #42 - by moving and obtaining orders to allow him to defer payment of2 taxes on the real property transaction for no reason at all, and at great3 expense to PlaintiffZemik.4 Claim #43 - by seizing Zemik's horne and selling it to another5 Claim #44 - by recording the transfer of the title to Zemik's horne with no due6 authority - in collusion with others in the fraud relative to the Aug 9, 20077 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP 437c.8 Claim #45 - by holding Zemik's equity in the horne for no reason at all9 14.Defendant Sandor Samuels is a natural persons residing and employed in Los

10 Angeles County, his actions and ornrnissions relative to Countrywide documents,11 that are alleged by Plaintiff to be at the heart of the fraud against him, allowed that12 fraud to proceed.13 Claim #46 - as ChiefLegal Counsel ofCountrywide, he is resonsible for all14 litigation matters, per his own listing on the web site of "House of Justice".15 He allowed the porduction of fraudulent subpoena documents in Samaan v16 Zemik, and refused to authenticate or repudiate such documents for over a1718192021222324

25262728

ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL ,VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


15/75


1 Claim #52 - He is ultimately responsible for the various retaliatory acts of2 Coutntrrywide against Plaintiff in Samaan v Zemik.3 Claim #53 - He is ultimately resposible for the ongoing attempts to cover up4 the wire fraud underlying the documents filed by Countrywide in response to5 subpoena in Samaan v Zernik6 Claim #54 - He is ultimately responsible for the conduct ofCountrywide's7 Legal Department, which repeatedly produced fraudulent documents in8 rewsponse to subpoenas, in 1st in Aug 2006, 2nd , 3rd , 4th, in Jan-Feb 2007,9 and 5th , in April 2007.

10 IS.Defendant Angelo Mozilo is a natural persons residing and employed in Los11 Angeles County, his actions and ommissions relative to Countrywide documents,12 that are alleged by Plaintiffto be at the heart ofthe fraud against him, allowed that13 fraud to proceed.14 Claim #55- as president and chair fo the intrnal audit committee he was in15 position to prevent the fraud, but did not.16 Claim #56 - Even after being notified, never did anything to stop the fraud.17 Claim #57- Shares responsibility with Sandor Samuels for claims listed above18 under Samuels.19 16.Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, is a finacial services corporation,20 subject to New York jurisdiction. It was documents produced by Countrywide21 Home Loans Corporation through the Legal Department ofCountrywide Financial22 Corporation, and declarations by Maria McLaurin, Branch Manager, Countrywide23 Home Loans Branch Manager, San Rafael California, that allowed the faud to go24 on in court.25 Claim #58 - Produced the fraudulent documents that allowed Samaan to26 continue with this fraud under the guise of legal action.27 17.Defendant Mara Escrow Company is an escrow company. It was involved in28 some of the fraud in Samaan v Zernik litigation through its frormer employee--15-



16/75


Gail Hershowitz, and it also was invovled in abuse ofZernik's free speech, dueprocess, and possession rights in Decmber 2007.

Claim #59 - Its counsel appeared incognito in a gag order hearing on Dec 7,2007

18. Defendants Thomas Brown - is an attorney. He engaged in services forPlaintiff, but failed to warn Plaintiffofhis relationship with Att MohammadKeshavarzi, who was listed in the conflict list. Later, when Plaintifffound outabout it, he refused to provide copies of email corresopndence with Keshavarzi thatwas part of the serrvices that Plaintiffpaid for.

Claim -#60 - obstruction ofjustice and negligence.19. Zachary Schorr - is an attorney. While he was engaged in a agreement toprovide legal services for Plaintiffhe had Plaintiffs Opposition brief for the Aug9,2007 adulterated in his office prior to its transmission to the LA Superior Courtfor filing.

Claim -#61 - obstruction ofjustice, fraud, and negligence.LUit Vardanian - is an employee ofDefendant Schorr. After Plaintiffdiscovered the adulteration ofhis filings in court for the Aug 9, 2007 SummaryJudgment hearings, Defendant Schorr provided a verified statement claimingMsVardanian was the one who did it.

Claim -#62 - obstruction ofjustice, fraud, and negligence.21. Defendants Doe 1-20 are natural persons, they acted in relationship to Samaan v

Zernik (SC087400) in their autority as staffof the Superior Court for the County ofLos Angeles, West District.

Claim #60 - to be detailed at a later day

123456789

10111213141516 20.171819202122232425262728

IV.REVIEW OF EVENTS IN LITIGATION OF SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)AT THE LA SUPERIOR COURT - BASIS FOR CURRENT ACTION



17/75


1 1. General Timeline ofthe Litigation2 Notice: Defendants that are Judges ofthe LA Superior Court at times conveniently claim that3 the unusual events ofSamaan v Zernik are the result ofPlaintiffs appearancepro se. Thetimeline below shows thatPlaintiffappeared in Court for thefirst time in Jan 2007. Falsifying4 records, and other abuses ofDue Process are documented starting January 2006.

Samaan fails to obtain loans from Countrywide to purchasePlaintiffs residence, is found engaging in wire/fax fraud,and Zernik cancels escrow.Att C. Cummings RetainedSamaan fileS complaint and Notice ofLis PendensJudge Neidorfis assigned to the case, Samaan files aPeremptory Challenge.Judge Connor presides in a hearing on Demurrer, OSC, ISCAtt Cummings takes Samaan's Deposition, where sheadmits much ofthe fraud relative to preparation ofthe LoanApplications. In retrospect Plaintiffrealizes that AttCummings had by that time additional information, butavoided asking Samaan any incriminating questionsregarding the Prequalification Letter and the LoanApplications, and he concluded the deposition so thatSamaan would not be deposed again. Cummings would notbe able to explain his conduct later on.Att Cummings runs Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, whichhe lost, but some comments along the way raise Plaintiffsconcerns.Plaintiffstarts review ofDiscovery materials in Cummingsoffice, and immediately realizes that there is substantialcriminal/fraud activity in the background of the litigation.

-17-

Prior to October 2005 Oct 2005-Oct 2005-

Sept-Oct 2004 -

January 2006 -

Nov 2006-

Dec 2006-

56789

10111213 July 2006 -

25262728

1415161718192021222324

ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL ,VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT


18/75


123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

Plaintiffsends Cummings a short list of questions regardinghis conduct ofthe litigation. Cummings offers $25,000waiver of fees ifPlaintiffwould agree to relieve him ofrepresentation.

January 2007 - Plaintiff appears in Judge Connor's Court for the fIrst time.Feb 2007- Att Schorr is retained.March 2007- Some inexplicable interactions between Schorr and

Plaintiffs Counsel Keshavarzi lead to relieve Schorr asCounsel ofRecord, but Plaintiff continues to consult withhim.March 2007- Plaintiffapproaches Samuels and Mozillo with a request toauthenticate or repudiate the UnderwritingDecision/Condition Letter (Docket #44)

April 26, 2007 - Judge Connor set sanctions on Plaintiff. Plaintiffsenses thatJudge Connor and Att Keshavarzi were acting dishonestly,but is not clear about the situation.

