Você está na página 1de 82

1 she was not qualified at all.

On that issue, since the fraud was undeniable, Judge Connor


2 states:
3 “ Finally, Mr Zernik’s fraudulent inducement claim, based
4 on an allegedly fraudulent loan prequalification letter by Victor
5 Parks dated September 7, 2004, is no more than a red herring.
6 Mr Zernik did not cancel escrow based on any question
7 regarding Ms Samaan’s prequalification in September 2004.”
8
9 Plaintiff described a buyer who provided checks that went NSF twice, that asked
10 escrow not to deposit her checks, since she had insufficient funds, who filed fraudulent
11 loan applications with Countrywide, since her true employment data would never
12 support the loans, and still she could not get her loans approved… Yet Defenant Connor
13 finds no no relationship between the cancellation of escrow and the lack of qualification
14 of Samaan?
15
16 12. Defendants that are the Los Angeles Superior Court and its West District
17 Judges continue to abuse of Plaintiff’s rights for due process, free speech,
and possession for the third year.
18
19 The collusion of a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court in real estate fraud

20 with a large corporation and others is only one of several aspects of this case which

21 show it to be extraordinary, presenting a "serious question", and high level public policy

22 interest, all of which contribute to justify review by the US Court.

23 a. An Epidemic of Real Estate and Mortgage Fraud, where Los Angeles


is the Epicenter…
24
25 FBI Reports indicate that Los Angeles County is the “epicenter” of a “national
26 epidemic” that is a high priority to fight. The little of Samaan v Zernik that is described
27 above may explain in part how Los Angeles grew to acquire such distinction… A
28
-22-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-32


1 permissive atmosphere, where the courts are lenient or even supportive of real estate
2 fraud could definitely be a contributing factor.
3 Plaintiff gradually realized that most likely his case is not unusual for Los
4 Angeles, when he interviewed in attorneys who were experienced in real estate
5 litigation. A couple of times Plaintiff heard the estimate that he would have been much
6 better off had his case been heard in Central District, rather than West District. But
7 beyond that – when he discussed the specifics of the case with prospective counsels,
8 again and again they advised him never to mention any fraud in court.
9 Initially, it did not make sense at all. After all, in December 2006, as one of the
10 first steps in his review, Plaintiff consulted with staff of the California Department of
11 Real Estate, and he was told that fraud, and in particular the claim of fraudulent
12 inducement were some of the strongest points in this case. They also expressed surprise
13 that Att Cummings, who by then was on the case about 1.5 years, never filed cross
14 complaint for fraud and deceit.
15 Plaintiff received a similar assessment when he visited the FBI in Westwood in
16 January 2007.
17 And yet, experience counsels were consistently advising him never to mention
18 fraud in court. Some of them also made it clear that they would not be able to engage in
19 representation in court if Plaintiff insisted on mentioning fraud in court. At the end, the
20 straight forward explanation came from a much older, experienced real estate litigation
21 counsel, Att Rothstein in Woodland Hills, who simply stated:
22 “The judges will not listen to any claim of fraud, and if
23 anything, it may only hurt your case.”
24
25 That again is a reason why there is a need for the United States Court to review
26 this case. But beyond the questions related to the subject matter, there are the questions
27 related to the manner of operation of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
28
-23-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-33


1 b. Full Access to Litigation Records is a Minimum First. Absent such -
2
Plaintiff Cannot Expect Any Safeguard of his Due Process Rights in
Review by the California Court System.
3
4 At present, Plaintiff finds himself in an odd situation that defies any expectations

5 he may have had of the United States justice system:

6 After Plaintiff and his counsels were denied access to almost any litigation records

7 from October 2005 to Aug 2007, Plaintiff got some limited access. However, in order to

8 pursue the case effectively in the Los Angeles Superior Court or higher California

9 Courts, Plaintiff must gain access to full and complete litigation records. Particular

10 records that are essential were listed in the Designation of Records on Appeal (Docket #

11 54).

12 Access to one’s own litigation records is such a basic, that Plaintiff never

13 considered that he would have to argue for such rights. But until Plaintiff filed the

14 current claims in United States Courts, Plaintiff could not even get a certified copy of the

15 Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court from the Clerk’s office. Counsel Bianco, as a special

16 gesture, provided Plaintiff with that certified copy after Plaintiff filed claims in United

17 States Court.

18 Plaintiff believes, based on his experience in recent year an a half, that he has no

19 chance of gaining access to his own litigation records, unless through protection of his

20 Civil Rights by the United States Court.

21
22 c. Electronic Court File Records in “Sustain”, which the LA Superior
Court Likes to Keep “Privileged” are at the Center of the Problem.
23
24 California Rules of Court, Chapter 2, the whole chapter is dedicated to
25 Public Access to Electronic File Data. And yet, Plaintiff finds himself in the last
26 year again and again before the Supervising Judge, Defendant Rosenberg, asking for
27 access to his own file data in Sustain, and Defendant Rosenberg repeatedly denies
28 access to such data.
-24-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-34


1 From discussions with attorneys who practice in Los Angeles
2 (probably over 20 were questioned over the last year), it appears that most
3 never get to see any of the electronic file data. None of them even knew the
4 name of the Case Management System – “Sustain”. Compare that to
5 attorneys who practice in Federal Court – without exception they know
6 “Pacer”. Most of those asked did not even get the Minute Orders, which
7 are generated through Sustain. Many of the judges in LA Superior Court
8 apparently encourage counsels to waive notice.
9 Plaintiff is no counsel, but he finds this situation disturbing. Notice is the corner
10 stone of Due Process.
11 Plaintiff does not consider himself a computer expert either. Some biographical
12 data is provided at the end of this brief. As a young teenager he took some college level
13 classes in computer science in the premier technological college of his native Israel – the
14 Technion. However, in the past couple of years Plaintiff,, out of necessity, looked in
15 details into the operations of Countrywide computer systems, and realized fast that he
16 gained insights that others missed.
17 Similarly, in recent weeks, Plaintiff was focusing on the Los Angeles Superior
18 Court Case Management System – Sustain, and by now he realizes that he knows more
19 about it than any attorney that practices in Los Angeles that he has ever met.
20 Plaintiff concludes that there is a very clear reason why Defendant Rosenberg is
21 insisting on a position that appears entirely indefensible, and even insulting for a Justice
22 to take – denying litigant his Due Process right for access to his own litigation records.
23 The reason is simple. Bad as the records look now, the more detailed the review, the
24 worse LA County Superior Court would appear.
25 Plaintiff realized certain facts a while ago, and some more recently:
26 a. Sustain does not use an internal clock for many of the time stamps in the system, as
27 one would expect from such system. As a result – court personnel can indulge in
28
-25-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-35


1 back-dating, such as seen in Page #1 of Sustain Case History (Docket #46), which
2 Plaintiff tends to attribute to Defendant Connor.
3 b. The Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court indulge in various judicial acts that
4 should have been noticed to litigants, but are not. For example – invalidating Minute
5 Orders after such were noticed to litigants. Some of these instances were listed in a
6 Request for Judicial Notice filed May 8, 2008, under 2. False and Deliberately
7 Misleading Litigation Records.
8 For example:
9 On January 30th, 2008, Plaintiff appeared before Judge Friedman for an Ex Parte
10 Application to release funds that are Plaintiff’s proceeds from the sale of his home
11 against his will. The LA Superior Court is holding these funds with no reason at all.
12 Receiver Pasternak, in a display of common sense, actually supported Plaintiff’s
13 request in open court.
14 Defendant Friedman denied Plaintiff application with prejudice with no
15 explanation at all. Any counsel that Plaintiff has consulted with could not figure out
16 what justification the Court has for holding these funds. But Judge Friedman warned
17 Plaintiff that he will impose sanctions if he requested again the release of his funds.
18 Under such circumstances one may assume that Judge Friedman is firm in his
19 opinion that the Court has the right to hold Plaintiff ‘s funds indefinitely. That is not
20 the case apparently, since the decision, or the minute order of January 30, 2008 was
21 invalidated after being noticed, and the decision is by now expunge or vacated. Such
22 was done though simple manipulation of Sustain, but was never noticed to Plaintiff.
23 Another Example:
24 On December 7, 2007, Plaintiff appeared in two ex parte applications by Receiver
25 Pasternak that signaled some of the worst abuse in the last 3 years. These
26 proceedings were outside any standard of Due Process of the Law. In the appearance
27 before Defendant Hart-Cole, an attorney appeared who refused to be identified, and
28 Judge Hart-Cole refused to introduce him either. After the hearing was concluded,
-26-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-36


1 Plaintiff realized he was counsel for Mara Escrow, and that the ex partes were
2 orchestrated to appease Mara Escrow.
3 In these appearances, Receiver Pasternak requested and obtained gag orders
4 on Plaintiff, to prevent him from protected speech necessary for defending himself in
5 this action, where he is in pro per. An indemnification agreement that on its face
6 appears out of compliance with the law received the Court’s blessing, and various
7 dubious other financial measures were approved.
8 It is not clear how Samaan v Zernik was assigned to Judge Hart-Cole in Beverly Hills
9 in the first place. To the best of Plaintiff understanding she is in a Civil Limited
10 Department. Following the rules of court, the Supervising Judge had to match the
11 case to some special qualifications of Judge Hart –Cole to justify such an assignment.
12 That assignment did not last long, since Plaintiff filed a Peremptory
13 Challenge on that day. Regardless, a Minute Order was generated and noticed. But
14 now, Plaintiff realized that that record was invalidates as well.
15 The Supervising Judge. Defendant Rosenberg, invalidated the Minute Order
16 of the Ex Parte appearance on December 26, 2007, for Safeguard of Due Process of
17 the Law, where he made some decisions that he apparently prefers not to remain on
18 the record.
19 Defendant Segal invalidated the Minute Order of the November 5, 2007
20 Proceeding, where he expedited the procedure for appointing Receiver from very fast
21 to super fast (it was scheduled on November 5, 2007 to November 9, 2007).
22 None of these transactions in litigation records of Samaan v Zernik, and
23 many other, were ever noticed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff holds such tampering with
24 records part of the abuse of his Due Process rights.
25 c. In Docket #39, Exhibits that are Samaan v Zernik Case History in Sustain, one
26 can notice the Journal Entries for the payments made at the Clerk’s Office in Santa
27 Monica. Strangely, none of these payments has any ID number attached to it, an
28 unusual practice in any accounting system. But even more disturbing is the single
-27-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-37


1 payment in the whole document that does have an ID number attached – at the
2 bottom of page 180, for a payment of #40.00 by Receiver Pasternak for the Ex Parte
3 before Judge Hart-Cole. The significance of it is by demonstrating substantial
4 differences in the mode of operation of sustain even among courthouses of the same
5 District, in this case the West District.
6 One does not need to be an IRS special agent to suspect that a courthouse
7 where no ID numbers are attached to payments may suffer from financial
8 mismanagement. Plaintiff suggests that Santa Monica Courthouse is overdue for a
9 financial review.
10 d. Plaintiff has figured out enough of Sustain to understand why Defendants that are
11 Judges, Supervising Judges, Court Manager, Retired Judge, and a Clerk, filed a false
12 and deliberately misleading document as the “Docket” of Samaan v Zernik. Plaintiff
13 was repeatedly told, for example, by Defendant Witts, that the Case History in
14 Sustain is the true Docket. But Plaintiff finds it difficult to believe that the system
15 does not include another report that more closely resemble a traditional docket, or
16 Register of Actions. However, the reason the LA Superior Court, West District
17 would never print such a report, since it would show that many or most of the
18 procedures in a given case, like Samaan v Zernik, were in fact “off the record” or
19 “off the books” procedures.
20 For Example: in reviewing Docket #39 – Case History in Sustain, one may
21 realize that ex parte appearances can be further designated as:
22 a. Ex-Parte Application
23 b. Exparte proceeding (Docket #39, Exh Vol I, p190)
24
25 With the minimal data Plaintiff has about the system, Plaintiff holds that a., but not b.
26 is a true “on the record” procedure. For example, Plaintiff’s appearance before
27 Supervising Judge Rosenberg was designated even before it started as Exparte
28
-28-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-38


1 proceeding, an “off the record” procedure. That may be part of the reason that Judge
2 Rosenberg felt free to discard the record of that appearance in Sustain after the fact.
3 In another example, (Docket #39, Exh Vol I, p57) Judge Connor in fact handled
4 Countrywide’s appearance on July 6, 2007, and later on July 23, 2007 for gag orders
5 against Plaintiff as proceedings that were “off the record”, and were not recorded in
6 Sustain (but did not inform litigants of that fact). In this case she even went as far as
7 noting the fact, albeit, in a record that she had no reason to believe a litigant would ever
8 lay his hands on: (Docket #39, Exh Vol I, p58) Fourth line from the top explicitly states:
9 Proceedings not recorded.
10
11 Similarly, on July 23, 2007, (Docket #39, Exh Vol I, p72), of the two procedures
12 scheduled that morning, Plaintiff’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens was an “on the
13 record” procedure. But Countrywide’s Motion for Protective Order was an “off the
14 record” procedure.
15 Accordingly, Defendant Connor was evasive, and she avoided signing any order,
16 such as requested by Countrywide, as the outcome of that hearing.
17 Other examples – the Trial Setting Conference in November 2006 was an “off
18 the records” proceeding.
19 And more significantly – the Motion for Summary Judgment was most likely
20 an “off the records” proceeding. The Judgement by Court per CCP 437c was therefore a
21 still born.
22 Plaintiff is unclear about how Defendant Connor would have managed Samaan v
23 Zernik had she not been disqualified. But before being disqualified, she obviously did all
24 that she could to hide the judgment and make it insignificant.
25 And the fact that the Motion for Summary Judgment was an “off the records”
26 procedure, may be the reason that the California Court of Appeal right away advised
27 Plaintiff to submit another appeal – from the Nov 9, 2007 -Order Appointing Receiver –
28 an “on the record” procedure.
-29-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-39


1
2 13. The Unifying Feature – The Culture of Silence
3
4 The California Court of Appeal surely offered helpful advice when it stated that

