complaint for fraud, deceit and other damages against CFC/BAC. Moreover, in a number ofphone calls, senior staffat the Legal Department of BAC explicitly stated that Bryan Cave,LLP was NOT authorized to appear on behalf of BAC in the matter in question.
3) Sham Zffel/ftlzl,ç should be prosecuted as Obstructlon and Perversion of ustice.
Dr Zernik is of the opinion that that upon investigation and review it would be easily
demonstrated, to standards of adjudication required by U.S. criminal courts, or standards
required by International Human Rights Courts, e.g. - beyond reasonable doubt - that in the
matter of Samaan v Zcrnik (SC087400):
a) Jacqueline Connor, falsely acting as ajudge, with no due authority, knowingly and
deliberately instituted a Sam Litigation for the purpose of eal estate fraud upon Pro Se
Filer Dr Zernik.
b) John Segal, falsely acting as judge in such Sham Litigation, with no due authority at all,
colluded with Att David Pasternak, and engaged in the taking of real propezty under the
threat of force, for private use, with no compensation at all, outside any recognizable
boundaries of the law.
c) Terry Friedman, falsely acting as ajudge in such sham litigation, with no due authority at
all, purportedly entered judgments of Contempt of the Court in collusion with attorneys
from Bryan Cave, LLP, at the request of CFC and/or BAC, knowingly engaging in false
and deliberately misleadingjudicial acts.
d) Such litigation was never part of the true lndex of A1l Cases of the Superior Court of
California - it was from the st'tl't Sham Litigation, designed to cover up real estate fraud
under the guise of court action.
e) Attorneys from Bryan Cave, LLP, were not authorized as Counsel of Record of either
CFC and/or BAC in part or all of the duration of their appearances in the court in such
matter, but falsely and deliberately made false representations in this matter. CFC'Spractice of sham engagement of outside counsel had already been exposed and rebuked1 In fact CFC had already made promises to the U.S. Court iny Court a year earlier
Tex% not to repeat such conduct.
1 Borrower Parsley - U
S. Court Southern District of TX, Case No 05-90374
Fine v Sheri/of LA County (09-71692) 3 / 16
Case: 09-71692 06/24/2009 Page: 3 of 17 DktEntry: 6972099