Early May 2007 - Plaintiffcommissions a review/analysis of the case from theoffice ofAtt. Johnson, and the short (1 page) analysis reportcomes back titled "Errors in Adjudication". Plaintiffrealizes that Judge Connor was deliberately setting him up.Att Brown refuses to provide copies ofhis emailcorrespondence with Keshavarzi, block subpoena service.

May 16, 2007 - ADRMediation with Retired Judge Schoettler. SchoettlerfInds that "Samaan has no case at a/f '. The contrast withJudge Connor's fIndings is disturbing.

May 22, 2007- Judge Connor cuts offdiscovery. Together with Clerk Jaimethey try to deceive Plaintiffregarding the Trial Setting.

-18-ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT


19/75


123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

Plaintiffrealizes for the first time that Sustain is a criticalcomponent in the fraud by the Court on him.

July 6, 2007- Countrywide appears in court in an ex parte procedure thatis obviously out of any standards of the court.

July 9, 2007 - Judge Connor enters an entirely fictitious July 9,2007Minute Order of a hearing on Motion for Reconsideration,creates ambiguous records.

July 12, 2007 - Plaintiff serves Judge Connor with 1st Statement ofDisqualificationfor Cause. Judge Connor rules on the spotit is an untimely peremptory challenge.July 23, 2007 - Judge Connor generates an ambiguous Protective Order forCountrywide - never entered, never noticed, never foundsigned.

July 26, 2007 - Plaintiffdiscovers that his opposition papers for SummaryJudgment were adulterated by the office of Schorr, passagesabout fax/wire fraud - damaging to Samaan, were crudelyremoved. Schorr claims it was done by Secretary Vardanian.

Aug 2,2007- While Judge Connor is on vacation, Zemik gets access tosome litigation records for the first time.

Aug 9, 2007- Judge Connor grants Summary Judgment Motion toSamaan, ambiguates the entry ofjudgment

Aug 21,2007- According to Att Hoffinan, Judge Connor refers to plaintiffas "a Pest" and explains that she "treats him accordingly."

Aug 30, 2007 - Judge Connor generates ambiguous appointment ofO'Brienas escrow referee.

Sept 7, 2007 - Plaintiffdemands from O'Brien his appointment papers, anddiscovers he has none.



20/75


12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

Sept 10, 2007 - O'Brien holds a "hearing" with Samaan's husband andKeshavarzi, but refuses to report about it.

Sept 10,2007 - Plaintiff serves 2nd Statement ofDisqualification for Cause.Judge Connor disqualifies, then enters a false andmisleading, fictitious Minute Order ofhearing on Motionfor Sanctions per CCP 128.7.

Sept 20, 2007 - Judge Goodman runs an instantaneous hearing on O'BrienProposed Order for Appointment as Referee. Attempts todeceive relative to its origin.

Oct 3,2007- Plaintiffserves 1st Statement ofDisqualification for Cause ofJudge Goodman. It turns out that Judge Goodman has justdisqualified, disclosing his friendship with Samuels.

Oct 5,2007- Judge Biderman disqualifies.Oct 11, 2007 - Defendant Segal attempts to mislead Plaintiffrelative to

Referee/Receiver.Oct 15,2007 - Plaintifffiles 1st Statement of disqualification for cause for

Defendant Segal.Nov 9,2007- Defendant Segal appoints Defendant Pasternak Receiver, but

refuses to acknowledge validity of the Aug 9, 2007Judgment by Court.

Nov 26, 2007 - Plaintifffiles 2nd Statement ofDisqualifiication for cause onDef. Segal.

Dec 4, 2007- Defendant Segal disqualifY.Dec 7, 2007- Pasternak runs two ex parte appearances, with Hart=Cole

and with Collins - for gag orders, indemnity for Mara, andother stipulations.

Dec 17,2007 - Pasternak fraudulently transfer title to the property.-20-



21/75


1 Jan 11, 2008 234 Jan 15,2008-5678 Feb 15, 2007 -9

1011 March 7, 2008 -12

Plaintiffserves DefFriedman with 15t Statement ofDisqualification for Cause, Friedman falsely denies hisrelationship with Samuels.Plaintiffserves DefFriedman with 2nd Statement ofDisqualification. Friedman again refuses to admitrelationship with Samuels or file statement on the record onthe subject.DefFriedman sets sanctions >$16,000, contempt re;Connor's missing July 23, 2007 Protective Order. Threatensto jail Plaintiff.DefFriedman finds Plaintiffin Contempt, sets sanctions>$7.000, on same charge as Feb 15,2008.

13141516

2. Countrywide's LegalDivision provided fraudulent records andBranchManager Maria McLaurin -fraudulent declarations to support fabricatedclaims in litigation ofSamaan v Zernik

News from courtrooms coast to coast provide evidence ofCountrywide's17

deceptive and dishonest litigation practices. OnMarch 5, 2008, Judge JeffBohme,18 U.S. District Court, Houston, Texas, entered his opinion (Docket #31), rebuking19 Countrywide's legal division for:202122

"a disregardfor theprofessional and ethical obligations ofthelegalprofession andjudicial system".23 Judge Bohm's 72-page opinion about Countrywide's litigation practices was24 based on what transpired in his own courtroom, and also on a report of a nation-wide25 investigation by the United States Trustee.26 But Defendants that are Judges of the LA Superior Court continue to accord27 Countrywide and its legal team Courtroom privileges that are entirely contradictory to28 -21-

ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL ,VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT


22/75


iii. Plaintiffs Counsel filed evidentiary objections.Throughout the litigation ofSamaan v Zernik Judge Connor practically refusedto issue any evidentiary rulings, no matter how hard Plaintiffpressed for such.And obviously she relied on such evidence in her rulings and judgment,regardless ofthe fact that such evidence should have been excluded.

McLaurin, Countrywide BankManager, and a business associate ofSamaan's husband, contributed key fraudulent declarations that werequintessential for the fraud in the litigation in LA Superior Court. Plaintiffrequested Judicial Notice ofDocket #38 - a compilation ofMcLaurin'sdeclarations and analysis ofvarious fraudulent statements made in them.

-22-

1 basic notions ofDue Process, at the expense of severe abuse ofPlaintiffs rights for2 Due Process for free speech and for possession.3 Plaintiff also requested Judicial Notice inDocket #31 ofwell publicized news4 reports of stock market events on Jan 8. 2008, when the NYT published report that5 Countrywide's counsels admitted filing "recreated letters" as evidence in a6 Pennsylvania court.7 Relative to Countrywide records in Samaan v Zernik, Plaintiffalleges:8 a) Recreated Underwriting Decision/Condition Letter9 Docket #44 presents a Countrywide record that is in fact a "recreated letter".

10 This record is a key document in the fraud against Zemik by Countrywide and11 Samaan. This letter is clearly dated and time-stamped for its date of issue as:12 Oct 26. 2004. Moreover, on some of the copies of this record one finds fax13 header imprints indicating that it was also faxed from Countrywide to an14 unknown recipient (Samaan?) on Oct 26,2004.15 This record, was introduced as evidence in Judge Connor's court under16 unusual circumstances -17 i. As part ofSur Reply,18 ii. It was never authenticated.19202122232425262728

ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL ,VERIFIED FffiSTAMENDED COMPLAINT


23/75


- McLaurin states:Regarding instant Underwriting Decision/Condition Letter (Docket #44)

In fact, McLaurin is repeating Countrywide's "recreated letter"routine..

