Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • 09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #12 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part6b p442-491

    Enviado por

    Human Rights Alert - NGO (RA)
    98 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 - #12- Dr Zernik's Motions Vol II Part6b p442-491

    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
    98 visualizações50 páginas

    09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #12 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part6b p442-491

    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

    3.

    MR WEDICK'S RESUME'

    442 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p442/679


    JAMES J. WEDICK
    WEDICK & ASSOCIATES
    11230 Gold Express Drive, Suite 310 - #0364
    Gold River, CA 95670-4484
    916.638.3566 (Direct) 916.290.0999 (Fax)
    Website: www.fraudspecialists.com Email: jwedick@fraudspecialists.com
    www.FBIexpert.com
    FBI INVESTIGATIONS; WHITE COLLAR CRIME; FRAUD

    Early FBI Career


    Receiving an undergraduate degree at Fordham University—majoring in Accounting—in 1973, Mr. Wedick was appointed
    an FBI Special Agent where as an undercover agent he pursued international white-collar-crime and organized-crime
    figures. Code named OPFOPEN the investigation launched the FBI’s effort to proactively pursue notorious con-men and
    globe-trotting financiers whose criminal strategies included crossing international borders to evade prosecution. Early
    notable assignments included undercover roles in the ABSCAM probe where members of Congress were found guilty taking
    bribes; indicting the sons of New York mobster JOE BONANNO with wire fraud; and convicting a pension fund executive
    with taking $1 million bribe for orchestrating a $50 million loan.

    Undercover Probe Concerning California Lawmakers


    In 1985, Mr. Wedick initiated the FBI’s historic 3 year undercover probe concerning California lawmakers soliciting/taking
    bribes that included introducing bogus legislation and executing search warrants inside capitol lawmakers' offices. Called
    CAPSCAM the investigation convicted 5 California legislators and a member of the Coastal Commission seeking to extort
    various Hollywood celebrities. Aside from being featured in ABC's Prime Time Live—and guilty verdicts being declared in 6
    RICO trials—editorials across the state praised the FBI for its efforts in pursuing corrupt public officials. Because of the
    undercover operation’s success, in 1994, Mr.Wedick received the FBI Director’s Award with his performance cited in the U.S.
    Congressional record. Using bogus legislation to catch corrupt officials, in December 1994, Mr. Wedick’s unique approach
    was featured in the Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine and he was also nominated by the U.S. Attorney for the Attorney
    General’s Award.

    Local Municipal Corruption


    In 1994 with corruption allegations suggesting Fresno area council members were soliciting bribes in exchange for
    making zoning changes, Mr. Wedick launched the REZONE investigation—again using the undercover approach to record
    conversations and collect evidence—convicting 17 defendants, with 14 pleading guilty to federal RICO and corruption
    violations. In the Sacramento Bee and Fresno Bee Editorials—the last titled Operation REZONE’s Painful Lessons—the FBI
    was credited with exposing corrupt practices where it was "clear that the local political system…(had been) manipulated for
    extraordinary personal gain at the cost of public trust."

    CBS and 60 MINUTES


    With allegations suggesting Medicaid Fraud had become the crime de jour for sophisticated thieves, Mr. Wedick also
    launched 3 Health Care Fraud Initiatives prosecuting 324 medical providers with defrauding funds totaling in excess of $228
    million. The successful FBI Initiatives attracted the attention of both broadcast and print journalists alike, including 60
    Minutes’ Mike Wallace, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, and the Los Angeles Times who did a nine-part series detailing the systemic
    fraudulent abuse. In the 60 Minutes piece, Wallace credited Mr. Wedick with marshaling the resources needed to combat
    the crime.

    Terrorism
    After several officials recommended he receive an appointment to head California’s terrorism effort, in 2004, Mr. Wedick
    started his own agency and in 2005 he joined the legal team representing two Lodi, California men charged with making
    false statements and supporting terrorism. Because Mr. Wedick was convinced the Lodi men were innocent—commenting
    the prosecution was based on a poorly done FBI interrogation, lack of corroboration, and a mishandled informant—he
    “battled” the government concerning his expected testimony as an expert that was reported as a “cover” story in the LA
    Times Sunday Magazine, in May 2006, and featured in a PBS FRONTLINE documentary titled, “ENEMY WITHIN,” that aired
    October 2006. He also secured juror affidavits supporting a misconduct motion and, in 2007—in case dubbed LIBERTY
    CITY SEVEN by the Miami media—charged the government’s use of an FBI informant who “failed” a polygraph was a
    violation of the Attorney General’s Guidelines on the Use of Informants.

    Distinguished Service/Professional Organizations


    Lastly, in April 2004, Attorney General JOHN ASHCROFT personally praised Mr. Wedick commenting his successes
    represented the finest traditions in the Department of Justice. With almost 35 years experience in the FBI, Mr. Wedick was
    frequently rated an exceptional employee who routinely handled the Bureau’s most complicated and sensitive investigations,
    including writing/supervising both long/short term undercover proposals/operations, used/supervised criminal informants,
    monitored/recorded authorized personal/telephone conversations, was long-term undercover agent, and managed a squad
    FBI agents. Currently, Mr. Wedick is a licensed California Private Investigator [PI] and Certified Fraud Specialist [CFS], and
    member in good standing with the Association of Certified Fraud Specialists [ACFS], Association of Certified Fraud
    Examiners [ACFE], California Association of Licensed Investigators [CALI], Sacramento County Bar Association, FBI Agents
    Association [FBIAA], and Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI.

    443 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p443/679


    4. OPINION LETTER OF MR WEDICK

    Mr Wedick, an FBI veteran, commended by


    the U.S. Congress, the FBI Chief, and the
    U.S. Attorney General, is a fraud specialist.

    He examined the Grant Deeds for fraud


    concerns, in response to request by the
    property owner, Mr Joseph Zernik.

    In addition to records copied here, Mr


    Wedick was also provided, at his own
    request, with a volume of over 500 pages of
    records - a comprehensive review of Mr
    Pasternak's appointment procedure and
    subsequent conduct in Samaan v Zernik.

    444 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p444/679


    11230 GOLD EXPRESS DRIVE S'l'E 310 GOLD RIVER CA 95670 916.638.3566
    WWW.FRAUDSPECIALIS.l.S.COM

    To: Dr. Joseph Zernik

    Date: January 29, 2009

    From: Investigator/E

    Subject: Grant Deed file Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK,


    Los Angeles Superior Court;
    SAMAAN Vs. Zernik [SC087400);

    In accordance with reference litigation currently ongoing in Los Angeles


    Superior Court, Dr. JOSEPH ZERNIK retained the professional services of former FBI
    agent JAMES J. WEDICK as an expert in white-collar-crime [Wcq, fraud and
    corruption. Specifically, Mr. WEDICK was asked to examine two [2] GRANT DEEDS
    purportedly prepared by Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK for the purposes of executing
    a judgment for Specific Performance entered August 9,2007 in Los Angeles Superior
    Court-requiring ZERNIK to sell his property for almost $2 million to NNIE
    SAMAAN.

    As background information concerning his FBI career, it should be noted


    Mr. WEDICK received the FBI Director's Award for a much publicized investigation in
    California that concerned several members of the California State Legislature prosecuted
    for taking "bribes" with his accomplishments later cited in the U.S. Congressional
    Record. Mr. WEDICK is a 34-year Bureau veteran whose performance has been praised
    by U.S. Attorney General [AG] JOHN ASHCROFT as being in the "highest traditions"
    of both the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice. Commenting on his many successful
    investigations, AG ASHCROFT described Mr. WEDICK's pursuits as literally "models"
    for other agents to "emulate."

    445 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p445/679


    And because Mr. WEDICK was responsible for the FBI's Sacramento
    based white-collar-crime corruption squad, his credentials include handling some of the
    Bureau's most complicated and sensitive investigations, including prosecuting the sons
    of New York mobster JOSEPH CHARLES BONANNO for conducting an illicit wire
    fraud scheme; convicting GILBERT W. CHILTON for orchestrating a $50 million loan
    from the California State Teachers Retirement System [STRS] to a Denver con-man-all
    in return for a $1 million bribe; and prosecuting Beverly Hills resident MARK L.
    NATHANSON for extorting Hollywood celebrities actor/director SYLVESTER
    STALLONE, music composer BURT BACHARACH, lyricist CAROL BAYER SAGER,
    entertainment moguls JEFFREY KATZENBERG, BARRY DILLER, and DAVID
    GEFFEN, movie producers BLAKE EDWARDS and his wife JULIE ANDREWS,
    IRWIN WINKLER and MICHAEL JACKSON's business manager SANDY GALLIN.

    Mr. WEDICK also is responsible for prosecuting seventeen [17] local city
    council members, land owners, and developers [in the ClovislFresno area] suspected
    soliciting/receiving "bribes" in exchange for favorable zoning requests-all in violation
    of the federal RICO and mail fraud statutes-and designed three [3] Health Care Fraud
    Initiatives responsible for prosecuting three-twenty-four [324] Los Angeles based
    medical providers suspected defrauding funds totaling in excess of $228 million from
    California's Medicaid Program.

    Reviewing the two [2] Grant Deeds, the first reportedly dated December 7,
    2007 and the second December 17,2007, Mr. WEDICK opines the very fact two [2]
    Grant Deeds exist for one transaction-each containing different information-suggests
    on on-going fraud requiring immediate investigation-particularly before any documents
    are allowed to be filed with a court and/or funds are disbursed.

    With respect to Grant Deed #1 dated December 7,2007, Mr. WEDICK


    opines reviewing the document he found DAVID J. PASTERNAK scribbled his name in
    the wrong location, i.e. where the notary is required to witness the document and further
    failed to sign in his capacity as receiver/grantor. Additionally, and most importantly the
    Notary Public did not witness and attach a court document identifying/appointing
    Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK as an authorized court receiver for JOSEPH
    ZERNIK.

    With respect Grant Deed #2 dated December 17, 2007, Mr. WEDICK
    opines reviewing the document the Notary Public did not witness and failed to attach a
    document identifying/appointing Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK as an authorized
    court receiver for JOSEPH ZERNIK. Additionally, the notation, "DAVID
    PASTERNAK for JOSEPH V. ZERNIK pursuant to case number SC087400," is not a
    valid substitute for an authorized court order.

    Accordingly, based on above observations MR. WEDICK opines an


    immediate investigation should be instituted in an effort to ascertain the circumstances
    behind any fraud being committed so that appropriate local, state, and federal authorities
    can be notified, including the appropriate court.