5
“true remedy is in filing an appeal from order for appointment of
receiver”.
6
7 But in fact one must deem the Justices of the California Court of Appeal, like the
8 Judges of the LA Superior Court, in violation of the California Code of Ethics Canon
9 3D(1).
10 They all knew of the unethical conduct and the abuse perpetrated on Plaintiff by
11 Judges of LA Superior Court, but none followed the Code which is clear cut in its
12 directive.
13 Canon 3D(1) says:
14 D. Disciplinary Responsibilities
(1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge has
15
violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall
16 take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may include
reporting the violation to the appropriate authority.*
17
18
None of the judges involved took or initiated appropriate corrective action.
19
20
The conduct of Judge Segal deserves particular mention in this regard. All along,
21
it was clear that Judge Segal, Att Keshavarzi, and Receiver Pasternak are treating the
22
Judgment as an invalid Court document. At the same time, that did not stop them from
23
using any opportunity to blame Plaintiff for his lack of cooperation with the enforcement
24
of the judgment.
25
Even in his Dec 4, 2007 Disqualification Statement, a uniquely dishonest
26
document, Judge Segal States (Exh Vol IV p305):
27
28
-30-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-40


1 “ Although judgment was entered on the complaint in this action
2
before this action was assigned to the undersigned judge…:Joseph
Zernik has sought to attack the judgment..”
3
4 For example, in the November 5, 2007 Transcript (the Nov 5, 2007 Minute
5 Order is one of those that Judge Segal expunged) (Exh Vol III p558), Plaintiff states:
6 “…the pending document, fraudulent in nature, and I’ve noticed
7 Attorney Keshavarzi about that.
For example, it’s a motion for appointment of the receiver
8 where the judgment is never provided. What is the Receiver going
9 to be working on? And it’s the same thing happened before with the
Referee. Keshavarzi never ever noticed the judgment by court of
10 Aug 9th that he was ordered to notice and he never included any
11 document where he said he was including it. He only substituted it
for a notice of Order…
12 …
13 So it raises concerns that again he’s engaging in fraud.
14
Plaintiff believes that best explanation for what took place in the LA Superior
Court is found in a paper by Erwin Chemerinsky, where he reviews the Rampart
15
Scandal (The Rampart Scandal and the Criminal Justice System in Los Angeles
16
County Guild Practitioner, 121, 2000.)
17
In it he states:
18
"Police officers in the CRASH unit in the Rampart Division
19
of the Los Angeles Police Department framed innocent individuals
20 by planting evidence and committing perjury to gain convictions.
Innocent men and women pleaded guilty to crimes they did not
21
commit and were convicted by juries because of the fabricated cases
22 against them. Many individuals were subjected to excessive police
23 force and suffered very serious injuries as a result.
Any analysis of the Rampart Scandal must begin with an
24 appreciation of the heinous nature of what the officers did. This is
25 conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police
states. It occurred in Los Angeles….
26 … the … report is lacking in the following ways:
27 • First – it fails to identify the scope of the problem, and
indeed, minimizes its scope and nature.
28
-31-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-41


1 • Second, the report fails to recognize that the central problem
2
is the culture of Los Angeles Police Department… the “Code
of Silence”..
3 • Third - the …report fails to consider the need for structural
4 reforms…
• Fourth – the problems in the… disciplinary system are
5 unduly minimized…"
6
7 Much of what is stated above is directly applicable to the LA Superior Court, in
8 particular the statement regarding the “Culture of Silence”.
9 Chemerinsky concludes with a statement that is also applicable here:
10 "No single reform can be sufficient. Reform is not an
event, but a process that will take many years to
11 complete…"
12
13 Plaintiff prays that this Court of the United States take action in Zernik v Connor et
14 al. as part of an ongoing, much necessary reform in the government of the County of Los
15 Angeles.
16 Furthermore, this case present issues that are pertinent in California outside of Los
17 Angeles County, and also beyond California – the handling of Case Management
18 Systems in the Courts. This case demonstrates how such systems can easily be abused
19 for wholesale obstruction of justice.
20 This case also pertains directly to the dishonest operation Countrywide under the
21 leadership of Officers including Defendants Mozilo and Samuels. The outcome of their
22 conduct will be burden the American taxpayer in years to come. The cost of the sub-
23 prime crisis to the Treasury and the burden it will generate on the U.S. economy is
24 difficult to even estimate at this time, but the impact on many thousands of families, who
25 are losing their homes all around the country is visible and real.
26 Almost without exception those losing their homes, are almost the last one
27 families or individuals who held residential mortgage loans generated by Countrywide,
28
-32-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-42


1 re-financed with Countrywide, or serviced by Countrywide after being originated by
2 others.
3 In that respect this case is unique - Plaintiff never had any business dealings with
4 Countrywide whatsoever. In fact, as late as November-December 2006, when he first
5 saw the name on subpoena papers, he did not even recognize the name. That is over a
6 year after litigation in Samaan v Zernik was initiated in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
7 And yet, Countrywide, a giant corporation is operating its massive machinery to
8 impact extreme violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights under the hands of the Los Angeles
9 Superior Court, West District. The judges of West District, Officials of the State of
10 California have been engaging in perpetrating such abuse of Plaintiff under the color of
11 the law for the third year in a row, and have brought him to the brink of destruction, both
12 financial and physical. Some of these judges are close personal friends or acquaintances
13 of Countrywide’s Chief Legal Counsel, Defendant Samuels - like Defendant Goodman,
14 and Defendant Friedman. Other judges are otherwise determined to obstruct justice on
15 behalf of Countrywide, although Plaintiff may not be aware of their exact motivation.
16 For example, Defendant Connor - her court entered as on July 24, 2007 the
17 following note in “Case History” in “Sustain” – the Court’s case management system,
18 in the opening screen, ensuring its permanent visibility –
19 “Countrywide Home Loans, Inc
20 Real Parties in Interest”
21
See more detailed description of this issue in our Docket #46: Inexplicable under
22
assumption of honesty No. 2 – Sustain Case History page #1.
23
Also, our Docket #39: Sustain Case History of Samaan v Zernik, “Case History” (Exh
24
Vol I, Exh p 1).
25
Another example, Defendant Segal – his dishonest Dec 4, 2007 Minute Order:
26
Judge Segal’s Disqualification Statement (Docket #52: Exh Vol II, pp 343-355. states:
27
28
-33-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-43


1 “[Plaintiff] contends that Countrywide Home Loans, which
2 is not a party, is somehow involved in these proceedings.
3
There have not been any proceeding before the
undersigned judge involving or relating to Countrywide…”
4
5 And next (Exh p348):
6 “In this case, Countrywide is not a party. At best,
7 Countrywide is a witness which has sought a protective
8 order.”
9
Both of these are false and deliberately misleading statements on their face:
10
First – Judge Segal did preside in proceedings, short as they might be, on both Aug 1
11
and Aug 2, 2007, in which Countrywide was involved. At the outset of the proceeding
12
on Aug 1, 2007 he even expressed his amazement, when counsel for Countrywide
13
inserted herself right before him, and remained standing between Plaintiff and
14
Defendant. He first paused in the introductions to ask her:
15
“And who are you?”
16
To which she identified herself as usual, as Counsel for Countrywide, without any
17
party designation. Defendant Segal then asked her at least twice:
18
“What are you doing here?”
19
To which she never answered, not even a word. Then Defendant Segal made a
20
comment to the effect that it was not his case, and he might not be able to figure it out
21
fast enough…
22
He could have spared himself all of that, had he bothered to look at the opening
23
screen of “Case History” in the computer screen on his desk, at the note left there by
24
Judge Connor on July 24, 2007 before leaving on vacation, but backdated to July 24,
25
2004, ensuring its place on the opening screen (Exh Vol I, Exh p1).
26
And Defendant Segal, in his dishonest and deliberately misleading Dec 4, 2007
27
Disqualification Statement says (Exh Vol II, p348):
28
-34-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-44


1 “In this case, Countrywide is not a party. At best,
2 Countrywide is a witness which has sought a protective
3
order.”
4
But at the same time, the same Dec 4, 2007 Disqualification Statement (Exh
5
p345) designates Countrywide’s Counsel:
6
BRYAN CAVE
7 ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR
8
Attorney for “Intervenor” - as it has been designated for many months, with no
9
legal foundation at all.
10
Elsewhere in these disqualification statements (Exh p341) Countrywide is
11
designated “Defendant” as it has always been:
12
SHATZ, SANFORD
13 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
14 Again, with no legal foundation at all.
15 (while according Countrywide a status above the law in Samaan v Zernik, and
16 routinely claiming that any suggestion by Plaintiff of an interest for Countrrywide in this
17 case is a “Conspiracy Theory”.
18 While at the Dec 4, 2007 Disqualification Statement, one notes that on Ehx p355
19 the entry date of this legal record is Dec 7, 2007, while on the 12 preceding pages of the
20 same document, the entry date is Dec 4, 2007.
21
22 Judge Segal’s exchange at the opening of the Aug 1, 2007 Ex Parte Proceeding
23 All of that was deleted from the Reporter’s Transcript (Exh Vol III, Exh p429-430),
24 which for that reason was designated by Plaintiff “Objectionable”, and Plaintiff
25 requested to to inspect the Reporter’s raw-, or shorthand notes. As is the case in much
26 of the litigation records in this case, Defendants LA County and LA Superior Court are
27 adamant in their refusal to provide Plaintiff access to his own litigation records, in
28
-35-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-45


1 blatant defiance of the California Public Records Act, the California Constitution, and
2 the U.S. Constitution Amendment 5th and 14th – Due Process of the Law.
3 A similar, albeit demonstrating a more defiant, deliberate determination to abuse
4 Plaintiff’s Due Process rights was recorded in the Aug 9, 2007 Transcript - Motion for
5 Summary Judgment (Exh Vol III, Exh p445), where Countrywide’s counsel appeared
6 before the judge as party for all practical purposes, was allowed to file motions against
7 Plaintiff, while Plaintiff was barred from filing motions or claims against Countrywide,
8 for reasons that Plaintiff could not and still cannot comprehend:
9 “MR ZERNIK: FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO ASK YOUR HONOR
10 IF YOU CAN CLARIFY WHAT IS THE REASON THAT ATTORNEY FOR
COUNTRYWIDE IS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM RIGHT NOW?
11
THE COURT: SHE WANTS TO BE HERE.
12 MR ZERNIK: SO SHE HAS FULL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN
13 THESE PROCEEDINGS?
14 THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM?
MR ZERNIK: YES. I HAVE A PROBLEM, BECAUSE I BELIEVE
15
SHE IS NOT A PARTY.”
16
17 Plaintiff is not experience in legal matters, but Plaintiff believes that in the United

18 States, circumstances such as described above are extraordinary under the protections

19 extended by the Constitution. Plaintiff believes that conditions in Samaan v Zernik are

20 extraordinary, and therefore justify the unusual review by the United States District

21 Court.

22 For much of the litigation (from its onset – October 2005 to Aug 2, 2007 – over 19

23 months, access was entirely denied – see Sept 10, 2007 Judge Connor Disqualification

24 Statement , Exh Vol IV, Exh p__), a California State Court entirely denied a U.S.

25 Citizen and his counsels access to his litigation records. And the same Court is still

26 continuing to deny timely access to critical records today, including, but not limited to:

27 a) Paper court file documents,

28 b) Electronic court file data,


-36-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-46


1 c) Raw/short hand transcripts of specific reporters’ transcripts
2 d) Minute Orders,
3 e) Notices of orders, rulings, judgments
4 f) Assignment Orders of Presiding Judges in the case, and for months also
5 refused to even provide even a f) certified copy of the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment
6 by Court, is an extraordinary case, justifying protection by the United States
7 District Court.
8 Obviously, under such situation, any further review by the California Court of
9 Appeal or the California Supreme Court is futile.
10 The primary reason that Plaintiff found himself seeking protection of the United
11 States Court, is that he lost hope to ever gain access to his litigation records through the
12 California State Justice system (see below).
13 , ..
14 for reasons that may take more discovery to uncover.
15
16 , The U.S. economy may be sliding into recession that many attribute to the sub-
17 prime crisis – where mortgage and real-estate frauds were main causes. But review off
18 Samaan v Zernik reveals a group of judges of the LA Superior Court that simply refuses
19 to recognize Real Estate Fraud and/or Mortgage Fraud as part of reality. Judge Connor
20 ruled it to be a “red herring”. One is only left to wonder what part such permissive
21 approach of the courts had in getting Los Angeles listed in FBI reports as “the
22 epicenter” of a fast growing national epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud that is a
23 high national priority to fight.
24 ///
25
26 I.
27 JURISDICTIONAL BASIS

28
-37-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-47


1 1. Plaintiff claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III § 2 which extends the
2 jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution.
3 2. Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 for violations of
4 certain protections guaranteed to him by the First (Free Speech), Fifth (Due Process),
5 and Fourteenth (Due Process and Possession) Amendments of the Federal
6 Constitution, by defendants acting as officials of the State of California under the
7 color of law of the State of Californai in their capacity as a Judges, Court Manager,
8 and Courtroom Clerk, Proposed Referee, and Receiver, respectively, in the Superior
9 Court of Los Angeles County.
10
3. Plaintiff also claims federal jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.C. Code §1331 – for a Federal
11
Question, and U.S. Constitution, Art. III, § 2 and Title 28 U.S. Code § 1332, which
12
extend to cases involving diversity of jurisdictions among the States. Here, majority
13
of Defendants are employed in Los Angeles County, California, but the corporations
14
involved include:
15
a. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc – subject to New York jurisdiction
16
17 4. Plaintiff also claims federal jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.C. Code §1331 – for a Federal
18 Question:
19 a. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 18 U.S.
20 Code §1962(c) – for an interstate enterprise;
21
b. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels – 15 U.S.
22
Code §45 – unlawful, unfair methods of competition;
23
c. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels – 18 U.S.
24
Code §1343 – fraud by wire, radio, or television;
25
26 d. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels – 31 U.S.
27 Code § 3729 – false claims;
28
-38-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-48


1 e. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels – 18
2 U.S. Code §1512 – tampering with witness, victim, or an informant;
3
f. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels – 18
4
U.S. Code §1513 - retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
5
g. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels – 18
6
U.S. Code §1517 - obstructing examination of financial institution;
7
8 ...
9 PARTIES & CLAIMS:
10
2. Defendant Jacqueline Connor, is a natural person residing and employed in Los
11
Angeles County, California, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
12
from November 1, 2005 to September 10, 2007. Her authority as Presiding Judge in
13
Samaan v Zernik is contested at least for part of the period of. During the period
14
listed she engaged in violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights:
15
a. For free speech
16
Claim #1 – by allowing the July 6, 2007 and July 23, 2007 hearings by
17
Countrywide for a purported Portective (gag) Order
18
b. For Due Process
19
Claim #2 – by denying Zernik access to Court File, to Minute Oders, to Notices
20
Claim #3- by deceiving Zernik by posting Trial Date only after her
21
disqualification while making false claims in that regard on April 22, 2007 to
22
deny extension of Discovery Cutoff Date.
23
Claim #4 - by deceiving Zernik by entering judgment on Aug 28, 2007, but back-
24
dating the entry to Aug 9, 2007
25
26
27
28
-39-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-49