"I have been informed ofMr Zernik's allegation thatthe October 14,2004 suspension letterwas issued onOctober 26, 2004 and is "an instrument ofdeception."There is no merit to Mr. Zernik's allegations. Thesuspension letter was issued on October 14,2004 asevidenced by the date on the second page. Thedocument was printed on October 26, 2004, not issuedon that date. This suspension letter appears to be aprintout from Countrywide's Computer program andto my knowledge is accurate and valid. There is norequirement that such letters be signed by theunderwriter. The fact that the letter is not signed doesnot mean that i t is not valid."

12345678910111213141516 b) Real Estate Purchase Contract17 Docket #45 is the center ofthe fraud in litigation ofSamaan v Zernik:18 l. It was first introduced in Reply briefto Sarnaan'sAug 9,200719 Motion for Summary Judgment,20 l l. It was never authenticated,21 iii. Plaintiffobjected22 iv. It provides false evidence ofa fax transmission on Oct 25,2007,23 5:03 pm, which in fact was part of the fax/wire fraud scheme.24 The essence of the misrepresentation relative to this document is a false25 claim that it was transmitted by fax from Parks to Countrywide on Oct 25,26 2004, at 5:03pm, and that such transmission was critical for Sarnaan's loans27 approval. In fact that document was never faxed on that day from Parks to28 Countrywide. -23-



24/75


3. Samaan andOthers were involved in a convoluted fax/wire fraud Schemeagainst Plaintiffand against a FinancialInstitution

1 These false claims were based on the fax header imprints on this document.2 However, the imprint is missing the identity of the sender, in violation ofFCC3 Regulations. Moreover, Plaintiffpresented in the Aug 9, 2007 Summary Judgment4 Hearing evidence that such imprints were generated as part of a convoluted fax/wire5 fraud scheme. The fax/wire fraud scheme is described below. Plaintiffalso requested6 Judicial Notice ofDocket #40, where the various fraud cases are summarized per7 element in a table form, the wire fraud is found atDocket #40, pi9.89

1011 Samaan claimed that the contract was faxed by Parks to Countrywide on Oct12 25,2004, at 5:03pm, but this document, like all other writings introduced by Samaan,13 was never authenticated. As part ofhis objection to the entering of such records as14 evidence, Plaintiffpresented evidence that demonstrated that Samaan, Parks, Lloyd,15 and an unknown person at Countrywide (McLaurin?) were engaged in an elaborate16 wire/fax fraud scheme across state lines. Such scheme was used to mislead17 plaintiff, an individual, and his realtor, and also to generate false loan records at18 Countrywide, a financial institution. The essence of that fraud was that Samaan19 (residing in Los Angeles) received and transmitted faxes on behalfofher loan broker,20 Parks (residing in the State ofWashington), assuming his identity, and operating a fax21 machine with no fax header ID. The transmission on Monday, October 25,2004,22 5:03pm was in fact from Nivie Samaan in Los Angeles to her husband, Jae Arre23 Lloyd, also in Los Angeles.24 When andhow did that recordfind its way into the Countrywide loan file?25 Plaintiffholds that the answer to that question is a key to understanding the26 fraud perpetrated by Countrywide against Plaintiffand against the United States27 government. Countrywide produced in response to subpoena what was28 -24-

ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FffiSTAMENDED COMPLAINT


25/75


1 misrepresented as true records ofSamaan's loan files. However, these documents are2 inherently contradictory, and are lacking any record of their origin.3 Countrywide must keep record of such transmissions in compliance with4 Regulation B ofthe Federal Reserve.5 As a first approximation, Plaintiffbelieves the scheme to work like this:6 I . Samaan would fax the documents to Lloyd, in part in order to generate on7 them the desired time stamp in the fax header imprints, adjusted at will.8 ii. Lloyd would receive them on a digital machine, or scan them.9 111. Lloyd would email them to McLaurin.

10 IV. McLaurin would insert them into the loan file.11 Samaan falsely claimed that the Purchase Contract arrived at Countrywide on12 Monday, October 25, 2004, 5:03pm and effected dramatic progress in her loan13 approval- but is clear that the contract was not part ofSamaan's loan file even by14 Nov 3,2004. The Nov 3,2004 Underwriting Letter (Docket #40, pl15) still lists it as15 missing, under Condition #4:16 "Provide complete executedpurchase contract, escrow17 instructions will not act as a substitute".18 Samaan's counsel presented evidence that was inherently illogical- as19 described above, and he failed to authenticate the records. Plaintiffobjected on the20 basis that such records were part of fraud. In addition, as Plaintiffreminded21 Defendant Connor in the Aug 9,2007 hearing, Defendant Connor's Court's calendar22 had a hearing scheduled for Plaintiff'sMotion/or Sanctions per CCP 128. 7 against23 Samaan's Counsel, Att Keshavarzi, for filing such fraudulent documents.24 Defendant Connor refused to issue evidentiary rulings in this regard (Docket25 #53, Exh Vol II, p273), as was the case in other herings (Docket #53, Exh Vol II,26 p253). Defendant Connor clearly relied upon such fraudulent evidence (Docket #45)27 and claims made by Samaan in this regard in herAug 9, 2007 Order Granting28 Summary Judgment (Exh Vol IV, pl15). -25-



26/75


" .. .and the fax from Victor Parks to Countrywide on October 25,2004 (Opposition, Exhibit U)".Defendant Connor similarly (Exh Vol IV, p119) states:

"As ofOctober 25, 2004, Ms Samaan ha fulfilled allobligations, except for removal of the appraisal contingency.The appraisal contingency could not be removed until MsSamaan received loan approval [sic - usually it is the other wayaround - jz). Approval of the loan was delayed becauseCountrywide had not received a fully executed copy of thepurchase agreement."

The records ofSamaan's loan underwriting (in contrast with McLaurin's falsedeclarations) do not support any such finding:

1. Branch Input Exception Request to Mr Gadi (Docket #40, Exh J).ii. Oct 29,2004 Gadi's Exception Request Response (Docket #40, ExhN)

111. AppraisalReview - Order Form (Docket #40, Exh L)IV. AppraisalReview Report (Docket #40, Exh P).v. Denial Letter from Countrywide Bank (Docket #40. p118).

123456789

101112131415161718 Samaan, her Counsel, and McLaurin for Countrywide (Docket #38)19 misrepresented in the Aug 9,2007Motion/or Summary Judgment, that Samaan's20 Loan Applications were approved on Oct 25, 2004, by 5:18pm, just 15 min after the21 falsely claimed arrival ofthe fax transmission on Monday, October 25,2004,5:03 pm.22 In fact - the resul ts ofAppraisalReviewwould arrive only on Nov 3,2004.232425262728

4. Countrywide's Samuels andMozillo Refused to Stop the FraudPerpetrated against Plaintiffor Make any Statement regarding theAuthenticity ofthe UnderwritingDecision/Condition Letter and the RealEstate Purchase Contract.



