P. 1
09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #10- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p344-393

09-08-13 Sturgeon v La County (BC351286) at the Los Angeles Superior Court - #10- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p344-393

|Views: 14|Likes:
Executive Summary
Los Angles, July 15 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against James A Richman – Justice of California Court of Appeal, First District, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke – Clerk, and others of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for public corruption and deprivation of rights, relative to their conduct in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286).
The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation in the case of Sturgeon v Los Angeles County, where Justice Richman presided with no authority at all and where judgments were falsely represented as entered by him in the case.
· Court records showed that Justice Richman routinely referred to himself as presiding in the case as “judge by assignment”. However, no Assignment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law.
· Court records further showed that the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party to the same litigation, routinely referred to Justice James A Richman as a presiding “by reference” in the case. However, no Appointment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law for a Referee.
· Plaintiff’s counsel referred to Justice James Richman as “designated” to preside in the case. However, no designation record was ever found in the case, either.
The complaint noted that no judgment was ever entered in the case, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. However, “not official” court records, published online by the court, falsely represented judgments by James A Richman in the case - in favor of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Superior Court and against Plaintiff Sturgeon.
Requests, which were forwarded to Justice Richman, to clarify the legal foundation for his authority to preside in the case, were left unanswered.
In addition, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke were alleged in the complaint as engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights relative to denial of access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) and other records in the case. The complaint alleged that through such conduct the Clerk and Presiding Judge continue to cover-up the fraudulent nature of the litigation in the case.
The case of Sturgeon v LA County held the highest public policy significance, since it pertained to the taking of “not permitted” payments by Los Angeles County judges, which were called by media “bribes”. Therefore, the complaint alleged that through such conduct, the named accused conspired to deprive all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings in years to come.
Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice system was described already in 2001 by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as “conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states…”, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended already in 2006 external investigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Regardless, the April 2010 report, filed by Human Rights Alert with the United Nations, documented ongoing refusal of senior officers of the US Department of Justice to enforce the law in Los Angles County, California, and to accord equal protection to its 10 million residents.
The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the just
Executive Summary
Los Angles, July 15 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against James A Richman – Justice of California Court of Appeal, First District, Charles McCoy – Presiding Judge, John A Clarke – Clerk, and others of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for public corruption and deprivation of rights, relative to their conduct in Sturgeon v Los Angeles County (BC351286).
The complaint alleged that the named accused conspired to conduct pretense litigation in the case of Sturgeon v Los Angeles County, where Justice Richman presided with no authority at all and where judgments were falsely represented as entered by him in the case.
· Court records showed that Justice Richman routinely referred to himself as presiding in the case as “judge by assignment”. However, no Assignment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law.
· Court records further showed that the Los Angeles Superior Court, a party to the same litigation, routinely referred to Justice James A Richman as a presiding “by reference” in the case. However, no Appointment Order was ever found in court records in the case, as required by law for a Referee.
· Plaintiff’s counsel referred to Justice James Richman as “designated” to preside in the case. However, no designation record was ever found in the case, either.
The complaint noted that no judgment was ever entered in the case, as required by California Code to make it “effectual for any purpose”. However, “not official” court records, published online by the court, falsely represented judgments by James A Richman in the case - in favor of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles Superior Court and against Plaintiff Sturgeon.
Requests, which were forwarded to Justice Richman, to clarify the legal foundation for his authority to preside in the case, were left unanswered.
In addition, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke were alleged in the complaint as engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate First Amendment rights relative to denial of access to the Register of Actions (California civil docket) and other records in the case. The complaint alleged that through such conduct the Clerk and Presiding Judge continue to cover-up the fraudulent nature of the litigation in the case.
The case of Sturgeon v LA County held the highest public policy significance, since it pertained to the taking of “not permitted” payments by Los Angeles County judges, which were called by media “bribes”. Therefore, the complaint alleged that through such conduct, the named accused conspired to deprive all 10 million residents of Los Angeles County of the prospect of honest court services, due process, and fair hearings in years to come.
Conduct of the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Los Angeles Justice system was described already in 2001 by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean of the University of California Irvine Law School, as “conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states…”, and the Blue Ribbon Review Panel recommended already in 2006 external investigation of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Regardless, the April 2010 report, filed by Human Rights Alert with the United Nations, documented ongoing refusal of senior officers of the US Department of Justice to enforce the law in Los Angles County, California, and to accord equal protection to its 10 million residents.
The complaint was copied to the United Nations and the US State Department, as part of the first ever, 2010 review by the United Nation of Human rights in the United States. Responses by the US State Department to the United Nations are due by August 2010, and the United Nations review session and report are scheduled for November 2010.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the just

More info:

Published by: Human Rights Alert, NGO on Jul 16, 2010
Direitos Autorais:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/25/2012

pdf

text

original

Sections

",


Of SERVICE
Case No. SC092131
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. County ofI.m Angeles:
3
Alisha R. Cormier ltates: [am employed in the County oHm Anac1n. State of
4 I California. over the age of eighteen years and not a pIl1y to 1M within 1Ction. My buaineu Ilddn:u
is 648 Kenneth Hahn Ball of Administration. SOO Wesl Temple Slm', Los Angeles, California
51 90012-2713.
61 That on July 24, 2007, I served the attached
7 I (PROPOSED) JUDGMENT &: ORDER OF DISMISSAL
81 upon Interested Party(ies) by placinLC the original • a true copy thereof enclo!Cd In a sealed
envelope addressed II as follows [J IS stated on the anached maIling list
9 nGregor)' P. Sqa" Elq.
JO I 9100 Wlishirt Boulevard, Sulle
Beverly "lUI, CaUroml. 90212
lila
(BY !\tAIL) by sealing and "Iacmg the envelopt for collection and maIling on the date and
at the place shown above followmg our ordinary bUSiness practICes I am rudlly fanulw
12
with this office's prachl'e of collection and pl'ocessang correspondence for malllnf' Under
that practice the would be depoSited WIth the United States Posta Snvice
13
that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid.
14
1
0
(BY EXPRESS MAIL) by seahns and depciSltmg the: documtnt(s) hlted above in a post
office, mailbox, sub-post o1lice, substation, or ma.1 chute, or other like facIlity rqularty
15
maintained by the United States Postal Service: for receIpt of Exprns Mall or by seahna
and depositing the document(s) lD a box or other facIlity regularly maintaaned by an
16
express service carrier with delivery fees prc"aid or provided for
171°
(BY FACSIMILE) I caused such document to be ddlvercd from the faclumJle machine It
telephone number on (datl:)___ ._ at .. 1m. J p.m to the
18
facsimile machine at telephone number ---",e transmlltS10n was
reported as complete and without error, A copy ortlle tnnsmisslon repon was properly
19
issued by the transmitting facsimile machine and IS attached
2011
0 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) 1delivered such envelope by hand to the offIces of the
I
addressee.
II a
(STATE) I declare under penalty of perJury under the la"!t of the Siale 01 CalifornIa that
thl' foregOing is trut' and
23 110
(FEDERAL) I declare thai [ am employed In till' nlfl(CS of a member of l'Ourt at

whose direction the !tCI"\'l(e was made
on July 2()')7, al Los Angelc·s. ("J1J1url1la I

2h
Al,,,ha!{ ( .'mlll·r
or Print '0"1< ,,11h-duant I
p.nonll Knht I" II ''''\!,rnl:tr "u,lr.. ,
Indud. rh. namt "Ith.· \1.·\\< IIl:rr , ..nit'
\;
-- ----- ·,1' ,-', __._--------­
344 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p344/679
".,.
.
.
"-" "-
IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDtbl.. Defendlnt County of LOI An"" Demurrer ..
21 SUSTAINED without lave to amend.

ia DISMISSED wrm
PREJUDICE and,JUDGMENT ia - iD fa... of1ldadonl ':->' of !.Do AJlp"
:I
5 DATED _J (O,IJ I

n

6 I
WAMD fEES. COSTS mATM
'CIWQ JUTBE Ramm 'roM
7 I
MntI3IU).OS (J1lf RAUl
81
REC(MRv (f ttl BGM9n: .-
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IX
!y
21)
21
,')
_.. I
"
.
I
\1
,
345 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p345/679
,
e
e
JUD-'''I .. € ______

Rober1 A. WeInbetg. EIq., SBN
v
"'"' Ln 0tIlc:eI d Robert A. Weinberg
FILED
18034 Ventura 1S11
Encino. CA 91311
tal ANOIU!S SUPERIOI C'OOIT
11U!I"HCM ItO (818)7'05-3254 FlUltO
E......
AfTOIIN'V P'OIt __ PIIInIIr AUG 1'; lOO7
IUPIIICIIt COURT 011 COUNTY 011 LOS ANQIUI.
mm AllCNII· '125 Meln &rMt
..
IIN..ICIilDDMII
wt. 0IIlUft'
ClTVlHlll'aD santa Monica, CA eDiIOt
1IWOl ..... Wilt 0IIb1c:t santa MonIce
PLAINT1fT': Hakart Cofpomu Amertca, Inc., ....
0EfEN0ANT: Inc. et"
Call .....
JUDGMENT
DBrCtertl o BrDIfaM 8 M1IJrCewt TfIII
SCOi2145
[Z]BrCoun
o On"""an 0*."DIlII ...

JUDGIetT
,. {Z] IYOEFAULT
a Defendant ... properly MrY8d will • OCIPY d tlelummonl 8nd
b Defendant failed to ...... the 01'.-' 8nd ew.nd tie actio"..., .. lime aIIowecI by 1ft
c. QefendanI'I def8UII wu .,....,., by" dart upan .,..,..
d. 0 CIertl'a JudgmMt (Code Qy Proc., '585(.:0 D**'" _ BUIld only on • oonIraCt 01' jUdgrnenI fA. COUIt d
thlI ...tor the rece:MWY d money.
e [Z] Court.ludgrnanl (Code CN Proc.• '5e(b» The court
(1) 0 p1aintift'l ..... 'lOlry and
(2) [l] pIaW1tIf'/'I wntten dednIiDI. (Coda C1v. Prot.,' 585(d».
2. 0 ON STl'ULATION
a Plaintiff end defendwlllIgI1NId (1tipAated) ltat.;IIdgmant be..-.d "I thIa caM. The oour1 ..
judgment and
b 0 the algned wntten Itipulation ... Ned in hi CMa.
c 0 the ItIpUatlon ... stated in open 00UIt 0 the ItIpUIIIIon w• .-..d on .. I1ICXlftI
3·0
AFTER COURT TRIAL The /UfY ... waiYed. The Ol:JUlt c:onU*'ed \he
a. The C8H ... tried on (dfIte and time).
before (name ofjudicial officer1,
b. Appearances by
o P1alntllY (name NCh)· CJ PIaintlIr. ettomey (name NCh)
(1 ) (1)
(2) (2)
o Continued on Attachment 3b
o Defendant (name each) [::J Defendant's attorney (name each)
(1 ) (1 )
(2) (2)
o Continued on Attachment 3b
c D Defendant did not appear at tnal Defendant was proper1y served with notice of tnal
d 0 A statement of declSlor (Code C,V Proc. .. § 632) 0 was not 0 was requested
..... '.11
r,)I"T1 ""'{'I"",,,,.,,,: I.W ')W
JUDGMENT C,... '" ., ,_> .... PI')l';e4J," M 864 e
_J,;>,f
1';[ 'f 'w"" .:·)..... 21
,.'\ W\\ d, (om
346 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p346/679
PlAINTIFF Hakart Corpomax Amenc8, Inc, et 81
, SC092145 J
!DEFENDANT P,'_itlJ",-e..;.,_lnc---",_8_t81 . .____. •__ ... " ... _
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AS FOllOWS BY; 0 TlfE COVAT !.:::J THE Cl£ftK
4 0 StipulaMd JtIdgrMnt. Judgll'lOOt is 8I'IIenld acc:on:ltng to !he stlPlJ/atlOl'l of the IJ8I1Mlll
5, PIl1tft. Judgmenl is
a [l] lor plaintiff (rwne NCh) cOlor rn.nlf!
. Haka" Corpomu Amenca, I"C
and againSt Mfendant (IW'fIeS) and 108I1lS1 r:rou-OOf'ltldM' (rlMTIfI Hdll
PIaoe,Inc
o Continued on AnactvnenI sa. CI Conbnued on !Ie
b. 0 lor defend8nt (neme Hdl)
dOlor CfOII-dtIIeIIdlInt (rnIII'Ifl Hett)
6. Amount.
a. [Z) o.r.mnt named In llem sa above mull
c 0 CI'ota-delelldenl named In Item !Ie 8tJo¥tt IYlUlIl pity

