10-04-18 Fine V Sheriff (09-A827) DR Zernik's Motion To Intervene 5 Amended Appendices S

1/ 259 Digitally signed by
Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@ear
thlink.net, c=US
Location: La Verne,
California
Date: 2010.04.18
08:26:26 -07'00'
Case No 09-A827
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
______________
RICHARD I. FINE,
Petitioner,
v.
SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent.
______________
On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
______________
AMENDED VERIFIED APPENDICES FOR MOTION TO INTERVENE
JOSEPH ZERNIK
In Pro Se
1853 Foothill Blvd
La Verne, CA
Mail: PO Box 526
La Verne, CA 91750
Phone:323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net
2/ 259
iv
VERIFIED APPENDICES FOR MOTION TO INTERVENE

Concomitantly filed under separate faces:
1. Motion to Intervene;
2. Request for Lenience by Pro Se Filer;
3. Request for Correction in US Supreme Court Records;
4. Request for Incorporation by Reference;
5. Appendices
TO THE COURT AND TO PARTIES: [Proposed] Intervenor Joseph Zernik herein files
Appendices for his Motion to Intervene.
Table of Contents
Appendix I: Notices to parties of intent to intervene and attempts to confer ...P1
a) Attorney Paul Beach - Notice and requests for clarifications
b) Sheriff Leroy D Baca – Notice and attempt to confer
c) LASC – Notice and attempt to confer
d) Richard I Fine – Notice and attempt to confer
Appendix II: Table form summary of cases of Petitioner Richard I Fine and ... P42
[Proposed] Intervenor Joseph Zernik
Appendix III: LA County Sheriff’s Department: False arrest and booking records ... P52
re: Inmate Richard I Fine, #1824367; Inmate Joseph Zernik, #2235341,
numerous other inmates
a) January 8, 2010 Records that were provided by the Sheriff in response to
inquiry by Los Angeles County Supervisor, the Hon Michael Antonovich.
b) Los Angeles County Booking Records, re: Joseph Zernik, Booking #2235341
3/ 259
iv
c) Zernik’s Complaint, filed with the Sheriff’s Department, alleging unlawful
arrest and jailing and other violations of the law.
Appendix IV: LA County Sheriff’s Department: Marina v LA Couty (BS109420) ...P65
false records pertaining to arrest and imprisonment of Richard Fine
a) March 4, 2009 Removal/Remand Order
b) March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt
c) LA County Sheriff’s Department -Removal Order for In Custody Defendant –
blank form of
Appendix V: LA County Registrar/Recorder: Recording of a Grant Deed ... P83
#20072759874, which was opined as fraud
Opinion Letter of highly decorated fraud expert, FBI veteran James Wedick
Appendix VI: LASC: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – false and deliberately ... P104
misleading judgment/appealable records
a) August 9, 2007 Judgment
b) November 9, 2007 Order Appointing Pasternak Receiver;
c) November 21, 2007 Order “like unlawful detainer after entry of judgment”
Appendix VII: LASC: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) – exerpts from January 7, 2010 ... P115
Register of Actions in Samaan v Zernik
Appendix VIII: LASC: Correspondence with the Court re: Access to court records ... P135
and Rules of Court pertaining to Entry of Judgme
a. July 28-30, 2009 Zernik’s correspondence with the Clerk’s Office and Court
Counsel regarding denial of access to records, false local rules of courts, failure
to maintain books of judgments.

4/ 259
v
b. October 16, 2009 Zernik’s letters to Presiding Judge McCoy: (i) Request to
access court records in Marina v LA County (BS109420), (ii) Request for
explanation for denial of access to court records, & (iii) Request for honest,
valid, effectual local rules of court of LASC re: Entry of judgment. (iv)
Reliably informing of alleged criminality in re: March 4, 2009 Judgment for
Contempt re: Richard I Fine.
c. October 28, 2009 Court Counsel Bennett’s response to Dr Zernik re: Denial of
Access to Records, Registers of Actions, Books of Judgments, and Local Rules
on Entry of Judgment.
Appendix IX: LASC Microfilm Judgment Archive records ... P180
a. July 28, 2008 Search for entered judgments in LASC microfilm archives for
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). No entered judgments was found.
b. April 16, 2010 Search for entered judgments in Marina v LA County
(BS109420), Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). No entered judgments were found.
Appendix X: LASC and USDC-CADC: False Appearances by Counsel ... 219
a) March 19, 2010 Correspondence with California Judicial Council, in attempt to
ascertain the nature of involvement of Attorney Kevin McCormick as counsel
in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
b) March 22, 2010 Final response of California Judicial Council regarding retainer
of Attorney McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
c) March 23, 2010 Request filed with California Chief Justice Ronald George to
intiate corrective actions relative to false appearance of Attorney McCormick in

5/ 259
v
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) through false retainer by California Judicial
Council.
d) April 14, 2010 California Judicial Council refuses to answer on the nature of
retainer of Attorney Sarah Overton as counsel in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-
cv-01550).
e) Complaints filed with Office of Comptroller of the Currency against Bank of
America Corporation regarding false appearance of counsel.
Appendix XI: USDC- CAC ... P254
a) March 14, 2010 Repeat complaint filed with Clerk of the Court, Terry Nafisi,
regarding dishonest conduct in dockets of Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and
Zernik v Connor (2:09-cv-01550).
b) March 25, 2010 Complaint filed with Chief Judge Audrey Collins
c) February 19, 2010 Notice of investigation by Court Counsel, Lydia Yurtchuk.

6/ 259
Fine v Sheriff (09-A827) 1/25
f) Complaints filed with Office of Comptroller of the Currency against Bank of America
Corporation regarding false appearance of counsel.
g) April 2010 Refusal of California Judicial Council to respond on any questions
pertaining to retainer of Attorney Sara L Overton in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-
01550)
Appendix XI: USDC- CAC
a) March 14, 2010 Repeat complaint filed with Clerk of the Court, Terry Nafisi
b) March 25, 2010 Complaint filed with Chief Judge Audrey Collins
c) February 19, 2010 Notice of investigation by Court Counsel, Lydia Yurtchuk.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: April 18, 2010 Joseph Zernik
By: ______________________
Joseph Zernik
PO Box 256
La Verne California 91750
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION
Appendices for Motion to Intervene
I, Joseph Zernik wrote and read instant Amended Verified Appendices for Motion to
Intervene, and I know the content thereof to be true and correct, it is true and correct based on
my own personal knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon
information and belief, and as to to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well.
The records included in the appendices are true and correct copies of records in my possession.
7/ 259
I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant
to the laws of California and the United States.
Executed here in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, on this 18th day in April, 2010.
____________________
Joseph Zernik
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as:

Amended Appendices for Motion to Intervene
On parties in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed
envelope, with postage fully prepaid in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:
1) Richard I Fine – Petitioner

Inmate RICHARD I. FINE (1824367)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL
450 Boucher St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
2) Sheriff of Los Angeles County - Respondent

Leroy D Baca, Sheriff
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
4700 Ramona Blvd.
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: 323 526 5000
Fax: <13232676600@efaxsend.com>
Email: "Baca, Leroy D." <ldbaca@lasd.org>
3) Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe -
Respondents
John A Clarke, Clerk/Executive Officer
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Phone 213 974 5401
Fax: 213 621 7952
Email: <jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org>
8/ 259
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and
the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this date, April 18, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California
Joseph H Zernik
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
1853 Foothill Blvd
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
9/ 259
Appendix I
10/ 259
1) FAX NOTICE TO LA SUPERIOR COURT
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:10:04 -0700

To: "John A Clarke- Clerk of the Court" <12136217952@Metrofax.com>
From: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Subject: Time is of the Essence! Notice of intent to file Motion to
Intervene in Application (09-A827), scheduled for conference on April 23,
2010 at the Supreme Court of the United States
John A Clarke
Clerk of the Court
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
Response is requested by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, April 14, 2010,

Time is of the Essence
RE: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in Application (09-

A827), scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010 at the Supreme
Court of the United States
Dear Clerk Clarke:
Please take notice that Dr Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles County Resident
intends to file a Motion to intervene in the case referenced above, where
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles is listed as
Respondent.
Dr Zernik would like to confer with the Superior Court of California,

County of Los Angeles, in this matter, to eliminate the need to burden the
highest Court of the land with this matter. Please contact Dr Zernik in this
matter no later than 5:00pm, today, April 14, 2010. Time is of the essence.
Respectfully,
Dated: April 14, 2010
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California Joseph H
Zernik, PhD
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne,
CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email
11/ 259
<jz12345@earthlink.net>
Blog:
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
12/ 259
1) INITIAL NOTICE BY DR ZERNIK
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:51:44 -0700

To: "Baca, Leroy D." <ldbaca@lasd.org>
Subject: Fwd: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in Application
(09-A827), scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010 at the Supreme
Cc: "Attorney Paul Beach" <818.545.1937@metrofax.com>,
pbeach@lbaclaw.com

County of Los Angeles, California
Response is requested by 12:00noon on Tuesday, April 13, 2010, Time

is of the Essence
Dear Sheriff Baca:
Forwarded below is a copy of my message earlier today to Attorney Paul Beach. I also tried
to reach him by phone a couple of times.
Given the ambiguity, where I cannot ascertain that Mr Paul Beach is indeed your Counsel of
Record in the case at hand, given the urgency to establish such facts - so that I would be able
to adequately complete the service and notice and file the papers with the Court, and given
that I am not an attorney, I request that at least one of you respond by 12:00 noon, tomorrow,
April 13, 2010, on the questions and requests stated in the notice to Mr Beach, below.
Respectfully,
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California
Joseph H Zernik, PhD
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
13/ 259
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:20:58 -0700

To: "Attorney Paul Beach"
<818.545.1937@metrofax.com>
Subject: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in
Application (09-A827), scheduled for conference on April
23, 2010 at the Supreme Court of the United States
PAUL B. BEACH
Los Angeles Office
Tel 818.545.1925
Fax 818.545.1937
pbeach@lbaclaw.com
Response is requested by 12:00noon on Tuesday, April

13, 2010, Time is of the Essence
Attorney Beach:
My name is Joseph Zernik, I am no attorney, not even by a

long shot. Under duress, I have made up my mind today,
after some considerations, to file a motion to intervene in
case No 09-A827 of the Supreme Court of the United
States, scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010, where
you are listed as Counsel for Sheriff Leroy D Baca.
Please state clearly in your response whether or not you are

in fact Counsel of Record for Respondent, Sheriff Leroy D
Baca, in case (09-A827) of the Supreme Court of the
United States. In case you are Counsel of Record for
Respondent in such case, please also clearly state the
caption of the case in which you were retained to represent
your client, so that I am clearly and reliably informed for
the purpose of service and notice.
I called your office first around 5:50pm today and left voice
mail message. I also tried to contact you around 6:00pm
through your emergency line.
I have no written draft of any kind at this time. The filing is

intended primarily as an affidavit, for the purpose of filing
supplemental records with the court. Such records will
support the claim that there was and there is no record that
14/ 259
conforms with the fundamental requirements of the law to

support the confinement of Richard Fine by Respondent.
Therefore, Petitioner must be entitled to his immediate
release.
I am no attorney, and I have no intention of commenting,

adding on or subtracting off any of the arguments per se, as
made by Petitioner Richard Fine. The intention is only to
provide the Court with additional records, which I do not
believe Richard Fine had access to, or realized the
fundamental defects in.
Please call, or email me for any further conference that you

may feel is required or desired by you. I hope to get the
motion out tomorrow afternoon, and I will forward it to you
by email and also by first class mail, assuming that you
inform me prior to that time that you are Counsel of Record
in the applicable case.
Respectfully,
La Verne, County of Los Angeles,
California Joseph H Zernik, PhD
By:
______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO
Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email
Blog:
Scribd:
15/ 259
2) FURTHER REQUEST TO CONFER BY DR ZERNIK
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:26:29 -0700

To: "Baca, Leroy D." <ldbaca@lasd.org>, "Sheriff Lee
Baca"<13232676600@metrofax.com>
Subject: Further request to confer in re: Notice of intent to intervene in
Inmate Richard Fine's Application (09-A827), scheduled for conference
on April 23, 2010 at the Supreme Court of the United States


is of the Essence
RE: Further request to confer in re: Notice of intent to intervene in

Inmate Richard Fine's Application (09-A827), scheduled for
conference on April 23, 2010 at the Supreme Court of the United
States
Dear Sheriff Baca:
In case Attorney Paul Beach opts not to respond on my requests for

clarifications regarding the nature of his involvement in the case at hand, I
would allow it to create any further delays. Time is of the essence. I
therefore request to further confer with you, in hope that we may be able
to avoid burdening the highest court in the land with our business. Instead,
we may be able to resolve the matter expediently and amicably out of
court. For such reasons, I would like to confer with you prior to 12:00
noon, on Tuesday, April 13, 2010, at your convenience, regarding:
a) Arguments intended to be included in the motion to intervene, and
b) Out of Court resolution.
A. Conference regarding arguments to be included in the motion to

Intervene, pertaining to the Sheriff's Department:
I would like to confer with you before 12:00 noon on Tuesday, April 13,
2010, regarding the following arguments, which pertain to conduct of the
Sheriff's Department, and which I intended to include in my Motion to
Intervene:
1) Do you intend to object to my argument that the records that you

provided in response to my repeated requests to access the arrest and
booking records of Richard I Fine, pursuant to California Pubic Records
Act, through Supervisor Michael Antonovich, which were derived from
16/ 259
the Inmate Information Center, were false and deliberately misleading

records?
2) Do you intend to object to my argument that Richard I Fine could not

possibly be arrested and/or booked at the San Pedro Municipal Court, as
stated in the Inmate Information Center, since no such entity existed on or
about March 4, 2009?
3) Do you intend to object to my argument that there was no Booking

Terminal at the San Pedro Annex of the Superior Court of California.
Therefore, Richard Fine could not possibly be booked there, either?
4) Do you intend to object to my argument that the plausible explanation

for the facts in the matter was that the Sheriff's Department kept operating
a false terminal under the registration of the Municipal Court of San
Pedro, and that Richard Fine was most likely booked through such false
and deliberately misleading conduct by a Sheriff Deputy and the Sheriff's
Department?
5) Do you intend to object to my argument that the true Los Angeles

Booking Record, if any was ever generated for Richard Fine, had to be
processed through a Los Angeles Booking Records terminal, and such
terminal would identify its registration/location, and also the name and
finger-print of the Sheriff Deputy who conducted the booking of Richard
Fine, if any?
6) Do you intend to object to my argument that the record that was offered
to me by Sergeant Burson of the Sheriff's Bureau in lieu of a warrant,
titled "Removal/Remand Order" was a false and deliberately misleading
record?
7) Do you intend to object to my argument that the records that were filed
on May 1, 2009 by Attorney Kevin McCormick in the Habeas Corpus
Petition - Richard I Fine v Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-
01914), under "Exhibit A", Dkt #16-2 and carry a fax header imprint
"Judicial Services and time stamps of 16:31 to 16:34" - originated from
the Sheriff's Department, and not from the court file or any other source?
8) Do you intend to object to my argument that records under Exhibit A,

which was titled: "Remand/Removal Order" was a false and deliberately
misleading records, and could not possibly be the foundation for the arrest
and/or booking of Richard I Fine on March 4, 2009?
9) Do you intend to object to my argument that the record under Exhibit

A, which was titled: and "Judgment and Order of Contempt, RE: Richard I
Fine", which was stamped on its face "March 4, 2009", albeit, with no
17/ 259
hand signature by a clerk, and which was verified on its last page by the
hand-signature of Judge David Yaffe, with the hand inscribed date of
March 24, 2009, and which was produced with no authentication at all,
was a false and deliberately misleading record, and could not possibly be
the foundation for the arrest and/or booking of Richard I Fine on March 4,
2009?
10) Do you intend to object to my argument that there was and there is no
honest valid, and effectual record, which could possibly provide the
foundation for the arrest and booking of Richard Fine on March 4, 2009?
11) Do you intend to object to my argument that there was and there is no
honest, valid, and effectual record, which could possibly provide the
foundation for the confinement of Richard I Fine at any time after March
4, 2009 and to this date?
12) Do you intend to object to the argument that there was and there is no
record, which could possibly support the confinement of Richard I Fine,
which conformed with the fundamental requirement of the law?
13) Do you intend to object to the argument that the Law of the United
States in Fay v Noia (1963), as stated by the late Justice William Brennan
Jr, in pertinent part says:
"The basic principle of the Great Writ of habeas corpus is that,

in a civilized society... if the imprisonment cannot be shown to
conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual
is entitled to his immediate release".
14) Do you intend to object to the argument that on March 4, 2009, and at
any time after that date, there never was any valid court order or other due
process of law to permit any Sheriff Deputy under your authority to accept
custody or surrender of Richard I Fine?
15) Do you intend to object to the argument that the California Law,
California Code of Regulations, Crime Prevention and Correction 3273
says: \
3273. Acceptance and Surrender of Custody.

Wardens and superintendents must not accept or surrender
custody of any prisoner under any circumstances, except by valid
court order or other due process of law.
b) Conference regarding out of court resolution:

I suggest that the first step towards such resolution would be to release
18/ 259
Richard I Fine by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, April 13, 2010.
Respectfully,
Zernik, PhD
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA
91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email
Blog:
Scribd:
19/ 259
3) READ CONFIRMED BY LEROY D BACA
X-MSK: CML=0.001000
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result:
AiMDAFe+w0uS6dLfjGdsb2JhbACbQxUBAQEmM7t/hQwEgyc
Subject: Read: Fwd: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in
Application (09-A827), scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010 at the
Supreme Court of the United States
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:45:26 -0700
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in Application
Thread-Index: AcraxQ0tTK8xZwIMTR68MdTX7ENogQAGDsFS
From: "Baca, Leroy D." <ldbaca@lasd.org>
To: "joseph zernik" <jz12345@earthlink.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Apr 2010 07:49:40.0901 (UTC)
FILETIME=[DFB0BD50:01CADADD]
X-ELNK-AV: 0
X-ELNK-Info: sbv=0; sbrc=.0; sbf=00; sbw=000;
Your message
To: Baca, Leroy D.

Cc: Attorney Paul Beach; pbeach@lbaclaw.com
Subject: Fwd: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in
Application (09-A827), scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010 at
the Supreme Court of the United States
Sent: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:51:44 -0700
was read on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:45:26 -0700
Final-Recipient: RFC822; ldbaca@lasd.org

Disposition: automatic-action/MDN-sent-automatically; displayed
X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: rPa+bHC0HkWSHrE/yNT1Iw==
Original-Message-ID: <E1O1Y6P-00046u-17@elasmtp-
scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
20/ 259
4) REQUEST BY DR ZERNIK TO CONFER ON APRIL 13, 2010
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:18:24 -0700

Subject: Inmate Richard I Fine, Request to confer this morning, April 13,
2010, prior to 12:00noon. Time is of the Essence!


is of the Essence
RE: Inmate Richard I Fine, Request to confer this morning, April 13,
2010, prior to 12:00noon.
Dear Sheriff Baca:
The response I received this morning from Attorney Paul Beach cannot
possibly be deemed an honest and valid response by a Counsel of Record.
I requested that Attorney Paul Beach spell out the caption and case
number under which he was retained to represent you as a Counsel of
Record. Attorney Paul Beach failed to do so in his response.
Therefore, I request that you please let me know if you would like to
confer by phone or in person this morning, prior to 12:00 noon on the
matters stated in the notice, which I forwarded to you on April 13, 2010,
12:46am, titled: Further request to confer:
a) Arguments intended to be included in the motion to intervene, and
b) Out of Court resolution.
Respectfully,
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La
Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
21/ 259
At 07:44 AM 4/13/2010, you wrote:
Mr. Zernik:
In accordance with your request, this will confirm

that I am counsel for Sheriff Leroy D. Baca in the pending
litigation involving Mr. Fine. Please advise what your
material interest is in this matter. Thank you in advance for
your response.
Very truly yours,

Paul B. Beach
100 West Broadway, Suite 1200

Glendale, California 91210
Phone: (818) 545-1925
Fax: (818) 545-1937
E-mail: pbeach@lbaclaw.com
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the

individual or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
of this transmission is not the intended recipient, or the
employee or agent responsible for delivering this message
to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this in error, please notify Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi,
PC immediately by telephone at or via fax at . Thank you.
From: joseph zernik [mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 6:50 PM
To: Paul Beach
Subject: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in
Application (09-A827), scheduled for conference on April
23, 2010 at the Supreme Court of the United States
22/ 259
PAUL B. BEACH
Los Angeles Office
Tel 818.545.1925
Fax 818.545.1937
pbeach@lbaclaw.com
Response is requested by 12:00noon on Tuesday, April

13, 2010, Time is of the Essence
Attorney Beach:
My name is Joseph Zernik, I am no attorney, not even by a

long shot. Under duress, I have made up my mind today,
after some considerations, to file a motion to intervene in
case No 09-A827 of the Supreme Court of the United
States, scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010, where
you are listed as Counsel for Sheriff Leroy D Baca.
Please state clearly in your response whether or not you are

in fact Counsel of Record for Respondent, Sheriff Leroy D
Baca, in case (09-A827) of the Supreme Court of the
United States. In case you are Counsel of Record for
Respondent in such case, please also clearly state the
caption of the case in which you were retained to represent
your client, so that I am clearly and reliably informed for
the purpose of service and notice.
I called your office first around 5:50pm today and left voice
mail message. I also tried to contact you around 6:00pm
through your emergency line.
I have no written draft of any kind at this time. The filing is

intended primarily as an affidavit, for the purpose of filing
supplemental records with the court. Such records will
support the claim that there was and there is no record that
conforms with the fundamental requirements of the law to
support the confinement of Richard Fine by Respondent.
Therefore, Petitioner must be entitled to his immediate
release.
I am no attorney, and I have no intention of commenting,

adding on or subtracting off any of the arguments per se, as
made by Petitioner Richard Fine. The intention is only to
provide the Court with additional records, which I do not
believe Richard Fine had access to, or realized the
23/ 259
Please call, or email me for any further conference that you

may feel is required or desired by you. I hope to get the
motion out tomorrow afternoon, and I will forward it to you
by email and also by first class mail, assuming that you
inform me prior to that time that you are Counsel of Record
in the applicable case.
Respectfully,
La Verne, County of Los Angeles,
California Joseph H Zernik, PhD
By:
______________
JOSEPH
H ZERNIK
PO
Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Phone:
323.515.4583
Fax:
323.488.9697
Email
Blog:
Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/ Human_Rights_Alert
24/ 259
5) READ CONFIRM BY CHIEF OF STAFF LOPEZ
X-MSK: CML=0.001000
AhcEADM4xEuS6dLfjGdsb2JhbACbSBUBAQEmM71phQ0Egyc
Subject: Read: Inmate Richard I Fine, Request to confer this morning,
April 13, 2010, prior to 12:00noon. Time is of the Essence!
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:28:52 -0700
X-MS-Has-Attach:
Thread-Topic: Inmate Richard I Fine, Request to confer this morning,
April 13, 2010, prior to 12:00noon. Time is of the Essence!
Thread-Index: AcrbJP7PMr5b8ulOR2CZWq//Bry35gAAWiE9
From: "Lopez, James R." <jrlopez@lasd.org>
FILETIME=[8BDBABB0:01CADB26]
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Your message
To: Baca, Leroy D.; Sheriff Lee Baca

Subject: Inmate Richard I Fine, Request to confer this morning, April
13, 2010, prior to 12:00noon. Time is of the Essence!
Sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:18:24 -0700
Final-Recipient: RFC822; jrlopez@lasd.org

X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: uOZM7rx86UKnmgZ/bH21Rg==
Original-Message-ID: <E1O1iow-0001o5-WC@elasmtp-
dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
25/ 259
6) SECOND READ CONFIRM BY CHIEF OF STAFF LOPEZ
X-MSK: CML=0.001000
AhcEADM4xEuS6dLfjGdsb2JhbACbSBUBAQEmM71phQ0Egyc
Subject: Read: Further request to confer in re: Notice of intent to
intervene in Inmate Richard Fine's Application (09-A827), scheduled for
conference on April 23, 2010 at the Supreme Court of the United States
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:28:56 -0700
X-MS-Has-Attach:
Thread-Topic: Further request to confer in re: Notice of intent to
Thread-Index: Acra2rGBHJnnQYadQRmMPUBvvmqPGwAS7iMP
FILETIME=[8BE08DB0:01CADB26]
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Your message

Subject: Further request to confer in re: Notice of intent to
Sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:26:29 -0700

X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: aH67vyn8WUeGu3r9nTrnOA==
Original-Message-ID: <E1O1aWK-0002Bw-9P@elasmtp-
galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
26/ 259
7) MEMO BY DR ZERNIK RE: PHONE RESPONSES BY CHIEF

OF STAFF LOPEZ
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:49:55 -0700

Subject: PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL: Inmate Richard I Fine,
Request to confer this morning, April 13, 2010, prior to 12:00noon. Time
is of the Essence!


is of the Essence
RE: PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL: Inmate Richard I Fine,

Request to confer this morning, April 13, 2010, prior to 12:00noon.
Dear Sheriff Baca:
For the record -
1) At 9:253am this morning I called your office. I was answered by

Commander James Lopez, Sheriff's Department Chief of Staff. He
claimed that he read all your email. As it turned out he had not read the
emails in the matter at hand. I explained to him that it was a matter of
legal nature, where you were named party, and that I asked to confer with
you by phone or in person. I explained that time was of the essence. Chief
of Staff Lopez promised to expediently respond.
2) At 9:33am this morning I received a response phone call from Chief of

Staff Lopez. He informed me that neither you nor he would respond in
writing to my communications. He further informed me that he would
forward all my communications to the County Counsel, who - so Chief of
Staff Lopez claimed - represented you in all matters related to Richard
Fine.
Chief of Staff Lopez had no knowledge who Attorney Paul Beach was,
and did not even recognize his name. It was also evident that Chief of
Staff Lopez never read my communications to you, regarding my efforts
to establish the nature of Attorney Paul Beach involvement in this matter.
I therefore tried to explain to Chief of Staff Lopez that Attorney Paul
Beach made representations that he was Counsel of Record in the matter at
hand, but upon requests, failed to respond in an honest manner to establish
27/ 259
the true fact in the matter.
Chief of Staff Lopez had no knowledge of any of my communications

regarding Attorney Paul Beach, and again stated that he will forward my
communications to County Counsel, that you would not respond on my
communications, and that County Counsel would determine how to
proceed in this matter.
Sheriff Baca: Unless I hear from you by 12:00 noon today, I must
conclude that you refuse to confer on the matter at hand.
Respectfully,
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La
Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
28/ 259
8) READ CONFIRM BY CHIEF OF STAFF LOPEZ ON MEMO RE: PHONE

CALLS
X-MSK: CML=0.001000
ArADAB9bxEuS6dLfjGdsb2JhbACbTBUBAQEmM70DhQ0Egyc
Subject: Read: PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL: Inmate Richard I
Fine, Request to confer this morning, April 13, 2010, prior to 12:00noon.
Time is of the Essence!
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:55:42 -0700
X-MS-Has-Attach:
Thread-Topic: PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL: Inmate Richard I
Thread-Index: AcrbKWNitY94b/XzTaKOqaGNcNlN9gAEYd/d
FILETIME=[24FB41C0:01CADB3B]
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Your message

Request to
confer this morning, April 13, 2010, prior to 12:00noon. Time is of the
Essence!
Sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:49:55 -0700

X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: o8Qjr66azkOM0xdQmp9Mag==
Original-Message-ID: <E1O1jJT-0006NN-85@elasmtp-
curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
29/ 259
9) FINAL RESPONSE ON BEHALF OF SHERIFF
X-MSK: CML=0.001000
AsoDAFpbxEuS6dLfjGdsb2JhbACBP5oNFQEBASYzvHYCgnKCGQS
DJw
Subject: RE: PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL: Inmate Richard I
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:57:09 -0700
X-MS-Has-Attach:
Thread-Topic: PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL: Inmate Richard I
Thread-Index: AcrbKWNitY94b/XzTaKOqaGNcNlN9gAEaOhg
From: "Baca, Leroy D." <ldbaca@lasd.org>
Sender: "Lopez, James R." <jrlopez@lasd.org>
FILETIME=[351F0820:01CADB3B]
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Sir;
Your emails have been forwarded to appropriate counsel for proper

response.
Commander James R. Lopez

Executive Assistant to Sheriff Leroy D. Baca

Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:50 AM
Request to confer this morning, April 13, 2010, prior to 12:00noon. Time
is of the Essence!

30/ 259

is of the Essence
RE: PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL: Inmate Richard I Fine,

Request to confer this morning, April 13, 2010, prior to 12:00noon.
Dear Sheriff Baca:
For the record -
1) At 9:253am this morning I called your office. I was answered by

Commander James Lopez, Sheriff's Department Chief of Staff. He
claimed that he read all your email. As it turned out he had not read the
emails in the matter at hand. I explained to him that it was a matter of
legal nature, where you were named party, and that I asked to confer with
you by phone or in person. I explained that time was of the essence. Chief
of Staff Lopez promised to expediently respond.
2) At 9:33am this morning I received a response phone call from Chief of

Staff Lopez. He informed me that neither you nor he would respond in
writing to my communications. He further informed me that he would
forward all my communications to the County Counsel, who - so Chief of
Staff Lopez claimed - represented you in all matters related to Richard
Fine.
Chief of Staff Lopez had no knowledge who Attorney Paul Beach was,
and did not even recognize his name. It was also evident that Chief of
Staff Lopez never read my communications to you, regarding my efforts
to establish the nature of Attorney Paul Beach involvement in this matter.
I therefore tried to explain to Chief of Staff Lopez that Attorney Paul
Beach made representations that he was Counsel of Record in the matter at
hand, but upon requests, failed to respond in an honest manner to establish
the true fact in the matter.
Chief of Staff Lopez had no knowledge of any of my communications

regarding Attorney Paul Beach, and again stated that he will forward my
communications to County Counsel, that you would not respond on my
communications, and that County Counsel would determine how to
proceed in this matter.
Sheriff Baca: Unless I hear from you by 12:00 noon today, I must
conclude that you refuse to confer on the matter at hand.
Respectfully,
31/ 259
Zernik, PhD
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La
Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email
Blog:
Scribd:
32/ 259
1) INITIA NOTICE BY DR ZERNIK
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:49:45 -0700

To: pbeach@lbaclaw.com
Subject: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in Application (09-
A827), scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010 at the Supreme Court
of the United States
PAUL B. BEACH
Los Angeles Office
Tel 818.545.1925
Fax 818.545.1937
pbeach@lbaclaw.com

is of the Essence
Attorney Beach:
My name is Joseph Zernik, I am no attorney, not even by a long shot.

Under duress, I have made up my mind today, after some considerations,
to file a motion to intervene in case No 09-A827 of the Supreme Court of
the United States, scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010, where you
are listed as Counsel for Sheriff Leroy D Baca.
Please state clearly in your response whether or not you are in fact
Counsel of Record for Respondent, Sheriff Leroy D Baca, in case (09-
A827) of the Supreme Court of the United States. In case you are Counsel
of Record for Respondent in such case, please also clearly state the
caption of the case in which you were retained to represent your client, so
that I am clearly and reliably informed for the purpose of service and
notice.
I called your office first around 5:50pm today and left voice mail message.
I also tried to contact you around 6:00pm through your emergency line.
I have no written draft of any kind at this time. The filing is intended
primarily as an affidavit, for the purpose of filing supplemental records
with the court. Such records will support the claim that there was and
there is no record that conforms with the fundamental requirements of the
law to support the confinement of Richard Fine by Respondent.
Therefore, Petitioner must be entitled to his immediate release.
I am no attorney, and I have no intention of commenting, adding on or

subtracting off any of the arguments per se, as made by Petitioner Richard
33/ 259
Fine. The intention is only to provide the Court with additional records,
which I do not believe Richard Fine had access to, or realized the
Please call, or email me for any further conference that you may feel is
required or desired by you. I hope to get the motion out tomorrow
afternoon, and I will forward it to you by email and also by first class
mail, assuming that you inform me prior to that time that you are Counsel
of Record in the applicable case.
Respectfully,
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
34/ 259
2) READ CONFIRMED BY ATTORNEY BEACH
X-MSK: CML=0.001000
Subject: Read: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in Application
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:13:52 -0700
X-MS-Has-Attach:
Thread-Index: AcrarFCAdLEfaSZDTJmWtzopB0tarQAAqWSl
From: "Paul Beach" <pbeach@lbaclaw.com>
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Your message
To: Paul Beach

Subject: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in Application
Sent: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:49:45 -0700
was read on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:13:52 -0700
Final-Recipient: RFC822; pbeach@lbaclaw.com

X-MSExch-Correlation-Key: R2tRnIgBUE6Tf39A8JnwyA==
Original-Message-ID: <E1O1VL0-0002bD-Gd@elasmtp-
curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
35/ 259
3) RESPONSE BY ATTORNEY BEACH
X-MSK: CML=0.501000
Subject: RE: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in Application
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 07:44:00 -0700
X-MS-Has-Attach:
Thread-Index: AcrarFCAdLEfaSZDTJmWtzopB0tarQAat9nw
From: "Paul Beach" <pbeach@lbaclaw.com>
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Mr. Zernik:
In accordance with your request, this will confirm that I am

counsel for Sheriff Leroy D. Baca in the pending litigation involving Mr.
Fine. Please advise what your material interest is in this matter. Thank
you in advance for your response.
Very truly yours,

Paul B. Beach
100 West Broadway, Suite 1200

Glendale, California 91210
Phone: (818) 545-1925
Fax: (818) 545-1937
E-mail: pbeach@lbaclaw.com
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
reader of this transmission is not the intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error,
please notify Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi, PC immediately by
36/ 259
telephone at or via fax at . Thank you.

Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 6:50 PM
To: Paul Beach
Subject: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in Application (09-
A827), scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010 at the Supreme Court
of the United States
PAUL B. BEACH
Los Angeles Office
Tel 818.545.1925
Fax 818.545.1937
pbeach@lbaclaw.com

is of the Essence
Attorney Beach:
My name is Joseph Zernik, I am no attorney, not even by a long shot.