27/75


5. Countrywide's Appearances in the LA Superior Court were some oUheWorst Abuses ofPlaintifFs Civil Rights for Due Process. Free Speech. andPossession

1 Countrywide was closely related to this case. Countrywide's ChiefLegal2 Counsel Samuels is a close personal friend ofDefendant Goodman ( ), and also a long3 term friend ofDefendant Friedman ( ). Moreover, during much ofthe litigation4 Samuels served as President of the Board ofBet Tzedek - the "House ofJustice".5 Samuels prominently called for fighting fraud in these web pages. (Exh ), and6 solici ted calls for help from fraud victims.7 Mr Mozillo is featured in web pages on Corporate Ethics, and Coroporate8 Resonsibility, where he also solicits calls in re: Fraud.9 In early 2007, Plaintiff approached Mr Mozillo andMr Samuels, expressed his

10 concerns that Countrywide was involved in fraud against him, and asked that they11 authenticate or repudiate the documents that Plaintiffholds to be the key to the fraud-12 the Underwriting Decision /Condition Letter (Docket #44), and the Real Estate13 Purchase Contract (Docket #45).14 Bet Tzedek web pages were removed from the web soon after that, and later15 Countrywide appeared in Defendant Connor's Court, and initiated procedures that16 were some of the most abusive ofPlaintiffs rights for Due Process and Free Speech-17 the July 6, 2007Ex Parte Application and the July 23, 2007 Short Notice Hearing,18 both for Protective (gag) Orders (see below).19 In over a year that passed since Plaintifffirst approached Mr Mozillo and Mr20 Samuels in this regard, Countrywide has consistently refused to make any statement21 whatsoever regarding the authenticity of the documents in question. At the same time,22 McLaurin, a Countrywide Branch Manager, continued to produce false and23 deliberately misleading declarations (Docket #38), colluding with Samaan in her24 fraudulent litigation in LA Superior Court.25262728 -27-



28/75


1 The July 6, 2007Ex Parte Hearing purportedly allowed Countrywide a2 Discovery Motion, when discovery motions were no longer allowed to other parties in3 this case. Defendant Connor than made rulings after the fact, July 12, 2007, that4 Discovery Cut OffDate did not apply to Countrywide, but only to Plaintiff (Docket5 #53, Exh Vol11 p240).6 Defendant Connor denied Countrywide's July 6, 2007Application. She allowed7 Countrywide to re-file its moving papers, without giving it any deadline, she set a8 deadline for Plaintiff to file his opposing papers by July 12, 2007, and she set a9 shortened notice hearing for July 23, 2007 (July 6, 2007Minute Order, Exh Vol II.

10 p236). Plaintiffwas denied a copy ofthisMinute Order, based on a false and absurd11 notation "Notice Deemed Waived",

EventExparte proceedingJacqueling A. Connor9:00amNON-PARTY, COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,INC,'S EXPARTE APPLICATION FORPROTECTIVE ORDERProceeding not recorded"

12 Countrywide served Plaintiffwith moving paper after he his deadline for the13 opposmg papers.14 Later, Plaintiffdiscovered in Sustain Case History that Defendant Connor ran15 these proceedings as "off the record" procedures (e.g. Docket #39: Docket ofSamaan16 v Zernik, pp57-58) :17 ' ~ 7 r o 6 r o 7181920212223 In fact, now Plaintiffknows that many or most ofthe proceedings at LA24 Superior Court of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) were considered by Defendants that25 are Judges to be "off the record" proceedings. Had Plaintiffbeen aware ofthat at the26 time, he would have never taken part in such travesty ofjustice. Such proceedings are2728 -28-

ZERNIK vCONNOR ETAL ,VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


29/75


1 severe abuse ofDue Process rights perAmendments j'h and 14th of the UnitedStates2 Constitution. (see more below)3 After July 6, 2007, Countrywide Counsels appeared on a regular basis in court4 hearings ofSamaan v Zemik (SC087400), albeit their party designation was never5 determined. Plaintiffappeared before each and every one ofDefendants that are6 Judges of the LA Superior Court with Requests for Safeguard ofDue Process, which7 included a request for determination ofCountrywide's party designation. Plaintiffs8 requests were always denied, and to this very day, Countrywide appears in litigation9 records as: Non Party, Defendant, Plaintiff, Cross Defendant, Intervenor, Objector.

10 Etc.. , without any legal foundation, at times two , three, or even four conflicting11 designations in one record.12 The Feb 15, 2008 Transcript (Exh Vol IIIp642) records Countrywide's request13 for a court declaration:14 "that Countrywide has no Oblilf,ation to Respond Further to DefendantZemik Regarding This Action. '1516 In that hearing Defendant Friedman set sanctions exceeding $16,000 on17 Plaintiff, again based on unauthenticated objectionable evidence. He also allowed18 Countrywide a shortened notice hearing for a Bench Trial for Contempt (Feb 15, 200819 Minute Order, Exh Vol11 p380. March 3, 2008 Minute Order, Exh Vol II, p384,20 March 7, March 7Minute Order, Exh Vol 11 p385). Non of these Minute Orders21 were available to Plaintiffin time for challenging such procedures in California Court22 ofAppeal.23 Furthermore, this case present issues that are pertinent in California outside of24 Los Angeles County, and also beyond California - the handling ofCase Management25 Systems in the Courts. This case demonstrates how such systems can easily be abused26 for wholesale obstruction of justice.27 This case also pertains directly to the dishonest operation Countrywide under28 the leadership ofOfficers including Defendants Mozilo and Samuels. The outcome of-29-

ZERNIK vCONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


30/75


1 their conduct will be burden the American taxpayer in years to come. The cost of the2 sub-prime crisis to the Treasury and the burden it will generate on the U.S. economy3 is difficult to even estimate at this time, but the impact onmany thousands of families,4 who are losing their homes all around the country is visible and real.5 Almost without exception those losing their homes, are almost the last one6 families or individuals who held residential mortgage loans generated by7 Countrywide, re-financed with Countrywide, or serviced by Countrywide after being8 originated by others.9 In that respect this case is unique - Plaintiffnever had any business dealings

10 with Countrywide whatsoever. In fact, as late as November-December 2006, when11 he first saw the name on subpoena papers, he did not even recognize the name. That12 is over a year after litigation in Samaan v Zernikwas initiated in the Los Angeles13 Superior Court.14 And yet, Countrywide, a giant corporation is operating its massive machinery to15 impact extreme violation ofPlaintiff's civil rights under the hands of the Los Angeles16 Superior Court, West District. The judges ofWest District, Officials of the State of17 California have been engaging in perpetrating such abuse ofPlaintiffunder the color18 ofthe law for the third year in a row, and have brought him to the brink: ofdestruction,19 both financial and physical. Some ofthese judges are close personal friends or20 acquaintances ofCountrywide's ChiefLegal Counsel, Defendant Samuels -like21 Defendant Goodman, and Defendant Friedman. Other judges are otherwise22 determined to obstruct justice on behalfof Countrywide, although Plaintiffmay not be23 aware of their exact motivation.24 For example, Defendant Connor - her court entered as on July 24, 2007 the25 following note in "Case History" in "Sustain" - the Court's case management system,26 in the opening screen, ensuring its permanent visibility -27 "Countrywide Home Loans, IncReal Parties in Interest'28 -30-