1 Claim #5 - by posting after disquaification a false and misleading Sept 10, 2007
2 Minute Order denying Zernik’s allegations that Countrywide’s documents
3 were fraud.
4 Claim #6 - by allowing the July 6, 2007 and July 23, 2007 proceedings where
5 Countrywide apeared unlisted in Minute Orders and in court records, and its
6 counsels listed at times as for Defendant and at times as for Plaintiff.
7 c. For Possesion
8 Claim #7 – by generating a false and misleading Aug 9, 2007 Summary Judgment
9 against Zernik
10 3. Defendant Allan Goodman, is a natural person residing and employed in Los
11 Angeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from
12 September 10 to October 3, 2007, his authority as Presiding Judge is contested for
13 that full period.
14 He engaged in violation of Zernik’s right for Due Process:
15 Claim #8 - he presided with no Re-assignement Order
16 Claim #9 - he failed to recuse himself based on his close personal friendship with
17 Sandor Samuels.
18 4. Defendant John Segal is a natural person residing and employe in Los Angeles
19 County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from October 5 to
20 December 4, 2007. His authority as Presiding Judge is contested for that full period.
21 He engaged in abuse of Zernik’s rights:
22 a. For Due Process –
23 Claim #10 – by presiding with no Re-assignment Order
24 Claim #11 – by appointing a receiver for no reason at all and with no reference to
25 any section of the code, no reference to judgment, no reference to purchase
26 contract.
27 b. For possession –
28 Claim #12- by appointing a receiver with no legal foundation
-40-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-50


1 Claim #13- by ordering such a receiver to hold Zernik’s equity indefinitely for no
2 reason at all
3 Claim #14- by engaging in all the above even after Plaintiff’s Counsel noticed
4 him that he did not recognize the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court.
5 5. Defendant Linda Hart-Cole is a natural person residing and mployed in Los
6 Angeles County, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from
7 December 4 to December 7, 2007. Her authority as Presiding Judge is contested for
8 that full period. She engaged in abuse of Zernik’s rights:
9 a. For Due Proces –
10 Claim #15 - by allowing the Dec 7, 2007 ex parte hearing for gag order defying
11 logic
12 Claim #16 - by allowing in that hearing counsel for Mara Escrow to appear
13 incognito and refusing to introduce him.
14 Claim #17 - by ordering after disqualification an ex parte hearing 30 min later in
15 santa monica with no authority at all.
16 b. For Free Speech –
17 Claim #18 - by initiating such hearings on Dec 7, 2007
18 6. Defendant Patricia Collins is a natural person residing and employed in Los
19 Angeles County, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC87400) on December
20 7, 2007, and ruled in it in an ex parte appearance on that day in her authority as
21 Depute Supervising Judge, West District, Superior Court of the County of Los
22 Angeles. She egaged in violation of Zernik’s rights:
23 a. For Free Speech
24 Claim #18 – she approved a Dec 7, 2007 gag order that defied logic.
25 b. For Possession
26 Claim #19 – she did so to prevent Zernik from defending his rights for possession
27 and therefore allowed his home to be seized.
28 c. For Due Process –
-41-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-51


1 Claim #20 - she ran the Dec 7, 2007 hearing in violation of Due Process rights
2
3 7. Defendant Terry Friedman is a natural person residing and employed in Los
4 Angeles County. He held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC87400) from
5 December 7, 2007 to the present. His authority as Presiding Judge is contested for
6 that full period. He is engaging in continues to engage in violations of Zernik’s
7 rights:
8 a. For Due Process
9 Claim #21 – by allowing Countrywide to appear in court with no party desination
10 and with no legal foundation.
11 Claim #22 - by allowing motion for sanctions exceeding $16,000 based on a non-
12 existing order
13 Claim #23 - by allowing a OSC re: Contempt based on same
14 b. For Free Speech –
15 Claim #24 - by validating a non-existent gag order of July 23 2007 by Judge
16 Connor
17 c. For Possesion -
18 Claim #25 - by refusing to release Zernik’s home equity for no reason at all.
19 8. Defendant Gerald Rosenberg is a natural person residing and employed in Los
20 Angeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) and ruled in
21 it in an ex parte appearances, and also acted relative to this case otherwise, in his
22 autority as Supervising Judge, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.
23 a. For Due Process –
24 Claim #26 - by refusing to issue any Re-assignment order for the last 5 judges
25 Claim #27 - by refusing to allow Zernik access to electronic court file data
26 Claim #28- by allowing physical abuse of Zernik in his courtroom on Aug 31,
27 2007
28
-42-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-52


1 9. Defendants LA Superior Court and Los Angeles County – is part of the judicial
2 branch of the State of Califonria, and is employer of the Judges and Court personnel
3 listed above. As such , is responsible for claims listed against the individual judges
4 and court personnel.
5 9. Defendant Debbie Witts is a natural person residing and employed in Los Angeles
6 County, she acted in relationship to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in her autority as
7 Court Manager, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, West District, Civil
8 Unlimited. She engaged and still engages in violation of Zernik’s rights:
9 Claim #29 - by refusing to allow Zernik access to court file
10 Claim #30 - by refusing to certify exisgtence or non-existence of key documents
11 in court file
12 Claim #31 - by failing to secure a court file that is a permanent secure public
13 record.
14
15 10. Defendant Vivian Jaime is a natural person residing and employed in Los Angeles
16 County, she acted in relationship to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in her autority as
17 Courtroom Clerk, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, West District,
18 Department I.
19 Claim #32 – by colluding and connspiring with Judge Connor in violations of
20 Zernik’s due process rights.
21 11. Defendant Retired Judge Gregory O’Brien is a natural person residing and
22 employed in Los Angeles County, he acted in relationship to Samaan v Zernik in the
23 capacity of Proposed Referee, his authority is contested for the full period of his
24 involvement in Samaan v Zernik
25 Claim #33 - according to plaintiff’s counsel, he repeatedly engaged in ex parte
26 communications with that counsel
27
28
-43-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-53


1 Claim #34 - he met with that counsel on Sept 10, 2007, and according to
2 Plaintiff’s counsel schemed with him to seize Zernik’s residence based on
3 entry of an “Oral Judgment”.
4 12. Defendant ADR Services, Inc is a neutral services provider to the Los Angeles
5 Superior Court, and as such it provided Retired Judge O’Brien’s services as proposed
6 referee for Samaan v Zernik. It engaged in violations of Zernik’s due process and
7 possession rights –
8 Claim #35 - by allowing O’Brien to engage in his dishonest connduct and
9 obstruct justice.
10 13. Defendant David Pasternak is a natural person residing and employed in Los
11 Angeles County, he acted as Receiver from Nov 9, 2007 to the present. His authority
12 is contested for the full period of his involvement. He violated Zernik’s rights:
13 Claim #36 - by agreeing to an appointment as a receiver based on an order that is
14 in blatant vioaltion of due process
15 Claim #37 - by moving for a gag order against zernik on Dec 7, 2007
16 Claim #38 – by generating two ex parte hearings on Dec 7, 2007, out of
17 compliance with any standard of Due Process;
18 Claim #39 – by generating an ex parte hearing before Judge Hart-Cole, where a
19 corporate attorney – for Mara Escrow- appeared incognito, and both said
20 attorney and Judge Hart-Cole refused to identify either the attorney or his
21 client.
22 Claim #40 – by moving and obtaining gag orders to prevent Plaintiff Zernik,
23 Defendant in pro per in Samaan v Zernik, from speech that is protected as his
24 speech for defense of himself.
25 Claim #41 – by moving and obtaining indeminity agreeement for Mara Escrow –
26 at Plintiff’s expense – to cajole it to participate in inherently fraudulent real
27 property transaction.
28
-44-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-54


1 Claim #42 – by moving and obtaining orders to allow him to defer payment of
2 taxes on the real property transaction for no reason at all, and at great expense
3 to Plaintiff Zernik.
4 Claim #43 – by seizing Zernik’s home and selling it to another
5 Claim #44 – by recording the transfer of the title to Zernik’s home with no due
6 authority – in collusion with others in the fraud relative to the Aug 9, 2007
7 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP §437c.
8 Claim #45 - by holding Zernik’s equity in the home for no reason at all
9 14. Defendant Sandor Samuels is a natural persons residing and employed in Los
10 Angeles County, his actions and ommissions relative to Countrywide documents, that
11 are alleged by Plaintiff to be at the heart of the fraud against him, allowed that fraud
12 to proceed.
13 Claim #46 - as Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide, he is resonsible for all
14 litigation matters, per his own listing on the web site of “House of Justice”. He
15 allowed the porduction of fraudulent subpoena documents in Samaan v Zernik,
16 and refused to authenticate or repudiate such documents for over a year.
17 Claim #47 - He initiated the July 6, 2007 and July 23, 2007 hearings on gag orders
18 Claim #48 - He initiated the hearing on sanctions on Feb 15, 2008 and the hearing
19 on OSC on March 7, 2008
20 Claim #49 – He is ultimately responsible for the obstruction of testimony by
21 Diane Frazier.
22 Claim #50 – He is ultimately responsible for the death threat against Zernik.
23 Claim #51 – He is ultimately responsible for the repeated filing of false and
24 misleading documents by Countrywide’s Legal Department in Samaan v
25 Zernik, and the refusal to correct such obstruction even after repeated
26 requrests.
27 Claim #52 – He is ultimately responsible for the various retaliatory acts of
28 Coutntrrywide against Plaintiff in Samaan v Zernik.
-45-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-55


1 Claim #53 – He is ultimately resposible for the ongoing attempts to cover up the
2 wire fraud underlying the documents filed by Countrywide in response to
3 subpoena in Samaan v Zernik
4 Claim #54 – He is ultimately responsible for the conduct of Countrywide’s Legal
5 Department, which repeatedly produced fraudulent documents in rewsponse to
6 subpoenas, in 1st in Aug 2006, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, in Jan-Feb 2007, and 5th, in April
7 2007.
8 15. Defendant Angelo Mozilo is a natural persons residing and employed in Los
9 Angeles County, his actions and ommissions relative to Countrywide documents, that
10 are alleged by Plaintiff to be at the heart of the fraud against him, allowed that fraud
11 to proceed.
12 Claim #55- as president and chair fo the intrnal audit committee he was in
13 position to prevent the fraud, but did not.
14 Claim #56 - Even after being notified, never did anything to stop the fraud.
15 Claim #57- Shares responsibility with Sandor Samuels for claims listed above
16 under Samuels.
17 16. Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, is a finacial services corporation,
18 subject to New York jurisdiction. It was documents produced by Countrywide Home
19 Loans Corporation through the Legal Department of Countrywide Financial
20 Corporation, and declarations by Maria McLaurin, Branch Manager, Countrywide
21 Home Loans Branch Manager, San Rafael California, that allowed the faud to go on
22 in court.
23 Claim #58 - Produced the fraudulent documents that allowed Samaan to continue
24 with this fraud under the guise of legal action.
25 17. Defendant Mara Escrow Company is an escrow company. It was involved in some
26 of the fraud in Samaan v Zernik litigation through its frormer employee – Gail
27 Hershowitz, and it also was invovled in abuse of Zernik’s free speech, due process,
28 and possession rights in Decmber 2007.
-46-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-56


1 Claim #59 - Its counsel appeared incognito in a gag order hearing on Dec 7, 2007
2 18, Defendants Thomas Brown, Zachary Schorr, and Lilit Vardanian –
3 claim -#60 – obstruction of justice and violation of my right for due process.
4 19. Defendants Doe 1-20 are natural persons, they acted in relationship to Samaan v
5 Zernik (SC087400) in their autority as staff of the Superior Court for the County
6 of Los Angeles, West District.
7 Claim #60 – to be detailed at a later day
8
9 III.
10 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
STATEMENT OF CASE
11
Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 reads as follows:
12
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
13 custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within
14 the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
15 or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
16 proper proceeding for redress.
17
The events related to this complaint, outlined below, are related to actions of
18
Judges and others at the Los Angeles Superior Court, that involved severe abuse of
19
Plaintiff Zernik’s rights for Free Speech, for Due Process, and for Possession. All of
20
that took place as part of litigation, still under way, in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400),
21
where Plaintiff Zernik is Defendant and Cross-complainant . Most of the abuses that are
22
the subject of instant Complaint were aimed to benefit large corporations at the expense
23
of robbing an individual of his rights and of his possessions. Such corporations include:
24
a. Countrywide (herein after Countrywide designates Countrywide Financial
25
Corporation (C1577628, jurisdiction - Delaware and any and all of its subsidiaries and
26
subdivisions, jointly and/or severally, including but not limited to Countrywide Home
27
28
-47-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-57


1 Loans, Inc., C0568549, jurisdiction – New York), and two of its top officers, namely –
2 Angelo Mozilo, President and CEO and Sandor Samuels, Chief Legal Counsel,
3 b. Mara Escrow Company (C1309311, jurisdiction - California) (a subdivision of
4 Old Republic Title Company, C0564951, jurisdiction - California, and/or Old Republic
5 Title Holding Company, Inc C0965299, jurisdiction – California).
6 Zernik had no business with Countrywide whatsoever. He had never applied for
7 any loan from Countrywide, he had never had any loan serviced by Countrywide, and he
8 had never been employed by Countrywide. In fact, in December 2006, when Zernik for
9 the first time started reviewing the court documents in Samaan v Zernik (over a year into
10 the litigation), and for the first time realized that he was the victim of courtroom fraud
11 by Samaan in collusion with Countrywide, he did not even recognize the name
12 “Countrywide”.
13 And yet by that time it is obvious from facts outlined below that some individuals
14 in Countrywide Legal Department had decided already prior to August 2006 to support
15 the fraudulent claims brought by Samaan in Samaan v Zernik, and cover up the true facts
16 related to the fraudulent loan applications of Samaan submitted to Countrywide in
17 October 2004, and their wrongful underwriting at Countrywide Home Loans, Inc San
18 Rafael Wholesale Branch.
19 Countrywide engaged in such willful wrongdoing regardless of the harm they
20 were going to cause to Zernik.
21 And on July 6, 2007 Countrywide appeared in court for an ex parte application for
22 a Protective (gag) Order against Zernik, in a procedure that defied any notion of Due
23 Process and Free Speech rights. Such abuses of Zernik rights went on through a hearing
24 on July 23, 2007 outlined below, and continued in a hearing on Feb 15, 2008, outlined
25 below, and are expected to continue, unless prevented by this court, on March 8, 2008,
26 with a sentence jail on Zernik.
27 On Feb 15, 2008 Countrywide appeared in Court for a hearing on sanctions
28 against Zernik exceeding $16,000, and for an order to show cause for contempt, based
-48-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-58