    SEE ATTACHMENT

    446 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p446/679


    California All-Purpose ACknowledgment as of 1/1/08

    State of California )

    County of ,sAC RAMEkiTO )


    On 1129!O~ before me, E. c.. H() k 0 M ,a Notary Public in and for said State,
    personally appeared, --
    - , lANES ::os. WEal ClC -
    who proved to me the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person Y4
    whose name ($) is/aje
    subscribed to the within instrument and acknry,vledged to me that he/sl'teARey executedthe same in
    hisfh~ir authorized capacity ~), and that by hislAefftheir signature ~ on the instrument the
    person ~), or the entity upon behalf of which the person (}) acted, executed the instrument

    I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
    true and correct.

    WITNESS my hand and official seal.

    .,•.: "~~HoKOM
    .-.... COMM. #1770388.
    1 ~

    Signature.__ ~~~=----=:..._~_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    z:" .1 Notary Public,Californla ~
    / / SACRAMENTO COUNTY
    ~.~.' ! .1y , .•,.,,,rtl, Exp, 9!11Pt. 21, 201 1

    (Area for Notary Seal)

    _______________________ OPTIONAL _
    Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the
    document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this to another document.

    Further Description of Attached Document

    Title or Type of Attached Document _

    Document Date:. _ umber of Pages, _

    Signer(s) or Issuing Agency:. _

    Capacity Claimed by Custodian


    Signer's Name _ I.
    o Individual
    o
    o
    Corporate Officer- Title(s):.-,-
    Partner - 0 Lirn ited oGeneral
    _
    Ii
    o Attorney ill Fact
    o Trustee
    o
    o
    Guardian or Conservator
    Other: _ I
    Signer is Representing: _

    447 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p447/679


    5. TWO (2) FRAUDULENT
    GRANT DEEDS

    448 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p448/679


    5a. 12/07/2007 FRAUDULENT
    GRANT DEED

    This Grant Deed was presented by DAVID


    PASTERNAK in LA Superior Court hearing
    on December 7, 2007, purportedly for Court
    approval.

    This Grant Deed was indeed approved by


    Judge PATRICIA COLLINS, as part of an
    order that she signed on the same day at
    DAVID PASTERNAK's request, and which he
    entered in court file, albeit, with no notice to
    the owner, Defendant ZERNIK, as required
    by law.

    449 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p449/679


    RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

    United Title Company

    Title #: 80701422-77
    APN #: 4328-0024-023

    WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO

    Nivie Samaan

    SPACE ABOvE THIS liNE FOR RECORDERS USC


    Grant Deed
    The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s):
    Documentary transfer tax is $1,889.80
    (X) computed on full value of property conveyed, or
    ( ) computed on full value less of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale.
    ( ) Unincorporated area: () City of Beverly Hills

    FOR A VALUABLE CONS1DERATlON, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,


    Joseph H. Zernik, an unmarried man

    hereby GRANT{S) to
    Nivle Samaan, a married woman, as her sole and separate property
    that property in The City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, State of California, described as follows:
    Lot 252 of Tract 7710, in the Oty of Beverly Hills, County of los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in
    Book 83, Pages 94 and 95 of maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.

    Together with all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to that certain Oil and Gas lease, executed by and
    between sammy Narens and Lylyan Narens, as Lessor, and Standard Oil Company of California, as Lessee, recorded
    September 23, 1964, as Instrument No. 3156, Official Records, Los Angeles County, Catiforla

    Mail Tax Statements to Gra=n~tee=:..-"a-,--t-"a-=cdd-,--r~ess=:..--=a-,--bo-,--v-,--e=- , _


    Dare November 27, 2007

    ~
    2J 2;Q
    450 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p450/679
    /'
    State of ___ ) 1 ~ T ~)(,'r __
    County of ,- ft
    I'~if' ~~ I~
    David J. Pasternak, Receiver
    On - ;.:: . 1 - --' before me, (Solely In that capacity)
    I "'-- =1 \ J f> .t ,I. 1--\ v_____
    a Notary Public,~rsonally appeared :.)
    ~',"''';,i -J- :- ):.~-.~ . ,)

    personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of 'r A <> ,0" <> -<> <> cOt <">.<""» C'b <> At"">, (

    satisfactory eVidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) i51are


    "; ,\~~~\-"~, liSA I<.ALAYDJIAN ~
    subscribed to the within instrument and acknowletlged to me
    that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
    \! ',~"';'0' ~':',7 CO,V'k -;; '1('13184 G)
    copacity(les), and that by his/her/their slgnature(s) on the \>l-~~~::~"~:.' ~~':~~'~~~: ~;:~,~:~r.:.~'.,~~,c:-. C:'~.~~,':·~~.~;A ()
    instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which "<, \" .'-,,"-'\/1 L"." ,:'kL~[" L,-,.", ,
    the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. i
    ~",-"".~~
    ,.~~., _,~~.;·/c=,;:.uJ ["..",:',,:,c.3 (leT is, 2CC9 ..I.

    WITNESS
    Signaturf !J
    ~YU1~ttfVJ\ (\ .
    ) \ ~ ,

    Name 4)1\,,\0 J. p~~r€tlJ~'Aj /!ic£\w.J.


    (typed or pnnted)
    FTGIS-j4<l8/90 IS area for oIlidal nalanal seal
    MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE

    2 'LI
    451 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p451/679
    5b. 12/17/2007 FRAUDULENT
    GRANT DEED

    This Grant Deed was recorded by David


    Pasternak with the Office of Registrar/
    Recorder of LA County on December 17,
    2007.

    No notice was served on the owner,


    Joseph Zernik, who retrieved this Grant
    Deed from the Recorder/Registrar's files a
    few months later.

    452 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p452/679


    COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
    REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK
    12400 IMPERIAL HWY. - P.O. BOX 1024, NORWALK, CALIFORNIA 90651-1024

    DEAN C. LOGAN
    ACTING
    Flegislrar-Recorder/Counly Clerk

    If this document contains any restriction based on race, color,


    religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status,
    disability, national origin, source of income as defined in subdivision
    (p) of Section 12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates state and
    federal Fair housing laws and is void, and may be removed pursuant
    to Section 1~~956.2 of the Government Code. Lawful restrictions
    under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing
    or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions
    based on familial status.

    453 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p453/679


    I
    This page is part of YI)Ur doc unnent • DO NOT DISCARD ..
    ;s: 20072759874 ~g~es:
    =- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ml l l l l~ I~
    Recorded/Filed in Official Records Fee' 1400
    '"1111111111
    Recorder's Office, Los Angeles County, . .
    California Tax: 1,889.80
    Other: 0.00
    12/17/07 AT 08:00AM
    Total: 1,903.80

    Tttle Company

    TITLE(S): DEED

    ~
    LEAD
    III ~ III III ~

    SHEET

    Assessor's Identification Number (Jl.IN)


    To be completed by Examiner OR Title Corlpany in black ink. Number of AIN's Shown

    fotlill THIS FOR.M IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED

    454 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p454/679


    UNITED TITLe COMPANY
    WESTLAKE VILLAGE BRANCH

    RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

    United Title Company

    Tille tI: 8070 1422·77 12117/07


    APN tt: 4328-0024-023
    l l Jl l l l lIl l l ~ 11111 111\l 11111 11111 11111 \I~I I I\ lil\ Illl
    WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO 20072759874

    SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDERS USE

    Grant Deed
    ,..-------------:r0;:~\-,-
    lhe undersigned grantor(s) dec/are(s): ~ y
    Documentary transfer ta:( is $1,889,80
    (X) computed on full vaille of property conveyed, or
    ( ) ccmputed on full value less of liens and enc!.JmbranCE s r~maining at time of sale.
    ( ) Umllcorporated are,l', (~it:y of Beverly Hi\\~,

    r:DR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which IS h ~reby acknowledged,


    ria~i~ T: ~astetnak as Receiver far JosEph V. Zernick pursuant to case number SCOB 400
    hereby GRANT{S) to
    Nivie Samaan, a married woman, as her sole and separale property

    that property In The City ofBever~HIIS, Los Angeles [Ollnt'!, State of California, described as follows:
    Lot 252 of Trac~ 7710, in the City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded In
    Book 83, Pages 94 and 95 of maps, In the office of the C lur,ty Recorder of said County.

    Together with all of Grantor's right, title and int,~rest in a 1d to that certain Oil and Gas Lease, executed by and
    between Sammy Narens and Lylyan Narens, as Lesser, a ld Standard Oil Company of california, as Lessee, recorded
    September 23, 1964, as Instrument No. 3156, Official Re :ords, Los Angeles County, Califoria

    --------_.------ -_.-.- -

    Date

    455 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p455/679


    .
    State of
    County of Lex:., A"li-c/c ';
    On (I ~ .:9 'L:.. 0 '7 teforc r11e,

    ~~tary Public, p~Onal;Y ~~;~~ed ~/{ I" /'?J-'!~l.:.~.


    L (;>,JI() J. _~;;:k~z __

    personally known to me (or proved to me on the baSI!, of


    satisfactory eVidence) to bl~ the person(s) whose name(s) isiare
    sul)scribed to the within in~;trument and acknowledged to me ,AAOAAOAAOAA<><>

    ttwt 11e/she/tf1ey executed the same in his/her/their iJ'Jthori;:ed


    CilpilCity(If.'S), ana that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
    ~. LlSAKALAYDJIAN
    v COMM ti 1613184
    ~:.
    1I"l~,trument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf (If w!:lch (ry co ... NOTARY P~BLlC . CALIFORNIA Gl
    the per~on(s) acted, exeC1;,ted the Instrument. ~ l05 ANGELES CCU~JTY ()
    I CUlM. EXPIRES OCT. 15, 2009 ..
    WITNESS my hand and qJ1'i2:ial seal Jf e 0 Q va '0 vV' VV=<O= V"GIlJ' r:Q:-.(.