31/75


1 See more detailed description of this issue in ourDocket #46: Inexplicable2 under assumption ofhonesty No.2 - Sustain Case History page #1.3 Also, our Docket #39: Sustain Case History ofSamaan v Zernik, "Case History"4 (Exh Vall Exh p 1).5 Another example, Defendant Segal- his dishonest Dec 4, 2007Minute Order:6 Judge Segal's Disqualification Statement (Docket #52: Exh Vol II. pp 343-355.7 states:89

10111213

"[Plaintiff] contends that CountrywideHome Loans, which isnot a party, is somehow involved in these proceedings. Therehave not been any proceeding before the undersignedjudgeinvolving or relating to Countrywide ... "And next (Exh p348):

"In this case, Countrywide is not a party. At best, Countrywide isa witness which has sought a protective order. "14 Both of these are false and deliberately misleading statements on their face:15 First - Judge Segal did preside in proceedings, short as they might be, on both Aug 116 and Aug 2,2007, in which Countrywide was involved. At the outset of the17

proceeding on Aug 1, 2007 he even expressed his amazement, when counsel for18 Countrywide inserted herself right before him, and remained standing between19 Plaintiff and Defendant. He first paused in the introductions to ask her:

"And who are you?"To which she identified herself as usual, as Counsel for Countrywide, without

22 any party designation. Defendant Segal then asked her at least twice:

2021

2324

"What are you doing here?"To which she never answered, not even a word. Then Defendant Segal made a

25 comment to the effect that it was not his case, and he might not be able to figure it out26 fast enough.. .2728 -31-



32/75


1 He could have spared him selfall of that, had he bothered to look at the opening2 screen of "Case History" in the computer screen on his desk, at the note left there by3 Judge Connor on July 24, 2007 before leaving on vacation, bu t backdated to July 24,4 2004, ensuring its place on the opening scre en (Exh Vol I, Exh pl).5 And Defendant Segal , in his dishonest and delibera te ly misleading Dec 4, 20076 Disqualification Statement says (Exh Vol II. p348):7 'lIn this case, Countrywide is not a party. At best, Countrywide isa witness which has sought a protective order. "8

Atto rney for "Intervenor" - as it has been designated for many months, with no1413

15legal foundation at all.

Elsewhere in these disqualif ication statemen ts (Exhp341) Countrywide isdesignated "Defendanf' as it has always been:16 SHATZ, SANFORD17 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

9 But at th e same time, the same Dec 4, 2007 Disqualification Sta tement (Exh10 p345) designates Countryw id e's Counsel:

BRYAN CAVE11 ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR12

181920

Again, with no legal foundation at all.(while accord ing Countrywide a status above the law in Samaan v Zernik , and

routinely cla im ing that any suggestion by Pla intif f of an interest for Countrrywide in1 this case is a "Conspiracy Theory".2223 While at the Dec 4,2007 Disqualification Sta tement, one notes th at on Ehxp355 the entry date of th is legal record is Dec 7,2007, while on the 12 preceding24 pages ofthe same document, the entry date is Dec 4, 2007.252627 Judge Segal's exchange at th e opening oftheAug 1, 2007 Ex Parte ProceedingAll ofthat was dele ted from the Reporter 's Transcript (Exh Vol III, Exh p429-430),28

-32-ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIF IED FffiST AMENDED COMPLA INT


33/75


1 which for that reason was designated by Plaintiff"Objectionable", and Plaintiff2 requested to to inspect the Reporter's raw-, or shorthand notes. As is the case in much3 of the litigation records in this case, Defendants LA County and LA Superior Court4 are adamant in their refusal to provide Plaintiffaccess to his own litigation records, in5 blatant defiance of the California Public Records Act, the California Constitution, and6 the u.s. Constitution Amendment 5th and 14th - Due Process of the Law.

DO

14

7 A similar, albeit demonstrating a more defiant, deliberate determination to8 abuse Plaintiff's Due Process rights was recorded in theAug 9, 2007 Transcript-9 Motion/or Summary Judgment (Exh Vol III. Exh p445), where Countrywide's10 counsel appeared before the judge as party for all practical purposes, was allowed to11 file motions against Plaintiff, while Plaintiffwas barred from filing motions or claims12 against Countrywide, for reasons that Plaintiffcould not and still cannot comprehend:13 "MR ZERNIK: FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO ASKYOURHONOR IF YOU CAN CLARIFYWHAT IS THE REASON THATATTORNEY FOR COUNTRYWIDE IS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM

RIGHT NOW?THE COURT:SHEWANTS TO BE HERE.MR ZERNIK: SO SHE HAS FULL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE INTHESE PROCEEDINGS?THE COURT:YOU HAVE A PROBLEM?

MR ZERNIK: YEs. I HAVE A PROBLEM, BECAUSE IBELIEVE SHE IS NOT A PARTY."

1615

191817

20 Plaintiffis not experience in legal matters, but Plaintiffbelieves that in the21 United States, circumstances such as described above are extraordinary under the22 protections extended by the Constitution. Plaintiffbelieves that conditions in Samaan23 v Zernik are extraordinary, and therefore justify the unusual review by the United24 States District Court.25 For much of the litigation (from its onset - October 2005 to Aug 2,2007 - over26 19 months, access was entirely denied - see Sept 10, 2007 Judge Connor27 Disqualification Statement, Exh Vol IV, Exh p_), a California State Court entirely28 denied a U.S. Citizen and his counsels a c c . : j ~ _ t o his litigation records. And the same

ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


34/75


1 Court is still continuing to deny timely access to critical records today, including, but2 not limited to:3 a) Paper court file documents,4 b) Electronic court file data,5 c) Raw/short hand transcripts of specific reporters' transcripts6 d) Minute Orders,7 e) Notices of orders, rulings, judgments8 f) Assignment Orders ofPresiding Judges in the case, and for months also9 refused to even provide even a f) certified copy of the Aug 9. 2007 Judgment

10 by Court, is an extraordinary case, justifYing protection by the United States11 District Court.12 Obviously, under such situation, any further review by the California Court of13 Appeal or the California Supreme Court is futile.14 The primary reason that Plaintifffound himself seeking protection of the United15 States Court, is that he lost hope to ever gain access to his litigation records through16 the California State Justice system (see below).17 , ..18 for reasons that may take more discovery to uncover.1920 The U.S. economy may be sliding into recession that many attribute to the sub-21 prime crisis - where mortgage and real-estate frauds were main causes. But review22 offSamaan v Zernik reveals a group ofjudges of the LA Superior Court that simply23 refuses to recognize Real Estate Fraud and/or Mortgage Fraud as part of reality.24 Judge Connor ruled it to be a "red herring". One is only left to wonder what part25 such permissive approach of the courts had in getting Los Angeles listed in FBI26 reports as "the epicenter" of a fast growing national epidemic of real estate and27 mortgage fraud that is a high national priority to fight.28 -34-



35/75


123

6. Defendants that are the LA Superior Court and its Judges heldmany ormost proceedings in Samaan v Zernik "off the record", and are not partofproceedings for which they may claim judicial immunity.