Under duress, I have made up my mind today, after some considerations,
to file a motion to intervene in case No 09-A827 of the Supreme Court of
the United States, scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010, where you
are listed as Counsel for Sheriff Leroy D Baca.
Please state clearly in your response whether or not you are in fact
Counsel of Record for Respondent, Sheriff Leroy D Baca, in case (09-
A827) of the Supreme Court of the United States. In case you are Counsel
of Record for Respondent in such case, please also clearly state the
caption of the case in which you were retained to represent your client, so
that I am clearly and reliably informed for the purpose of service and
notice.
I called your office first around 5:50pm today and left voice mail message.
I also tried to contact you around 6:00pm through your emergency line.
I have no written draft of any kind at this time. The filing is intended
primarily as an affidavit, for the purpose of filing supplemental records
with the court. Such records will support the claim that there was and
there is no record that conforms with the fundamental requirements of the
law to support the confinement of Richard Fine by Respondent.
Therefore, Petitioner must be entitled to his immediate release.
37/ 259
I am no attorney, and I have no intention of commenting, adding on or

subtracting off any of the arguments per se, as made by Petitioner Richard
Fine. The intention is only to provide the Court with additional records,
which I do not believe Richard Fine had access to, or realized the
Please call, or email me for any further conference that you may feel is
required or desired by you. I hope to get the motion out tomorrow
afternoon, and I will forward it to you by email and also by first class
mail, assuming that you inform me prior to that time that you are Counsel
of Record in the applicable case.
Respectfully,
Zernik, PhD
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La
Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email
Blog:
Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/ Human_Rights_Alert
38/ 259
1) NOTICE TO DR RICHARD I FINE
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:04:23 -0700

To: "Fred Sottile" <fredsottile@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Fwd: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in Application (09-A827),
scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010 at the Supreme Court of the United States
Fred Sottile, on behalf of

Dr Richard Fine
Booking No.: 1824367
MEN'S CENTRAL JAIL
441 BAUCHET STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
Response is requested by 12:00noon on Tuesday, April 13, 2010, Time is of the

Essence
Dear Mr Sottile:
Please notice below my notice to Sheriff Lee Baca and Attorney Paul Beach. Given the
time pressure, I am serving on you by email the notice to Dr Fine. I will also send it by
USPS first class mail. However, such notice would reach Dr Fine after the anticipated
time of service of the motion.
The questions forwarded to Sheriff Lee Baca are not relevant to Dr Fine. There is not
ambiguity relative to either the case caption, as used by him, or his pro se representation.
In case there are any other issues that you may wish to confer on, on behalf of Dr Fine,
please free to call, email, or fax me at your earliest convenience.
I request that you acknowledge receipt of this message and also let me know if there are
any special arrangements that you would like to make for expediting service on Mr Fine.
Respectfully,
La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California Joseph H Zernik, PhD
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
39/ 259
Scribd:
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:51:44 -0700

To: "Baca, Leroy D." <ldbaca@lasd.org>
Subject: Fwd: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in Application (09-A827),
scheduled for conference on April 23, 2010 at the Supreme Court of the United States
Cc: "Attorney Paul Beach" <818.545.1937@metrofax.com>, pbeach@lbaclaw.com


Essence
Dear Sheriff Baca:
Forwarded below is a copy of my message earlier today to Attorney Paul Beach. I also
tried to reach him by phone a couple of times.
Given the ambiguity, where I cannot ascertain that Mr Paul Beach is indeed your Counsel
of Record in the case at hand, given the urgency to establish such facts - so that I would
be able to adequately complete the service and notice and file the papers with the Court,
and given that I am not an attorney, I request that at least one of you respond by 12:00
noon, tomorrow, April 13, 2010, on the questions and requests stated in the notice to Mr
Beach, below.
Respectfully,
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
40/ 259
Scribd:
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:20:58 -0700

To: "Attorney Paul Beach" <818.545.1937@metrofax.com>
Subject: Notice of intent to file Motion to Intervene in Application (09-A827), scheduled
for conference on April 23, 2010 at the Supreme Court of the United States
PAUL B. BEACH
Los Angeles Office
Tel 818.545.1925
Fax 818.545.1937
pbeach@lbaclaw.com

Essence
Attorney Beach:
My name is Joseph Zernik, I am no attorney, not even by a long shot. Under duress, I
have made up my mind today, after some considerations, to file a motion to intervene in
case No 09-A827 of the Supreme Court of the United States, scheduled for conference on
April 23, 2010, where you are listed as Counsel for Sheriff Leroy D Baca.
Please state clearly in your response whether or not you are in fact Counsel of Record for
Respondent, Sheriff Leroy D Baca, in case (09-A827) of the Supreme Court of the United
States. In case you are Counsel of Record for Respondent in such case, please also
clearly state the caption of the case in which you were retained to represent your client,
so that I am clearly and reliably informed for the purpose of service and notice.
I called your office first around 5:50pm today and left voice mail message. I also tried to
contact you around 6:00pm through your emergency line.
I have no written draft of any kind at this time. The filing is intended primarily as an
affidavit, for the purpose of filing supplemental records with the court. Such records will
support the claim that there was and there is no record that conforms with the
fundamental requirements of the law to support the confinement of Richard Fine by
Respondent. Therefore, Petitioner must be entitled to his immediate release.
I am no attorney, and I have no intention of commenting, adding on or subtracting off any

of the arguments per se, as made by Petitioner Richard Fine. The intention is only to
41/ 259
provide the Court with additional records, which I do not believe Richard Fine had access
to, or realized the fundamental defects in.
Please call, or email me for any further conference that you may feel is required or
desired by you. I hope to get the motion out tomorrow afternoon, and I will forward it to
you by email and also by first class mail, assuming that you inform me prior to that time
that you are Counsel of Record in the applicable case.
Respectfully,
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Scribd:
42/ 259
Appendix II
43/ 259
Table 1 – Summary of cases of Richard I Fine and Joseph Zernik
Dr Richard I Fine Dr Joseph Zernik

1. Los Angeles Superior Court Los Angeles Superior Court
Marina v LA County (BS109420) civil Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) civil
litigation in real estate matter – litigation in real estate matter -
petition for injunction, which upon complaint for specific performance or
discovery and review is likely to be damages for breach of contract, which
deemed as racketeering by the Court. upon review should be deemed as
racketeering by the Court.
a. Conduct of the litigation a. Conduct of the litigation
i. Judge with no assignment order, i. About a dozen judges, none with
and debtor examiner with no valid assignment order, referee and
appointment order receiver with no valid appointment
ii. The court routinely issued false and orders
deliberately misleading minutes and ii. The court routinely issued false and
orders, none that required “full faith deliberately misleading minutes and
and credit” orders, none that required “full faith
iii. Such false orders were still and credit”
enforced. iii. Such false orders were still
enforced.
b. Corporate interests b. Corporate interests

i. Two large private corporations, real i. Several large financial corporation:
estate developers: Del Rey Shores Countrywide Financial Corporation,
Inc, and Del Rey Shore North, Inc, Bank of America Corporation,
intervened in the case. Coldwell Banker Residential Realty,
ii. Such corporations were never listed Mara Escrow- subsidiary of Old
with correct party names in the Republic International
online public access system. ii. Countrywide and Bank of America
Moreover, they were listed under appeared for two and a half years
false party designations: “Real under false party designation of
Party In Interest” “Non-Party”
iii. Such corporate interests appeared iii. Brian Cave, LLP appeared for two
through counsel, which upon and a half years for Countrywide as
discovery is likely to be found as false counsel – not Counsel of
fraud in counsel appearances. Record.
c. Enforcement of false judgment c. Enforcement of false judgment
i. March 4, 2009 Judgment was i. August 9, 2007 Judgment and
issued, which was false on its November 9, 2007 Order Appointing
face, and which was never entered Receiver were issued, which were
as required by California law and false on their faces, and which were
Local Rules of Court. never entered as required by
ii. Such judgment was nevertheless California law and Local Rules of
enforced. Court.
iii. False hospitalization by the ii. Such judgment and order were
44/ 259
Sheriff through unlawful order nevertheless enforced.

and judgment was used to enforce iii. Threat of force by the Sheriff,
the false judgment. through unlawful, false on its face
November 21, 2007 Order was used
to enforce the false judgment.
d. Outcome d. Outcome
i. Alleged Deprivation of Liberty: i. Alleged Deprivation of the Right for
Fine is held since March 4, 2009 Possession: Zernik was forced to
in solitary confinement with no leave his home, and his property was
records to provide the foundation taken in November 2007 for private
for the holding, which conform use, with no compensation at all, and
with the fundamentals of the law. with no records to provide the
foundation for such conduct, which
conform with the fundamentals of the
law.
e. Authentication of Court Minutes e. Authentication of Court Minutes and
and Orders Orders
i. Authentication routinely failed to i. Authentication routinely failed to
appear in records that were appear in records that were
nevertheless inserted in court file. nevertheless inserted in court file.
f. Notice and Service of Court Minutes f. Notice and Service of Court Minutes
and Orders and Orders
i. Denied by the Court i. Denied by the Court
g. Access to Court Records- to inspect g. Access to Court Records- to inspect
and to copy and to copy
i. Access to court records is denied. i. Access to court records was and is
denied, even to Dr Zernik, party to
the litigation.
h. Public Access/Case Management h. Public Access/Case Management
System/Rules of Court System and Rules of Court
i. eCourtONLINE - alleged as i. eCourtONLINE - alleged as
enabling fraud in the litigation. enabling fraud in the litigation. False
False and deliberately misleading and deliberately misleading are
are posted online, albeit with a posted online, albeit with a
disclaimer that such records were disclaimer that such records were not
not court records. court records.
ii. Sustain – alleged as enabling fraud ii. Sustain – alleged as enabling fraud
in the litigation in the litigation
iii. The Court denies access to iii. The Court denies access to
electronic court records in Sustain. electronic court records in Sustain.
iv.The Court denies access to Sustain iv.The Court denies access to Sustain
dictionary, while the evidence dictionary, while the evidence
indicated that the use of false indicated that the use of false entries,
entries, which were not valid which were not valid dictionary
dictionary entries was common entries was common method of
45/ 259
method of perpetrating alleged perpetrating alleged fraud in the

fraud in the litigation. litigation.
v. Rules of Court – the Court failed v. Rules of Court – the Court failed to
to updated the rules for some 25 updated the rules for some 25 years
years to reflect the introduction of to reflect the introduction of Sustain.
Sustain. vi.Presiding Judge and Clerk of the
vi.Presiding Judge and Clerk of the Court refused to update the rules
Court refused to update the rules even after request, or to disclose the
even after request, or to disclose the nature of today’s court procedures for
nature of today’s court procedures entry of judgment in Sustain.
for entry of judgment in Sustain. vii. False and deliberately misleading
vii. False and deliberately misleading relative to Entry of Judgment, were
relative to Entry of Judgment, were key to enabling the fraud in litigation.
key to enabling the fraud in
litigation.
2. Sheriff’s Department, County of LA Registrar/Recorder, County of LA
Richard I Fine, Booking No: 1824367 Grant Deed #20072759874
False enforcement of alleged False enforcement of alleged
Deprivation of Rights through LA Deprivation of Rights through LA
County agencies County agencies
i. False and deliberately misleading i. Fraud was committed in conveyance
arrest and booking records were of title by Attorney David Pasternak,
produced by the Sheriff’s on behalf of the court, as opined by
Department highly decorated FBI veteran – James
ii. Sheriff’s Bureau refused to Wedick.
correct such records even after ii. The office of Registrar/Recorder
repeated requests. refused to remove such records
iii. Sheriff’s Bureau refused to allow founded in fraud, even after repeated
access to Richard Fine’s Arrest requests
and Booking records – public
records by California Public
Records Act.
iv. In response to inquiry by LA
County Supervisor, the Hon
Michael Antonovich, the Sheriff’s
Department provided false and
deliberately misleading to
Supervisor Antonovich.
v. The Sheriff’s Department also
claimed in letter, that it was not
required to produce records,
which did not exist.
3. US District Court, Central District US District Court, Central District of
of California California
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550)
Attempt to protect rights was scuttled Attempt to protect rights was scuttled
46/ 259
through litigation founded in alleged through litigation founded in alleged

fraud. fraud.
i. Fraud alleged by Dr Zernik in i. Fraud alleged by Dr Zernik in
manipulation of the commencing manipulation of the commencing
petition records was alleged at the summons records.
Clerk’s office. ii. Following complaint to Chief Judge
ii. Following complaint to Chief Judge Audrey Collins, the matter was
Audrey Collins, the matter was referred to the Court Counsel for
referred to the Court Counsel for investigation.
investigation. iii. Outcome of the investigation still
iii. Outcome of the investigation still pending.
pending.
b. Authentication of Court Minutes b. Authentication of Court Minutes and
and Orders Orders
False and deliberately misleading False and deliberately misleading
authentication records – NEFs missing authentication records – NEFs that
the digital Court Stamp were issued on failed to include the digital Court Stamp
minutes, orders, judgment, and were issued on minutes, orders,
mandate. judgment.
c. Notice and Service of Court c. Notice and Service of Court Minutes
Minutes and Orders and Orders
False and deliberately misleading False and deliberately misleading notice
notice and service - with false NEFs – and service - with false NEFs – missing
missing the digital Court Stamp. the digital Court Stamp.
d. Access to Court Records- to inspect d. Access to Court Records- to inspect
i. Access is denied to the paper i. Access is denied to the paper records
records of the litigation. of the litigation.
ii. Access was repeatedly denied – for ii. Access was repeatedly denied – for
months to the NEFs. months to the NEFs.
iii. Eventually partial access was iii. Eventually partial access was
gained, but the court insists on gained, but the court insists on denial
denial of direct access to inspect the of direct access to inspect the
CM/ECF records of the litigation. CM/ECF records of the litigation.
iv.Complaint on the matter was filed iv.Complaint on the matter was filed
with Chief Judge Audrey Collins, with Chief Judge Audrey Collins,
and investigation was instituted by and investigation was instituted by
Court Clerk, outcome pending. Court Clerk, outcome pending.
e. Public Access/Case Management e. Public Access/Case Management
System/Rules of Court System/Rules of Court
i. PACER- the public access system is i. PACER- the public access system is
alleged as enabling fraud in the alleged as enabling fraud in the
litigation, through posting of litigation, through posting of records
records as “entered”, which were as “entered”, which were issued with
issued with false NEFs. false NEFs.
47/ 259
ii. PACER - universally fails to ii. PACER - universally fails to include

include access to the NEFs. access to the NEFs.
iii. CM/ECF - the case management iii. CM/ECF - the case management
court filing system is alleged as court filing system is alleged as
enabling fraud in the litigation. enabling fraud in the litigation.
iv.A person who was not a Clerk iv.A person who was not a Clerk
Deputy and therefore lacked Deputy and therefore lacked
authority executed critical authority executed critical
transactions in the docket. transactions in the docket.
v. Clerk of the Court refuses for v. Clerk of the Court refuses for months
months to respond on the question: to respond on the question: Is the
Is the docket in the case an honest, docket in the case an honest, valid
valid and effectual record pursuant and effectual record pursuant to the
to the Law of the United States and Law of the United States and the
the Authority of the Clerk. Authority of the Clerk.
e. Appearance of Counsel for Superior e. Appearance of Counsel for Superior
Court of California, County of Los Court of California, County of Los
Angeles Angeles
i. Counsel Kevin McCormick was i. Counsel Sarah Overton was likely
retained by Judicial Council and/or retained by Judicial Council and/or
its subordinate offices, as confirmed its subordinate offices. However, the
in correspondence with the Council. Council now refuses to respond on
ii. Upon review of the facts in the inquiries on this matter.
matter, a reasonable person would ii. Upon review of the facts in the
conclude that appearances of Kevin matter, a reasonable person would
McCormick were founded in fraud conclude that appearances of Sarah
and aimed to obstruct and pervert Overton were founded in fraud and
justice, deprive Fine of Liberty and aimed to obstruct and pervert justice,
other Human, Constitutional, and deprive Zernik of the Right for
Civil Rights. Possession and other Human,
iii. The Council now refused to Constitutional, and Civil Rights.
respond on Zernik’s request to iii. The Council now refused to
access the retainer, in disregard of respond on Zernik’s request to access
California Public Records Act and the retainer, in disregard of
California Rules of Court, Rule California Public Records Act and
10.500 et seq. California Rules of Court, Rule
10.500 et seq.
4. Petition to US Court of Appeals, 9th Petition to US Court of Appeals, 9th
Circuit Circuit
Fine v Sheriff (09-71692) Zernik v US District Court (08-72714)
Attempt to protect rights was scuttled Attempt to protect rights was scuttled
through litigation founded in alleged through litigation founded in alleged
fraud. fraud.
i. Petition was summarily denied in ii. Petition was summarily denied in an
an unsigned order, stating that it did unsigned order, stating that it did not
48/ 259
not amount to the level the justified amount to the level the justified the
the extreme measure of mandamus. extreme measure of mandamus.
b. Authentication of Court Orders b. Authentication of Court Orders
i. False and deliberately misleading ii. False and deliberately misleading
authentication records – NDAs that authentication records – NDAs that
failed to include valid language of failed to include valid language of
authentication nature. authentication nature.
c. Notice and Service of Court c. Notice and Service of Court Minutes
Minutes and Orders and Orders
i. False and deliberately misleading ii. False and deliberately misleading
notice and service - with no notice and service - with no
NDAs at all. NDAs at all.
d. Access to Court Records- to inspect d. Access to Court Records- to inspect
i. Access was repeatedly denied – for iii. Access was repeatedly denied – for
months to the NDAs. months to the NDAs.
ii. Eventually partial access was iv.Eventually partial access was gained,
gained, but the court insists on but the court insists on denial of
denial of direct access to inspect the direct access to inspect the CM/ECF
CM/ECF records of the litigation. records of the litigation.
e. Public Access/Case Management e. Public Access/Case Management
System/Rules of Court System/Rules of Court
i. PACER- the public access system is v. PACER- the public access system is
alleged as enabling fraud in the alleged as enabling fraud in the
litigation, through posting of litigation, through posting of records
records which were issued with which were issued with false NDAs.
false NDAs. vi.PACER - universally fails to include
ii. PACER - universally fails to access to the NDAs.
include access to the NDAs. vii. CM/ECF - the case management
iii. CM/ECF - the case management court filing system is alleged as
court filing system is alleged as enabling fraud in the litigation.
enabling fraud in the litigation. viii. A person who was not a Clerk
iv.A person who was not a Clerk Deputy and therefore lacked
Deputy and therefore lacked authority executed critical
authority executed critical transactions in the docket.
transactions in the docket.
5. Appeal to US Court of Appeals, 9th
Circuit
Fine v Sheriff (09-56073)
a. Conduct of the litigation
Appeal was taken from a judgment
which was false on its face – never
entered with a valid NEF.
b. Authentication of Court Orders
As described in petition above.
c, Notice and Service of Court
49/ 259
Minutes and Orders

d. Access to Court Records- to inspect
and to copy
e. Public Access/Case Management
System/Rules of Court
6. Petition to the Supreme Court of the
United States
Application Fine v Sheriff (09-A827)
i. The application is listed in various
court records with various captions.
ii. Counsel listed for Sheriff – Paul
Beach would likely be deemed
upon review as false counsel, who
was not counsel of record in the
case.
iii. Counsel listed for Superior Court
– Kevin McCormick would likely
be deemed upon review as false
counsel, who was not counsel of
record in the case.
iv.Although Rules of Court require
that denial of the application by
Justice of the Court appear on its
face, no such denial was marked on
the face of the Application by
Associate Justice Kennedy.
v. No denial of the application was
listed among the Orders of the
Court on or about March 12, 2010.
vi.The online Docket listed the
application as “Denied” on March
12, 2010.
vii. Unsigned letters by Clerk-
Counsel Bickell, found in Court
file, stated that the Application was
“denied” on March 12, 2010.
7. Request for Equal Protection to FBI

Director and US Attorney General
Was filed in early 2008 by Dr Zernik,
alleging racketeering of judges in Los
Angeles Superior Court, and large-scale
abuse of rights of the 10 million
50/ 259
residents of the county, evidenced in:

i. Large-scale false imprisonments –
thousands of Rampart-FIPs(Falsely
Imprisoned Persons) –victims of the
Rampart scandal (1998-2000) were
never freed.
ii. Large-scale denial of access to court
records to inspect and to copy.
iii. Numerous cases of real estate fraud
by the court.
iv.Agencies refused to respond.
8. FBI/US DOJ: Inquiries by US
Congress/Response by US Agencies
i. The Hon Dianne Feinstein, Senator,
and the Hon Diane Watson,
Congresswoman issued inquiries on
behalf of Dr Zernik.
ii. Kenneth Kaiser, FBI Assistant
Director for Criminal Investigations
and Kenneth Melson – then Director
of US Attorneys Office issued
responses to US Congress.
iii. Such responses were alleged as
fraud on US Congress, and deliberate
disregard for the Human,
Constitutional, and Civil Rights of
the 10 million residents of LA
County.
9. Complaint to OCC
Case # 00971981, #1070442
i. Was filed by Dr Zernik in late
October 2009.
ii. Alleged criminal conduct by BofA
at the Los Angeles Superior Court.
iii. Response by office of Brian
Moynihan was filed in early January
2010.
iv. The response was alleged in
follow-up complaint as fraud, and
part of racketeering in the courts.
v.No response by OCC was received
on either complaint.
10. OCC: Inquiries by US Congress/
Responses by Agencies
i. Inquiry was filed by the Hon Dianne
Feinstein, US Senator, California on
51/ 259
January 15, 2010.

ii. Response by OCC to US Congress
still pending.
11. Complaint to US DOJ-IG
DOJ-IG refused to confirm receipt or
issued complaint #.
i. Was filed by Dr Zernik in late
November 23, 2009.
ii. Filed again in December 2, 2009.
iii. Pertained to the Aug-Sept 2008
responses by of Kenneth Kaiser –
FBI and Kenneth Melson – US DOJ.
iv.Alleged fraud on Dr Zernik and on
US Congress in their responses to US
Congress.
v. Alleged deliberate disregard for the
Human, Constitutional, and Civil
Rights of the 10 million residents of
LA County.
12. US DOJ-IG: Inquiries by US
Congress/Responses by Agencies
i. Inquiry was filed by the Hon Dianne
Feinstein, US Senator, California on
February 26, 2010.
ii. Response by DOJ-IG to US Congress
still pending.
13. Request for Inquiries by 5 Key
Congressional Committee Chairs
On April 12, 5 key committee chairs
were requested by Dr Zernik to join
Senator Feinstein in the inquiries on
OCC and DOJ-IG. Representative
Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd -
Chairs of the House Financial Services/
Senate Banking Committees,
Representative John Conyers and Senator
Patrick Leahy - Chairs of the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees, and
Senator Carl Levine – Chair of the Senate
Subcommittee on Investigations.
52/ 259
Appendix III
53/ 259
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750;
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
10-04-03 Multiplicity of Los Angeles County Booking and Property Records papers.
Four records are attached to this cover note:
1) February 6, 2010 Joseph Zernik Los Angeles County Booking and Property Record, produced by La
Verne Police Department from its Booking Terminal.
2) February 6, 2010 Joseph Zernik Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department online Inmate Information
Center.
3) February 19, 2010 Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles County Booking and Property Record, produced by
the Sheriff’s Department at the time of booking at IRC (Inmate Reception Center, Twin Towers Jail).
4) February 19, 2010 Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department online Inmate
Information Center.
All of these records must be deemed false and deliberately misleading records. Moreover, the collection
demonstrates what appears as the standard in all justice system agencies today: On the one hand the
agency keeps records that it deems the true legal record, on the other hand it provides the public access to
other records, which the agency deems invalid records.
In the case of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department:
1) Record #1- Los Angeles County Booking and Property Record - printout from the Los Angeles
County Booking Terminal of the La Verne Police Department. It is the only Booking Record,
which is believed to be of the type that could have been a legally valid Los Angeles County Booking
Record, if adequately executed. It was generated through the Booking Terminal of the La Verne
Police Department.
a) In the original, it had the name of the booking officer (McKindley) and his finger print, as printed
by the Booking Terminal at the time that he logged in to initiate the transaction.
b) However, the La Verne record must be deemed fraudulent on numerous accounts as well:
- It was generated without any valid warrant for the arrest of the individual.
- While the La Verne Police did not rob the arrestee of any property, for reasons that are not
compatible with honesty, the arresting officer repeatedly tried to intimidate the arrestee into
signing on the line now marked “*REFUSED*”. That space was created for signature by the
prisoner upon return of the property to him. The only explanation for such efforts to deceive
was if there was intent to steal the property that was removed from the Arrestee and put in
storage.
54/ 259
z Page 2/2 April 3, 2010
2) Records # 2 and #4 – Printouts from the online Inmate Information Center, of the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department must be deemed false and deliberately misleading records, from a
system which was created to deprive the people of Los Angeles of their Constitutional, Civil, and
Human Rights. Such records could not possibly be deemed valid legal records, since they fail to be
verified in any visible form, and there is no mention of any name of Sheriff Deputy or Police Officer,
who was authorized to issue such record.
However, one should notice that in response to requests for California Public Records, which were the
arrest and Booking Records of Attorney Richard Fine and Attorney Ronald Gottschalk, the Sheriff’s
Department forwarded to Dr Zernik directly, and also through Supervisor Antonovich, in response to
official inquiry, the false and deliberately misleading records from the online Inmate Information
Center, and refused to produce any records from the Booking Terminal .
3) Record #3 – Los Angeles County Jail, Booking and Property Record – provided to Joseph Zernik
by the Sheriff’s Deputy at IRC / Twin Towers Jail during the booking procedure. On the back of the
record, information is provided to the prisoners. It starts by stating:
THIS IS YOUR PROPERTY RECEIPT AND IDENTIFICATION. KEEP IT AT ALL TIMES.
Such record was never issued through the Booking Terminal which creates the definitive, valid Los
Angeles County Booking Record with finger prints and photos. This record is a temporary paper
record, which is completed by hand by the police officer or whomever brings an arrestee to the jail.
Moreover, this record includes no signature of the police officer, neither does it include the name
authority of the person who completed the form. Such information was possibly include in the areas
that were redacted in the Prisoner’s Receipt. However, absent such verification, such record could not
possibly be deemed a valid record.
It should be noted that Record #3 included Booking #2235341, while Record #1 included Booking
#1343449. It has been noted previously that about 90% of the inmate in the Sheriff’s online Inmate
Information Center have Booking #s from the High Series (in the 2 millions range), while some 10%
have Booking # from the Low Series (in the 1.3 million range). The operation of such system with
two series of booking number issued in parallel was noted already in the past as an indication of defect
in integrity of the system. Based on the records provided here, it is speculated that the records in the
1.3 million (the Low Series) are the only true valid (if based on true warrants) Booking Records, and
that the majority of the prisoners are held of the invalid temporary Booking Records in the 2 million
series (the High Series).
55/ 259
56/ 259
2/15/2010 LASD Inmate Information Center - Booki…
57/ 259
(The information was current as of: 02/13/2010 13:52 PST)
Search For Another Inmate Back To The Search Result
Booking No.: 1343449 Last Name: ZERNIK First Name: JOSEPH Middle Name:
Sex: M Race: O Date Of Birth: 10/24/1955 Age: 54 Hair: BRO Eyes: BRO Height: 511
Weight: 180
Charge Level:
ARREST
Arrest Date: 02/06/2010 Arrest Time: 0115 Arrest Agency: 1938 Agency Description: LA VERNE PD
Date Booked: 02/06/2010 Time Booked: 0145 Booking Location: 1938 Location Description: PD -
LAVERNE
BAIL
Total Bail Amount: 0 Total Hold Bail Amount: 0.00 Grand Total: 0.00
HOUSING LOCATION
Housing Location:
Permanent Housing Assigned Date: 02/07/2010 Assigned Time: 1755 Visitor Status: N
Facility:
Address: City:
Public Visiting Guidelines
For County facility visiting hours, Please call (213) 473-6080 at Inmate Information Center.
COURT
Next Court Code: BUR Next Court Date: 02/19/2010 Next Court Time: 0830 Next Court Case:
8BR0429801
Court Name: BURBANK MUNICIPAL COURT

Court Address: 300 E. OLIVE AVENUE Court City: BURBANKUPT
RELEASE
Actual Release Date: 02/07/2010 Release Time: 2102
CASE INFORMATION
Case No. Court Name Court Address Court City Bail Amt. Fine Amt. Court Date Sent. Date Sent. Day(s) Disp Code
8BR0429801 0 .00 02/19/2010 02/06/2010 0 CITE
9BV0031601 0 .00 03/02/2010 02/07/2010 0 BOND
http://app4.lasd.org/iic/details.cfm 1/2
58/ 259
Click on specific Case No. for detailed information.
59/ 259
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
10-02-19 Los Angeles County Jail, Booking and Property Record,

In re: Feb 19, 2010 jailing of Dr Joseph Zernik
Below is an effort to transcribe the difficult to read carbon copy of the February 19, 2010 record, accessed at
the Sheriff’s Department at Twin Towers Jail on March 30, 2010.
BOOKING AND PROPERTY RECORD
Booking No. Loc Bkd Dr Lic No State PRISONER’S RECEIPT
2235341 IRC A8861282 CA REF # 5120-2010-0219-104
BOND
SURRENDER
Ag’y or Detail Arresting Date & Time Arrested Time Bkd

Bail Bonds 02-19-10 17:30 18:50
Location of Arrest Total Bail

8627 California Ave $30,000.00
Charge Warr/Comm No
14601 96v003160
Jail Loc. Arraign Date Time Court Prisoner’s Signature When Booked
IRC 2-23-10 08:30 Beverly Hills X (left incomplete)
Location or Disposition of Vehicle

N/A
Cash Retained Property
0 Clothing Worn
Prisoner’s Sig, for Rec’t of Foregoing Cash & Property

X (left incomplete)
Cash Deposited Property

0 None
Prisoner’s Sig, for Rec’t of Remaining Cash & Property
X (left incomplete)
I
·--7-----------------------1
l
x
PRISONER'S SIG. fOR REC'T Of REMAINING CASH & PROPERTY
19
I
PROf>ERTY
PAISONEA·S SIG., fOR AEC'T. Of FOREGOING CASH llt. PROPERTY
LOS ANGEL.ES COUNTY JAIL
BOOKING AND PROPERTY RECORD
~
4A
,- /,'Hj l j' ' " , __ '.' _ ;,w: ~f------;----------------:-----
211 I
-
7
7
PRISONER'S SIGNATURE WHEN BOOKED
-
:J
BOOKING AND PROPERTY RECOf'D
+
c-- I r I. -r.,"'"_ I' J.JrIJ .~! lUI
l.OS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL
-- - - ,., I PRISONER'S SIG., FOR RECT. OF FOREGOING CASH & PROPERTY
CASH DEI'OSITED I PROPERTY _ ..
. ~ 1\.' ., , 181
19
I
PRISONER'S SIG. FOR REC'T. OF REMAINING CASH & PROPERTY 1
201
Front of Record \
768650 C·SH-J-294 10/97 I
60/ 259 I
I
+
T1-1 yaU AT ALL T
d
e
or "'A
ppea-ance
xpC'n
II Bondsrran
-+
VIO
Back of Record
Pi action.
61/ 259
62/ 259
Page 2/2 April 3, 2010
Notes:
1. The record includes two extensive areas where information that was recorded on the original record
was redacted from the carbon copy (not only in this case, but per design of the form).
2. The form is a printout from an older printer system, with perforated paper feeding. The Booking
Record issued by La Verne Police Department was from entirely different printing system, albeit, the
same Booking Terminal.
3. The record is not signed by the Prisoner, Dr Joseph Zernik, since it stated that he came to jail with his
clothing worn only. Such records was generated about a minute after an expensive wrist watch was
robbed from the Prisoner by the Sheriff Deputy.
4. The record includes self-contradictory details regarding the place and identity of the agency/Detail that
executed the arrest.
5. Such record, which is provided as the only copy to the Prisoner is not verified by any Deputy Sheriff
at all. In contrast, the Booking Record Obtained from La Verne Police Department included the name
and fingerprint of the Police Officer that executed the purported warrant.
6. In both cases, the records were issued in conjunction with booking using the same type of Booking
Terminal (appears like a scanner, and it records finger prints). However, the records that were
produced were very different, and the Booking Numbers were from entirely different series.
7. One possible explanation is that that La Verne Police Booking Record was an attempt to produce an
honest booking record, while the “Prisoner’s Receipt” is part of a system of “informal” booking and
arrest records.
8. A third level of corruption of records can be seen in the online Inmate Information Center, yet again -
records with no verification at all, which routinely include false data.
Additional details are provided in a Declaration by Joseph Zernik, as part of complaint to the Sheriff’s
Department.
63/ 259
(The information was current as of: 02/24/2010 09:58 PST)
Search For Another Inmate Back To The Search Result
Booking No.: 2235341 Last Name: ZERNIK First Name: JOSEPH Middle Name:
Sex: M Race: O Date Of Birth: 10/24/1955 Age: 54 Hair: BRO Eyes: BRO Height: 511
Weight: 180
Charge Level: M (Misdemeanor)
ARREST
Arrest Date: 02/19/2010 Arrest Time: 1730 Arrest Agency: 9400 Agency Description: LASD-CITIZENS
ARREST
Date Booked: 02/20/2010 Time Booked: 0023 Booking Location: IRC Location Description: IRC
BAIL
Total Bail Amount: 0 Total Hold Bail Amount: 0.00 Grand Total: 0.00
HOUSING LOCATION
Housing Location:
Permanent Housing Assigned Date: 02/22/2010 Assigned Time: 0827 Visitor Status: N
Facility:
Address: City:
Public Visiting Guidelines
For County facility visiting hours, Please call (213) 473-6080 at Inmate Information Center.
COURT
Next Court Code: B02 Next Court Date: 02/22/2011 Next Court Time: 0830 Next Court Case:
9BV0031601
Court Name: BEV HILLS MUNI/SUP DEPT B02

Court Address: 9355 BURTON WAY Court City: BEVERLY HILLSUPT
RELEASE
Actual Release Date: 02/22/2010 Release Time: 1551
CASE INFORMATION
Case No. Court Name Court Address Court City Bail Amt. Fine Amt. Court Date Sent. Date Sent. Day(s) Disp Code
9BV0031601 BEVERLY 9355 BURTON BEVERLY 0 .00 02/22/2011 02/22/2010 0 TSER
HILLS MUNI WAY HILLSUPT
COURT 64/ 259
Click on specific Case No. for detailed information.
65/ 259
Appendix IV
Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 16-2 Filed 05/01/2009 Page 1 of 16
66/ 259
67/ 259
68/ 259
69/ 259
70/ 259
71/ 259
72/ 259
73/ 259
74/ 259
75/ 259
76/ 259
77/ 259
78/ 259
79/ 259
80/ 259
81/ 259
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
82/ 259
REMOVAL ORDER FOR IN-CUSTODY DEFENDANT
The following defendant is to appear in:
CASE NO. OEPT. ------ .. - ON AT

(D ate ) -----r.(T=j-m-e---)-
FOR: _
fR:eason)
mame Booked As} (Booking Number)
AKA
SH-CI 315 PS 1-(16
~Bailiff & Employee II)

CASE NO. DEPT. ON AT

--r
----~--
(Da te) -----r.(T=i-m-e')-"
FOR:
(~teason)
7i-------~
\Name Booked As! (Booking Number)
AKA
SH-e, 3'/'0 PS l.a;
(Bailiff & Employee 1/)

CASE NO. DEPT. - - - ON AT

~Date) -----r.(T=i-m-e')-
FOR:
[Reason)
{N-ame Booked As} (Booking Number) "---
AKAJ.
SH-CI 37!i PS H16
(Bailiff & Employee II)
83/ 259
Appendix V
84/ 259
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD

Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
“ Judge shall be faithful to the law…”

Cal Code Jud Ethics 3B(2)
“The rule of law must never be confused with tyranny of the courts”
Anonymous
07-12-17. Wedick's Opinion Letter re: Pasternak's Grant Deeds
EVIDENCE
OF REAL ESTATE FRAUD
&
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE OF TITLE
by
DAVID PASTERNAK, PURPORTED “RECEIVER”
appointed by the
LA SUPERIOR COURT
In
ALLEGED SHAM LITIGATION OF
SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)
85/ 259
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Source of Records Examined by

Mr Wedick ... … 2
2. What is Samaan v Zernik? ... … 3
3. Mr Wedick's Resume' ... … 4
4. Opinion Letter of Mr Wedick, notarized ... … 6
5. Two Fraudulent Grant Deeds ... … 10

generated by Receiver
Pasternak, “Receiver” appointed
by the LA Superior Court:
5a. 12/7/2007 Grant Deed ... … 11
5b. 12/17/2007 Grant Deed, certified ... … 14
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 1/20 -
86/ 259
1. SOURCE OF RECORDS EXAMINED BY MR WEDICK
a) The December 7, 2007 Grant Deed

This record was copied from L Superior Court paper court file,
where Mr Pasternak entered a copy of an order purportedly
approved by Judge Patricia Collins on December 7, 2007. No
notice was served by Pasternak of this order, and no notice was
given of its entry.
b) The December 7, 2007 Grant Deed

This record was found upon search in the Office of Registrar
Recorder of La County, and a certified copy was obtained from
that office. No notice was served by Pasternak of this record,
and no notice was given of its entry in the office of the
Registrar/Recorder.
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 2/20 -
87/ 259
2. WHAT IS SAMAAN V ZERNIK?
It is entirely unclear what Samaan v Zernik was, and is. In part, it

defies definition, since the offices of the Presiding Judge of the
Court, Stephen Czuleger, as well as the in-house Counsel of the
Court, Mr D. Bret Bianco, and also the external counsel retained
by the Court for this matter, all refuse to answer even the most
basic questions regarding this matter:
a) Is Samaan v Zernik a true case duly registered and indexed, as required by
law for a case heard by the Superior Court of California?
b) Is Samaan v Zernik a case listed in the Calendar of the Courts, as required by
law for a case heard by the Superior Court of California?
c) Is there a judge duly assigned to this case, as required by law for a case heard
by the Superior Court of California?
d) Is there a valid, entered judgment in this case, alternatively – is there no valid,
entered judgment in this case?
In recent letter to Mr Kenneth Melson, Director, U.S. Department of
Justice, it was referred to as an “Enterprise Track” case. In his
response Mr Melson doubted that I had sufficient evidence to
prove the existence of such track in the court.
Here, Samaan v Zernik is referred to as “sham litigation”. Some
of the characteristics are: None of the judges had an assignment
order, as required by law. Therefore, none had any authority in
this case either. I appeared before the Supervising Judge of the
Court several times during litigation, with request that he issue
due assignment orders, but he refused to do so.
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 3/20 -
88/ 259
3. MR WEDICK'S RESUME'
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 4/20 -
89/ 259
JAMES J. WEDICK
WEDICK & ASSOCIATES
11230 Gold Express Drive, Suite 310 - #0364
Gold River, CA 95670-4484
916.638.3566 (Direct) 916.290.0999 (Fax)
Website: www.fraudspecialists.com Email: jwedick@fraudspecialists.com
www.FBIexpert.com
FBI INVESTIGATIONS; WHITE COLLAR CRIME; FRAUD
Early FBI Career

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

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

In 1994 with corruption allegations suggesting Fresno area council members were soliciting bribes in exchange for
making zoning changes, Mr. Wedick launched the REZONE investigation—again using the undercover approach to record
conversations and collect evidence—convicting 17 defendants, with 14 pleading guilty to federal RICO and corruption
violations. In the Sacramento Bee and Fresno Bee Editorials—the last titled Operation REZONE’s Painful Lessons—the FBI
was credited with exposing corrupt practices where it was "clear that the local political system…(had been) manipulated for
extraordinary personal gain at the cost of public trust."
CBS and 60 MINUTES

With allegations suggesting Medicaid Fraud had become the crime de jour for sophisticated thieves, Mr. Wedick also
launched 3 Health Care Fraud Initiatives prosecuting 324 medical providers with defrauding funds totaling in excess of $228
million. The successful FBI Initiatives attracted the attention of both broadcast and print journalists alike, including 60
Minutes’ Mike Wallace, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, and the Los Angeles Times who did a nine-part series detailing the systemic
fraudulent abuse. In the 60 Minutes piece, Wallace credited Mr. Wedick with marshaling the resources needed to combat
the crime.
Terrorism
After several officials recommended he receive an appointment to head California’s terrorism effort, in 2004, Mr. Wedick
started his own agency and in 2005 he joined the legal team representing two Lodi, California men charged with making
false statements and supporting terrorism. Because Mr. Wedick was convinced the Lodi men were innocent—commenting
the prosecution was based on a poorly done FBI interrogation, lack of corroboration, and a mishandled informant—he
“battled” the government concerning his expected testimony as an expert that was reported as a “cover” story in the LA
Times Sunday Magazine, in May 2006, and featured in a PBS FRONTLINE documentary titled, “ENEMY WITHIN,” that aired
October 2006. He also secured juror affidavits supporting a misconduct motion and, in 2007—in case dubbed LIBERTY
CITY SEVEN by the Miami media—charged the government’s use of an FBI informant who “failed” a polygraph was a
violation of the Attorney General’s Guidelines on the Use of Informants.
Distinguished Service/Professional Organizations