    Slqnature _~ }-/" r~. ~/(F


    , l". Itir . ;f:'' ' ~,,~
    I\ame / 1-,.\ r.,__ fr"r; ((', I(~ (! {/ /A....-

    bl5 14() 8(9'l


    (typed or printed) f J

    MAIL TAX STJITEMENl'S f~S DIRECTED ABOVE


    This area for offiaal notanal seal

    456 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p456/679


    STAMP IS ON BACK OF LAST PAGE

    457 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p457/679


    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,o
    28

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


    Case No. BC351286
    458 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p458/679
    Digitally signed by
    Joseph Zernik
    DN: cn=Joseph
    Zernik,
    email=jz12345@ear
    thlink.net, c=US
    Date: 2009.05.12
    21:05:08 -07'00'

    Joseph Zernik DMD PhD


    Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net, PO Box 526, LV CA 91750

    08-01-30. Judge Terry Friedman: Ex Parte Application to Release Funds from


    Purported Sale by Att David Pasternak of the Property, Which is My
    Home, Taken by the Court

    A. TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Table of Contents …………………………… 1

    Declaration of Joseph Zernik in re: January 30, 2008 proceeding …………………………… 1

    January 30, 2008 Ex Parte Application by Defendant Zernik …………………………… 6

    January 30, 2008 Plaintiff Samaan’s Opposition to Ex Parte Application …………………………… 125

    January 30, 2008 Minute Order from Paper Court File …………………………… 153

    January 30, 2008 Notice of Ruling …………………………… 155

    January 30, 2008 Transcript …………………………… 159

    January 30, 2008 Minute Order from Electronic Court File …………………………… 167

    January 30, 2008

    B. DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN RE:


    PROCEEDINGS OF JANUARY 30, 2008 IN THE COURT OF JUDGE TERRY FRIEDMAN.

    I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant in pro se in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the LA Superior Court, and also Plaintiff in pro
    se in Zernik v Melson at al (1:2009cv00805) at the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia

    • I am often asked: How could the LA Superior Court take your home without paying you anything?

    In response, I summarize events as detailed below under the first part - General History. The proceeding of January 30, 2008
    in the court of Judge Terry Friedman was central to the answer to this question, and it is the focus of the declaration’s second
    part, under respective title.

    • I am also often told by attorneys: It happened only because you are/were in pro se.

    459 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p459/679


    z Page 2/2 May 12, 2009

    In response I state: I was represented by counsel from about July 2005 to September 2007. Therefore, events that are
    described below are not unique to pro se litigants. On the contrary, I hold that had I remained represented, I would have
    never been able to decipher what happened to me.

    I. General History

    1) On September 15, 2004 I entered a real estate purchase contract, after NIVIE SAMAAN, in collusion with her then
    fiancé, convicted felon JAE ARRE LLOYD (formerly TIMOTHY LLOYD MORROW) presented me with a September
    7, 2004 Prequalification Letter and other records. The signature of Loan Broker, VICTOR PARKS on the
    Prequalification Letter was later opined as false by a fraud expert. NIVIE SAMAAN in deposition admitted that Loan
    Broker, VICTOR PARKS, was not at all involved in anything related to her loan application process, and that she
    never even talked with him about the subject.

    2) On or around October 2, 2004 NIVIE SAMAAN and JAE ARRE LLOYD filed Uniform Residential Loan Applications
    (1003) with Countrywide. The signatures of Loan Broker VICTOR PARKS on such applications were opined as false
    by a fraud expert. NIVIE SAMAAN in deposition admitted that Loan Broker, VICTOR PARKS, was not at all involved
    in anything related to her loan application process, and that she never even talked with him about the subject.

    3) In deposition, NIVIE SAMAAN also stated her occupation and other details as different from what is stated in the loan
    applications.

    4) On October 6, 2004 COUNTRYWIDE’s Underwriter DIANE FRAZIER, who detected the false employment data in
    NIVIE SAMAAN’s residential loan applications (1003). She set forth conditions and decisions that eventually
    prevented NIVIE SAMAAN’s 1003s from ever being funded by COUNTRYWIDE. DIANE FRAZIER, a few months
    later lost her job, after 19 years of service with COUNTRYWIDE.

    5) On October 18, 2004, my realtor MICHAEL LIBOW detected a fax/wire scheme by NIVIE SAMAAN, where she
    impersonated VICTOR PARKS in fax communications with me. Later it turned out that NIVIE SAMAAN and JAE
    ARRE LLOYD engaged in a Wire/Fax scheme where NIVIE SAMAAN impersonated VICTOR PARKS also in
    communications with COUNTRYWIDE. Albeit, such wire/fax scheme was with COUNTRYWIDE’s collusion.

    6) On October 21, 2004 I cancelled escrow, after NIVIE SAMAAN:

    a. Refused to perform per contract

    b. Refused to provide a reasonable explanation for her failure to remove contingencies, and

    c. Refused to provide a reasonable explanation for the wire/fax scheme that was uncovered on October 18, 2004.

    7) On October 25, 2005 NIVIE SAMAAN filed a complaint for Specific Performance or Damages for Breach of
    Contract, arising from dispute in her failed attempt to purchase my property in 2004. Filing fees were never paid.
    The Clerk of the LA Superior Court refused to answer my demands to dismiss the case as required by law on such
    basis. In the past year the Clerk of the Court has refused my multiple requests to certify the case a valid litigation of
    the Superior Court of California.

    8) Attorneys from BRYAN CAVE, LLP, appeared in much of the litigation after July 6, 2007, always purporting to be
    counsel of COUNTRYWIDE, later – BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, and always self-designated as “Non
    Party”. The court designated them interchangeably “Plaintiff”, “Defendant”, “Real Parties in Interest”, “Cross
    Defendant”, “Intervenor”, and other designations, all with no legal foundation at all. In recent months, both BANK
    OF AMERICA CORPORATION and BRYAN CAVE, LLP, refuse to respond in writing to any requests for clarification
    of the nature of the engagement of counsel in this case, if any.

    9) On August 9, 2007, I was subjected by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR to a Summary Judgment hearing. In such
    proceeding and in other proceedings as well, Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR entered as evidence records provided
    by COUNTRYWIDE that were later opined as false by fraud experts. Such records were entered regardless of
    objections, with no authentication at all, and under circumstances that were contrary to civil procedures – in reply brief
    to summary judgment, and in ex parte sur reply to motion to expunge lis pendens.

    460 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p460/679


    z Page 3/2 May 12, 2009

    10) On August 9, 2007 JACQUELINE CONNOR also issued a Judgment by Court per CCP §437c, for Specific
    Performance of a real estate purchase contract: NIVIE SAMAAN was to purchase the property from me at $1.8
    millions, and $0 in attorney’s fees. In the past year the Clerk of the Court had refused numerous requests to certify
    that judgment as a valid, effectual judgment of the Superior Court of California.

    11) On November 9, 2007, following JACQUELINE CONNOR’s disqualification for a cause, I was subjected by Judge
    JOHN SEGAL to a hearing at 4 days notice, for Appointment of Receiver – DAVID PASTERNAK, purportedly for
    execution of judgment. Albeit, in both the Motion and the Order derived from it, there was no copy of the record that
    was titled Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP section 437c, issued by Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR on
    August 9, 2007. Another record was falsely identified as the judgment instead.

    12) I was forced to leave my home in late November 2007, under threat of force by DAVID PASTERNAK. Subsequently
    DAVID PASTERNAK forcibly entered the property, and claimed to have taken possession.

    13) DAVID PASTERNAK never issued a Writ of Execution. However, on or around December 17, 2007 DAVID
    PASTERNAK filed in the office of LA County Registrar Recorder Grant Deed on my home, purportedly conveying title
    to NIVIE SAMAAN for $1.8 millions. Veteran FBI agent, decorated by U.S. Congress, by FBI Director, and by U.S.
    Attorney General opined on DAVID PASTERNAK’s Grant Deed “…frauds being committed…”, and recommended
    “…investigation be immediately instituted…”

    14) On January 30, 2008, after the disqualification for a cause of Judge JOHN SEGAL, and later than 30 days allowed by
    California law for the court to hold proceeds from the sale of real property, I appeared before Judge TERRY
    FRIEDMAN, to request the release of the funds. TERRY FRIEDMAN denied my request to release the funds, with
    prejudice with no explanation at all. In open court he also threatened me with sanctions if I ever asked for such funds
    again.

    15) A few months later I gained access to some records that are products of Sustain, the LA Superior Court’s case
    management system, which were denied to me all along. I realized that in such system Judge TERRY FRIEDMAN
    listed the January 30, 2008 Minute Order as “Disposed”, by designating a "Minutes Entered” date of “00/00/00”.
    Such date of entry of order is both invalid, also - it is defined in Sustain as ”Disposal”.

    16) To this date, I received not a penny form the purported sale of the property.

    17) To this date, all local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies refuse to investigate my complaints. None ever
    stated that my allegations were false, They simply refuse to investigate.

    18) Since March 2007 I have been asking ANGELO MOZILO – formerly President, SANDOR SAMUELS – formerly
    Chief Legal Counsel, COUNTRYWIDE, and BRYAN CAVE LLP, to either authenticate or repudiate key records that
    by now were opined as false. They refuse to answer any such questions.

    19) For about half a years, since October 2008, I have I have been asking KENNETH LEWIS –President, TIMOTHY
    MAYOPOULOS – Chief Legal Counsel, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and also its AUDIT COMMITTEE to
    answer the same questions regarding six (6) key records -to either authenticate or repudiate key records that by now
    were opined as false. They refuse to answer any such questions.

    20) In summer 2008 the Honorable Diane Watson and Dianne Feinstein issued inquiries by U.S. Congress on FBI and
    USDOJ – why they would not respond to my requests for investigations.

    21) In August-September 2008 KENNETH KAISER –Assistant Director of FBI, and KENNETH MELSON- Director
    USDOJ, responded to U.S. Congress with following reason for the failure to investigate:

    a. I was complaining about a “foreclosure procedure” and “improper fine”

    b. I had never proved “federal investigational jurisdiction”

    c. I had never complained of a “specific violation of the law”

    461 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p461/679


    z Page 4/2 May 12, 2009

    22) On May 1, 2009 I filed motion to compel U.S. officer to perform his duties, naming the above officers, Bank of
    America, and others as Defendants. In the petition I allege that the responses by the officers to U.S. Congress
    constituted fraud, and were part of cover-up of racketeering by Countrywide, by the LA Judiciary Racket (LA-JR), and
    others.

    II. January 30, 2008 Proceeding in the court of Judge Terry Friedman and conditions in the LA Superior Court that
    are reflected in this proceeding.

    A. The Proceeding:

    23) The January 30, 2008 proceeding in the court of Judge Terry Friedman was relatively short, it took about 30 minutes.

    24) As Defendant, I appeared ex parte and requested that the funds which were the proceeds resulting from the
    purported sale of my home for $1.8 millions, as purported execution of judgment for “Specific Performance”, be
    release to me.

    25) State law says that any such funds from sale of property by the court must be distributed within 30 days.

    26) The property was purportedly sold on December 17, 2007, but to this date (May 2009), I have never received a
    penny from such purported sale.