PlY paintIfr on Itle oompIIlnI.
(1) [Z] D8mIIQeI
S30,385.03 (') 0 S
(2) 0 PrejudgrnenC S-o- (2) 0 S
inlerest at the 'nterwl .. \tle
amuall1Ite of % IMU8ll1lteof %
(3) 0 Attorney fees S-o (3) 0 "nomeyfees S
(4) [lJ Costs S358.50 (4) 0 Coals S
(5) 0 Other (specify) 5-0- (5) 0 Other (sp«Jfy) S
(6) TOTAL S30,723,53 (6)
TOTAL S
b 0 PIatntlft recetve nochinO fmm defenclIlR d 0 to!WCelYe fmm
named in Item 5b '*'*' In IWII
o Defendant named In Item 5b to nlCCMlf o II'lllem
costs S lXlItI S
o and attorney fea S o II'ld Mtomey'" S
7 0 0lIlef (rpecify).'
Date AUG 13 l007 'A ' •• y.
",
Om
, 0IiPU'Y
(SEAi.l
C1.ERK'8 CERTIFICATE (Opt;onel}
I certify 1M! thilil • true <lOP)' of the origlNII judgment on fife In the 00\Jt't
Dale
C\et1(. by
._--_. Deputy
,......
JUO-HIO\*- _, 1002!
JUDGMENT
347 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p347/679
,

'r7 ..,lIQHl(v ,_ INI_I
c (' .-
, ('
,
'011 CCUfTLeI OM. Y
Fl-820
,
.
r
,
.cYRl'!i_'
JlJ
FILE))
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
tc lOS ,4,:-l(irJ fli SLl'rRlll\{ (1.( :RT
lJTM(El AOOAEISII I 7l .. - 1.\', "
• f.- «(, <"'" \ () .L
UAlMQ ACJ()fl(A
. • 1 h • i\' '. ", -\
Rf-C€.\\/EO
AUG 14 ZOOl
\ <
IlI'WIICHHMoIl
JOHN" ':U,,;;'<h
IWRAGI orPiiltlUNERS
\ 0\ 11lGl
HUSBAND". Jes Christensen
: DE M, rlEPVrY
"?- COU?:t
WIfE; Malle Delgado
:MiiMENl'il Gl CAII-..a
REQUEST FOR JUOGM£Nl'. RNo
DISSOW11ON or MARRlAG!, AND NOTIC! or ENTRY 0' JUOGIIENT
·..:\102·\727
,. The JOiIJI PtIIIkJn lot &.mrwy DWo*lIM at AMIriIQe (Ionn R.-8ClO) ..MIMI on (dille): CO r:- 9 1. 2007
2. No rIllIl» d till bien lied Md!he ....hawa not bIcorne reeoncW ' L' 1
3. ' ....... d dMeok..... d rnamagII be
•. 0 ...,., to be efI8dIye now.
b. 0 entered to be llftectI\Ie (nlft pro Ulc) .. d (<**,:
tor !he foIIowIlO reeaon:
, declarf l6lder trIe!awl ltIe State at that ltIe b'egOinQ IS true and correct.
Da18: AUlJ I 1 LWI i •
. ", -
.. .\" .... ) \ ,! "
Jt:!i ehristen.o;en r L, L \,..... I j l--· \_
,rVP( OR .....-r _I 'SIGNA OT HUIlIINCl Oft_£)
.. 0 Husband, 0 WIfe. wtlo ctd not request his 01 her own former I'IlUM be restofed when he Ot stoel9*lltle ,om
petition. now requestalhat it be restofed. The appli(;8nI'llormef name is:
08..:
,----,-----------
'rvPf.OA __1
"1lRfY --..0 TO HAllE HIli Oft HER _

,..e.wt LIIo
JUDr..", OF DIUOLUT1ON fJ' MAJUIAGE
5 THE COURT OROERS
• A cf dIUdutkln at m.arnaoe WIll be entered. and 1M parbelI are to Irle status C'J unmamed pet'SOIlS,
b The Jud\7T1en( at dlUc*JIIOn at marnage WIt be entered nunc pro Iln: .. 01 (dare):
c. WIfe'1 former name is restOl8d
d, HuItllInd'I former name IS reAnd (6P«dY1:
8. HIAband. IIld WIte. comply WlItI MTy ac.1eement attac::tled 10 the peCIbOn, 1.1
0
- I'lii'" 1 /1
..... , ,." tJ , t _ --- ----
,./ . .IXXIt: 01 nc 8Ul"lfIO'I ca.RT
- -----.- -- ,,---- D
NOT1Cf: may c..c:eI !tie ngr.tlI 01 • spouI(I Inter .. apoJM" ..... 11lMf....,... beneftI pIar1, of
!WI' Otl dMlt1 I'Jar* ¥COUtIl ltIINfw Otl ...., lf4Ihde to Illy owned II'l /Olf1Ilenrq, and .".,
othet .."..., INnlJ II daft nIX aulO1TV1ttc;a1y c.M'CeI lt1e nt,1l\& cJ a fC)OUM as ber*'aIIy of Thl octlIlf Ille nur.-.ee pdIcy yOIJ UlouId
re\'_ ItIeU INnenl. as well as if')' Ctd eNds. Olt>e< Cfedlt acGOtlOla, inIur8nc4I polIciei reoremert benetJl planl, and credit 10
tlf! ct-anged Of wt>e4tlet )"')IJ VlOuld UIQ Iffy octw adIOnI,
... _. - - - ---._-"- . --_. - - - - _._----- ---- ----- - - ---- -
. .__ _.'. ,__ ,__ , .. . . ..____.....
- REQUEST FOR JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT Of DtSl;QLUTION ..WJ:J
" .. OF UARRIAG&. AND Nonc& OF ENTRY OF JUDGUENT """
'''' __ 11.•••• 00 ,. •• __,._. "' ••• 1•••'_.,
348 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p348/679
9
• •
E. :,1
E' ,.; :.LI LA!\: r F"L::
CAPFI:L:


Bar No.:
..
:1 Attorr.eyts) for
E
f
S'JPERIOR COURT CF CALIFORNIA, COUN':"t 1-.1. £<t
.l '-,
F[ MARRIAGE OF:
tJ'.:':. '-;
: 3
DONI';" GI LLI LAND
\ ST1Pt·:" ..

Petit loner
• [C
dr"o
lE
PAUL GILLILAND
Respondent
:t<n THiS STIPULATEC JUDGEMENT 15 made and entered cr. ;"p,: :;. 4.'
:,
Santa Marllca, california, by and betwt'en tt0NNA MAfiIE' ,;1:'L:;.',: ..
,ceferc{,j c( t'.erein as "PetltlOnf>c"l and PAUL 1
L.II \!eferrt'G to hereln as "Respon,1ent"l, both If'ferrp,j t' •.
"Tr.e F.,!' ,,",5," ar.d 15 based ·"por. fol10.... 1r.;;: Io",;.!. ",f> '!'.
"1 ...1 l E- t'" • t;- t c ... e ;
;., .... ere IT,arrlt-'') t) eact, rt.t.t'!
.... :& r t .." p t
. .:,:
'>/II :- e :.- ent 1 nu. 0 s / .. .•_! 1
:-. c :.. 10 t.l d f f p r ..... :- e 5 d r c .s e t t ': ,,' f- • t t t. ,'] • : t- .:.
. ;
.. o.teakl "';. 'Lt"lf 'j: .
; ; ..-.:.
: t ' ; :....;...: F: '
:
.:"'"\


.h
dl. ll"
349 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p349/679

{.d l'.//

STATE OF (
.-
------ C'.
55.
COUNTY OF L

On "-+ (J..b I 2 c
personally
before me,
--_.=:.:..._-
<n-o. "'4 r
),
.......An
'*- personally known to me o proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument
and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her
authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument
the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the persun acted,
executed the instrument.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
(SEAL)
- ..-:-
,- .
.....n-...,.
JIOTARY.CItftOI

350 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p350/679
J 'l. -t.:: "f" ...
( ,'1,11'1
MARITAL SETTlEMElfT AGREEMENT
2 B The parties hereto enter into this Mamal Settlement Agreement (hereinafter
3 • "AGREEMENT") and make it effectrve as of thl! date of exetu1ion tet forth hereinafte'
4 I This AGREEMENT m:1de between potitioner STEVEN l SloeS (hereInafter
5 I "PETITIONER") and respondent KATAUN M. SlOCS (hereinafter "RESPONDENT1 in
6 I the County of Los Angeles, State of California and conSists of ten (10) pages total
7 I NOW THEREFORE. in consideratIOn ()f the foregoIng premises and the mutual
8 I agreements, covenants and provisions conta lned herein, said parties agree al fofJows
9 I 1. STATISTICAL INFORMATION
10 (A;
The parties wene married on Nt>vember 7, 1993 and separated on
11
September 26.2003
12 (B) The parties ha.. no minor child
13 (C) Irreconcilable differences havfl arisen between the parties by reason of
:4
wh,ch the parties have lived and apart because of thft
15
irremediable breakdown of thf! marriage and have agreed to live free from
16
any interference by the other party.
17 (0)
The parties ac:knowledge tha't there is an actIon pendtng In the Superior
18
Court of the State of California. County of los Angeles. Case No SO 021
19 451 for a dissolution of the marriage /c;L.$
20 (E) The partial intend this AGREEMENT shall.t>KfiIed'W1th the Court but
21
that all shall be enforced pursuant to the term:; of thl5
22 AGREEMENT only
",
2. PURPOSE ()F THE AGREEMENT
II The purpose of thiS AGREEMENT is to make a flna! and complete settlement of
25 U the party's rights and oblt!Jations as set fl)rth herein
II (A) The parties agree that their of 1110711993 be
27 II dissolved based on Irreconcilable differences under Family Code,
§2310(a)
I
28
\1
-
MARIT.AI. SETTLEMENTAGREE.MENT·
\1 (j c..
I
II
KMS
'I
..
351 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p351/679


INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE
Case No. BC351286

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28















EXHIBIT 4,h
352 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p352/679


Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

“ Judge shall be faithful to the law…”
Cal Code Jud Ethics 3B(2)
“The rule of law must never be confused with tyranny of the courts”
Anonymous




07-09-07. Correspondence and Appointment Papers of Retired Judge
Gregory O’Brien, Purported Escrow Referee.

Enclosed is email correspondence on Sept 7, 2007, where I demanded to see the papers that formed the
foundation for Retired Judge O’Brien’s appointment.
A reasonable person reviewing the facts in this matter would conclude that Judge Connor in collusion with Att
Keshavarzi an Judge O’Brien were engaged in fraud against me, under the guise of executing a judgment of a
court of California.
But the court considered my objection to their fraud a reason for further retaliation, and the appointment of a
fraudulent “Receiver” instead.



353 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p353/679

Correspondence on Sept 7, 2007: Judge O’Brien Presents the Papers that He Considered the
Foundation of his Authority.

Subject: FW: Samaan v. Zernik
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 16:46:21 -0700
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Samaan v. Zernik
thread-index: AcfxbCE90KeJHQz5TSyc7M2y0k21QQAPQNvQ
From: "Christie Woo" <Christie@adrservices.org>
To: "joseph zernik" <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Cc: "Moe Keshavarzi" <MKeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com>
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;

Pursuant to your request, please find attached Order.

Christie Woo
Case Manager

ADR Services, Inc.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 250
Los Angeles, California 90067-4303
Phone: (310) 201-0010
Fax: (310) 201-0016

This electronic message contains privileged or confidential information,
which is solely intended for the use of the addressee(s) listed as
recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately
notify us by telephone at (310) 201-0010, and return the original
message to ADR Services Inc. at 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 250, Los
Angeles, California 90067.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Zasloff [mailto:DZasloff@sheppardmullin.com] On Behalf Of
Moe Keshavarzi
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 9:29 AM
To: Christie Woo
Cc: Moe Keshavarzi
Subject: Samaan v. Zernik

<<Minute Order appointing referee.PDF>> De <<Order Granting Summary
Judgment.PDF>> ar Ms. Woo:

Per Mr. Keshavarzi's instructions, I am forwarding the Minute Order
appointing referee entered by the Court on August 30, 2007, and a
certified copy of the Order Granting Summary Judgment dated August 9,
2007.