1 on a non-existent order of July 23, 2007, and provided unauthenticated writings as the
2 basis for their claims.
3
4 3. Attempts to Address Wrongs within the State of California Jurisdiction
5 a. Los Angeles Superior Court –
6 Zernik disqualified Judges of the LA Superior Court on numerous
7 occasions, but these judges chose to ignore such disqualifications. Judge Friedman
8 alone was disqualified twice, on Jan 11, 2008 and again on Jan 14, 2008. Moreover,
9 Zernik filed a Writ Petition with the State of California Court of Appeal regarding
10 Judge Friedman’s refusal to disqualify, but the Court of Appeal denied Zernik’s
11 petition.
12 In the cases where judges of the LA Superior Court did disqualify, their
13 successors would not, as a matter of principle, set aside or vacate any ruling, order,
14 judgment of their disqualified peers. Two of the motions for vacating such judicial
15 actions was heard by Supervising Judge Rosenberg, and he issued later a letter to
16 Zernik, falsely claiming that no judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court has the
17 authority to review another judge’s judicial actions. But the California law,
18 specifically in CCP §170.3 provides such authority to Judges of the Superior Court.
19 The refusal of Judges of the LA Superior Court to follow the CCP §170.3
20 does not end with the refusal to review and vacate acts of a disqualified judge, good
21 cause apparent. The judges of the LA Superior Court also refuse to ever have their
22 Answer adjudicated against verified statement of the litigant. For that reason, they
23 developed a standard response including a) an Order Striking the Filing per CCP
24 §170.3, combined with b) a Verified Answer. But such a response is explicitly
25 prohibited response by a judge to filing by a litigant for disqualification for cause –
26 according to the California Bench Guide, published by the Judicial Council. Indeed,
27 it is logically flawed: If there was no legal basis to the litigant’s filing, on its face –
28 condition that would justify the Strike, then there is no room for the Answer. If there
-49-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-59


1 is any argument that is necessary and written in the Answer – then the Strike is
2 dishonest – since there were legal grounds for the filing.
3 In short – this un-allowed response filing by Judges of the LA Superior Court
4 is deemed by them sufficient for continuing to preside, without having their answer
5 adjudicated by a peer, when in fact – until such an Answer is adjudicated by a peer
6 and is found prevailing, the Judge has no authority at all!
7 a) California Court of Appeal –
8 Zernik noticed two appeals related to the matter of Samaan v Zernik:
9 i. B203063 – noticed 10/5/07, from Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, and
10 ii. B204544 – noticed 12/10/07, from Nov 9, 2007 Order Appointing Receiver.
11 The latter appeal was noticed as the recommendation of the Court of
12 Appeal itself, which in one of its order stated that true remedy may be in such an
13 appeal.
14 However, both appeals are still only in early stages of preparation of
15 records on appeal, and months away from any hearings.
16 Zernik filed several writ petitions with California Court of Appeal:
17 i. B199661 – from April 22, 2007 Order Denying Continuance of Discovery
18 Cutoff Date – denied
19 ii. B204029 – from Denial of Stay and Set Bond re: Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by
20 Court – denied
21 iii. B204164 - from Denial of Stay and Set Bond re: Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by
22 Court – denied
23 iv. B205195 – from Judge Friedman striking disqualification filings Jan 11 &
24 14,. 2008 – denied
25 v. B205686 – from Judge Friedman denial of application for Order to Release
26 Funds held by the Court – filed Feb 13, 2008 – denied together still pending.
27 As of March 4th, 2008, Division 5 Clerk could not ensure with the writ
28 petition below for same reasons.
-50-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-60


1 vi. B205737 - – from LA Superior Court’s denial of access to electronic file
2 docket data and related documents, and refusal to certify key paper file
3 documents – filed Feb 14, 2008. – denied together with the previous petition,
4 on the grounds of incomplete records. Zernik provided in his estimate close
5 to 2000 pages of records for these two petitions, as complete as he could
6 provide. But regardless, such decision of the Court of Appeal is circular –
7 since the subject matter of petition itself was the denial of access to court
8 records. Zernik was asking the Court of Appeal help in safeguarding his
9 rights so that he would have full and complete records. Absent review of the
10 conduct of the LA Superior Court, there is not chance that Zernik would ever
11 have a fair hearing in any instance of the California Courts – since he would
12 never have proper records.
13 vii. #B206838 – filed 4/4/09, calling upon the Justices of the California Court of
14 Appeal to abide by the California Code of Judicial Ethics, to acknowledge
15 that they have been reliably informed through all the petitions above of
16 severe and ongoing ethics violations by Judges of LA Superior Court, and
17 initiate appropriate corrective action. Denied without any explanation.
18
19 b. Commission on Judicial Performance –

20 Zernik filed complaints with the Commission, most recently against Judge

21 Friedman. The Commission decided to run its hearing on the complaints, including

22 the one related to Friedman in early February, regardless of Zernik’s objections. At

23 the time of the hearing, the commission never received yet the full documentation of

24 Judge Friedman’s conduct, and such was still under way.

25 Zernik was excluded from any specific and detailed knowledge of the filing

26 of judges for the hearing by the Commission, or steps taken by the Commission to

27 investigate the situation. Zernik was informed that his comlaint was found without

28 merit. Moreover, when he submitted follow-up information regarding current events


-51-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-61


1 in Judge Friedman Court, he received a letter from the Commission refusing to
2 accept such documents, since the complaint regarding Judge Friedman was already
3 heard and closed (Exh xx is a xx/xx/08 letter from the Commission).
4 c. California Attorney General –
5 Safeguard of the civil rights of California citizens are within the charges of
6 the California Attorney General. Zernik had numerous communications with the staff
7 of the office of the Attorney General, including senior staff members such as Att.
8 Tom Green, Special Assistant, reporting directly to Att General Brown, and Att
9 Albert Sheldon, Head of the Section on Consumer Protection, and Head of the
10 section on False Claims. These officials appeared sincerely interested in Zernik’s
11 claims against Countrywide, in the context of the Office of California Attorney
12 General own investigation against Countrywide. and Zernik was instructed to add the
13 Office of California Attorney General as a Party of Interest on the Court filings.
14 Regarding Zernik’s concerns in the areas of Civil Rights abuse and Integrity
15 of the Judiciary, the office of California Attorney General refused to intervene, as
16 stated in the letter of xx/03/08 (Exh xx is a xx/03/08 letter from Tom Green, Special
17 Assistant to California Attorney General Brown).
18
19 4. Summary- Overview: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) - LA Superior Court litigation
20
of a real estate/mortgage fraud by Samaan in collusion with Countrywide

21 a. In September-October 2004 – Zernik was the victim of complex white collar crime
22 including mortgage and real estate fraud, without even being aware of most of it.
23 b. In 2006 – Countrywide got involved with a fraudulent subpoena production of
24 documents, and until December that year, Zernik was still oblivious.
25 c. In 2007- Zernik uncovered most of Samaan-Countrywide’s fraudulent schemes and
26 Judge Connor’s support of such, and Countrywide and the Court started severe overt
27 retaliation and abuse of Zernik’s rights.
28
-52-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-62


1 d. In 2008 Countrywide and the Court are continuing to pursue retaliation and financial
2 destruction of Zernik through the appointment of receiver, holding of his funds, and
3 false generation of a criminal record.
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
-53-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-63


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 5-s
28

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


Case No. BC351286
ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-64
Digitally signed by
Joseph Zernik

Joseph Zernik DMD PhD DN: cn=Joseph Zernik,


email=jz12345@earthl
2415 Saint George St, Los Feliz CA 90027 Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net ink.net, c=US
Date: 2008.06.01
16:25:59 -07'00'

May 30, 2008

Mr Steven Goldman, Head


White Collar Crime Squad
Phone: 310 996 3810
Fax: 310 996 3359

RE: THE BIG PICTURE

Mr Goldman:

Below is my attempt to put together the main characters in a big picture. In the past two years I
submitted to the FBI carefully researched, fully documented complaints of hundreds of pages, but
that seemed to be too complicated, and never got any results that I could see. The fraud went on
uninterrupted.

Most of the facts below are from at least one source. Yet, I consider a story like this a “working
hypothesis” only. I find it extremely useful in focusing and defining the questions and facts that are of
key significance and still require verification. I believe that you have most or all of the necessary
documents in this regard. If you need anything else, please let me know.

Last time we discussed it by phone, you indicated that if the fact I state are true, this case involves
large scale public corruption and is above your head. I fully agree, and I believe that the situation
requires appointment of a Special Counsel.

I will submit today a copy of this letter to a United States Judge under seal, with the request to
appoint a Special Counsel.

Joseph Zernik

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-65


THE BIG PICTURE

Submitted in support of:

a) Qui Tam/False Claims Act against Countrywide Financial Corporation and


Countrywide Home Loans, Inc

b) Racketeering (RICO) claims against Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide


Home Loans,

c) Racketeering (RICO) claims against Los Angeles Superior Court, West District,
including: Judges – Connor, Segal, Friedman, Hart-Cole, Collins, Rosenberg; Clerks –
Jaime, Witts

d) Request for Witness/Informer/Victim Protection for Zernik

e) Request for the Appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate such matters,


focusing on computer-assisted white-collar crimes and Racketeering as seen in:

I. The introduction (~1980) and current operation of the Case


Management Systems (Sustain) at LASC, West District and
elimination of the paper-based Books of Judgments, Registers of
Actions, and Indexes of All Cases there

II. The introduction and operation of Underwriting Monitoring Systems


(Edge) at Countrywide, and abuse of such systems for the funding
of Government-backed loans now known as the sub-prime crisis.
Pertaining to complaints filed with the FBI, Los Angeles, by Joseph Zernik, starting January 2007, regarding real
estate fraud by Nivie Samaan and others against Joseph Zernik, and corruption of judges in LA Superior Court,
West District., involving Countrywide and Sandor Samuels. The subject of the complaint, Zernik’s residence at
320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, 90212 ended up being fraudulently conveyed off to Nivie Samaan on
December 17, 2007. This complaint deserves the attention of the FBI, since it involves:
- complainant’s losses exceeding $2.0 million
- financial transactions across state lines
- wire/fax fraud involving financial institutions
- qui tam/false claims in the hundreds of billions,
- public corruption, and
- racketeering
This complaint also falls into an area of focused interest of the FBI this year – the Sub-Prime industry

Chapter 1 – Strong Start with ERISA Fraud at Skyline Funding & Morrow Becomes Lloyd
Timothy Lloyd Morrow is a black man of about 45-50, about 6’tall, athletic body type. He now
resides at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, 90212, formerly the residence of Joseph Zernik, that
was transferred by fraudulent conveyance to Nivie Samaan on December 17, 2007.

Morrow was active in the financial/real estate field for many years. He made some gains in assisting
clients with dubious qualifications secure government-backed residential loans, and became a

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-66


“business partner” (that is what Countrywide called the “loan originators”) of Maria McLaurin, Branch
Manager, Countrywide Home Loans, Wholesale Branch.

Chapter 2 – Key Relationships Established Early on - Countrywide Home Loans, San Rafael
Based on information from the field, Zernik estimates that around 2004, to obtain a totally fraudulent
mortgage of about $1.4 million, with no documentation, you needed to pay $10,000-15,000 in cash
for getting the process through. How such funds split between McLaurin and Morrow, Zernik has no
idea, but he estimates that the bigger portion went to McLaurin. Zernik believes that both McLaurin
and Morrow received their funds outside the territorial U.S., for example, through fund transfer to
Mexico, which is extremely easy from Los Angeles. McLaurin travels regularly to Mexico.

Therefore, McLaurin and Morrow, although they possibly never met in person (and it was safer for
them that way), were business partners in more ways than one.

Their business partnership was largely dependant on their email relationship. That email
relationship shows that:

a. Lloyd had direct relationship with the McLaurin, Branch Manager - in the first place, an
unusual situation, when he did not even have a license as a broker to sign any loan
application.
b. Lloyd addresses McLaurin in the first person
c. Lloyd transfers to Maria documents as PDF scans-attachments to email, and they alternate
such with fax transmissions, a key feature in the fax/wire fraud on the financial institution, and
in Zernik’s claims on qui tam
d. Lloyd approaches Maria with a proposal that amounts to procurement of perjury on Nov 3,
2006, and McLaurin initially refuses, but eventually consents and becomes a major partner in
the fraudulent litigation of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in the LASC West District under
Judges Jacqueline A Connor, John Segal, and Terry Friedman.

e. That email correspondence was known by the Legal Division of Countrywide, Headed by
Sandor Samuels. In contrast with phone communications and phone messages, which
under some circumstances have rights for privacy for employees against employer, email
communications and attachments performed on corporate employer computers have no such
protection. Nevertheless, the Legal Division of Countrywide was and is protective of
McLaurin’s email communications with Lloyd, which shows important evidence for Zernik’s
qui tam claims against Countrywide. The Legal Division of Countrywide actively engaged in
fraudulent concealment of such email correspondence between McLaurin and Lloyd, and
failed to provide it to Zernik in six (6) subpoena productions of documents that sought such
correspondence between August of 2006 and April of 2007.

f. According to McLaurin, in a phone conversation with Zernik in December 2007, the Legal
Division advised her that email correspondence was not subject to subpoeana. Therefore,
they jointly entered a fraudulent form titled “Correpondence Log, San Rafael Branch”,
empty, with no information in it, in lieu of any correspondence related to loan applications
sought by Zernik. According to Diane Frazier, former Senior Underwriter in San Rafael, such
forms were never used in San Rafael at least since 1989, the year she started working there.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-67


But Morrow always worked under others’ license and not his own. One of the reasons was related to
his past employment around 2000 with a company called Skyline Funding, based in the San
Fernando Valley, that was in the real estate/financial business. The company was rather large by
that time, and included branch offices in a number of locations. At some point around 2000-2002
most likely, it was realized that there was a major discrepancy in the ERISA or medical benefits
accounting of the company.