    27) Judge Terry Friedman denied my request with prejudice. Moreover, in open court threatened me with sanctions if I
    ever asked for such release of funds again. But he never provided any explanation for his ruling, neither in open
    court, nor in his January 30, 2008 Minute Order.

    28) I am informed and believe that the 9th circuit issued an opinion relative to U.S. Judge Manuel Real – that ruling that is
    on its face contrary to the law, and comes with no explanation at all, may be deemed as Willful Misconduct.

    29) A few weeks later, in a February 15, 2008 hearing, Judge TERRY FRIEDMAN also threatened me with jail for
    purportedly harassing Countrywide by asking for authentication or repudiation of key records that they provided to the
    court in this case.

    B. The Minute Order in paper court file:

    30) Present except for the Judge, Clerk, Court Reporter and me, were:

    a. Attorney JOHN PATTON for DAVID PASTERNAK. He is falsely listed in the minute order as counsel for
    defendant.

    b. Attorney KEITH KLEIN, from the law-firm of BRYAN CAVE, LLP, purportedly for COUNTRYWIDE, also
    listed as counsel for defendant.

    31) The minute order in the paper court file is missing the Certificate of Mailing by Clerk, and Notice of Entry of
    Order, as required by law.

    32) The January 30, 2008 Minute Order was never noticed to me. One should note that the Notice of Ruling came with
    no copy of the minute order.

    C. The January 30, 2008 Minute Order exists in two critically different versions - one in paper court file, the other in
    electronic court file:

    33) The Minute Order present in the paper court file is marked “Date Minutes Entered” - ”01/30/08”.

    34) Later I gained access to some records that are products of Sustain, the LA Superior Court’s case management
    system, which were and are denied to me all along. I realized that in such system Judge TERRY FRIEDMAN listed
    the January 30, 2008 Minute Order as “Disposed”, by designating a "Minutes Entered” date of “00/00/00”. Such
    date of entry of order is both invalid, also - it is defined in Sustain as ”Disposal”.

    462 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p462/679


    z Page 5/2 May 12, 2009

    35) I requested numerous times to access my own litigation records in the Court’s case management system “Sustain”,
    to inspect and to copy. “Pacer” is the U.S. Court’s case management system. I was and am denied access to my
    own litigation records in Sustain, as are all residents of LA County in the past 25 years. The reason that was given to
    me was: “Sustain is privileged – for the court only.”

    36) I allege:

    a. That such rule was and is an unpublished Local Rule of Court. Unpublished Rules of Court are prohibited
    by both State of California and U.S. Law.

    b. That such Rule of Court is also in violation of Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc, where the U.S. Supreme
    Court affirmed the First Amendment and Common Law rights to access court records to inspect and to copy.

    D. “Waiver” of Notice and Service of Court Orders – a “Local Custom” of the LA Superior Court:

    37) The failure to comply with the requirement of Notice and Service of court orders relative to the January 30, 2008
    Minute Order was and is not an isolated case. On the contrary, to this date it is the rule. In over 100 minute orders in
    this case, about a handful were served and noticed to me. In many of the orders that were not served, it was notated:
    “Notice waived” or similar notations. It continued even after I filed an applications to stop such practice.

    38) I believe that the California Commission on Judicial Performance denounced such “waiver” of some basic rights a
    number of times in its annual reports in reference to judges of the LA Superior Court.

    39) The Clerk of the Court refused to answer numerous requests to clarify if he deems such court orders that were never
    noticed or served, but were inserted into court file, as valid trial court litigation records.

    40) I am informed and believe that similar practices are prevalent also in the criminal court in LA relative to waiver of
    notice and service of court orders, and relative to denial of access to electronic court files in the past quarter century.

    E. The Transcript:

    41) The transcript was entirely doctored – there is no mention in it of the matter at bar AT ALL! However, one can get the
    essence of the proceedings from the Notice of Ruling, filed by Plaintiff’s counsel – MOHAMMAD KESHAVARZI from
    SHEPPARD MULLIN.

    42) Such alterations were noted in many or most court reporter’s transcripts in this case. Accordingly, I made numerous
    requests to examine the short-hand rough transcript in its original digital form. I was denied access to such trial court
    litigation records under the reason that such rough transcripts are “property of LA County”.

    I make this declaration under penalty of perjury under the law of California and the United States.

    Executed here, in La Verne, LA County, California, on this 12th day in May, 2009.

    _____________________________
    JOSEPH H ZERNIK

    463 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p463/679


    z May 12, 2009

    January 30, 2008 Ex Parte


    Application by Defendant Zernik
    To Release Funds from
    Purported Sale

    464 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p464/679


    CONFORMED copy
    OF ORIGINAL FILED
    Los Angeles Superior Court
    Digitally signed by

    Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD JAN 3 02008 Joseph If'rnfk


    DN cn=Joseph
    Defendant John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/CJer~"vvL
    /1 Zernik,
    emaikJll2W,rOJedl
    2 II in pro per thllnk.net. (~us
    2415 Saint George Street Date 2008.01.30
    3 II Los Feliz CA 90027 By J. Citron, Deputy 06,J952 ·os·no'

    4
    5
    6

    7
    8
    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
    10
    11 II NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual. Case No. SC087400
    NO VALID ASSIGNMENT ON FILE SINCE
    12 II Plaintiff, SEPT 10, 2007!
    13 v.

    14 JOSEPH ZERNIK. an individuaL and DOES I


    through 20. inclusive.
    15 EX PARTE APPLlCATJON
    Defendants. FOR AN ORDER FOR THE IMMEDIATE
    16 RELEASE UF ALL ZERNIK'S FUNDS
    JOSEPH ZERNIK. an individual, . (>$700,000) HELD BY LOS ANGELES
    J7
    . SUPERIOR COURT
    18 II Cross-Complainant,

    19
    11 v.
    20 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL
    BROKERAGE; MICHAEL UBOW, an
    21 II individual,

    22
    Cross-Defendants.
    23 DATE: WED JAN 30,2008
    24 TIME: 8:30 AM
    PLACE: DEPARTMENT WE-
    25

    26
    27

    28
    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
    ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT'S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    465 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p465/679


    1
    2 EX PARTE APPLICATION
    3
    4 Defendant Zernik is hereby applying ex parte for an order for the immediate release of
    5 Defendant’s funds held by Los Angeles Superior Court.
    6 This ex parte application was noticed on Sunday, January 29, 2008 prior to 10:00am by
    7 phone to Att Keshavarzi, to Att Amberg, to Att Shulkin, to Att Patterson, to the Office of Att
    8 General Brown and the office of Illinois Att General Mudigan. Later, additional notices were
    9 provided by email (Exh A).
    10 Good cause exists to grant this application because:
    11 1) Nov 9, 2007 Order Appointing David J Pasternak as Receiver (Exb B) was issued by
    12 Judge John Segal, acting as Presiding Judge for all purposes in Samaan v Zernik
    13 (SC087400), but without due Assignment Order. Therefore, Judge Segal is likely to be
    14 deemed as an official operating under the colors of the State of California, but lacking
    15 in authority to issue such order.
    16 2) Nov 9, 2007 Order Appointing David J Pasternak as Receiver (herein after “the
    17 Order”) (Exh B) failed to refer to any section of the code as to the nature of that
    18 appointment, and is therefore lacking in any legal foundation.
    19 3) If such Order were pursuant to CCP §708.610, §708.620, §712.060, or a similar
    20 section of the code, related to execution of judgment – then such order failed to refer to
    21 any Judgment by Court, again rendering such order as lacking in any legal foundation.
    22 4) If such order were pursuant to CCP sections related to execution of judgment and Aug
    23 9, 2007 Judgment by Court (herein after “Judgment”) (Exh C), then it failed to
    24 incorporate the Contract for Purchase of Real Property Commonly Known as 320
    25 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 (herein after “the Contract”), as decreed
    26 in that Judgment for Specific Performance.
    27
    28

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -2- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    466 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p466/679


    1 In short, the Order is a unique legal document, entirely autonomous,
    2 independent of any code or any court document in Samaan v Zernik, constituting
    3 in and of itself code, claims, judgment, and post-judgment order.
    4 5) If the Order were pursuant to a) CCP sections related to execution of judgment, Aug 9,
    5 2007 Judgment by Court (Exh C), and executing Specific Performance of the Contract
    6 (Exh D), then all proceeds from the sale should have been immediately paid to
    7 Defendant Zernik.
    8 There was and there is nothing in the code, in the Judgment, or in the
    9 Purchase Contract that would have authorized or provided the foundation for the
    10 continued holding of Defendant’s proceeds from the sale of the property by the
    11 Court.
    12 6) Review of Nov 9, 2007 Transcripts (Motion for Order Appointing Receiver), Oct 11,
    13 2007 Transcript (Plaintiff’s Application for an Order to Compel Appraisal), and Nov
    14 14, 2007 (Receiver’s Motion for Orders), reveals:
    15 a. that the omission of any reference to the code or the judgment was not the result
    16 of oversight or neglect, but deliberate --Plaintiff’s counsel never recognized the
    17 Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, while at the same time asking for various
    18 measures against Defendant for alleged refusal to cooperate with execution of
    19 the Judgment,
    20 b. that Plaintiff’s Counsel made it abundantly clear to Judge Segal, that he was not
    21 engaged in the execution of the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court and that he did
    22 not recognize the judgment by Court, that he claimed that he had never seen the
    23 Judgment by Court, and that instead he was executing an “Oral Judgment”,
    24 resulting from “Dialog” between Counsel and Judge Connor and presumable
    25 understanding between the two of them that was different from the Judgment by
    26 Court.
    27 c. that based on the conduct of Judge Segal on Oct 11, 2007 (Exh F), Nov 9, 2007
    28 (Exh E), and Nov 14, 2007, (Exh G), one would most likely conclude, or at least

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -3- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    467 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p467/679


    1 reasonably entertain the doubt, that Judge Segal himself was engaging in
    2 execution of something other than Judgment by Court, with no legal foundation
    3 at all.
    4 7) Immediate release of such funds is requested to mitigate damages to Defendant from
    5 such wrongful holding of his funds. Continued holding of such funds incu ongoing
    6 expenses charged to Defendant by the Court for no reason at all, and will cause
    7 financial hardship, including severely limiting Defendant’s access to legal counsel.
    8 8) Immediate release of such funds is requested to mitigate damages by what is likely to
    9 be deemed conduct by officials operating under the colors of the State of California,
    10 lacking due authority, and abusing Defendant’s rights for Due Process and for
    11 Possession pursuant to both the California and the U.S Constitutions.
    12
    13 Dated: January 30, 2008
    14 JOSEPH ZERNIK
    15
    16 By: _______________________
    17 JOSEPH ZERNIK
    DEFENDANT & CROSS
    18
    COMPLAINANT
    19 in pro per
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -4- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    468 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p468/679