David Zasloff
Secretary to Moe Keshavarzi
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
333 S. Hope Street, 48th Floor
354 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p354/679
Los Angeles, California 90071
(213) 620-1780
(213) 620-1398 (fax)

This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error,
please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Please visit our website at www.sheppardmullin.com


355 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p355/679
356 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p356/679
357 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p357/679
358 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p358/679
359 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p359/679
360 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p360/679
361 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p361/679
362 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p362/679
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DATE 08/30/07
DEPT. WEI
HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR
JUDGE V. JAIME
DEPUTY CLERK
ELECTRONIC RECORDING HH,nH n,,'
Deputy Sheriff K. CALL
JUDGE PRO TEM
CA
B. VARGAS
ice is waived.
Page 1 of 1 DEPT. WEI
363 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p363/679


INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE
Case No. BC351286

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28















EXHIBIT 4,i
364 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p364/679
The Minute Order of September 10, 2007 is probably
unique in that there is no way to read it and not
reach the conclusion that Judge Connor was involved
in fraud. It is a stand alone evidence of fraud, where
usually there is a need for multiple records to establish
such claim.
Notice also that the Minute Order was noticed only on
Plaintiff Attorney.
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A , C O U N T Y O F l O S A N G E L E S
D A T E : 0 9 / 1 0 / 0 7 D E P T . W E I
H O N O R A B L E J A C Q U E L I N E A . C O N N O R J U D G E I I V . J A I M E D E P U T Y C L E R K
H O N O R A B L E J U D G E P R O T E M E L E C T R O N I C R E C O R D I N G M O N I T O R
# 1 3
B . V A R G A S C A D e p u t y S h e r i f f l l K . C A L L C S R # 5 5 6 7 R e p o r t e r
8 : 3 0 a m l S C 0 8 7 4 0 0
N I V I E S A M A A N
V S
J O S E P H Z E R N I K ( X )
D e f e n d a n t
C o u n s e l
P l a i n t i f f
C o u n s e l
R O B E R T
R O B E R T
M U S S I G
M U S S I G ( X )
( X )
C C P 1 7 0 . 6 - J U D G E N E I D O R F
N A T U R E O F P R O C E E D I N G S :
D E F E N D A N T ( J O S E P H Z E R N I K ) M O T I O N F O R S A N C T I O N S ;
M a t t e r i s c a l l e d f o r h e a r i n g . B o t h p a r t i e s
a c k n o w l e d g e r e c e i p t o f t h e C o u r t ' s t e n t a t i v e
a s f o l l o w s :
r u l i n g
T h e m o t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t J o s e p h Z e r n i k f o r s a n c t i o n s
p u r s u a n t t o C o d e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e s § 1 2 8 . 7 i s
D E N I E D . P l a i n t i f f i s o r d e r e d t o g i v e n o t i c e .
A p a r t y s e e k i n g s a n c t i o n s u n d e r C C P § 1 2 8 . 7 m u s t
f o l l o w a t w o - s t e p p r o c e d u r e . F i r s t , t h e m o v i n g p a r t y
m u s t s e r v e o n t h e o f f e n d i n g p a r t y a m o t i o n f o r
s a n c t i o n s . S e r v i c e o f t h e m o t i o n o n t h e o f f e n d i n g
p a r t y b e g i n s a 3 0 - d a y s a f e h a r b o r p e r i o d d u r i n g
w h i c h t h e s a n c t i o n s m o t i o n m a y n o t b e f i l e d w i t h t h e
c o u r t . D u r i n g t h e s a f e h a r b o r p e r i o d , t h e o f f e n d i n g
p a r t y m a y w i t h d r a w t h e i m p r o p e r p l e a d i n g a n d t h e r e b y
a v o i d s a n c t i o n s . I f t h e p l e a d i n g i s w i t h d r a w n , t h e
m o t i o n f o r s a n c t i o n s m a y n o t b e f i l e d w i t h t h e
c o u r t . I f t h e p l e a d i n g i s n o t w i t h d r a w n d u r i n g t h e
s a f e h a r b o r p e r i o d , t h e m o t i o n f o r s a n c t i o n s m a y
t h e n b e f i l e d .
T h e p u r p o s e o f t h e s a f e h a r b o r p r o v i s i o n s i s t o
p e r m i t a n o f f e n d i n g p a r t y t o a v o i d s a n c t i o n s b y
w i t h d r a w i n g t h e i m p r o p e r p l e a d i n g d u r i n g t h e s a f e
h a r b o r p e r i o d . I n o r d e r t o e f f e c t u a t e t h e s a f e
h a r b o r p r o v i s i o n s , a p a r t y m a y n o t b r i n g a m o t i o n
P a g e 1 o f 5 D E P T . W E I
M I N U T E S E N T E R E D
0 9 / 1 0 / 0 7
C O U N T Y C L E R K
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES
DATE: 09/10/07
HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME
DEYf. WEI
DEPUTY CLERK
HONORABLE
#13
B. VARGAS CA
JUDGE PRO TEM
Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
Reporter
Defendant
Counsel ROBERT MUSS IG
8:30 am SC087400
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X)
Plaintiff
Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
(X)
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
DEFENDANT (JOSEPH ZERNIK) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS;
Matter is called for hearing. Both parties
acknowledge receipt of the Court's tentative ruling
as follows:
The motion of defendant Joseph Zernik for sanctions
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures §128.7 is
DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
A party seeking sanctions under CCP §128.7 must
follow a two-step procedure. First, the moving party
must serve on the offending party a motion for
sanctions. Service of the motion on the offending
party begins a 30-day safe harbor period during
which the sanctions motion may not be filed with the
court. During the safe harbor period, the offending
party may withdraw the improper pleading and thereby
avoid sanctions. If the pleading is withdrawn, the
motion for sanctions may not be filed with the
court. If the pleading is not withdrawn during the
safe harbor period, the motion for sanctions may
then be filed.
The purpose of the safe harbor provisions is to
permit an offending party to avoid sanctions by
withdrawing the improper pleading during the safe
harbor period. In order to effectuate the safe
harbor provisions, a party may not bring a motion
Page 1 of 5 DEPT. WEI
MINUTES ENTERED
09/10/07
COUNTY CLERK
365 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p365/679
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A , C O U N T Y O F L O S A N G E L E S
D A T E : 0 9 / 1 0 / 0 7 D E P T . W E I
H O N O R A B L E J A C Q U E L I N E A . C O N N O R J U D G E I I V . J A I M E D E P U T Y C L E R K
H O N O R A B L E J U D G E P R O T E M E L E C T R O N I C R E C O R D I N G M O N I T O R
# 1 3
B . V A R G A S C A D e p u t y S h e r i f f l l K . C A L L C S R # 5 5 6 7 R e p o r t e r
8 : 3 0 a m l S C 0 8 7 4 0 0 P l a i n t i f f
C o u n s e l R O B E R T M U S S I G ( X )
N I V I E S A M A A N
V S D e f e n d a n t
J O S E P H Z E R N I K ( X ) C o u n s e l R O B E R T M U S S I G ( X )
C C P 1 7 0 . 6 - J U D G E N E I D O R F
N A T U R E O F P R O C E E D I N G S :
f o r s a n c t i o n s u n l e s s t h e r e i s s o m e a c t i o n t h e
o f f e n d i n g p a r t y m a y t a k e t o w i t h d r a w t h e i m p r o p e r
p l e a d i n g . A s a n c t i o n s m o t i o n m a y n o t b e b r o u g h t
a f t e r t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e c a s e o r a d i s p o s i t i v e
r u l i n g o n t h e i m p r o p e r p l e a d i n g . B y d e f i n i t i o n , t h e
s a f e h a r b o r p r o v i s i o n c a n n o t h a v e a n y e f f e c t i f t h e
c o u r t h a s a l r e a d y r e n d e r e d i t s j u d g m e n t i n t h e c a s e ;
i t i s t o o l a t e f o r t h e o f f e n d i n g p a r t y t o w i t h d r a w
t h e c h a l l e n g e d p l e a d i n g . ( M a l o v e c v . H a m r e l l ( 1 9 9 9 )
7 0 C a l . A p p . 4 t h 4 3 4 , 4 4 0 - 4 4 1 . )
S A M A A N f i r s t a r g u e s t h a t t h i s m o t i o n m u s t b e d e n i e d
b e c a u s e t h e C o u r t g r a n t e d h e r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t
m o t i o n . H o w e v e r , t h e c o r r e c t p r i n c i p l e t o b e
d i s t i l l e d f r o m M a l o v e c i s t h a t a n o r d e r s u s t a i n i n g a
d e m u r r e r w i t h o u t l e a v e t o a m e n d o r g r a n t i n g s u m m a r y
j u d g m e n t d o e s n o t b a r a m o t i o n f o r § 1 2 8 . 7 s a n c t i o n s
u n l e s s t h e o r d e r i s r e d u c e d t o a j u d g m e n t b e f o r e t h e
s a n c t i o n s m o t i o n i s s e r v e d a n d f i l e d . ( B a n k s v .
H a t h a w a y , P e r r e t t , W e b s t e r , P o w e r s & C h r i s m a n ( 2 0 0 2 )
9 7 C a l . A p p . 4 t h 9 4 9 , 9 5 3 . ) S i n c e t h i s m o t i o n w a s
s e r v e d i n A p r i l 2 0 0 7 a n d f i l e d o n A u g u s t 9 , 2 0 0 7 , i t
i s n o t p r e c l u d e d u n d e r t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f M a l o v e c .
S A M A A N n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e m o t i o n Z E R N I K s e r v e d i n
A p r i l 2 0 0 7 i s n o t t h e s a m e a s t h e m o t i o n f i l e d i n
A u g u s t 2 0 0 7 a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h e s a f e h a r b o r p e r i o d
r u n s f r o m t h e f i l i n g d a t e o f t h e n e w a n d d i f f e r e n t
m o t i o n . ( H a r t v . A v e t o o m ( 2 0 0 2 ) 9 5 C a l . A p p . 4 t h 4 1 0 ,
4 1 3 . ) H o w e v e r , S A M A A N h a s f a i l e d t o a t t a c h t h e
m o t i o n t h a t w a s s e r v e d i n A p r i l 2 0 0 7 o r p r o v i d e
M I N U T E S E N T E R E D
P a g e 2 o f 5 D E P T . W E I 0 9 / 1 0 / 0 7
C O U N T Y C L E R K
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DATE: 09/10/ 07
HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME
DEPT. WEI
DEPUTY CLERK
HONORABLE
#13
B. VARGAS CA
JUDGE PRO TEM
Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
Reporter
Defendant
Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG
8:30 am SC087400
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X)
Plaintiff
Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
(X)
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
for sanctions unless there is some action the
offending party may take to withdraw the improper
pleading. A sanctions motion may not be brought
after the conclusion of the case or a dispositive
ruling on the improper pleading. By definition, the
safe harbor provision cannot have any effect if the
court has already rendered its judgment in the case;
it is too late for the offending party to withdraw
the challenged pleading. (Malovec v. Hamrell (1999)
70 Cal.App.4th 434, 440-441.)
SAMAAN first argues that this motion must be denied
because the Court granted her summary judgment
motion. However, the correct principle to be
distilled from Malovec is that an order sustaining a
demurrer without leave to amend or granting summary
judgment does not bar a motion for §128.7 sanctions
unless the order is reduced to a judgment before the
sanctions motion is served and filed. (Banks v.
Hathaway, Perrett, Webster, Powers & Chrisman (2002)
97 Cal.App.4th 949, 953.) Since this motion was
served in April 2007 and filed on August 9, 2007, it
is not precluded under the principles of Malovec.
SAMAAN next argues that the motion ZERNIK served in
April 2007 is not the same as the motion filed in
August 2007 and, therefore, the safe harbor period
runs from the filing date of the new and different
motion. (Hart v. Avetoom (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 410,
413.) However, SAMAAN has failed to attach the
motion that was served in April 2007 or provide
Page 2 of 5 DEPT. WEI
MINUTES ENTERED
09/10/07
COUNTY CLERK
366 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p366/679
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A , C O U N T Y O F L O S A N G E L E S
D A T E : 0 9 / 1 0 / 0 7 D E P T . W E I
H O N O R A B L E J A C Q U E L I N E A . C O N N O R J U D G E I I V . J A I M E D E P U T Y C L E R K
H O N O R A B L E J U D G E P R O T E M E L E C T R O N I C R E C O R D I N G M O N I T O R
# 1 3
B . V A R G A S C A D e p u t y S h e r i f f l l K . C A L L C S R # 5 5 6 7 R e p o r t e r
8 : 3 0 a m l S C 0 8 7 4 0 0 P l a i n t i f f
C o u n s e l R O B E R T M U S S I G ( X )
N I V I E S A M A A N
V S D e f e n d a n t