Morrow was involved and was sued, probably both civil and criminal. Zernik could not get details of
that litigation (possibly expunged), but believes that figuring out the details of that litigation is key to
this whole story. Zernik believes that the litigation took place in part the West District of LASC, at
least after some point. Morrow was able to disqualify a judge claiming racial bias, and transfer or re-
assign the case, and in the process he managed to get a “good” attorney and at the end he came out
of the whole affair easy:
a. The funds were never retrieved, Morrow managed to move the funds outside the U.S. much
earlier, and is and was with minimal income and no assets at all in the U.S. Funds are said to
be in Spain, including real estate holdings.
b. Morrow probably served no time in jail
c. Morrow also avoided paying child support for 3 girls where he was somewhere between
$100,000 and $200,000 behind, even on the minimal support that he was required to pay.
d. Morrow ended up having to go under complete identity change if he wanted to continue his
employment in the financial area, and he became in 2003 Jae Arre Lloyd.
Most important – through this litigation, Lloyd got well-connected with certain elements in the LASC
West District.

Chapter 2 – Lloyd to Marry Samaan – Opening Up New Opportunities and Operation of an


Illegal Branch of Victor Parks/PMC Mortgage Brokerage in Los Angeles around
2004
Around the summer of 2004, Lloyd decided to marry Nivie Samaan. Samaan is a beautician, petite
slender, about 5’4”, tan skin, black hair, of Egyptian background. She was working at the time as a
cosmetics saleswoman in Barney’s New York, and living in very modest apartment in Los Angeles.
She now resides with Lloyd at 320 South Peck address listed above.

Lloyd saw in Samaan more than a future wife, she was going to be also his business partner and his
cover for laundering the funds that he could never show in the U.S. At that time Lloyd was working
under the license of Victor Parks, a licensed California Mortgage Broker, who was operating
under the license of Pacific Mortgage Consultants, based in Larkspur, Northern California ,
adjacent to Countrywide Home Loans San Rafael Branch. During the boom years of the refinance
markets, PMC was advertising on the web, recruiting “loan originators” for “100% commission”.
There was no requirement for such persons to be licensed loan brokers or real estate sales persons.

Parks himself resided at the time in Washington State, but Lloyd was operating for him a loan
brokerage office in Los Angeles, without any license for a branch office, etc.

Victor Parks himself appeared well anchored in Los Angeles, although it appears that he chose to
live at a distance from Los Angeles in the last decade. Nivie Samaan claimed that he was first
cousin of Lloyd, but there is no evidence of that otherwise. Bernard Parks, former Chief off the
LAPD, shares the last name with Victor Parks, but denied any knowledge of the man.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-68


The operation of the Branch Office in Los Angeles was in part facilitated by a wire-fax fraud scheme.
Nivie Samaan was operating at that time a laser-jet fax/printer/scanner, which was programmed to
show several alternative identities in its fax header imprint as needed.
e. Spellbound – that was Samaan’s own identity, related to her attempt to develop a web-
based retail business for followers of the psychic and the occult – crystal balls, divining
objects, anointment oils, etc. This identify was in compliance with FFC regulations in the
sense of providing correct identity, phone number, date.
f. Anonymous – that was an identify with no name, no phone number, but including date, page
numbers, that was used to send faxes on Victor Parks letterhead, impersonating Victor Parks
in loan transactions. In parallel, a phone number in Washington State, that was provided as
Victor Parks fax number, was set to automatic forwarding, and was diverted to Nivie
Samaan’s fax number in Los Angeles (across state lines), without informing those who used
that fax number. This wire/fax fraud scheme was used also in relationship with
communications with a financial institution – Countrywide Home Loans, Wholesale Branch,
San Rafael.

Some months before their marriage in Hawaii in Sept 2004, Samaan also managed to pass first time
the California Real Estate license exams. That was a nice surprise, since her quantitative skills were
rather poor (she never went from high school to vocational school), and she appeared at difficulty
figuring out percentages, etc.

After their marriage, Lloyd started the Beverly Hill Lloyd Home Mortgage Center, based on
Samaan’s license and his skills.

But Lloyd also wanted to launder through Samaan some of his money and purchase real estate in
Beverly Hills.

In 2004 they noticed that the Zernik residence was for sale, at 320 South Peck Drive, down the street
from the modest apartment they lived in at that time. But the problem was that:
a. Lloyd had the money, but could not purchase the home for cash, since he could not show any
income or assets.
b. Samaan had no income or assets to show at that time

The solution was easy, with some help from Maria McLaurin and Countrywide Home Loans, or so it
appeared.

Chapter 3 – Fraudulent Inducement of Zernik into a Failed Real Estate Contract


On Sept 4, 2004, Samaan submitted an offer to purchase Zernik’s residence, through Zernik’s
realtor, Michael Libow, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage. Zernik refused to review the
offer, since Samaan was a realtor representing self, he demanded third party, arm’s length pre-
qualification of the buyer.

On Sept 7, 2004, Samaan submitted to Libow a pre-qualification letter, signed in the name of Victor
Parks, assuring the prequalification of Samaan for the purchase of the property at around $1.8
million. That letter was forgery, The signature on that letter does not even resemble the true Parks
signature on declarations he filed in court.

Zernik considers this one the Southern California-type Parks signature (compared to the northern
California-type Parks signature, see below), and he believes that Parks had general knowledge that

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-69


others were signing in his name and based on his license, but had no knowledge of the particulars of
specific documents that were signed in his name.

In parallel, Samaan wove some false information into letters and faxes that she sent to Libow – that
she owned stock accounts that she intended to liquidate for the purchase (later she admitted in
deposition never even owning stock accounts of anything in her life), that she as a realtor who closed
several deals a year (she later admitted in deposition that she never even assisted in any real estate
deal in her life at that time).

But when Zernik asked Beth Styne, Manager of Coldwell Banker Residential Borkerage, Beverly
Hills, South, a couple of years later, how allowed this to pass without checking any of Samaan’s
papers and qualifications, she said that she was impressed by the fact that Samaan, whenever she
saw her, was wearing extremely expensive real jewelry.

Therefore, by Sept 15, 2004, Zernik was fraudulently induced to sign a real estate contract. It was a
standard California Real Estate Purchase Agreement and Escrow Instructions form.

In Sept-Oct 2004 Samaan repeatedly defaulted on the contract: her deposit checks bounced NSF
twice, and by Oct 18, 2004 she would not remove the loan contingency, and did not have her loans
approved, with a Nov 1, 2004 escrow closing date. But she did not ask for an extension either.

Instead, in email and fax communications, Parks (or at least so Libow and Zernik believed), was
stringing them on along from day to day and from one week to the next.

By Oct 18, 2004, Zernik called Beth Styne, and she instructed him to immediately issue Notice to
Buyer to Perform. Zernik did so through Libow. Libow also tried to fax the notice to Parks, and was
using for that purpose a new digital fax machine, and on that day for the first time he figured out the
tip of the tale of the fax fraud. The number he dialed was the number in Washington State, but after
the high pitched tones, when transmission started, the number on the display was the number
identified as Nivie Samaan’s.

On Oct 18, 2004. Libow reported this to Zernik.

On Oct 18, 19, 20, 2004 Libow sent emails to Parks, asking for his explanation. Parks (or whoever
was answering in his name), answered the emails, but never answered the questions on the fax
fraud.

Samaan refused to remove the remaining contingencies.

On Oct 21, 2004 Zernik issued notice to Cancel Escrow.

Chapter 3 – Samaan and Lloyd submitted Fraudulent Mortgage Applications (1003) to


Countrywide in 2004
As it later turned out, on very early Oct 2004, Samaan’s first loan applications [Uniform Residential
Loan Application (1003) – a U.S. Government mandated and prescribed application form, published
in the Federal Register] . These loan applications included forged signatures of Parks as the loan
broker. This signature again, bears no resemblance to Parks signature on Court declarations, but
also bears no resemblance to the Southern California signature. Zernik calls this type the Northern
California type, and believes it was issued regularly by Becky Cusera, at PMC. Again, Zernik

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-70


believes that Parks in general agreed to this, but had no knowledge of the details of the documents
that were submitted in his name.

The loan applications were entirely fraudulent, claiming that Samaan was self employed, in a
corporation she owned, at $400,000 per year, in another document her income went up to
$4,000,000 per year.

In deposition, Samaan admitted that she never even talked with Parks about these applications, she
generated them with Lloyd alone.

Chapter 4 – Samaan and Lloyd were using Countrywide’s Fraudulent Infrastructure that is
the subject of the False Claims Act violations underlying the Sub-Prime Crisis
This system was entirely dependent on computer networks that were developed largely by
Countrywide, but also by PMC, in order to allow “Loan Originators” to file Mortgage applications
(1003) online, with minimum security precautions.

Therefore, when Samaan is asked in deposition who Lloyd and Parks work for, she states “the
network”, she does not know or does not attribute it to a specific corporation, instead, they are all
linked through computer networks.

The Wholesale Division branches of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, is the primary focus of Zernik’s
qui tam claims. Such wholesale branches are not open to the public, instead, mortgage applications
are communicated in by loan brokers only.

In situation like that, integrity of the underwriting process depended entirely on the loan broker
relative to all documents entering the wholesale branch. In turn, the integrity of the loan broker was
secured entirely by his signatures on:
a. Loan Applications (1003) and
b. form titled Broker’s and Borrower’s Certification of Documents

But as seen in the case of Samaan, none of the signatures of Parks, a licensed loan broker who was
authorized by Countrywide for direct loan applications, was his true signature. And in the complex
system of Countrywide’s underwriting, quality assurance, and verification of underwriting documents
in the Wholesale Branch there was no procedure for authentication of either:
a. Loan Broker’s signature
b. Borrower’s signature

Given that a government-backed loan for over $1.5 million was to be authorized, such procedure
appears strangely lax.

Beyond that - it is hard to imagine any serious verification/authentication procedure that could be
devised in that scenario. The traditional “wet” signature is entirely obsolete in the world of scans,
faxes, computer communications, and copy and paste programs on each and every laptop
computer. The time for digital signatures was long overdue in transactions of this type, pursuant to
the E-Sign Act of 2002.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-71


Chapter 5 – Samaan’s Loans Failed in 2004 Due to an Honest Underwriter – Diane Frazier

By Oct 6, 2004 – Diane Frazier figured out that Samaan’s loan applications were entirely fraud, since
she figured out that the phone provided as the employer’s phone for Samaan was in fact her home
phone. In addition, Clues Countrywide’s computerized underwriter expert system detected other
signs on Samaan’s loan applications that were red flag for fraud – e.g., multiple residence addresses
in the previous 2 years, and discrepancies in employment data between the applications and credit
bureau/data base knowledge.

But McLaurin knew that it did not matter, since Lloyd had the cash, the loan applications were just a
way to launder Lloyd money and let him bring it back as equity in a home.

There was another strange feature to these applications – they basically came with no support
documentation – no contract, no appraisal etc. The reason was that Samaan entered in the real
estate contract a clause that is forbidden by Countrywide and other regulations – her fee as a realtor
representing herself, was to be counted as a major part of her down payment. Therefore, Samaan
could not show the Contract to the Underwriter.

In addition to the fraud in Samaan’s employment data, there was another strange feature in the
applications – they were based on 0 points or no fees at all to Countrywide, whereas, a loan such as
sought by Samaan required 0.75% in fees, amounting to over $10,000. Allowing the loans to be
funded with no fees amounted to fraud on Countrywide and its share holders.

But McLaurin supported the loan applications, while the underwriter demanded that they be fixed.
So on October 12, 2004 McLaurin scratched with black marker the stamps RECEIVED, ran the old
application a second time through the scanner, and placed on them a second RECEIVED stamp, this
time dated Oct 12, 2004.

But Frazier was stubborn, she issued an Oct 14, 2004 underwriting letter which suspended the loan
applications for 10 days, with demand for new loan applications with explanation for the
discrepancies. At the end of the 10 days, if conditions were not met – the applications were
supposed to be deemed dead.

But before the 10 days were over, Zernik canceled escrow on Oct 21, 2004. Zernik had no clue of
any of this, but realized that something was very wrong by the conduct of Samaan, and then by the
fax/wire fraud detected by Libow.

In retrospect:
- Samaan and Parks engaged in fraud on Zernik in 2004 by not disclosing any of these details
to him, instead, stringing him along, telling him and Libow that the applications would be
funded in a few days.
- Samaan and Parks and Countrywide and McLaurin engaged in fraudulent claims against
Zernik from 2005 to the present, by making false claims, blaming Zernik for the failure of
Samaan’s loan applications in 2004.

Chapter 6 – Frazier loses her job in the aftermath, but remains under Countrywide
Surveillance, and Zernik Gets a Death Threat upon Talking with her

Not long after the incident of Samaan’s loans, Frazier lost her job with Countrywide. In 2007, when
Zernik figured out that he was victim of fraud, he managed to find Frazier, against some odds.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-72


Frazier discussed a variety of issues with Zernik by phone. But Frazier, more than two years out of
her employment by Countrywide, was still somehow under surveillance. Next time Zernik tried to call
a man answered the phone, and he explained that Frazier was forbidden from talking about such
topics, and that if Zernik ever called that number again, he would come down to LA and gun him
down.

And the Legal Division of Countrywide knew the details of this incident, as can be seen in their filings
on July 6, 2007 in Court.

When Zernik attempted to serve Frazier subpoena – she disappeared.

But Frazier talked with Zernik of her own free will, like Maria McLaurin before her, and like Mariela
Garcia – Custodian of Records at Countrywide. From Countrywide’s perspective, the situation was
out of control. Typically – they would deal with attorneys, who would fast realize that it is a hopeless
situation and give up. But Zernik, not being a lawyer, was contacting unexpected people, and getting
them to disclose details that were never supposed to be disclosed. Countrywide needed to act more
aggressively to silence Zernik.

Chapter 7 – Back to Lloyd and the West District of LA Superior Court


When Zernik canceled escrow in 2004, Lloyd knew that he had the way to get around that problem.
He was in the real estate business for a long time, and he also had his experience with the LASC
and special connections.

By Oct 25, 2005 Samaan filed claims, with Jay Stein as Counsel. Probably Lloyd told McLaurin about
it, but possibly the Legal Division of Countrywide was not aware and not consulted.

By Nov 1, 2005 Stein filed peremptory challenge against Judge Neidorf.

By Jan 30, 2006 first reliable records showing actions by Judge Connor include:

a. Fraudulent back-dated assignment order for Judge Connor - issued on Jan 30, 2006, back-
dated to Nov 1, 2005.
b. Fraudulent Register of Actions transactions in Sustain on Jan 30, 2006 related to:
i. Demurrer
ii. OSC re: POS
iii. Initial Status Conference

Such data are part of the core evidence for RICO against LASC.

Chapter 8 – Zernik was Slow to Figure it all out – but Uniquely Qualified
Zernik took some time to figure it all out. But strangely, once he got involved, Zernik believes that it
was a very unusual coincidence that brought him in contact with this material, although later he
learnt from the FBI that real estate fraud was an fast growing epidemic with an epicenter in Los
Angeles.