    1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
    2 1.
    The Order Appointing the Receiver is Entirely Lacking Legal Foundation.
    3
    4
    a) Judge John Segal had no Assignment Order and was presiding in Samaan v
    5 Zernik with no due authority.
    6 California Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court require that a judge
    7 be assigned to a case by the Master or Calendar or Supervising Judge. Judge John Segal, like
    8 Judge Goodman, Judge Biderman before him, and like Judge Hart-Cole and Judge Friedman
    9 after him, had no Assignment Order by the Supervising Judge. In fact, Defendant Zernik
    10 appeared before Judge Segal on several occasions, including October 10, 2007, and October
    11 11, 2007 to explicitly ask to be noticed of such order. Judge Segal refused to notice Defendant
    12 and Cross Complainant Zernik of such order. Moreover, on October 10, 2007, Judge Segal
    13 admitted that no such order existed, and explained that it was unrealistic to expect him to
    14 confront the Supervising Judge in a request for such order (Zernik’s Declaration Regarding
    15 Appearance on October 10, 2007, and Oct 10, 2007 Transcript, albeit, the transcript is
    16 objectionable due to some adulterations).
    17 Why the Court is insisting on running Samaan v Zernik “off the books” ever since
    18 the disqualification of Judge Connor on Sept 10, 2007?
    19 The answer is unclear, but the facts are clear -- none of the judges that followed
    20 Judge Connor had an Assignment Order to preside in Samaan v Zernik, and Supervising
    21 Judge Rosenberg refused to issue such orders even after being asked to do so on a
    22 number of occasions.
    23 Failure to assign a judge by the Supervising Judge and Master of Calendar, and
    24 presiding in a case on a regular basis and for all purposes, as done by Judge Segal, may be
    25 deemed in violation of the right for Due Process provided in both the California and the US
    26 Constitutions.
    27 b) The Order Appointing the Receiver fails to refer to any section of the code to
    28 provide it legal foundation.

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -5- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    469 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p469/679


    1 California Code of Civil Procedure includes sections authorizing the Court to appoint a
    2 receiver under various circumstances, e.g., CCP §708.610, §708.620, or §712.060. None of
    3 these is referenced in the Nov 9, 2007 Order Appointing David J Pasternak Receiver.
    4 c) The Order Appointing the Receiver fails to refer to the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment
    by Court.
    5
    6 The most plausible interpretation of the Order is in relationship to the August 9, 2007,
    7 Judgment by Court (Exh C). But the Order fails to refer to such judgment either.
    8 d) The Order Appointing the Receiver fails to refer to the Purchase Contract.
    9 The Judgment (Exh C) decreed Specific Performance of the Purchase Contract (Exh D),
    10 but the Order fails to refer to such Contract.
    11 Therefore, the Order fails to establish any foundation at all.
    12 In Sum: The Order is entirely lacking in legal foundation. It is a unique legal
    13 document, entirely autonomous, independent of any code or any court document in
    14 Samaan v Zernik, constituting in and of itself code, claims, judgment, and post-judgment
    15 order.
    16
    17 2.
    18 Had the Order Appointing the Receiver been Founded on the Code, the Judgment, and
    the Contract, there Would have been No Reason at All to Hold the Proceeds of the Sale,
    19 which Should have been Immediately Released to Defendant.
    20
    a) There is nothing at all in the Code, in the Judgment, in the Contract that would
    21
    justify the ongoing holding of Defendant’s funds by the Court. In accordance with the August
    22
    9, 2007 Judgment by Court and the Purchase Contract, the proceeds from the sale of the
    23
    Property were to be immediately paid to Defendant as the normal conclusion of the escrow
    24
    transaction.
    25
    ///
    26
    27
    28

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -6- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    470 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p470/679


    1 3.
    The failure to refer to either Code, Judgment, or Contract was No Accident, but the
    2 Result of Deliberate Decision and Ongoing Diligent Efforts by Att Mohammad
    3 Keshavarzi to Mislead Defendant and the Courts, and Wrongfully Execute Something
    Other of the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court.
    4
    5 In the hearings before Judge Segal on Oct 11, 2007, Nov 5, 2007, and Nov 9, 2007,
    6 Defendant protested numerous times the fact that Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mohammad Keshavarzi
    7 engaged in duplicitous arguments - on the one hand claiming that Defendant refused to
    8 cooperate with execution of the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, and on the other hand,
    9 refused to acknowledge or recognize such a Judgment. In each and every instance when
    10 Moreover, Defendant protested before Judge Segal that Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mohammad
    11 Keshavarzi stated in a number of filings before the court of Judge John Segal, in declarations
    12 under penalty of perjury, bearing his hand signature, that a given exhibit to his filing was the
    13 Judgment in Samaan v Zernik. But in fact, in each and every one of these cases, Plaintiff’s
    14 Counsel, Mohammad Keshavarzi, falsely and perjuriously provided under the respective tab a
    15 copy of the Aug 9, 2007 Order Granting Summary Judgment instead of the Aug 9, 2007
    16 Judgment by Court.
    17 Already in his first appearance before Judge John Segal, a month earlier, on October 11,
    18 2007, Plaintiff’s Counsel made it clear to the Court that he was not engaged in any way shape
    19 or form in enforcement of the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court:
    20 After making it clear to the court that both he and Judge O’Brien, a proposed referee, were
    21 fully aware that Judge O’Brien was lacking in authority, since Judge Connor failed to provide
    22 Judge O’Brien with due appointment order, Plaintiff’s Counsel made the following incredible
    23 arguments [underline added –jz]:
    24 9. WE APPEARED BEFORE JUDGE O’BRIEN. THERE WAS A
    10. NOTICED HEARING BEFORE JUDGE O’BRIEN. WE APPEARED
    25 11. MR ZERNIK DID NOT. JUDGE O’BRIEN SAID, “I CANNOT MAKE A
    12. RULING ON THIS CASE, BECAUSE THE SCOPE OF MY POWERS ARE
    26
    13. UNCLEAR.” HE SAID. “WHY DON’T WE -- WHY DON’T I ASK JUDGE
    27 14. GOODMAN “—BECAUSE THE CASE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO JUDGE
    15. GOODMAN – “WHY DON’T I ASK JUDGE GOODMAN TO CLARIFY THAT I AM
    28 16. BEING APPOINTED PURSUANT TO 639” -- I BELIEVE – “(a) (2) , “

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -7- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    471 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p471/679


    1 17. WHICH SAYS THAT AFTER ORAL JUDGMENT IS ENTERED, THE COURT
    18. MAY APPOINT A REFEREE TO OVERSEE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT”.
    2
    3 As is made clear in this paragraph, the practice of judicial officers with no due authority
    4 was nothing new in Samaan v Zernik. It was already in practice by Sept 2007, under Judge
    5 Connor. Needless to say that the notion of a “Noticed Hearing” before a proposed referee
    6 who was lacking due appointment order is ludicrous.
    7 Moreover, if one is to believe Plaintiff’s Counsel, Att Mohammad Keshavarzi, then Retired
    8 Judge Gregory O’Brien and Att Keshavarzi, had already initiated on Sept 10, 2007 efforts to
    9 enforce an “Oral Judgment”! That concept if of course lacking any foundation in the law.
    10 In the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint the Receiver, Nov 9, 2007, before Judge
    11 Segal, Counsel for Plaintiff, Mohammad Keshavarzi, finally provided the explanation for his
    12 perjurious conduct relative to the repeated replacement of Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court
    13 with Aug 9, 2007 Order Granting Summary Judgment in declarations under penalty of perjury
    14 bearing his hand signature:
    15
    14 ONE POINT, YOUR HONOR, MR. ZERNIK SAID THAT MY
    16 15 DECLARATION HAS A COPY OF THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER INSTEAD
    16 OF THE JUDGMENT. THAT IS CORRECT. I'LL AGREE WITH HIM ON
    17 17 THAT. THE REASON IS I HAD NOT SEEN A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT. I
    18 18 BELIEVED -- AND JUDGE CONNOR HAD TOLD ME ON THE RECORD WHEN I
    19 SAID, "WE NEED A JUDGMENT ENTERED." SHE SAID, "I'M ENTERING
    19 20 THE JUDGMENT" AND HER CLERK GAVE ME A COPY OF THE ORDER AND
    21 SAID THAT THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT, BUT YOUR HONOR HAS A COPY OF
    20 22 THE JUDGMENT, AND IT MIRRORS THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER. THE
    23 SUMMARY JUDGMENT -- ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS EXACTLY
    21 24 THE SAME. THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT IN THE JUDGMENT IS
    25 THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT SHORTER.
    22
    Therefore, on November 9, 2007 – Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mohammad Keshavarzi was
    23
    claiming that he had never seen the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, while moving the court
    24
    for appointing a receiver in response to Defendant’s purported refusal to obey the Aug 9, 2007
    25
    Judgment by court. And yet, on the very same day, Plaintiff’s Counsel was openly telling the
    26
    court that he does not recognize any Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, and that his motions are
    27
    based on an altogether different and invalid legal foundation -- asking the Honorable Judge
    28

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -8- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    472 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p472/679