Lastly, in April 2004, Attorney General JOHN ASHCROFT personally praised Mr. Wedick commenting his successes
represented the finest traditions in the Department of Justice. With almost 35 years experience in the FBI, Mr. Wedick was
frequently rated an exceptional employee who routinely handled the Bureau’s most complicated and sensitive investigations,
including writing/supervising both long/short term undercover proposals/operations, used/supervised criminal informants,
monitored/recorded authorized personal/telephone conversations, was long-term undercover agent, and managed a squad
FBI agents. Currently, Mr. Wedick is a licensed California Private Investigator [PI] and Certified Fraud Specialist [CFS], and
member in good standing with the Association of Certified Fraud Specialists [ACFS], Association of Certified Fraud
Examiners [ACFE], California Association of Licensed Investigators [CALI], Sacramento County Bar Association, FBI Agents
Association [FBIAA], and Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI.
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 5/20 -
90/ 259
4. OPINION LETTER OF MR WEDICK
Mr Wedick, an FBI veteran, commended by

the U.S. Congress, the FBI Chief, and the
U.S. Attorney General, is a fraud specialist.
He examined the Grant Deeds for fraud

concerns, in response to request by the
property owner, Mr Joseph Zernik.
In addition to records copied here, Mr

Wedick was also provided, at his own
request, with a volume of over 500 pages of
records - a comprehensive review of Mr
Pasternak's appointment procedure and
subsequent conduct in Samaan v Zernik.
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 6/20 -
91/ 259
11230 GOLD EXPRESS DRIVE S'l'E 310 GOLD RIVER CA 95670 916.638.3566
WWW.FRAUDSPECIALIS.l.S.COM
To: Dr. Joseph Zernik
Date: January 29, 2009
From: Investigator/E
Subject: Grant Deed file Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK,

Los Angeles Superior Court;
SAMAAN Vs. Zernik [SC087400);
In accordance with reference litigation currently ongoing in Los Angeles

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

Mr. WEDICK received the FBI Director's Award for a much publicized investigation in
California that concerned several members of the California State Legislature prosecuted
for taking "bribes" with his accomplishments later cited in the U.S. Congressional
Record. Mr. WEDICK is a 34-year Bureau veteran whose performance has been praised
by U.S. Attorney General [AG] JOHN ASHCROFT as being in the "highest traditions"
of both the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice. Commenting on his many successful
investigations, AG ASHCROFT described Mr. WEDICK's pursuits as literally "models"
for other agents to "emulate."
92/ 259
And because Mr. WEDICK was responsible for the FBI's Sacramento
based white-collar-crime corruption squad, his credentials include handling some of the
Bureau's most complicated and sensitive investigations, including prosecuting the sons
of New York mobster JOSEPH CHARLES BONANNO for conducting an illicit wire
fraud scheme; convicting GILBERT W. CHILTON for orchestrating a $50 million loan
from the California State Teachers Retirement System [STRS] to a Denver con-man-all
in return for a $1 million bribe; and prosecuting Beverly Hills resident MARK L.
NATHANSON for extorting Hollywood celebrities actor/director SYLVESTER
STALLONE, music composer BURT BACHARACH, lyricist CAROL BAYER SAGER,
entertainment moguls JEFFREY KATZENBERG, BARRY DILLER, and DAVID
GEFFEN, movie producers BLAKE EDWARDS and his wife JULIE ANDREWS,
IRWIN WINKLER and MICHAEL JACKSON's business manager SANDY GALLIN.
Mr. WEDICK also is responsible for prosecuting seventeen [17] local city
council members, land owners, and developers [in the ClovislFresno area] suspected
soliciting/receiving "bribes" in exchange for favorable zoning requests-all in violation
of the federal RICO and mail fraud statutes-and designed three [3] Health Care Fraud
Initiatives responsible for prosecuting three-twenty-four [324] Los Angeles based
medical providers suspected defrauding funds totaling in excess of $228 million from
California's Medicaid Program.
Reviewing the two [2] Grant Deeds, the first reportedly dated December 7,
2007 and the second December 17,2007, Mr. WEDICK opines the very fact two [2]
Grant Deeds exist for one transaction-each containing different information-suggests
on on-going fraud requiring immediate investigation-particularly before any documents
are allowed to be filed with a court and/or funds are disbursed.
With respect to Grant Deed #1 dated December 7,2007, Mr. WEDICK

opines reviewing the document he found DAVID J. PASTERNAK scribbled his name in
the wrong location, i.e. where the notary is required to witness the document and further
failed to sign in his capacity as receiver/grantor. Additionally, and most importantly the
Notary Public did not witness and attach a court document identifying/appointing
Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK as an authorized court receiver for JOSEPH
ZERNIK.
With respect Grant Deed #2 dated December 17, 2007, Mr. WEDICK
opines reviewing the document the Notary Public did not witness and failed to attach a
document identifying/appointing Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK as an authorized
court receiver for JOSEPH ZERNIK. Additionally, the notation, "DAVID
PASTERNAK for JOSEPH V. ZERNIK pursuant to case number SC087400," is not a
valid substitute for an authorized court order.
Accordingly, based on above observations MR. WEDICK opines an

immediate investigation should be instituted in an effort to ascertain the circumstances
behind any fraud being committed so that appropriate local, state, and federal authorities
can be notified, including the appropriate court.
SEE ATTACHMENT
93/ 259
California All-Purpose ACknowledgment as of 1/1/08
State of California )
County of ,sAC RAMEkiTO )

On 1129!O~ before me, E. c.. H() k 0 M ,a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared, --
- , lANES ::os. WEal ClC -
who proved to me the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person Y4
whose name ($) is/aje
subscribed to the within instrument and acknry,vledged to me that he/sl'teARey executedthe same in
hisfh~ir authorized capacity ~), and that by hislAefftheir signature ~ on the instrument the
person ~), or the entity upon behalf of which the person (}) acted, executed the instrument
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
.,•.: "~~HoKOM
.-.... COMM. #1770388.
1 ~
Signature.__ ~~~=----=:..._~_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
z:" .1 Notary Public,Californla ~
/ / SACRAMENTO COUNTY
~.~.' ! .1y , .•,.,,,rtl, Exp, 9!11Pt. 21, 201 1
(Area for Notary Seal)
_______________________ OPTIONAL _
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the
document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this to another document.
Further Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Attached Document _
Document Date:. _ umber of Pages, _
Signer(s) or Issuing Agency:. _
Capacity Claimed by Custodian

Signer's Name _ I.
o Individual
o
o
Corporate Officer- Title(s):.-,-
Partner - 0 Lirn ited oGeneral
_
Ii
o Attorney ill Fact
o Trustee
o
o
Guardian or Conservator
Other: _ I
Signer is Representing: _
94/ 259
5. TWO (2) FRAUDULENT

GRANT DEEDS
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 10/20 -
95/ 259
5a. 12/07/2007 FRAUDULENT

GRANT DEED
This Grant Deed was presented by DAVID

PASTERNAK in LA Superior Court hearing
on December 7, 2007, purportedly for Court
approval.
This Grant Deed was indeed approved by

Judge PATRICIA COLLINS, as part of an
order that she signed on the same day at
DAVID PASTERNAK's request, and which he
entered in court file, albeit, with no notice to
the owner, Defendant ZERNIK, as required
by law.
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 11/20 -
96/ 259
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
United Title Company
Title #: 80701422-77
APN #: 4328-0024-023
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
Nivie Samaan
SPACE ABOvE THIS liNE FOR RECORDERS USC

Grant Deed
The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s):
Documentary transfer tax is $1,889.80
(X) computed on full value of property conveyed, or
( ) computed on full value less of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale.
( ) Unincorporated area: () City of Beverly Hills
FOR A VALUABLE CONS1DERATlON, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,

Joseph H. Zernik, an unmarried man
hereby GRANT{S) to
Nivle Samaan, a married woman, as her sole and separate property
that property in The City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, State of California, described as follows:
Lot 252 of Tract 7710, in the Oty of Beverly Hills, County of los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in
Book 83, Pages 94 and 95 of maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
Together with all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to that certain Oil and Gas lease, executed by and
between sammy Narens and Lylyan Narens, as Lessor, and Standard Oil Company of California, as Lessee, recorded
September 23, 1964, as Instrument No. 3156, Official Records, Los Angeles County, Catiforla
Mail Tax Statements to Gra=n~tee=:..-"a-,--t-"a-=cdd-,--r~ess=:..--=a-,--bo-,--v-,--e=- , _

Dare November 27, 2007
~
2J 2;Q
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 12/20 -
97/ 259
/'
State of ___ ) 1 ~ T ~)(,'r __
County of ,- ft
I'~if' ~~ I~
David J. Pasternak, Receiver
On - ;.:: . 1 - --' before me, (Solely In that capacity)
I "'-- =1 \ J f> .t ,I. 1--\ v_____
a Notary Public,~rsonally appeared :.)
~',"''';,i -J- :- ):.~-.~ . ,)
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of 'r A <> ,0" <> -<> <> cOt <">.<""» C'b <> At"">, (
satisfactory eVidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) i51are

"; ,\~~~\-"~, liSA I<.ALAYDJIAN ~
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowletlged to me
that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
\! ',~"';'0' ~':',7 CO,V'k -;; '1('13184 G)
copacity(les), and that by his/her/their slgnature(s) on the \>l-~~~::~"~:.' ~~':~~'~~~: ~;:~,~:~r.:.~'.,~~,c:-. C:'~.~~,':·~~.~;A ()
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which "<, \" .'-,,"-'\/1 L"." ,:'kL~[" L,-,.", ,
the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. i
~",-"".~~
,.~~., _,~~.;·/c=,;:.uJ ["..",:',,:,c.3 (leT is, 2CC9 ..I.
WITNESS
Signaturf !J
~YU1~ttfVJ\ (\ .
) \ ~ ,
Name 4)1\,,\0 J. p~~r€tlJ~'Aj /!ic£\w.J.

(typed or pnnted)
FTGIS-j4<l8/90 IS area for oIlidal nalanal seal
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE
RECORD EXAMINATION
2 'LI
- 13/20 -
98/ 259
5b. 12/17/2007 FRAUDULENT

GRANT DEED
This Grant Deed was recorded by David

Pasternak with the Office of Registrar/
Recorder of LA County on December 17,
2007.
No notice was served on the owner,

Joseph Zernik, who retrieved this Grant
Deed from the Recorder/Registrar's files a
few months later.
RECORD EXAMINATION BY FRAUD EXPERT JAMES WEDICK

PAGE 14
99/ 259
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK
12400 IMPERIAL HWY. - P.O. BOX 1024, NORWALK, CALIFORNIA 90651-1024
DEAN C. LOGAN
ACTING
Flegislrar-Recorder/Counly Clerk
If this document contains any restriction based on race, color,

religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status,
disability, national origin, source of income as defined in subdivision
(p) of Section 12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates state and
federal Fair housing laws and is void, and may be removed pursuant
to Section 1~~956.2 of the Government Code. Lawful restrictions
under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing
or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions
based on familial status.
100/ 259
I
This page is part of YI)Ur doc unnent • DO NOT DISCARD ..
;s: 20072759874 ~g~es:
=- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ml l l l l~ I~
Recorded/Filed in Official Records Fee' 1400
'"1111111111
Recorder's Office, Los Angeles County, . .
California Tax: 1,889.80
Other: 0.00
12/17/07 AT 08:00AM
Total: 1,903.80
Tttle Company
TITLE(S): DEED
~
LEAD
III ~ III III ~
SHEET
Assessor's Identification Number (Jl.IN)

To be completed by Examiner OR Title Corlpany in black ink. Number of AIN's Shown
fotlill THIS FOR.M IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED

101/ 259
UNITED TITLe COMPANY
WESTLAKE VILLAGE BRANCH
United Title Company
Tille tI: 8070 1422·77 12117/07

APN tt: 4328-0024-023
l l Jl l l l lIl l l ~ 11111 111\l 11111 11111 11111 \I~I I I\ lil\ Illl
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO 20072759874
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDERS USE
Grant Deed
,..-------------:r0;:~\-,-
lhe undersigned grantor(s) dec/are(s): ~ y
Documentary transfer ta:( is $1,889,80
(X) computed on full vaille of property conveyed, or
( ) ccmputed on full value less of liens and enc!.JmbranCE s r~maining at time of sale.
( ) Umllcorporated are,l', (~it:y of Beverly Hi\\~,
r:DR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which IS h ~reby acknowledged,

ria~i~ T: ~astetnak as Receiver far JosEph V. Zernick pursuant to case number SCOB 400
hereby GRANT{S) to
Nivie Samaan, a married woman, as her sole and separale property
that property In The City ofBever~HIIS, Los Angeles [Ollnt'!, State of California, described as follows:
Lot 252 of Trac~ 7710, in the City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded In
Book 83, Pages 94 and 95 of maps, In the office of the C lur,ty Recorder of said County.
Together with all of Grantor's right, title and int,~rest in a 1d to that certain Oil and Gas Lease, executed by and
between Sammy Narens and Lylyan Narens, as Lesser, a ld Standard Oil Company of california, as Lessee, recorded
September 23, 1964, as Instrument No. 3156, Official Re :ords, Los Angeles County, Califoria
--------_.------ -_.-.- -
Date
102/ 259
.
State of
County of Lex:., A"li-c/c ';
On (I ~ .:9 'L:.. 0 '7 teforc r11e,
~~tary Public, p~Onal;Y ~~;~~ed ~/{ I" /'?J-'!~l.:.~.

L (;>,JI() J. _~;;:k~z __
personally known to me (or proved to me on the baSI!, of

satisfactory eVidence) to bl~ the person(s) whose name(s) isiare
sul)scribed to the within in~;trument and acknowledged to me ,AAOAAOAAOAA<><>
ttwt 11e/she/tf1ey executed the same in his/her/their iJ'Jthori;:ed

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

, l". Itir . ;f:'' ' ~,,~
I\ame / 1-,.\ r.,__ fr"r; ((', I(~ (! {/ /A....-
bl5 14() 8(9'l

(typed or printed) f J
MAIL TAX STJITEMENl'S f~S DIRECTED ABOVE

This area for offiaal notanal seal
103/ 259 STAMP IS ON BACK OF LAST PAGE
104/ 259
Appendix VI
105/ 259
Dr Z
Joseph H Zernik, DMD, PhD
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; Fax: 801.998.0917; E-Mail: jz12345@earthlink.net
07-11-09 Purported Order Appointing David Pasternak Receiver – filed by David Pasternak
- Court File – Vol IX
Notice that this record originating from Atty David Pasternak himself, was inserted in court file, but
carried the same false Proof of Service as the records originating from Atty Mohammad
Keshavarzi – the purported Order was signed and dated by Judge John Segal November 9,
2007, while the Proof of Service was dated October 26, 2007, and pertained to the “Proposed
Order”.
,J 106/ 259 ~
PASTEH:,\AH, PASTER:'\AK & PATTO~

A l""'" CCFiPOIO.,6"T eN
(YNTHI,' t:" ~~SiER""AIo< 1S7~ CENTl)f":Y F.Af'K E:AST SUliE 2.20C TE LE PHONE
CAVIC, "A<1E~NAK (~10~ !~:;·'50C
..'C"-1N W J:ATiCN ..J~
LOS A:"GELES, C ..\LJFOR:"JA 110067-2523
FACSIMILE
(3'0) ~~3-'5<4C
palf,rmc;j::as'.""" com
"lJTHCR'~ E-MAIL
eJPC; ~"l.", c. 0 IT,
Copy Via E-Mail

Original Via Messenger
November l4. 2007
Joseph Zernik Joseph Zernik

320 S. Peck Driw 1965 Foothill Blvd
Beverly Hi]]s. CA 902] 2 La Verne, CA 9] 750
Joseph Zernik Joseph Zernik

3836 Emerald Ave 9675 Brighton Way
La Verne. CA 9] 750 Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Nivie Samaan v. Joseph Zernick
Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. SC 087400
Dear Mr. Zernik:
] enclose a copy of the Order Appointing David J. Pasternak as Receiver, which was issued by
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John A. Segal on November 9, 2007 appointing me as the
Receiver in the above-specified matter. ] have filed my oath and posted my bond, and am now
serving as the Receiver in tIDs case.
Please forward all communications to me in writing and direct them to my attention. You may
communicate with me by email, but if] am not physically in my office I am not always able to
open emailed attachments.
The enclosed Order directs me to take possession, custody and control of the real property
commonly known as 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212 which is the subject
of this lawsuit. I hereby notify you that I have now taken possession, custody and control of that
real property.
Pursuant to the provisions of 3.g. and 3.h. of the enclosed Order, I have been directed to take all
necessary steps to sell the subject real property to Ms. Samaan, and I have been directed to sign
all necessary escrow documents if you fail to sign them within three business days after their
submission to you. Of course, it is my responsibility to make sure that possession of the subject
real property is deli"ered to Ms. Samaan, as the purchaser of the subject real property, promptly
upon the close of escrow, which will occur soon. Consequently, I hereby request that you vacate
the subject real property and remove all of your personal property from that location by the close
of business on Mondav. "" -

November 19.,2007.
" "
If vou have not done so. I hereby infonn you and
, - '
Plaintiff s counsel that I will appear in Department 0 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, located
/}
I
t.'_J
ill
COURT FILE - SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) - COPY PROVIDED BY CLERK'S OFFICE VOL IX
W999991DJP'DJP TempZemik. Joseph 11-\3-07 doc
.J 107/ 259 4
PASTER:":\H:, PASTER:"AH & PATTO:"

".AII. COti~c~r C"
Joseph Zernik
Re: Nivie Samaan v. Joseph Zernick
November 14.2007
Page 2
at 1725 Main Street. Santa Monica, California 90401-3299, at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday,
November 21. 2007 for the hearing of my ex pane application for the issuance of an order (l)
ordering you to immediately vacate the subject real property and directing the Los Angeles
County Sheriffs Department to enforce that order in the same manner as they enforce a writ of
execution issued after an unlav.wl detainer judgment, or alternatively (2) authorizing me to file
an unla\\ful detainer proceeding to evict you from the subject real property.
Please note that I expect you to respect and obey all orders issued in this maner by the Los
Angeles Superior Court. or by any other court that may issue orders in this matter. Also please
note that in my capacity as a court-appointed Receiver. I am an officer of the court and J am not
acting on behalf of or at the direction of any party. I do not expect you or any other party to treat
me with anything other than the respect and dignity afforded any judicial officer. I will not
hesitate to take any action which may be necessary to enforce the orders that I am given by the
court as its Receiver. I thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
rt~rI~
David J. Pasternak
Receiver
DJPl1ks
Enclosure
cc: Robert J. Shulkin, Esq.
Moe Keshavarzi, Esq.
Lisa Kalaydjian
,'-.-;:
/l
;c /~
W',99999DJPDJPCOURT FILE - Joseph
Temp\Zemik. SAMAAN V ZERNIK
11·13·07 .doc (SC087400) - COPY PROVIDED BY CLERK'S OFFICE VOL IX
~ 108/ 259 ~
SHEPPARD MULLIN RJCHTER & HAMPTON LLP ~~~

A Limited Liability Partnership
2 II Including Professional Corporations .. ~.. ()fi'~.l.
"1" .,..I,p "TA_ I.
PHILLIP A DA VIS. Cal. Bar No.1] 0430 ~... ~('~,r; 't :~~
3 Ii MOE KESHA VARZI, Cal. Bar No, 223759
~y J~.;~OJ>
O~ Drab F
333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor /%, Q
(oo~ ~.f~q~,. ~c?c?/

411 Los Angeles, California 9007] -1448 "J.
Oil/)'
I Telephone: 213-620- J 780 ~A

5 II Facslrnile: 213-620-]398 <;; If - l-l'
"'70~ ~
~a £to~o
6
Attornevs for PlaintiffNi"ie Samaan ~lt~ it-I;f
i
7
8
9 SCPER10R COURT OF THE STATE OF CAUFOR1"\]A
. I
JOI
FOR THE COl~TY OF LOS ANGELES -- WEST DISTRlCT
1] II NIVJE SAMAAN, an individual; Case No. SC 087400
12 Plaintiff, Honorable John A Segal
13 v. ~posedj Order Appointing David J.
asternak as ReceJver.
14 II JOSEPH ZERNJK, an individual and
DOES] through] 0, inclusive,
15
Defendants,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 II
J..- I li ...
-1
W02·WEST: IMMK 1>40049221 i i fPROPOSEDl ORDER APPOINTING RJ:rnVr:l<
..,j 109/ 259 .,j
IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED THAT David J. Pasternak ("Receiver") shall be
2 " appojnted as Receiver to take possession, custody and control of the real property located
3 II at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212, legaIJy described as:
4
Lot 252 of Tract 7710. in the City of Beverly Hills,
5 i County of Los Ange]es~ State oftalifornia~'as per J!laJ2
recoraed in book 83 PAGE (S) 94 and 95 of maps. m the
6
1
office of the recorder of said county (the "PROPERTY").
7
1. Before performing his duties, the Receiver shall execute a Receiver's
8
oath and file a bond in Department 0 with surety thereon approved by this Court, in the
9
sum of S] 0.000.00, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the Receiver's duties.
lO
11 2. Within seven (7) days of his appointment, the Receiver is to disclose
12 "to aJl parties any financial relationship bern/een the Receiver and any company he hires to
13 /I assist in the management of the estate.
14
3. The Receiver shall have the power and the authority (a) to exclude
15
Defendant and any agents, anorneys, employees or representatives thereof, or anyone
16
claiming under any of them, from the Property; (b) to take possession of the Property; (c)
17
to use, operate, manage and control the Property; (d) to care for, manage, preseIVe, protect
18
and maintain the Property, and incur the expenses necessary for such care, management,
19
presenTation, protection and maintenance (e) to pay appropriate expenses for the Property;
20
(1) to take such other steps as are reasonably necessary to care for, manage, preseIVe,
21
protect and maintain the Property, subject to the contract for sale of the Property between
22
defendant Joseph Zemik and plaintiffNivie Samaan ("Samaan") and (g) pursuant to
23
judgment for specific performance dated August 9, 2007, in favor Samaan, the Receiver
24
shaJl have the power to take aJ] necessary steps to sell the Property to Samaan through the
25 ..
reactivated Escrow No. 1-34500-GH (the "Escrow") at Mara Escrow Co. 433 North
26
Camden Driver, Beverly Hills, California 90210-4409 (the "Escrowho1der), for a price of
27
$1,7] 8,000 reduced by the setoffs hereinafter described; (h) if within three business days
28
2,/
/I!
-2
wfI?wrQ·IMMK1\40049L: l.l rp'Rnpm:~nl nrmJ:u APPOTNTWr, RH"'J:IVF.R
.,J 110/ 259 ~_ _.
after documents are submitted for signature by the Escrowholder, Zernik fails to sign any
2 "such documents the Receiver shall have the power to sign said documentations on behalf
3 /I of Zernik.
4
4. The Receiver shall prepare and serve monthly statements reflecting
5
the Receinr's fees and administrative expenses, including fees and costs of agents,
6
accountants and attorneys engaged by the Receiver to assist in the administration of the
7
Estate, incurred for each monthly period in the operation and administration of the
8
receivership estate. Upon service of each statement, the Receiver may disburse from
9
Estate funds, if any, the amount of each statement. Notwithstanding periodic payment of
10
fees and expenses, fees and expenses shall be submitted to the Court for its approval and
11
confirmation in the form of either a properly noticed interim request for fees, stipulation of
]2
all parties, or Receiver's Final Account and Report.
]3
]411 5. The Receiver may employ agents, employees, clerks, accountants,
]5 "attorneys (including Appleton, Pasternak & Pasternak, A Law Corporation), and property
] 6 "managers to administer the Estate, purchase materials, supplies and services, and pay for
] 7 II them at the ordinary and usual rates out of the funds which shall come into the Receiver's
] 8 /I possession and shall do a]] things and incur the risks and obligations ordinarily incurred by
19 II owners, property manages and operators of similar properties and enterprises as such
20 II Receiver. No such risk or obligation so incurred shall be the personal risk or obligation of
21 II the Receiver, but shall be the risk and obligation of the estate.
22
6. The Receiver is empowered to establish bank accounts for the deposit
23
of monies and funds collected and received in connection with the estate at federally
24
insured banking institutions or savings associations. Monies coming into the possession of
25
the Receiver and not expended for any purpose herein authorized shall be held by the
26
Receiver in interest bearing accounts.
27
28
COURT FILE - SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) - COPY PROVIDED BY CLERK'S OFFICE VOL IX ,.(_J ~. f • ,"" If
-3 /1)1)I'\l)I"\Qt:nl ntln'):tl A l)PI"\n..TTnJr. tll:rl:T\fl:~
-~-_ .. 111/ 259 ~
7. The Receiver shall be paid his usual hourly bi1lable rate, not to exceed
2 II $475.00. An costs incurred by the Receivenma his anerneys in the perfonnance of their
3 II duties, including, but not hmited to, their fees, shall be paid from the sale proceeds
4
8. Any and a)) expenses of the operation of the Estate are the risk of the
5
Rece]\'ership, and not the personal obligation of the Receiver.
-01 9. The Receiver may issue Receivership Certificates in incremems of
8 II $] 0,000.00 beanng interest at elght percent (8%) per annum for up to $50,000.00 to any
Q II person or panies. All funds loaned to the Receiver pursuant to such Receivership
J 0 II Cenificate(s) shall be deemed 10 be a lien of first pnonty which sha]] be repaid prior to all
] ] II other encumbrances and claims, other than costs of administration.

]2
]0. The Receiver and the parries to this case may, at any tinx, apply to
]3
this Court for further or other instructions or orders and for further powers necessary to
]4
enable the Receiver to perform the Receiver's duties properly.
]51
16 1]. Upon close of escrow, the Receiver shall hold the net proceeds of the
] 71/ sale of the Property and before distributing it to Zemik, deduct from that amount (l) any
] 8 "anoTnt;)"s fees or costs granted to Samaan by this Coun, (2) any damages incidental to the
]9 "decree ofspecific perfonnance granted to Samaan and (3) the Receiver's fees and expenses
20 II incurred as described herein.
21
]2. The parties, and each of them, on receipt of this Order shall provide
22
of the receivership estate.

25
26 ] 3. The Receiver shaH detennine upon taking possession of the estate
27 /I whether in the Receiver's judgment there is sufficient insurance coverage. With respect to
28 /I any insurance coverage, the Receiver shall be named as an additional insured on the
~
/ j'
-4
W02· WEST 1MMI< I\40049221] .i [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOI1'o'TJNG RECEIVER
- - - - - - - - . . j -112/
-- 259 ~
policies for the period that the Receiver shall be in possession of the estate. If sufficient
2 I~ insurance coverage does note:xist, -the Receiver shaH immediately notify the parties to this
3 /I lawsuit and shan have thirty (30) calendar days to procure sufficient all-risk and liability
4 /I insurance on the estate (including earthquake and flood insurance) provided, however, that
5 II if the Receiver does not have sufficient funds to do so. the Receiver shall seek instructions
6 II from the Coun with regard to \\'hether insurance shall be obtained and how it is to be paid
-, II for. Jf consistent \....ith existing law, the Receiver shall not be responsible for claims arising
8 II from the lack of procurement or inability to obtain insurance,
911 ] 4,
I The ReceinT sha]] be authorized to pay alJ legal obligations of the
10
PROPERTY outstanding and corning due.
1]
12 ]5. Zemik and his respective agents, employees, representatives and
13 /I anyone acting in concert with them are ordered forthwith to take all steps reasonably
]4 /I necessary to enable the Receiver to administer the receivership estate and to exercise
l5 II management and control over the PROPERTY, including but not limited to:
16
(a) Forthwith providing the Receiver with all keys, books of accounts,
17
records, operating statements, budgets, real estate tax and other bills, notices and all
18
documentation relating to the PROPERTY
19
20 II (b) Cooperating with the Receiver to enable him to sell PROPERTY to
21 /I Samaan.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 .It '\
L cL
II COURT FILE - SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) - COPY PROVIDED BY CLERK'S OFFICE VOL IX
W02· WEST: IMMK1140049221 i.;
-5
fPROPOSEDl ORDER APPOINTING RFrFlVJ:l<
-----~ 113/ 259 ~
16. The parties and their respective agents, employees, representatives

2 II and anyone acting in concert with them are hereby enjoined and restrained from engaging
3 1/ in any action which interferes with or frustrates the Receiver's ability to administer the
4 II receivership eSUlte and exercise management and control over the PROPERTY.
~
51
61 1
Dated: I\o\'em~, 2007 ~
~.' ~
1
7 II .9.?a Hon. Jo
Segal - -
I rl/ ·,]Ubdg~PERJOR COURT
8 II ...• ' .:
-'.
9
]0 Ii
] ]
]2
13
]4
]5
] 6
] 7
] 8
]9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
}
28 .A-: . ','~
/) I
,"
-6
W02· WEST] MMKI.40049221 ] i rpt){\p{\~rl"\' I'"\tH'I'e'O A tlll(\n..ITTXTr.. ot:rt:n~o
-------~ 114/ 259
wi
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 SI A IE OF CALJFORNJA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
':l J am employed in the County of Los Angeles; J am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 333 South Hope
4 /I Street, 48th FloOT, Los Angeles, California 9007] -] 448 .
.;; /I On Oclober 26~ 2007~ 1 served the following document(s) described as /PROPOSED]
ORDER APPOJ1\'TJ1\G DAV1D J. PASTERNAK AS RECEJVER on the interested
6 II pany(ies) in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes and/or
packages addressed as follows:
Roben J. Shu1kin, Esq. Joseph Zernik

8 The Law Depanment 320 S. Peck Drive
Coldwell Banker Residential Beverly Hi)]s, California 902] 2
9,, Brokerage Company jzl2345(@eanhljnk.net
I
! 1161 1 San Vicente Blvd .. Ninth Floor
10 Los Angeles, CA 90049~651 0
Facsimile: (310) 447-]902
I1 roben.shulkin@camoves.com
12110 BY l\1AJL: 1 am "readily familiar" with the firm: s practice of collection and
processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would ~ deposited
]3 with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at
Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
14 morion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation dale or
postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
]5 affidavit.
16110 BY OVERNJGHT DELJVERY: ] served such envelope or package to be

delivered on the same day to an authorized courier or dnver authorized by the
17 overnight service carner to receive documents, in an envelope or package
designated by the overnight service carrier.
]8
~ BY HAND DELJVERY: J caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to the
"
]9 office of the addressee(s).
20 110 BY ELECTRON1C MAIL: J caused to be prepared and sent an ema1l to the party
]isted be]ow at the e-mail address shown on the service list.
2]
~
22
23
24
25
26
27
J ,J ,)
28 ,-<.....: .L ..........
115/ 259
Appendix VII
116/ 259
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
10-01-07 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Register of Actions (California civil docket)
The January 7, 2010 Register of Actions (California civil docket) in and of itself provides abundant evidence
of the multiple levels of alleged fraud and perversion in the purported litigation of Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400). It is simply impossible to explain the record that is the Register of Actions in Samaan v Zernik
within the framework of California Law or the Law of the United States. It is alleged that the Register of
Actions in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), which is only a minute fraction of the evidence in this case, should
be sufficient to indict Judge Jacqueline Connor, Sandor Samuels, and Brian Moynihan for racketeering.
However, since mid 2007 FBI and US Department of Justice refused to accept complaints alleging criminality
by Judge Connor and others who colluded with her.
One must recall in this regard Judge Jacqueline Connor’s unique role in the Rampart scandal (1998-2000) and
the First Rampart Trial (2000), where she reversed jury verdicts.
It is alleged that upon review of the evidence as a whole, in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), the Rampart
Scandal, and the First Rampart Trial, a reasonable person would conclude that Judge Jacqueline Connor
perverted the First Rampart Trial as well, to scuttle any effort to “fix the Rampart”.
Following are only three examples:
1) October 25, 2005 – The opening page of the Register of Actions

Plaintiff never paid Filing Fees, and all payments in this case were listed as “Journal Entry”.
2) July 6-23, 2007 – Initiation of the alleged racketeering at the court by Countrywide and Bryan
Cave, LLP in collusion with Judge Jacqueline Connor.
Key features of the racketeering included, but were not limited to:
a) Permitting Countrywide and Bank of America to this date (April 2010) to appear under false Party
Designation of “Non Party”.
b) Permitting appearances by Bryan Cave, LLP, counsel who was not counsel of record in the
caption at hand.
c) Fabrication of the existence of a “Protective/Restraining Order” which never existed in reality.
d) Holding of proceedings “off the record”
e) Eliminating Countrywide/Bryan Cave, LLP papers – the July 6, 2007 application for “Protective
Order” from the Court file.
f) Denying Defendant any Service and Notice under false “waiver of notice”.
g) Denying Defendant Access to Court Records – to inspect and to copy.
h) Creating false records, including false record for July 12, 2007 Disqualification for a Cause of
Judge Jacqueline Connor.
3) September 10, 2007 – a) False record of Disqualification for a Cause, and b) False minutes of
proceedings that never took place in reality, c) False ruling that there was no fraud in
Countrywide records.
Preface 1/13
117/ 259
Page 2/13 April 10, 2010
As her final act in this case, after disqualification for a cause, Judge Jacqueline Connor entered false
records of proceedings that never took place in reality, and ruling that was never ruled – that there was
no fraud in Countrywide records. Fraud expert opined to the contrary.
Such conduct is alleged as obstruction and perversion of justice, as well as intimidation, retaliation,
harassment of a victim, witness, informant, which is Dr Joseph Zernik, who in early 2007 exposed the fraud in
the highest level of management of Countrywide Financial Corporation.
1) Page 1 – Face Page of the Register of Actions – Failure of Plaintiff to Pay Filing Fees, Failing to
Enter Judgment in the Case, where Dr Zernik’s property was taken in November 2007 for private
use with no compensation under the ruse of enforcement of Court Judgment.
a) The case was purported to be litigation under the cause of Specific Performance or Damages for
Breach of Contract. US Department of Justice falsely claimed in response to US Congress inquiry
that it was a case of foreclosure. The case did not involve any foreclosure, bankruptcy, or
mortgage default of any kind.
b) The case was filed on October 25, 2005, and is inexplicably purported to continue to this date -
age on January 7, 2010 – 1535 days.
c) The case is marked as such where no judgment or dispositive action was ever entered –
“Disposition Type”, and “Disposition Manner” were left blank. However, Dr Zernik was forced
to leave his home, his property in November 2007 under the ruse of enforcement of court
judgment that was never entered. His property was taken for private use with no compensation at
all.
d) Judge listed on the case is “Richard A Stone”. However, to the best of Dr Zernik’s knowledge the
case was never in the court of Judge Richard A Stone. Some dozen judges purported to preside in
the case. None of them had a valid Assignment Order as required by law.
e) Plaintiff Counsel contact information is listed on, whereas no contact information is listed for
Defendant. Indeed, the facts in the matter showed that the court denied Defendant the Due
Process right for notice and service throughout the purported litigation.
f) Under October 25, 2005 the Register of Actions documented that Plaintiff Nivie Samaan never
paid her filing fees.
10/25/05 Case Filed

New Filing MEMO
Other Real Property Rights Case
NIVIE SAMAAN 2 NSF chk recd/retd
1 $36.50 1 &97.50
As confirmed by several Deputy Clerks, such notation indicated that two No Sufficient Funds
Checks were received and returned- one for $36.50, and the other for $97.50.
Such fact was concealed for a long time from Defendant. However, even after he discovered the
fact, and informed the Clerk of the Court and demanded that the case be dismissed, as required
by law, the Clerk refused to take action.
g) Under October 25, 2005, payment is listed as “Journal Entry”.
10/25/05 Journal Entry

Received - Civil Filing Fee
$299.50
Preface 2/13
118/ 259
Page 3/13 April 10, 2010
All other payment of court fees in the case are likewise listed as “Journal Entry”, whereas in
other cases of the court such fees are listed as “Filing Fees”, “Motion Fees”, “Stipulations Fees”,
etc. Accountancy textbooks list improper use of “Journal Entry” as a hallmark of high-level
financial management fraud. Charles McCoy, Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles Superior
Court, and John A Clarke, Clerk of the Court, refused to respond to repeated requests to disclose
the true designation of funds collected in this case. It should also be noted that to this date, the
Los Angeles Superior Court has never published a single audited financial statement.
h) No mention is made of parties which are corporate entities:
i. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage should have been listed as Cross Defendant.
ii. Countrywide Financial Corporation and later Bank of America Corporation have appeared
in the case numerous times since July 2007 under the false party designation of “Non
Party”, filed motions, papers, purported judgments, under false counsel, who is not
counsel of record – Bryan Cave, LLP.
2) Page 57-58: July 6, 2007 – First false and deliberately misleading appearance by Countrywide and
Bryan Cave, LLP, for a “Protective Order”, in proceedings “off the record”.
a) Top entry of the page:
07/06/07 Document Filed

ExParte Application
Attorney for Moving Party
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
M/P COUNTRYWIDE
Such entry is a false clerk’s entry, for reasons including, but not limited to:
i. The entry failed to list an honest, valid, and effectual party name, which purportedly was
“Countrywide Home Loans, Inc”.
ii. The entry failed to list an honest, valid, and effectual party designation for Countrywide,
naming it instead “Moving Party”.
iii. The entry failed to list Countrywide’s Counsel’s name – first false appearance by Bryan
Cave, LLP, Counsel who was not counsel of record under the caption at hand.
iv. The court eliminated the record that was the Countrywide application for Protective Order
from the court file, in disregard of court rules and Due Process. However, Defendant’s
Zernik’s copy is posted online.
b) Second from top entry in the page:
07/06/07 ,Journal Entry