4 The typical entry in Sustain allows only one "on the record" event per5 time slot scheduled. Judge Connor, typically would schedule two or three events, but6 only one ofthem would eventually recorded, not necessarily correctly. In general, the7 record of litigation produced is corrupted to the point that it would be impossible for8 an any court reviewing this case to figure out what indeed took place.9 Example: Running Litigation Where Most Procedures are "off the record"

10 - First Hearing Presided by Defendant Connor -1130/06 (Docket #53, pp7-10)

12/02/05

11 11129/05121314151617181920 1130/062122232425262728

Scheduled EventDemurrerJacqueline A. Connor01130/06 at 8:35am2. OSC RE: PROOF OF SERVICE3. INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCEDocument FiledNOTICE OF CONTINUANCEAttorney for PlaintiffISC AND OSC HEARING ARE ADVANCEDTO THE DEMURRER DATE OF 1130/06EventDemurrerJacqueline A. Connor8:30amDEFENDANT (JOSEPH ZERNIK) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT;INITIALSTATUSCONFERNECEORDER TO SHOWCAUSE FORFAILURE TO FILE PROOF OFSERVICEMatters are called for hearing.[full page text on demurrer decision]Order to Show Cause and Initial Status Conference are held anddischarged.

-35-ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL ,VERIFmD FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


36/75


The final record for the Jan 30, 2006 hearing:

7. Defendants That Are The LA Superior CourtAnd Its Judges Failed ToIssue Assignment Orders To The Judges NamedAs Defendants In ThisCase. TherefOre. These JudgesAre Not Eligible (or Judicial Immunitv InThis Case.

The only procedure that was concluded "on the recorel' was the demurrer. The record states that Demurrer was "Granteel', in fact it was denied. There is no evidence that an OSC procedure, which probably was the reason for

the Affidavit ofPrejudice in the first place, ever took place. Parties never saw this record: "Notice is waived"

12 1130/06345678910111213141516

Event CompleteDemurrerMotion Granted2) OSCI RE: POS3) INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE

17 Although Plaintiffappeared on several occasions before the Judges named as18 defendants in this case, and also before the Defendant Rosenberg, the Supervising19 Judge, to ask for Notice ofRe-Assignment Orders ofSamaan v Zemik to the several20 judges who acted as Presiding Judges, such requests were always denied.21 The only Re-assignment Order found in this case on the record that appears22 legitimate is for Defendant who is Judge Connor (Exh Volll- Minute Orders. pp200-23 1). However, this record is likely to be subject of some alteration or adulteration in24 Sustain. Page one ofthis order is dated 11/112005 as its date ofentry in the record,25 whereas page 2 of the same order is dated 1130/2006. Plaintiff demands his right for26 full access to electronic Trial Court Records, to inspect the detailed record and its27 Audit File.28 -36-



37/75


1 At the disqualification of Judge Connor, she re-assigned the case to Judge2 Goodman, inwhat appeared a procedure out of compliance with the law. Much later3 Plaintiff found ''Notice ofTransfer" in the Court File, dated Sept 11,2007, that is a4 day after Judge Connor ordered the re-assignment to Judge Goodman.5 Reading the Los Angeles County Rules ofCourt, Transfer is defined in rule 2.0,6 and is not relevant to the procedure of re-assignment.7 No Reassignment Order was ever found for any of the other Defendants who8 are judges.9

1110 Example: CorrectDocketing of Disqualification and Re-assignment "on the

record" - Judge Neidorf, 11/1/05*12 *In this case there is concern ofadulteration, since the 11/1/05 Minute Order bySupervising Judge Lefkowitz itself, shows elsewhere a date ofentry ofJanuary 30,13 2006.14

EventAffidavit ofPrejudiceRichardNeidorf9:00amPREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO SECTION 170.6 OFTIlE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Document FiledAffidavit ofPrejudice - PremptoryAttorney for PlaintiffAGAINST JUDGE NEIDORF

11/01/0515161718 11/01/0519202122 [full page text re: premptory challenge minute order + clerk certificate ofmailing]

11/01/0532425262728

Event CompleteAffidavit ofPrejudiceTransferred to Other Department11/01/05 EventCase Ordered ReassignedLinda K. Lefkowitz3:30pm[full page text re: re-assignment to Judge Connor + clerk's certificate ofmailing.]*



38/75


Event CompleteCase Ord ere d ReassignedCase reassigned per 170 CCP11/01/0512

34 Example: False Docketing ofDisgualification - Judge Connor, July 12, 20075 (Docket #39, pp 62-70)

Hon. Jacqueline A. ConnorJudge ofthe Superior Court

6 07/12/07789

101112131415161718192021222324

25262728

Even tMotion to CompelJacqueline A. Connor8:30amPLAINTIFF (N IVIE SAMAAN) MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONPLAINTIFF (NIV IE SAMAAN) MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FORADMISSIONS ADMITTED:

Matt te rs are calle d for hearing.[full two pages tex t ofre:Motion to Compel Deposition Motion to compel and sancti ons - DeniedMotion to deem admissions admitte d - DeniedDefendant files an affid avit pursuant to CCP secti on 170.3 in OpenCourt ... . It will be ruled upon as an affidavit pursuant to 170.6 of theCode ofCivil Procedures and is Denied as untimely.

[full two pages oflegal disc ourse - in fact an answer]Good CAUSE APPEARING, THEREFORE, IT is so ordered.Date: JULY 12, 2007

Verified Answer of Jacqueline A. ConnorI, Jacqueline A. Connor, declare :1....[formal generic answer]

Jacqueline A. ConnorThe origin al O rd err and verified Answer as stated above is signed andfiled this date.

-38-ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VER IF IED FIRST AMENDED COMPLA INT


39/75


123456 07/12/0778 ,9

1011 7/12107121314

07112/07151617181920 Comments:

a conformed copy of the order Denying Peremptory Challenge andStriking Statement ofDisqualificatlOn and Venfied Answer of JacquelineA. Connor are mailed this date via U.S. MAIL to the Defendant,Joseph Zemrik, DMD, PhD320 South Peck DriveBeverly Hills, CA 90212Event CompleteMotion to CompelMotion DeniedDeposition2) MOTION TO DEEMREQUEST FORADMISSIONS ADMITTEDMTN TO QUASH OIC PERM/P ON 6-26Document FiledAffidavit ofPrejudice - PremptoryDefendant & Defendant in Pro PerPUR TO CCP 170.3 AS TO JUDGEJACQUELINE A. CONNORDocument FiledOrderCourtDENYING PEREMPTORY CHALLENGEANDSTRIKING STATEMENT OFDISQUALIFICAnON AND VERIFIEDANSWER IS SIGNEDBY: JACQUELINE A.CONNOR, JUDGE

2122232425262728

The initial docketing was deliberately false - as Peremptory. No Event was generated as required, and therefore - no completion was

required either. The response is a combination of Strike and Answer, which is not allowed per

Bench Guide ofthe Judicial Council. The Answer must be adjudicated, for the judge to re-gain authority after event

is completed, but that was never done.-39-



40/75


8. Defendants who are Judges ofLA Superior Court are not Eligible forImmunity since they Officiated as Presiding Judges with no authority atall after beingDisqualified.

1 The order is missing clerk's certificate ofmailing, and is therefore invalid2 It is written as if Judge Connor is certifying the mailing, which is not allowed.3 Plaintiff never got notice by mail as described here.4 Plaintiffholds that Judge Connor was without any authority and without any5 immunity after July 12, 2007, if she had any prior to that, given the concern6 regarding the 11/1/05 Minute Order ofRe-assignment adulteration.78 In fact, none of the disqualifications and re-assignments in Samaan vZemik are9 in compliance with the Law and Rules ofCourt.