J O S E P H Z E R N I K ( X ) C o u n s e l R O B E R T M U S S I G ( X )
C C P 1 7 0 . 6 - J U D G E N E I D O R F
N A T U R E O F P R O C E E D I N G S :
i n d e p e n d e n t e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h h o w t h e m o t i o n s
a r e d i f f e r e n t . P a g e 3 2 o f Z E R N I K ' s m o t i o n w a s s i g n e d
o n A p r i l 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 a n d a g a i n o n A u g u s t 9 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e r e
i s n o t h i n g t o s h o w t h a t t h e p a g i n a t i o n o f t h e m o t i o n
i s a w r y o r t h a t a n y t h i n g w a s a d d e d o r c h a n g e d .
H o w e v e r , t h i s m o t i o n d o e s f a i l f o r t w o r e a s o n s : ( 1 )
i t w a s s e r v e d f i v e m o n t h s a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d
o f f e n d i n g d o c u m e n t s w e r e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e C o u r t i n
c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o e x p u n g e l i s
p e n d e n s h e a r d a n d d e n i e d o n N o v e m b e r 9 , 2 0 0 6 ; a n d
( 2 ) t h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y n o t h i n g t o s h o w t h a t t h e
d o c u m e n t s s u b m i t t e d b y p l a i n t i f f w e r e f a l s e ,
i m p r o p e r , f r a u d u l e n t . o r l a c k i n g i n e v i d e n t i a r y
s u p p o r t . P e r m i t t i n g a m o t i o n f o r s a n c t i o n s t o b e
b r o u g h t f o l l o w i n g j u d i c i a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e
i m p r o p e r p l e a d i n g w o u l d u n d e r m i n e t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e
s a f e h a r b o r p r o v i s i o n . ( C r o m w e l l v . C u m m i n g s ( 1 9 9 8 )
6 5 C a l . A p p . 4 t h S u p p . 1 0 , 1 4 . ) S e c o n d , t h i s C o u r t
a l r e a d y c o n s i d e r e d a n d r e j e c t e d t h e s u b s t a n t i v e
a r g u m e n t s m a d e b y Z E R N I K , w h i c h w e r e r e p e a t e d i n h i s
o p p o s i t i o n t o p l a i n t i f f ' s s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n .
T h e r e i s s i m p l y n o t h i n g t o s h o w t h a t S A M A A N o r h e r
c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d , M o e K e s h a v a r z i , e n g a g e d i n
s a n c t i o n a b l e c o n d u c t .
T h e m o t i o n f o r § 1 2 8 . 7 s a n c t i o n s i s D E N I E D .
T h e C o u r t o r d e r s t h e D e f e n d a n t ' s M o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o
C o d e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e s S e c t i o n 1 2 8 . 7 S t a y e d u n t i l
f u r t h e r r u l i n g b y t h e n e w l y a s s i g n e d C o u r t .
M I N U T E S E N T E R E D
P a g e 3 o f 5 D E P T . W E I 0 9 / 1 0 / 0 7
C O U N T Y C L E R K
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DATE: 09/ 1 0/ 07 DEPT. WEI
HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
CSR# 5567 Reporter K. CALL
Defendant
Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG
(X)
(X)
ROBERT MUSSIG
Plaintiff
Counsel
(X)
JUDGE PRO TEM
Deputy Sheriff I CA
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS
JOSEPH ZERNIK
B. VARGAS
I
8:30 am SC087400
HONORABLE
#13
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATlJRE OF PROCEEDINGS:
independent evidence to establish how the motions
are different. Page 32 of ZERNIK's motion was signed
on April 20, 2007 and again on August 9, 2007. There
is nothing to show that the pagination of the motion
is awry or that anything was added or changed.
However, this motion does fail for two reasons: (1)
it was served five months after the alleged
offending documents were submitted to the Court in
conjunction with defendant's motion to expunge lis
pendens heard and denied on November 9, 2006; and
(2) there is absolutely nothing to show that the
documents submitted by plaintiff were false,
improper, fraudulent.or lacking in evidentiary
support. Permitting a motion for sanctions to be
brought following judicial disposition of the
improper pleading would undermine the purpose of the
safe harbor provision. (Cromwell v. Cummings (1998)
65 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 14.) Second, this Court
already considered and rejected the substantive
arguments made by ZERNIK, which were repeated in his
opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion.
There is simply nothing to show that SAMAAN or her
counsel of record, Moe Keshavarzi, engaged in
sanctionable conduct.
The motion for §128.7 sanctions is DENIED.
The Court orders the Defendant's Motion pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedures Section 128.7 Stayed until
further ruling by the newly assigned Court.
Page 3 of 5 DEPT. WEI
MINUTES ENTERED
09/10/07
COUNTY CLERK
367 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p367/679
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A , C O U N T Y O F L O S A N G E L E S
D A T E : 0 9 / 1 0 / 0 7 D E P T . W E I
H O N O R A B L E J A C Q U E L I N E A . C O N N O R J U D G E I I V . J A I M E D E P U T Y C L E R K
H O N O R A B L E J U D G E P R O T E M E L E C T R O N I C R E C O R D I N G M O N I T O R
# 1 3
B . V A R G A S C A D e p u t y S h e r i f f I I K . C A L L C S R # 5 5 6 7 R e p o r t e r
8 : 3 0 a m l S C 0 8 7 4 0 0 P l a I n t i f f
C o u n s e l R O B E R T M U S S I G ( X )
N I V I E S A M A A N
V S D e f e n d a n t
J O S E P H Z E R N I K ( X ) C o u n s e l R O B E R T M U S S I G ( X )
C C P 1 7 0 . 6 - J U D G E N E I D O R F
N A H I R E O F P R O C E E D I N G S :
T h e C o u r t a n n o u n c e s D e f e n d a n t / C r o s s - C o m p l a i n a n t J o s e p h
Z e r n i k , h a s f i l e d a 1 7 0 . 3 r e q u e s t t o d i s q u a l i f t y t h e
C o u r t t h i s d a t e . T h e C o u r t d e s p i t e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s
m a d e i n M r Z e r n i k s ' d e c l a r a t i o n , w i t h o u t c o n c e d i n g
t h e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t a t e m e n t , t h e C o u r t b e l i e v e s
t h a t i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f j u s t i c e , t h e C o u r t s h o u l d
r e c u s e I t s e l f o n I t s o w n M o t i o n P u r s u a n t t o C o d e o f
C i v i l P r o c e d u r e s S e c t i o n 1 7 0 . 3 ( c ) 2 .
P u r s u a n t t o t h e O r d e r o f t h e P r e s i d i n g J u d g e ,
H o n o r a b l e G e r a l d R o s e n b e r g , t h e c a s e i s o r d e r e d
r e a s s i g n e d t o t h e W e s t L o s A n g e l e s S u p e r i o r C o u r t ,
D e p a r t m e n t W E " H " , H o n o r a b l e A l l a n J . G o o d m a n ,
J u d g e p r e s i d i n g f o r a l l p u r p o s e s .
A n y a n d a l l f u t u r e d a t e s s e t i n D e p a r t m e n t W E " I " a r e
a d v a n c e d t o t h i s d a t e a n d o r d e r e d p l a c e d o f f
c a l e n d a r .
C o u n s e l f o r P l a i n t i f f i s o r d e r e d t o g i v e n o t i c e .
O F F T H E R E C O R D :
S t a t u s C o n f e r e n c e i s s e t f o r O c t o b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 a t
8 : 3 0 a . m . i n D e p a r t m e n t W E " H " a t t h e W e s t L o s
A n g e l e s C o u r t h o u s e ( P u r s u a n t t o t h e c l e r k i n
D e p a r t m e n t W E " H " )
C o u n s e l f o r P l a i n t i f f i s o r d e r e d t o g i v e n o t i c e .
M I N U T E S E N T E R E D
P a g e 4 o f 5 D E P T . W E I 0 9 / 1 0 / 0 7
C O U N T Y C L E R K
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DATE: 09/10/07
HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME
DEPT. WEI
DEPUTY CLERK
HONORABLE
#13
B. VARGAS CA
JUDGE PRO TEM
Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
Reporter
Defendant
Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG
8:30 am SC087400
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X)
Plaintiff
Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
(X)
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
The Court announces Defendant/Cross-Complainant Joseph
Zernik, has filed a 170.3 request to disqualifty the
Court this date. The Court despite the allegations
made in Mr Zerniks' declaration, without conceding
the disqualification statement, the Court believes
that in the interest of justice, the Court should
recuse Itself on Its own Motion Pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedures Section 170.3(c)2.
Pursuant to the Order of the Presiding Judge,
Honorable Gerald Rosenberg, the case is ordered
reassigned to the West Los Angeles Superior Court,
Department WE"H", Honorable Allan J. Goodman,
Judge presiding for all purposes.
Any and all future dates set in Department WE"I" are
advanced to this date and ordered placed off
calendar.
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
OFF THE RECORD:
Status Conference is set for October 10, 2007 at
8:30 a.m. in Department WE"H" at the West Los
Angeles Courthouse (Pursuant to the clerk in
Department WE"H")
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
Page 4 of 5 DEPT. WEI
MINUTES ENTERED
09/10/07
COUNTY CLERK
368 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p368/679
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A , C O U N T Y O F l O S A N G E L E S
D A T E : 0 9 / 1 0 / 0 7 D E J Y f . W E I
H O N O R A B L E J A C Q U E L I N E A . C O N N O R J U D G E I I V . J A I M E D E P U T Y C L E R K
H O N O R A B L E J U D G E P R O T E M E L E C T R O N I C R E C O R D I N G M O N I T O R
# 1 3
B . V A R G A S C A D e p u t y S h e r i f f l l K . C A L L C S R # 5 5 6 7 R e p o r t e r
8 : 3 0 a m l S C 0 8 7 4 0 0 P l a i n t i f f
C o u n s e l R O B E R T M U S S I G ( X )
N I V I E S A M A A N
V S D e f e n d a n t
J O S E P H Z E R N I K ( X ) C o u n s e l R O B E R T M U S S I G ( X )
C C P 1 7 0 . 6 - J U D G E N E I D O R F
l \ ' A T l J R E O F P R O C E E D I N G S :
o f t h e
C L E R K ' S C E R T I F I C A T E O F M A I L I N G /
N O T I C E O F E N T R Y O F O R D E R
I , t h e b e l o w n a m e d E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r / C l e r k o f t h e
a b o v e - e n t i t l e d c o u r t , d o h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t I a m n o t
a p a r t y t o t h e c a u s e h e r e i n , a n d t h a t t h i s d a t e I
s e r v e d N o t i c e o f E n t r y o f t h e a b o v e m i n u t e o r d e r o f
9 - 1 0 - 0 7 u p o n e a c h p a r t y o r c o u n s e l n a m e d b e l o w b y
d e p o s i t i n g i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s m a i l a t t h e c o u r t h o u s e
i n S A N T A M O N I C A , C a l i f o r n i a , o n e c o p y o f t h e
o r i g i n a l e n t e r e d h e r e i n i n a s e p a r a t e s e a l e d e n v e l o p e
f o r e a c h , a d d r e s s e d a s s h o w n b e l o w w i t h t h e p o s t a g e
t h e r e o n f u l l y p r e p a i d .
M O E K E S H A V A R Z I
3 3 3 S O U T H H O P E S T R E E T , 4 8 T H F L O O R
L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 7 1 - 1 4 4 8
D a t e : S E P T E M B E R 1 0 , 2 0 0 7
J o h n A . C l a r k e , E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r / C l e r k
B y :
V . J A I M E
M I N U T E S E N T E R E D
P a g e 5 o f 5 D E P T . W E H
0 9 / 1 1 / 0 7
C O U N T Y C L E R K
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES
DATE: 09/10/07
HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME
DEJYf. WEI
DEPUTY CLERK
HONORABLE
#13
B. VARGAS CA
JUDGE PRO TEM
Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567
ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
Reporter
Defendant
Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG
8:30 am SC087400
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS
JOSEPH ZERNIK (X)
Plaintiff
Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
(X)
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
J\'ATlJRE OF PROCEEDINGS:
of the
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of
9-10-07 upon each party or counsel named below by
depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
in SANTA MONICA, California, one copy of the
original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope
for each, addressed as shown below with the postage
thereon fully prepaid.
MOE KESHAVARZI
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 48TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1448
Date: SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk
By:
V. JAIME
Page 5 of 5 DEPT. WEH
MINUTES ENTERED
09/11/07
COUNTY CLERK
369 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p369/679


INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE
Case No. BC351286

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28















EXHIBIT 4,j
370 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p370/679
371 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p371/679
ORDER APPOINTING PASTERNAK RECEIVER

FRAUDULENTLY ISSUED BY JUDGE JOHN SEGAL ON NOV 9,2007, PURPORTEDLY FOR
EXECUTION OF AN AUG 9, 2007 JUDGMENT BY COURT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION
437c by JUDGE JACQUEINE CONNOR.

THAT JUDGMENT IN AND OF ITSELF IS EVIDENCE FOR RACKETEERING BY THE LOS
ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT. JUDGE CONNOR STATED REPEATEDLY IN OPEN COURT
AND IN WRITINGS THAT SHE ENTERED JUDGEMENNT ON AUG 9 2007.

BY JUNE 3, 2008, THE COURT IS REFUSING TO CERTIFY THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH
JUDGMENT, AND YOU MAY NOTICE THAT THE JUDGMENT IS MISSING FROM THIS
ORDER AS WELL.


THIS ORDER IS PRIME EVIDENCE FOR RACKETEERING IN THE LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT.IN THIS ORDER, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY SECTION OF
THE CODE TO ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION FOR THE RECEIVERSHIP, THERE IS
NO REFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT THAT IS PURPORTED TO BE EXECUTED, AND THERE
IS NO REFERNECE TO THE REAL PROPERTY PURCHASE CONTRACT - THIS WAS
JUDGMENT FOR SPECIFIC PERFERMCNE.



, ,- «'
.f '} , ;-,_'
f 1:'"
1 SHEPPARD MULLIN RJCHTER & HAMPTON LLP ('>(14;
A Limited Liability PartnershiP. <0, 0,.
2- Includmg Er-OfeSSlOIJal-Curpor-a110ns. __ -- ----
PHJLLIP A. DAVIS, CaJ. Bar No.1 10430 ./. 'O'o/.{r, ..'5:.­
3 MOE KESHAVARZI, Cal. Bar No. 223759 04,-/ 40;- e
333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor (J O.,ll
4 Los Angeles, California 90071-1448 ",:" q.q; r
Telephone: 213-620-1780 "<q,
5 FacSlmiIe: 213-620-1398 "'P,
0, 0..
-;..
6 Attorneys for PlainriffNivie Samaan
7
8
9
SUPERJOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -- WEST DlSTRJCT
II NME SAMAAN, an individual; Case No. SC 087400
J2
Plaintiff, Houerable John A. Segal
13 v.. fFtoposedj Order Appointing David J.
Pasternak as RecelVer.
14 JOSEPH an individual and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusiv.e,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- J ­
\V02.WEST;lMMK I <400492211. [
(PROPOSED] ORDER .lj>POINTING RECEIVER
.......'
"-;
,.
J'l '/_, or'
SUPERJOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -- WEST DlSTRJCT
1 SHEPPARD MULLIN RJCHTER & HAMPTON LLP
ALimjted Liabili!y Partnership . . <O.s- Ok
2· Includmg El"-efeSSlOIJal-Corpor.a1IOns-...- ----
PHJLLlP A. DAVIS, Cal. Bar No. I 10430
3 MOEKESHAVARZI, Cal. BarNo. 223759 41?p-
333 South Hope 48th Floor .
4 Los Angeles, Cahfom18 90071-]448 q,.:ct r
Telephone: 213-620-1780 .
5 FacsImile: 213-620-1398 '
O.n..
6 -".ql'e
J" Pl Off .
Attorneys JOT ainn Ni'llie Samaan :r "4\
7
8
9
]0
11 NME SAMAAN, an individual;
12 Plaintiff,
13 v..
14 JOSEPH ZERJ"\1IK, an individual and
DOES] through ] 0, jncJusive,
Case No, SC 087400
Honorable JOM A. Segal
Order Appointing David J.
Pasternak as Recelver.
]5
16
17
18
19
20
21 .
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants,
W02.WEST; I MMK I <.40<14922! 1.1
[PROPOSED] ORDER .AJ'POINTING RECEIVER
372 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p372/679
• •
I
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT David J. Pasternak ("Receiver") shall be
2 appointed as Receiver to take possession, custody and control of the real property located
3
at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212, legally described as:
4
~ I
La! 252 ofTrac! 7710, in the Ci!y of Beverly Hills,
County of Los AnKeles, State of California, as per mal'
recorded in book 83 PAGE (5) 94 and 95 ofmaps in the
office of the recorder of said county (the "PROPERTY").
7
1. Before perfonning his duties, the Receiver shall execute a Receiver's
8
oath and file a bond in Department 0 \Villi surety thereon approved by this Court, in the
9
sum of $ JO,OOO.OO, conditioned upon the faithful perfOlmance of the Receiver's dlJ.ties.
10
11 2. Within seven (7) days of his 'appointment, the Receiver is to disclose
12 to all parties any financial relationship between the Receiver and any company he hires to
13 assist in the management of the estate.
14
3. TIle Receiver shall have the power and the authority (a) to exclude
15
Defendant and any a g e n t s ~ attorneys, employees or repre$entatives thereof, or anyone
16
claiming under any of them, from the Property; (b) to take possession ofthe Property; (c)
17
to use, operate, manage and control the Property; (d) to care for, manage, preserve, protect
18
and maintain the Property, and incur the expenses necessary for such care, management,
19
preseIVation, protection and maintenance (e) to pay appropriate expenses for the Property;
20
(f) to take such other steps as are reasonably necessary to care for, manage, preserve,
21
protect and maintain the Property, subject to the contract for sale of the Property between
22
defendant Joseph Zernik and plaintiffNivie Samaan ("Samaan") and (g) pursuant to
23
judgment for specific perfonnance dated August 9, 2007, in favor Samaan, the Receiver
24
shall have the power to take all necessary steps to sell the Property to Samaan through the
25
reactivated Escrow No. 1-34500-GH (the "Escrow") at Mara Escrow Co. 433 North
26
Camden Driver, Beverly Hills, California 90210-4409 (the "Escrowholder), for a price of
27
$1,718,000 reduced by the setoffs hereinafter described; (h) ifwithin three business days
&.hibft-'-page
28
/4
-2­
W01-WEST:l MMK 1\400492211.1
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPoINTING RECEIVER
1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT David J. Pasternak ("Receiver") shall be
2 appointed as Receiver to take possession, custody and control of the real property located
Lot 252 of Tract 7710, in the CiD: of Beverly Hills,
County of Los Angeles, State ofCa]ifomia, as per map
recorded in book 83 PAGE (S) 94 and 95 ofmaps in the
office of the recorder of said county (the "PROPERTY").
3 at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212, legally described as:
4
:r
7
11
2. Within seven (7) days of his 'appointment, the Receiver is to disclose
12 to all parties any financial relationship between the Receiver and any company he hires to
The Receiver shall have the power and the authority (a) to exclude 3.
13 assist in the management of the estate.
14
15
Defendant and any attorneys, employees or thereof, or anyone
16
claiming under any of them, from the Property; (b) to take possession ofthe Property; (c)
17
]8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to use, operate, manage and control the Propeny; (d) to care for, manage, preselVe, protect
and maintain the Property, and incur the expenses necessary for such management,
preservation, protection and maintenance (e) to pay appropriate expenses for the PToperty;
(f) to take such other steps as are reasonably necessary to care for, manage, preserve,
protect and maintain the Property, subject to the contract for sale of the Property between
defendant Joseph Zernik and plaintiffNivie Samaan ("Samaantt) and (g) pursuant to
judgment for specific perfonnance dated August 9, 2007, in favor Samaan, the Receiver
shall have the power to take all necessary steps to sell the Property to Samaan through the
reactivated Escrow No. 1-34500-GH (the "Escrow") at Mara Escrow Co. 433 North
Camden Driver, Beverly Hills, California 90210-4409 (the "Escrowholder), for a price of
$1,718,000 reduced by the setoffs hereinafter described; (h) ifwithin three business days
E:xhibft-'--page /4
W01·WEST:! MMK1\400492211.1
-2-
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPoINTING RECEIVER
373 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p373/679
----,.
1 after documents are submitted for signature by the Escrowholder, Zemik fails to sign any
'2 su'ch-docurnents--the Receiver-shaH -have the power to sign said documentations on behalf
3 ofZemik.
4
4. The Receiver s.hal] prepare and" serve monthly statements reflecting
5
the Receiver's fees and administrative expenses, including fees and costs of agents,
6
accountants and anomeys engaged by the Receiver to assist in the administration of the
7
inCUIl'ed for each monthly period in the operation and administration of the
8
receivership estate. Upon service of each statement, the Receiver may disburse from
9
Estate funds, jf any, the amount of eal,;h sl<ltement. Notwithstanding periodi'c payment of
10
fees and expenses, fees and expenses shan be submitted to the Court for its approval ano
JJ
confinnation in the form' of either a properly noticed interim request fOJ fees, stipulation of
12
all parties, or Receiver's Final Account and Report.
13
] 4 5. The Receiver may employ agents, employees, clerks, accountants,
15 attomeys (including Appleton, Pastemak & Pastemak, A Law Corporation), and property
16 managers to the Estate, purchase materials, supplies and services, and pay for
17 them at the ordinary and usual rates out ofthe funds which shalI come inlo the Receiver's
18 possession and shaH do all things and incur the risks and obligations ordinarily incurred by
19 owners, property manages and operators of similar properties,and enterprises as such
20 Receiver. No such risk or obligation so incurred shall be the personal risk or obligation of
21 the Receiver, but shall be the risk and obligation ofthe estate.
22
6. The Receiver 'is empowered to esttlblish bank accounts for the deposit
23
of monies and funds collected and received- in connection with the estate at federally
24
insured banking institutions or savings associations. Monies coming ,into the possession of
25
the Receiver and not expended for any pUJpose ,herein authorized shaJl be held by the
26
Receiver in interest bearing accounts.
27
28
­
I ======,,-- ", ..
J W02·WEST:1MMKJ\40049221 J.l ., 3., [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOfNTING RECEIVER
1 after documents are submitted for signature by the Escrowholder, Zemik fails to sign any
·2 su·ch-documerlts--tne Receiver-shaH-have the power to sign said documentations on behalf
3 ofZemik.
exhibit. , Page J
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOfNTING RECEIVER
.,3-.,.
4. The Receiyer sfJal1 prepare and" serve mDnthly statements reflecting
the Receiver's fees and administrative including fees and costs of agents,
accountants and anorneys engaged by the Receiver to assist in the administration of the
inculTed for each monthly period in the operation and administration of the
receivership estate. Upon service of each statement, the Receiver may disburse from
Estate funds, jf any, the amount of eal;h sl<:ltement. Notwithstanding periodi·c payment of
fees and expenses, fees and expenses shall be submitted to the Court for its approval ano
confinnation in the form· of either a properly noticed interim request fOJ fees, stipulation of
all parties, or Receiver's Final Accoum and Report.
6. The Receiver "is empowered to esttlblish bank accounts for the deposit
of monies and funds collected and received- in connection" with the estate at federally
insured banking institutions or savings associations. Monies coming .into the possession of
the Receiver and not expended for any purpose ,herein authorized shall he held by the
Receiver in interest bearing accounts.
4
5
6
...
j
I
I W02·WEST:1MMKJ\400492211.l
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 5. The Receiver may employ agents, employees, clerks, accountants,
15 attorneys (including Appleton, Pastemak & Pasternak, A Law Corporation), and property
16 managers to administer the Estate, purchase materials, supplies and services, and pay for
17 them at the ordinary and usual rates out ofthe funds which shal1 come inlo the Receiver's
18 possession and shaH do all things and incur the risks and obligations ordinarily incurred by
19 owners, property manages and operators of similar properties. and enterprises as such
20 Receiver. No such risk or obligation so incurred shall be the personal risk or obligation of
21 the Receiver, but shall be the risk and obligation ofllie estate.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
374 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p374/679