$40.00 Other Pmnt
Such entry is a false clerk’s entry, and is alleged as financial fraud – false use of “Journal Entry”,
where in true court cases the payment is listed as “Motion Fees”.
c) Third from top entry in the page: [underlines added –jz]
07/06/07 Event
Exparte proceeding
Jacqueline A. Connor
Preface 3/13
119/ 259
Page 4/13 April 10, 2010
9:00 am
NON-PARTY, COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC, 'S EXPARTE
APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVCE ORDER:
The matter is called for hearing.
The Court has read and considered the exparte
application in chambers. Non,-party Countrywide Home
Loans, inc.'s exparte application for a Protective
Order is Denied. Moving party to proceed by a Notice
Motion on July 23, 2007 at 8:30 am in Department WE-I.
Any opposition is to be filed in Department We-I, and
served by July 12, 2007. Any reply is to be filed in
Department WE-I, and served by July 7/16/07.
Notice is deemed waived.
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - Denied.
Moving party to proceed by Notice
Motion on 7/23/07 at 8:30 am in
Dept WE-I. Opposition by 7/12/07
and Reply by 7/16/07.
Proceedings not recorded.
Such entry is a false clerk’s entry on numerous accounts, including, but not limited to the
following:
i. The notations in the Register of Actions, which was purported to be the minutes, were
never verified by the clerk, were never authenticated, were never served, and therefore,
could not possibly be deemed a valid court record.
ii. “Exparte proceeding” – in not a legitimate, valid Event in Sustain’s dictionary. Therefore,
it was not a valid registry of an action in the case management system.
iii. “Countrywide Home Loan, Inc” is listed under a fraudulent party designation “Non
Party”.
iv. “Moving party to proceed by a Notice Motion on July 23, 2007… Any opposition is to be
filed …and served by July 12, 2007” – such minutes failed to state a date for filing the
notice and motion. Countrywide, through false conduct by Bryan Cave, LLP, false
Counsel, who was not counsel of record, failed to serve the notice and motion prior to July
12, 2007.
v. “Notice is deemed waived” – even after protests, the court in this case denied Defendant
the Due Process right for notice of service of court minutes, rulings, orders, judgments.
vi. “Proceedings not recorded” – such notation reflected the fact that the proceedings were
“off the calendar” and “off the record” proceedings, a fact that was concealed from
Defendant.
Notice:
Even such false and deliberately misleading court records stated that the July 6, 2007
Countrywide’s application for “Protective Order” was Denied. The fabrication of existence of a
“Restraining/Protective Order” was central to the alleged racketeering by Countrywide/Bank
of America/ Bryan Cave, LLP, since July 2007 and to this date.
Preface 4/13
120/ 259
Page 5/13 April 10, 2010
3) Page 59-60: July 9, 2007 - False and deliberately misleading record of a “telephonically held”
hearing for “Reconsideration”, which never took place in reality, and which was simultaneously
“Denied” and “Granted”. [underlines added – jz]
07/09/07 Event
Motion for Reconsideration
Judge A. Connor
8:30 am
DEFENDANT'S (JOSEPH ZERNICK) MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION;
…
The motion for reconsideration and extension of time
to pay sanctions is DENIED.
Counsel for plaintiff is to give notice of this
ruling.
07/09/07 Event Complete

Motion for Reconsideration
Motion Granted
Such false records, which like other records, were never noticed to Dr Zernik, recorded proceedings,
which never took place in reality:
a) The notations in the Register of Actions, which was purported to be the minutes, were never
verified by the clerk, were never authenticated, were never served, and therefore, could not
possibly be deemed a valid court record.
b) No moving papers by Defendant Dr Zernik exist in the court file for such purported hearing.
c) Dr Zernik never spoke on the phone in his life with Judge Connor.
d) The record shows that Dr Zernik never had arrangement with the courts party line, which could
have enabled such phone call to take place on July 9, 2007.
e) Records in Dr Zernik’s possession show that the court reporter, which was listed as taking the
transcript of the purported proceedings denied that she had any such proceedings on her records
from July 9, 2007.
f) Counsel for Plaintiff never gave notice of such ruling.
4) Page 62: July 11, 2007 - Countrywide False Notice Motion for “Protective Order”
Motion for an Order
Attorney for Moving Party
Preface 5/13
121/ 259
Page 6/13 April 10, 2010
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

M/P - COUNTRYWIDE
Such entry is deemed false and deliberately misleading for reasons listed in (2) (a) above.
Furthermore, such filing was listed at the court on July 11, 2007, while Defendant was purported to
provide opposition by July 12, 2007 on such “Notice Motion”. In fact, Defendant was never served the
Motion prior to July 12, 2007.
5) Page 62-69: July 12, 2007 - Failure to list Disqualification for a Cause. False listing of Motion to
Compel. [underlines added –jz]
On July 12, 2007, at the opening of the proceedings, at the first practicable opportunity, Dr Zernik filed in
open court affidavit for Disqualification for a Cause of Judge Jacqueline Connor – based on her conduct
since July 6, 2007 in relationship to appearances by Countrywide Financial Corporation.
Judge Connor created false records for the disqualification for a cause. She buried the mention of such
action in the middle of a particularly lengthy minutes on an unrelated matter. As in practically all cases,
Such notation in the Register of Actions, which was purported to be the minutes, were never verified by
the clerk, were never authenticated, were never served, and therefore, could not possibly be deemed a
valid court record.
Moreover, as she stated herself – the affidavit was for Disqualification for a Cause – section 170.3.
However, as she stated in the minutes, she falsely announced in open court that it was an affidavit for
Preemptory Challenge per section 170.6, then proceeded and “Denied” it as untimely.
Such records are false and deliberately misleading on numerous accounts.
07/12/07 Event
Motion to Compel MEMO
8:30 am
PLAINTIFF (NIVIE S~) MOTION TO COMEPL DEPOSITION;
…
Defendant files an affidavit pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedures Section 170.3 in open Court.
OFF THE RECORD IN CHAMBERS:
The Court reads and considers the affidavit filed
this date.
ON THE RECORD:
The Court finds the affidavit pursuant to 170.3 of
the Code of Civil Procedures filed ·this date, is
incorrect and announces it will be ruled upon as an
Affidavit pursuant to 170.6 of the Code of Civil
Procedures and is DENIED as untimely.
Preface 6/13
122/ 259
Page 7/13 April 10, 2010
Pursuant to California Code, Judge Connor lost any jurisdiction that she might have possibly had in the
matter, when she refused to answer on Disqualification for a Cause, and instead proceeded with business
as usual.
On July 23, 2007, later than 10 days permitted by law, Judge Connor proceeded to create false records,
backdated to July 12, 2007, purporting to be an answer on the Disqualification for a cause. However,
given her record from July 12, 2007, quoted above, and the Reporters Transcript from that date, it is
obvious that she never answered on the Disqualification for a Cause on July 12, 2007, but instead
proceeded as if it never happened.
6) Page 72-74: July 23, 2007 – Second “off the record” appearance by Countrywide for a “Protective
Order” [underlines added –jz]
On July 23, 2007 Bryan Cave, LLP, again falsely appeared in court on behalf of “Non Party” Countrywide. On
July 23, 2007 Judge Connor again created false and deliberately misleading records. Given the central place of
the fraud on the Protective Order, the record was copied in its entirety.
a) She failed to list the proceeding in the register of actions as an independent action, which required
adjudication. Instead, she listed it as part of and unrelated Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens.
b) The notations in the Register of Actions, which were purported to be the minutes, were never
verified by the clerk, were never authenticated, were never served, and therefore, could not
possibly be deemed a valid court record.
c) Similar to her practice regarding the July 12, 2007 Disqualification for a Cause, she again buried
her invalid discussion of the Countrywide appearance in the middle of a lengthy discussion of
unrelated matter. Here – in two separate segments.
d) “All parties acknowledge receipt of the Court's tentative ruling and submit on the tentative ruling.”
The opening statement was false and deliberately misleading. Dr Zernik never received the
tentative ruling, and never submitted on it. Court reporter’s Transcript also provides evidence that
such statement was false and deliberately misleading.
e) In the “Event Complete”, which is the formal adjudication in the Register of Actions, she simply
never entered any adjudication at all.
f) The minutes, which were never served, and never authenticated by a clerk, and therefore, were
invalid, stated in pertinent part:
The motion of non-party Countrywide Home Loans for a

protective order is GRANTED. Defendant Joseph
Zernik is directed to communicate solely with
Countrywide's designated counsel, Todd A. Boock, and
no other officers or employees regarding the recent
action. The proposed order is signed and effective
as of this date. Counsel for Countrywide is ordered
to give notice of this ruling.
g) No written order was ever issued, signed, entered, or served, as falsely stated in the invalid
minutes.
h) Dr Zernik was again denied the Due Process right of Notice and Service, and also denied access to
the court file – to inspect and to copy.
i) Instead, Bryan Cave, LLP later sent a notice to Dr Zernik, which purported that the order was a
verbal order in open court.
j) Judge Connor also inserted in these invalid, never served, never authenticated minutes, a false
statement regarding John Amberg – Counsel of Record – with no statement of the case caption it
Preface 7/13
123/ 259
Page 8/13 April 10, 2010
referred to. In contrast, to this date, both Bank of America Corporation and Bryan Cave, LLP,
refuse to answer on the question whether Bryan Cave, LLP was Counsel of Record for
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, and/or Bank of America Corporation, and the date of such
engagement. Moreover, statement to the contrary were made by office of the General Counsel of
Bank of America – Timothy Mayopoulos.
07/23/07 Event
Motion - Expunge Lis Pendens MEMO
B:30 am
DEFENDANT (JOSEPH ZERNIK) MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS
PENDENS;
MOVING PARTY (COUNTRYWIDE) MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER;
Matter is called for hearing.
All parties acknowledge receipt of the Court's
tentative ruling and submit on the tentative ruling.
The motion. of defendant Joseph Zernik to expunge lis
pendens is DENIED. Defendant has failed to
establish that the Court's previous ruling on
November 9, 2006 was based on fraudulent or false
evidence presented by plaintiff. Defendant has also
failed to show that the lis pendens was not properly
served. Counsel for plaintiff is ordered to give
notice of this ruling.
The motion of non-party Countrywide Home Loans for a
protective order is GRANTED. Defendant Joseph
Zernik is directed to communicate solely with
Countrywide's designated counsel, Todd A. Boock, and
no other officers or employees regarding the recent
action. The proposed order is signed and effective
as of this date. Counsel for Countrywide is ordered
to give notice of this ruling.
In this case, defendant moves to expunge the :].is
pendens arguing that plaintiff cannot establish the
probable validity of her claims. ZEPBIK asserts
that plaintiff failed to timely remove the appraisal
contingency which gave him the right to cancel the
escrow. He further argues that plaintiff's
opposition to the prior motion to expunge was based
on fraudulent arguments and documents. However, the
declarations and evidence provided by plaintiff
continue to raise a question as to whether ZEI\NIK
had submitted a fully executed copy of the Purchase
Agreement to Mara Escrow as of October 22, 20d4.
The documents submitted by defendant simply do not
establish that plaintiff has engaged in any fraud or
failed to properly serve the lis pendens on him.
Again, there are too many factual issues that cannot
be decided here, including whether SAMAAN was
ready, willing and able to proceed with the
purchase of the property. Therefore, the motion to
expunge lis pendens is DENIED.
COUNTRYWIDE seeks a narrowly tailored protective
order requiring that ZERNIK direct all future
communications to COUNTRYWIDE’S designated counsel
and. precluding him from directly phoning, e-mailing
or otherwise contacting its represented officers and
employees. First, the motion is properly supported
by the declarations of in-house counsel Todd A.
Preface 8/13
124/ 259
Page 9/13 April 10, 2010
Boock and attorney of record John W. Amberg, which

set forth first-hand experiences with and actions
taken in response to ZERNIK's conduct towards
COUNTRYWIDE. Second, the Court finds that
COUNTRYWIDE has shown "good cause" for the
protective order sought. ZERNIK has failed to
establish the validity of his communications with
Countrywide's officers and employees. If
Countrywide has failed to comply with a discovery
obligation, ZERNIK's recourse is to file a discovery
motion with the Court. Any assertion that
COUNTRYWIDE is somehow involved in wrongdoing is not
supported by anything other than hearsay and
conjecture. Moreover, since ZERNIK is representing
himself in this action, his assertion that
COUNTRYWIDE is improperly applying attorney
standards to him is not well taken. A litigant
appearing in propria persona is generally held to
the same restrictive rules and procedures as an
attorney. the rules of civil procedure must apply
equally to parties represented by counsel and those
~m forgo attorney representation; such a party is
to be treated like any other party and is entitled
to the same, but no greater consideration than other
litigants and attorneys. (Rappleyea v. Campbell
(1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; see Barton v. New
United Motor Mfg. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.)
COUNTRYWIDE has a right to be protected from
unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment or oppression.
Since the protective order sought simply directs
ZERNIK to communicate with COUNTRYWIDE's designated
counsel, there is nothing to show any infringement
on ZERNIK's free speech or other rights.
Defendant requests for ruling
Objections.
on Evidentry
The Court declines to rule on the Evidentry
Objections. The Court finds the Evidentry
Objections are not properly filed pursuant to Rules
of Court 3.13.54.
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to 9ive notice.
2) M/P COUNTRYWIDE/MOTION
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Motion – Expunge Lis Pendens
Motion Denied
2) M/P COUNTRYWIDE/MOTION
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Preface 9/13
125/ 259
Page 10/13 April 10, 2010
7) Page 106-111 – September 10, 2007 – a) False record of Disqualification for a Cause, and b) False
minutes of proceedings that never took place in reality, c) False ruling that there was no fraud in
Countrywide records.
On September 10, 2007 Defendant Dr Zernik again served Judge Jacqueline Connor affidavit of
disqualification in open court, at the very onset of the proceedings on that day. This time, Judge Connor
took off for over an hour, and when she returned to court she made an outraged statement denying the
claims in the affidavit, but recused nevertheless.
Regardless, she proceeded to insert in court file the next day a paper, purported to be minutes of
proceedings that never took place in reality, as clearly documented in the Court Reporter’s transcript.
Moreover, there is no way to read such paper as a logical, honest, valid and effectual statement, since it
did not make sense at all regarding the time frame of the fabricated proceeding versus the
disqualifications.
The notations in the Register of Actions, which were purported to be the minutes, were never verified by
the clerk, were never authenticated, were never served, and therefore, could not possibly be deemed a
valid court record.

Miscellaneous-Other MEMO
Defendant, & Defendant in Pro Per
filing for the purpose of
immediate disqualification of the
honorable judge Connor pursuant: to
170.3
The entry on September 10, 2007, copied above, for the filing of the paper, which was the affidavit for
Disqualification for a Cause was falsely listed as “Miscellaneous-Other MEMO”
The notes in the Register of Actions, which were purported to be minutes of the court for September 10,
2007, were copied in full below. The claim is that there is no way that a reasonable person would read
such minutes and find them honest conduct by Judge Jacqueline Connor.
09/10/07 Event
Recusal MEMO
8:30 am
DEFENDANT (~JOSEPH ZERNIK) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS;
Matter is called for hearing. Both parties
acknowledge receipt of the Court's tentative ruling
as follows:
The motion of defendant Joseph Zernik for sanctions
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures §128. 7 is .
DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
A party seeking sanctions under CCP §128.7 must
follow a two-step procedure. First, the moving party
must serve on the offending party a motion for
sanctions. Service of the motion on the offending
party be9ins a 30-day safe harbor period during
which the sanctions motion may not be filed with the
Preface 10/13
126/ 259
Page 11/13 April 10, 2010
court. During the safe harbor period, the offending

party may withdraw the improper pleading and thereby
avoid sanctions. If the pleadin9 is withdrawn, the
motion for sanctions may not be filed with the
court. If the pleading is not withdrawn during the
safe harbor period, the motion for sanctions may
then be filed.
The purpose of the safe harbor provisions is to
permit an offending party to avoid sanctions by
withdrawing the improper pleading during the safe
harbor period. In order to effectuate the safe
harbor provisions, a party may not bring a motion
for sanctions unless there is some action the
offending party may take to withdraw the improper
pleading. A sanctions motion may not be brought
after the conclusion of the case or a dispositive~
ruling on the improper pleading. By definition, he
safe harbor provision cannot have any effect if the
court has already rendered its judgment in the case;
it is too late for the offending party to withdraw
the challenged pleading. (Malovec v. Hamrell (19~9)
70 Cal.App.4th 434, 440-441.)
SAl.\1AAN first argues that this motion must be denied
because the Court granted her summary judgment: I
motion. However, the correct principle to be
distilled from Malovec is that an order sustaining a
demurrer without leave to amend or granting summary
judgment does not bar a motion for §128.7 sanctions
unless the order is reduced to a judgment before the
sanctions motion is served and filed. (Banks v,
Hathaway, Perrett, Webster, Powers & Chrisman P(02)
97 Cal.App.4th 949, 953.) Since this motion was
served in April 2007 and filed on August 9, 2007, it
is not precluded under the principles of Malovec
SAMAAN next argues that the motion ZERNIK served in
April 2007 is not the same as the motion filed i*
August 2007 and, therefore, the safe harbor pe+i~d
runs from the filing date of the new and different
motion. (Hart v. Avetoom (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 4~O,
413.) However, SAMAAN has failed to attach the
motion that was served in April 2007 or provide
independent evidence to establish how the motions
are different. Page 32 of ZERNIK's motion was signed
on April 20, 2007 and again on August 9, 2007. There
is nothing to show that the pagination of the motion
is awry or that anything was added or changed.
However, this motion does fail for two reasons: (1)
it was served five months after the alleged
offending documents were submitted to the Court ~n
conjunction with defendant's motion to expunge lis
pendens heard and denied on November 9, 2006; and
(2) there is absolutely nothing to show that the!
documents submitted by plaintiff were false,
improper, fraudulent or lacking in evidentiary
support. Permitting a motion for sanctions to be
brought following judicial disposition of the ~
improper pleading would undermine the purpose of he
safe harbor provision. (Cromwell v. Cummings (1998)
65 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 14.) Second, this Court I
already considered and rejected the substantive
arguments made by ZERNIK, which were repeated in 'his
opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion.
Preface 11/13
127/ 259
Page 12/13 April 10, 2010
There is simply nothing to show that SAMAAN or her

counsel of record, Moe Keshavarzi, engaged in
sanctionable conduct.
The motion for §128.7 sanctions is DENIED. j
The Court orders the Defendant's Motion pursuant to
Code of civil Procedures Section 128.7 Stayed \.1-n il
further ruling by the newly assigned Court. I
The Court announces Defendant/Cross--Complainant Joseph
Zernik, has filed a 170.3 request to disqualify the
Court this date. The Court despite the allegations
made in Mr Zernik’s declaration, without conceding
the disqualification statement, the Court believes
I
that in the interest of justice, the Court should
recuse Itself on Its own Motion Pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedures Section 170.3(c)2.
Pursuant to the Order of the Presiding Judge,
Honorable Gerald Rosenberg., the case is ordered
reassigned to the West Los Angeles Superior Court,
Department WE"H", Honorable Allan J. Goodman,
Judge presiding for all purposes.
Any and all future dates set in Department WE"I" are
advanced to this date and ordered placed off
calendar.
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
OFF THE RECORD:
Status Conference is set for October 10, 2007 at
8:30 a.m. in Department WE"H" at the West Los
Angeles Courthouse (Pursuant to the clerk in
Department WE"H")
Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
of the
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I a~ not
a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of
9-10-07 upon each party or counsel named below by
depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
in SANTA MONICA, California, one copy of the I
original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope
for each, addressed as shown below with the postage
thereon fully prepaid.
MOE KESHAVARZI
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 48TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1448
Date: SEPTEMBER 10, 2007
John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk
By:
v. JAIME
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
The notes above in the Register of Actions, which were purported to be the minutes, were never verified by
the clerk, were never authenticated, were never adequately served on all parties. Therefore, such notes could
not possibly be deemed a valid court record. Moreover, in this particular case, the Clerk Deputy recorded a
blatantly invalid service list – to Plaintiff Counsel only.
Preface 12/13
128/ 259
Page 13/13 April 10, 2010
The fact that Judge Jacqueline Connor inserted such false and blatantly fraudulent records into the court file
on September 10, 2010, was seen as reflecting the following realities:
a. Judge Connor was fully committed to perverting justice in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) on
behalf of Countrywide Financial Corporation.
b. Judge Connor was fully confident that she would never be prosecuted for her alleged racketeering
conduct from the bench.
c. Judge Connor was fully confident that none of her conduct, founded in alleged criminality would
ever be overturned by either her peers at the Superior Court, or any other court in the United
States, in disregard of California Code regarding disqualifications for a cause.

Recusal
Motion Granted
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
The formal adjudication as noted in the Register of Actions clearly documented that neither the
Disqualification for a Cause, nor the Motion for Sanctions were ever entered in a valid manner in the Register
of Actions:
a. Disqualification for a Cause is not a Motion, and “Granted” is not a valid adjudication on such
action.
b. Motion for Sanctions was listed with no adjudication at all.

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Preface 13/13
129/ 259
Declaration of Joseph H Zernik

in re:
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) –
Register of Actions Record, dated January 7, 2010
I, JOSEPH ZERNIK, hereby declare as follows:

This declaration was written as a memorandum of my January 7, 2010 visit to the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, West District, Santa Monica Courthouse. I have personal knowledge
of the facts set forth herein, which I know to be true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated
as based upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as
well. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify with respect thereto.
1. On January 7, 2009 in the afternoon I appeared in the public department of the Clerk’s Office in
the Santa Monica Courthouse.
2. The Deputy Clerk who assisted me was Bryan. We knew each other for some two years, from
my previous attempts to gain access to my court file.
3. My request to access to paper court file was denied. I was told that the court file would be under
submission until January 19, 2010.
4. In response to my request for a copy of the Register of Actions of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
I received the enclosed 275 page record titled: Case History Report.
5. My request to certify the record, which I received in response to my request for the Register of
Actions was denied. Bryan stated that the Deputy Clerks were instructed not to certify any of the
Registers of Actions.
6. I also requested printouts from Sustain of all minute orders from January 1, 2008 to that date –
January 7, 2010. In response I received printouts enclosed with a separate declaration.
7. Attached to this declaration is:
Exhibit 1: January 7, 2010 Case History Report, a 275 page record, dated and timed in footers
“01/07/10 14:59:05” - the true and correct record, which I received in response to my request for
the Register of Actions in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400).
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 9th day in January, 2010, in Los Angeles county, California.
Joseph H Zernik
By_________________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750
Tel: (323) 515-4583
Fax:(801) 998-0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
130/ 259
Appendix VIII
131/ 259
Dr Z
09-10-16 Request that Presiding Judge McCoy provide the Rules of Court for Entry of
Judgment
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:31:22 -0700

To: "Charles W McCoy" <12136177176@efaxsend.com>, cmccoy@lasuperiorcourt.org
Subject: Request for a reasonable explanation of the procedures and rules governing the entry of judgment at the Superior Court
of California for the County of Los Angeles
CHARLES W MCCOY
PRESIDING JUDGE,
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
By email: cmccoy@lasuperiorcourt.org
By Fax: (213) 617-7176
Response kindly requested by Monday, October 19, 2009, 5:00pm
RE: Request for a reasonable explanation of the procedures and rules governing the entry of
judgment at the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles
TO PRESIDING JUDGE MCCOY AND THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT: Please take
notice:
A. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY COURT PERSONNEL

I have repeatedly requested from the Clerk of the Court JOHN A CLARKE, and senior staff of his
office the following in recent years:
a) Access to the Book of Judgments -
I often got no answer at all. Other times I was told that there was no Book of Judgments in the LA
Superior Court for the past ~25 years - since Sustain was introduced as a case management
program.
b) Access to the Register of Actions in Sustain or a Book of Judgments Equivalent in Sustain-
All access to Sustain was denied.
c) A reasonable explanation why the Rules of Court still state that there was a Book of Judgement if
there was none -
No explanation was provided at all.
B. INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN SUSTAIN
1) Following recording the Entry of Judgment in Sustain, the system would reflect that fact in the
values of the following fields in the header of the case:on its front page:
a) Disposition type
b) Disposition Manner
c) Age
d) Disposed
2) Sustain most likely includes a query, which allows to enter the case number or caption and which
provides as query results the Judgement and Entry of Judgment data. In fact - a typical case
management system Index of Judgments. It is likely that the court deems such query as the Book
of Judgment Equivalent, referenced in the Rules of Court. However, the public is denied access to
such query, or Book of Judgment Equivalent.
132/ 259
z Page 2/5 October 17, 2009
B. RELEVANT CALIFORNIA CODE [bold underline added -jjz]
1. Cal Code Civ Proc 664 says:

... If the trial has been had by the court, judgment must be entered by the clerk, in conformity to
the decision of the court, immediately upon the filing of such decision. In no case is a judgment
effectual for any purpose until entered."
2. Cal Code Civ Proc 664,5 says:

664.5. (a) In any contested action or special proceeding other than
a small claims action or an action or proceeding in which a
prevailing party is not represented by counsel, the party submitting
an order or judgment for entry shall prepare and mail a copy of the
notice of entry of judgment to all parties who have appeared in the
action or proceeding and shall file with the court the original
notice of entry of judgment together with the proof of service by
mail. This subdivision does not apply in a proceeding for
dissolution of marriage, for nullity of marriage, or for legal
separation.
(b) Promptly upon entry of judgment in a contested action or
special proceeding in which a prevailing party is not represented by
counsel, the clerk of the court shall mail notice of entry of
judgment to all parties who have appeared in the action or special
proceeding and shall execute a certificate of such mailing and place
it in the court's file in the cause.
(c) For purposes of this section, "judgment" includes any
judgment, decree, or signed order from which an appeal lies.
(d) Upon order of the court in any action or special proceeding,
the clerk shall mail notice of entry of any judgment or ruling,
whether or not appealable."
Also the Cal Gov Code 69844.7 clearly states such intent of the legislators:
Nothing contained herein shall eliminate the requirement for a judgment book where
judgments and decrees are required to be entered.
B. LOCAL RULES PERTAINING TO JUDGMENT AND ITS ENTRY

The Local Rules of Court in the latest edition, downloaded from:
<http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtrules/ui/PopUp.aspx> [10/12/2009 9:54:04 AM] state the
following [bold, underline added-jhz]:
1.4 EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

...
(e) Powers and Duties
Pursuant to Section 69898 of the Government Code and Rule 6.610 of the California Rules
of Court, the court declares that, under the direction of the Presiding Judge, the powers and
duties of the Executive Officer shall include:
...
(16)To exercise and perform all of the powers, duties and responsibilities of the County
Clerk and Clerk of the Superior Court required or permitted by this Court to be
exercised or performed by the Executive Officer in connection with judicial actions,
proceedings and records under subdivision (d) of Section 69898 of the Government
Code. Such powers, duties and responsibilities include:
e) To enter orders, findings, judgments and decrees; to accept confessions

of judgment for filing; to authenticate records; to certify abstracts of
judgment; to keep a judgment book or its equivalent.
133/ 259
2.5 ASSIGNMENTS TO CENTRAL DISTRICT DEPARTMENTS

(a) Appellate Division/Department 70
(1) (Rule 2.5(a)(1) [1/1/95] amended and effective 7/1/2001.)
Appellate Division
All appeals from judgments entered in any misdemeanor, infraction or limited civil
case
in Los Angeles County (except appeals from small claims judgments), as well as
petitions for writs of mandate, prohibition and review (certiorari) in any misdemeanor,
infraction or limited civil case, must be heard in the Appellate Division of the Superior
Court in the Central District, Room 607. (Code Civ. Proc., 1068(b), 1085(b) and 1103
(b).)
(d) Supplemental Proceedings

(i) Department 1A. In other than Eminent Domain or Family Law proceedings
the following
actions, proceedings and procedures in the Central District for unlimited
actions only
unless otherwise stated below are assigned to Department 1A:
(1) Enforcement of Judgment Proceedings. All enforcement of judgment
[with the exception of contempts, appointment of receiver after judgment
and motions requiring discovery rulings]; examples of matters heard
are:
...
. Court order of sale for real property dwelling pursuant to writ of
execution
3.0 JUDGMENTS (See also LASCR, rule 8.96)

(a) Original and Copy
Whenever a proposed judgment is submitted to the court, the original shall be accompanied
by a complete, legible copy. If the judgment provides for the payment of child support
through a public officer, the original of the proposed judgment shall be accompanied by
three copies thereof.
….
(c) Execution by Clerk of Documents
If a judgment awards real or personal property and the necessary documents for the
transfer are not at that time executed, the execution of such necessary documents by
the proper party shall be ordered. In such case, the Clerk of the Court, or his/her
designee, on order of the court, shall have the authority to execute such necessary
documents, as are specified in the courts order, in the event of the failure of the
obligated party to do so within a specified period of time.
(d) Entry of Judgments, Orders and Decrees

Judgments, orders and decrees rendered by the court, which are required by law to
be entered, shall be entered by the clerk in judgment books kept by him/her either in
the Public Services Division, of the Central District, or the clerks office in each of the
several districts. The judgment, order or decree shall be entered in the judgment
books in the district wherein the same was rendered and no other entry thereof shall
be required.
8.96 FORM OF JUDGMENT (See Chapter 3)
In drafting forms of judgment for the trial judge to sign, counsel shall clearly show the full
names of the parties for whom, and against whom, the judgment is rendered, including
their capacities as plaintiffs, defendants, cross-complainants and cross-defendants.
(Rule 8.96 [1/1/94] REPEALED in part, and effective 7/1/98.)
134/ 259
C, PUBLISHED DECISION OF CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS, 2nd DISTRICT

Filipescu v. California Housing Finance Agency (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 736, 41
Cal.App.4th 738 - (Wests annotation of Cal Code of Civ Proc 668.5)
Failure of register of actions to indicate that judgment was in fact entered did not preclude
running of 60-day time period for filing notice of appeal, where judgment was signed by law and
motion judge, since judgment was deemed entered on that date; moreover, in Los Angeles
County, which does not maintain a judgment book, entry of judgment occurs upon filing of
document, which occurred on date that file-stamped copy of judgment bearing facsimile
signature of judge was served. Filipescu v. California Housing Finance Agency (App. 2 Dist.
1995) 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 736, 41 Cal.App.4th 738, rehearing denied, review denied.
D. CONDUCT OF COURT OF APPEALS, 2nd DISTRICT
Conduct of the Court of Appeals, 2nd District remains inexplicable:

1) The online docket of the California Court of Appeals, 2nd District fails to include a field for
holding the data for Date of Entry of Judgment, arguably the single most important date in such
record.
2) In Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) - In this case criminality by Judge JOHN SEGAL and Atty
DAVID PASTERNAK is alleged. Two (2) judgments were purportedly entered, albeit - the first was
entered by Judge JOHN SEGAL when he was not judge of the Superior Court, Ms Darwish was
allegedly deceived to appear before him for bench trial in the Municipal Court of Culver City, on a
6-unit rental property in Santa Monica. Three (3) Appeals were purportedly conducted in the case,
one (1) resulting in a published opinion ! Compliance with the 60 day limit for notice of appeal
appeared to have been ignored based on records provided online.
3) In Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
a) In this case, where criminality is alleged relative to entry of judgment, the California Court of
Appeal tried to treat a premature notice of appeal before entry of judgment as a notice of appeal
from an entered judgment. However, the court denied requests to explain the evidence it had for
entry of judgment in the case.
b) In this case, the California Court of Appeal accepted Notice of Cross Appeal from Att
MOHAMMAD KESHAVARZI (Sheppard Mulling - your former law firm) - from nothing - no
judgment or appealable order were listed in the Notice of Appeal as the foundation of the appeal.
E. CONDUCT OF THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
It is alleged that fraud related to Entry of Judgment under the circumstances prevailing in the court
today, are the foundation for racketeering by judges of the court, particularly in real estate
litigations. The falsification of Entry of Judgment was alleged as one of the key criminalities that
led to:
a) The unlawful taking of my property in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400),
b) The unlawful taking of 6-unit rental property in Santa Monica of Ms Barbara Darwish in Galdjie
v Darwish (SC052737),
c) The unlawful jailing of RICHARD FINE in Marina v LA County (BS109420),
d) The impending deprivation of the 10 millions who reside in LA County of honest court services
in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286).
F, REQUESTS
Therefore, surely you realize the urgency in obtaining your response in a timely fashion. Please
accept this notice as requests addressed to you as Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles Superior
Court, in view of the inadequate published Rules of Court:
1. Please state the effectual Rules of Court that today govern the Entry of Judgment at the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles.
135/ 259
2. Please explain why you would not order the Clerk of the Court to immediately propose
amendments in the rules pertaining to Entry of Judgment, to ensure that the LA Superior Court
conducts its business pursuant to adequate published Rules of Court.
Dated: October 16, 2009
Los Angeles County, California ____/s/ Joseph H Zernik____

JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Tel: (323) 515-4583
Fax:(801) 998-0917
136/ 259
Dr Z
09-10-14 NOTICE TO RELIABLY INFORM PRESIDING JUDGE MCCOY OF ALLEGED

CRIMINALITIES, AND A REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION - A WRITTEN
RESPONSE.
CHARLES W MCCOY
PRESIDING JUDGE,
By Fax: 213 617 7176
Timely response requested by Monday, October 19, 2009, 5:00 pm.
TO Judge McCoy: I am writing to you and also noticing you through the clerks, in order to
ensure that you were reliably informed of various alleged criminalities committed by the
court. I request immediate corrective action on your part – at minimum - in the form of a
timely written response, no later than 5:00pm on Monday, October 19, 2009.
Instant letter is concerned with two records, from two different cases. In both cases the
alleged frauds are multi-layered and compounded. I will not get into reviewing the full scope
of such frauds here. Likewise, I am not an attorney, and I will not review all the legal reasons
why these two cases were and are alleged fraud from start to end. Instead, this letter is
limited to discussion of reasons why these records are false on their faces.
In both cases the Clerk of the Court and the Court itself were and are allegedly complicit
and/or colluding in ongoing criminal conduct which in one case deprived a person of his
home and his property, and in the other – of liberty. In both cases demand for corrective
action was forwarded to Clerk JOHN A CLARKE, and in both cases he refused to respond.
Exhibit A is the September 17, 2009 letter to Clerk JOHN CLARKE, and the two false court
records are:
A. Record filed on behalf of the LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe in response to
habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine – Fine v Sheriff Dept of LA County (2:09-Cv-
01914) - PURPORTED MARCH 4, 2009 JUDGMENT AND ORDER FOR CONTEMPT IN RE:
RICHARD I FINE, BY JUDGE DAVID YAFFE IN MARINA V LA COUNTY (BS109420) (Exhibit 2,
page 14/30 in Exhibit A to instant letter)
Sheriff LEE BACA, justly named Respondent, refused to file a response to FINE’s
habeas corpus petition. The LA Superior Court and Judge Yaffe eventually responded,
through papers filed on May 1, 2009 by Atty KEVIN MCCORMICK. Such Response
failed to include a declaration under penalty of perjury by Judge Yaffe – the competent
fact witness, it also failed to produce the quintessential litigation records – the Register of
Actions (docket), and any evidence of entry of judgment. It relied upon records from the
Sheriff’s Department and the Court Reporter’s transcript – instead of records from court file.
Records filed in the Response were absent, at variance, and/or contradictory of the records
in court file. Key records were filed as evidence with no authentication. Finally, there is no reason to
believe that Judge Yaffe or any other officer of the LA Superior Court ever saw such pleading before
or after it was filed on behalf of the LA Superior Court’ in U.S. District Court LA. It is inconceivable for
the court to engage in such litigation practices to affect false imprisonment of an individual. Request
was therefore filed directly with Judge Yaffe, to confirm that such records were filed with his
137/ 259
knowledge and on his behalf. (Exhibit B) However, it remained unanswered. Therefore, instant letter
is forwarded to the you.
The Judgment record in Exhibit A is invalid, ineffectual and false for the following reasons:
1) It is stamped FILED on its face page, with the date of March 4, 2009, but it is signed by Judge
Yaffe on its final page with the date marked March 24, 2009.
2) There is no authentication for the judgment - such as certificate of service and notice of entry
for this record.
3) There is no evidence that it was ever served on the parties.
4) There is no evidence that it was ever entered.
Furthermore, it is likely that upon review by a competent court, conditions at the LA Superior Court
relative to failure to maintain a Book of Judgments, and the ongoing publishing of false Rules of Court
in re: entry of judgment, would be deemed in violation of basic Human Rights pursuant to International
Law.
REQUEST:
You are requested to confirm that such record as presented in Exhibit 2, page 14/30 in Exhibit A to
instant letter, was NEVER a valid, effectual JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONTEMPT IN RE: RICHARD FINE of
the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles.
B. Records filed by Atty Mohammad Keshavarzi, from Sheppard Mullin – your

former law-firm – PURPORTED NOVEMBER 9, 2009 ORDER APPOINTING DAVID
PASTERNAK RECEIVER BY JUDGE JOHN SEGAL – IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)
(Exhibit 1, page 4/30 in Exhibit A to instant letter)
This record is alleged as fraud on numerous counts. We have previously corresponded
regarding the alleged fraud in entry of AUGUST 9, 2009 JUDGMENT BY JUDGE JACQUELINE
CONNOR that is the prelude to the alleged fraud in instant record. Furthermore, as was
discovered in one of the alterations of the Register of Actions, which were never noticed to
parties, Samaan never paid her filing fees to start out, a fact that was concealed from me,
and the Clerk JOHN A CLARKE to this date, is refusing to perform his duties in that regard.
None of the judges had an appointment order, etc. The purported NOVEMBER 9, 2009
ORDER APPOINTING DAVID PASTERNAK RECEIVER is invalid on its face, since:
1) The order was signed by Judge John Segal with the date of November 9 , 2009, and the
Proof of Service is of a different record and dated October 26, 2009, a date that could not
possibly be the proof of service for this order.
2) Such order was required to be entered in the manner that judgments are entered,
and there is no evidence that such was done.
Update regarding the alleged ongoing fraud of Atty Pasternak’s pretense –
1) I identified the case of Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737). On May 9, 2002 Judgment was
purportedly issued in that case by a judge that remained anonymous in the records –
designated only as “Muni Judge”. However, I eventually managed to located the victim
of that alleged fraud, and she provided me with a detailed declaration – confirming that
the judge was indeed John Segal, at the time Municipal Court judge in Culver City.
Defendant appeared in Santa Monica that day per notice, but was then deceived to
continue to Culver City. Atty Pasternak served as false receiver in that case as well.
They took a 6-unit rental property in Santa Monica.
2) A highly decorated veteran FBI agent and fraud expert provided a letter opining fraud in
grant deeds generated by Att Pasternak and his Notary Public LISA KALAYDJIAN.
138/ 259
3) When I requested to inspect the journal, Atty Pasternak immediately responded with a
threat of force. However, I am still of the opinion that the journal is a public record,
particularly since Atty Pasternak purports to be an officer of the court.
4) A quick search at the office of Registrar Recorder revealed numerous records produced
by Atty Pasternak which shared at least some of the features that led the fraud expert to
conclude that Atty Pasternak engaged in real estate fraud in Samaan v Zernik.
5) Finally, I searched the Rules of Court, and also inquired at various offices… I concluded that
in the absence of Book of Judgments, there was no office or record that registered
Receiverships and their accounts, to countercheck against the court file, outside the Central
District. Therefore, I will have to rely upon your responses in this critical matter.
REQUESTS:
1) You are requested to confirm that the record presented in Exhibit 1, page 4/30 in Exhibit
A to instant letter was NEVER a valid, effectual ORDER APPOINTING PASTERNAK RECEIVER of
the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles.
2) You are requested to confirm that Att David Pasternak was never a true valid
receiver of the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles in Samaan
v Zernik (SC087400) – if that case were ever a case of the Superior Court, or in any
matter pertaining to Joseph Zernik.
3) You are requested to instruct the clerk of the court to immediately dismiss the case
based on the failure of Samaan to ever pay her filing fee for the complaint.
4) You are requested to explain why all fees in this case are listed as “Journal Entry”,
whereas in true cases of the court they are listed as ”Filing Fees”, “Motion Fees”.
5) You are requested to explain which account the fees from cases like Samaan v
Zernik go to, compared to fees from cases where Motion Fees, Filing Fees are listed.
6) You are requested to instruct the Clerk of the Court to facilitate my access to the
Journal of Lisa Kalaydjian, since purportedly Atty Pasternak was acting on behalf of
the court, such records are part of court records.
Exhibit A - September 17, 2009 Letter to John Clarke – enclosed.
Exhibit B – October 11, 2009 Letter to Judge Yaffe:
http://inproperinla.com/09-10-11-letter-judge-yaffe-confirm-papers-filed-under-his-name.pdf
Date: October 15, 2009
Los Angeles County, California ________________________

