Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • 09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #10 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part5 p344-393

    Enviado por

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    55 visualizações50 páginas
    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

    Título original

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

    Direitos autorais

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    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

    Direitos autorais:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    55 visualizações50 páginas

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

    Enviado por

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    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

    Direitos autorais:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Baixe no formato PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 50

    ",

    D.E!J.ARAno~ Of SERVICE

    Case No. SC092131

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA. County ofI.m Angeles:

    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
    7I (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 n Gregor)' P. Sqa" Elq.

    JO I 9100 Wlishirt Boulevard, Sulle 5O~E'lt

    Beverly "lUI, CaUroml. 90212

    lila (BY !\tAIL) by sealing and "Iacmg the envelopt for collection and maIling on the date and
    12 at the place shown above followmg our ordinary bUSiness practICes I am rudlly fanulw
    with this office's prachl'e of collection and pl'ocessang correspondence for malllnf' Under
    13 that practice the com~pondence would be depoSited WIth the United States Posta Snvice
    that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid.

    14 0

    15
    1 (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
    maintained by the United States Postal Service: for receIpt of Exprns Mall or by seahna
    16 and depositing the document(s) lD a box or other facIlity regularly maintaaned by an
    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
    19 reported as complete and without error, A copy ortlle tnnsmisslon repon was properly
    issued by the transmitting facsimile machine and IS attached h~to
    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 '~orrect.

    23 110 (FEDERAL) I declare thai [ am employed In till' nlfl(CS of a member of thl~ l'Ourt at
    2~ whose direction the !tCI"\'l(e was made

    2~ Lxe~:uted on July ~4. 2()')7, al Los Angelc·s. ("J1J1url1la I


    2h

    Al,,,ha!{ ( .'mlll·r

    T,~ or Print '0"1< ,,11h-duant I


    1i)"dtkA~r/I//{ {~J ~ic.ahlrt
    ~!,-<!.l"r p.nonll Knht I" II ''''\!,rnl:tr "u,lr.. ,
    Indud. rh. namt "Ith.· \1.·\\< IIl:rr , ..nit'

    \; ,~

    -- ----- ----l~-!-Il--'!"'\ ·,1' ,-', -_.-.~~-~-------_."._.__ . _ - - - - - - - - ­

    344 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p344/679


    ".,.
    . . "-" "-

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED tbl.. Defendlnt County of LOI An""


    Demurrer ..

    :I
    21 SUSTAINED without lave to amend. ~.lbillCtion ia DISMISSED wrm

    PREJUDICE and,JUDGMENT ia - iD fa... of1ldadonl ':->' of !.Do AJlp "

    5 DATED _J (O,IJ I ~_
    n
    WAMD fEES. COSTS AN~I mATM
    ~"~X'~.1
    6I
    'CIWQ JUT BE Ramm 'roM
    7I 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
    v
    nClM€Y(lll"","",wmoJT"~'

    _~_(JIll'

    ~~
    Rober1 A. WeInbetg. EIq., SBN 1101~
    "'"' Ln 0tIlc:eI d Robert A. Weinberg
    18034 Ventura ~ 1S11
    Encino. CA 91311
    FILED
    tal ANOIU!S C'OOIT SUPERIOI

    ..
    11U!I"HCM ItO (818)7'05-3254 FlUltO ~ (I'lli~
    E...... ADIlMIS~
    AfTOIIN'V P'OIt _ _ PIIInIIr AUG 1'; lOO7
    IUPIIICIIt COURT 011 ~ COUNTY 011 LOS ANQIUI.
    mm AllCNII· '125 Meln &rMt ~

    IIN..IC IilDDMII wt. 0IIlUft'


    ClTVlHlll'aD santa Monica, CA eDiIOt
    1IWOl ..... Wilt 0IIb1c:t santa MonIce ~

    PLAINT1fT': Hakart Cofpomu Amertca, Inc., ....

    0EfEN0ANT: ~. Inc. et" Call . . . . .

    DBrCtertl
    [Z]BrCoun
    o
    o
    JUDGMENT
    BrDIfaM
    On"""an
    8 0*."DIlI ...
    M1IJrCewt TfIII SCOi2145

    ~"TNI
    JUDGIetT
    ,. {Z] IYOEFAULT
    a Defendant ... properly MrY8d will • OCIPY d tlelummonl 8nd ~nt

    b Defendant failed to ...... the ~ 0 1 ' . - ' 8nd ew.nd tie actio"..., ..
    lime aIIowecI by 1ft
    c. QefendanI'I def8UII wu .,....,., by" dart upan .,..,.. ~ l
    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 oonaidafe~
    (1) 0 p1aintift'l ..... 'lOlry and oe.~.
    (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 8\~
    a. The C8H . . . tried on (dfIte and time).
    before (name of judicial 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
    ,h.id~:3 _J,;>,f ~ Car.tJl1~
    1';[ ' f 'w"" d'~rl' .:·)..... 21

    ,.'\ W\\ d, '1~I>S5Id'N (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 C1OSS~"W"rn.nlf! HC~J
    . 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 A~ !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. cn:.~onthe~

    (1) [Z] D8mIIQeI S30,385.03 (') 0 r~ S


    (2) 0 PrejudgrnenC S-o- (2) 0 f~ 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 f:fOII~ to!WCelYe ~ fmm


    named in Item 5b I~ '*'*'
    In IWII ~
    o Defendant named In Item 5b to nlCCMlf
    costs S
    o ~ ~ II'lllem ~~NCO¥ef
    lXlItI S
    o and attorney fea S o II'ld Mtomey'" S

    7 0 0lIlef (rpecify).'

    Date AUG 13 l007 ~ 'A ' •• y.