1011121314 None of the Defendants who are judges had their disqualification adjudicated as15 required by law. Therefore, after the first disqualification for each and every one of16 them, they were acting without any authority and without any immunity.17 The notion heard by Plaintiffthat it is a "Local Custom" in LA County not to18 adjudicate Answers to disqualification is out of compliance with the law, and a19 fundamental abuse ofPlaintiffs Due Process rights.20 Defendants without exception entered responses to disqualifications that were a21 combination of Strike and Answer. Such is deemed un-allowed response by a judge22 to disqualification for cause by the Bench Guide of the California Judicial Council.23 Regardless, the Answer had to be adjudicated for the Judge to regain his/her24 authority after disqualification statement was filed, and with it to regain hislher25 immunity.262728

9. Defendant Who is Judge Connor Entered atLeast Twice Minute Ordersthat were Entirely Fictitious andFalse. None ofthe Judges Who are-40-



41/75


12

Defendants Agreed to Co"ect such False Records. under False Claimsthat Thev Have No Authority to Do So

3

10.Defendant who is Retired Judge O'Brien engaged in Obstruction and hasno Grounds for a Claim o(Immunity at all.

8

a. July 9, 2007 Minute Order - Motion fo r Reconsideration (Docket #39. pp4 59-61), recording conferring "telephonically" is entirely fabricated. The record - that5 the motion for reconsideration was Granted is false. As is the case in the Demurrer, in6 proceedings where Defendant Connor made decisions or rulings that may appear7 unusual upon review, she simply entered false records.

Plaintiffwould never know, since he never got notice.9

17

21

b. Sept 10, 2007Minute Order - Motion fo r Sanctions per CCP 128. 7 (!2ocket10 #39. pp105-110), recorded a hearing that was never heard and a ruling that was never11 ruled, as can be concluded by comparing the Minute Order to the Sept 10,200712 Transcript (Docket # unassigned yet. Exh Vol III. p510). As is recorded in the13 transcript, Defendant Connor entered this false and deliberately misleading minute14 order after her disqualification, with no authority at all. This Minute Order represents15 Obstruction of Justice. Defendant Connor generated a false litigation record to the16 effect that Countrywide records are not fraud at all.

In addition, this minute order and the respective transcript record the fact that18 after disqualification, with no authority at all, she re-assigned the case on Sept 10,19 2007 to Judge Goodman, who on Oct 3,2007 (Docet # 39, Exh Vol I, Case History,20 pp121-124), in his disqualification statement recalled his long-term close personal

friendship with Samuels - ChiefLegal Counsel ofCountrywide.2223242526 On Sept 7, 2007 in the late afternoon Plaintiffreceived by email a notice for a27 "hearing" to be conducted by Proposed Referee O'Brien on the morning of Sept 10,28 2007. That "hearing" conflicted with a court hearing scheduled for that same time.-41-

ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT


42/75


1 Plaintiff immediately requested that Defendant O'Brien provide the documents2 that are the legal foundation for his appointment.3 Defendant O'Brien, Proposed Referee, presented to Plaintiffon Sept 7, 20074 the following:5 a) Aug 30, 2007 Minute Order by Judge Connor (Docket #53. Exh Vol II. p279).6 This document surely was inadequate for an Escrow Referee for execution of a7 Judgment by Court.8 The Minute Order states:9

1011

ttThe Court appoint Honorable Greg O'Brien, Retired Judge asReferee. The Court willprepare the order to appointing [sic-jzjdiscovery referee. "

18

13

12 b) Aug 9, 2007 Order Granting Summary Judgment (Docket # unassignedyet,Exh Vol IV- Minute Orders. Orders, Rulings from Paper Court File, p112)This document, too, surely was inadequate for execution of a Judgment by

14 Court, and reflected the deceptive conduct of the LA Superior Court and the Judges,15 who at once blamed Plaintiff for refusing to obey the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by16 Court, and also made it clear that they did not consider it a valid record, by omitting it17 from any record ofthe Court after Aug 9, 2007.

The Transcript says: (Docket #unassignedyet , Exh Vol 111- Transcripts. p537)192021222324

MR KESHAVARZI: THE REFEREEWON'T DO THAT,YOUR HONOR. THERE IS A REASON E WON'T DOTHAT, BECAUSE JUDGE CONNOR'S ORDERDIDN'TSPECIFY THAT THE REFEREE WAS BEING APPOINTEDPURSUANT TO 639 OF THE CCP. THE REFEREE WROTEA LETTERTO JUDGE GOODMAN, ASKING JUDGEGOODMAN TO CLARIFY THAHT HE WAS BEINGAPPOINTED PURSUANT TO 639.

25 But all ofthat did not stop Defendant O'Brien from holding a "Hearing" on26 Monday, Sept 10, 2007, where he conspired with Att Keshavarzi to execute an2728 -42-



43/75


1 "EnteredOral Judgment', according to Keshavarzi (Docket #unassignedyet, Exh2 Vol III- Transcripts. p538), quoting O'Brien:34567

WHY DON'T I ASK JUDGE GOODMAN TO CLARIFYTHAT I'M BEING APPOINTED PURSUANT TO 639 - IBELIEVE - (A)(2), WHICH SAYS THAT AFTER AN ORALJUDGMENT IS ENTERED, THE COURT MAY APPOINT AREFEREE TO OVERSEE ENFORCEMENT OF THEJUDGMENT.

8

13

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A DOCUMENTTHAT I DON'T KNOW THE SOURCE OF IT , BUT IT WASRECEIVED IN THE COURT HOUSE ON THE 14TH , ANDIT'S A PROPOSED ORDER WITH RESPECT TO RETIREDJUDGE O'BRIEN SERVING AS THE ESCROW REFEREE.AND I SEE FROM THE MINUTE ORDER OF AUGUST 30THAT HE WAS APPOINTED AS REFEREE.

In addition, Defendant O'Brien himself conceded that he was operating without9 any authority when he lodged a Proposed Order for his own appointment as an Escrow

10 Referee on September 14, 2007, that is after he conducted a hearing on Sept 10.2007.11 (Docket #unassignedyet, Exh Vol IV- Minute Orders. Orders. Rulings. Judgments.12 from Paper Court File. p170).