    1 John Segal in open court to grant an order for appointment of receiver for the execution of
    2 that which is very different from the Judgment by Court. The duplicity was obvious – but not
    3 to the Honorable Judge John Segal.
    4 Moreover, already on November 5, 2007, in view of such duplicity, Defendant Zernik
    5 served Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mohammad Keshavarzi, Notice of Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by
    6 Court in open Court. Subsequently, Defendant Zernik observed Plaintiff’s Counsel,
    7 Mohammad Keshavarzi leafing through that notice. Therefore, the claim by Plaintiff’s
    8 Counsel on Nov 9, 2007, that he had never seen the Judgment by Court was also false and
    9 misleading.
    10 To refute Plaintiff’s Counsel incredible argument that the Judgment by Court and Order
    11 Granting Summary Judgment were “exactly the same”, Defendant, a dentist in pro per,
    12 argued before the court of Judge John Segal as follows:
    13 3 THE COURT: YOU CAN DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COURT,
    4 NOT TO HIM.
    14 5 MR. ZERNIK: I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW HE CAN SAY THAT
    6 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THE SAME AS JUDGMENT.
    15 7 THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO.
    8 THE ORDER SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISCUSSES
    16 9 THE VALIDITY OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT THE
    10 JUDGMENT ITSELF DEALS WITH ISSUES OF MONEY AND PROPERTY. SO
    17 11 THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP
    18 12 FOR EXAMPLE, HE GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF ATTORNEYS
    13 FEES. NO WHERE IN THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS
    19 14 THERE ANY MENTION OF THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED
    15 TO ANY ATTORNEYS FEES. AND AS HE HIMSELF MENTIONED, THIS IS A
    20 16 VERY SIGNIFICANT SUM OF MONEY. THAT IS SPELLED OUT IN THE
    17 JUDGMENT BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF JUDGMENT.
    21
    22 4.
    23 Judge Segal’s Conduct on Oct 11, 2007 (Exh F), Nov 9, 2007 (Exh E), and Nov 21, 2007,
    (Exh G), may lead one to conclude, or at least to reasonably entertain the doubt, that
    24 Judge Segal himself was eagerly misled -deliberately engaging in execution of something
    other than the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, with no legal foundation at all.
    25
    26 The Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court in fact spelled it out clearly:
    27 “Nivie Samaan shall recover from defendant costs of suit in the sum of $0 and
    attorneys’ fees in the amount of - $0.”
    28

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -9- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    473 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p473/679


    1 But Plaintiff’s Counsel, Mohammad Keshavarzi had no intention of obeying that
    2 Judgment by Court, he had another one in mind. The Nov 9, 2007 transcript states:
    3 20 THE COURT: IS THERE AN ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION?
    21 MR. KESHAVARZI: THERE IS AN ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION.
    4 22 JUDGE CONNOR, WHEN SHE ENTERED THE JUDGMENT SAID THAT WE WERE
    23 NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS FEES, BUT WE HAD A DIALOGUE ON THE
    5 24 RECORD WHERE SHE SAID I COULD BRING A MOTION IF I WANTED TO.
    6 25 SHE WASN'T SURE ABOUT PREJUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES, BUT SHE SAID
    26 POST JUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES, I COULD BRING A MOTION.
    7
    As made clear in this paragraph, in a hearing on an Order Appointing a Receiver –
    8
    undoubtedly a harsh measure and a major restriction of Defendant’s rights, the honorable
    9
    Judge John Segal appeared entirely disinterested in reading for himself the August 9, 2007
    10
    Judgment by Court, a very short document of exactly eight (8) lines! Instead, Judge Segal
    11
    decided to rely on statements by Plaintiff’s Counsel as to the nature and content of that key
    12
    document.
    13
    On November 9, 2007, in response to the dishonest conduct and the plethora of false
    14
    statements by Plaintiff’s Counsel, Att Mohammad Keshavarzi, Defendant, a dentist in pro per,
    15
    states the following:
    16
    First:
    17
    27 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, I'M REALLY CONFOUNDED BY EVERYTHING
    18
    28 ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI SAYS FROM BEGINNING TO THE END BECAUSE
    19 1 HE'S A LAWYER. I'M NOT. I START FROM THE END. HOW CAN YOU
    2 SAY THAT ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT --
    20
    And later:
    21
    18 SIMILARLY, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ATTORNEY FOR
    22 19 PLAINTIFF MEANS BY SAYING THAT HE HAD A DIALOGUE WITH
    20 JUDGE CONNOR REGARDING FILING ADDITION TO THE JUDGMENT.
    23
    24 And Judge John Segal response to all of that dishonesty:

    25 21 THE COURT: NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE MOTION.

    26 Following such dishonest conduct on during the Nov 9, 2007 hearing, Defendant decided
    27 to clarify Judge Segal’s position relative to the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court. The Nov 21,
    28 2007 transcript states as follows arguments by Defendant:
    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
    -10- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    474 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p474/679


    1 7 AND OTHERWISE, I WOULD LIKE TO ENTER INTO
    8 THE RECORD THAT ON NOVEMBER 5TH I NOTICED THE COURT OF
    2 9 JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST 9TH, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK
    10 YOUR HONOR IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE JUDGMENT BY COURT OF
    3 11 AUGUST 9TH. YOUR HONOR, I'M ASKING IF YOU ARE AWARE OF A
    12 JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST 9TH WHICH I NOTICED AS
    4 13 RECENTLY AS NOVEMBER 5TH. I ASSUME THAT IT WAS A
    14 DOCUMENT OF THE COURT SO THAT YOUR HONOR WOULD BE AWARE
    5 15 OF IT, BUT JUST IN CASE, I NOTICED IT AGAIN ON NOVEMBER
    6 17 JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST 9TH?
    18 THE COURT: I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME,
    7 19 BUT--
    20 MR. ZERNIK: I'M ASKING --
    8 21 THE COURT: IF IT'S BEEN IN THE FILE, I HAVE IT.

    9 What the transcript above fails to convey are the long pauses after each successive
    10 question by Defendant, and the repeated refusal of Judge John Segal to answer any of these
    11 questions.
    12 The transcript continues:
    13
    22 MR. ZERNIK: BUT YOUR HONOR, FIRST, JUDGE CONNOR
    14 23 INDICATED IN MINUTE ORDER OF AUGUST 21ST THAT IT WAS IN
    24 THE FILE SINCE AUGUST 9TH; HOWEVER, I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT
    15 25 COULD BE RELIABLE. SO JUST TO DOUBLE-GUARANTEE IT, I
    26 NOTICED IT AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 5TH, AND I WANTED TO KNOW IF
    16 27 YOUR HONOR HAS EVER SEEN A JUDGMENT BY COURT OF
    17 28 NOVEMBER -- OF AUGUST 9TH BY -- SIGNED BY JUDGE CONNOR.
    1 HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A DOCUMENT OF THAT NATURE?
    18 2 THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE ON YOUR EX PARTE?

    19 Judge Segal continues to dishonestly refuse to answer a simple and central question –
    20 Is a Judge has just evicted a citizen of his home and seized his property, and is going to hold
    21 his equity indefinitely willing to state that he had read the 8-line Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by
    22 Court.
    23
    3 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH. IT'S CRITICAL. I NEED TO
    24 4 KNOW WHAT IS THE FOUNDATION THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING
    5 ANYTHING ABOUT. AND YOUR HONOR, IF YOU REFUSE TO
    25 6 ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF A JUDGMENT BY COURT, THEN I
    26 7 DO NOT KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET ANYTHING ELSE AFTER THAT,
    8 BECAUSE ALL -- EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS EXECUTION OF A
    27 9 JUDGMENT. SO IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT A JUDGMENT IS, THEN I
    10 DO NOT KNOW WHAT I'M ARGUING. SO CAN YOUR HONOR PLEASE
    28 11 ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE IS AWARE OF JUDGMENT BY COURT OF

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -11- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    475 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p475/679


    1 12 AUGUST 9TH, SIGNED BY JUDGE CONNOR?
    13 THE COURT: I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME TO
    2 14 DO, BUT

    3 The Honorable Judge Segal is above again engaging in dishonest evasive conduct.
    4 15 MR. ZERNIK: HAVE YOU SEEN IT? HAVE YOU EVER
    5 16 READ IT? ARE YOU AWARE OF THE CONTENT OF THAT?

    6 The transcript again fails to convey the long pauses after each of these questions, where
    7 Judge John Segal would just refuse to answer.
    8
    17 THE COURT: USUALLY DURING THE HEARINGS YOU
    9 18 PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENT, AND IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I ASK
    19 THEM. WHATEVER'S IN THE FILE, MOST OF WHICH --
    10 20 MR. ZERNIK: MY ARGUMENTS ARE ALL BASED ON
    21 JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST 9TH, WHICH IS PRESUMABLY WHAT
    11 22 YOUR HONOR IS EXECUTING, AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
    23 BY MR. KESHAVARZI IN THE PAST CITED THE JUDGMENT;
    12 24 HOWEVER, ROUTINELY THEY FAILED TO INCLUDE THE JUDGMENT.
    25 INSTEAD, THEY INCLUDED A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT, AND I
    13 26 REFERRED YOUR HONOR TO THAT IN THE LAST HEARING OF AUGUST
    14 27 9TH -- OF NOVEMBER 9TH.
    28 AND I WANT ALSO TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD
    15 1 THAT TODAY I NOTICED THE COURT OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE
    2 OF REAL PROPERTY, WHICH IS CITED, REFERENCED IN JUDGMENT
    16 3 BY COURT BY JUDGE CONNOR OF AUGUST 9TH.
    4 ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT DOCUMENT, YOUR
    17 5 HONOR?
    6 THE COURT: RIGHT HERE, YES.
    18 7 MR. ZERNIK: YES. AND YOU'VE SEEN IT BEFORE, OR
    8 IS THIS THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE EVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT?
    19 9 THE COURT: IT WAS JUST FILED TODAY, SO
    10 PRESUMABLY IT WAS THE --
    20 II MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, BUT IT --
    21 12 THE COURT: SINCE YOU'RE INTERRUPTING MY ANSWERS,
    13 I WILL PRESUME YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING THEM.
    22 14 YOU MAY PROCEED.
    15 MR. ZERNIK: YOUR HONOR, I APOLOGIZE. THIS
    23 16 CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY IS THE SUBJECT OF
    17 THE JUDGMENT BY COURT BY JUDGE CONNOR, WHICH WAS A
    24 18 JUDGMENT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THEREFORE, I WOULD
    19 LIKE TO KNOW IF YOUR HONOR EVER SAW THIS CONTRACT PRIOR
    25 20 TO TODAY, MY NOTICING IT. ALSO, ALL THE EX PARTE
    21 APPLICATIONS BY ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI CLAIM THAT I REFUSED
    26 22 OR IN OTHER WAYS INTERFERED WITH EXECUTION OF THE
    23 JUDGMENT BY COURT.
    27 24 SO YOUR HONOR, YOU RULED REPEATEDLY IN
    28 25 FAVOR OF KESHAVARZI, AND I JUST WONDER HOW COULD THAT BE
    26 IF YOU NEVER SEEN BEFORE THE JUDGMENT BY COURT IN THE
    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
    -12- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    476 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p476/679