    ",

    Om D~.by , 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


    ,
    Fl-820,
    'r7 Wil~l ..,lIQHl(v , _ I N I _ I
    J~ c (' .- ,
    ~"\

    ('
    ,
    '011 CCUfT LeI OM. Y

    . ,
    r
    JlJ

    .cYRl'!i_'
    ~PERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
    FILE))
    tc lOS ,4,:-l(irJ fli SLl'rRlll\{ (1.( :RT
    lJTM(El AOOAEISII I 7l .. - 1.\', " • f.- «(, ~, <"'" \ () .L
    UAlMQ ACJ()fl(A

    U1YMDrtI'~ . • 1 ~'" h • i\' '. ", ~ -\


    \ < Rf-C€.\\/EO AUG 1 4 ZOOl
    IlI'WIICHHMoIl JOHN" ':U,,;;'<h ',:;l.L:i~K

    IWRAGI or
    PiiltlUNERS
    HUSBAND". Jes Christensen
    ~\}G \ 0\ 11lGl ~I
    : DE M, rlEPVrY
    "?- COU?:t
    WIfE; Malle Delgado S\)i'::'\\\~\\i"I\\C'1
    REQUEST FOR JUOGM£Nl'. RNo ~Gl :MiiMENl'il CAII-..a
    ·..:\102·\727

    DISSOW11ON or MARRlAG!, AND NOTIC! or ENTRY 0' JUOGIIENT


    ,. 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 ~ qena~ l6lder trIe!awl ~ ltIe State at ~ that ltIe b'egOinQ IS true and correct.
    Da18: AUlJ I 1 LWI
    ..
    . ~.\" ~. . ) i
    ~
    \
    ",
    ,!
    •

    "
    -
    Jt:!i ehri sten.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
    • (SIOIIA1\JIlE'~"1lRfY
    ,----,-----------
    --..0 TO HAllE HIli Oft HER _ AEST~ot

    ,. . 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 ~td 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:

    ~ comply WlItI MTy ac.1eement attac::tled 10 the peCIbOn, ~. 1.1 ~1

    - - - -.- - ,,---- D
    8. HIAband. IIld WIte.

    - ,."
    0 ....., tJ 1
    I'lii'" /1'J'~
    ,. t _ ---
    r~ ~- - - -

    ,./

    .IXXIt: 01 nc 8Ul"lfIO'I ca.RT

    ~
    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 ~ ~ ~I to Illy ll'~ 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 y OIJ UlouId
    re\'_ ItIeU INnenl. as well as if')' Ctd eNds. Olt>e< Cfedlt acGOtlOla, inIur8nc4I polIciei reoremert benetJl planl, and credit r~ 10
    ~f\W1e ~ ~ ~ tlf! ct-anged Of wt>e4tlet )"')IJ VlOuld UIQ Iffy octw adIOnI,

    ... _. -. - - ---._-"-
    .__
    . --_. - - -
    _.'.
    - - _._-----
    ,_ _ ,__ , ..
    --
    .
    --
    .
    ----- - - ----
    . . _ _ _ _..... ~!!.J.

    - '--y~""~.uw REQUEST FOR JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT Of DtSl;QLUTION :.....""'Z.c;=~ ..


    W J:J
    " ~;,.....:.;::,~~.~.:... OF UARRIAG&. AND Nonc& OF ENTRY OF JUDGUENT """
    ' ' ' ' _ _ 11. • • • • 00 , . •• _ _ , . _ . "' ••• 1•••' _ . ,

    348 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p348/679


    • •
    ,~NA ~.;,.,~: E. :,1 ~ :JA~~[.

    ~ .~NN;'. ~·:lt~: E' ,.; :.LI LA!\: l~; r~ F"L::


    ~4Cl CAPFI:L: PLV~

    ~AP V:~:h, ~~ ~JCtt

    Bar No.:
    ..
    :1 Attorr.eyts) for
    E

    f S'JPERIOR COURT CF CALIFORNIA, COUN':"t r_~ 1-.1. ~:n £<t

    9
    .l '-,

    :~ F[ ~HE MARRIAGE OF: tJ'.:':. ~.)~ ~ '-;

    : 3 DONI';" ~AP:~, G I LLI LAND \ ST1Pt·:" .. ~F~j ~t·~·;~t~.T

    ~4

    Petit loner
    • [C

    dr"o
    lE
    PAUL ED~AFC GILLILAND
    Respondent

    :t<n THiS STIPULATEC JUDGEMENT 15 made and entered lr.~c, cr. ;"p,: :;. 4.'

    :,
    a~ Santa Marllca, california, by and betwt'en tt0NNA MAfiIE' ,;1:'L:;.',: ..

    ,ceferc{,j c( t'.erein as "PetltlOnf>c"l and PAUL f~'~'!\"~' ~;:: 1 ;:.K~.:

    L.II \!eferrt'G to hereln as "Respon,1ent"l, both If'ferrp,j t' .'~~';" .~.!t- •. ~.

    "Tr.e F.,!' ,,",5," ar.d 15 based ·"por. t~,e fol10 .... 1r.;;: fj"~ Io",;.!. ",f> ri't~. '!'.

    "1 ...1 l E- t'" • t;- t c ... e ;

    ;., :-~.,. par:~es .... ere IT,arrlt-'') t) eact, rt.t.t'! .... ~"-<f": :& r t ." p ~ t
    . ~4~r .:,: '>/II ~ :- e :.- en t 1 n u. 0 ~ s ~ / .. ~'.•_ ! 1

    ~ :-. c :.. 1 0 t.l E~ d ~ f f p r . . . :- ~ e 5 d r c .s e t t ': ,,' f~ f- • t ~ t t. ,'] ~ • : t- .:. . ~ ;

    ·~~t-?'J. .. aC~f- o.teakl "';. ~ 'Lt"lf ~,dr: 1~1-. 'j: . ; ; ~ ..


    -.:.

    : t ' ; :....;...: F : ' ~~<f:~ :


    .:"'"\ -~-

    ~Illi t .J~1 .h

    dl. ll"

    349 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p349/679


    ~-~

    {.d l'.//
    t"VA.'\.f'~
    STATE OF ( .-
    COUNTY OF L C'. -~,
    ------ 55.

    ~~
    appeared~iwI~7,
    On "-+ (J..b I 2
    ), c
    before me, ....... An <n-o. "'4 r
    --_.=:.:..._- personally

    '*- 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)
    1dt~M!Jtr'1foiAf~ - . -:-
    ,- C'~ . t~'

    .....n-...,.
    JIOTARY. CItftOI
    ~fiIF l.J7l~

    350 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p350/679


    J 'l. -t.:: "f" ...