1
7. The Receiver shan be paid his usual hourly billable rate, not to exceed'
2 !>4'7-5;OG. All costs incurred by-the-R-eceiverafld- his attorney-s intBe--perfonnance of their
3 duties, including, but not limited to, their fees, shall be paid from the sale proceeds
4
8. A n ~ y aJJd all expenses of the opcntion ofthe Estate are the risk ofthe
5
Receivership, and flot the personal obligation ofthe Receiver.
6
7 9. The Receiver may issue Receivership Certificates in increments of
8
1
$10,000.00 bearing interest at eight percent (8%) per aimum for up to $50,000.00 to any
9 person or parties. All funds loaned te the Receiver pursuant to such Receivership
10 Certificate(s) shalJ be deemed to be a lien of first priority which shall be repaid priOf to all
11 other encumbrances and claims, other than costs of administration.
12 I
10. The Receiver and the parties to this case may, at any time, apply to
13
this Court for further or other instructions or orders and for further powers nccessar)' to
14
enable the Receiver to perfonn the Receiver's duties properly.
15
16
11. Upon close ofescrow,'the Receiver shall hold the net proceeds of the
17 sale of the Property and before distributing it to Zernik, deduct from that amount (1) any
18 attorney's fees or costs granted to Samaan by this Court, (2) any damages incidental'to the
19
decree of specific perfonnance granted 10 Samaan and (3) the Receiver's fees and expenses
20
incurred as described herein. ­
21
12. The parties, and each ofthem, on receipt ofth1S Order shall provide
22
the Receiver wlthtbe tax identification numbers utilized by the PROPERTY. The
23
Receiver shan also be entitled to utilize the tax Identification numbers during his operation
24
of the receivership estate.
25
26
13. The Receiver shall detennine upon taking possession of the estate
27 whether in the Receiver's jUdgment there is sufficient insurance coverage. With respect to
28 any insurance coverage, the Receiver shall be named as an additional insured on the
Exhibit I pa' Ca
-4­
W02_WEST:IMMKI\4004912111
IPROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEI'\IER
e--"-'- -- .-
e'
1
7. The Receiver shan be paid his usual hourly billable rate, not to exceed'
2;$4't-5;OG.· All costs int;urred by-the-R-eceiverafld his attorney-s intBe---performance of their
3 duties, including, but not limited 10, their fees, shall be paid from the sale proceeds
this Court for funher or other instructions or orders and for further powers nccessar)' to
]4
7 9. The Receiver may issue Receivership Certificates in increments of
8 I $] 0,000.00 bearing interest 2t eight percent (8%) per arlnum for up to $50,000.00 to any
9 person Qr parties. All funds loaned tc t.he Receiver pursuant to such Receivership
10 Certificate-(s) shall be deemed to be a lien of first priority which shall be repaid prior to all
11 other encumbrances and claims, other than costs of administration.
4
5
6
]2 I
J3
]5
16
8. . An:y 8JJd all expenses of the operation ofthe Estate are the risk ofthe
Receivership, and not the personal obligation ofthe Receiver.
10. The Receiver and the parties to this case may, at any time, apply to
enable the Receiver to penonn the Receiver's duties properly.
11. Upon close ofescrow,the Receiver shall hold the net proceeds of the
] 7 sale of the PropeI1y and before distributing it to Zernik, deduct from that amount (1) any
18 attorney's fees or costs granted to Samaan by this Court, (2) any damages incidental to the
-19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
decree of specific performance granted 10 Samaan and (3) the Receiver's fees and expenses
incurred as described herein.·
12. The parties, and each ofthem, on receipt of this Order shall provide
the Re.cciver with the tax identification numbers utilized by the-PROPERTY. The
Receiver shall also be entitled to utilize the tax Identification numbers during his operation
of the receivershlp estate.
13. The Receiver shall detennine upon taking possession of the estate
27 V\'hether in the Receiver's judgment there is sufficient insurance coverage. With respect to
28 any insurance coverage, the Receiver shall be named as an additional insured on the
-4- Exhibit t. Pa I CtJ
--------==----"IP;:;-;R;;:--,O"'P=OSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
375 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p375/679


j
1 policies for the period that the Receiver shall be in possession ofthe estate. If sufficient
--2, -insurancc-eoverage-dees not-exist-, -the -Receiver-shall -immediately netify--the parties to this
3 lawsuit and sha1] have thirty (30) calendar days to procure sufficiellt all-risk and liability
4 insurance on the estate (including earthquake and flood insurance) provided, however, that
j if the Receiver does not have sufficient funds to do so, the Receiver shall seek instructions
6 from the Court 'with regard to whether insurance shall be obtained Bnd how it 1s to oe paid
7:i for. If consistent with existing 1a\:I,.', the Receiver shall not be responsible for claims arislng
8 fr0!ll the lack of procurement or inability to obtain insurance.
9
II 14. The Receiver shall be authorized 10 PU): all legal obligations of the
10
PROPERTY outstanding and coming due.
11
12 15. Zernik and his respective agents, employees, representatives and
i
13 anyone acting in concen with them are ordered forthwith to take all steps reasonably
] 4 necessary to enable the Recei\ier to administer the receivership estate and to exercise
15 management and control over the PROPERIT, including but not limited to:
16
(a) Forthwith providing the Receiver with all keys, books of accounts,
17
records, operating statements, budgets, real estate tax and other bills, notices and all
18
documentation relating to the PROPERTY
19
20
(b) Cooperating with the Receiver to enable him to sell PROPERTY to
21 Samaan.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
""'""" 5­
WOZ·WEST:JMMK-jl400492Z1 J.I [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
"'"
-------".,..--.. -- e
j
1 policies for the period that the Receiver shall be in possession ofthe estate. If sufficient
---2" -insurance-eoverageJoes not-exist, -the -Receiver-shall -immediately notify-the parties to this
3 lawsuit and sha1l have thirty (30) calendar days to procure sufficiellt all-risk and liability
4 insurance on the estate (including earthquake and flood insurance) provided, however, that
5 if the Receiver does not have sufficient funds to do so, the Receiver shall seek instructions
6 from the Court \\'ith regard to whether insurance shaH be obtained how it 1s to be paid
7 :ifor. If consistent with existing 1aw, lhe Recei ver shall not be responsible for claims arising
8 fr0!I1 the lack of procurement or inability to obtain insurance.
9
I'
10
11
J4. The Receiver shan be authoJized 'to pay all legal obligations of the
PROPERTY outstanding and coming due.
12 15. Zernik and his respective agents, employees, representatives and
I " ..
13 anyone acting in concert with them are ordered forthwith to take all steps reasonably
Forthwith providing the Receiver with all keys. books of accounts,
", .
(a)
management and control over the PROPERTY, including but not limited to:
records, operating statements, real estate tax and other bills, notices and all
documentation relating to the PROPERTY
]8
] 4 necessary to enable the Recei,"er to administer the receivership estate and to exercise
15
16
17
WOZ' WEST: IMMi<-j \4004922 I J. J
]9
20
21 Samaan.
22
23
24
25
26-
27
28
(b) Cooperating with the Receiver to enable him to sell PROPERTY to
-5-
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
376 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p376/679
-----,.-------

1 16. The parties and their respective agents) employees, representatives
2 -and anyone acting in -cuncertwith them-are hereby enjoined and· restrained-from engaging
3 in any action which interferes with or frustrates the Receiver's ability to administer the
4 receivership estate and exercise management and 'control over the PROPERTY.
Daled: 2007 .
5
! . ().9<:"0/7> Seia! .
v,... COURT
. .
8 ••
.
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibff' Page I &
-6-
W02·WEST:IMMK 1.1
(PROPOSED] ORDER APPOJ"t\'TING RECEIVER
1
16. The parties and their respective agents) employees, representatives
8
9
10
11
2 -and anyone acting in -concert with them-are hereby enjoined -and-restrained-from engaging
3 in any action which interferes with or frustrates the Receiver's ability to administer the
4 receivership estate and exercise management and 'Control over the PROPERTY.
5
Da1ed: 2007 ..-
I . (}.9<'O/}. .Seia! .
v, COURT
, I
....... ••
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
W02.WEST:IMMK
-6-
Exhibit I Page ! g
(PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
377 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p377/679


INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE
Case No. BC351286

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28















EXHIBIT 4,k
378 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p378/679
Enclosed is the court reporter's transcript for the
November 9, 2007 hearing, at 4-day notice, for appointment
of a "Receiver". Such receiver was appointed with no
reference to any section of the code, with no reference
to the purchase contract, and with no reference to the
judgment.
When Dr Zernik received the motion paper he immediately
responded that it was fraud.
In fact, in retrospect it was not fraud at all.
Because Dr Zernik's case was the exception. Whereas
other victims of racketeering by the LA Superior Court
judges never figure out how it happened, Dr Zernik
figured out the fraud around mid December 2006, and the
abuse continued for a year before the racketeering judges
managed to threaten him with force to take his property.
During that year, neither police, nor FBI would come to
his assistance.
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 24 of 50
1
2
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3
4
DEPARTMENT WE 0 HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE
5 NIVIE SAMAAN,
6 PLAINTIFF,
7 VS. NO. SC 087400
8 JOSEPH ZERNIK,
9 DEFENDANT.
10
11
12
13
14 APPEARANCES:
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FOR
NIVIE SAMAAN:
FOR DEFENDANT:
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,
LLP
BY: MOS KESHAVARZI, ESQ.
JOSEPH ZERNIK
IN PROPRIA PERSONA
THOMPSON, RPR, CSR #12370
OFFICIAL REPORTER
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 571
379 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p379/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 25 of 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CASE NUMBER:
CASE NAME:
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT WE 0
REPORTER:
TIME:
APPEARANCES:
SC 087400
NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH
ZERNIK
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007
HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE
ADRIANNE THOMPSON, CSR NO.
12370
9:18 A.M.
(AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
1
11
12
THE COURT: NUMBER ONE, SAMAAN VS. ZERNIK, SC087400.
MR. KESHAVARZI: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. MOE
13 KESHAVARZI FOR PLAINTIFF, NIVIE SAMAAN, MOVING PARTY.
14
MR. ZERNIK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR, JOSEPH ZERNIK IN
15 PRO PER.
16
THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK, YOUR OPPOSITION IS TWO DAYS
17 LATE. I JUST GOT IT. SO I'LL HAVE TO READ IT. I HAVEN'T HAD
18 A CHANCE TO READ IT. I GAVE YOU UNTIL WEDNESDAY; RIGHT?
19 MR. ZERNIK: NO--
20
THE COURT: YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU GAVE IT TO ME YESTERDAY,
21 SO IT'S ONE DAY LATE, BUT ANYWAY, I HAVEN'T READ IT, BUT I
22 WILL.
23
MR. ZERNIK: I DELIVERED BY FAX TO PLAINTIFF COUNSEL BY
24 2:00 P.M. YESTERDAY AS YOU ORDERED.
25
THE COURT: OKAY. I'M SAYING I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO
26 READ IT, BUT I WILL. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO BE HEARD EITHER ON
27 THE MOTION OR THE EX PARTE, MR. ZERNIK?
28
MR. ZERNIK: I SUGGEST THAT WE START WITH THE -- WHAT
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 572
380 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p380/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 26 of 50
2
1 BY LAW IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE THE HIGHEST PRECEDENCE, AND THAT IS
2 THE ISSUE OF THE SCHEDULING OF HEARING FOR NEW TRIAL. THE LAW
3 SAYS IT IS PRECEDENCE OVER ANY OTHER BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
4 THE COURT: OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE?
5 MR. ZERNIK: SO, YES, BASICALLY THE EX PARTE IS TO
6 ESTABLISH CALENDAR. WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT I --
7 THE COURT: HAVE YOU FILED YOUR -- THS MOTIONS?
8 MR. ZERNIK: IT IS AN EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
9 SHORTENED HEARING. WHAT I HAVE HERE IS AN EX PARTE
10 APPLICATION FOR SHORTENSD HEARING -- SHORTENED TIME FOR
11 HEARING ON THE MOTION TO ESTABLISH CALENDAR. BASICALLY, I'M
12 ASKING TO ESTABLISH WnEN ARE WE GOING TO HAVE IT DONE BECAUSE
13 IT WAS FILED --
14 THE COURT: YOU CAN HAVE IT ANY TIME YOU WANT. JUST
15 RESERVE A DATE WITH THE COURTROOM ASSISTANT.
16 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, BUT THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL M U S ~ BE
17 HEARD AND RULED UPON WITHIN 60 DAYS. THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS
18 AND I CITE THE LAW INSIDE --
1'9
20
21
22
THE COURT: WHEN DOES THE 60 ~ A Y S RUN?
MR. ZERNIK: PARDON?
THE COURT: WHEN DOES THE 60 DAYS RUN?
MR. ZERNIK: THE 60 DAYS WILL RUN OUT -- JUST A SECOND.
23 IT'S GOING TO BE WITHIN A FEW DAYS, I BELIEVE. JUST A SECOND.
24
25 SET IT.
26
THE COURT: JUST TELL ME WHAT DATE YOU WANT, AND I'LL
MR. ZERNIK: BUT THE PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL HAS NOT FILED
27 YET OPPOSITION. THIS IS A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, WHERE WHICH I
28 FILED, B ~ T WITH THE CHANGES OF JUDGES, EVERY TIME IT WAS
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 573
381 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p381/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 27 of 50
3
1 SCHEDULED AND THEN CANCELED, SCHEDULED AND CANCELED.
2
THE COURT: TELL ME WHEN YOU WANT IT HEARD. THERE'S
3 FOUR OF THEM. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, ~ O T I O N FOR -- WHICH ONES
4 YOU WANT HEARD AND TELL ME WHEN.
5
6 WEEK.
7
8
9
10
MR. ZERNIK: I'D LIKE TO HAVE ALL OF THEM HEARD NEXT
THE COURT: THESE FOUR RIGHT HERE?
MR. ZERNIK: YES.
THE COuRT: OKAY.
MR. KESHAVARZI: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A TRIAL STARTING ON
11 NOVEMBER 19TH, AND I AM PREPARING FOR TRIAL, PREPARING
12 WITNESSES THAT ARE FLYING IN FROM OUT OF TOWN. I HAVE TO
]3 PREPARE FOUR OPPOSITIONS. THE 60 DAYS HAS RUN, YOUR HONOR.
14 THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON AUGUST 9TH.
15
16
17 FILED
18
THE COURT: THEN YOUR OPPOSITION WILL BE SHORT.
MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE POINT IS HE'S
THE COURT: HE SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED BECAUSE THE CASE
19 WAS -- DEPRIVED AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR HIS MOTIONS HEARD
7.0 BECAUSE THR CASE WAS BOUNCED AROUND FROM COURT TO COURT.
21 ~ R . KESHAVARZI: THAT HAD NO EFFECT ON IT, YOUR HONOR.
22 HE FILED THE MOTION BEFORE JUDGE CONNOR -- BEFORE JUDGE CONNOR
23 RECUSED HERSELF. HE FILED
24 MR ZERNIK: UMM
25 THE COURT: YOU HAVE TO WAIT.
26 EXCEPT FOR THESE PARTICULAR MOTIONS, UNLIKE ALL
27 THE REST, FOR A NEW TRIAL, THE COURT HAS TO SET THOSE. IT'S
28 THE ONE OF THE FEW MOTIONS WHERE THE PARTIES DON'T SET IT. SO
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 574
382 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p382/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 28 of 50
4
1 I HAVE TO SET IT.
2
MR. KESHAVARZI: JUDGE CONNOR DID SET THE HEARING FOR
3 HIM, BUT THEN HE WITHDRAW THE MOTIONS, YOUR HONOR. AND
4 THERE'S ALSO THE ISSuE OF THE FACT THAT MR. ZERNIK HAS ALREADY
5 FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL, AND THE FILING OF THS NOTICE OF
6 APPEAL STATES EVERYTHING NOT RELATED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
7 JUDGMENT.
8
9
THE COURT: SO YOU GOT ANOTHER ARGUMENT.
MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, IF YOUR HONOR WANTS ME TO PUT
10 THOSE ON PAPER, I WILL, BUT IT'S
11
THE COURT: THE ONE AT LEAST FOR THE NEW TRIAL, I HAVE
12 TO SET, BUT THE LEGISLATURE SAYS I HAVE TO SET IT. SO THE
13 HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL -- I THINK IT'S
14 SECTION 661, ISN'T IT, THAT MAKES ME DO THIS? LET ME CHECK.
15 YES.
16 SO ~ V H A T DATE h'OULD YOU LIKE.
17
18
19
20
MR. ZERNIK: MONDAY. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE --
THE COURT: MONDAY IS A COURT HOLIDAY.
MR. ZERNIK: TUESDAY.
THE COURT: TUESDAY. TUESDAY IS -- DOESN'T GIVE HIM
21 MUCH TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION.
22
23
MR. ZERNIK: PARDON?
THE COURT: DOESN'T GIVE HIM MUCH TIME TO FILE AN
24 OPPOSITION.
25 MR. KESHAVARZI: I WOULD ASK THAT YOUR HONOR SET IT FOR
26 NEXT FRIDAY, IF POSSIBLE, SO I HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO --
27
28
THE COURT: HOW ABOUT FRIDAY THE 9TH?
MR. ZERNIK: I'M CONCERNED -- DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 575
383 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p383/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 29 of 50
5
1 DETERMINED BY THE COURT TO COUNT TO START OF DAY, I WILL RUN
2 OUT OF 'THE 60 DAYS. THAT IS THE CONCERN.
3 THE COURT: YOU CAN PICK ANY DATE YOU WANT, BUT NOT
4 NOVEMBER 13TH. THAT'S THE NEXT COURT DAY.
5
6
7
8
MR. ZERNIK: SO 14TH.
THE COURT: DONE.
MR. ZERNIK: SO THAT IS WEDNESDAY?
THE COURT: YES. THE HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
9 NEW TRIAL IS NOVEMBER 14, 2007, 8:30 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT O.
10 THE OTHER MOTIONS YOU CAN SET. YOU DON'T NEED ME FOR THOSE.
11
MR. ZERNIK: YES. I'M ASKING FOR A SHORTENED NOTICE.
12 THE ISSUE IS THAT -- FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO RESPOND TO WHAT
13 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SAID BECAUSE IT WAS FACTUAL ERRORS. I
14 FILED INITIALLY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE THERE WAS
15 SOME CONFUSION BECAUSE IT DID NOT SHOW ON THE SYSTEM WHETHER
16 OR NOT JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED. SO WE FILED MOTION FOR
17 RECONSIDERATION.
18 ONCE JUDGE CONNOR ESTABLISHED AND IT ACTUALLY
19 WAS FILED ON AUGUST 9TH, WE WITHDREW THE MOTION FOR
20 RECONSIDERATION, BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED WITH THE MOTION FOR
21 NEW TRIAL. THAT WAS FILED FIRST GNDER JUDGE GOODMAN. JUDGE
22 GOODMAN FILED WITH HIM THE NOTICE OF INTEN7 TO FILE MOTION FOR
23 NEW TRIAL, A N ~ THEN THE MOTION ITSELF, ALWAYS UNDER JUDGE
24 GOODMAN, BUT NOT UNDER JUDGE CONNOR, AS PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY
25 SAID I STATE. THAT'S NUMBER ONE.
26 AND NUMBER TWO, THE ISSUE OF WHAT IS THE START
27 DATE OF THE COUNTING IS SOMETHING THAT THE COURT MAY HAVE TO
28 ESTABLISH IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT'S RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 576
384 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p384/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 30 of 50
6
1 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, ET CETERA.
2 ON THE OTHER MOTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO
3 YOUR HONOR, THAT THEY WERE NOTICED SO LONG AGO, FOR EXAMPLE,
4 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PER 128.7 WAS NOTICED FIRST BEFORE
5 AUGUST. SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS A SURPRISE. IT'S A SURPRISE
6 NOW TO PLAINTIFF, IF THERE'S A HEARING. IT'S NOT A SURPRISE.
7 SO I'M ASKING, SINCE THERE WERE SO MANY DELAYS, TO HAVE A
8 SHORTENED NOTICE OF -- SHORTENED NOTICE HEARING ON THOSE
9 ADDITIONAL THREE MOTIONS.
10 THE OTHER MOTION IS ALSO A MOTION WHICH IS LONG
11 OVERDUE AND THAT IS TO CORRECT ALL KIND OF FACTUAL ERRORS IN
12 THE COURT FILE LIKE DATES AND NAMES, ET CETERA, THAT ARE MIXED
13 UP. THAT'S A MOTION FOR DUE PROCESS. THIS IS CORRECTION OF
14 FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE FILE. THAT'S LONG OVERDUE. IT WAS I
15 THINK, THE NOTICED MOTION WAS FIRST FILED UNDER ALSO JUDGE
16 G O O D ~ A N . THE THIRD ONE IS OF THE THREE -- EXCEPT FOR THE
17 FIRST ONE, IS THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND. ALSO WAS FILED
18 UNDER JUDGE GOODMAN, AND I FILED IT AND REFILED SEVERAL TIMES
19 EACH OF THESE.
20 THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S GO TO THE MOTION FOR RECEIVER.
21 DO YOU WANT TO BE -- APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER.
22 MR. ZERNIK: SO YOU DENIED SHORTENED NOTICE AND I
23 SHOULD HAVE REGULAR NOTICED HEARING FOR THE THREE ADDITIONAL
24 MOTIONS? BECAUSE
25
26
27
28
THE COURT: I HAVEN'T RULED YET.
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
THE COURT: IT'S UNDER SUBMISSION.
MK. KESHAVARZI: WITH RESPECT TO YOUR HONOR'S RULING ON
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 577
385 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p385/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 31 of 50
7
1 MR. ZERNIK'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, WHAT IS THE DEADLINE FOR
2 HIM TO SERVE ME HIS MOTION, AND WHEN IS MY DEADLINE
3
4
5
6
THE COURT: I THINK YOU HAVE IT ALREADY.
MR. KESHAVARZI: I DON'T THINK
MR. ZERNIK: YES, YOU DO.
THE COURT: IF HE CAN SEND ANOTHER ONE. YOU CAN SEND
7 HIM ANOTHER ONE.
8
MR. ZERNIK: NO, NO. THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WAS
9 SERVED ON YOU BY JUDGE GOODMAN.
10
11 HIM --
12
13
14
THE COURT: YOU WERE ORDERED TO SERVE ANOTHER COpy ON
MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. I'LL SERVE IT TODAY.
THE COURT: -- BY THE END OF TODAY.
MR. KESHAVARZI: AND OUR OPPOSITION, YOUR HONOR, WILL
15 BE DUE ON TUESDAY?
16
17
THE COURT: YES.
OKAY. LET'S GO TO THE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
18 OF RECEIVER. I HAVEN'T READ MR. ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION, BUT I
19 WILL. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT ME TO KNOW?
20
MR. ZERNIK: YES. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON SOME
21 fACTUAL ERRORS IN THE APPLICATION. FIRST OF ALL, THE PREMISE
22 OF THAT APPLICATION IS THAT THERE WAS A REFUSAL ON MY PART TO
23 COOPERATE WITH EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO
24 SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT, IF ANYTHING, IT'S THE OPPOSITE.
25 ON THE BEGINNING OF THIS WEEK, I NOTICED THE
26 JUDGMENT. ALTHOUGH, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL WAS ORDERED BY THE
27 COURT TO NOTICE THE JUDGMENT AND REFUSED TO DO SO EVEN AFTER I
28 REMINDED HIM. AND THE REMINDERS -- EVEN THE REMINDERS, I
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 578
386 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p386/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 32 of 50