Joseph H Zernik
139/ 259
EXHIBIT A
140/ 259
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
09-09-17 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) and Marina v LA County (BS109420): Demand for
corrective actions regarding abuse based on propagation of ineffectual, false, court
records.
John A Clarke
As an Individual,
And in his Capacity as
Executive Officer/Clerk of the Court
Superior Court of California
For the County of Los Angeles
Facsimile: 12136217952@efaxsend.com
E-Mail: jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org
Response demanded no later than Friday, September 18, 2009, 5:00 pm.
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Please take notice. You failed to respond or take action
in regards to previous notices of false proceedings and false court records. Here, again,
evidence is provided of the abusive effects that such false records were and are used for, and
your actions are demanded, pursuant to your authorities and duties as stipulated by law,
including, but not limited to Cal Gov Code §69840-69848.
1. Propagation of false records online
The nature of proceedings listed online in a site maintained by the Court, under “Case
Summaries”, caption of “Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)”, “Future Proceedings” remained
vague, and therefore abusive. The preponderance of the evidence showed that the caption
was and is unrelated to any case of the Superior Court of California. If anything, it may be
related to an altogether different enterprise. You have refused to certify such caption as an
valid, effectual case of the Superior Court of California for some two years by now.
However, as of today, you allowed such listing to remain online:
Case Summary
Case Number: SC087400
NIVIE SAMAAN VS. JOSEPH ZERNIK
Filing Date: 10/25/2005

Case Type: Other Real Property Rights Case (General Jurisdiction)
Status: Pending
Future Hearings
09/23/2009 at 08:46 am in department WEJ at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401
Further Status Conference (c/f 6/22/09)
Albeit, the information came with a Disclaimer:

Case Summary
The Courts and County of Los Angeles declare that information provided by and obtained from this
site, intended for use on a case-by-case basis and typically by parties of record and participants, does
not constitute the official record of the court. Any user of the information is hereby advised that it is
being provided as is and that it may be subject to error or omission. The user acknowledges and
agrees that neither the Los Angeles Superior Court nor the County of Los Angeles are liable in any way
1/30
141/ 259
z Page 2/3 September 17, 2009
whatsoever for the accuracy or validity of the information provided
2. Demand that you do not collude in false, unnoticed proceeding on September 23, 2009.
Neither you, nor anybody else provided valid notice for such proceeding, and yet, as in the
past, Judge Terry Friedman, pretending to be Presiding Judge, Att David Pasternak,
pretending to be Receiver under such caption, and Bryan Cave, LLP – pretending to appear
as authorized by Bank of America Corporation as “Non Party” under such caption, may
continue to convene, with no foundation in the law, on the grounds of the Superior Court,
with your collusion, as if it were a valid, effectual proceeding of the Superior Court of
California.
Given that you have refused to demands to certify such caption as an effectual case of the
Superior Court, and also refused to give notice of such proceeding, this is a demand that you
prohibit any Deputy Clerk from participating in such event on September 23, 2009. Likewise
– that you prohibit any Deputy Clerk from entering any additional Minute Orders under such
caption. Such conduct, as convening “proceedings” on the grounds of the Superior Court,
and entering minutes and other records under captions that were not valid, effectual cases of
the Superior Court, upon review was likely to be deemed part of a pattern of racketeering
activity.
3. Propagating invalid, ineffectual, false, paper court records in Samaan v Zernik –

“November 9,2007 Order Appointing David Pasternak Receiver” that allowed depriving
me of property.
In response to demands that the USC Credit Union produce records providing the legal
foundation for its conduct, which I allege amounted to financial institution fraud, the Credit
Union, half a year after the fact, produced the attached record (Exhibit 1). 1 It was produced
by Gary Perez, the President of the Credit Union, claiming to act as a Custodian of Records,
albeit, without authorization by the Board.
He listed such records as follows:
Items received from United Title Company on June 16 2008:

• Court order date stamped November 9 2007
• Proof of service dated October 26 2007
• Superior Court document certification dated December 4 2007
Such records were and are false and deliberately misleading, and invalid on their face. The
Proof of Service was and is unrelated to the Order, and could not be related to such order
either. The order was purportedly certified only on November 9, 2007, while the Proof of
Service was dated October 26, 2007. And yet, by maintaining large volumes of invalid,
ineffectual records in invalid court files, you allowed manipulations by others, that enabled
such alleged fraud to take place.
You refused in the past to certify such order as an effectual order of the Superior Court of
California. To mitigate damages, this is a demand that you provide a statement that the
record produced by Mr Gary Perez was and is either a valid, effectual, court paper, or
2/30
142/ 259
z Page 3/3 September 17, 2009
alternatively – invalid, ineffectual court record, as you deem fit. Allowing the ambiguity to
stand is abusive.
4. Propagating invalid, ineffectual, false, paper court records in Marina v LA County –

“March 4, 2009 Judgment for Jailing of Att Richard Fine” that allowed and allows
ongoing depriving a person of liberty.
The case of Samaan v Zernik is not unique at all at the Los Angeles Superior Court. In
another case, Att McCormick, on behalf of the LA Superior Court, filed on May 1, 2009, in
U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, in opposition to a habeas corpus petition, a purported
“Judgment” from the case of Marina v LA County (Exhibit 2). 2 Such false record was
stamped on its face FILED, March 4, 2009. However, on its last page, it was certified by
Judge David Yaffe, with the date of March 24, 2009. Such Court record, misrepresented by
Counsel for the Court, and invalid on its face, was used to deprive Att Richard Fine of liberty
for the past half year.
This is a demand that you provide a statement on the record, that the paper filed May 1, 2009
by Mr McCormick in opposition to Att Richard Fine’s Habeas Corpus Petition at the U.S.
District Court LA, on behalf of the LA Superior Court was and is a valid, effectual court
record; alternatively – was and is an invalid, ineffectual court record, as you deem fit.
Allowing the ambiguity to stand is abusive.
Your responses, including notice of corrective actions pursuant to your duties as a Clerk of
the Court, is demanded no later than Friday, September 18, 2009, 5:00 pm.
Dated: September 17, 2009 Joseph H Zernik
By:_____________
Joseph H Zernik
PO Box 526
La Verne, California 91750
Fax: 801-998-0917
1
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-usc-credit-union_08-06-26-usc-cu-ceo-president-perez-production-of-records.pdf
2
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-marina-v-county-09-03-04-false-fine-judment-record-copy-from-us-dist-ct-habeas-
corpus-doc-16-response-by-la-sup-ct-filed-may-1-2009.pdf
3/30
143/ 259
Exhibit 1
4/30
144/ 259
~0DtYt!~11 ORIGINAL
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership \
2
Including Professional Corporations
PHILLIP A. DAVIS, Cal. Bar No. 110430
\
3
MOE KESHAVARZI, CaL Bar No. 223759
\
333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor
4
Los Angeles, Cali Fomia 90071-1448
Tele{>hone: 213-620-1780
5 Facsimile: 213-620-1398
Attorneys for PlaintiffNivie Samaan

7
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -- WEST DTSTR1CT

11
NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual; Case No. SC 087400
12
Plaintiff, Honorable John A. Segal
13
v. rProposed] Order Appointing David J.
Pasternak as ReceIver.
14
JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
., ......
~ ... 25
',~
'o. ;
26
'.' ~
~ r~
27
~I:)
{'~
-'
28
".j
.,, .1
W02·WEST:IMMKI\400492211.1
5/30
145/ 259
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT David 1. Pasternak ("Receiver") shall be
2 appointed as Receiver to take possession, custody and control of the real property located
3 at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212, legally described as:
4
Lot 252 of Tract 7710, in the City of Beverly Hills,
5 County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map
recorded in book 83 PAGE (S) 94 and 95 of maps, in the
6 office of the recorder of said county (the "PROPERTY").
7
1. Before perfonning his duties, the Receiver shall execute a Receiver's
8
oath and file a bond in Department 0 with surety thereon approved by this Court, in the
9
sum of $10,000.00, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the Receiver's duties.
10
11 2. Within seven (7) days of his appointment, the Receiver is to disclose
12 to all parties any financial relationship between the Receiver and any company he hires to
13 assist in the management of the estate.
14
3. The Receiver shall have the power and the authority (a) to exclude
15
Defendant and any agents, attorneys, employees or representatives thereof, or anyone
16
claiming under any of them, from the Property; (b) to take possession of the Property; (c)
17
to use, operate, manage and control the Property; (d) to care for, manage, preserve, protect
18
and maintain the Property, and incur the expenses necessary for such care, management,
19
preservation, protection and maintenance (e) to pay appropriate expenses for the Property;
20
(f) to take such other steps as are reasonably necessary to care:for, manage, preserve,
21
protect and maintain the Property, subject to the contract for sale of the Property between
22
defendant Joseph Zernik and plaintiff Nivie Samaan ("Samaan") and (g) pursuant to
23
judgment for specific performance dated August 9,2007, in favor Samaan, the Receiver
24
shall have the power to take all necessary steps to sell the Property to Samaan through the
~)
-'-..1
25
reactivated Escrow No. 1-34500-GH (the "Escrow") at Mara Escrow Co. 433 North
'1\·)
26
Camden Driver, Beverly Hills, Califomia 90210-4409 (the "Escrowholder), for a price of
".:!
.....
, I
27
, ,""' $1,718,000 reduced by the setoffs hereinafter described; (h) if within three business days
'
:::>
.'
28
"'''f
"
• I.
6/30
W02·WEST·IMMKI\40049221 i.I [PRO PO -oRDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
~6rrs-6~~·
146/ 259
after documents are submitted for signature by the Escrowholder, Zemik fails to sign any
2
such documents the Receiver shall have the power to sign said documentations on behalf
3
ofZemik.
4
4. The Receiver shall prepare and serve monthly statements reflecting
Estate, incurred for each monthly period in the operation and administration of the
8
receivership estate. Upon service of each statement, the Receiver may disburse from
9
Estate funds, if any, the amount of each statement. Notwithstanding periodic payment of
10
fees and expenses, fees and expenses shall be submitted to the Court for its approval and
II
confirmation in the form of either a properly noticed interim request for fees, stipulation of
12
all parties, or Receiver's Final Account and Report.

13
14
5. The Receiver may employ agents, employees, clerks, accountants,
15
attorneys (including Appleton, Pasternak & Pasternak, A Law Corporation), and property
16
managers to administer the Estate, purchase materials, supplies and services, and pay for
17
them at the ordinary and usual rates out of the funds which shall come into the Receiver's
18
possession and shall do all things and incur the risks and obligations ordinarily incurred by
19
owners, property manages and operators of similar properties and enterprises as such
20
Receiver. No such risk or obligation so incurred shall be the personal risk or obligation of
21
the Receiver, but shall be the risk and obligation of the estate.
22
6. The Receiver is empowered to establish bank accounts for the deposit

23
of monies and funds collected and received in connection with the estate at federally
24
insured banking institutions or savings associations, Monies coming into the possession of
25
the Receiver and not expended for any purpose herein authorized shall be held by the
l\) 26
...• ~l
Receiver in interest bearing accounts .
\,
~.
I 27
~,~
28
.'J -3- .
7/30
W01-WEST: 1MMK 1\400492211.1
147/ 259
7. The Receiver shall be paid his usual hourly billable rate, not to exceed
2 $475.00. All costs incurred by the Receiver and his attorneys in the performance of their
3 duties, including, but not limited to, their fees, shall be paid from the sale proceeds
4
8. Any and all expenses of the operation of the Estate are the risk of the
5
Receivership, and not the personal obligation of the Receiver.
6
7 9. The Receiver may issue Receivership Certificates in increments of
8 $10,000.00 bearing interest at eight percent (8%) per annum for up to $50,000.00 to any
9 person or parties. All funds loaned to the Receiver pursuant to such Receivership
lO Certificate(s) shall be deemed to be a lien of first priority which shall be repaid prior to all
1 1 other encumbrances and claims, other than costs of administration.
12
10. The Receiver and the parties to this case may, at any time, apply to
13
this Court for further or other instructions or orders and for further powers necessary to
14
enable the Receiver to perform the Receiver's duties properly.
IS
16 11. Upon close of escrow, the Receiver shall hold the net proceeds of the
17 sale of the Property and before distributing it to Zernik, deduct from that amount (1) any
18 attorney's fees or costs granted to Samaan by this Court, (2) any damages incidental to the
19 decree of specific pcrfonnance granted to Samaan and (3) the Receiver's fees and expenses
20 incurred as described herein.
21
12. The parties, and each of them, on receipt of this Order shall provide
22
the Receiver with the tax identification numbers utilized by the PROPERTY. The
23
Receiver shall also be entitled to utilize the tax Identification numbers during his operation
24
of the receivership estate.
25
26 \ 3, The Receiver shall detennine upon taking possession of the estate
27 whether in the Receiver's judgment there is sufficient insurance coverage. With respect to
"/
(,~
28 any insurance coverage, the Receiver shall be named as an additi~sured on the
,~
",1
'
,'\ ,I ~~_-4- ~~~
[PROPOSED]~ APPOINTING RECEIVER

8/30 W02·WEST IMMKI\400492211 I
~ (F \~ - b~ r()~
148/ 259
1
policies for the period that the Receiver shall be in possession of the estate. If sufficient
2
insurance coverage does not exist, the Receiver shall immediately notify the parties to this
3
lawsuit and shall have thirty (30) calendar days to procure sufficient all-risk and liability
4
insurance on the estate (including earthquake and flood insurance) provided, however, that
5
if the Receiver does not have sufficient funds to do so, the Receiver shall seek instructions
6
from the Court with regard to whether insurance shall be obtained and how it is to be paid
7
for. If consistent with existing law, the Receiver shall not be responsible for claims arising
8
from the lack of procurement or inability to obtain insurance.
9
14. The Receiver shall be authorized to pay all legal obligations of the
10
PROPERTY outstanding and coming due.

11
12
15. Zcmik and his respective agents, employees, representatives and
13
anyone acting in concert with them are ordered forthwith to take all steps reasonably
14
necessary to enable the Receiver to administer the receivership estate and to exercise
15
management and control over the PROPERTY, including but not limited to:
16
(a) Forthwith providing the Receiver with all keys, books of accounts,
17
records, operating statements, budgets, real estate tax and other bi lis, notices and all
18
documentation relating to the PROPERTY

19
20
(b) Cooperating with the Receiver to enable him to sell PROPERTY to
21
Samaan.
22
23
24
,
r ....
.)
2S
:'t'J
j'J
26
"'.\
27
,,'
~ ,':,
..."
., ·1
28
.... J -5
9/30 W02·WESTIMMKI\40Q492211.1
149/ 259
. ,
16. The parties and their respective agents, employees, representatives

2
and anyone acting in concert with them are hereby enjoined and restrained from engaging
3
in any action which interferes with or frustrates the Receiver's ability to administer the
4
receivership estate and exercise management and control over the PROPERTY.
5
Dated: November ~,2007
6
7
Hon. 0 n L. Segal
JUDGE OF TH SUPERlOR COURT
8
ilOHN L. SEGAL
9
10
THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIfICATE IS
AITACHED IS l\ FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT COpy
11
OF THE OR1BINAlISSUED BY THIS OfFICE ON
_ _.......;:;.,;E:::.;:C:.....O=-f 2001 OF RECORD.
12
ATrEST ---~~"-A- ......, t f I ' - - -
John A. Clarke, Execuf i ( ~ of
13
the Superior Court of "~I County
of Los Angeles. ( t
14
By ~
15
JOHN TENNVS'!h'\J
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
'\.': 25
26
27
~~_~-6- ~~~&.~
28
-< ------:-=:-::-:=_=::_
10/30 W02·WEST:IMMKI\400492211.1 [PROPOSElJ] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
;f\-,a Oy ~- 6~ ~
150/ 259
PLEASE COMPLETE THIS INFORMATION

UNITED TITLE COMPANY
12117107
IIIJlillllllll~llll~ llIll 11111 11111 1111111111 1IIIr II1I1 ~IIIIII
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
TH
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 48 FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-1448
20072759872
THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY
ORDER APPOINTING DAVID J. PASTERNAK AS RECEIVER
THIS PAGE ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION

($3.00 Additional Recording Fee Applies)
11/30
151/ 259
PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of eighteen

years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 333 South Hope
4 Street, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90071-1448.
5 On October 26, 2007, I served the following document(s) described as (PROPOSEDI

ORDER APPOINTING DAVID J. PASTERNAK AS RECEIVER on the interested
6 pany(ies) in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes and/or
packages addressed as follows:
7
Robert 1. Shulkin, Esq. Joseph Zernik
8 The Law Department 320 S. Peck Drive
Coldwell Banker Residential Beverly Hills, California 90212
9 Brokerage Company izI2345@earthlink.net
11611 San Vicente Blvd., Ninth Floor
10 Los Angeles, CA 90049-6510
Facsimile: (310) 447-1902
I1 robert.shu Iki n@eamoves.com
12 0 BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and

processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited
13 with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at
Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
14 motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or
postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
15 affidavit.
16 0 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I served such envelope or package to be

delivered on the same day to an authorized courier or dnver authorized by the
17 overnight service carrier to receive documents, in an envelope or package
designated by the overnight service carrier.
18
lEI BY HAND DELIVERY: I caused such envclope(s) to be delivered by hand to the
19 office of the addressee(s). .
20 0 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused to be prepared and sent an email to the party
listed below at the e-mail address shown on the service list.
21
~ STATE: I declare under penalty ofpe~ury under the iaws of the·State of
22 California that the foregoing is true and correct.
23 Executed on October 26, 2007, at Los Angeles, California.
~)
.... \
24
25
o\~d€t'II' J.:R>ZI!Z
l!~
David ...asloff
:'1 26
's 27
"~l
(0
!:\l 28
"",'
;\)
12/30
152/ 259
Tf-iE f.lOC.:P::Tlj Tn THIS CERTIFlCATE IS

\~WICH
'",HACHE[) k; M rLtL, TiWE AND CORRECT COpy
OF THE ORIGINAL ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE ON
DEC 0 , 2001 OF RECORD.
ATIEST DEC~MI.~-29HH.a71----
John A. Clarke, Executive bflicer/Clerk of
the Superior Court alifornia. County
of Los Angeles. 0
13/30
153/ 259
Exhibit 2
14/30
154/ 259
15/30
155/ 259
16/30
156/ 259
17/30
157/ 259
18/30
158/ 259
19/30
159/ 259
20/30
160/ 259
21/30
161/ 259
22/30
162/ 259
23/30
163/ 259
24/30
164/ 259
25/30
165/ 259
26/30
166/ 259
27/30
167/ 259
28/30
168/ 259
29/30
169/ 259
30/30
170/ 259
cmccoy@lasuperiorcourt.org,, 01:36 AM 10/16/2009, 09-10-15-mccoy-confirm-false-records+exh-s.pdf - A
To: cmccoy@lasuperiorcourt.org, <12136177176@efaxsend.com>

Subject: 09-10-15-mccoy-confirm-false-records+exh-s.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional
Cc:
Bcc:
Attached: c:\documents and settings\dr z\application data\qualcomm\eudora\attach\09-10-15-
mccoy-confirm-false-records+exh-s.pdf;
Please see enclose record. Timely response is requested by Monday, October 19, 2009.
Printed for joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net> 1

171/ 259
THE COD PROJECT by Dr Z (not-for-profit tax id application to be filed)

09-10-16 Request filed with Presiding Judge McCoy – for access to court records.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:23:59 -0700

Subject: The latest - special security against me by the court...
CHARLES W MCCOY
PRESIDING JUDGE,
By Fax: (213) 617-7176
RE: (1) Marina v LA County (BS109420) (2) Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - Request to
access court records to inspect and to copy.
notice that I have repeatedly requested from Clerk of the Court JOHN A CLARKE access inspect and
to copy court records in the two cases referenced above. I am also writing to notice you that the denial
of access in these two cases was likely to cause harm far beyond the alleged deprivation of civil rights
under the color of law and deprivation of the implied guarantee for honest services:
1) In case (1), such denial of access is alleged to prevent me from producing definitive evidence that
would allow to end the alleged unlawful holding of Atty RICHARD FINE.
2) In case (2), such denial of access is alleged to prevent me from producing definitive evidence that
would allow me to end the alleged unlawful proceedings in a case that is likely to harm all 10 millions
who reside in LA County and deprive them of honest court services for years to come.
A. Request for access to inspect and to copy Case History Reports/Registers of Actions in
Sustain in the two cases (1) and (2) above
I have repeatedly requested from Clerk of the Court JOHN A CLARKE access inspect and to copy the
Registers of Actions/ Case History Reports of the two case (1) and (2) referenced above. I was
denied such access for no reason at all.
Therefore, please accept this notice as a request addressed to you to secure my access to the
Registers of Actions/ Case History Reports in Sustain, in these two cases to inspect and to copy. Such
request is made pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).
B. Request for access to inspect and to copy orders providing the foundation for the authority
of court officers in the two cases (1) and (2) above
The two cases (1) and (2) referenced above share the "Dept 1 scheme" - conduct, or attempt to
conduct of proceedings in Dept 1 of the Central District by Officers of the Court, but with no
foundation for their authority, and/or unnoticed/ unknown/ undefined foundation for their authority. I
have previously forwarded requests to (1) Justice JAMES A RICHMAN, and (2) Commissioner
MURRAY GROSS, requesting that they help me identify the court records in the respective cases that
were the purported foundation for their authority in such cases. Neither responded.
172/ 259
Therefore, please accept this notice as a request addressed to you, to identify the records, if any, by
date and title, and to secure my access to such court records that provide the foundation for the
authority of (1) Justice JAMES A RICHMAN, and (2) Commissioner MURRAY GROSS in the
respective cases (1) and (2) above.
In case such records do not exist, or are not in the court's possession, I request that you make a clear
statement to that effect.
C. Time is of the essence
I kindly request that you provide responses by Monday, October 19, 2009, since time is of the
essence. Atty RICHARD FINE has been allegedly falsely imprisoned for over half a year by now.
Surely you would not wish to prolong such alleged miscarriage of justice.
This request is NOT for access from remote location via electronic networks. Please inform me of the
time and place, on court location where I would be allowed such access. Even if in short notice, I
would do my best to accommodate the schedules of court personnel.

JOSEPH H ZERNIK
173/ 259
Dr Z
09-10-16 Request that Presiding Judge McCoy provide a reasonable explanation for the
denial of access to court records.
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:02:21 -0700

Subject: Request for a reasonable explanation of the legal foundation for the denial of access to electronic court records in
Sustain
CHARLES W MCCOY
PRESIDING JUDGE,
By Fax: (213) 617-7176
RE: Request for the legal foundation of denial of access to the electronic court records in
Sustain
notice that I have repeatedly requested from the Clerk of the Court JOHN A CLARKE, Presiding
Judge STEPHEN CZULEGER, Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG, and others access to
electronic court records in Sustain, to inspect and to copy. Such request was made pursuant to Nixon
v Warner Communications, Inc (1978), where the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Commons Law
right to access court records to inspect and to copy. My request was for access from court location,
such as the Office of the Clerk, during business hours. I never requested access from any remote site,
and never requested access through any use of electronic networks. Specifically, on several
occasions I appeared in the office of the Clerk, JOHN A CLARKE, during business hours, and
requested in writing access to the records in cases where I was named Defendant, and such access
was critical for my ability to defend myself. I was always denied access. My specific requests were for
the following records, which were and are public records by law:
1) Registers of Actions
2) Calendars of the Courts
3) Index of All Cases
4) Book of Judgments
5) Minute Orders
6) Audit Data
I was never provided any reasonable explanation for the denial of access to such records, which on its
face appeared as severe violation of not only California and U.S. law, but also ratified International
Law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
At times when I got indirect information of the content of such records, it turned out that such records
would amount to detailed listing of alleged criminalities by judges and clerks. The most notorious
example was the false notation entered on page one of the Register of Actions in Sustain of Samaan
v Zernik (SC087400):
174/ 259
Such notation was entered in July 2007 by the Court of Judge JACQUELINE CONNOR, but was
back-dates by 3 years, The absurd date, was prior to the date of filing the complaint - October 25,
2005, and also prior to the date any of the underlying events took place. Such date ensured that the
notation would remain prominently displayed on page 1 of the Case History Report. Furthermore, it
designated COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC - "Real Parties in Interest" at a time that my claims
that the whole alleged malicious prosecution in Samaan v Zernik was fabricated based on false
Countrywide records were dubbed "Conspiratorial Theory". It also stood in contrast to the filing of
papers, accepted by the Clerk fo the Court, by COUNTRYWIDE, and later by BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, under the false and deliberately misleading fabricated party designation of "NON
PARTY". Indeed, after I filed notice of the alleged criminality in such court records, such notation
disappeared from the Register of Actions, albeit - with no nunc pro tunc or any service or notice to
parties.
On a couple of c occasions I was given the following as a purported reason for the denial of access to
court records: "Sustain is privileged - for the court only". These exact words were pronounced by
(a) Supervising Judge GERALD ROSENBERG and (b) Staff of the Office of Presiding Judge. At other
times, staff of the Office of the Clerk provided the following explanation: "Sustain records are
internal court records" Therefore, these words impressed me as an "ORAL RULES OF COURT". I
allege that such ORAL RULES OF COURT would be in violation of the law on their faces - for the fact
that they were never published. In addition - such ORAL RULES OF COURT allegedly contradict the
law,. and were used to allegedly deprive the 10 millions who reside in LA County of their most
fundamental rights for a quarter century.
The denial of access to such electronic court records was alleged as the direct tool enabling the
alleged unlawful taking of my property in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and the tool enabling the
alleged unlawful jailing of RICHARD FINE in Marina v LA County (BS109420). Therefore, surely you
realize the urgency in obtaining your response in a timely fashion.
Requests:
Please accept this notice as requests addressed to you as Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles
Superior Court:
A. Please confirm [or deny] that the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles
established an ORAL RULE OF COURT: "Sustain is privileged - for the court only."
B Please provide a reasonable explanation of the legal foundation for the denial of public access to
court records that are electronic court records in Sustain, specifically -
1) Registers of Actions
2) Calendars of the Courts
3) Index of All Cases
4) Book of Judgments
5) Minute Orders
6) Audit Data

JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Tel: (323) 515-4583
Fax:(801) 998-0917
175/ 259
176/ 259

09-10-16 Request for Presiding Judge McCoy to confirm of invalidity of August 17, 2009
Minute Orders in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:23:25 -0700

Subject: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - Request for confirmation of alleged invalidity of court
record that are Minute Orders in Sustain.
CHARLES W MCCOY
PRESIDING JUDGE,
By Fax: (213) 617-7176
RE: Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) - Request for confirmation of alleged invalidity of court
records that are Minute Orders in Sustain.
notice that I have repeatedly requested from Senior Administrator in Clerk of the Court office -
GREGORY DRAPAC confirmation that the minute orders presumably issued by a Deputy Clerk M
GODDERZ in the caption referenced above and pertaining to proceedings where Justice JAMES A
RICHMAN presided in Dept 1, Central District, were invalid, ineffectual court records on their faces.
Allowing such records to remain represented as valid, effectual court records may cause great harm to
all 10 millions who reside in LA county, by depriving them of honest court services for years to come.
The reasons that I hold that Minute Orders issued by Deputy Clerk GODDERZ in Dept 1 for Justice
JAMES A RICHMAN in the caption referenced above were invalid, ineffectual court records were the
following:
1) Such Minute Orders had no name printed under the signature line, as required by common
practice.
2) Absent such printed name under the signature line, it was impossible to identify the hand signature
in an unequivocal manner.
3) The hand signature itself was a scribble, and illegible as such.
4) Worse yet, in one instance, my name was printed under the signature line in a manner that could
have implied that I was the one who certified the mailing and noticed the entry as Deputy Clerk. I was
and am no Deputy Clerk.
5) I have inspected hundreds of minute orders of the LA Superior Court from different cases, as part of
my ongoing efforts to characterize certain features of the system. None ever showed such unusual
defect.
177/ 259
6) I hold, based on my understanding of computers and programming that such name printed under
the signature line was an automatic function in Sustain, similar in nature to "Mail Merge", and that the
value entered in the field depends on the User Name and ID entered at LOGIN. Therefore, the defect
seen in these Minute Orders is likely to reflect dishonest manipulation in Sustain by Deputy Clerk M
GODDERZ. However, most likely such manipulation required collusion by others. Such concerns
could have been easily dismissed or affirmed by simply inspecting the AUDIT DATA of the respective
items in Sustain. However - access is denied, as noticed before, with no reason at all.
Request:
Please accept this notice as a request addressed to you:
1) Please inspect and copy the AUDIT DATA of the August 17, 2009 Minute Order issued to me in
Sustain by Clerk M GODDREZ in Dept 1, for proceeding, where Justice JAMES A RICHMAN
presided, and please provide me with a true and correct copy of the contents of the AUDIT DATA of
this minute order.
2) Please confirm [or deny] that the August 17, 2009 Minute Order issued to me in the caption of
Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286) was an invalid, ineffectual court record.
Copy of the August 17, 2009 Minute Order is provided below.
Notice:
Similar request is addressed to FRANK KLUNDER, IT Director of the LA Superior Court, since I am
concerned that System Administrator had to collude in the particular manipulation seen in such minute
orders.
Enclosed:
Images of pages 1-3 of the August 17, 2009 Minute Order in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)

JOSEPH H ZERNIK
178/ 259
________________________________________________________________________________
August 17, 2009 Minute Order in Sturgeon v LA County (BC351286)
The minute order can also be viewed at:

http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-17-denial-zernik-exparte-leave-to-file.PDF
Page 2
Page 1
Page 3
179/ 259
Multiple files are bound together in this PDF Package.
Adobe recommends using Adobe Reader or Adobe Acrobat version 8 or later to work with
documents contained within a PDF Package. By updating to the latest version, you’ll enjoy
the following benefits:
• Efficient, integrated PDF viewing
• Easy printing
• Quick searches
Don’t have the latest version of Adobe Reader?
Click here to download the latest version of Adobe Reader
If you already have Adobe Reader 8,

click a file in this PDF Package to view it.
180/ 259
Appendix IX
181/ 259

Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
“ Judge shall be faithful to the law…”

Cal Code Jud Ethics 3B(2)
“The rule of law must never be confused with tyranny of the courts”
Anonymous
075. LA Superior Court Archive Copies of Entered Judgments

On July 28, 2008 I visited the archives of the LA Superior Court, and inspected and copied public records that I
found there.
P#
2. Work Order , Order Complete, and Receipt.
Search for Judgment by Court of Aug 9, 2007 in SC087400 Samaan v Zernik:
• Search was performed on Reel #149, covering judgments of West District, from: 07-02-07 to: 09-28-
07
• Mark, clerk assigned to that room, searched the reel first, but could not find the judgment.
• I then repeated the search myself, and could not find the judgment.
• I then copied the front page, or page carrying identification of each and every judgment from the
following dates 8-9-10 of August, 2007.
• Results were pages 4-37.
3. Receipts
4. Page from Register of Actions Book, Family Court, 1987. Notice that whereas most entries are by hand,
the following entries are stamped with clear date marked:
a. Petition Filed, Summons Issued
b. Notice of Entry of Judgment
Certificate of Mailing Filed
c. Judgment: Dissolution
Declaration of Default
Or Uncontested Dissolution
d. Transferred.
5. SC093006 – civil
20 judgments all on family court forms – marriage dissolution
3 decrees of change of name – all on family court forms
29. SC091197 – civil; Judge Joe E. Hilberman, Dept P, For Hartford Financial against Frank Nowdesha
30. SC0922131- civil; Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Dept X, For LA County, against Peter Berman
33. SC092745- civil ; Judge Joe Hilberman, Dept P, For Plaintiff Hakart Corporation, against Defendant
Plage Inc.
2 marriage dissolutions
TOTAL: 22 Marriage Dissolutions, 3 Name Changes, 4 Civil Judgments
-1-
182/ 259
CASE NO. 6C bY:-¥ttrO TITLE 519 t'V\1J111V V~

0#
PAYMENT
_ EXECUTIVE OFFICER I CLERK WORK INVOICE
COMPLETED BY: OWAITING OMAIL OWILL CALL CHECK SERIAL NO.
MONEY
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER TAKEN BY: ORDER 0#---- 889314
CASHIER: Date 1" -7::5- ()~ CASH o EXEMPT o COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
.I'lI~['-
DATE COPIES CERT I# Pgs.1 Dup.
Register Page
Dissolution
Support Order
Complaint I Answer
Judgments
Dismissal .iJJ.~"
Petition I Response ,)
Will
Letters
r.... ,)E~t·~:
Decree
Exhibits ASH:
Records Search CHMW.....
Minute Order \.,k~Ij: 7.uO
·VtIr ~/M:J If.
Order
Order
Entire File
ORDERG
JUL 28 :_ ~,
DISMISSAL / WRITS I JUDGMENTS
I AP I
=--m=G
NO. FEE NO.
WRIT NO RECORD SEARCH
~~ ~~vtii2
=~
ABSTRACTS NAME
JUDGMENTS
ADDRESS .,.
TOTA T
THIS IS NOT A RECEIPT 1-,02,-61- - ~- ~Y157

RETAIN THIS INVOICE PLUS YOUR wtsl jVD4~-li10~
CASH R .iISTER RECEIPT FOR A l 76R170D80 (REV. 5/92)
COMPLETE RECORD OF THIS TRANSACTION CUSTOt.ER copy
-2-
-3-
00'L1 : <J~,)
:3SNtlH:J " 11-1111 !-;n:l
1:1101
:(BhI3J3~
00' L 1$ : H:3i.,\tfd
811:~ .t I _ I-
ze: II : I
Y7~ 1,1 : 1 I I,
::Jlt1S
. l .' . .'i1J
~.-;
;006~Z! r~:)(:I\;I : :f d I3:J:kl ·........\ V)/\iv ..
vH 8 P £(1: ~ 1 80/ ::;2,,' LO :f]Itld 31l:;t<J
TLLW ...
~!n
:;I;~ ,~ II -'Hi
31006 \;I:) 8313: M ~:cn
,',Ii rj),IO :'0 -i'~III!I~ I
III ·OO~ • S 11 'N l;':'~
.,.~
--~ S3A!H~~~ _·:·S·~·
,'1006 J 'S31]~~!~ JO,
l M~ Il]HIS IlilJiH8 W
8JJ:JijJ- dnS Hl
183/ 259
------lJr
TRAN ~l<~1,{'~~~~QE~&2t7184/ 259
PA~KA SE(lKGE S
IN 1-)1-0 PLk
r ._ ·1i
o
-
1 U'IZ07
._--~-r 'f'.~
' ',
·--~I'
At\orne y'
,I f'AKKA fKAN(~S H tr7 (/1 it, t ?~):J() (c '4- 5t>e J.('

--.-----. --:1
=o=~_~=
. . _ .~=~==~
.
~_~- , I +\"Nn.~
~-'-~-::=;-~-
I r..~ruIU04 "CI~N - - - - - _.,--~--
~~.Q.h-~!J ~Jti . _______----=0
CODE __
•
loJJOJl. _
--~I"--1'-jJUfU1~L2Lf~J~;2{)f7
.- -:rl~tJl
lli"ORIHI
~:~~t1: ,-"~:,~",:,"",~,, ;,>,P.
-~'-\ -:,~r7-n::,rRtQ FO-RD"T-Sl~T~ J,,'-