    ( ,'1,11'1

    MARITAL SETTlEMElfT AGREEMENT


    2B 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'
    4I 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
    9I 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 S4~parate 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 k/t~ /c;L.$
    20 (E) The partial intend this AGREEMENT shall.t>KfiIed'W1th the Court but

    21 that all Ordor~ shall be enforced pursuant to the term:; of thl5

    22 AGREEMENT only
    ", 2. PURPOSE ()F THE AGREEMENT
    ~4 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
    ~6 II (A) The parties '~pectfically agree that their mat~!ag(: of 1110711993 be
    27 II dissolved based on Irreconcilable differences under Family Code,

    28 §2310(a)

    I
    \1
    -
    KMS n~~
    MARIT.AI. SETTLEMENTAGREE.MENT·
    \1 (j c.. I
    II ~:::;>\l~
    'I

    351 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS


    .. p351/679
    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
    EXHIBIT 4,h
    28

    INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE


    Case No. BC351286
    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

    JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING HH,nH n,,'

    B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff K. CALL

    ice is waived.

    Page 1 of 1 DEPT. WEI

    363 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p363/679


    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15 The Minute Order of September 10, 2007 is probably
    unique in that there is no way to read it and not
    16 reach the conclusion that Judge Connor was involved
    17 in fraud. It is a stand alone evidence of fraud, where
    usually there is a need for multiple records to establish
    18
    such claim.
    19 Notice also that the Minute Order was noticed only on
    Plaintiff Attorney.
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    EXHIBIT 4,i
    28

    INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE


    Case No. BC351286
    364 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p364/679
    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

    DATE: 09/10/07 DEYf. WEI


    HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK
    COUNTY CLERK
    HONORABLE
    09/10/07 WEI JUDGE PRO TEM
    DEPT. 5 of 1 Page ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
    #13 MINUTES ENTERED
    B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567 Reporter

    8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff


    harbor provisions, a party may not bring a motion
    Counsel
    harbor period. In order to effectuate the safe ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
    NIVIE SAMAAN withdrawing the improper pleading during the safe
    VS Defendant
    permit an offending party to avoid sanctions by
    JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel
    The purpose of the safe harbor provisions is to ROBERT MUSS IG (X)

    then be filed.
    CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
    safe harbor period, the motion for sanctions may
    court. If the pleading is not withdrawn during the
    NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
    motion for sanctions may not be filed with the
    avoid sanctions. If the pleading is withdrawn, the
    DEFENDANT (JOSEPH ZERNIK) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS;
    party may withdraw the improper pleading and thereby
    court. During the safe harbor period, the offending
    which the sanctions motion may not be filed with the
    Matter is called for hearing. Both parties
    party begins a 30-day safe harbor period during
    acknowledge receipt of the Court's tentative ruling
    sanctions. Service of the motion on the offending
    as follows: must serve on the offending party a motion for
    follow a two-step procedure. First, the moving party
    The motion of defendant Joseph Zernik for sanctions
    pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures §128.7 is
    A party seeking sanctions under CCP §128.7 must
    DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
    DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
    A party seeking sanctions under CCP §128.7 must
    pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures §128.7 is
    The motion of defendant Joseph Zernik for sanctions
    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
    as follows:
    acknowledge receipt of the Court's tentative ruling
    party begins a 30-day safe harbor period during
    Matter is called for hearing. Both parties
    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
    ZERNIK) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; DEFENDANT (JOSEPH
    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 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
    safe harbor period, the motion for sanctions may
    then be filed. CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF

    The purpose of the safe harbor provisions is to


    ROBERT MUSS IG JOSEPH ZERNIK
    permit an offending party to avoid sanctions by
    (X) Counsel (X)
    VS
    withdrawing the improper pleading during the safe
    Defendant
    NIVIE SAMAAN
    harbor period. In order to effectuate the safe
    ROBERT MUSSIG
    harbor provisions, a party may not bring a motion
    (X) Counsel
    Plaintiff 8:30 amlSC087400
    CSR#5567 K. CALL CA B. VARGAS
    MINUTES ENTERED
    Reporter Deputy Sheriffll
    #13
    ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
    Page 1 of 5
    JUDGE PRO TEM
    DEPT. WEI 09/10/07 HONORABLE
    COUNTY CLERK
    DEPUTY CLERK V. JAIME JUDGEII JACQUELINE A. CONNOR HONORABLE

    WEI DEPT. 09/10/07 DATE:

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

    365 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p365/679


    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    DATE: 09/10/ 07 DEPT. WEI


    HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK
    COUNTY CLERK
    HONORABLE
    09/10/07 WEI JUDGE PRO TEM
    DEPT. 5 2 of Page ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
    #13 MINUTES ENTERED
    B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567 Reporter

    8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff


    motion that was served in April 2007 or provide
    Counsel
    413.) However, SAMAAN has failed to attach the ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
    NIVIE SAMAAN motion. (Hart v. Avetoom (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 410,
    VS Defendant
    runs from the filing date of the new and different
    JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel
    August 2007 and, therefore, the safe harbor period ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
    April 2007 is not the same as the motion filed in
    SAMAAN next argues that the motion ZERNIK served in
    CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
    is not precluded under the principles of Malovec.
    NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
    served in April 2007 and filed on August 9, 2007, it
    97 Cal.App.4th 949, 953.) Since this motion was
    for sanctions unless there is some action the
    Hathaway, Perrett, Webster, Powers & Chrisman (2002)
    offending party may take to withdraw the improper
    sanctions motion is served and filed. (Banks v.
    pleading. A sanctions motion may not be brought
    unless the order is reduced to a judgment before the
    after the conclusion of the case or a dispositive
    judgment does not bar a motion for §128.7 sanctions
    ruling on the improper pleading. By definition, the
    demurrer without leave to amend or granting summary
    safe harbor provision cannot have any effect if the
    distilled from Malovec is that an order sustaining a
    court has already rendered its judgment in the case;
    motion. However, the correct principle to be
    it is too late for the offending party to withdraw
    because the Court granted her summary judgment
    the challenged pleading. (Malovec v. Hamrell (1999)
    SAMAAN first argues that this motion must be denied
    70 Cal.App.4th 434, 440-441.)
    70 Cal.App.4th 434, 440-441.)
    SAMAAN first argues that this motion must be denied
    the challenged pleading. (Malovec v. Hamrell (1999)
    because the Court granted her summary judgment
    it is too late for the offending party to withdraw
    motion. However, the correct principle to be
    court has already rendered its judgment in the case;
    distilled from Malovec is that an order sustaining a
    safe harbor provision cannot have any effect if the
    demurrer without leave to amend or granting summary
    ruling on the improper pleading. By definition, the
    judgment does not bar a motion for §128.7 sanctions
    after the conclusion of the case or a dispositive
    unless the order is reduced to a judgment before the
    pleading. A sanctions motion may not be brought
    sanctions motion is served and filed. (Banks v.
    offending party may take to withdraw the improper
    Hathaway, Perrett, Webster, Powers & Chrisman (2002)
    for sanctions unless there is some action the
    97 Cal.App.4th 949, 953.) Since this motion was
    served in April 2007 and filed on August 9, 2007, it NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
    is not precluded under the principles of Malovec.
    CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
    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
    ( X) ROBERT MUSSIG Counsel (X) JOSEPH ZERNIK
    runs from the filing date of the new and different
    Defendant VS
    motion. (Hart v. Avetoom (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 410, NIVIE SAMAAN
    413.) However, SAMAAN has failed to attach the
    (X) ROBERT MUSSIG Counsel
    motion that was served in April 2007 or provide
    Plaintiff 8:30 amlSC087400
    Reporter CSR#5567 K. CALL Deputy Sheriffll CA B. VARGAS
    MINUTES ENTERED #13
    ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR Page 2 of 5
    JUDGE PRO TEMDEPT. WEI 09/10/07 HONORABLE
    COUNTY CLERK
    DEPUTY CLERK V. JAIME JUDGEII JACQUELINE A. CONNOR HONORABLE