In an act that was a display of blatant dishonesty, and a gross abuse of14 Plaintiffs Due Process rights, Judge Goodman conducted a entirely unnoticed15 hearing on that Proposed Order on Sept 17,2007, while pretending that he did not16 know its origin (Docket #unassignedyet, Exh Vol III- Transcripts. p512):17181920212223 But at the same time, Judge Goodman entered on Sept 14, 2007 a note in24 Sustain Case History, which in fact is the only entry on that day, and which normally25 would never be seen by litigants, as follows (Docket #39, Exh Vol It Sustain Case26 History. pI13):2728

09/14/07 Document FiledMiscellaneous - Other-43-



44/75


1234567

Dism - Plaintiff In Pro Per(2) documents received by facsimileservice and filed per thedirection of the Supervising Judgeof the West District, the HonorableGerald Rosenberg.Filed By ZERNIK, JOSEPH Defendant

It is left to be discovered what documents exactly were filed on Sept 14, 2007.8 Plaintiff again requests Judicial Notice ofDocket #47- Notice ofDocumentFiled in LosAngeles Superior Court-Inexplicable under Assumption ofHonesty,9 No.8, Aug-Oct 2007- APPOINTMENTOF ESCROWREFEREE O'BRIEN.101112

II.Defendant who is Receiver Pasternak was appointed through a fraudulentmotion procedure presidedby Defendant Segal13 Defendant Pasternak is not eligible for any immunity since his appointment on14 November 9, 2007 was the outcome of a fraudulent motion by Att Keshavarzi (Exh1516 Exhibit A in that Motion, which would have been the legal foundation for the17 appointment was stated in Att Kehsavarzi's Declaration under penalty ofperjury to be18 the "Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP 437c" issued on Aug 9, 2007 by Defendant19 Connor.

In fact Att Keshavarzi never included the Judgment in any document, since he2120

did not recognize it as a valid record, as he made clear in his comments in open court22 in the hearing on Nov 9, 2007Motion to AppointPasternak Receiver (Docket # not23 assignedyet, Exh Vol III - Transcripts. p587). Instead he included under Tab A the24 Aug 9, 2007 Order Granting Summary Judgment. Such an Order is not sufficient as25 the basis for execution ofjudgment as entailed by Pasternak.

In the Nov 9, 2007 Transcript Att Keshavarzi explicitly states that the reason he27 never included a copy of the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, which he blamed26

28 -44-ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL ,VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


45/75


98

4

6

1 Plaintifffor stalling execution of, is that he had never seen such a document (Docket2 #unassignedyet, Exh Vol III - Transcripts, p.58!):

"ONE POINT, YOUR HONOR, MR. ZERNIK SAID THATMY DECLARATION HAS A COPY OF THEN SUMMARYJUDGMENT ORDER INSTEAD OF TH E JUDGMENT.THAT IS CORRECT. I'LL AGREE WITH HIM ONTHAT.THE REASON IS I HAD NOT SEEN A COPY OF TH EJUDGMENT. I BELIEVE - AND JUDGE CONNOR HADTOLD ME ON TH E RECORDWHEN I SAID, " WE NEEDA JUDGMENT ENTERED". SE SAID, "I'M ENTERINGTH E JUDGMENT" AND HER C LER K GAVE ME A COPYOF TH E ORDERAND SAID THAT WAS TH E JUDGMENT,BUTYOURHONOR HAS A C Op y OF TH E JUDGMENT,AND IT MIRRORS TH E SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER.TH E SUMMARY JUDGMENT - ORDER GRANTINGSUMMARY JUDGMENT IS EXACTLY TH E SAME. THEONLY THING DIFFERENT IN THE JUDGMENT IS THATIT'S A LITTLE BIT SHORTER."

3

5

7

1011

21

16

12

19

Plaintiffobjected to such a motion as based on fraud - founded on false and13 deliberately misleading statements and misidentification oflegal documents. Judge14 Segal, after hearing a detailed account ofKeshavarzi's deliberately misleading, false15 declaration under penalty ofperjury signed the order nevertheless.

Defendant Pasternak was personally informed by Plaintiffof the fraud in the17 Moving papers relative to the omission of theAug 9,2007 Judgment by Court and its18 replacement by theAug 9, 2007Order Granting Summary Judgment Motion.

Defendant Pasternak never followed the Rules ofCourt o fLA Superior Court20 re: Execution of Judgment (see below).

Defendant Pasternak is also involved in fraud relative to the transfer ofthe2322 Deed on the record in the office of LA County Register/Recorder.

The CCP does assign liability to Receiver even ifhis appointment were24 adequate, in cases where the receiver violated the law, as in the case at bar.25262728

12. Execution ofJudgment byDefendant Pasternak andDefendantSegal wasthrough Procedures that are not in Compliance with LosAngeles CountyRules ofCourt

-45-ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED Fm ST AMENDED COMPLAINT


46/75


123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

Los Angeles County Rules ofCourt say:Local RulesChapter ThreeJudgments And Post-Judgment Orders15 3.0 JUDGMENTS (See Also LASCR, Rule 8.96)15 (a) Original and Copy15 (b) Court Trustee15 (c) Execution by Clerk of Documents15 (d) Entry of Judgments, Orders and Decrees15 (e) Possession Plus Money15 (f ) Forms15 3.1 POST-JUDGMENT ORDERS15 (a) Application fo r Money Deposited, CodeCiv. Proc., 708.710 - 708.79515 (b) Property Otherwise Deposited15 (c) Execution on Installment Order orJudgment15 3.2 ATIORNEY'S FEES15 (a) Contract Provision or Note15 (b) Mortgage or Trust Deed15 (c) Foreclosure of Assessment or bond lien15 (d) Itemization as to Extraordinary Services15 (e) Services Benefitting a Minor15 3.3 APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF, TOVACATE, OR TO ENTER NUNC PRO TUNC ORDERS15 3.4 JUDGMENTS DEBTOR PROCEEDINGS15 (a) Application15 (b) Proof of Service15 (c) Failure To Appear At Hearing ByApplicant15 (d) Failure to Appear At Hearing By Citee15 (e) Continuance15 (f ) Claims Of Non-Service15 (g) Claims That Statements In TheApplication Are Untrue15 (h) Examination After Voluntary Appearance15 3.5 WRITS OF EXECUTION, POSSESSION ANDSALE15 3.6 WRIT OF EXECUTION ON A DWELLING15 (a) Application fo r an order fo r sale of aDwelling requires competent evidence of thefollOWing15 (b) Order15 (c) Notice of Right to Rehearing

-46-ZERNIK vCONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT


47/75


12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

Rule 3.0(d) Entry of Judgments, Orders and Decrees.Judgments, orders and decrees rendered by the court,which are required by law to be entered, shall be enteredby the clerk in judgment books kept by him/her either inthe Public Services Division, of the Central District, or theclerk's off ice in each of the several districts. Thejudgment, order or decree shall be entered in thejudgment books in the district wherein the same wasrendered and no other entry thereof shall be required.Rule 3.33.3 APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF, TOVACATE, OR TO ENTER NUNC PRO TUNC ORDERSEvery application fo r the entry nunc pro tunc or thevacation of an order or judgment after the hearing of thematter, and any mot ion fo r the reconsideration of anorder as to a demurrer, motion or discovery shall bepresented to the judge who made the order and if he/sheis not available, to the Presiding Judge or the AssistantPresiding Judge in the Central District, or, if the case isfiled in another district, (a) to the Site Judge fo r thecourthouse in which the case is filed if the case is filed ina courthouse that has a Site Judge or (b) to theSupervising Judge fo r the district in which the case isfiled if the case is filed in a courthouse that does not havea Site Judge.(Rule 3.3 [1/1/94] amended and effective 11/01/00.)Rule 3.43.4 JUDGMENT DEBTOR PROCEEDINGS(a) Application.(g) Claims That Statements In The Application AreUntrue. When the truth of material facts set forth in theapplication filed in support of any order issued pursuantto Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.110, 708.120, or708.130 is disputed by the person, firm or corporation towhom said order was directed, the Court shall first hearand