:,;"
11v!:'lrlc:'~11i. PLK-'l:"J (U
",",
flllv
":,,;, I
0'
';.[',1 I",ccpr
.
.-C.__.Flu..a----. - -
=~:~~=----. ~1 '~lr~j~o-
------ ------j;--T--r--
--;:-~ I
n_~ :~i-~F:~t~-{E--k~f~2(Ff/(~Z(Z L-~~'~ d.I~,>~~~fJ-- >~~-_~r(~~f~~Iz!:~

=- i-~ : 7 §~d,:tJc;(sl!:s-!· , LJCstL(r.: '/' t -. ,,,Jeep, n -2 I j[jg¢
~ .<..:lLL~ {{i! ( ! __ -----r
_~ ~ I
-r,
---i:i-;;
llL--
I :..J1lfC-l \d "I
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGI,IENT
CERTIFICATE 0, MAiliNG rILE:D
__ _
_ __ _ _ _
I
I]:
, i
____ ~_=_~-Cf-F '1 I%-:----_=~---_=----- -jU~~1U~T.:J2I~WT.: i...J0:"-I';._~J7 _=-==-_ --~ '-;-1-
, • "'- 1-" D£CLARA~'-'" F" '"'~",'ULT
--- --------t-i-,------- ORt:JNcoNrE~TED~DISSOLuTION ----,-
_._-.-~; "-~~~~~--u--()l4-'-E.t:~i~'{ D (;,'Ii((I-(G~-;·, ~-'-jlJ.1S1L14(~--- ~_~:__
_ _ _. '- 7! (W, 'lOi) . /L.-V-~-f~(...d...."-~~~";I~Ll~L~-i-'-4.~)-J.---- ._. ~~ I
--K;! C-J~!
~=--~~i1-'--4> I;:{ i~!
. ,~/I ~ '1'.;
v-~---'T ;:--/1--;:'--: ---;t.!. -1::t--r-7~~·-·LL,'
_~ j,)' I I
-~- .-~j--- . _'tl_. - - _u_ ·~-!i--I--i-!-

--- - j
--r
_-----..':_ ,~lUd_i~Lt~iLec~~·z i: ~-r-

-+~Jrz:fr';¥i,7:~~(~ ~~~"'--=-}:~ZT)=E+-!
--..-1
- , t+ I ClIln'R 10 AI I t . II
.- '__~~7---...u~NjWllifiL...tL--------
- < : - -... -- ~_~-~! _
~-I··--···Dl3T.ICj.
__-_-----.- -1 Ii --+1-
_____ I OfPL__ r I': :
-~ ~ .. -r-- ~ :=;::~:OH~_- --=-=~~-~-=--.--.
--
10k
r-r
I ----r-
-r---- ---- . . --- -
Affit"t1lll3iJlIlWTUl'!----------· .-.-.----
~---- --- u
-----.- ...- - - - - - - - ,
--rr---+l-+
II
,
r±t=
I I I
-----~=___ -Ji--.!' i----+-
I '! SuMMS
ORIGINAl
\~'D
PUBLICATION OF SUM"",0~S
I ktG ...... C-,ll:l;(
:lUAU,l f-Il~:';
IOCf .. :.Jl10N
_COMP II LA'AUlTEN1RYON COMP av
______.....1 ,____ APPl FOR FILED ..4 t I 0.: ByelER'; I CDUIIT F!lEw
• -4-
,
- - - - - - - 1i
ft~5r'~
DIW,~,.l"L
I
I
,I 'I[)(~M~NT <",nCJ<:r'
II-
II NOTlaOf
"
.. .
. ,
185/ 259
.
i
t"' ~( ( \
II
e e JI) b
Grimm & Scllol"ick

Attorneys at Law
2
17421 Chatsworth SI.
Gnaada lIi11~ Ca. 91344-57.7
(818) 368-9002
FILED
Bar#57J70
AUG 0 8 Z007
Attorney for Plaintiff
JOH~RK
'J
BY L. PASTEL, DEPUTY
~ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE S'l ATE OF (",\1 II< IR;\;1 '\

l.i FOR TilE COUNTY OF lOS A~(illl "
II'
I\f1RON KARA(jOI.IAN. ) C,...e \;0 S('()l},(Hlf! . /
~ I'1
II )
I Plaintiff. ) Jl'[){iML~1
)
I' ! \'~. )
I
)
I~
"II :SL-UP MAS f'LRS. INC.. a Iklawarc )
I' \.orporation; et a!.. )
Itl
Defendant )
1 )
1~ GOOD CAUSE APPEARING. it is here h) ordered that plamlltl. \lIR()~
1'1
KARA(JO/.lAN take Judgment against defendant AI 'I () I 11-1 A( '()\ lSI I \C ,\;
'Ill
« )RPe IRAI J( I'. a C,llfornia corporation. for fnrfellurc of lea...\.· alld pcl......l· ...... IIlll ot the pn:ml~':
:'i
IPGlll:J at 424(, Scpuheda Boulevard. Cul\\:r Cit), ('alihlrlllJ '10::' ,II
"
, Iii II,tted
NJO 08.
1l~~111<1
-5-
186/ 259
1'1·180
AnORH£v 00 P"RT"r WITHOUT "nORN£v 1 _ St.,. B.r " ' _ r><1_...../ F-f)R COURT U.~ ( ~l'"
~rcyL 110
634a VenICe Blvd
Venice. CA 90291 ";Ul'U·UKlVIt.U ~UP\'
TELfPHONE NO· 3105708963 FjIJ(NO OF ORIGINAL ALED
E.-.wL AOORESS (~
rJl~ Anrel~SllnerinrCoun
ATTORNEY FOR -.t
SUPfRl()ft COURT Of C~ORNlA, COUNTY Of Los Angelea AUG n8 2007
STREET AOOR£SS 1725 Main 51 , 224
MAlLt..a ~ss 1725 Main SI , 224 I)hn A. (.:'artIC, 1"'~1I'1V' OmcutClcrll

CITY I>HO Z,. CODE Sarrta Monica. CA 90401
8AAHCli IWIf Santa Monica fly n. Geter. Deputy
PETlTJOHfA Marcy L Ito
RFSPOIUMT TomonorI T Ito
JUDGMENT CASE NUMlIf:R
IX] Ofasolution o uv-l aep8Utlon D Nullfty
c;D 02-~1Iq
o Sutuaonty
o Rnervlng jurladlc:tlon O¥er temllndon of •
m8I'tUI 01' d~ partNnhlp statua
D Judgment on ~ "auea AUG 0 7 2007
0 ... I'IWltaI 01' ~sttc status ends:
1. 0 thiS jtJdgment 0
oonta,nt personal condud restraining on1ers 0
mocItlies e)lusbng restrllmng orders
The restraining orders are conlatned on pege(s) of me a1\ac:tlmenl They eXplre on (data)
2. thiS proceedtng was heard 81 loIIows !Xl Delault or uncontested 0 By declarlltlOn under I'em Code. t 2336
o Contested
...la'"·d J . cowan
8. Date AUG 0 7 20~ ; Room I" Judge Pro Tem
b JudICial officer (name): Q( TemporlllY Judge
c. 0 Pelitioner present in Ct)UI1 o Attorney pnnentln Ct)UI1 (~me)

o

d 0Respondent present in court A.nomey Pl"enlln court (name)
e 0Claimant present in oourt (name) o AltorMy present In COUl1 (".me)
I. 0 Other (sptjcify name}
3 The court acquired jurisdictlOfl of !he r"pondent on (data). 02/01/2007

80 Respondent was serwd with process
b lZJ Respondent~ .
•. THE COURT ORDERS. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING:

a. !Xl Judgment of dIssolution IS entered Mantal or domestic partnership slatus 15 lemllf18ted and lhe parnes lire restored lo !he
status of single peISOfls
(111Xl on the following date (sptjelfy). 0711512007' AUG 0 7 2007
(2) 0 on a dale 10 be determined on noticed mobon of lIither party or on stipulation
b 0 hdgment of legal .epara1lOn '5 enlered
c 0 Judgment of nullity is entered The partIes are declared to be unmamed persons on the ground 01 ('5{'6cdyl
d 0 ThIS Judgment shall be entered nunc pro lune as of ((1/)le)

e D Judgment on reserved ,ssues
f 0 ~tJtionOf's 0 respondent's tormer name IS restored (specIfy)
9 0 Junsdlction is reserved over all other Issues. ,itn!l aU present ordefs ramaln ,n effect except u proV1ded below
r 0 ThIS Judgmenl contaIns prOVISIons for child support OIlamily support Each party shal complete and f,le With the court a
C~'ld Suppor1 Case RegIstry Form (form FL ·191) with., 10 da~ 01 tn.t 1ate of Ih,s ,udgment The parent, musl nollfy the
c.curt of ani change in the Inl(Jllllat,on submlnltd WIthin 10 days of the chang6 by filing an updatltd lorm The form NotIce
of R'qhls and ResponslblMl6s - lieanh Care Costs and Rermbur.sement ProCOO"'llS and InrormatlOn Sheet on C/",ll>gmg a
C~ddSupport()rrJer (lormFL·192"S31lached .... 1012
-. , ,'''' f " ...... "',.\.1:)'. :''Iol'l JUDGMENT I """'. ..,.. ~ 10]. 2'''WO
• <101' ........ (Famllyuw) })oII) ,~
.... - ~ ..,. ..,-,' ..:
-6-
187/ 259
"T1'OlUCY OIl PAllfY WITHOVT "TTOllt<£Y .-.... s.. .... _ . _ - . , KIll COU!tT I.IU 0Ill r
. - ....
~STEVEN L. 8ZOCS
12304 SANTA MONICA BLVD., *300
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025

lIUPHONIllO
1 - . Al.DIUI /OIIMNO
(310)820-9499 'Nl.NO ,,=--0 CONtUHM.ED COP'
STEVEN L. SZOCS
"TTOIlI«Y FOlI ,....,
OFORlG£NALALEO
SUPeRIOR COURT Of CALFORPIA, COUNTY Of LOS ANG ELE S
Los Anttles SlJIlrrior C,OOI1

1725 l1.AIN STREET
.nlgUOD'. . .
AUG 08 2007
MAUG~ SAME AS ABOVE
OTYNcu.aa SANTA I1ONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401
lIlW04lWiC WEST DISTRICT
101m AJ"., ~vc Ulllcer/Cle.J
MMRIAO!Of By 0, Oeter, Deputy

PET1TION£R STEVEN L. SZOCS
RESPONO£.NT JCATALIN H. SZOCS

JUDGMENT
CA$( ";¥Ill"
:-X] DtSSOLUnON CJ LEGAL SEPAAAnON C== NULUTY
:::.J Statui only

80021451 /
o ReHrvlng jurisdiction aver termination of
marital or domestic I)lIttnerlhlp status
o Judgment on r...rved ISlues
Date marltat or domestic: oar1nershlD status ends: AliI: n .,

I) ?nn7
~] ThIs judgment
[=::.1 contall\' ~II Clmduct restramlng Ofders L_j modifies lXI.ling restr8iNng ordert
The restraining orders are contained on page(l) of the attachment They exptr. on (d.,)
2 Tntl procHding WIt helrd II follows 0 Deflult Of uncontested ~XJ By declillbon under Flmlly COde section 2338
~J Coot_ted
I o.t. AUG 0 A 2007
{nMn.r Dept f3 R~' t( David J. Cowan
b Juctaal offtcer C=-_J Temporary Judge Judge Pro Tem
c 0 Petitioner present In court C~ J I\ttorney PfIMllt in court (flMne)
d CJ Respondent ptaent In court : Attorney preunt In court (n.",e)
e L_J Claimant present In court (name) CJ Anorney pr.ent in court (MIM)
I r::::J Other (specly name)
3 Th',~rt acqUired JunlciCtlon of the respondent on (date)
/_ :>~. o\.-f
a l.x J The respondent wal lerved WIth prOCesl
b L_! The r.pendent appeared
THE COURT ORDERS, GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

4 a 'X Judgmetlt 01 cinOlutJon la entered Mllntat 0' domestiC partnershlp Itatul" term,naled and the part... I'e ,.tored to tNt
stalus _~~ SIngle per~on. _ • _ 007
(1 i ~:.:
on (sf)fK1y dBte) :% ",b", f. Zz;lo:¥ ~AUG 0 8 2
(2 1 ~ __ on a date to be de!ermlOed on noticed mobon of etther party or on stJpulatlor
b Jud~ment o!eQal separatlon 'I entered
Jud~mer"t of ",\A~f IS entered The partes are ceCiared to be SIngle per~ons on lhe around of (specify)
~~·'S ~date) 6'~'\ ~

'~"!rveo ~
Juo\j"",ert M,' b4! entered nunc pro lu"'c as 01
.. .:udgment en ISSUes
~"e ! pel:~c"f'r ~ . S;C respondent's ror""!!r name IS reslored to (spec/y) lQ.TALIN H. NEMETH
__ "soctle" 5 '~e",ed over all oil,!!, ISSUes. a"c at: present orders rematn 10 eftect except U prOVided below
-. s .ud:;"~" :(" a' ns prOViSions lor child sq~PO~ :;Jr 'amlly support Each party must com p1ete and file WIth the court
,'".k1 S1J::c-;r' ':ase Reglslr! Form i,form .L' 3~) ..... ,1'1'1 10 days of the dale cl tt',s ;udgment The parents musl notify It
_.~ J( -l~.1 :"a-;e ,'1 tre Inlorm,lllon s~tw',~e(j Nlthln 10 days of the charlie Cy r,ling an updated lorm. The Notl
' - ';"1S /.-: ;:)~c::-c"stJt,'I3S-Hed','"CiJ'~ C:,~lr5 ~nJ Re<mbufsemenl PrOC~L'(~S ard '''formaIJOn Sheet on CtlBllgrlS
... ~, ._, ...... ~'--~92: c; at'!a-!'~-~
-7-
JUDGMENT
i p~d --- -_.- ;;,., 'y c-,;;, -:~ ~:r.--'

," "lm·!v La',N\ ~,~~~q(~~~~ ;~4~
188/ 259
ATT~~OII'MITYWI1'HOVT ATTCII"'V _ _ . . _ _ _
--_._--_._- - --_._~_._- . .. _,--~,----,,-_.~
Fl·110
..
_ Lisa Jov Woo-ROQlr.

I
11927 Aneta St
Culver City eall'oml. 90230
TIU_HO 31D-895-0929 ~ AlIlO /QIlIIOIIO
• . - . AOO"fIi /QIIlIoIIO
CONf'OKMt.U c..;UP}
...ntll'INO 'ell ,.."..,
OF ORIGINAU1LED
(..(K ~nitltl SUfl('rn,r Cnun
IUPfRIOA COURT Of' CAUFOAHtA, COUNTY Of'
'1'I'dT AOCIIlIi
AUG ~8 ;1\'17
_uo«J ACllfW:II
CITY AIfO lll' 000Ii ohnA. C1i1fk be,:ull\C UllK('rfCler~
1l'WoIO< .......
MARAlAGl Of'
,,~ U. tjllet: P'~~h'
PETlTIONER: LIII Joy Woo-Roger.
RESPONDENT: Jerry Alfred Rogers
JUDGMENT CA.~11
~ DISSOlUTION
LEGAL SEPARATlON o o NULUTY
bUlonty o
o
ReterVlng /urlldIcUon Oftr 1iInnIMIIon of
nwttaI Of domHtJc peIhIrIhIp ecatul
..;nn~~271 :)
o
Judgment on 1'eMl'Wd ......
AUG 0 8 Z007
,, DatlIINI1tIlI Of domHtle J*'NIIhIp ..... enct.:
1. 0 This Judgment 0 cootai'lI ptt'IOI'laI Cl<lfdJct reA1rainrlg 0fdIra 0 mocillel ullting _rU*1g ontM.
The rellrainlng oro.... a,. c::c:JrUiMd on page(1) d the atlIaCI'lI1*lI. They axpq on (<»"')
2. ThiI proceedng wu heard a lolIowI: lKXJ OeIaull 01 uncontMled o By declaratIOn under Farnty CedI Metion 2338
oa.Contetted
Dale: AUG 0 8 2007 Dept.: e ~tlJ
'~vld J. Cowar'
-' utlgH Pro Tern
b. Jud1ci31 offICer (nMM) ~ Tef\'llOfary judge
c. ~ Pelitionef ptelertlln COUIt
CJ AnomIy pI'lIWt In COIMt (nam.)
d. 0 R.ponc_1'l1 p"eeenl in CDUlt CJ AIlolrWy pl'Mft In court (neme)
• 0 a.imant pr.... ln court (netnlj o AIlOlTll)' preeent ., court (neme)
I. 0 0theI' ($pfICiIy flMMj"
3. The COUI1 ecqulred Jutllddion of the ~ on (eW.)

a. [iiJ The respondert wa ..Md wtItl procell.
b. 0 The reepondenllppNl8d.
THE COURT ORDERS, GOOD CAUSE APPEARINO

4. a [iiJ Judgment or diuoIlJbon it ent.red Martial 01 domeItiC partnerll'ap atalUi II tefTTllNlle<J and the partlea are rellored to !hi
31atul or single pereona AUG 0 8 2007
(1) [XX] on (!peCJfy dati)
(2) 0 on a dale to be detormtned on notICed moIl()n 01 either party ()( on Illpul,llon
b 0 I'
JudgmeMI oItega! separation enterld
( [~ Judgment 01 f'UI~ly I'

enterld. The partie-. are declared to be lingle persons on the ground or (spfKAfy)
f-'
a ~~ n"s Judgmenl will be /tnterld nunc pro I~nc II 01 ((1alt!
e Lj Jvogl11t1nt on re$l1rvld Issue.
T'le :)(X; petitioners [:-:J responoar.l S forme: name II reslore<llo . ~1.'ftcd,1 lila Joy Woo
.:; " J,,"Sdlc~lon IS 'esttrved over ail oirerssues, and aU prlsenl orders lemall' In etfllCl except al prOVIded below
.
r, : -: 1 t 1l5 Judgment c.ontalns prOV's,ons 10r child suPl)Ort or flll'l'l4ly sUPpQrt E Bcll part)' ~ oompIeli and hie Wtlh the court a
Chdd Support Case RfI'J,slry F[)(r'1 it Or", FL·,g1) Wllhm 10 Clays of In" 'late of thiljudgnenl The parenti must notify \he
.'),,11 at a"y Change ,n
Ihe '"!ur",,,i,or l>ubmrt1id Within 10 days of :r'll (rIlN;le 0)' hhflQ an updated form ~he Notice
j RJi)h!S 8n,1 R9~PO~5Ibil,(.(J5·-Mfjd:r" Care Costs 1J~(1 R",mbUI~8r'111"1 "flK9f.lu reS ana Informe/lOn SflfHll ()'l Chang".,,..
:t;,IO$uPNrtCrdf:1rlf0m"_Fv192; s,,~~~ .. ~._ __. ....., .._~
' ••.-:;--..; --- ------ - JUDGMENT ....... ' - K:IOt·}}ol(,
(F.mllyUlw) ~-=~:
-8-
189/ 259
FL·180
rOR~Ev OR "ARrY t'\"1"'~LT ATTORNEY '\'''''''f' ",Ol'''~'''' ",,, ..:,,... ,,;+~,-{ 'f)I/ COlJj!' usr ONt r
STE'v~ ~~ PE~~~
S~EV N REI~ SEN ~S21,~
LA'~ FFreES CF STF"'E:; ,. ;'. . _,
4382 ALA.'10 ST
SIMI VALLEY, CA. ?3:~3 CONFORMED COpy

Tt:LEPt<ON£ Ne 80 5 - 3 0 E- ~ .3: ': H.. NO :~ : OFORIGL"IALFlLED
e.-. o\COReSS (O/lI>oraJ' los An~c1es Surrrior Coun
AnQfUl£YFOR(No...., CHRISTOF:-:E:F AC;'~~:::'
SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNlA, COUNTY OF LC3 hNGE:"ES ! AuG 0 a 2007
ITRfEUOOAUS
loWUNGAIXlPElIS
1725 MAIN STPEr:: l ·
IfhDA. Oadc, ElIecUll~C UfhcerfQcrk
CIlYANCZlPCOC£
81WIC'HW.IE
SAmA MCN:CA, CALIfOP.NIA 90401
WEST D!ST?)C':' ---1
I
lJ~fJ(j~~f\~'rY'Y
~GEOF
PETITIONER CHRI S ~.DA."1': A..0
te..JI.
'
RESPONDENT PAtiLINA FEG.r..Gl'CN • RiG'~"3'lt

n'~
JUDGMENT CASE OfUUlIfA
x DISSOLUTION LEGAL SEPARATION NULLITY

Status only sc. ~. 3~~l~
Reserving jurisdiction oYer termination of
marital or domestic partnership status
Judgment on res.rved issues
Date marital or domestic partnership status ends: Nover:-,ce r : i:..!-1..:~s....~ ~ __
This judgment contains personal conduct rnstralnlng orders mOOlfies eXlsling restraining orders
The restraining orders are contamed on pagels) of the 8nacnmenl They expire on (da/pl
2 This proceeding was heard as follows Default or uncontested x By declaratlOO under FamIly Code section 2336
. Contested
a Date AUG 0 8 2007 Dept G ROOf!l /1/ ;)3111d J. COWS
b JudiCial officer (name) . " Temporary judge
Judge Pro 1e""
c Petitioner present In court Attomev present ,n court (namel
d. Respondent present,n court Anorney presenl,n court (namel
e, Claimant present in court (name) Attorney present ,n coun (name)
f Other (specify name)
3 The court acqUired junsdlcllOn of the respondent on (date) r·1a'i 'I .

a x The respondent was served WIth process
b The respondent Itp~ared
THE COURT ORDERS. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

4 a x JUdgment of dissolutIOn IS entered Marital or domestiC partnerShip status IS terminated a 'cl the parties are restored to the
status of Single persons
111 X on (speelfydale) :k'J€ m i::er :0, ::'~,'
::; on a date 10 be determined on nCJllted motion;)! eltl1er pany or on Slipulatton
b Judgment of :egal separatton IS entered
c Judgment cf nurlity IS entered The partie!, are declared:G be s,ngle persons on the grC'Uf'd of (specify)
d Tn's Judgment /I'll be entered nunc pro tunc as of (dar.."
e Judgment on reser..ec ,ssues
f The petitioner's respondent's former nar'-e ~'"slued 10 speed, I
~
~~r:Sdlc::on '5 "=5er,<:j e,er all other 'ssues and ali r:',;,e~! ... ~ce·s re~aln 'f' effect ex',e,:! as prov'ded below
-'
~'~Isudgment :c;r~ai~S ;:rov's'on5 fer o"ld SUPlCort :' ',lIT", ;,,,ppo'" Eac~, party mus' c:;mp1ete and file With the court a
::""10 Sucra,.; Case ::;1'Ij'sf'Y Fem, iforrn FL·191 w"",' .~ la\5:' the jate oltnls JudglY'enl The carents must notify t"e
:2,,1' of ary crarg€ 'n the ,rfcrmalicn submitted /,:1 '~ • ) days of t"e change t:y !,[ ng ;,n updated form The NOIICf'
:" R.',;ht" and Fe""';r:slt"ites-i-Ieait!i Cilr!:' Costs ,I'·' F,. nh",·r·ent Prncl"dlires In,! "l/,)rrpaf'OIl $I'eef on Chant;/I''; il
c.,'",(, $Ln' 0r: O"J-o. 'C'~ F~ " S2', :s attached '09" '" I
,-,~:- ~ ----- ,---,-~----JUDGMENT .. ~"i '::';:1' -- - -- '-""';-.:,. H,: :: ",:.
(FJo,,;y l.aw' ", !\I"
.•~ l It ~>
-9-
190/ 259
· i~!.~
! ~., ,',R"n 0R PlR~ w· n.ou T l 'I ()ll"ll' ..#"_ \r... "" ·v_· .,...-. I" ,Oft ((luIIT ,III 0IlIt •
I ~ .::~;. :<,:-~F:E C':::".:.::J;\~~:
- :
t- ~\ ~ ~,~ ~", .=\ F : t G::,~, ~ :-,h I .. : : \ ~ F- ~ i E~
I ~~~: ~!·;::_~C EL\":
!'-'L;.. ~: ',::.: .;, '-~;....... , • r

,;
'1,1"',,:)Ojf ..0
·_h A[)()H( ~~
JIUt«) I~.
CONFOI(MED COp~
OF ORI~AL PItE.D
t
I AT',""~n
,"""....
I,)R , - _ .. _
.
SUPERIO" COUIitT Of CAlWOMflA, COUNTY Of ;'CS ANGf :".t.~~
I~ AlWin ~r".",
STRff~ A(~Rf!S : ~ ~~ L !"~;'.: '< :-: t- fo.f.:
W,1i .,.G >,(lO!lt SS SA.~ E AUG O. lD07 :
(t' ...."-r;o'J"I,'C'tO( ~A·~7r., !'-: \: L. :¥'A, <":·4;': J~A.'-'I·'·.~~Ut~
tlRAItC .. loAM \\ EST
MARRIAGE Of'
PETITIONER C'CN~~A MM P I F ; :. :..:.. I ~_AN r 8~D.OUer.~ :i

RESPONDENT fA~lL 1-.:;-\0;,,;' :.::,: ::.: ;";,N[ ._
'---'-1
JUDGMENT I ...... - , .. I
:--. DISSOlUTION LEGAl SEPMATION NUlUTY
Statue onty
ReseMnQ jurl.diction o¥er termlNltion or
mantal or domntIC pel'tr1erwhip .taU
Judgment on ntMtVed Iu.....
L D.te marital or domntic pa"""hip.tttw enda: AUG 0 8 2007

ThiS Judgment contalnl peraona/ conduCl reltra'"'"O or()efl restrltntrlg Ofl1e,. modt"-••• """0
The restralntng orders arfJ contained 00 page(l) 01 the ~ They ••Plr. on {d.~1
2 ThiS prc)(:e~lng WI' helrd .1 IoIlOWl Default or uncontested EI., <Ieder.tton under Famlly C~ lectIOO 2336
Conte.t~
a Dale AUG 0 8 2007 Dept £ R~'" DaVid J Cowan
b JudlCJ81 otfteer (name} Temporary jUdge Judge Pro rem
c PetitIOner present In court An~ ~ In COUI1/nMfWI
d Respondent preaent In court Attorney pr1lMnl In COUI1 (namel
e Claimant present In court (name) "nomev present In COUft ill""')
Other (spec1f¥ neme}
3 The court acquired Junlolctton of the respondent on ((Je;tel
a ThfJ relpondent was ~rvfJd WIth proceu
b T~r.lPOndentappeared
THE COURT ORDERS. GOOO CAUSE APPEARING

4:1 JuoQment of d"Iolutlon I' entered Mantalor domeille partneflhJQ Itatu. II terminated ,,'Id Ihe part,., .re r.Il0fe<2 't 111..
~talul 01 s,nglfJ perlOn~ AUG 0 8 2007
,' , on (Sf)f'of, naIf"
;> on a date to be determined on notl(:ed motion of ,-!the' party or on Il,pul.tto"
t, ,',"1gmen! of legal ~f'paral,on III entefe<l
.'Jdgmenl of nulll'¥ I~ f!rllt-red The p.nles "l! dedared to be Single pe',ons 00 1M g'uu"'),I , 'I'#", "1)
I r ~ !UdgnlPf't ~,\l tit- P'11t-'Pd flU'H D'O hJnc ,itS of I {1 .... rt· ,
'u;Jgment O' feSer"r.' ~~ue~
',. petitioner s "'!>pv"'j",,, S 1011"1"1 name .~ ',,!>lo-tlll to ,SPit, If) f
: .• r !>rj'C110n IS res~r,,""J ..:.1" dl' ~IH,er 'S!oll4!S and all pW!>er,1 fl/rjefll remain or' etl"c~ e'c"~! ,is ,",'(;v'ile'" 1""1..,....
" ". IJdgme r'. COn~aLr.~ ~,r)'w'i~IUfl~ to' (r\lld !l.Jppon )f ~n'llly ~~.JPP0rt Eact"l par1y (TllJ~! ,"!'Jilflt,. jot,"li'j fllt" ~!,t tt)~ COlJf~ ,-"I
I,~ ,()UPlh)f! ( ,i\t' '''f~ Jr'.", r J,r,' '0':1\ rL '9' w't~l,n 1dV~ of ttl...,1dte l)f f~IS !,J'Lr' r,·t ~ .. ,fo tl<itprth~ "1<..1)' 'lott~ th ...
" t ci",. U'.-;' jt- •••. ',fll ..11IU'\ ~ut'·),"ea ~\~. 1,,1Y~ .if tt'jt' :.ti~ll\4" t 'y' ~ 1 .~"1dt"'(1 ()H" 1 ~f' 1\w. ,r: t
,.: II r' f' 1 : hI' t~ ... ; I, , I~f"dlt"" ,1ff '~r: """"f,,. '-·t U 'lf'J 1 lr l "),t'.1'j"" I" ,·,'t" f d'tl.i"
.. j l .', r~ tir.-l, t f'(~
.......
'
,JUDGMENT . '
" .anI i., '. d ~ ~ -10-
191/ 259
"T---.··---.o;t(·Ot,W,-vw MOl'
FL.-nO
"nOR~f:'¥"
"' , ~
eli PAwl.,.
- ..
~ ;~"t()vr A""":)R~I"(
"f' ••. v '-~

-", t:" .. '/
,....... .),,,..
r -" H I •J.l,~
s.. ~ . . .t ... ........ ~.
" PF . -"' •• 1.. ,.•. " - •. !'\•
,
~ r'·.nl t. t -: t ~." Lt
t
;-)
10..; B'<·,;:;\;-:
A~7A ~:·~~t~:,=A, .:;\ 9~';,=)4
rhE~ ItO 310J - 383 - 5526 ,"'" Il1O 'o.ooro..,

CONFORMEl> COpy
E-MM IIOO'lfIS ,.o.ooro.wi OF MIQINAl AttD
ATTOflN(YfOfli-"', IN FFO PER I,MAIlCftft ~,~roort
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF LCS M.': E u: S
srlllfEHOOllESS 172: ~AIN STPEET AUG n 8 lC~1
,....'liNG~S$ SA.~E
Joh" A. (;larU. t:.,C4;Y\I~. VIItl,;edOer~
C,TYANOllPCOOE SAN'":A MONICA, CA 9C4-::;'
elll""'C ........ WES'!'
MARRlAGEOF Ry 0, Geter.Drputy
PETITIONER TRACEY WADMORE - SM I TH
I RESPONDENT CHP I STOPHEF< BLANCH _

JUDGMENT r.ASf" ......, . I
:: DISSOLUTION LEGAL SEPARATION NULUTY '" F ~ : ;. ~ ~ ~. !
Status only . ' . 1
Reserving Jurisdiction owr terminatiOn of •~ ._ " ' .. .
mlrital or domestic pe~lp .tatus .. I . ., . • !
I
Judgment on reserwd ........ I
Date mlntal or dome.tic plrtnershlp .tatue end. A ~ "S t 31 ~ \ \' ~_ j
This Judgment. contain. personal conduct rHtrlllWlQ orders modttle, •• r.stralnlrlg order, II"no
The reslralnlng ordef'1 are contllned on page(l) of the ettIchment They e.plfe on /d.r.)
2 This proceeding was heard as foIloWI .X Default or uncontested X. By dedaraoon under Family Code Mctl()l'l 2336
a Date
Contested
b Jud,clal o~/'"(nam~)
AliI':. n Q 2007 Dept e ROOff>'i
. ; Tempor8rl JUdge
f' Da"ld J Cowan
l'jdQ~ Pro Tem
C Petitioner present court In Attorney present In court (name)
d Respondent present In court Attorney pre""'''' court (name)
e Claimant present tn court (name) Anornt>y present ,n court (/lame)
f Other (SpecIfy name)
- (" .....
3 The court acqUi/ed ,unsdlC!Ion of the respondent on (dale) • - <L.. 1';" - \) ,
a Y The respondent was served WIth procell ... , .' '. to; • ,.".'" ;
b The respondent appeared
THE COURT ORDERS GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

4 J judgment of dissolution IS entered Mantal 0' domestic partn.rVl,p status IS te,nl,n~', J J' l""~, !·1'l!S d'e ' .. ,fl.... d to l~
status 0 1 Singe persons
(I) on specify dale) ;"":J.~ -, ~
,2) 0'1" nale to be determined on nol,ced "1otlon of either party Of on S!·puldflon
o JUiJg"'e r ,! c.' 'ega' separatton IS ent.. red
c ,;uog'''<,''! (.'1 'ull,', S entered The r-arN!S all" ,1":'3'£00 10 be s,ngle perSOIlS on It'.. ~"urh1 01 \,'p, ,I"
"rh S u';~'-'-'fr~ ,"_' t::'e er.fereO ru'1C 0'0 tunr 1~ "t,""'-I

"r:;grrf:'''r ,~ ..., ~~,,",'\'~a ssues
"'t eo ~,...., t,o'~er s respc n 1£Or>t S .... "', ,j"'es restored to (spec'f, '
.' '> ~" • 'i 'J-lSt- r .Aj )'~ef all r;tl-e-' S~.J·~ ~ t ~~·'eSt;,nr :,fclers '~malq -, •.. /'ft' ~ ~'I ~<" t .... I' 10,_;",·,1 ~,,...' ..\
I l ' ~ ~r J.. . ~Irf'''''' r ~ •• ',1':"1,"( S'-lpp\).-1 Edct" ~ i', ' .... ~ t' t,.-. 1 ~',..:, I.
.~
" C,. ;.''':', r ","" . "... H- " '~jars :;1 "',e (Ll~t-" , ':> • ,t ,)1 'c..-. ••', >h<2
;.: ) ''-'t~ • "",r Y"d' •••• : I" .: _~ay~ :,f rr,c .1 i ..... : 'I".) t
t·~ i" ~ I ' .r ,..' ~. It ,f, J I ';f. >", t·' r

! j. '. ,
'~~' ~ 1"., ' .
JUDGMENT
• ,1'1 'i l dW)
-11-
192/ 259
. IT.,.... ..."...n .. TTr--.. _ FL-«

rr 6tM""""
(J'l " " ' " "
- ClOU'T . . 0lIll'
~ \l
'-110/ ~,)nw;lV 11/"1 {~ ~;t4: ""/)
'I'fU~ on . 'II' ~
F~'lO~ 1L7- 'ot1rJ'~ ,-\~\.' ,~" .,.{'
A~"'lI'l""" . \' .~
==
~,
SUP£AIORCOUtn'Nt".&I~&rftWTVN ~ 0 I f. til' "trotJ1tT
l~tS- . ~4J fl:
08 ZOO7
~~ ~" G+. 9Iv.fJ/
AUt;
ClT'fAHO.OOOI
~--.. ~.J". 1~
lUG
t...A- 4~j.(
. ~.~NA
'\ ",.\J
j~ttN
I C CL!AK
,DePUTY
REQUEST POR JUOQII!NT. JUDGMENT OIl
OISSOlUT1OH OIl MARRIAGe. AND NCmCI OP!NTAY OP JUDO_NT
1 The Joint PefIfIott lot SImrwy 0IIe0AI1bt etI MIl'"

(toml R.-«)O) . . . fled on (dale)'
2. No notice 01 ~ _ bMft -.ct Mel . . pe........ not become r.coflc"c1
3 I ~ ful9nent of c-..oIl*," of rnerrtege be
.0 ~lObe""""now.
b ..-red 10 be ~ (nunc CWO tlrc) . . of ,,.,.,..
tot the toIowIna reMQft:
I dedaiPa'f)Qer ~ lMIf' hlllWl of II. S1IIII of CeIIomiIlhet the ~ .. trw It'd ~.