    WEI DEPT. 09/10/07 DATE:

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    366 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p366/679


    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    DATE: 09/ 1 0/ 07 DEPT. WEI


    HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK
    COUNTY CLERK
    HONORABLE09/10/07 WEI JUDGE PRO TEM
    DEPT. 5 3 of Page ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
    #13 MINUTES ENTERED
    B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff I K. CALL CSR# 5567 Reporter
    I
    8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff
    further ruling by the newly assigned Court.
    Counsel
    Code of Civil Procedures Section 128.7 Stayed until ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
    NIVIE SAMAAN The Court orders the Defendant's Motion pursuant to
    VS Defendant
    JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel
    The motion for §128.7 sanctions is DENIED. ROBERT MUSSIG (X)

    sanctionable conduct.
    CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
    counsel of record, Moe Keshavarzi, engaged in
    There is simply nothing to show that SAMAAN or her
    NATlJRE OF PROCEEDINGS:
    opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion.
    arguments made by ZERNIK, which were repeated in his
    independent evidence to establish how the motions
    already considered and rejected the substantive
    are different. Page 32 of ZERNIK's motion was signed
    65 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 14.) Second, this Court
    on April 20, 2007 and again on August 9, 2007. There
    safe harbor provision. (Cromwell v. Cummings (1998)
    is nothing to show that the pagination of the motion
    improper pleading would undermine the purpose of the
    is awry or that anything was added or changed.
    brought following judicial disposition of the
    support. Permitting a motion for sanctions to be
    However, this motion does fail for two reasons: (1)
    improper, fraudulent.or lacking in evidentiary
    it was served five months after the alleged
    documents submitted by plaintiff were false,
    offending documents were submitted to the Court in
    (2) there is absolutely nothing to show that the
    conjunction with defendant's motion to expunge lis
    pendens heard and denied on November 9, 2006; and
    pendens heard and denied on November 9, 2006; and
    conjunction with defendant's motion to expunge lis
    (2) there is absolutely nothing to show that the
    offending documents were submitted to the Court in
    documents submitted by plaintiff were false,
    it was served five months after the alleged
    improper, fraudulent.or lacking in evidentiary
    However, this motion does fail for two reasons: (1)
    support. Permitting a motion for sanctions to be
    brought following judicial disposition of the
    is awry or that anything was added or changed.
    improper pleading would undermine the purpose of the
    is nothing to show that the pagination of the motion
    safe harbor provision. (Cromwell v. Cummings (1998)
    on April 20, 2007 and again on August 9, 2007. There
    65 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 14.) Second, this Court
    are different. Page 32 of ZERNIK's motion was signed
    already considered and rejected the substantive
    independent evidence to establish how the motions
    arguments made by ZERNIK, which were repeated in his
    opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
    There is simply nothing to show that SAMAAN or her
    counsel of record, Moe Keshavarzi, engaged in CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
    sanctionable conduct.
    The motion for §128.7 sanctions is DENIED.
    (X) ROBERT MUSSIG Counsel (X) JOSEPH ZERNIK
    VS
    The Court orders the Defendant's Motion pursuant to
    Defendant
    NIVIE SAMAAN
    Code of Civil Procedures Section 128.7 Stayed until
    ROBERT MUSSIG
    further ruling by the newly assigned Court.
    (X) Counsel
    Plaintiff 8:30 amlSC087400
    Reporter CSR#5567 K. CALL Deputy Sheriffll CA B. VARGAS
    MINUTES ENTERED #13
    ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR Page 3 of 5
    JUDGE PRO TEMDEPT. WEI 09/10/07 HONORABLE
    COUNTY CLERK
    DEPUTY CLERK V. JAIME JUDGEII JACQUELINE A. CONNOR HONORABLE

    WEI DEPT. 09/ 1 0/ 07 DATE:

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    367 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p367/679


    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    DATE: 09/10/07 DEPT. WEI


    HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK

    COUNTY CLERK
    HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
    09/10/07 WEI DEPT. 5 4 of Page
    #13 MINUTES ENTERED
    B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567 Reporter

    8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff


    Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
    Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
    NIVIE SAMAAN
    VS Defendant
    JOSEPH ZERNIK Department WE"H") (X) Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
    Angeles Courthouse (Pursuant to the clerk in
    8:30 a.m. in Department WE"H" at the West Los
    CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
    Status Conference is set for October 10, 2007 at

    NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
    OFF THE RECORD:
    Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
    The Court announces Defendant/Cross-Complainant Joseph
    Zernik, has filed a 170.3 request to disqualifty the
    calendar.
    Court this date. The Court despite the allegations
    advanced to this date and ordered placed off
    Any and all future dates set in Department WE"I" are
    made in Mr Zerniks' declaration, without conceding
    the disqualification statement, the Court believes
    that in the interest of justice, the Court should
    Judge presiding for all purposes.
    recuse Itself on Its own Motion Pursuant to Code of
    Department WE"H", Honorable Allan J. Goodman,
    Civil Procedures Section 170.3(c)2.
    reassigned to the West Los Angeles Superior Court,
    Honorable Gerald Rosenberg, the case is ordered
    Pursuant to the Order of the Presiding Judge,
    Pursuant to the Order of the Presiding Judge,
    Honorable Gerald Rosenberg, the case is ordered
    reassigned to the West Los Angeles Superior Court,
    Civil Procedures Section 170.3(c)2.
    Department WE"H", Honorable Allan J. Goodman,
    recuse Itself on Its own Motion Pursuant to Code of
    that in the interest of justice, the Court should
    Judge presiding for all purposes.
    the disqualification statement, the Court believes
    made in Mr Zerniks' declaration, without conceding
    Any and all future dates set in Department WE"I" are
    advanced to this date and ordered placed off
    Court this date. The Court despite the allegations
    Zernik, has filed a 170.3 request to disqualifty the
    calendar.
    The Court announces Defendant/Cross-Complainant Joseph
    Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
    OFF THE RECORD: NAHIRE OF PROCEEDINGS:

    Status Conference is set for October 10, 2007 at CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
    8:30 a.m. in Department WE"H" at the West Los
    Angeles Courthouse (Pursuant to the clerk in
    Department WE"H")
    (X) ROBERT MUSSIG Counsel (X) JOSEPH ZERNIK
    Defendant VS
    NIVIE SAMAAN
    ROBERT MUSSIG
    Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
    (X) Counsel
    PlaIntiff 8:30 amlSC087400
    CSR#5567 K. CALL Deputy Sheriff II CA B. VARGAS
    MINUTES ENTERED
    Reporter
    #13
    Page 4 of 5 DEPT. WEI 09/10/07 HONORABLE
    COUNTY CLERK
    ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR JUDGE PRO TEM

    DEPUTY CLERK V. JAIME JUDGEII JACQUELINE A. CONNOR HONORABLE

    WEI DEPT. 09/10/07 DATE:

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    368 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p368/679


    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

    DATE: 09/10/07 DEJYf. WEI


    HONORABLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGE V. JAIME DEPUTY CLERK
    COUNTY CLERK
    HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
    09/11/07 DEPT. WEH
    #13 MINUTES ENTERED
    5 5 of Page
    B. VARGAS CA Deputy Sheriff K. CALL CSR#5567 Reporter

    8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff


    Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG (X)
    NIVIE SAMAAN
    VS Defendant
    JOSEPH ZERNIK (X) Counsel ROBERT MUSSIG
    V. JAIME (X)
    By:

    CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF


    John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk
    J\'ATlJRE OF PROCEEDINGS:
    Date: SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
    of the
    CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/
    LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1448

    NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER


    333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 48TH FLOOR

    MOE KESHAVARZI

    I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the


    above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
    thereon fully prepaid.
    a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
    for each, addressed as shown below with the postage
    served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of
    original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope
    9-10-07 upon each party or counsel named below by
    in SANTA MONICA, California, one copy of the
    depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
    depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
    in SANTA MONICA, California, one copy of the
    9-10-07 upon each party or counsel named below by

    original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope


    served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of

    for each, addressed as shown below with the postage


    a party to the cause herein, and that this date I

    thereon fully prepaid.


    above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
    I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
    MOE KESHAVARZI
    333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 48TH FLOOR
    NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
    LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1448
    CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/
    of the
    Date: SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
    l\'ATlJRE OF PROCEEDINGS:
    John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk
    CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF

    By:
    (X)
    V. JAIME
    ROBERT MUSSIG Counsel (X) JOSEPH ZERNIK
    Defendant
    VS
    NIVIE SAMAAN
    (X) ROBERT MUSSIG Counsel
    Plaintiff 8:30 amlSC087400
    Reporter CSR#5567 K. CALL Deputy Sheriffll CA B. VARGAS
    MINUTES ENTERED
    Page 5 of 5 DEPT. WEH 09/11/07
    #13
    ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR JUDGE PRO TEM HONORABLE
    COUNTY CLERK
    DEPUTY CLERK V. JAIME JUDGEII JACQUELINE A. CONNOR HONORABLE

    WEI DEJYf. 09/ 1 0/ 07 DATE:

    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

    369 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p369/679


    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
    EXHIBIT 4,j
    28

    INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE


    Case No. BC351286
    370 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p370/679
    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.

    371 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p371/679


    • •
    ....... '
    ,,~
    ~.-1 "-;
    ~--
    ,. , ,- « '
    ,.-~

    J'l .~ '/_,
    .f '} , ;-,_'
    f 1 :'"
    or'

    ;~\ 1 SHEPPARD MULLIN RJCHTER & HAMPTON LLP ~(j~


    ('>(14;
    A Limjted
    Limited Liabili!y
    Liability Partnership
    PartnershiP.. . <0, Ok
    <O.s- 0,.~
    Er-OfeSSlOIJal-Curpor-a110ns. __ -- ---- --------~-
    2- Includmg El"-efeSSlOIJal-Corpor.a1IOns-...-
    2· --~-----~- o~ ~~
    o"r.~~
    PHJLLlP
    PHJLLIP A. DAVIS, Cal.
    CaJ. Bar No.
    No.1I 10430 ./. 'O'o/.{r, ..,~~
    ./.~4',/~'CI~, '5:.­
    3 MOEKESHAVARZI,
    MOE KESHAVARZI, Cal. BarNo.Bar No. 223759 o~"1
    04,-/ 40;-
    'u~'J;'~ e
    41?p- 'U~"<Jl:'?e
    333 South Hope ~tre~, ~
    ..~ ()~.~~
    ~.;~ O~
    Street, 48th Floor
    4 Los Angeles, Cahfom18
    California 90071-]448
    Telephone: 213-620-1780
    90071-1448 ~k O~
    ",:"
    ~~ . 't~
    ~e "<q,
    (J

    ~
    O.,ll
    q.q; rr
    q,.:ct
    ~
    5 FacsImile:
    FacSlmiIe: 213-620-1398 .~
    o~
    0,
    "'P, O.n..
    q~pf'
    0..
    '
    6 ~4
    ~4, -;..~
    -".ql'e
    for Pl
    6 Attorneys JOT
    J"
    ainnOff Ni'llie Samaan
    PlainriffNivie ~~:r ~l'M
    .~h ~t>.r"4\
    77

    88

    9 SUPERJOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


    ]0
    10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -- WEST DlSTRJCT
    II NME SAMAAN, an individual;
    11 Case No,
    No. SC 087400
    12
    J2 Plaintiff, OM A. Segal
    Houerable JJohn
    Honorable
    13 v.. ~oposedj
    fFtoposedj Order Appointing David J.
    RecelVer.
    Pasternak as Recelver.
    ZE~'JIK, an individual and
    14 JOSEPH ZERJ"\1IK, and