Zernik was somehow, without even knowing it, uniquely qualified to figure out such convoluted scam
(see biographical data at end).

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-73


By mid Dec 2006 Zernik for the first time felt that he needed to pay more attention to the trial
proceedings based on some comment by counsel.

By late Dec 2006 Zernik figured out that Countrywide’s subpoena production in Samaan v Zernik
was fraudulent in nature.

By Mid Jan 2007 Zernik appeared for the first time in the Court of Judge Connor.

By March-April 2007 Zernik for the first time realized that possibly Judge Connor was biased,
following a report of analysis he commissioned from a highly reputed law office, which came back
titled: Errors in Adjudication.

By March-April 2007 Zernik knew enough about Countrywide loan underwriting to conclude that
Samaan loan applications were extremely informative relative to the underlying causes of the sub-
prime crisis.

BY Jan –March 2008 Zernik got focused on Case Management Systems and Registers of Actions.

By May 2008 Zernik for the first time realized that he indeed had sufficient evidence for RICO against
the LASC West division.

Chapter 9 – By July 2007 Countrywide felt Compelled to Silence Zernik


And they chose to do it through an ex parte appearance in the court of Judge Connor. That session,
July 6, 2007 and the subsequent session on July 23, 2007, are among the core evidence that Zernik
is presenting here for RICO against Countrywide and the LASC.

Analysis of the transactions on the Register of Actions shows fraudulent data entry, meant to hide
the true transactions, and also comments indicating that Judge Connor held such proceedings “off
the record” – a concept that does not sit well with any notion of Due Process.

Chapter 10- The Scam at the LASC West District moves on, but nothing goes as planned
In the transcript of the Aug 30, 2007 Status conference, Judge Connor states to the effect that
nothing worked as anticipated, or typical in Samaan v Zernik:
a. By July 12, 2007 - Zernik served Connor with Disqualification for a cause.
Connor’s response, documented with the electronic file Minute Orders was in fact
issued July 23, 2007, or 11 days after she was served, and was back-dated to July 12,
2007. This is core data for racketeering. Connor should be deemed disqualified and
any action she did must be vacated.
b. By Aug 9, 2007 - Connor issued Summary Judgment for Specific Performance against
Zernik and for Samaan that was based on completely fraudulent finding of facts that
fail to even stand on their own, due to internal incoherence. Such facts were based on
fraudulent documents from Countrywide and fraudulent declarations by McLaurin.
c. By Aug 9, 2007 – Connor initiated the Judgment Fraud, an entirely separate set of scams
(see below), based on stating that she entered the judgment, issuing Minute Orders
saying that she entered Judgment, but never entering the judgment.
d. By Sept 10, 2007 - Zernik served Connor with disqualification for a cause for the second time.
Connor chose to step down this time around, but went one and entered on Sept 11,

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-74


2007, with no authority, a fraudulent Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order, back –dated, where
she exonerates Countrywide from filing any fraudulent documents in Samaan v Zernik.
All data related to the Sept 10, 2007 proceedings should be considered core data re:
racketeering by LASC.
e. By Sept 10, 2008 - with no authority at all, Judge Connor re-assigned the case to Judge
Goodman, who only a month later recalled he had “long term close personal
frienship with the Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide.”
f. By Oct 5, 2007 - the case was in the hands of Judge John Segal, again with no valid
assignment order. Judge Segal chose not to continue the scam along the line of the
Referee scam of Connor, but instead – the Receiver scam with David Pasternak as
Receiver.
g. By Nov 5, 2007 - Judge Segal issued ruling to have a shortened notice hearing on
appointment of receiver on Nov 9, 2007. Immediately afterwards he secretly
invalidated that minute order (see electronic Minute Orders, Nov 5, 2007) with no
notice to parties.
h. By Nov 9, 2007- Judge Segal appointed receiver in an order that even the Court of Appeal
found necessary to warn Zernik about : “Petitioner ‘s true remedy is in an appeal
from the order appointing receiver”. The fraud in this order is that it tries to pretend
that it is for the execution of a judgment where Zernik is not cooperating with a legal
judgment. But in fact - the judgment is never referenced in the order, since the
judgment was never entered.
i. By Nov 21, 2007- Pasternak and Segal threatened issuing unlawful detainer and Zernik felt
compelled to leave his residence.
j. By Dec 7, 2007 – Pasternak was having difficulties – Zernik explained to escrow officer and
title company the nature of the fraud, and they did not cooperate. Therefore,
Pasternak issued a gag order against Zernik , trough Judge Hart-Cole and Collins, to
forbid Zernik from protected speech that is his own legal defense. In addition, he
issued through Judge Collins an illegal indemnity agreement for Mara Escrow, to
secure them against the risk of involvement in real estate fraud in this action.
k. By Dec 17, 2007 – With all that, still Pasternak could not transfer title, since he could not
issue a writ of execution, since the judgment was never entered. So at the end the
transfer of title was based on simple forgery with white out and typewriter.
l. By Dec 26, 2007 - Zernik appeared ex parte, one of several times, before Supervising
Judge Rosenberg, for “Safeguard of Due Process of the Law”. Rosenberg in open
court and in minute order effectively denies all Zernik’s requests. Immediately
afterward, as Zernik only recently figured out, he invalidated that minute order secretly,
with no notice to parties (see Dec 26, 2007 Minute Order under electronic Court File)
m. By Jan 30, 2007 – the case was in the hands of Judge Friedman. He was holding Zernik’s
money with no authority at all. Zernik is on the verge of bankruptcy after 3 years of
continuous abuse. Zernik appeared ex parte to ask for release of the funds. Judge
Friedman in open court and in minute order denied the release WITH PREJUDICE,
and warned Zernik of sanctions the next time he would come to ask for it. Immediately
afterward he secretly vacated that order with no notice to parties.
n. By March 7, 2007 – Judge Friedman issued ruling and judgment on Contempt against Zernik
in proceedings where no adequate summons were served, where no sufficient time
was allowed for defense. And where entry of judgment is again the subject of
manipulations.

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-75


z Page 12/12 June 1, 2008

Chapter 11- So what is the issue with the judgment and LASC Register of Actions?

The essence of the scam is that even today, May 30, 2007, almost a year after the summary
judgment was issued, it is still not entered as judgment, and it is supposed to be a secret.

Therefore, by law – since judgment was never entered - none of it could be executed. But Judges
Segal, Hart-Cole, Collins, and Friedman, acted in violation of the law, and engaged in taking of
property from Zernik, under pure threat of force, and fraudulently transferred the title to Samaan.
Moreover, they still keep Zernik’s equity in the home, originally more than $800,000 by the court with
no legal foundation at all. By not entering the judgment , these judges would still be able to modify it,
with the intention of robbing Zernik entirely of his equity.

In order to accomplish all of that, the pre-requisite is – secret records of litigation, and ambiguation of
the records, so that Zernik would not know if the judgment was entered or not. There are a number
of decisions of the California Supreme Court asking LA County to fix that system, and also decisions
of the Court of Appeal. The scam is an old one, going back to the early 1980’s, and Zernik suspects
that a much younger Judge Connor was standing by the crib of that scam.

At that time, the Judges of LASC decided to enter computers of a Case Management System called
Sustain. In the process, a decision was made to include in the system the Book of Judgments and
Register of Actions, and Indexes of All Cases, critical documents for the safeguard of the integrity of
court operations. Such drastic change required a thorough review and modification of the Rules of
Court. But none of that was done. Even today, more than 25 years later, the LASC Local Rules of
Court talk about Judgment being entered into the Book of Judgments. But for over 25 years there is
no book of Judgments.
Federal Law says (Rule-Making Enabling Act- 1934) that no court in the United States is allowed to
change rules of Court without having the rules written, and allowing reasonable period for public
comment and challenge.
The introduction of Sustain amounted to a huge change in Rules of Courts, but the new rules were
never written, never posted for public comment, and therefore, even today, are part mystery.
Moreover, as Supervising Judge Rosenberg explained to Zernik on several occasions, when
denying requests for due process: “Sustain Data are privileged – for the Court only”, an oral rule
of court that stands in defiance of the U.S. Code and the U.S. Constitution.
By hiding the judgments and not clarifying when judgments are entered, the judges of the LASC
brought us back to Medieval England.

Dated: May 30, 2008

Signed here, in Los Angeles California By: ________________________________

Joseph Zernik

ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p641-76


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 5-a
28

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


Case No. BC351286
642 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p642/679
FRONTLINE 01-05-01
2/7/2009 PBS - frontline: l.a.p.d. blues: the af…

Update: July 2008 Young was the co-producer


of "L.A.P.D. Blues."
In June 2008 a federal appeals court upheld a
lower court's award of $15 million ($5 million
each) to three officers initially convicted in the Ramparts scandal. Two of the
officers, Brian Liddy and Edward Ortiz, are mentioned in this FRONTLINE report
(broadcast May 2001) and on this companion Web site. Back then, FRONTLINE
had noted that their convictions had been thrown out by a judge. The officers later
sued in civil proceedings and now, seven years later, the 9th Circuit Federal
Appeals Court has upheld a lower court's ruling in their favor.

Background: Perez's Allegations

Facing eight years in prison for stealing a million dollars worth of cocaine from the
L.A.P.D. property room, L.A. police officer Rafael Perez, the man who triggered
the Rampart scandal, reached a plea agreement with prosecutors in late 1999. In
the deal, Perez would help uncover what he claimed was widespread police
misconduct in exchange for a five-year prison term and immunity from prosecution
for all charges short of murder.

Over nine months, investigators interviewed Perez on 35 occasions, generating more


than 4,000 pages of transcripts. In these interviews, Perez implicated 70 individuals
in misconduct ranging from bad shootings and improper arrests to drinking on the
job.

Here is a summary (as of December


Listen to excerpts from
2001) of what has resulted from the Perez's confessions. (audio)
various criminal and civil
investigations into Perez's allegations:

Writs of Habeas Corpus and Civil Settlements


pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…/outcome.html 1/5

643 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p643/679


2/7/2009 PBS - frontline: l.a.p.d. blues: the af…

Upon learning of Perez's shooting and frame up of Javier Ovando, Dep. DA


Rosenthal took the unprecedented step of preparing a writ of habeas corpus, a
petition normally filed by defense attorneys, seeking to overturn Ovando's
conviction and secure his release from prison. Within a week, Ovando was freed.
But Perez's continuing testimony kept the DA's office busy. "You had somebody
who now is saying I did all these things wrong. I lied, I planted evidence, I did this, I
did that," explained Judge Larry Fidler of the Superior Court. "The prosecution then
said we've lost confidence in the conviction."

Nearly 100 convictions have been overturned as a result of Perez's testimony. Most
of these cases involve arrests made by Perez; some involve wrongful convictions
identified by Perez and corroborated by investigators. The District Attorney's office
has filed 64 writs and attorneys representing defendants have filed 22 others that,
unopposed by the DA's office, have been granted by the Court.[1] Another 13
writs that have been granted involve juveniles. Meanwhile, defense attorneys
continue to review as many as 15,000 cases that may have involved misconduct by
police officers, particularly those implicated in wrongdoing by Perez. The Public
Defenders Office alone is examining more than 8000 cases.

With criminal convictions being overturned, civil suits against the L.A.P.D. and the
City of Los Angeles have followed. In its largest police misconduct settlement ever,
the City awarded $15 million to Javier Ovando last November. Twenty-nine other
defendants, represented by Gregory Yates, were awarded nearly $11 million in a
bulk-settlement. As of April, 2001, 142 Rampart cases had been filed against the
City. Two had been dismissed and 42 had been settled.[2] The L.A. City
Attorney's office has estimated that total Rampart-related settlement costs will be
$125 million.

L.A.P.D. Boards of Rights

Within the L.A.P.D., the Internal Affairs Division is responsible for investigating and
disciplining officer misconduct. Much like a military-style court martial, evidentiary
hearings, or Boards of Rights (BOR), are called to determine allegations of officer
wrongdoing. Officers are entitled to legal representation and cases are brought by
the Advocate's Office within IA. A panel of three judges (two police captains and
one civilian) determine guilt or innocence based on "the preponderance of evidence"
and penalties can range from termination to official reprimand. Of the approximately
70 officers implicated by Rafael Perez, 58 have become subject to BOR's
proceedings. An officer may face multiple boards; Perez's partner, Nino Durden, for
example, faced 32 Boards before resigning from the department. And some Boards
may involve multiple officers involved in a specific incident. To date, of the 52
Boards that have been held, 36, or 69% have resulted in findings of not guilty; 16,
or 31%, have resulted in findings of guilt. Twelve officers have received
suspensions, ranging from 7 to 30 days in length. Seven officers have resigned and 5
have been terminated.

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…/outcome.html 2/5

644 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p644/679


2/7/2009 PBS - frontline: l.a.p.d. blues: the af…
Rampart Criminal Cases

In addition to internal disciplinary proceedings, officers engaged in criminal


misconduct face the prospect of prosecution by the state (L.A. County District
Attorney's Office) and/or the federal government (U.S. Attorney's Office). Thus far,
the state has brought indictments against 8 officers implicated by Perez. Four of the
officers have been to trial, three officers have reached plea agreements and one is
awaiting trial.

The first criminal case brought against Rampart CRASH cops came to trial in
October, 2000. The charges against four officers, from perjury and false arrest to
conspiracy to obstruct justice, involved three separate arrests identified by Perez as
"bad." In two of the alleged incidents, the charges were either dismissed or the
officers were found not guilty. In the third arrest, the "Alley incident," three officers
were found guilty.

The "Alley Incident" took place on July 19, 1996. Members of the Temple Street
gang had gathered in an alley and among them was a murder suspect named
Anthony Adams, known on the street as "Stymie." Based on an informant's tip,
Rafael Perez called the Rampart CRASH unit together to assist in sweeping the
alley and apprehending "Stymie." As the officers arrived at the scene, the gang
members dispersed, and two, Raul Munoz and Cesar Natividad, sped down the
alley in a pickup truck, passing several officers, including Perez, before running the
pickup into a curb. According to police accounts at the time, the pickup struck two
officers, Michael Buchanan and Brian Liddy, as it traveled down the alley. Munoz
and Natividad were charged with "ADW on PO w/ GBI." In police parlance, that
translates into Assault with a Deadly Weapon (the pickup) on a Peace Officer with
Great Bodily Injury. Both defendants plead guilty. Munoz, who was driving the car
and carrying a gun, was sent to prison and then deported to El Salvador.