8
1 ENCLOSED HERE IN EXHIBITS. SO OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, I
2 SEVERAL TIMES REMINDED HIM "YOU'RE ORDERED BY THE COURT TO
3 NOTICE THE JUDGMENT," AND HE REFUSED TO NOTICE THE JUDGMENT.
4 LATER ON, THERE WERE AT LEAST TWO OR THREE
5 OPPORTUNITIES WHERE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO FILE THE JUDGMENT AND
6 RELEVANT PAPERS. FOR EXAMPLE, PLAINTIFF SUPPLIED THE PROPOSED
7 REFEREE WITH THE PAPERS RELEVANT TO HIS FGTURE WORK. THE
8 JUDGMENT OBVIOUSLY IS CRITICAL DOCUMENT FOR THE REFEREE ON
9 EXECUTION. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL SUBSTITUTED -- INSTEAD OF THE
10 JUDGMENT, HE FILED AN ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WHICH
11 IS SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
12 SAME THING EVEN UNDER THIS COURT, WHEN
13 PLAINTIFF CAME HERE, I THINK IT WAS LAST WEEK, FOR A MOTION TO
14 COMPEL DEFENDANT FOR APPRAISAL, THE BASIS FOR THE COMPEL WAS
15 THE JUDGMENT. AND IN THE TEXT IT SAID THAT HE'S DOING THE
16 JUDGMENT, BUT IN THE EXHIBIT ITSELF WAS ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY
17 JUDGMENT.
18 SIMILARLY, EVEN IN THE MOTION FOR APPOINTING OF
19 A ~ ~ C E I V E R IN THIS INSTANT MOTION THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, HOW
70 CAN THAT RECEIVER WORK IF HE NEVER IS NOTICED OF THE JUDGMENT?
21 SO INSTEAD OF THE JUDGMENT, PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL INSERTED ORDER
22 GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT, W H ~ C H IS SOMETHING COMPLETELY
23 DIFFERENT AND WILL NOT GIVE THE REFEREE ANY GUIDANCE ON WHAT
24 HE'S SUPPOSED TO NOTICE.
25 SIMILARLY, I CONSIDER THAT IT'S ESSENTIAL THAT
26 EITHER THE REFEREE OR RECEIVER, ANYBODY WHO'S EXECUTING THE
27 THIS JUDGMENT, MUST HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM THE CONTRACT
28 BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT REFERENCES THE CONTRACT. AGAIN, IT DOES
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 579
387 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p387/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 33 of 50
9
1 NOT APPEAR IN THE MOTION THAT IT WAS PROPOSED BY ATTORNEY
2 KESHAVARZI.
3 SO HOW COULD A RECEIVER OR REFEREE, ANYBODY,
4 EXECUTE A JUDGMENT WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS NOT INCLUDED AND THE
5 CONTRACT IS NOT INCLUDED? WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
6 GOING TO BE OF? THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE OF
7 THE CONTRACT, AND THE CONTRACT IS SPECIFIED IN THE JUDGMJ<:NT.
8 NEITHER THE JUDGMENT NOR THE CONTRACT ARE I N C L ~ D E D IN THE
9 MOTION.
10
SO I CONSIDER IT COMPLETELY DEFECTIVE. BEYOND
11 THAT, IT SHOWS ALSO SOME -- I WOULD SAY, A PERSON REVIEWING
12 THE CASE AS A WHOLE WOULD REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT FACT THAT
13 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL REPEATEDLY DELETES THE CONTRACT AND THE
14 JUDGMENT FROM ANY RELEVANT DOCUMEN7 THAT IS SUPPOSED TO
15 INCLUDE THEM, IS REASONABLY GOING ~ O LEAD ANYBODY REVIEWING
16 THE CASE TO THE CONCLUSION, COMBINED WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, MINUTE
17 ORDER OF AUGUST 21ST, AND SOME OTHER INSTANCES, IT WILL LEAD
18 ANY REVIEWER REVIEWING THIS CASE TO REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT
19 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL HAS INTENTION TO EXECUTE SOMETHING WHICH
20 IS OTHER THAN THIS SPECIFIC CONTRACT AND THAT IS SOMETHING
21 OTHER THAN SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, BUT THIS JUDGMENT WAS FOR
22 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A SPECIFIC CONTRACT.
23 SO THAT'S WHY TODAY I AM GOING TO NOTICE THE
24 CONTRACT ITSELF AS WELL BECAUSE IT NEVER APPEARS IN THE MOTION
25 FOR RECEIVER THAT WAS FILED BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL.
26 BEYOND THAT, THE CLAIMS THAT I REFUSED TO
27 COOPERATE WITH EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT, AGAIN, ARE BASED ON
28 FALSE STATEMENTS BECAUSE HOW COULD I REFUSE TO COOPERATE IF
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 580
388 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p388/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 34 of 50
10
1 THE REFEREE -- IF AT THE SAME TIME THE REFEREE FILED WITH ME
2 OR -- AND WITH ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, A NOTICE THAT HE TOOK
3 NO ACTION.
4 SO THOSE ACTIONS WERE TAKEN INDEPENDENTLY BY
5 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL OR SOME OTHER PEOPLE WORKING FOR
6 PLAINTIFF, BUT WERE NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.
7 I WAS CONSTANTLY IN CONTACT WITH THE PROPOSED
8 REFEREE. THE PROPOSED REFEREE AND I HELD THE POSITION THAT
9 HIS APPOINTMENT WAS NEVER COMPLETED, NEVER FINALIZED.
10 THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED REFEREE, JUDGE, O'BRIEN SENT A NOTICE
11 TO ME AND TO PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL THAT HE NEVER TOOK ANY
12 ACTION IN THIS CASE. YET PLAINTIFF SENT AN APPRAISSR ON MY
13 PROPERTY, STARTED TITLE AND THOSE WERE NOT AUTHORIZED
14 BY ANYBODY. NOT BY REFEREE, NOT BY THE COURT, NOT BY ANYBODY.
15 SO TO SAY THAT I REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH THE
16 JUOGMENT, WHEN, IN FACT, I DID IS I CALLED THE PEOPLE WHO
17 SENT THOSE PEOPLE AND I ASKED THEM, AUTHORIZED YOU?" IT
18 TURN OUT IT WAS AUTHORIZED BY A COUSIN OF THE HUSBAND OF
19 PLAINTIFF.
20 ONE TIME THE TITLE ACTION WAS AUTHORIZED BY
21 PHONE CALL, AND THE APPRAISAL WAS AUTHORIZED BY E-MAIL FROM
22 THE COUSIN OF THE HUSBAND OF THE PLAINTIFF. THAT IS NOT THE
23 WAY JUDGMENT BY COURT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SXECUTED. THIS WAS
24 SOME KIND OF A FLY-BY-NIGHT EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT.
25 AGAIN, THE REFEREE HIMSELF SENT A NOTICE, WEICH
26 IS IN THE EXHIBIT, SAYING I TOOK NO ACTION IN THIS
27 CASE. SO TO SAY THAT I REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH THE
28 EXECUTION IS ENTIRELY LACKING IN BASIS.
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 581
389 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p389/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 35 of 50
11
1 AT THE SAME TIME, I REQUESTED THAT THE
2 REFEREE'S APPOINTMENT WOULD BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
3 THEN I DID IT IN THE SAME WAY, I CONSIDERED THE MOTION FOR
4 APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER COMPLETELY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE, FOR
5 EXAMPLE, THE ?ROPOSED ORDER IS MISSING THE SECTION OF THE LAW
6 THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE ACTION OF THE RECEIVER.
7 HOW COULD IT BE THAT A PROPOSED ORDER OF T H ~
8 COURT TO APPOINT A RECEIVER WOULD NOT EVEN SPECIFY WHAT'S THE
9 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ACTION, WHAT'S THE JUDGEMENT TO BE
10 ENFORCED
AS FAR AS THE SECTION OF THE CODE. NO SECTION OF
11 THE CODE IS MENTIONED IN THE PROPOSED ORDER.
12 FURTHERMORE, HOW CAN A RECEIVER OPERATE WITHOUT
13 A JUDGMENT? NO JUDGMENT IS INCLUDED IN THE ORDER. HOW CAN A
14 RECEIVER O P E R A ~ E WITHOUT A CONTRACT? NO CONTRACT IS INCLUDED
15 IN TH2 ORDER.
16 SO THAT'S WHY THIS WEEK I NOTICED BOTH THE
17 JUDGMENT AND THE CONTRACT TO INDICATE THAT MY INTENTION IS TO
18 COOPERATE, BUT ACCORDING TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE JUDGMENT AND
19 THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT. NOT SOME KIND OF DIFFUSED OR
20 ILL-DEFINED WISHES OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. IT HAS TO BE
21 ACCORDING TO WHAT THE COURT ORDERED.
22
23
THE COURT: THANK YOU. YOU'RE REPEATING YOURSELF.
MR. ZERNIK: AND LAST ISSUE IS THAT IN CASE THE COURT
24 DECIDES THAT, IN FACT, THERE WAS SOME VALIDITY FOR THE ACTION
25 ON THE TITLE AND THE APPRAISAL, THEN I ASSuME -- I MEAN, THE
26 FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF OR SOME PEOPLE OPERATING ON HER BEHALF
27 INITIATED ACTION ON APPRAISAL AND TITLE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL
28 OF THE REFEREE. IN CASE THE COURT DECIDES THAT THAT WAS A
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 582
390 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p390/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 36 of 50
12
1 VALID ACTION, THEN I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE COURT CLARIFY ITS
2 POSITION, BECAUSE THEN ONE HAS TO ASSUME THAT ESCROW WAS
3 AT SOME POINT. AND THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE CALLS FOR
4 EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT. THE CONTRACT HAD A 45-DAY ESCROW.
S SO IF THE COURT DECIDES THERE WAS ANY VALIDITY TO THAT, THAT
6 MEANS ESCROW WAS OPENED AT SOME POINT IN TIME. I HAVE NO IDEA
7 WHEN THAT IS. AND ESCROW HAS TO CLOSE AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
8 I HAVE NO IDEA WHEN THAT IS.
9 SO IN CASE THE COURT DECIDES WAS ANY
10 VALIDITY TO THOSE ACTIONS, I REQUEST THAT THE COURT WILL
11 DETERMINE WHAT'S THE START DAY OF ESCROW AND THE END OF
12 ESCROW. SO I PROPOSE ORDER AT THE END, ONE, IN CASE THS COURT
13 DECIDES THAT THERE WAS NO VALIDITY TO DO THOSE TITLE AND
14 APPRAISAL ACTIONS. IN THAT CASE, I REQUEST WE GO BACK TO WHAT
15 JUDGE CONNOR ORDERED, AND THAT IS THAT THERE WILL BE A REFEREE
16 APPOINTED. BUT THE FINALIZING OF THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
17 REFEREE IS WHAT WAS MISSING LAST TIME. THIS TIME WE CAN DO IT
18 ALL THE WAY AND COMPLETE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE REFEREE WITH
19 THE JUDGMENT AND THE CONTRACT AND THE CORRECT ORDER FOR
20 APPOINTMENT, BECAUSE BY MISTAKE IT WAS ORDERED AS A REFEREE
21 FOR DISCOVERY, BUT IT WAS NOT WHAT JuDGE CONNOR INTENDED TO
22 DO. SHE INTENDED TO HAVE A REFEREE FOR ESCROW.
23
SO HIS APPOINTMENT WAS NEVER COMPLETED, AND
24 THAT'S WHY HE NEVER TOOK ACTION. SO I SUGGESTED THE MOST
25 REASONABLE DECISION FOR THE COURT AT THIS POINT IS JUST TO
26 VISIT BACK THAT ISSUE AND APPOINT A REFEREE AS REQUIRED BY
27 LAW.
28 ALTERNATIVELY, IF THE DECISION THAT THERE WAS
EXHIBITS VOLUME 11I- TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 583
391 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p391/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 37 of 50
13
1 NO VALIDITY TO THE TITLE APPRAISAL ACTION WITHOUT ANY ACTION
2 B't lYlE REFEREE, I RE'Q'0ES'r 'rHA'r 'rHE COUR'r - - AN'i) 'THIS IS 'THE
3 SECOND PROPOSED ORDER ALTERNATIVE, THAT THE COURT CLARIFIES
4 WHA'1' WAS THE DATE THAT THE ESCROW STARTED AND WHAT WAS THE
5 DATE ESCROW WILL CLOSE WITHIN THE 45-DAY THAT IS SPECIFIED IN
6 THE CONTRACT.
7
8
9
10
THE COURT: THANK YOU. YOU'RE REPEATING YOURSELF.
MR. ZERNIK: NO, THE LAST --
THE COURT: MR. KESHAVARZI.
MR. KESHAVARZI: YES, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU,
11 YOUR HONOR.
12 YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY, MR. ZERNIK'S CLAIMS THAT
13 HE'S WILLING TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGMENT ARE BELIED BY HIS
14 CONDUCT. AND MOST RECENTLY
15
THE COURT: IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE'S WILLING OR
16 UNWILLING TO COMPLY. THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER A REFEREE
17 -- A RECEIVER SHOULD BE APPOINTED.
18
MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE BELIEVE A
19 RECEIVER SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO CARRY OUT THE JUDGMENT BECAUSE
20 MR. ZERNIK ON HIS OWN IS UNWILLING TO COOPERATE WITH THE
21 JUDGMENT AND SEE THE JUDGMENT THROUGH, YOUR HONOR.
22 SECTION 7. -- 708.62 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
23 PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT THE COURT HAS THE POWER TO APPOINT A
24 RECEIVER WHERE THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR SHOWS THAT CONSIDERING
25 THE INTEREST OF BOTH THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR AND THE JUDGMENT
26 DEBTOR, THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER IS A REASONABLE METHOD
27 TO OBTAIN THE FAIR AND ORDERLY SATISFACTION OF THE JUDGMENT.
28 AND: ORDERLY: I THINK IS THE KEY HERE, YOUR HONOR.
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 584
392 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p392/679
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 38 of 50
14
.....-------=-------------
1 MR. ZERNIK CLAIMS THAT HE WANTS TO COOPERATE
2 WITH US AND SEE THE JUDGMENT FOLLOWED THROUGH, TO CARRY THE
3 JUDGMENT INTO EFFECT, BUT SINCE THE BEGINNING, SINCE THE DAY
4 JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, HE'S DONE EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO
5 AVOID ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT.
6 HE RECOMMENDED THAT JUDGE O'BRIAN BE APPOINTED
7 AS A REFEREE. HE RECOMMENDED MR. O'BRIAN, AND THEN WHEN IT
8 CAME TIME FOR JUDGS O'BRIAN TO SET A HEARING, MR. ZERNIK
9 DIDN'T SHOW UP. HE NEVER EVEN PAID MR. O'BRIAN'S BILLS. AND
10 IT REACHED A ?OINT WHERE JUDGE O'BRIAN HAD TO GET OUT OF T ~ E
11 CASE. HE DIDN'T RECUSE HIMSELF, BUT HE WROTE A LETTER TO YOUR
12 HONOR IN WHICH HE SAID "I CAN NO LONGER SERVE AS A REFEREE IN
13 THIS CASE."
14 THE COURT: ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THE WHOLE ADR
15 ORGANIZATION.
16 MR. KESHAVARZI: HE DID, YOUR HONOR. SO ADR IS CLOSED
17 TO US NOW. WE CAN'T EVEN USE THEM IF WE WANTED TO FOR A
18 REFEREE. WE COULDN'T EVEN USE THEM TO GET A RECEIVER BECAUSE
19 TH2Y WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH T H ~ S .
20 WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED, WE WANTED TO GET
21 THE APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY STARTED TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT.
22 WE WANTED TO GET A TITLE REPORT. SO PEOPLE WHO WERE PREPARING
23 THE TITLE REPORT CONTACTED MR. ZERNIK. MR. ZERNIK SAID --
24 THE COURT: I THINK YOU'RE REPEATING WHAT'S IN YOUR
25 PAPER, AREN'T YOU?
26
27
28
MR. KESHAVARZI: YES, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I GOT IT.
MR. KESHAVARZI: LET ME POINT SOMETHING OUT TO
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS
PAGE 585
393 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p393/679

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarregar
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->