    DOES 1 through 10,


    DOES] ] 0, inclusiv.e,

    jncJusive,
    ]5
    15

    Defendants,
    Defendants.
    16
    16

    17

    17

    18
    18

    19
    20
    21
    21 .
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    - J­
    W02.
    \V02.WEST;lMMK
    WEST; I MMK I <.40<14922!
    <400492211. 1.1[ [PROPOSED]
    (PROPOSED] ORDER .AJ'POINTING
    .lj>POINTING RECEIVER
    372 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p372/679
    • •
    I1 IT
    IT IS
    IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
    HEREBY ORDERED THAT David
    David J. Pasternak
    Pasternak ("Receiver")
    ("Receiver") shall
    shall be
    be

    2 appointed as Receiver to take possession, custody and control of


    of the
    the real
    real property
    property located
    located

    3 at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212, legally


    legally described
    described as:
    as:

    44

    :r
    La!
    Lot 252 ofTrac! Ci!y of Beverly Hills,
    of Tract 7710, in the CiD: Hills,

    ~I

    County of Los Angeles,


    AnKeles, State ofCa]ifomia,
    of California, as per map
    mal'

    recorded in book 83 PAGE (S) (5) 94 and 95 ofmaps


    of maps in in the
    the

    office of the recorder of said county (the "PROPERTY").


    "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
    the Receiver
    Receiver is
    is to
    to disclose
    disclose
    12 to all parties any financial relationship between the Receiver and any company
    company he
    he hires
    hires to
    to
    13 assist in the management of the estate.

    14
    3. TIle
    The Receiver shall have the power and the authority
    authority (a)
    (a) to
    to exclude
    exclude
    15
    15

    Defendant and any agents~ attorneys, employees or repre~entatjves


    repre$entatives thereof,
    thereof, or
    or anyone
    anyone

    16
    claiming under any of them, from the Property; (b) to take possession
    possession of
    ofthe
    the Property;
    Property; (c)
    (c)
    17
    to use, operate, manage and control the Propeny;
    Property; (d) to care for, manage,
    manage, preselVe,
    preserve, protect
    protect
    ]8
    18
    such care~
    and maintain the Property, and incur the expenses necessary for such care, management,
    management,
    19
    preservation, protection and maintenance (e) to pay appropriate expenses
    preseIVation, expenses for
    for the
    the PToperty;
    Property;
    20
    20
    (f) to take such other steps as are reasonably necessary to care for,
    for, manage,
    manage, preserve,
    preserve,

    21
    21

    protect and maintain the Property, subject to the contract for sale of
    of the
    the Property
    Property between
    between

    22
    22

    defendant Joseph Zernik and plaintiffNivie Samaan ("Samaan tt) and


    ("Samaan") and (g)
    (g) pursuant
    pursuant to
    to

    23
    23

    judgment for specific perfonnance dated August 9, 2007, in favor


    favor Samaan,
    Samaan, the
    the Receiver
    Receiver
    24
    24
    shall have the power to take all necessary steps to sell the Property
    Property to
    to Samaan
    Samaan through
    through the
    the
    25
    25
    reactivated Escrow No. 1-34500-GH (the "Escrow") at Mara Escrow
    Escrow Co.
    Co. 433
    433 North
    North
    26
    Camden Driver, Beverly Hills, California 90210-4409 (the "Escrowholder),
    "Escrowholder), for
    for aa price
    price of
    of
    27
    $1,718,000 reduced by the setoffs hereinafter described; (h) if within
    $1,718,000 within three
    three business
    business days
    days
    28
    -2-
    E:xhibft-'--page
    &.hibft-'-page /4
    W01·WEST:! MMK
    MMK 1\400492211.1
    1\400492211.1
    -2­ [PROPOSED]
    W01-WEST:l [PROPOSED] ORDER
    ORDER APPoINTING
    APPoINTING RECEIVER
    RECEIVER
    373 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p373/679
    ----, . .-----~-

    1 after documents are submitted for signature by the Escrowholder, Zemik fails to sign any

    su'ch-docurnents--the Receiver-shaH -have the power to sign said documentations on behalf


    '2 su·ch-documerlts--tne
    ·2

    3 ofZemik.

    4
    4. The Receiyer s.hal] prepare and" serve mDnthly
    Receiver sfJal1 monthly statements reflecting
    5
    the Receiver's fees and administrative expenses~
    expenses, including fees and costs of agents,
    6
    accountants and anorneys
    anomeys engaged by the Receiver to assist in the administration of the
    ...7
    j
    Estate~ inCUIl'ed for each monthly period in the operation and administration of the
    inculTed
    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
    eal,;h sl<:ltement. periodi'c payment of
    10
    shan be submitted to the Court for its approval ano
    fees and expenses, fees and expenses shall ano
    11
    JJ
    form' of either a properly noticed interim request
    confinnation in the form· fOJ fees, stipulation of
    12
    Account and Report.
    all parties, or Receiver's Final Accoum
    13
    ]4
    14 5. The Receiver may employ agents, employees, clerks, accountants,

    Pastemak, A Law Corporation), and property


    attomeys (including Appleton, Pastemak & Pasternak,
    15 attorneys

    admini~er the Estate, purchase materials, supplies and services, and pay for
    16 managers to administer

    17 them at the ordinary and usual rates out of the funds which shal1
    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
    properties,and
    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


    of the estate.