But later, while reviewing the Rampart CRASH arrest reports, Perez told Task
Force investigators that neither Buchanan nor Liddy were ever struck by the pickup.
"None of that actually occurred," Perez alleged. "That's what we decided to come
up with after they were all taken into custody, in order to arrest them."[3] The
convictions of Munoz and Natividad were overturned. Both have sued the City of
Los Angeles.

Though Perez did not testify when the case came to trial, the jury found three of the
defendants, Buchanan, Liddy and Sgt. Edward Ortiz, the supervising officer at the
scene, guilty of perjury, filing a false report and obstructing justice. The verdicts,
however, did not represent a consensus among jurors as to whether the officers had
fabricated the arrest, as originally alleged by Perez. In fact, the jurors were divided
on the question of whether or not Buchanon and Liddy had been struck by the
pickup. The jurors reached consensus, and ultimately findings of guilt, based on their
belief that the officers had exaggerated the extent of harm caused by the pickup by
filing an arrest report which included the phrase "GBI", or "Great Bodily Injury."[4]

The jury verdict surprised many, including apparently the trial judge. On December
22, 2000, Judge Jacqueline Connor overturned the jury verdict, arguing that the
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…/outcome.html 3/5

645 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p645/679


2/7/2009 PBS - frontline: l.a.p.d. blues: the af…
evidence presented at trial did not sufficiently support a verdict of guilt based solely
on the "GBI" issue. The District Attorney's Office has appealed the judge's decision.
As of November 2001, a decision on that appeal is pending.

Since then, the District Attorney has also filed criminal charges against three other
officers for allegedly assaulting gang members and filing false police reports. Two of
the charged officers have negotiated plea agreements, including cooperation with the
prosecutors. The third officer, Ethan Cohan, who previously had been terminated by
the department for a separate assault incident, has plead not guilty and is awaiting
trial.

Rafael Perez's partner, Nino Durden, has also reached a plea agreement with
prosecutors. Charged with the most serious offense, attempted murder for the
shooting of Javier Ovando, Durden has cut his deal with both the District Attorney's
Office and the U.S. Attorney's Office - a deal that will likely send Durden to prison
for 4-5 years and may extend the prison sentence of his former partner, Rafael
Perez. In a series of eight interviews, Durden has provided Federal prosecutors with
a story markedly different than that portrayed by Ray Perez. While Durden confirms
that he and Perez did indeed plant guns, fabricate evidence and provide false
testimony, sources close to the investigation say that Durden does not corroborate
Perez's larger claims of similar unit-wide misconduct. As for the shooting of Javier
Ovando, Durden says that it was Perez, not himself, that planted the gun on Ovando
and masterminded the coverup.[5]

After serving three years of his five-year sentence, Rafael Perez was released from
prison and placed on parole on June 24, 2001. In December 2001, he pled guilty to
federal civil rights and firearms violations resulting from the shooting of Javier
Ovando. He admitted to one count of conspiracy to violate Ovando's civil rights,
and one count of possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number. He is
scheduled for sentencing on these counts in March 2002.

[1]

Internal Memorandum, "Attorneys Representing Defendants on Writ Cases," L.A.


County District Attorney's Office, December 28, 2000 (latest information available).

[2] "Rampart Current Status Chart," L.A. City Attorney's Office, April 24, 2001.

[3] Perez Transcripts, Vol. 9, November 17, 1999.

[4] Transcript of Interview with Juror, December 6, 2000.

[5] Plea Agreement for Defendant Nino Floyd Durden, U.S. District Court for
Central District of California, March 29, 2001.

hom e · ram part scandal · "bad cops" · race & policing · a fte rm ath · conne cting the dots

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…/outcome.html 4/5

646 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p646/679


2/7/2009 PBS - frontline: l.a.p.d. blues: the af…
discussion · inte rvie ws · vide o · synopsis · ta pe s & tra nscripts · pre ss · cre dits
FR O NTLINE · pbs online · wgbh

we b site copyright 1995-2008 W GBH e ducational foundation

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/…/outcome.html 5/5

647 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p647/679


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 5-b
28

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


Case No. BC351286
648 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p648/679
649 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p649/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 121 2000
650 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p650/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 122 2000
651 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p651/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 123 2000
652 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p652/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 124 2000
653 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p653/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 125 2000
654 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p654/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 126 2000
655 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p655/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 127 2000
656 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p656/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 128 2000
657 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p657/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 129 2000
658 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p658/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 130 2000
659 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p659/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 131 2000
660 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p660/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 132 2000
661 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p661/679
HeinOnline 57 Guild Prac. 133 2000
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 5-c
28

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


Case No. BC351286
662 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p662/679
California | Local
You are here: LAT Home > Articles > 2000 > October > 08 > California | Local

Archive for Sunday, October 08, 2000

Remarks on Perez by Rampart Trial Judge


Raising Eyebrows
By Ann W. O'Neill
October 08, 2000 in print edition B-1

In March 1997, long before the Rampart scandal unfolded, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Jacqueline A. Connor praised its central figure, corrupt-cop-turned-informant Rafael Perez, for his
“clear” and “professional” testimony during a kidnapping trial in her courtroom.

Perez was, Connor wrote in a letter of commendation, an example of “the best that law enforcement
offers its community.”

Three years later, after Perez’s confessions unleashed a police corruption investigation that continues
to turn Los Angeles’ criminal justice system upside down, Connor seemed to have forgotten
her glowing words. The disgraced cop she once had hailed as a hero was persona non grata in
her courtroom.

At least that was the impression Connor left with some of the 300 lawyers who attended a June 1
awards dinner sponsored by the Century City Bar Assn. Also honored that night was Winston Keith
McKesson, the lawyer who brokered the plea bargain that cast Perez at the center of a legal storm that
brought approximately 70 Los Angeles Police Department officers under investigation, while more than
100 tainted criminal convictions were overturned.

“I don’t know Mr. McKesson, but I don’t want to know him [pause, chuckle] until he gets some other
clients than Officer Perez,” Connor said as she accepted her award. She laughed again and continued,
“You can bring your other clients in my court, but please stay away on that one.”

Welcome or not, Perez indeed seems headed to Connor’s courtroom once again as a major
prosecution witness. He’s expected to testify against four Rampart officers accused of framing gang
members by planting evidence and lying in police reports and in court.

They are charged with scheming to obstruct or pervert justice. Jury selection in the case continues
this week.

It’s the first criminal case arising from the Rampart scandal, and legal analysts say that if the district
attorney’s office doesn’t obtain convictions, it’s unlikely that future prosecutions will follow.

663 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p663/679


Printed for jz12345@earthlink.net 9/5/2008
Perez’s credibility will be the central issue for the jurors.

And Connor’s words have come back to haunt her.

No one is accusing the judge, a Gov. George Deukmejian appointee, of any ethical breaches. She
spoke long before she was assigned the politically charged case.

But, given that she recently has made some controversial rulings, some lawyers now question whether
Connor’s words betrayed a pro-police bias–or at least gave the appearance of one. They also
question whether Connor should have disqualified herself.

“Given her statements, I don’t think she should have accepted the case,” McKesson said. “I think it can
open some of her rulings up to question.”

But the top judge in Los Angeles County saw no impropriety.

“There’s no need for her to recuse herself,” said Victor E. Chavez, presiding judge of the Los Angeles
County Superior Court. He has confidence in Connor’s ability to remain fair and impartial. He
characterized her as “a progressive judge … one of our finest.”

As for Connor, she’s not talking. Saying anything about the case she’s now trying would be an
ethical breach.

Connor, a graduate of the USC Law Center and a former prosecutor, spent two years on the Municipal
Court before her Superior Court appointment in 1988. She is a member of the court’s
executive committee, and is a strong advocate of reforms to make jury service more rewarding.

She is married to Superior Court Judge James A. Bascue, who takes over in January as
presiding judge.

Legal commentator Laurie Levenson, an associate dean at Loyola Law School, said that because
neither the prosecution nor the defense in the Rampart case challenged her, it was Connor’s call to
recuse herself if she felt uncomfortable about the letter she wrote and the comments she made at the
bar dinner.

“She actually had an easy escape out of this case,” Levenson added. “Given the headaches this case
will cause her, she could have taken the easy way out.”

As for the controversy over Connor’s comments and rulings, Chavez said judges on high-profile cases
have come to expect second-guessing.

“You make one temporary friend and one permanent enemy every time you rule,” Chavez said. In
defending Connor, he used the word “diligent” four times. “She’s a very proper person,” he added.

Connor had no comment on the Perez letter. And, she said through a court spokeswoman that she was
joking at the bar dinner. It was an offhand remark said in jest, she explained.

“It meant nothing. Everybody knew it was a joke,” said Chavez.

But not everyone was amused.

664 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p664/679


Printed for jz12345@earthlink.net 9/5/2008
“Those comments, whether made jokingly or not, seemed to express a bias against Mr. Perez,” said
McKesson, adding that Perez’s wife and mother, seated in the audience, took offense.

While the district attorney’s office is not commenting, McKesson and other criminal defense lawyers
say that prosecutors made a crucial tactical error by not exercising their legal right to
challenge Connor’s appointment.

That would have allowed them to seek another judge to preside over the trial of Rampart Sgts. Edward
Ortiz and Brian Liddy and officers Paul Harper and Michael Buchanan.

“She clearly feels betrayed by Rafael Perez,” said attorney Mark J. Geragos, speaking as a neutral
observer. “The D.A. made a huge mistake keeping her on the case, thinking she was pro-
prosecution. She’s pro-cop.”

Rampart Prosecutors Lose 2 Big Rulings

She long has had a reputation as a tough judge. Some criminal defense lawyers have griped for years
that Connor favored prosecutors.

But in recent weeks, Connor has stunned prosecutors with several rulings. Two delivered serious blows
to their case: Connor ruled that jurors can hear about five polygraph tests that Perez failed. And, she
excluded the testimony of about two dozen witnesses.

Most important among them were five women with clean records who prosecutors had hoped would
corroborate details of Perez’s story about a 1996 gun planting.

“I just think those rulings were not geared toward getting at the truth,” said Gregory W. Moreno, the civil
attorney for Javier Ovando, a man Perez says he and his partner shot, paralyzed and framed.

“I was really disappointed that she ruled to exclude key witnesses. I think those two rulings are
troublesome to a fair prosecution of this case.”

Connor excluded the witnesses because information about them had been handed over to the defense
too late. Several criminal defense attorneys said other judges have resorted to less severe sanctions.

Meanwhile, the defense lawyers for the four Rampart officers were ecstatic at the ruling. They had
refused to challenge Connor, even though they knew about the glowing letter she had written for
their clients’ chief accuser.

They think she’s been fair. “We’re shocked at getting a fair judge,” said attorney Harland W. Braun, who
represents Buchanan.

Connor also has embraced an experimental program designed to make the courts more user-friendly
for jurors. Levenson said such experiments are routine in courts in other parts of the country. “It did not
shock me,” Levenson said.

And so, as she had done often in the past, Connor allowed lawyers to give “mini opening statements”
during jury selection. Defense lawyers seized the opportunity to blast Perez as a corrupt, lying “police
monster” who may have committed three murders.

665 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p665/679


Printed for jz12345@earthlink.net 9/5/2008
Even more unusual, the defense lawyers were permitted to ask the potential jurors to acquit their
clients–a plea usually reserved for the closing arguments at the end of a trial.

Chavez said it would have been even more inappropriate for Connor to suspend her usual practices
during a high-profile, politically charged police corruption trial. And for years, he said, she has
written letters commending witnesses and public lawyers who perform well in her courtroom. “It’s her
M.O.,” he explained.

McKesson, Perez’s lawyer, said Connor’s handling of the case “would not be as troubling if she had not
made those comments.”

“Would she take them back? Probably,” Levenson said. “Did they mean very much? Probably not.”

Levenson believes that “the defense has the bigger gripe,” with the letter of commendation. And the
defense isn’t griping.

“Any judge who got this case would be put under a microscope,” Levenson added.

Chavez said he thinks Connor is doing fine. “I think she deserves a pat on the back rather than a rap
on the knuckles,” he said.

Times staff writers Scott Glover and Matt Lait contributed to this story.

Related Articles
z Perez a ‘Police Monster,’ Prospective Jurors Told Oct 05, 2000
z Diverse Jury Is Selected for First Rampart Case Trial Oct 11, 2000
z Rampart Trial Judge Not New to Spotlight Nov 17, 2000
z Carona defense wants trial moved, citing radio show Apr 05, 2008
z Jury is picked in bribe trial of ex-senator Apr 10, 2007

More articles by Ann W. O'Neill


More articles from the California | Local section

California and the world. Get the Times from $1.35 a week

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

666 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p666/679


Printed for jz12345@earthlink.net 9/5/2008
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 5-d
28

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


Case No. BC351286
667 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p667/679
3 of 4 Officers Convicted In Police Corruption Case - New York Times

November 16, 2000

3 of 4 Officers Convicted In Police Corruption Case


By JAMES STERNGOLD

In the first case to go to trial in a major police corruption scandal here, three of four officers
charged with framing gang members and planting evidence were convicted today in State
Superior Court.

The guilty verdicts, on charges that included conspiracy to obstruct justice and filing false police
reports, were regarded as a resounding success for the embattled district attorney's office.

In fact, the district attorney, Gil Garcetti, was defeated last week in a bid for re-election in large
part because of a perception that he had mishandled the cases.

The verdict was also a surprise since prosecutors had lost a string of crucial rulings that had
gutted part of their case and prohibited them from introducing important evidence. Defense
lawyers had excoriated the prosecutors openly -- at one point, one lawyer, Harland W. Braun,
called them ''pond scum.''

''If they had come back with a not guilty verdict, I would have been disappointed, but I would not
have been shocked,'' Mr. Garcetti said. ''We faced enormous obstacles both in and out of the
courtroom: the police union, the culture of the L.A.P.D., the code of silence that is prevalent in the
police department.''

In addition, the government's informant, Rafael Perez, an admittedly corrupt officer whose
accusations that officers routinely lied and framed suspects set off the scandal a year ago, was
never put on the witness stand after a former lover first said he had killed some drug dealers,
then recanted her stories. Mr. Perez told prosecutors that before he would testify, he wanted
immunity for all crimes that he had committed as a police officer, which the government refused
to do.

Several people said the verdicts appeared to demonstrate how badly the scandal has undermined
the credibility of the Police Department. If there was a hint as to why the jurors brought in guilty
verdicts, it was evident from some of their questions about the code of silence among the police
and, specifically, about why the memories of the defendants were so much sharper than the
recollections of the officers who testified.