Dell: AU\) U U tJ)J{ , -.J
e4'~ r:(T'tt'f
~vln~
011 ~-l
~ ~
4 0 HUItlend, 0 Wh, wt'O cId ftOI ~_ hili 01 her own ~ neme be ~ when he 0I1fte IiIJ*' the IoH
peCIlon, now lWQUMIs Ihlt • be ~ . The ~ Iomw ".",. II:
n....
~
n"""011_~ ~ TIMW 0I1'NlTY WlIIeNO TO ",,\II . . Oft .... _ 1lUT0MDI
fkI e- UIIt <loIfI
JUOGIII:NT OF DIS8OUI1lON OF MARRIAGE
5 THE COURT ORDERS

•. ~ 01 clleolulion of ~ wII be ,~ and the paI1Iee .... I'Nlored 10 Iha a.tua 01 unmarTle(l ~
r,
A.
b The JUdgment 01 cIatoIlllion 01 rnen'iellt wII be entered nunc pro I\n: .01(0.")'
c
d.
. 'Mfa's tomw Mme II r.a.d (.".ely):
_J Husbandstomw neme II r..eored (l/I.l«iIy):
(4 t.A :JU YJ (:n (0---;>
• HlJ5bend and wh mull CCJI"1lIY ... eny ~ an.cn.d to the petIbon. b-.".U ~
Date AUG 0: 2007 -------.--. - JlJOOf 01 rH(
~-=----=:=L-
".oj."
!'iIJ't RIOA
1 ' - - - .--_ .. -------.-. .-.-----.
I NOT1C£: Dts8OlutIOn ""y 8l./IOIT'ldC:II ca<aI h n\tttl ~ • IPQU$I lnclIr !toe <A'4r spotM" ... , trull, I'MtWnenl beneIlI plan, power of
i attorney lJIIYon dM" bw* ~ lrWodef on dMlt1 ~ "'OI'hton, ~ ngt'IlIlO.,., propet1y 0'iIlf'..cI1I'I ron...-.cy, and trfy
olhe! !iIInlar ltllnQ It doee no! ~ cancellht"l1* oIa!pllUlle" ~ at h o4her ~', 1If. ~ policy. You II'llUd
n<tVIew lh8~ rl'lft~, . . . . . . . trfy cndI caro., 'JIher cr.- 8llCXU'tla, If'o8lJFW'ICe ~, ' .......... bena4Il pIan&, and credit , . . , . to
rJelem"",., ~ ltle~ ~ be ~ Of wtlelheI you IhouId • • 1Ily oIlet.ctlont
. - .. - _ . _ - - - - - - '
---~..!
~'>fT' ""' ....... 11,~ '-4J111.W--. . . . . . g~", !~CT ~,",g "11nr.U~NT ",nr.U~NT '"'~ NCC,",! 'lTV'\W F. . . . c-_t_
-12-
193/ 259
FL·180
A 1 TORNf v i)f4: p"... ~ ... \\" T ~4( )\;1 It, T1'Or«tlri' ... "'Ii.... <, ' . ' . ft; "'.l ·"Ift' ,-,c ..... ~,.•• , 'Off Cou.' 11\1 0"'" 'r
--'" 1
,) !;]
M(l h 'Hn~ 1, I L":,, \ r~ i '; ,:
I
1 3 3 := (: l~ !. ~ • r f 'I ~ 'K i'1! 1 ... f' , t:l I
Be IJ f' r 1y H.::;" CAl)·,:';'

TflIPI<0><I ..O 3:'3-R;"·f't n 'A-lNO ,,~,
( MAotl A()()Af, SS I W"",.I/ CON.'OKMED COP""
AT1o'u.rH()lO ...._' Mohamm,ld F~zfj ~,lhloJ'iln OF ORIGINAL t-1U.o

SUPERIOR COURT OF CAliFORNIA, COUNTY OF La s Ange 1(: 5
STRHT..w"n~ 172~ MiHn Stlen SMSHLAC
r.0< An~clt\ Superior ft\t''''
IMlllllG 1IO[)Il! 55
(',llif()rnl<J Cl1401
AUG 0' 1007
CITY AHO liP (OOl !;a n 1. a M',',rll Cd,
I 8RANCH........ We s t Dis t t 1<; t _ ~ John A. Clark bec1111 vc Ollu;CfI'-lc(:
MlRRlAOEOF
PETITIONER Mohammad P(,7.d Mahlo) lao
h~ fl tJ~"'1 "'rY'~
RESPONDENT Maria Andreina Power Perdomo
JUDGMENT
(ASf ",_r.
;.; DISSOLUTION LEGAL SEPARAnoN NULUTY
Statu. only ~.: :-11,1. ~,. t'
R•••rvlng jurladlctlon over tMnlnation of
mlrital or dome.tie paltnetlhlp ,tatus
Judgment on merved I.. ~,
D.~ mlrlt,l Of dom..tlc ".rtnerahlp~tatu••"ctI: _·····L

Thll judgment contatnl perlonal conduct r>eltralntng orderl modlliea e."I,ng reltrllnlng orderl
The restralntng orderl are contatned on p8ge(S) of the .n,chment They e.p.re on (dill")
2 Tht' procee<"ng W8S heard 85 lollows Defau« or unconle5ted By decllrat,on under Famlfy Code sedlon 2336
Contested
8 Date AUG 0 8 Z007
Depl Room
b Judloal officer (name) Temporary ludge wei oJd .Opnr
C Pet,llOnef prelenl In court Attorney presen' In court (name) 'JeMO~ 'r DI~~r
d Respondenl preaent tn court Attorney pr.sent In cour1 (name)
• Clal",ant prer.ent In court (name) Anorney present In court (narne)
I on'e' (.~peClfy namp)
3 The court acquored /uflldlCllon of the respondent on (da/fl') ~, i 4" ~: '

8 :.~ The '('$pondent was "rved wllh procell
b Thl' lespondent appeared

4 a JU\1g'11ent 01 dlUolutlon IS entered Mantal or dlomesllC Plrtnersh,p stalus IS lermlnaled and Itle part,e. ,Ie lettored to the
statlls 01 Single per&onl Aij6 8 2e9~ 1/. __S-' 07 e
/1 .: on (speCIfy dale)
(~I on a date 10 be dl~lelmlned on nohc,ed mol,on 01 e,the' party or on shpulahon
b Jud'j,nenf 01 legal separation 15 entered
chlil,j'nent of nullity 15 entered The partIes aff! dedared to be single perlon. on the ground (It (,\I'fluf~ I
d Iii>, IUdgment w,lI be enlpled flunc pro tunc al~ of (dale)
~ ,d'.,·ller,t on reserved ISSl.es
1Il,.1 pelltIOl1l:'r'S 'r·<,~'on(le"l's lor mer name 'S rf>,,!r)red 10 (sperrfy)

9 ,j'el,on 15 reserved OVI" ail other ISSlies and all presenl ordm!> rema,n !n effect ".cept as p,ovt<jer1 ol'lOYl
' " , I'
I' ~I ""dgrr>t'nl Conlalns ~I'W,<.',J"S for child support or lamily support Each party must complete ar'd f'\1; ""'Ih the court a
, 1,,' 'Jul'l'{]fl CiJ~e Pl'l)!:,fl, Inrni ,'o'n1 fl 191) Within 10 days of Ihl.' date ot thiS Judgment Thl.' part-nt5 mu,I no"ly the
,A <J1'y chanqe /I' P .. "I''1'''.ll'On '-.Ub>'lllt1ed "",thlll 1() d:l,,~ 01 the change by filing ~n UDrjated fo'm The Notice
1,1, Jnd R"'.11nf)',,(1' I"H, /fe.,Ir!1 (--'If" r:(,~ts ,J!ut RI-';f',tHil~,p(n(lnt Pfu('tJdurf~S ilnd Infj)!nldrlllll ::)flf.-"'( 011 Changtng II
r,(!~I{"()'dt"I.'1J" l '.' ~",H<,(h(lj
~_''''l
;('···i.~-.""-:-,:-
JUDGMENT 1 ; A1',;J!
,'\.4\. ;,t
l\ I~ I d II 1\
IF am/ly law) ';, Plll .
-13-
194/ 259
I Ano",",VO/fPAIll'WlIHlXlTllrTORNP ,"'..... 5,.,.-. . --··---··-..o.CcX..,~,_!ki"

r-Jory Rryan Posen
4~~ Broadway, Apt . • ]0;
Sdnta Monlca, CA 90401

(~~nl(~
TUrPt;Qlolf NO 'tollNO~ CONFOKMKD COP\I
IITTOflHfV FOfl ~
OF ORIGINAL mED
SUPERIO.- CcxmT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 01 Los Anqe h~ s
tn, Anrtlf't ~1,",M. rttufl
ITllffUDI,....a
MM.1ttO 1lOOM. .
1725 Mai n Stre@t SMSHLAC AU'i n 8ne1
CITVAHOllI"COOI Santa Monica, California 90401 IOMA, \"'lll"(, &,;AClVlI"l VlIKtdllu
~"~ West Di~trict
MARRIAOE OF
PElITIONER Jory Bryan Ro!u.. n !1y 1): O.ttr. Of".,?
'RESPONDENT Rebecca Jean Rosen
JUDGMENT
CAMIIU.....
~'XI DISSOLUTION ..
r
! leGAL Il'AJtATION NULUTY
: Status ontr s nn;'~) (' - .
I .... Rnervtng Jurttdlctlon over ~ 01
. marttat or domntlc partNmttp atatus
Judgment on ~"'un
OIIte mlrttal or domntlc oartn.,..hlD atatut ende:
,p·I'- tJ7
Thiljudgment contlinl peraonal oonduc:t rettrl"'tng orders !nOdlftea .xla'ing re'\T1IlM'lO orderI
The reatl'llnlng ordera are contatned on pagefl) Of the anachment They.~ on Ida,.)
2 ThiS proceeding Wli heard al follows X; Default or unc:onlelttel X By dedaretlon undef F.mlly Code Mdlon 2338
Cont'IJ~
I Date AUG 2007 Dept 08 cd Room , II
b JudiciI! ofllcer (name) ./Temporary )Udge Daw:l J. CowIn
c . Petitioner present in COY" Att~ pre..". In COUt1 (,..meJ
Judge Pro rem
d Reapondent present in cou" Att~ preMnI in COUt1 (,..meJ
e Clllmant present in (nerne) COY" Attorney preMnl In court (tNIIftI)
Ot,* (5P«ify nameJ
3 The cou"ecqutrtd jurlldlCttOn of the reapondent on (dateJ 6/1 f:< I II .,
e X The ""pendent w....rved with proeHl
b The "apendent appeared
THE COURT ORDERS. 0000 CAUSE APPEARING

.. a X Judgment of dll~utiOn II enlered Marital or ~tlbc partnerahtp Itetul II t.m'lInated Ind the ~..... rettoreclto the
"atu, of lingle pertons
(1) 'X on (5peclfydtJleJ II'· I~,I)
(2) on I deteto be determIned on notICed motIOn of erther P'''y or on ItlpulatlOn
b Judgmen: of legal leparalton II entered
c Judgment of nullity II entered The Plrtiel Ir. de<~lred to be lingle persona on the ground of ISj>ftCIfy)
d ThiS Judgment Will be entered nunc pro tunc .1 of fdale)
,
e
The
Judgment on reserved Issuel
peilltoner', ret>pondent'l former name II re,!O!ed to 1~lfyJ
9 JUf1Sdlc1IC1n IS reserved ove, III other liluel, and '111 present orel.." remlln 10 effect except .. prOVIde<! below
h ThiS Judgment conlalns provillon, for child iUppol1 or 'emily suppo" Each party must complete and file with the oourt •
CI/lld Support Case Rttqlsrry Form (form fL-19'1 Within '0 day. of the date of Ihll,udgment The ~rents mUlt notIfy the
r;ClJr1 of any change In thl' Inform,lion lubmtned WIthin 10 Clay. of the d1.nge by filing an updated form Th. Nobe.
(I Pi:Jh/s and Responsd!lII/I(fs~·He8Itl1Ca,. Cost! /llld R,nmf'ursemellt Procedures and Inro/1IIIIIIOf) ShHl on Changing •
(/il/d Support a,
dOl (form r: L H12) II 8nached
~''''
">',:. :W
Ii.,
,
,'''.
<ii' " It
.... JlJociMENT- ---, ----- ~Ji~~:}," t .,"'t.. ~. (41
;' .... ) ;'"..,
(Flmily L..... l "r~\l:,
-14-
195/ 259
•
FL·180
"nORNEYQRP.r.ANWllHQUT"noR"fY i"""" 51... " , . . . - " " " _ , FOIf COUIfT IJSf 0ilIl ,
__ Margarita Oshiro
10425 Irene St .• Apt In
Los Angeles. Ca 90034 (ONtUKMI£U COpy

TEl£f'MONE NO 310-202-7350 flU NO r~,
OF ORJGINALFILED
£.-wL.lIDDIlln ~
"nOltNO f(ltl ~I
I.m An~tlt$ Suroeriof COUfl
SUPERIORCOURTOFCALIFORNlA,COUHTYOF Los Angeles
ITllUlAOOftESI 1725 Main Street S~iSHLAC
AUG 0 e2007
-.ING "OOIlESS I( hn A. Clarke. t:.Kecuuve OfticCflClcrk
CIlYANODPCOOE Santa Monica, California 90401
~H~ West District

fly t1 Qeter,OtpU'Y
MARRIAGE Of
PETITtONER Margarita Oshiro
RESPONDENT Julio Oshiro

JUDGMENT
CASf....-lR
:.. ~C DISSOLUTION ~:: LEGAL SEPARATION NUWTY
Status only SDr:,r,(,~ 7
Reserving jurisdiction owr annlnatlon of
,--
marital or domestic partnership atatus
:~-_ ._ Judgment on ,..erwd laaun
Date marital or domestic PJlrtnerahip atatus ends: II. ,,0.07

Thil judgment contains pel'IOO8l condud restraining Clf'Ct4n modifies eXIsting reltratning orders
The restraining orders are contained on page(s) of the attIIChment They explre on (date)
2 This proceeding was heard as follows

,- -~; Contested
x-Default or uncontested ,~ By declaration under Farmly Code lectlon 2336
.-oate: AUG 0 8 2007 Dept ~ Room' II

--/. T.mpcnry judge
Davtd J. Cowan
Judge Pro Tem
b Judicial
.... -"1
officer (name)
C Petitioner present In court Attorney present in court (name)
d Respondent present In court Attorney present in court (name)
e ClaImant present In court (name) Allomey present In court (name)
r, - Other (specify name)
3 The court acquired /unsdic:tion of the respondent on (dare) 5/29/ C7

a, : ~- The respondent was served with procell
b, • The respondent appeared

4 a X Judgment of dissolution II entered Mantal or domestic partnership status IS terminated and the parties are restored to the
status of single persons
(1) X on (specIfy date) II· 5(). 07
(2) on it date to be determined on not"',,,! motion of erther party or on stipulation
b Judgment of legal separation IS entered
c Judgment of nullity IS entered The parties are declared to be single persons on the ground of (SpeCIfy)
d ThiS Judgment Will be entered nunc pro tunc as of (dare)
e Judgment on reserved Issues
f rhe petitioner's respondent's former name IS restored to (specIfy)
9 Junsdidlon IS reserved over all other issues and all present orders remain In effect except as prOVided below
h ThiS Judgn1ent contains prOVISions for child !,Upport or family support. Each party must complete and f,le Wlth the court a
ChJid Supr0rt ~asc Registry Form (form H '91 ).v,thln 10 days of the date of thiS Judgment The parents must notify the
coun of any charge ,n the Informatton submitted Within 10 days of the change by flltng an llpdated form The NO/Ice
of RI'Jhts JiJU Re,';punsd.i1lrtres-- Health C ale Sosts and Reimbursement Pro,e(!IJlfl S ,HId Infof')Jilt,on Sheet on Changrng a
C!"fu SlJPiJurl 'J"jljl (for'T'l FL 192) ,s anactled
_._~----_._. __
._--- - - ._---- _._- ----------- ,_._--_. -
,j'<<.fd 'r P_'olZ
<'"",:' ',l.~
JUDGMENT \( 'i'lll( '/;' ' c'" \~ :':: .....
(Family Law) i~ l11h ,"'J :w:
-15-
196/ 259
Fl·110
A'"ToR'NI" f"~ PAul) ~"""),;' ,,'P. ~f 'I , ......... ¥:,M/IW .... ~ *"'" ...... u., _C_'USf~'
Judllh A Br.. d,~ #4"7 ~1I1
- La\\ Olf"'l' "I Jlldllh:\ IIn'lla
~Oll! Ph" Ill, d , ~anl" ~I"n":t, f ,\ 'l{)4ft~
I
Thl'
f........ AOr"'f
·'
fl'lfW .. ,.-.,.
illl·4"2-I2IO .......' -"-- 'llll·'14"7lN) JCONFORMED COP'J
•
&TT(_' '("'1"-' Catalina I·OloS. Petltlonet' Of OlUOl'NALFltEO

SUf'£1UO.-C~CAi.if:OI'NIA. COUNTY OJ los An,elr~'---'--"--- _ ..- I lM 4ftffltt ~ r/Wt
IITIlfIT &fX"'r,.', 17~ ~ Main Street
17~~ Malll Slrt'ct I AUG n8 ?t'07
r
UA'L1"',OPO"'"
Santa MonKa. Ca 9l)401 I · "
"AR~;t;."·"
ur'AHC'lll'UJ(Jf
I Santa Momca _., ... _ obft A.C1IfU.beI;u\lveVIIMMIQIr
PE1iTIONfR ('al;IIIII3 1o,!> I I
"yD,Oeter,~"
RESPONDENT Wllhall1.1 t (l!'>!'>
I
JUDGMENT ............q-.
[",,] DISSOLUTION .J LEGAl SEPARATION .J NUlLITY SDO~"''f,' I

i i Status only
I Rewrving Iurladlclton cwet' temlination of I
marttal or domestic: partnenhlp status
l ..
[ ,.. j Th'~ 11ldQmenl

JudgfTK>nt on rwMfV9d '...ues
Date m.ltal or cSornfttlc pat1n«s'" status ....: I It''tcmhtor
I i (()n1lttll~ personal conduc1 ....,t';tllllng o,de,s

12. ~1l()7
'TllJdlflflfl ",.r;tlnq 'esl'.......ng o,~
TIl" "'S" ;lIn'nq ",dp" a'p ,'onlalnpd 00 page( s l Ii' Itlr "nltchmen1 , hf!y ~'Jl"" on /dlftfd
2 Tt\l~ prCK'eedlnQ \lViiS twa,(1 il5 'nli"w~ l _ .c Default (If u,)(~'nlt"ilt'd ! ... J flV "'1ft","hon lJrlI1p' f Itmtty Code M'dwlfl 1336
I j Coo"'51,.d
€ R,~ "1 JavlI.l J cowan
~:: ,al o~y[~ (,gw!1 2007
a Df'I~
b l. __• TPmpOtNy ~ Judge Pro Tem
['OJ Ppf~lOne, presenl ,n court r'l Anomtty prewnllfl c-OUl1lnwne!
r"--
d l Rp~p()ndef1' pl'psenl lfl r~>Utt 1 AIt()(~ pre",,", ,n <:out! ,'iill'''')
f ! _ ! "nOl''lf'V pt ..M'Ol ,n cnurt (nillfJfl!
,
f' CI;ltmanl ptesent In COUf1 (name I

(>thpt ( ... /U·/ rfy nalnp)
3 Tt)(> COIJl'1 a< QUlfe(1 11I"sd.1IOn of Ihe respondenl on (dalel June 12. :'007
.1 [... nIP ,pspnndpnl was Y'rved w'th pr~1
l> ! .. Thp rr'"polldp", apf~arf'(l

~ il i" JJ,lq"lf'''' u! r11~5()llIlK)(1 ,:; P.flle.ed Manta! Of d<.lfll4>..I... p.ar1()('f!;!lop ..li"l}'. ,~ ,.... " ... ,"11'<1 ",,,,,,n. pitrt ... !> "'.. ,ps\o,..<1lo the
c.trlt\J~ uf '),nqlf~ Itefs()f"1S
,1, ,; "" ("pf'ufy dale) I )('n~mher I:? ~(l07

i/' a date 1o be detennmed 00 nolleed motlOr' of fl,tlleI' party or "n "'Ik"al.",
In
tJ' 'j., "1"""1' , t .f''1.l1 sepa'ahon IS ..mered

):,.";"".,,, , f ''>J''''V "enlNed ThE> partlPS arp Cif.. lared 10 he ",ngle Pt'(f,Of\5 .,n I',.. 4'0,,'>11 ull~ "V'
d l Pi,', :'id ;ntt· f 1 ~'dl t,... pnterf#1 nUll( pro tJfY .t~ of If/ate'
{'; JlJI1 ;rn"t! : In H'~f:rv~d I~~ue~
1
n", " ;., '!"" 'f" , '! rP.sponr1enl's I'H'"I" 'l,11Tlf' 15 r!'stOl'ed 10 /'('11(1'." III III, l'lllJ
'; J J''' .",:, " ", "",l'rvl'd oVt'r "II othN 'S<',"-", ,I'\[1 ,IIIIJff'!>f"nl ()ldf;f!, rer-lIn!n '''' '" •. t ~.I f>~~ d~ ~OVldf!d beklfW
rf ", J,1'j")f>1)1 (Jnta'''s rfnvl~)lons f()( (·llj"~ '.U~I~)otJrt ()( famlty !tljJ)()(}f1 r df n ;htr'\o ;llu',l ~ pn,~>Jete and f,~ wrth thf' (ouf'1 a
, : ;',1/7 ( ,j',J' 1';,,(1".,')' f (lflr') Iffy··, ; I 1 ~, h'Ithl""O I'IJY~ III Hw '1 it" -. llq\ jll·1'J"\t>nf The parents rnuc.,1 llflt,f .. lh~
! \' 1,;':'1" 1'1 HH" l"h,rPld'I')'~'" It·"l:nf·1 Nt·t\;q 11) (1(tv~ 1)1 Hw' (t,,1f)fl(' t,~ I ' i l ' ) ; ,\'1 '.Il-)(1.\ttld torf'll 1 tI.· ~t!t!l I'
I ~ ~ 1'1 ',;'{"J\ltl/II!/f'~ fi~>"ftf,' .frt '~'. d'H1Rf·;'nhW"ot"'If·"! I '. . I" . ,-\furrnettuln (~'lf'f·t (Ill ( tl.-t'l~JHlq d
, !. -, ',..r '11 ~. i I ' • . ' . . . , t'- . t- I· f . ~

"'-r 1~t
JUDGMENT . .
'
. , ",,,,IV La\IV1 ',I, ,*)-.~
.' ...
-16-
\
197/ 259
t\'l"\l~~I'f(lf(J'A'.'· \\ ~0'4 , . '
-----~~---_._-_._
Io'Y "J..o",.,
_---_.,----~~_._-~~._-
\ , .... ,·".Iv 4,.~

•..
.~. . . . ot."", ... -~-'T -.----- 'Mc-Wi;;"" n.;.~,; . ~_.n.·'10
. ,
r-. "1' \' I I

i
I
I
lON~OKMEJ)
L <I I; j • t \
~>'d Ii· (1 ~ :, j "', .., i • t l' .. , , ,,; ';

fOP'
'tl f PH()f# NO J.......
ltY'-'"...
OF ORIGINAL Fll[I>
r MA'l o\O[)Rl:S$I(lr"~·"t. LIl~ ",,('r'c' 'll''I'nM Cr1llrt
._-----------
ATrO~"I""OR
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY Of

.""• .....,
i..... ' C'; h':l(1'? 1() 5
._.- ttJ(j 08 nQ7

. r ,.,., t .lh'l A OJr"". t:.c~\)U\( Ijllili~~
STAFl' AO{)qt ~s ";:2~' Md i ~'. ;;: :;M ~~ HLAC.
MAIlING AOOQr ~ s
CITVAHOtlf'CfIOf Sant a Mc.'filca, allf·::rr.:.a (;'0401
IIIWIC"_ W(>!\t Dist riet
'1\11' (lettr, n"puty
MARRIAGE OF
PETITIONER D<'Icl" ;'·v'-'r,KE"
RESPONDENT Vadims Fuukens

_-.flit
JUDGMENT
rA~f
X DISSOlUTION LEGAL SEPARATION HULUTY
StatU'l only
f< ';
R"ervIng juMdletion OYer ...-mlNltion of
marital or domestic pI"'*-hiI' ttatu8
Judgment on ,...N9d "lues
l Dele maritalOf' domnlit partnenhlp lUiw.~: I/'(}&?' a7 I I
This Judgment rontalns personal condUC! rt",tralning orders mod,fI.s .xIsllllQ fI'5t r "nlng orders
The re5lra,ntng orderl .re contained on pagelI) of !he attachment They expire on (date!
2 This proceedIng was heard al follows ;'. Default or uncor~ested By dfoclarahon under f emtly COde MCtIOn 2336
Contested ,.. oavid J CoWan
8 Date AUG 0 8 2007
Dept J,:= Room)11
}1l0(1e f'r(\ lprT'
b JudlOal officer (name! ~ emporary fUdge
c Pelthoner present In court Attorney present If'l court (nRme)
d Respondent present In court Attorney present In court (namf')
e Claimant present In rourt (na/'THI) Anomey present If1 COUf1 (name)
Other (specify name!
3 The court acqUlfed JunsdtdlOO of the respondent on (date) I () I~' n 0 7

a X T~ respondent WIS served with procell

4 a X Judgment of dIssolution 15 entered Mantal Or domeltlC partnerIhlp It.uS IS term mated end ~ p.m., are restored to the
statuI of Single persons
(1) i: on (specIfy-date) II'~ '0;1
(2) on a date to be determined on noticed r'lOClOn of either party or on stlpulahon
b Judgment of legal separahon 15 entered
( Judgme r" of nullIty IS entered The parties are ~dared to be Imgle persons on tM ground of (speC/for)
d Th,S Jud9 r'lent Will bt' entered nunc pro tunc as of (date)
e Judgme"t on reserved Iswes
I The Pf'litlonl'rs respondents former name IS re"ore<! to (speClfyJ
9 Ju"Sdlcl,'.'1 IS ,,'served (Wer ai' othe' Issues and all preHnt orders remain In eflect except prOVIded belo.... a,
h n"s JudJ"lenl r:ontalns prOl/l!>IOnS for child ~upport or family supP<>f1 Each party must complete and file ....,th the court •
CIIM 5'111'011 Ca~p Rf'glstr'y Fonn (form f I , 911 within 10 days of the date of H"~ Judgment The parents must notify the
COurt of dPy Char]e In t"re in formalro'1 SutJ,n,ttpej WIthin 10 days of the change by fll,ng an updated lorm The Notice
01 RiC/I,(-, ,;,,\1 Qp.~p(1,,~'bN"'\-· H"allt, (;,f" ( ('~Is and Rfl/mbursement Pmrp'JurpS <llld IntaMa/lon Shf>f'/ Oil CIJan91ng a
e'"le1 ~:I:: fl()'~ ")r(jef forn: r l ~ ~2 I~ ana~t\ . 'a
JUDGMENT , jJ~d~-- r.· , '-''''''

,,-:... I~~
. .,...,~ ':';.tIt
(llOlmlly Law) ~ >:~~ t~~:~
-i, . ..
-17-
198/ 259
n.11l
ArrORNEYQRPNlTYWlTHOVl ATTORNEY _ $1. . . . . _ """-'001 "OIl COlMf lIU 001. "
I - BI1L DIRK~'
9903 S~~Th
BEVERLY HILLS, C'A 90212
MONICA BLVD. ~9S9
"'O~~O\l~l311
r.,..'
"opy
OfOR1GlNi\Lfll£D
10 i 420-6398 . C(1Uf1
Los ,t.,n2clCs SUllC nClf
telE_t«l ( j Ulll«)ra.--tl
E.... AOOflESS tormr-rI
~UG 0' 2007

ATTOAIEYF(JR~I I N PRO rER
SUPERIOR COURT Of CAliFORNIA. COUNTY OF L()~~ !,Nr;E LES
5TREfl AOORE ss )-'i'; MAHJ STREET P lUI U..OC\,l\\VQ \)\ ti~·
IoNJHGAOORESS 1::"1 MAIN STREET
Jonn~' IV ,
CITY AN) 1f> COO£ ~~ MiT!, MON rCA, CA 9(40)
ay D. Gcter,Deruty
IIRNO< ..-:
MARRIAGE Of
Wf ~ :: 1
--
PETITIONER B l LL [J I f\ KS
RESPONDENT ANNE DI RKS

JUDGMENT
CA5f .........
X OISSOLUT1ON LEGAL SEPARATlON NULLITY
Status only
5L10; ( 11':'
R...rvtng JurtIdictIon 0Wt' termlnlUon of
marital 01' domestic ~ p status
Judgment on NMfWd !aaue.
Oete marttal or domestic status ends: 12/2 0 107

1. This Judgment coruinI perIOOaI conduct res1T8ining ordeB modifies eXlStlng restrlWllllg Ofders.
The restraining orders . . oomained on page(s) of the 8lIachment They elilP're 00 (date)
2. This proceedtng was heard as foIowI X Default or unoontes1ed X By dedaratlOO under Family Code sedion 2336
8.
Contested
Oate AI It:
b. Judlcsal <ftW (nfln'l'i
c.
n II. 2007
PelJlIoner present in COIJl1
Oept t;;. - Room: r "
, /Temporaty judge
Attorney present in COUf1 (name)
DaVId J Cowan
judge Pro Tam
d Respondent Pfesent In court Anomey present In court (name)
e Claimant present in court (name) Attomey present In COIJl1 (name)
f Other (speCIfy name)
3 The court acQUlr",d JUfI!>dlCllOO ci the respondent on {dater () 6 ! I q 107

a ;.: The r""ponderJl wtI5 served WIth process
b The respomlent appeared

4 a :-: Judgment of dissolution IS entered Mantal or dom.lS!ic partnership status IS terminated and the parties are restore<llo the
status of Slflgle ~ons
( ~ ) (lr (S()ecrfy dale) :.
(2, nn a date 10 be dele<rr"ned or' noticed mollon of llither pilf1y or Of', stipulation
b Ju<!r;"lw,1 of leqa/ separalJon IS entered
r J.j['" .,,~,,! o( ruPlty IS entered The ~ldrtles are declared to be Single persc)!'> on thi! yloufJd of (speotf'
d 1" .T:""·"\ N':1 be entered "vnc pro tunc as of Idale)

r, -,'; rf)~eried 'SSJ€ S
,I,,""" re~p(Y",~f:-Pt ~ forrner name IS re~lOff4(_~ to \ '>1'Pl f~'1 ....
·f'~,f:r.lHC o.-er .j: 'Pt"
'!,-1I"-''- ;V('.· , ' ( • ,

",S,;;:"~ ,lnd al: prC5enl ord(~"~
r (: . . uPf)(Yl ()I fdnl11y <;u;'.XJr1
rpr"Tl,1!f,
t ,I"
'1 e Mec1 P;lCt~\Jl .JS pruvl~ed
;ld 0 y '1,U~' (Of"'p!(~1(~ ;tf1l1 rilt~ Mttl !"'H~ court a

t}HoY\
-18-
-,.,1 1 .,."'Ir,r~ 'P '\-1,'" ,'''" :.1'1' I ,+ I':> ,Iurh;n,(,/:! Th f • , .. ,t"4r t~ .. \,; .... ~ nU'lfy the
" t, I ';"i~.)1 1:\" "I"~ f f'l ~ t\tJ t./t,l,rtj
199/ 259
-.n~YOll"M.TYWtTHOUTA"OOII«Y _ SI... tw ... - _ _,

fL·"(
I'<» C~ lJV 0lIl'
~Rosa Lee
7160 Presidentlal Dr.
Horsham, PA 19044
1'IlPIIOMl NO '~NO~
CONFUKl~.lr.Ut,;Ut'\
t ..... llOOIlUI~ OFOR1GlNAlALED
A1'TOIIMn '011 ~ Los An~tlt~ Surcrior r,Otlr
IUPI"'OR COUIIlT OF CAlJFOlINA. COUNTY OF Los Ange 1 'II
.'tMtTADOI~U' 1725 Main St r e e t SMSHLAC AUG nq 2007
MllA.INC'lADOllfU
J.A.CItRt,6~IIUVCOtb~
Cll'UNllll'COOl Santa Monica, Cal Hornia I~0401
IllANC'IftIIMl Wes t Di 5 t r i ct
MAMIAOIOF 8vD. neter Oet'ut"
PETITIONER Rosa Lee
RESPONDENT Robert Blobner
···X· DISSOLUTION
JUDGMENT CASE"'''
LEGAL SEPARAnoN NULUTY
Status only SDO~1~2f'
.ReHMno jurtsdleuon ~ -.rmlnlltlon fA
marital or domestic pertnerlhip Ntue
:... JudgIMnt on rnerved tnun
Date maritalOf' doft'lMtic hlp ltatue tndI: AIlIf! . . . . ._••
. ' Thil judgment r - ' , contlins pertOnaI conduct ntttlalning orders modi'" IllIting mtrainlng 0fderI.
The restratning 0l'd4n are contained on page(l) of Itle att8<:hment They.xpire on (dare/
2. This proceedtng waa heard .1 followl X Oef.utt Of unanested 8y ~ under Farntty Code leetton 23Je
- ContestAtlG 0 9 2007
a Date Depl G Room l t\ oa'/Id J. Cowan
b Judto8l offu:er (n'rM) : , / Temportty judge Judge Pro 'ten'
c =. PetrtiOner present in court c.,; Attorney present in 00UI1 (name)
d._ Respondent present In court
r .. - AIIomey pretent II'l court (name)
e ~.'., Claimant prnent in court (nMne) , AltO!l'l4tY present in court (name)
f " Other ($p«ify name)
3 The couM acqulf8d juriadtctlon of the respondent on (dere} 12 11 3 I 0 3

• . X The resp<lfl(Mnt wei served WIth process
THE COURT ORDERS. GOOD CAUSE APPEARINQ

4 a 1. Judgment of dlssolutlOfl II entered Marital or dc>melbc l*tner5hlp statU$ II tennlnated and the partlel ar. fhtored to the
slatus of lIngle peraons AUG 0 9 2007
(t) X on (speedy dB/e)
(2~ on. date to be determIned on notlCttlS motlOl'l of either party or on stipulat,on
b Judgment of legal separallon IS entered
C Judgment of nUllity IS entered The partlel are dedared to be I,ngle per5001 on the ground of (SPecIfy)
d ThiS jUdgment Will be entered nunc pro tunc as of (datel
e Judgment on reserved ISSueS
f Hie pelllloner's responden!'s former name IS restored to (specIfy)
9 Jur,sd,cl,on IS reserved over all other Issues. and all present orders remain In effect except as prOlllded below
h 1 il,~ Judgment conta,ns prOlllSlons for child support or famll~ support Each party must complete and file WIth the court a
'-'Wi Support Case RegIstry FornI (form Fl- '91) wlth,n 10 days d the date of th,s Judgment The parents must notify the
a"''· :' a"y change In tre ,n!orn'al,on submll1ed WIthin '0 day!) ot the change b~ filing an updated form The Notice
[I;;. 'J"!" ,vld Resp0l1srt,,{,f'f's-HPiltr!1 Care Costs and Rp/l1lt"I1~el')f'1I1 Procedures 1l/l(I'nro,mrltlon Slloet on Changmg a
ij,p,)!1 OrU"r ItOlm f, '92 IS al1act1£>Cl

~ . . . ' O4J
,)tW ~n~4--~"-
'" J\~;)?~II,
fa"
JUDGMENT W .. .;.1.0;'>
(Family Law)
,,~ [~lh -19-
200/ 259
• AnOflNrYQRPARnWl'ntOUlAnOllH£V
IUCHAR[) E. MASSON, f:SQ.

~DEHNAOI " HASSON, LLP
ONE PARK PLAZA
~ -
$1"'''''
(SBN 198331'1
_ -_.
~______
RJIt~, VII OM "
F~
~
SIXTH FLOOR , I
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 ~
TRff'tOoI(MO (949) B52-4482 "AlIMO~""" (949) 852-4483 'tJi'''tJKt''.Jt.U c.;UP
ADDAfSS~ rma!lson@dehnadirnasson.com
It.Wl
ATTOINYFQfl~ GENNARO DU TERROIL
SUPERKm COURT Of' CAUFORNtA. COUNTY Of LOS ANGELES
,
OfORrGTNAL AlED
A I •
,n, nrc r\ <lunrrior Court

-<
STllf.JUDI_as I72!> MAIN STREET ~"r, °9 7007
ADlKIS
t.WllN('; SAME
CllHICH1f'oca S1\NTA MONICA, C1\ 90401 J hllA,l.lol1"C.l.:.~"wuwclJl~IQCtk
I IlAAHCJl N!M WEST __ -- .. ~
MAJUtlAGE Of
PETITIONER: JACQUELYN SAMS
fI\' f) Oeler,O'l"utv
I RESPONDENT: GENNARO DU TERROIL -_. I .___ ~

JUDGMENT CASl_"
I X) OlSSOlUllON I 'LEGAL SEPARATlON i NULUTY
! !Statu, onl)' ~; I}( I;' \ 1 ' 4
) Re..mng 'urtld6ction ower tenNnMkwI of
martUI or domestic ~'P stMua
X 1Judgment on rHetVed 'SlUeS
I D..el'M~ or domestic; ~ I p .tatus end,: . ..L-l _
nllljudgment : : contalM penoneI c:ondIuct restnIinIng orderI ! J modiflea existing restraining oroera,
The rntrainlng orders ani contained on page(1) 0( the attachment. They ellplre on (dale)
2 ThIs proceeding was heard al foIIow& X iOefMllt Ol' uncontested I By declaottJon undef f 8mI1y Code Mdicn 2338
: Contested
8 Date AUG 0 9 2007 Dept.. Room. II! E lJaVIO J Cowan
b JudlCSal oftk:er (name) : "rT~ judge II lOOP Pro Tem
c P8lltioner present In court Attorney pretent In court (name)
d Rnpondent pretent In court . Atlorney pntMntIn court (name)
e Oaimant present In court (name). I AIIomay Pf1l18tll1n court (name'
Othef (sp«:Jfy name)
3 The COlJt1 acquired jurisdtctJon of the respondent on {date) Allqus t ') q, 700')
a X ; The respondent was served wtth proc.eu.
b i The respondent appeared.