    22
    6. The Receiver "is
    'is empowered to esttlblish bank accounts for the deposit
    23
    of monies and funds collected and received- in connection"
    connection with the estate at federally
    24
    insured banking institutions or savings associations. Monies coming .into
    ,into the possession of
    25
    pUJpose ,herein authorized shall
    the Receiver and not expended for any purpose be held by the
    shaJl he
    26
    Receiver in interest bearing accounts.
    27
    28
    -'-'L-,,==:Ex~h~ib~tt J ~- ­
    "..,,;;::';;;;:~p~a~~ge~/~~:;;;;;;-
    exhibit. , Page
    I ======,,--
    I
    I .,3-.,.
    W02·WEST:1MMKJ\40049221 J.l
    J W02·WEST:1MMKJ\400492211.l ., 3., [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOfNTING RECEIVER
    374 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p374/679
    e--"-'- - .-
    •

    e'

    1 7. The
    The Receiver
    Receiver shan
    shan be
    be paid
    paid his usual hourly
    his usual hourly billable
    billable rate, not to
    rate, not to exceed'
    exceed'
    22;$4't-5;OG.·
    !>4'7-5;OG. All costs incurred
    int;urred by-the-R-eceiverafld-
    by-the-R-eceiverafld his attorney-s intBe---performance
    intBe--perfonnance of
    of their
    3 duties, including, but not limited to,
    10, their fees, shall be paid from the sale proceeds

    44
    8. . An~y
    An:y aJJd
    8JJd all expenses of the opcntion
    operation of the Estate are the risk of the
    5
    Receivership,
    Receivership, and flot
    not the personal obligation of the Receiver.
    6
    77 9. The Receiver may issue Receivership Certificates in increments of
    88 1I $10,000.00
    $] 0,000.00 bearing interest at
    2t eight percent (8%) per aimum
    arlnum for up to $50,000.00 to any
    99 person Qr parties. All funds loaned te
    person or tc the
    t.he Receiver pursuant to such Receivership
    10
    10 Certificate(s)
    Certificate-(s) shalJ priOf to all
    shall be deemed to be a lien of first priority which shall be repaid prior
    11
    11 other
    other encumbrances and claims, other than costs of administration.

    ]2 II
    12
    10. The Receiver and the parties to this case may, at any time, apply to
    13
    J3
    this Court for further
    this funher or other instructions or orders and for further powers nccessar)' to
    ]4
    14
    enable
    enable the Receiver to perfonn
    penonn the Receiver's duties properly.
    ]5
    15
    16
    16 11. Upon close of escrow,'the
    escrow,the Receiver shall hold the net proceeds of the

    17 PropeI1y and before distributing it to Zernik, deduct from that amount (1) any
    sale of the Property
    ] 7 sale

    18 attorney's fees or costs granted to Samaan by this Court, (2) any damages incidental
    18 attorney's incidental'to
    to the

    19
    -19 decree of
    decree specific perfonnance
    of specific performance granted 10 Samaan and (3) the Receiver's fees and expenses

    20
    20 incurred
    incurred as described herein.
    as described herein.·­

    21
    21
    12.
    12. The parties, and each of them, on receipt ofth1S
    of this Order shall provide
    22
    22
    the Receiver
    the Re.cciver wlthtbe
    with the tax the-PROPERTY.
    tax identification numbers utilized by the PROPERTY. The
    23
    23
    Receiver shan
    Receiver also be entitled to utilize the tax Identification numbers during his operation
    shall also
    24
    24
    ofthe
    of the receivership
    receivershlp estate.
    25
    25
    26
    26 13.
    13. The Receiver shall detennine upon taking possession of the estate
    27 whether
    27 V\'hether in
    in the
    the Receiver's
    Receiver's jUdgment
    judgment there is sufficient insurance coverage. With respect to

    28 any insurance
    28 any insurance coverage,
    coverage, the Receiver shall be named as an additional insured on the

    -4-
    -4­
    =WO=2----;:·WES=T:-::l-;-;M-;-:M~K :-:-1\4004~-::;-;9':-;;c21;-;-1-;-1 --------==----"IP;:;-;R;;:--,O"'P=OSED]
    Exhibit It. pa'
    Pa
    ORDER APPOINTING
    I CtJ
    Ca
    APPOINTING RECEIVER
    W02_WEST:IMMKI\4004912111 IPROPOSED] ORDER RECEI'\IER
    375 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p375/679
    - - - -".,. - . - e
    jj

    • •
    1 policies for the period that the Receiver shall be in possession of the estate. If sufficient
    --2, -insurancc-eoverage-dees
    ---2" not-exist-, -the -Receiver-shall -immediately notify-the
    -insurance-eoverageJoes not-exist, netify--the parties to this
    sha1l have thirty (30) calendar days to procure sufficiellt all-risk and liability
    3 lawsuit and sha1]

    4 insurance on the estate (including earthquake and flood insurance) provided, however, that
    5j if the Receiver does not have sufficient funds to do so, the Receiver shall seek instructions

    6 from the Court 'with shall be obtained ~nd


    \\'ith regard to whether insurance shaH oe paid
    Bnd how it 1s to be

    7:i i
    7 : for. If consistent with existing 1aw,
    1a\:I,.', the Recei ver shall not be responsible for claims arising
    lhe Receiver arislng
    8 fr0!ll
    fr0!I1 the lack of procurement or inability to obtain insurance.

    9
    II
    I' 14.
    J 4. The Receiver shall
    shan be authorized 'to PU):
    authoJized 10 pay all legal obligations of the
    10
    10
    PROPERTY outstanding and coming due.
    11

    11
    12 15. Zernik and his respective agents, employees, representatives and
    and

    iI " ..
    concert with them are ordered forthwith to take all steps reasonably
    13 anyone acting in concen reasonably

    ] 4 necessary to enable the Recei\ier


    Recei,"er to administer the receivership estate and to exercise

    exercise

    15 management and control over the PROPERIT,


    15 PROPERTY, including but not limited to:

    to:

    16
    (a) Forthwith providing the Receiver with all keys,
    keys. books of accounts,
    17 ", .
    budgets~ real estate tax and other bills, notices and all
    records, operating statements, budgets,
    ]8
    18
    documentation relating to the PROPERTY
    ]9
    19
    20 (b) Cooperating with the Receiver to enable him to sell PROPERTY to

    21 Samaan.
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26-
    26
    27
    28
    ""'"""
    WOZ' WEST: IMMi<-j \4004922 I J.I
    WOZ·WEST:JMMK-jl400492Z1 J. J
    ~_c=c;nr;~Exh;;;:ib;;;it
    5­
    -5- ~/~~~.~pa~ge~/~~
    [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
    "'"
    376 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p376/679
    -----,.------- •
    1 16. The parties and their respective agents) employees, representatives
    2 -and anyone acting in -concert and· restrained-from engaging
    with them-are hereby enjoined -and-restrained-from
    -cuncertwith
    3 in any action which interferes with or frustrates the Receiver's ability to administer the
    'control over the PROPERTY.
    4 receivership estate and exercise management and 'Control

    ~
    5
    I!
    Da1ed:

    .
    Novem~, 2007
    Daled: Novem~~

    ().9<:"0/7>
    (}.9<'O/}.
    ~ . . -.