668 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p668/679


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res...A25752C1A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print (1 of 3) [8/28/2008 10:00:52 AM]
3 of 4 Officers Convicted In Police Corruption Case - New York Times

''I was absolutely shocked,'' said Barry Levin, the lawyer for Sgt. Edward Ortiz, who was convicted
of conspiracy and of filing a false police report. ''The jury had to imagine a conspiracy.''

Mr. Braun, who represented Officer Michael Buchanan, said he interviewed some jurors after the
verdict and believed they had been swayed more by a fear that they would be criticized if they did
not convict the officers than by the evidence.

''I think there is a new kind of juror concerned about public opinion,'' Mr. Braun said, ''and that is
a dangerous thing.''

Both lawyers said they would ask for a new trial and, failing that, would appeal.

''That jury believed a lifelong gang member over an officer who spent three years in the Marines
and had a solid record on the police department,'' Mr. Levin said. ''When all of a sudden your
whole life accounts for nothing, there's no way to defend against that.''

The convictions also underscored the depth of the corruption and mismanagement of one of the
country's largest police departments. The city recently agreed to a humiliating federal consent
decree, under which a Federal District Court judge will have the power to oversee changes.

In addition, a commission is scheduled to deliver on Thursday a report that is expected to call for
stronger civilian oversight and for numerous changes in the way the department is managed.

The police chief, Bernard C. Parks, and his principal ally, Mayor Richard J. Riordan, have resisted
some of the efforts, and only reluctantly agreed to the consent decree. Mayor Riordan offered a
partisan shot in response to today's verdicts, repeating Chief Park's assertions that the police
deserve credit for exposing the corruption rather than criticism for permitting what appears to
have been a culture of corruption to flourish.

''The judgment today validates what Chief Parks and the police department disclosed and revealed
in their own internal investigation,'' Mr. Riordan said. ''They were the ones who brought these
allegations to light.''

Other officials said the verdicts indicated that the government had still not gotten to the bottom of
the corruption. Mr. Garcetti said it was unclear how many, if any, other officers might be indicted.

Gerald Chaleff, the president of the police commission, said: ''It's too early to tell what the real
impact will be. We still have much to learn.''

In today's verdicts, Sergeant Ortiz, Sgt. Brian Liddy and Officer Buchanan were found guilty of
conspiracy to obstruct justice. In addition, Sergeants Liddy and Ortiz were convicted of filing a
false report. A fourth officer, Paul Harper, was found not guilty on all charges.

The officers were members of the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums, or Crash, unit

669 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p669/679


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res...A25752C1A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print (2 of 3) [8/28/2008 10:00:52 AM]
3 of 4 Officers Convicted In Police Corruption Case - New York Times

of an inner-city police station, the Rampart Division. The unit was created to use aggressive
tactics against street gangs, but Mr. Perez has told investigators that it degenerated into a law
unto itself, which ruled the streets just west of downtown.

Mr. Perez agreed to cooperate after he was arrested on charges that he had stolen about $1
million in cocaine from a police locker, and he incriminated dozens of officers for being, as he put
it, ''in the loop.'' He told of how he had shot an innocent suspect, then planted a gun on him, of
how officers stole drugs from dealers and of how they fabricated evidence and lied in court.

The district attorney's office has dismissed charges in about 100 criminal cases because of the
corruption cases. The city attorney has estimated that the civil suits stemming from these
wrongful convictions are likely to cost the city more than $100 million.

The recent trial focused on three instances where the police were accused of framing gang
members.

In one instance, prosecutors said, the police planted a gun on a gang member and rubbed the
weapon against his hands to create fingerprints and justify an arrest. In another instance, officers
were found to have lied when they filed reports claiming that several gang members tried to run
them down with a truck.

The third instance involved an officer testifying about an arrest that he claimed to have witnessed,
but which took place when he was actually on vacation.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top

670 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p670/679


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res...A25752C1A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print (3 of 3) [8/28/2008 10:00:52 AM]
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 5-e
28

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


Case No. BC351286
671 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p671/679
1/13/2009 Rampart Verdicts Voided - Los Angel…

News

You are here: LAT Home > Articles > 2000 > December > 23 > News

Archive for Saturday, December 23, 2000

Rampart Verdicts Voided


By Ann O'Neill and Twila Decker
December 23, 2000 in print edition A-1

In an unusual move, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Friday threw out the convictions of three
Los Angeles police officers accused of framing gang members and granted them new trials.

The convictions were the first obtained by prosecutors in the sweeping yearlong city police
corruption scandal.

In tossing them out, the trial judge, Jacqueline Connor, cited insufficient evidence and juror errors.

Sgts. Edward Ortiz and Brian Liddy and Officer Michael Buchanan were found guilty Nov. 15 of
conspiring to frame gang members. They were the first officers prosecuted in an ongoing probe into
corruption in the LAPD’s Rampart Division.

“We’re all amazed when the system works,” said lawyer Harland Braun, who represents Buchanan.
“This was a mistaken verdict and it was a miscarriage of justice. I’m glad it was overturned
by Christmas.”

He added that he had not yet read the lengthy decision, which he received word of late Friday night.

“The judge’s ruling was absolutely correct and just,” said Barry Levin, attorney for Ortiz. “Given the
emotion and controversy surrounding this case, her decision was courageous.” Attorney Winston
Kevin McKesson, who represents ex-cop-turned-informant Rafael Perez, said he was disappointed by
the ruling.

“However, it’s really not surprising when you consider that what was at issue in this case went to the
very heart of the criminal justice system,” McKesson said. “I think it is very difficult for this judge, who
has spent the vast majority of her adult life in that system, to allow a jury decision that questions the
system to stand. I think she felt threatened by the jury’s verdict.”

Connor issued the opinion before leaving town for a week’s vacation.

The lengthy decision came after five weeks of filings and hearings in which defense attorneys sought
to undo the historic verdict.

The officers were convicted of conspiracy for making up a story that they were hit in 1996 by a truck
driven by gang members.

The Rampart scandal has resulted in the suspension of dozens of officers and the overturning of
about 100 tainted cases. So far, only five officers, including Liddy, Buchanan and Ortiz, have
articles.latimes.com/2000/…/mn-3971 1/3

672 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p672/679


1/13/2009 Rampart Verdicts Voided - Los Angel…
about 100 tainted cases. So far, only five officers, including Liddy, Buchanan and Ortiz, have
been charged criminally.

One officer, Paul Harper, was acquitted. A fifth, Nino Durden, is awaiting trial.

Connor’s ruling is expected to make future prosecutions even more difficult.

Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley could not be reached for comment late Friday. But his spokeswoman, Sandi
Gibbons, said prosecutors had not yet been formally informed of the judge’s ruling.

“If indeed the news reports are true, we are very, very disappointed,” Gibbons said.

She said prosecutors would need to carefully study Connor’s ruling before deciding whether to refile
a case against any or all of the officers.

“This won’t be an immediate decision,” Gibbons said.

Former Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti, who oversaw the prosecution of the officers before being voted out of
office last month, said it was “extremely disappointing to hear what she’s done.”

Garcetti said he was “not entirely surprised” by the judge’s ruling, “but I’ll reserve comment
beyond that.”

The verdicts quickly came under question by the defense. The first problem involved allegations of
juror misconduct. An alternate claimed that on the first day of trial the foreman told her and
another alternate that the defendants were guilty.

The foreman and the second alternate have testified that they don’t remember any such comment.

And, the jury convicted the officers after agreeing that the three had not suffered great bodily injury.
But the officers never claimed they suffered great bodily injury–a computer-generated police
report, relied on during deliberations, incorrectly exaggerated the severity of injuries the officers said
they received.

Defense attorneys have affidavits from five jurors attesting that they were confused by the report.

The jurors said they could not agree on whether the officers were struck by gang members in the
alley, as the officers claimed.

“The jurors did not simply misunderstand great bodily injury,” Connor wrote in her decision. “In fact,
the evidence suggests that they understood … however, the definition of great bodily injury and its
existence or nonexistence was never part of the dispute in trial… . Whether they exaggerated their
injuries or lied about the extent of these injuries was never charged in any overt act, any allegation,
or any of the counts,” Connor ruled.

The judge was sharply critical of the D.A.’s handling of the case and cited media reports as
contributing to an incorrect verdict.

“This court cannot and should not consider the political ramifications of future lawsuits or future
prosecutions,” Connor added. “The defense in this case has presented compelling arguments to
support their argument that the defendants did not receive a fair trial.”

In her concluding paragraph, the judge said, “While the court cannot and will not presume to guess
whether a correction of the errors would result in any different verdict, it most certainly concludes
that the verdict in this case cannot stand.”

*
articles.latimes.com/2000/…/mn-3971 2/3

673 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p673/679


1/13/2009 Rampart Verdicts Voided - Los Angel…

Times staff writers Matt Lait and Scott Glover contributed to this story.

Related Articles
Jurors Split on Reversal of Rampart Case Dec 25, 2000
The Judge’s Decision Dec 24, 2000
Parks Vows to Seek New Convictions of Rampart Officers Dec 24, 2000
Jurors Were Confused by Police Lingo, Lawyer Says Dec 24, 2000
Judges Rarely Admit Error, Experts Say Dec 24, 2000

More articles by Ann O'Neill and Twila Decker


More articles from the News section

California and the world. Get the Times from $1.35 a week

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

articles.latimes.com/2000/…/mn-3971 3/3

674 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p674/679


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 5-f
28

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


Case No. BC351286
675 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p675/679
1/13/2009 The Judge's Decision - Los Angeles …

News
You are here: LAT Home > Articles > 2000 > December > 24 > News

Archive for Sunday, December 24, 2000

The Judge’s Decision


December 24, 2000 in print edition A-25

Excerpts from ruling of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Connor

Explanation of relevant

section of law:

Penal Code 1181 provides a number of grounds for consideration, the relevant sections being
as follows:

1181.3 Any misconduct by which a fair and due consideration of the case has been prevented;

1181.5 Whether the court has misdirected the jury in a matter of law or has erred in the discussion of
any question of law arising during the trial, or any prejudicial misconduct by the prosecution;

1181.6 and .7 The sufficiency of the evidence, whether the verdicts are contrary to the law or
the evidence.

Grounds for

overturning verdict:

In this case, the alleged impropriety is the improper reliance by the jury on an issue never proffered
by the prosecution nor articulated as a theory underlying the charges of conspiracy, false reports
or perjury.

The failure to decide whether or not there was an accident is fatal to the conviction of Mr. Buchanan
under these counts alleging perjury.

Misconduct, whether simply inadvertent, misguided or deliberate, still deprives defendants of their
right to a fair trial.

Penal Code section 1181.5 permits the granting of a new trial when the court has misdirected the jury
in a matter of law, or has erred in the decision of any question of law arising during the courts of the
trial or whether the prosecution has engaged in prejudicial misconduct.

Evidence available to the court suggests that in fact the jurors were misdirected in the law, that the
law was misapplied and that the misapplication resulted in the denial of a fair trial on the merits.

Admissibility
articles.latimes.com/2000/…/mn-4281 1/3

676 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p676/679


1/13/2009 The Judge's Decision - Los Angeles …

of affidavits:

The people correctly argue that statements made, conduct, condition or events can be considered
but evidence of the mental processes of the jurors is strictly forbidden. However, this restriction
does not, contrary to the prosecution’s argument, prohibit advocates from “piercing the veil”
of deliberations.

The key consideration in determining whether affidavits or other evidence of juror misconduct are
admissible relate to the corroborative nature of the evidence, whether the statements or evidence
are open to corroboration by sight, hearing or the other senses.

Where there are objectively verifiable portions of the statements, it is only logical that the court may
consider them while disregarding the inadmissible portions … the court is allowed to take
the declarations into consideration as a whole in order to determine whether or not jury
misconduct occurred.

The argument offered by the prosecution that they did not seek any affidavits because this would be
improper in some way is not compelling. The state of the evidence therefore leaves the
statements undisputed.

The jurors did not agree that there was or was not an accident. Why they reached this conclusion
one way or another deals with impermissible mental processes. The fact that they did not reach an
agreement is admissible.

Significance of

great bodily injury:

The trial record consistently shows that this first scenario, that no officer was hit, was the only theory
pursued by the prosecution throughout the trial.

The defense and the jury were presented with a single theory which the prosecution now claims
could have arisen from any number of different acts… . It was not contemplated by any of the parties
nor the court that there was more than one act upon which the people were relying.

The court is aware, as is any neophyte to the criminal justice system, that we have our own language
that must be learned and learned well by any practitioners… .

Certainly had the court been aware that the jury assumed there was such a charge as great bodily
injury, the rulings as well as the instructions would have been different.

The court does not suggest that the people deliberately exploited the misstatement or deliberately
deceived the jury into believing that there is such a crime as a “GBI charge” or “ADW with GBI.”
However, the fact remains that the shorthand referrals that are accepted on a daily basis in police
stations, on police reports, in district attorney offices and defense attorney offices were not corrected
in their presentation to an uninformed lay jury. The misconduct by the jury in proceeding on the
improper basis that there was such a crime is not at all unreasonable in light of the circumstances
presented to them… .

Conclusions:

The court does conclude that there was jury misconduct, though unintentional, misguided and
inadvertent, in the consideration of improper facts.

While recognizing the enormous pressure on the community, on the police force, on the district
attorney’s office and on the courts to “fix” the Rampart scandal, this court is only interested
i l ti th f i f th
articles.latimes.com/2000/…/mn-4281 di i thi t dd t i i h th j ti d 2/3

677 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p677/679


1/13/2009 The Judge's Decision - Los Angeles …
in evaluating the fairness of the proceedings in this court and determining whether justice was done
in this case. This court cannot and should not consider the political ramifications of future lawsuits or
future prosecutions. The defense in this case has presented compelling arguments to support their
argument that the defendants did not receive a fair trial.

The court cannot simply look the other way and ignore the improprieties, innocent or not, intentional
or unintentional, that served to deny a fair trial in this case.

While the court cannot and will not presume to guess whether a correction of the errors would result
in any different verdict, it most certainly concludes that the verdicts in this case cannot stand.

Related Articles
Jurors Split on Reversal of Rampart Case Dec 25, 2000
Rampart Verdicts Voided Dec 23, 2000
Parks Vows to Seek New Convictions of Rampart Officers Dec 24, 2000
Jurors Were Confused by Police Lingo, Lawyer Says Dec 24, 2000
Judges Rarely Admit Error, Experts Say Dec 24, 2000

More articles from the News section

California and the world. Get the Times from $1.35 a week

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

articles.latimes.com/2000/…/mn-4281 3/3

678 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p678/679

Você também pode gostar