    1 27 CONTRACT, BECAUSE THESE ARE THE ONES THAT PRESUMABLY
    28 ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI WAS CLAIMING THAT I REFUSED TO OBEY.
    2 1 THE COURT: WHERE IS MR. KESHAVARZI? HE CHECKED
    2 IN.
    3
    Distressed, Judge John Segal was seeking support from Att Mohammad Keshavarzi.
    4
    5 3 THE COURTROOM ASSISTANT: HE DID?
    4 THE COURT: HE DID.
    6 5 MR. PASTERNAK: I HAVE NOT SEEN HIM THIS MORNING.
    7 6 THE COURT: MS. FRASER, THIS IS HIS CARD.
    7 THE COURTROOM ASSISTANT: WHAT'S HIS NAME AGAIN?
    8 8 THE COURT: MR. KESHAVARZI. MAYBE HE'S IN THE
    9 HALLWAY.
    9 10 MR. ZERNIK: AND THEN THE
    11 THE COURT: HOLD ON. CAN WE JUST WAIT ONE
    10 12 SECOND?
    13 MR. ZERNIK: SURE.
    11 14 THE COURT: HE'S HERE. HAVE YOU SEEN HIM?
    15 MR. PASTERNAK: NO, I HAVE NOT, YOUR HONOR.
    12 16 THE COURT: WELL, HE -- SHOULD WE WAIT FOR HIM?
    17 MR. ZERNIK: AS YOU WISH, YOUR HONOR. I'M
    13 18 WILLING TO WAIT AS LONG AS IT TAKES.
    14 19 THE COURT: BECAUSE, WELL, AT LEAST ON THE EX
    20 PARTE APPLICATION, HE'S FILED A WRITTEN OPPOSITION.
    15 21 MR. PASTERNAK: I THOUGHT HE WAS COMING, YOUR
    22 HONOR, BUT I'VE NOT SEEN HIM. I CAN CALL HIS OFFICE IF
    16 23 YOU WANT.
    24 THE COURTROOM ASSISTANT: WAS THAT FROM
    17 25 YESTERDAY?
    26 THE COURT: OH, IT COULD BE.
    18 27 THE COURTROOM ASSISTANT: YES.
    28 THE COURT: MAYBE HE'S NOT HERE. ANYWAY, I
    19 1 APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING.
    2 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. SO YOUR HONOR, I'M STILL
    20 3 TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. YOUR HONOR RULED IN FAVOR OF
    21 4 KESHAVARZI REGARDING EX PARTE APPLICATION.
    5 MR. KESHAVARZI CLAIMED THAT I REFUSED TO OBEY THE
    22 6 JUDGMENT BY COURT, BUT IN THOSE APPLICATIONS HE ROUTINELY
    7 INTRODUCED IN COURT A DOCUMENT, WHICH WAS NOT A JUDGMENT
    23 8 BY COURT, AS JUDGMENT BY COURT. AND TODAY I ALSO
    9 INTRODUCED IN COURT A DECLARATION REGARDING THE HEARING
    24 10 ON NOVEMBER 9TH.
    11 I WONDER IF YOUR HONOR CAN ACKNOWLEDGE
    25 12 RECEIPT OF THE DECLARATION. AND ON PARAGRAPH 10 I
    13 DESCRIBED THAT EXCHANGE THAT WAS IN THE COURT. I DO THAT
    26 14 BECAUSE TRANSCRIPT WAS NOT AVAILABLE, ALTHOUGH I ORDERED
    15 AND PAID A LONG TIME AGO. AND BASICALLY, HERE ON
    27 16 PARAGRAPH 7 AND PARAGRAPH 9 I DESCRIBED THE EXCHANGE THAT
    28 17 TOOK PLACE IN COURT AT THAT TIME WHERE I NOTE -- IN ORAL
    18 ARGUMENT I NOTICED AGAIN, ALTHOUGH IT WAS ALSO IN
    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
    -13- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    477 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p477/679


    1 19 WRITTEN, THAT KESHAVARZI ROUTINELY, IN ANY COMMUNICATIONS
    20 SINCE AUGUST 9TH, REPLACED THE JUDGMENT BY COURT BY
    2 21 ANOTHER DOCUMENT. BEYOND THAT, I NOTICED THAT KESHAVARZI
    22 WAS ORDERED BY THE COURT ON AUGUST 9TH TO NOTICE THE
    3 23 JUDGMENT, BUT FAILED TO DO SO. AND AFTER THAT, ON
    24 SEVERAL OCCASIONS AFTER AUGUST 9TH, I REMINDED KESHAVARZI
    4 25 THAT THE COURT HAD ORDERED HIM TO NOTICE THE JUDGMENT,
    26 BUT HE REFUSED TO DO SO.
    5 27 SO BECAUSE OF THAT, YOUR HONOR, I'M ASKING
    6 28 AGAIN IF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST
    1 9TH.
    7 2 THE COURT: IF IT'S IN THE FILE, I HAVE SEEN IT.
    3 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, BUT I INTRODUCED IT TODAY, BUT
    8 4 PRIOR TO TODAY. SO IT IS IN THE FILE AS OF TODAY. SO AS
    5 OF NOVEMBER 5TH, WHAT I'M ASKING
    9 6 THE COURT: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE FILE?

    10 A person reviewing this case is likely to reasonably conclude, or at least reasonably


    11 entertain the doubt that the Honorable Judge John Segal was engaging in dishonest conduct, an
    12 attempt to mislead Defendant, a dentist in pro per, regarding an issue of critical significance,
    13 after seizing Defendant’s home and his equity.
    14
    7 MR. ZERNIK: OF COURSE I'D LIKE TO SEE THE FILE,
    15 8 BUT--
    9 THE COURT: YOU MAY.
    16 10 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. BUT YOUR HONOR, IF WE MOVE TO
    17 11 SEEING IN THE FILE, THEN, AS YOU KNOW, ON AUGUST 31ST,
    12 SUPERVISING JUDGE, AFTER SOME UNFORTUNATE EVENTS, AGREED
    18 13 TO ALLOW ME TO SEE THE COURT FILE, AND HE ORDERED I WILL
    14 BE ALLOWED TO SEE IT. HOWEVER, INITIALLY I WAS ALLOWED
    19 15 TO SEE ONLY VOLUME -- HE TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS SIX
    16 VOLUMES AT THE TIME IN THE COURT FILE, AND I WAS ALLOWED
    20 17 TO SEE INITIALLY ONLY THREE VOLUMES: ONE, FOUR AND FIVE.
    18 AND THEN TWO WEEKS AGO I WAS ALLOWED TO SEE TWO, THREE
    21 19 AND SIX, AND IN PART INSPECTION OF THAT, ALTHOUGH I WAS
    20 NEVER ALLOWED TO SEE ALL SIX OF THEM AT ONE TIME, I
    22 21 INFORMED THE CLERK'S OFFICE THAT THERE ARE MAJOR PARTS OF
    22 THE FILE MISSING. AND THEN, TO MY AMAZEMENT, THEY PULLED
    23 23 OUT VOLUME FOUR CONTINUED, WHICH WAS HIDDEN FOR ALL THIS
    24 24 PERIOD. SO APPARENTLY, ALREADY BY AUGUST 31ST, WHEN THE
    25 SUPERVISING JUDGE INFORMED ME THAT THERE WERE ONLY SIX
    25 26 VOLUMES IN THIS COURT FILE, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE
    27 AND SIX, THERE WERE SEVEN VOLUMES IN THIS COURT FILE,
    26 28 ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FOUR CONTINUED, FIVE AND SIX,
    1 AND FOUR CONTINUED WAS REPEATEDLY HIDDEI\l FROM ME.
    27 2 REGARDLESS --
    28

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -14- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    478 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p478/679


    1 And further:
    2
    14 I'M NOTING ALL OF THIS BECAUSE THAT IS THE
    3 15 REASON THAT I FIND IT NECESSARY TO NOTICE AGAIN THE COURT
    16 OF THE JUDGMENT BY COURT OF AUGUST 9TH, BECAUSE I CANNOT
    4 17 ASCERTAIN FOR SURE WHAT IS IN THE COURT FILE AND WHAT IS
    18 NOT. FOR EXAMPLE, EVEN AFTER A REVIEW OF THE FULL COURT
    5
    19 FILE, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FOUR CONTINUED, FIVE AND
    6 20 SIX, I FOUND MAJOR DOCUMENTS MISSING IN THIS COURT FILE,
    21 INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, ANY DOCUMENT WHICH WILL ESTABLISH
    7 22 THE STANDING OF COUNTRYWIDE AS INTERFERER -- INTERVENOR
    23 IN THIS CASE. THERE IS NO DOCUMENT WHATSOEVER TO EXPLAIN
    8 24 HOW COUNTRYWIDE GAINED THAT STATUS. FOR EXAMPLE,

    9 Less than two (2) weeks later, Judge Segal, in his disqualification order and statement,
    10 in the scope of one document, would have Countrywide designated as merely “a witness”,
    11 “Defendant”, and “Intervenor”.
    12 25 COUNTRYWIDE IS TRYING TO ENFORCE A COURT ORDER WHICH IS A
    26 PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST ZERNIK, WHICH PRESUMABLY WAS
    13 27 SIGNED BY JUDGE CONNOR ON JULY 23RD.
    28 THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT –
    14 1 MR ZERNIK:THAT DOCUMENT IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE
    2 COURT FILE.
    15
    …
    16 5 MR ZERNIK: I AM TELLING YOU, YOUR HONOR, THE
    6 REASON WHY I NEED TO ASK YOU THE REQUEST ABOUT THE
    17 7 JUDGMENT BY COURT IS BECAUSE THE COURT FILE IS IN
    8 COMPLETE DISARRAY.
    18
    19 5.
    20 Conclusion

    21 That which is described above is considered unbelievable by any counsel I have


    22 consulted in this matter so far. Any semblance of the justice system of the United States and
    23 the State of California as they are proclaimed to be, is made ludicrous by these proceedings.
    24 But the proceedings described above describe only the tip of the iceberg - the end tail of
    25 dishonesty in the courtroom. Any notion of honesty and decency was already lost in Samaan v
    26 Zernik long before Judge Segal came on board with no assignment order.
    27 I
    28

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -15- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    479 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p479/679


    1 Overall, the circumstances described above, for the variety of reasons described above,
    2 or only some of them, is likely to be deemed in violation of Defendant and Cross Complainant
    3 Zernik’s rights for Due Process and for Possession pursuant to both the California and the US
    4 Constitution, an abuse perpetrated by officials of the State of California, operating under the
    5 colors of the State with no due authority.
    6
    7 Dated: January 30, 2008
    8 JOSEPH ZERNIK
    9
    10 By: _______________________
    11 JOSEPH ZERNIK
    12 DEFENDANT & CROSS
    COMPLAINANT
    13 in pro per
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -16- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    480 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p480/679


    1 DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT AND CROSS COMPLAINANT ZERNIK IN
    2 SUPPORT OF HIS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR AN
    3 IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF FUNDS HELD BY LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
    4
    5 I , Joseph Zernik, defendant and cross-complainant, declare as follows:
    6
    1) I hereby apply ex parte for an order for immediate release of my funds held by Los
    7
    Angeles Superior Court.
    8
    9 2) I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein which I know to be true and

    10 correct and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify with respect

    11 thereto.