    ~H~ .Seia!
    ~Ho;;s Seia! ..
    88
    v,...
    v, "JUt>d~PERJOR
    "J~-d~PERJOR
    .
    ,
    COURT
    '~".~$'
    .......
    .I
    ~~.S" ••
    ••

    . ~.~.

    9
    10
    II
    11
    12

    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24

    25
    26
    27
    28

    r~922] 1.1
    W02·WEST:IMMK r~92211.1
    -6- Exhibff'
    Exhibit I Page !I &
    g
    W02.WEST:IMMK APPOJ"t\'TING RECEIVER
    (PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING
    377 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p377/679
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    Enclosed is the court reporter's transcript for the
    14 November 9, 2007 hearing, at 4-day notice, for appointment
    15 of a "Receiver". Such receiver was appointed with no
    reference to any section of the code, with no reference
    16
    to the purchase contract, and with no reference to the
    17 judgment.
    When Dr Zernik received the motion paper he immediately
    18
    responded that it was fraud.
    19 In fact, in retrospect it was not fraud at all.
    20 Because Dr Zernik's case was the exception. Whereas
    other victims of racketeering by the LA Superior Court
    21 judges never figure out how it happened, Dr Zernik
    22 figured out the fraud around mid December 2006, and the
    abuse continued for a year before the racketeering judges
    23 managed to threaten him with force to take his property.
    24 During that year, neither police, nor FBI would come to
    his assistance.
    25
    26
    27
    EXHIBIT 4,k
    28

    INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE


    Case No. BC351286
    378 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p378/679
    Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 24 of 50

    1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


    2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    3 DEPARTMENT WE 0 HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE

    4
    5 NIVIE SAMAAN,
    6 PLAINTIFF,

    7 VS. NO. SC 087400


    8 JOSEPH ZERNIK,
    9 DEFENDANT.
    10
    11 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

    12 FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007

    13

    14 APPEARANCES:
    15 FOR PLAIN~I~F SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,
    NIVIE SAMAAN: LLP
    16 BY: MOS KESHAVARZI, ESQ.
    17
    18
    FOR DEFENDANT: JOSEPH ZERNIK
    19 IN PROPRIA PERSONA

    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26 AD~IANNE THOMPSON, RPR, CSR #12370
    OFFICIAL REPORTER
    27
    28

    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 CASE NUMBER: SC 087400

    2 CASE NAME: NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH


    ZERNIK
    3

    4 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2007

    5 DEPARTMENT WE 0 HON. JOHN L. SEGAL, JUDGE

    6 REPORTER: ADRIANNE THOMPSON, CSR NO.


    12370
    7

    8 TIME: 9:18 A.M.

    9 APPEARANCES: (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

    10

    11 THE COURT: NUMBER ONE, SAMAAN VS. ZERNIK, SC087400.

    12 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

    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 MUS~ BE

    17 HEARD AND RULED UPON WITHIN 60 DAYS. THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS

    18 AND I CITE THE LAW INSIDE --

    1'9 THE COURT: WHEN DOES THE 60 ~AYS RUN?

    20 MR. ZERNIK: PARDON?

    21 THE COURT: WHEN DOES THE 60 DAYS RUN?

    22 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 THE COURT: JUST TELL ME WHAT DATE YOU WANT, AND I'LL

    25 SET IT.

    26 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

    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, ~OTION FOR -- WHICH ONES

    4 YOU WANT HEARD AND TELL ME WHEN.

    5 MR. ZERNIK: I'D LIKE TO HAVE ALL OF THEM HEARD NEXT

    6 WEEK.

    7 THE COURT: THESE FOUR RIGHT HERE?

    8 MR. ZERNIK: YES.

    9 THE COuRT: OKAY.

    10 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 THE COURT: THEN YOUR OPPOSITION WILL BE SHORT.

    16 MR. KESHAVARZI: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE POINT IS HE'S

    17 FILED

    18 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

    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 THE COURT: SO YOU GOT ANOTHER ARGUMENT.

    9 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 ~VHAT DATE h'OULD YOU LIKE.

    17 MR. ZERNIK: MONDAY. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE --

    18 THE COURT: MONDAY IS A COURT HOLIDAY.

    19 MR. ZERNIK: TUESDAY.

    20 THE COURT: TUESDAY. TUESDAY IS -- DOESN'T GIVE HIM

    21 MUCH TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION.

    22 MR. ZERNIK: PARDON?

    23 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 THE COURT: HOW ABOUT FRIDAY THE 9TH?

    28 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

    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 MR. ZERNIK: SO 14TH.

    6 THE COURT: DONE.

    7 MR. ZERNIK: SO THAT IS WEDNESDAY?

    8 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, AN~ 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

    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 GOOD~AN. 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 THE COURT: I HAVEN'T RULED YET.

    26 THE WITNESS: OKAY.

    27 THE COURT: IT'S UNDER SUBMISSION.

    28 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

    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 THE COURT: I THINK YOU HAVE IT ALREADY.

    4 MR. KESHAVARZI: I DON'T THINK

    5 MR. ZERNIK: YES, YOU DO.

    6 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 THE COURT: YOU WERE ORDERED TO SERVE ANOTHER COpy ON

    11 HIM --

    12 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. I'LL SERVE IT TODAY.

    13 THE COURT: -- BY THE END OF TODAY.

    14 MR. KESHAVARZI: AND OUR OPPOSITION, YOUR HONOR, WILL

    15 BE DUE ON TUESDAY?

    16 THE COURT: YES.

    17 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

    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 ~~CEIVER 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, WH~CH 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

    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 INCL~DED 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 A~SO 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 ACTIO~. 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, ~HAT I DID IS I CALLED THE PEOPLE WHO

    17 SENT THOSE PEOPLE AND I ASKED THEM, "~mo 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 INCLUDE~ 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 TH~

    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 OPERA~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 THE COURT: THANK YOU. YOU'RE REPEATING YOURSELF.

    23 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 OP~NED 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 THER~ 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 THE COURT: THANK YOU. YOU'RE REPEATING YOURSELF.

    8 MR. ZERNIK: NO, THE LAST --

    9 THE COURT: MR. KESHAVARZI.

    10 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 TH~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 MR. KESHAVARZI: YES, YOUR HONOR.

    27 THE COURT: I GOT IT.

    28 MR. KESHAVARZI: LET ME POINT SOMETHING OUT TO

    EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS


    PAGE 585

    393 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p393/679

    Você também pode gostar