    12 3) Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an email notice sent on January 27, 2008 for this

    13 ex part appearance.

    14 4) No response was received to this notice.

    15 5) I appeared before Judge John Segal on both October 10 and October 11, 2007, and

    16 asked that he notice me of an Order Re-assigning Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) to him

    17 as presiding judge. Judge Segal refused to notice me of such order. Moreover, on


    18 October 10, 2007, he admitted that such order did not exist, and indicated that it was
    19 unrealistic to expect him to confront the Supervising Judge in request for such an
    20 order. Such statement was truncated in the transcript with an ellipsis. Similarly,
    21 various adulterations were made in the October 11, 2007 and Nov 9, 2007 Transcripts.
    22 6) Exibit B is a true and correct copy of the Nov 9, 2007, Order Appointing David J
    23 Pasternak Receiver by Judge John Segal.
    24 7) Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court by Judge
    25 Connor.
    26 8) Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of notice of Contract filed in court on or about Nov
    27 15, 2007, incorporating a true and correct copy of the Contract for Purchase of Real
    28 Property Commonly Known as 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills.
    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
    -17- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    481 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p481/679


    1 9) Exibit E is a true and correct copy of Nov 9, 2007 Transcript of hearing before Judge
    2 Segal.
    3 10) Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Oct 11, 2007 Transcript of hearing before Judge
    4 Segal.
    5 11) Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Nov 21, 2007 Transcript of hearing before
    6 Judge Segal.
    7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing
    8 is true and correct.
    9 Executed on Jan 30, 2008, in Los Angeles, California.
    10
    11
    12
    13 ______________________________________
    14
    Joseph Zernik
    15 DEFENDANT & CROSS COMPLAINANT
    in pro per
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -18- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    482 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p482/679


    1 Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD
    Defendant
    2 in pro per
    2415 Saint George Street
    3 Los Feliz CA 90027

    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
    10
    11 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual, )Case No. SC087400
    )
    12 Plaintiff, )
    v. )
    13
    )
    14 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, and DOES 1 )
    through 20, inclusive, ) [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR THE
    15 ) IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF ALL
    Defendants. ) ZERNIK'S FUNDS (>$700,000) HELD BY
    16
    ________________________________________ ) LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
    17 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, )
    )
    18 Cross-Complainant, )
    )
    19 v.
    )
    20 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL )
    BROKERAGE; MICHAEL LIBOW, an )
    21 individual, )
    )
    22 ) DATE: TUE JAN 29, 2008
    Cross-Defendants. ) TIME: 8:30 AM
    23 ) PLACE: DEPARTMENT WE-?
    24 )
    ________________________________________
    25
    26
    27
    28

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -19- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    483 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p483/679


    1
    2 PURSUANT TO JUDGMENT BY AUG 9, 2007 JUDGMENT BY COURT and Contract
    3
    for Purchase of Real Property Commonly Known as 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills,
    4
    5 referenced as the subject of Specific Performance in such Judgment,

    6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT DAVID J PASTERNAK (“RECEIVER’) shall


    7
    immediately release all proceeds from the sale of the Property Commonly Known as 320
    8
    South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills to Defendant and Cross Complainant Joseph Zernik, and
    9
    10 submit to Zernik and this court final accounting of such funds.

    11
    12
    Dated: Jan ____, 2008
    13
    14
    15 _________________________________
    16 Judge of the Superior Court
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
    ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    484 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p484/679


    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
    28 EXHIBIT A
    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
    -21- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    485 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p485/679


    NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPEARANCE

    Jan 29, 2007

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

    This notice was provided by phone prior to 10:00am this morning, twice to each
    of you. This notice is in addition to such phone notices.

    I write to provide notice that at 8:30 a.m. on Wed, Jan 30, 2008, I will appear Ex
    Parte in the West District of the Los Angeles County Superior Court located at
    1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401, in any department duly
    authorized to hear such matters (no assignment order on file) RE: SC087400:

    To apply for an order by court to release all Zernik's funds (>$700,000)


    wrongfully held by Los Angeles Superior Court

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

    Joseph Zernik
    Defendant and Cross-Complainant
    in pro per

    CC:
    a) California Court of Appeal 2 District, Division 5, RE: Writ Petition # B205195

    b) Countrywide, Angelo Mozilo, Sandor Samuels


    - Att Amberg: "Amberg, John W." <jwamberg@BryanCave.com>
    c) Sheppard Mullin et al, LLP
    - Att Paul Malingagio: pmalingagio@sheppardmullin.com
    d) California Att General Jerry Brown
    - by fax: 916 445 6749
    e) Illinois Att General Linda Mudigan
    - by fax: 312 814 2549
    f) New York State Common Retirement Fund
    New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli: pipf@osc.state.ny.us
    g) Massachusetts State Pension Fund
    Michael Travaglini, Executive Director , Pension Reserves Investment
    Management Board (PRIM): srb@tre.state.ma.us
    h) New York City Pension Fund
    New York City Comptroller - General Counsel Finkelman:
    lfinkel@comptroller.nyc.gov
    i) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
    Pension Plan
    FAX: 202-429-1293
    j) Plaintiffs in Class Action of 401(k) Beneficiaries
    Keller Roherback - Att D Loeser: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
    k) New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund
    Fax: 781-345-4403

    486 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p486/679


    487 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p487/679
    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 B
    28

    EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN


    -22- ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    OF DEFENDANT’S FUNDS HELD BY LA
    SUPERIOR COURT

    488 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p488/679


    SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP ~~

    A Limited Liability Partnership


    2 II Including Professional Corporations <0<1 0~1:JL
    -14 0l,'l!":f'"A ~.i'.
    PHILLIP A. DAVIS, Cal. Bar No. 110430 ~C'~ r ••.. ;~~i\
    -1>~~1by J~.~<~O.i>
    3 II MOE KESHAVARZI, Cal. Bar No. 223759 C:';l' ., Q r-.

    0~ '/o~o'b r
    333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor
    -1. Q
    4/1 Los Angeles, California 90071-1448
    ~-fe: ~ <-'titi,,> 0ttt;
    Telephone: 213-620-1780
    5 II Facsimile: 213-620-1398
    ~~ f!Cqoi-
    .~~ e 0,,%

    6 ~~ ~"t:
    Attornevs for PlaintiffNivie Samaan ~q(P ~I",f
    7
    , I
    I
    8
    91 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORKIA
    I
    1O! FOR THE COU~TY OF LOS ANGELES -- WEST DISTRICT

    II II NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual; Case No. SC 087400

    12 Plaintiff, Honorable John A. Segal

    13 v. ~oposed] Order Appointing David J.


    asternak as Receiver.
    14 II JOSEPH ZER.1\,TIK, an individual and
    DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
    15
    Defendants.
    16
    17

    18
    19
    20
    21
    22

    23
    24

    25
    26
    27
    28
    -1-
    W02-WESTIMMKI\400492211: [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
    489 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p489/679
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT David J. Pasternak ("Receiver") shall be

    2 II appointed as Receiver to take possession, custody and control of the real property located
    3 II at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212, legally described as:

    4
    __ 11
    Lot 252 of Tract 7710, in the Ci~ of Beverly Hills,
    ) Ii County of Los Angeles, State of Califomi a, 'as per maR
    I:
    recorded in book 83 PAGE (S) 94 and 95 of maps. in the
    11
    office of the recorder of said county (the "PROPERTY").
    61 I
    7 ,i
    I 1. Before performing his duties, the Receiver shall execute a Receiver's
    8
    oath and file a bond in Department 0 with surety thereon approved by this Court, in the
    9
    i sum of S10.000.00, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the Receiver's duties.
    10

    11 2. Within seven (7) days of his appointment, the Receiver is to disclose

    12 II to all parties any financial relationship between the Receiver and any company he hires to

    13 II assist in the management of the estate.


    14
    3. The Receiver shall have the power and the authority (a) to exclude
    15
    Defendant and any agents, attorneys, employees or representatives thereof, or anyone
    16
    claiming under any of them, from the Property; (b) to take possession of the Property; (c)
    17
    to use, operate, manage and control the Property; (d) to care for, manage, preserve, protect
    18
    and maintain the Property, and incur the expenses necessary for such care, management,
    19
    preservation, protection and maintenance (e) to pay appropriate expenses for the Property;
    20
    (D to take such other steps as are reasonably necessary to care for, manage, preserve,
    21
    protect and maintain the Property, subject to the contract for sale of the Property between
    22
    defendant Joseph Zernik and plaintiffNivie Samaan ("Samaan") and (g) pursuant to
    23
    judgment for specific performance dated August 9, 2007, in favor Samaan, the Receiver
    24
    shall have the power to take all necessary steps to sell the Property to Samaan through the
    25
    reactivated Escrow No. 1-34500-GH (the "Escrow") at Mara Escrow Co. 433 North
    26
    Camden Driver, Beverly Hills, California 90210-4409 (the "Escrowholder), for a price of
    27
    $1,7] 8,000 reduced by the setoffs hereinafter described; (h) if within three business days
    28
    -2-
    W02-WEST:JMMKI\4004922111 (PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
    490 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p490/679
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    141) 5. The Receiver may employ agents, employees, clerks, accountants,
    15 II attorneys (including Appleton, Pasternak & Pasternak, A Law Corporation), and property
    16 " managers to administer the Estate, purchase materials, supplies and services, and pay for
    17 II them at the ordinary and usual rates out of the funds which shall come into the Receiver's
    18 "possession and shall do all things and incur the risks and obligations ordinarily incurred by
    19 " owners, property manages and operators of similar properties and enterprises as such

    20 "Receiver. No such risk or obligation so incurred shall be the personal risk or obligation of
    21 II the Receiver, but shall be the risk and obligation of the estate.
    22
    6. The Receiver is empowered to establish bank accounts for the deposit
    23
    of monies and funds collected and received in connection with the estate at federally
    24
    insured banking institutions or savings associations. Monies coming into the possession of
    25
    the Receiver and not expended for any purpose herein authorized shall be held by the
    26
    Receiver in interest bearing accounts.
    27
    28
    ""l
    -,2-
    W02-WEST:1MMKli400492211.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
    491 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p491/679

    Você também pode gostar