"il :~ Jujgment of dll>soIutlOO 1$ entered MantalOf dO'nfl!itlc partnonihip statua II temwnated itOd the partiq we reItored 1o the
st;atus of single persons
(1) X on (spec.Jf;- dale) Mar (' hI, .' U0 f,
(7) 00 a date to be d91emllned on nobc6d motlOfl of eIther party Of 00 stJpulatJon
I. Judgment of I"\lal S(jparatton 1& entered
Judgment of nullity I!> ontere<1 The parties are decl.lre<110 be single pNSOOS on the qround of (specAfy)
11 r hiS Judgment WIll bl~ pnlere<l nunc pro tUlnc ali- of ((1 •• /0
Jud?ment on ms'·rvn.1IS5Uel>
"
'11" petrtlooMs rt!!>pOOdont's fOI1Tler flame l!t restored 10 (specify)
.Junsdlctlon IS w!><',r.-o(j ', .. m all other Il;sue& and .tli pHl!><'m\ Ofders remain In eH.,..-t I)_copt itS rxoVlded below
r hiS Judgment "ont-flns prvV'!>lOfll> fur ctllld suppo!1 Of r'lnllly support [ach pdrty must lomplote and ~Ie with the court a
Ol/Ia Support Cd"" «"</1'/', F Ofm (form r I -191, ",,'\11111 , I) days of the date of tim. lU(j'lmont 100 parents must notify the
, I,un uf ,my l.h,II'· i'- If' ttlll Hlfo,ma\l()f1 c,ul' I1l'"I'I' ",'It-un 1,,) (lay~ 01 the chanqtl b~ fillllq an updated form. The Nobce
" j '<,,)1,,:; d(1(1 /.:""'!" '''','/Hli/If',\ /-foalltl C ,'II 0 , p' t, ,.".1 1,..
"lJtll)/S''nlOll/I'/o(:t'<!w,·, ,lIkl'nl,,,-nliilIOfI Sheel 011 Ch.lnqmg a
. ,,' JI,,'),wl (~I ' •• ; ~,'" '. 1~~2J'~ dn.-t. ~H:(~
"eye 1 ""
H--i"rl;·r~-;;,; .'{,,'4·:'~\.to
JUDGMENT
r ,~n-,>ly l ....... )
.~, ...: ~.
i J~"d
,; -20-
.... \ ;\1
,0, I ~:l"
201/ 259
Fl·180
"rTORN[V OR PI\RT>" 'MT><O\)T ""ORNEY ("e"", Sr•• IW~, _ _"I fOR COURT USE ON!. T
-Franklin Olayemi
14044 Panay Way, Apt. 229
Rey,
Marina Del
T'£L£I'HOHE NO
CA 902°2
(310)574-9409 FAX NO (Op/lOtlalJ
CON~'U"L\'l~.lJ~UP\'
e.MAJl. AIlDIIf$$ (OjllJoIIoII OF ORIGINALFILED
ATTOROfEY FOA_ ltl~ AI\~el~ I\nnemfnu,",
SUPERIOR COURT Of CAUFORNlA, COUNTY Of Los Ange 1 e s
STR££TACORfSl 1725 Main Street SMSHLAC AUG 09 2007
MAILIIG ACORfSl
JobD A. Clarke. t.xccutlvC VlhCC(/Ucrk

ClTYAHOZlPCOOE Santa Monica, California 90401
~ ~ West District
MARRIAGE OF ByO. Geter,Deputy

PETITIONER: Franklin Olayemi
RESPONDENT: Linda Bryant-Olavemi

JUDGMENT
CAS!; NUlAl!E R
00 DISSOLUTION o
LEGAl SEPARATI()N NULUTY
o
o
Status only
o
Reserving jurisdiction over tennlnatlon of
marital or domestic partnership status
5D024948
D Judgment on rHerved issues
Date marital or domestic partnership status ends: All" n n 'lnn,
1. 0 Thls judgment 0
contains pe!'Sonal conduct restraining Ofd.ers D modifies existing restraining orders.
The restraining orders are contained on pagels) of the attachment. They expire on (date)·
2, This proceeding was heard as follows· 00 Default or uncontested CJ By declaration under Family Code section 2336
o Contested AUG 0 9 2007
a Date"
-
Dept.: t;:;. R~:(~J
b Judicial officer (name): [_J Temporary judge David J. Cowan
c, 0 Petrtioner present in coul1 o Attorney present in court (name) Judge Pro Tem
d. 0 Respondent present in court o Attorney present in cool1 (name).
e, CJ Claimant present in court (name): o Attorney present in court (name).'
f. D Other (specify name).
3 The coort acquired jurisdiction of the respondent on (date)' June 12, 2007
a [lU The respondent was served with process.
b L~ The respondent appeared

4 a [}[] Judgment of dissolutIon is entered, Marital or domestiC partnership status is terminated and the parties are restored to the
(1) [K] on (specify date) AUG 0 9 2007
(2) I _J on a date to be determined on notil::ed motion of either party or on stipulation
b '-:"j Judgment of legal separatIOn is entered
c l Judgment of nUllity is entered The parties are dedared to be single persons on the ground of (specify):
d This Judgment Wlll be entered nunc pro tunc as of (date)
e Judgment on reserved Issues.
f The ~:~:! petitione(s respondenfs former name is restored to (specify)
9 -, Jurisdlctton IS reserved over all other issues. and all present orders remain In effect except as provided below.
h ThIS jUdgment contains prOVIsions for child support or family support. Each party must complete and life WIth the court a
Child Support Case RegIstry Form (form FL.·191) within 10 days of the date of this Judgment Th~ parents must notIfy the
court of any change In the Information submitted Wlth,n 10 days of the change, by fihng an updated form The Notice
of Rights and ResponSltJililies-Health CanfJ Costs and ReimblJrsement Proceduff!s and Infonnation Sheet on Changing a
Child Support Order (form Fl-192) IS attached Page' of 1
;----;:: "~;'-;;;~-y ".,...,.."., '~,.

• ,'C,'/ :,,-,,,-a
JUDGMENT. ~ .
. S< ut ns-
r"""r Cooe "262. 23-40.
2~3 2346
'., 'C.·.· (Family Law) ~ I ~~
-21-
202/ 259
FL·180
"nORNfY OIl PAIITY W1THQIJT AnORN(Y ill..... Stl/ftw """'lief .""_" FOI' COUltr VSf Ollrt Y
_Carole Booth
604 1/2 Venezia Ave
Venice, Ca 90291 ( ~ONFOKMED COpy
TUEPttOHt NO 310-301-4420 f oU NO fO/lllONlJ
E_ "lXlItUS Io.-t/ OF ORIGINAL f1lED
AnOll~~~ Self-Reoresented Lm An~elrs SufltriM eMl"
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 01 Lo s Ange le s
S~l~a 1725 Main Street SMSHLAC AUG () 9 2001
_lI>lO~SlI J( lul A. Clarke. Executive OfficerJCJerk
CITYANOllPCOO£ Santa Monica, California 90401
IIMHCH_ West District

Bv D. Geter, Deputy
MARRIAGE OF
PETITIONER Carole Booth
RESPONDENT Rick Prince
JUDGMENT
CAn NUMBER
X· .-""
~ DISSOlUTION LEGAL SEPARATlC)N
,_.~. :~ ~ NULUTY
C'
,
, Statu. only 5002)030
R..ervlng jurisdiction over ~Inatlon of
,'._
marital or domestic partnerahlp status
,. Judgment on reserved I.sues
Date marital or domeatic p.rtnerahlD statu. end.: 11·;/" '(17
This JUdgment __ . containS personal condud restraining orders , __ modifies existing restraining orderI
The restraining orders are contained on page(s) of the ettactllnenl They exptre on (date)'
2 This proceeding was heard as follows X i Default or uncontested )< By dedarahon under Family Code HCtion 2336
Contested
a Date Allr. Q 0
Dept'2007 G Room ItI )3Vld J, CoWan
b Judidal'iJl'll~r rndfneJ : /Temporary judge \ ,<i(1p'Pro Tem
c ' _. Petitioner present in cour1 .. Attorney preMnt in court (name)
d. Respondent present in court Attorney present in court (name).
e Claimant present in court (name) Attorney present in court (name)
f Other (specify name)
3 The court acquired jurisdiction of the respondent on (da/e) 5/1 9/07

a X· The rnpondent was served with process
b The respondentappeared.

4 a X Judgment of dissolution is entered. Marital or domestic partnership status is terminated and the partie. are re$lored to the
(1) X on (Specify date) //.-'().,,")
(2) on a date to be determined on noticed motion of either party or on stipulation
b Judgment of legal separallon IS entered
c Judgment of nullity IS entered The parties Eire dedared to be Single persons on the ground of (Specify)
d ThiS Judgment will be entered nunc pro tunc. as of (date)

e Judgment on reserved Issues
1 The petitioner's respondent's fClrmer name IS restored to (specIfy)
9 JUflsdlc1lon IS reserved over all other Issues. and all present orders remain in effect except as provided below
h ThiS judgment contains prOVisions lor child support or family sUPpOrt Each party must complete and file WIth the court a
Child Support Case RegIstry Form (form FL-191) Within 10 days of the dale of thiS Judgment The parents must notify the
court of any change In :he Information Sllbmilted Within 10 days of the change. by filing an updated form The NotIce
of Rights and ResponSibIlities-Health Care Costs and Reimbursement Procedures and Information Sheet on Changing 8
Clllid Support Order (form FL-' 92) IS attached P"O"'" Z
.- --:.;-,.__--" · •.~.o,';,.... --- JUDGMENT t.(~al r...,,,,c_ ~§20'. i)4~
. . A'.-' • (Famil v law) Suut \..IIlS n"] ;
, ,." , ~ 'Ius
-22-
203/ 259
FL-180
ITTORIEYQRPNlTYIMT><OUiATTORNEY {"'."'. 5!. . !lilt~ _ _ I FOR COuRT II$f 0Nl. y
_Tatyana Podymova
656 Indiana Ave. 111
Venice, CA 90291
TELfJ'HOIlE NO (310)452-2322 rAllNO I~
(-MAIl ADOA£SS I~
AT"TORlEY FOR ~I
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF Lo sAng e 1e s
CONF()RME.fi COP\,
SMSHLAC
OFORIGINALflLED
5TRfET AOORU5 1725 Main Street
MA!l'1NCi I\OOR[ 55
'.,M ""l!ell".C SuneriorCoun
CliYNiOllPCOO£
IlllANCHIIAMf
Santa Monica, California 90401
West District J'lJ~ t 9 2007
MARRJAGEOF phn A. Clarke, executive: Ollicer/l:lerk
PETITIONER Tatyana POdyrnOV3
RESPONDENT Charles Waqner Rv D, Geter, Deputy

CASE N\M8{R
JUDGMENT
X DISSOLUTION ,. LEGAL SEPARATION ~'-' NULUTY
Status only
SDQ2~)131
_ Reserving jurisdiction OYer t.rmlnatlon of
marital or dometltlc partnetshlp status
:. _ Judgment on reserved Issun

p1.
Oate marital or domestic oartnershlD status ends: .I'!! "Uf.. rn
This Judgment contains personal conduct restraining orders =-,-~ moolfies eXisting restraining orders.
The restraining orders are contained on pagels) of the attachment They expIre on (date)
2. This proceedIng was heard as follows X, Default or uncontested ~K; By declaration under Family Code section 2336
- ': Contested
a. 'Date AUG 0 9 2007 Dept , Room/II David J, cowan
b JudIcial officer (name). __~ Temporary judge Judge Pro Tem
c' Petitioner present in court Attorney present in court (name)
d Respondent present in court Attorney presenl in court (name)
e ClaImant present in court (name) . Attorney present in court (name)
f. Other (specify name)'
3 The court acquired jurisdiction of the respondent on (date) 6/20 I 0 7

a X The respondent was served with process

4 a ;.: Judgment of dissolution is entered Mant~~; domeslic partnership status is terminated and the parties are restored 10 Ihe
slatus of slOgle persons ~
(1) i: on (specify date) /p·~t. d;')
(2\ on a date to be deterrl1lned on nohead motion of either party or on stlpulalion
b JUdgment of legal separation IS entered

c Judgment of nullity IS entered The parties are dedared to be single persons on the ground of (speCIfy)
d ThIS judgment Will be entered nunc pro tunc as of (dale)'
e Judgment on reser'\led Issues
f Tne pel,!Joners respondent's former name IS restored to (speedy)
9 Jur'sd,ctlon IS resef\led over all other Issues and all present orders remain In effect except as provided below
r' T~ls jl,(Jgrref't c.crlalrs prOviSions for ch,ld support or famIly support. Each par1y musl complete and file With the court a
ChId S _reo'r Ca"t' Peglslry Form (fer'T\ ~L·191) wlthJr1 10 days of the dale of thiS judgment The parents must notify the
CY.~ :' ar'Y rha"'Je ,n ~le information "ubmltled Within 10 days of the change by filing an updated form The Nottce
, ,[; ;' ': 1"'1 rJp,,:>,)r,~:,I)dtl:'1~_HEa,rhCar" Costs and Reimbursement Procedur,?s anrl/nformatlon Sheet on ChanglrJg a
,,:~ "I'" 's"" rL 192):s a'tached P_O.' of 2
------------ ----_._- ~. _,'~A ~~ ."'):'4 ,: .~.t~
~AwJ -23-
I,," ,
JUDGMENT :'3J.:':
')( ,llt)1 1I:~ :}4J)
(Family Law)
~ ;~lIS
,nORNfY ()Il PARTY WiTt<OUT 4 nORNL ~ ,~ ...... 51.0 N-...- it"C..-.." 204/ 259 F~ COUltT lISE ONI. y
FL·180
BRUNO B. GRANDZ:EL
-C/O LAW OFFICE Of r M1LINE Y. f.C'BINE
6500 WILSHIR~ BL~D.
16TH FLOOR
(C€
LOS ANGELES, eA 0,~j048
( 323) 6:,',-3 Q 14
Tl'L£PHOf'j£ NO
£ '*A. AOMfSS (OprJonoI)
fUNO (O~&'I
CONFORMED COpy
"TTOItHEYFOIl~'IN PRO PER
OF ORIGINAL FILED
SUPERIOR COURT Of CAlIFORNI.... COUNTY OF LOS ANG EL ES
L~ An~l~ ~lll'(rin' I.OtJrl
STREET AI:lOMSS 1725 M~IN STREET
-.JHGAI:lOMSS SAME
AUG 092007
ClTYAflOZlPCOOE ShNTA MONICA, eA 90401-3299
olln"" ~I.,"j '~"li~t Ulllml(lcr~
IAAHCt4HAME WEST DISTRICT
MARRIAGE Of
~R BRUNO B. GRANOZIEL
By D, GeIer, V'''''h
RESPONDENT, JOHANNA M. MUELLER
JUDGMENT CA5I' H\Mll( A
[iJ DISSOLUTION 1 LEGAL SEPARAnoN _; NUWTY

[=J Status only SD 0,><)) ~2 I
=.J Re.ervlng jurisdiction over termlMtion of
marital or domestic partnership statu,
i .. Judgment on reserved I.,ues
Date marital or domestic Dartnenlhlp 'tatul ends: I ~ . .:l.tt. 6?
1. L: This judgment contains personal conduct restraining orders modifies eXlshng restraining orders.
The restraining orders are contained on page{s) of the attachment. They expire on (datel
2. This proceeding was heard as fo/lows X Default or uocontested I ! By declaration under F8rrnly Code section 2336
CJ Contested
8. Date: Allr. Q n Dept.z001 G Room:! II David J. cowan
b. Judicial o~rtn2f~) l' ~Temporary Judge Judge pro T9fY'
c. CJ Petitioner present in court ! Attorney present in court (name)
d. [-:J Respondent present in court Attorney present in court (name)
e. CJ Claimant present in court (name) Attorney present in court (name)
, C:::J Other (specify name)
3. The court acquired jurisdiction of the respondent on (date) JUNE 27, 2007
.J
a. i":'. The respondent was &elVed with process.
b. IX.l The respondent appeared

4. a. LX] Judgment of dissolution Is entered. Marital or domestic partnership slatus is terminated and the parties are restored to the
(1) 'X; on (specify date). / p ..ps- .tJ7
(2)· on a date to be detemlined on noticed motion of either party or on stipulation
b.' I Judgment of legal separation is entered
c Jud;Jmenl of nullity is entered The parties :itre dedared to be Single persons on the ground of (specify).
d. ThiS Judgment will be entered nunc pro tun,: as of (date)

e. l ~_~,
Judgment on reserved issues

f. The ~litlone(s - respondent's former name is restored to (speCify)
9 . __ JUrisdiction is reserved over all other issues. and all present orders remain in effect except as provided below.
=
h. : __ This judgment contains provisions for chikj support or family support Each party must complete and file Wllh the court a
Child Support Case Registry Form (form FL-191) within 10 days of Ihe date of this judgment The parents must notify the
court of any change in the information slJbmitted within 10 days 01 the change, by filing an updated form The Notice
of Rights ana ResponSlb,lities-Health Care Costs and Reimtlursement Procedures and Information Sheet on ChangKIg a
Child Support Order (form FL-192) is attal:hed. an ,..,.1
Form I\dolllodf'" ~or, U.. , .....t, C_ «2024, 2340
JUDGMENT
*
~ C<:u'ol ~ C.h1'ey""a 2343.2346
n·1!JJIR8"Y J~,' "7:".' (Family law)
-24-
205/ 259
FL·180
ATTORNEY (II PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (NwM sr. . a.. _ _ M I l _ I f'OIf COUtT USE 0Ill r
BRUNO B. GRANOZIEL
-C/O LAW OFFICE OF PAULINE Y. ROBINS
6500 WILSHIRE BLVD. (f)
16TH FLOOR
CA 90048
LOS ANGELES,
Ta£PHONE NO (32 3 ) 655-3914 FAAtIO (~
CON,14'OKMt:O COP~
(-MAIl AOOIIfSI ~ OFORIGINALFlLED
AnORNEYFOR".,..".,IN PRO PER r..o~ A,,~c Sunerior Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ITIlE£fAllORESS Ins MAIN STREET AUS 0 g 2007
-...aADOllESS SAME
.000 A. ",'arlc, execuuve otticcrlClcr

ClTYAHDZPCOOE SANTA MONICA, CA 90401-3299
~ ~ WEST DISTRICT
MARRIAGE OF By Dr Qeter, t1~tlfv

PET1T1ONER' BRUNO B. GRANDZIEL
RESPONDENT JOHANNA M. MUELLER

JUDGMENT CASE NUUBEA
rx~j DISSOLUTION
l ~J LEGAL SEPARATION l __ " NULUTY
[~] Status only

so ()2S132 /
c~~l Reserving Jurisdiction over tennlnatlon of
marital or domestic partnef'lhlp statuI
~ __J
Judgment on reserved Issues
Date marital or domestic Dartnership status ends: /::J. :J-¥-,7
1. C This judgment 0
contains personal conduct restraining orders modifies existing restraining orde,..
The restraining orders are contained on page(s) of the attachment They expire on (date)
2 This proceeding was heard as followl: [):j Default or uncontested l_J

By declaration under Family Code section 2336
r:":-J
Contested
s.- Date:
b. Judicialoflicer (name):
AUG 0 9 2007
Dept.' £,
Temporary judge
R~~'"
L-.J
David J. eowan
Judge Pro Tem
c. r-=:J
Petitioner preSent in crort ,__J Attorney present in court (name)
d. ['_-_J
Respondent presen1 in court : Attorney present in court (name)
e. [~ Claimant present in crort (name)
Attorney present in court (name):
f. : ~~J Other (spet;ify name):

3 The court acquired jurisdiction oflhe respondent on (date). JUNE 27, 21)07
a. i ~.~J The respondent was served with process.

b. ! ){.1 The respondent appeared.

X Judgment of dissoMion i. entered. Marital or domestic partnership status is terminated and the parties are restored to the
4. a. :
(1) X'on(specifydate) /~,';;r"
(2) on a date to be determined on noticed motion of either party or on stipulatron
b Judgment of legal separation is entered
c Judgment of nullity is entered The parties are dedared to be sjng"~ persons on the ground of (specify).
d ThiS Judgment will be entered nunc pro tunc as of (date)
e Judgment on reserved issues
f The petitioner's _ respondent's fomwr name is restored to (specify)
9 Jur:sdlction IS reserved over all other Issues. and all present ofder~; remain In effect except as prOVided below
h ThiS Judgment contalOs prOVISions for child support or family support Each party must complete and file with the court a
Cfllfd Support Case RegIstry Form i torm FL·191) within 10 days of the date of thiS Judgment The parents must notify the
cou" d any change In the Information subml~ed wilhlO 10 days of thf' change by filing an updated form The Notice
rJ p'G/le .1f1() f-.esponslbIMles-Hcllrh Care C:Jsts and ReImbursement Procedures and InformatIOn Sheet on Changing a
-25-
,-, ! .!'Jrdertforrr F-L·1 Ci 2,·s atlached
e ••
:;
POOl' 0( 2
SI{~:::
I ¥·l,i.,.C~'J'je ~~ Z02". ]340
JUDGMENT 2343 2346
'I.. I _ ..... \

206/ 259
I~ - .- -------_ .•. __..•..._------_. __._---_._._ ...

_. -.- _ __ __ NC· no
lfl ,
-
t-., ..""..,..... ..} ... "....,.,
.,. .",.rTc:JIf#Y"...... • ~
'0It1;~;;;~-;;;;,;'-;-'-- ----.-,
[Ih'\.h.lrt:lh Jo~ph I'allllk,;~.c
~1I20 M.llh:~lfl Ave;1 ~O,

I.", .\Ilgd..:s, ('i\ ')()066
'IlH~ "0\ I O·.W7-nh I

f ..... N.~"S' ,r.,
ruNO /0,.......
F~ I tiE 0
lOS \ 'td II .. " ,'I KlllK l"OI 10
"1'..,..".,r<1ll,_ . I
SuPERIOR COURT Of CAlFORNlA, COUNTY Of Los Anl~cs

AIH~ n~ luUI
"llf [T AIXlIlPS. I72 S Main St.
- ..... AOOM sa JOHN A. CLAII"~ CLERK
r.m A«DlIccot Santa Monica. CA 9().$OI 'n~~l--
0RNtCH _ _ Santa Monica Courthouse BY "ASSY ~-\Bl :\(,,,, DEPUl
PH lTION Of" (Nemttf 01.-:11 pet/flOtlen)
Zc..'Chariah Joscp-h Paul Ocsc;e

~
FOR CH.ANGE Of' NAME I CASI-.t
I
DECREE CHANGING NAME ~~~ 0 \ ~~ It 0
1. The petition arne regu'-ty lot hearing on (dR}: AUG 0 9 lrJ1 in CoIa1room: It of the .~ COUIt.
THE COURT FINOS
2 •. AI notiCft required by law ~ been ~.
b. E~ whoM name Is to be changed idInIifIed In dim 3 below

(1) . not 0 II under lie ju1tdction of ltle 0epeI1rnent of COfTeCIonI. and
(2) is not 0 is requAd to~ as. sex offender under MdIon 290 of the Pen. Code.
These detemin8tIOnl we,.. midi ~ uSing; CLETSlCJIS 0 beaed on If\Joi lilfton provided to the deB of Itt.
~ . ~ law enbOllNl'lt agency.
e. l ~ No ob;edionl to the proposed c:hanQe of Mm8 were nde.
d 0 Objedionl 10 the proposed cMnge of name w... nwde ~ (namet
• It appe.... 10 the satilfaction of the court !NIl .. the allegations In 1M petition .... true and IUfIdent and that the petition should
be 'Pnted
f. 0 Other lIndingI (I any}:
THE COURT ORDERS

3. The name of
Prntnt n«DI NtwOWDl
• lcchanah Joseph Paul Besse is d\anged to Zechariah Falcon

b ilcNnglldlo ._------------_. - - -
c ._- ...-._---- II changed Ie --_. __._- .._-_.-._---
d II d'langed to
Ild'I~lo
"
l __ ~ '\' l<III,Nl! name r.tIan9411 ~re ~s'~ Xl ,:tae:hrneIlt J
1'" .j:., "
,~ ..;~
.~~-;:l!
..J -{~; at~~ ".:;!"TRJQA
'111: ...,
t_ _
fI' .. {" .t# ' '."J :. ('\W ~
L eoua.
_
- ._----- ----
(~EC~~EE CliANGING ..,.\ \1E , ... " 1:'''1 ' ...
;'-:h~"'". ot 'I~,..,.}
-26-
207/ 259
~t \
~\.~~~~
NC-130,J
"""OfDIClltA""~ _ _ .. _
_~u-. . .,.
----,
MICHAEL DAVID Hl.JNTLEY. In Pro Per
.0. Box 3082
Los Angeles. CA 90078
't~'Cl (310)288-4382 'AAIloO~
FII.Jl~,9

l ..M oICVl£U~ lashmeu~l.com
An~"'(lIl ~ MICHAEL DAVID HUNnEY I'" \\l"ll\ ,I." '/:1,:/ _,. WI

IUPlRlOR COUIIT CII CAL'OMIA. ceurrt CII LU~ ASGElES
J72~ MaiD Sb'Cd
ITlI(fT ACOIIa ~1Ir, (, luul
172' Main Street
"AUG lIDllIIIU
r_~'.vcll.cxa Sill" Monica. CA 9040I·32~~
~ __ West DiJtrict JOHN A. (LA." E., CLERK
N,~~'--
PETITa. OF ".".. atNdl ~ •
BY \1 ,'\'\\ '''''\!II '," \.111-1'\>1'
I FCA C~E ~ NAME
D!CRe~ NAME ~~ ''.'), 11556 t

1. The peCIIon C8l7le reguIIIty tor IIeImg on (d*r. AOO 0 9 lfI1 In Cour1room: A- of lIle *"- Intad COUIt.
lMI COURT , . .
2 •. AJ ~,.quIrId by . . h8'fII been~.
b. &dl~ wtIoM n8fM II .., be cNnged IlSentlled In bin 3 below
(1) II nell 0
II under U. ~ of 1fle 0epIrtmInI of 'Con'edIolIS. .,.,
(2) II nell 0
II , . . . ~ . . . . . on.nder undw MCIkln of ltle Penal CadI. m
TheN .....riI.-.. . . . rnme ~." UIirlO CL.ETSICJlS C::J beNd on IntDrmIlIon pro'fIIded to tIllI dirt of U.
~ • IDc'AI . . IIIf1Drc11TtM1 -eaenc:r.
t ~. to 1fle PRlIlOMd dI8nge of IUII'ne ..se.
d ~. to lIle propoeed cNnge of,.,.. ..se by ('*'W)
• It ~ to !tie .... ~ at IN muc11M1 .. 1M IlIIg8tionIII1 lie ,PeWOn ... ~ 8fld IUfIIdenl Ind lhtIIltle petIlon IftOuId
be~.
, 0 OINf"'(fMn
THE COURT ottOERI
3 The namt 01
PrwHnIDMDI 'itt..nImI
a \-UCHAEL DAVID m;NTlEY • dl8nged to \UCHAfl. ()A \'ID I.AStiMErr
b IS dl8llQe'd1 10
c 15 C1l~lto
d ~ C1lanoed to
!' 11 ctlaoQi!d to
r"" --.,
_.J A(jf!lltOt1a/ name cn~s Itt!' '6te-d on Anarl'IITlenl )
I
1'(
,',
:-:J ...,.-...,. ,
., .... '~TRICtA
"" '.
~
L CJlt.....
-27-
""' ... ,,~ ... -.;. -f"'LJ A"~r:.tt-..I'~· 'JAMF .... "'" ''\ .
..,
208/ 259
NC·130
-Pfrm.;;;-;o-AT'O'Ol(Y,_ .._ _ ..;::;,;;..-;:;~~--------------------------r--'-----
F()#f eoutT lIV OM. r
>-Ril:hard Peter Ollinn
2144 Kelton A"c.
los Angeh.-s. CA 90025
Ttw..o.....o 31O.4715().l2
f - . AOllIlUa /QIIONt
H"1.I00(~
FILED
I o~ .\:-.olIU" \t.,"l·MIUlt t:Ol!M
ATTOAN[Y rOIl (-.,
~ COURT OF CAUfORHlA. COUNTY OF Los Angcl~s
IlIWIT~'" 1725 ~1ain Street

bllr, fHlZOO7
IN.IG AOOIIUt same
OTfMlO~CODI Santa Monica. 90401 Jv. IN A. ClARKf CI ~K
IIIWCHIOWIl: Santa Monica Courthou.~. West District
PETITION Of ('*"- d HC1I petIIIotWI):
B\ '."~~SGA. r'l:"HT
Richard Peter Quinn

FOR CHANGE OF NAME
cASU&~~. ~?
DeCREE CHANGING NAME
.... ',i " ~f..(,,:,
- - -
1. The petition came regUarfy for hNring on (date): 1UJ 0 9 2007 in Courtroom: A of the aboYlHntitled court.
THE COURT fINDS

2. .. AI ~ ~ by law hlMt been gillen.
b. Each whose name is 10 be ctw9d identilIed in item 3 below
(1) ~nol 0
is under the junIdidlon oIlhe Department of Corrections. and
(2) ~~ 0
is requinld to~ as 8 lell otIender under sec:tion 290 of the Penal Code.
Thete ~ were made ~ USing ClfTSlCJIS 0 based on inform8tion provided 10 the clertl of the
C.
,c:;t a<:Jb;ectiollS
local enbcement
to the
law BgIIflCy.
proposed c:t.lge of name were made.
d. 0 ObjectionS 10 the ptopoeed c:hange of name 'MIrI made by (name):
e. "eppeera to the SiOtisfaction of the ClUt 1h8t althe lIIIegalions in the pebliOn 81'8 !rue and suffICient and that the petition should
be~.
f. 0 0I!'0er findings (if any):
THE COURT ORDERS

3 The name of
Pment!WlJl Newoaroe
8. Richard Peter Quinn is d'langed 10 Richard Peter Ornstein
b is changed 10
c. is changed 10
d IS changed to
e is changed to
['-J AdljlflOllal name changes are IIS18d on At!achmEtnl 3
Date ~- Cf ._ 0 1 ~tI-' /
~~'~~LlDlM
(
A ./
V
~
o SIGNA~EOF AJOGE 'OllOWSu.sT AnAC_NT
_.. _- -"-_.- . -_.--- .. -~--
rryrn~tcr~u..
DECREE CHANGING tlAYE C..ooo aI c'" Proc«luto." 1271. '17e
.~or'" c.o..n:. cA ~
..-: .Y'!"'Jrurt' ]G(l1] (Change of Name) ,,',:,!,,_~~~~r_"yX~_~.t.:~
-28-
209/ 259
~
ORIGINAL
FILED ~,\.,
lOS ANGfT F.~ ~\'rufO' rot""
1
MJG , Q ZOO7
2
JOHN ~ ~CLIIM
\""~~
3
...,d,.,~~
~C ~ 't\}~\
4
6
5
~ \\)\." ./
7 ~~/
8
SUPERIOR COURT OFT"E S'TATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANt:;ELES - WEST DISTRICT
10
II
12
IFRANK NOWDESHA
PlaintifT.
CASE NO.: SC OQI1Qi
ASSIGNED FOR ALl PURPOsrS TO
JtJOOE JOE E. HILBFRMAN
13
1v. DEPARTMENTI'
14 SEARS;, THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL t'PR9P~~Qt
SERVILES GROUP. INC.. a Connecticut .lUDGMENT <U' DISMISSAL ASH
IS I corporation: TWIN CITY FIRE COST AWARD IN FAVOR OF
INSURANCE. CO.• a Minnesota DEFENDANT UBERTY MUTUAl.
16 I corporation: LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE IFlRE INSURA~C": COMPA~"
INSURANCE. CO.• a Massachul~etts
17 I co~ration: KYLE LARSON. an
individual; IAN SNYDER. an individual:
18 I DOROlliY J. LEMKE. an individual:
DEBORAH 1. LEMKE. an individuaL ,KTIOt\ F1U:[) q;~V2006
19 I JONATHAN R. BENNET. an individual: TRIAL DAn: NOM
MICHAEL 1. DIEHL. an individual:
20 I KATHY KNOX-HARMAN. an
individual: KATHLEEN M. HAR.\1A~.
21 I an individual; JANE PETTIETTIl:. an
individual; GLORIA TIBBEITS. an
22
23
I individual: NANCY NEIRlCK. lin
individual: CHARLES NEIRICK. an
Hindividual: and DOES I through Ion.
inclusive.
!
24
Defendants.
j
25 Il- )
26
27
2R
!'h!~'rTH'111 III Dl\rtl'\\al
-29-
210/ 259
/ NOFlIDUE
'" -- GOV'T COOt 16J03
M.e.
RAYMOND G. FORTNER. JR., County Counsel
ORIGI~L
RALPH L. ROSATO, Assistant Coun~ Counsel
21 MELISSA A. McCAVERTY, senior Associate County Counsel
STATE BAR NO.: 21099S
VI~!!l «1J-'
3 I 648 Kenneth Hahn Hal! of Administration
SOO West Temple Street
4 Los Angeles, California 90012-2713
qeCriVf-: Telephone: (213) 974-1206 \,,0' ""cu.- ~

~\)G \ 0 7.00 ..••ft'"

Facsimile: (213) 687-8822

Jut!" 7~1 U\Q.I1Hl~"""
#-' ~~1 ~lpUTf
I;:'" I 6 Attorneys for Defendant
7
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
,'f'" \II,
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CAI~IFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS AN(;ELES, WEST DISTRICT
10
II I PETER BERMAN, CASE NO. SC092131
12 Plaintiff, ~PR8P98f!BI JUDGMENT" ORDER
OF DISMISSAL
13
1 v. Assigned to the Hon. Lisa Hart Cole, Dept. X
14 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; and DOES I
througb 20, inclusive,
IS
Defendant.
16
17
Defendant County of Los Angeles' Demum:r to Plaintiffs Complaint carne on regularly for
18
hearing in Department X of the above.entitled court on July 23. 2007, at 9:00 a.m., ,n parties
19
appearing by and through their respective counsel.
20
After full consideration of the briefs and arguments of counsel, the Court SUSTAINS
21
Defendant County of Los Ange!c:s' Demurrer to Plaintiff Peter Bennan's Complaint, without leave
22
II to amend.
23
III
24
1'/
I,
25
Ii I
26
'.
..,.,
.. I
f·
::::-:
II
~! 1 \..; ""1 '" . : :
lIIWI't)'''~ HI)( j\Il" I
-30-
211/ 259
",
•
D.E!J.ARAno~ Of SERVICE
Case No. SC092131
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. County ofI.m Angeles:
Alisha R. Cormier ltates: [am employed in the County oHm Anac1n. State of
4 I California. over the age of eighteen years and not a pIl1y to 1M within 1Ction. My buaineu Ilddn:u
is 648 Kenneth Hahn Ball of Administration. SOO Wesl Temple Slm', Los Angeles, California
51 90012-2713.
61 That on July 24, 2007, I served the attached
7I (PROPOSED) JUDGMENT &: ORDER OF DISMISSAL
81 upon Interested Party(ies) by placinLC the original • a true copy thereof enclo!Cd In a sealed
envelope addressed II as follows [J IS stated on the anached maIling list
9 n Gregor)' P. Sqa" Elq.
JO I 9100 Wlishirt Boulevard, Sulle 5O~E'lt
Beverly "lUI, CaUroml. 90212
lila (BY !\tAIL) by sealing and "Iacmg the envelopt for collection and maIling on the date and
12 at the place shown above followmg our ordinary bUSiness practICes I am rudlly fanulw
with this office's prachl'e of collection and pl'ocessang correspondence for malllnf' Under
13 that practice the com~pondence would be depoSited WIth the United States Posta Snvice
that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid.
14 0
15
1 (BY EXPRESS MAIL) by seahns and depciSltmg the: documtnt(s) hlted above in a post
office, mailbox, sub-post o1lice, substation, or ma.1 chute, or other like facIlity rqularty
maintained by the United States Postal Service: for receIpt of Exprns Mall or by seahna
16 and depositing the document(s) lD a box or other facIlity regularly maintaaned by an
express service carrier with delivery fees prc"aid or provided for
171° (BY FACSIMILE) I caused such document to be ddlvercd from the faclumJle machine It
telephone number on (datl:)___ ._ at . 1m. J p.m to the
18
facsimile machine at telephone number ---",e transmlltS10n was
19 reported as complete and without error, A copy ortlle tnnsmisslon repon was properly
issued by the transmitting facsimile machine and IS attached h~to
2011
0 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) 1delivered such envelope by hand to the offIces of the
I addressee.
:~ II a (STATE) I declare under penalty of perJury under the la"!t of the Siale 01 CalifornIa that
thl' foregOing is trut' and '~orrect.
23 110 (FEDERAL) I declare thai [ am employed In till' nlfl(CS of a member of thl~ l'Ourt at
2~ whose direction the !tCI"\'l(e was made
2~ Lxe~:uted on July ~4. 2()')7, al Los Angelc·s. ("J1J1url1la I

2h
Al,,,ha!{ ( .'mlll·r
T,~ or Print '0"1< ,,11h-duant I

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

-31-
212/ 259
".,.
. . "-" "-
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED tbl.. Defendlnt County of LOI An""

Demurrer ..
:I
21 SUSTAINED without lave to amend. ~.lbillCtion ia DISMISSED wrm
PREJUDICE and,JUDGMENT ia - iD fa... of1ldadonl ':->' of !.Do AJlp "
5 DATED _J (O,IJ I ~_
n
WAMD fEES. COSTS AN~I mATM
~"~X'~.1
6I
'CIWQ JUT BE Ramm 'roM
7I MntI3IU).OS (J1lf RAUl ~
81 REC(MRv (f ttl BGM9n: .-
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IX
!y
21)
21
_. I
,')
" I
. \1
,
-32-
213/ 259
, e e
.. ______ JUD-'''I
v
nClM€Y(lll"","",wmoJT"~'
_~_(JIll'
~~
Rober1 A. WeInbetg. EIq., SBN 1101~
"'"' Ln 0tIlc:eI d Robert A. Weinberg
18034 Ventura ~ 1S11
Encino. CA 91311
FILED
tal ANOIU!S C'OOIT SUPERIOI
..
11U!I"HCM ItO (818)7'05-3254 FlUltO ~ (I'lli~
E...... ADIlMIS~
AfTOIIN'V P'OIt _ _ PIIInIIr AUG 1'; lOO7
IUPIIICIIt COURT 011 ~ COUNTY 011 LOS ANQIUI.
mm AllCNII· '125 Meln &rMt ~
IIN..IC IilDDMII wt. 0IIlUft'

ClTVlHlll'aD santa Monica, CA eDiIOt
1IWOl ..... Wilt 0IIb1c:t santa MonIce ~
PLAINT1fT': Hakart Cofpomu Amertca, Inc., ....
0EfEN0ANT: ~. Inc. et" Call . . . . .
DBrCtertl
[Z]BrCoun
o
o
JUDGMENT
BrDIfaM
On"""an
8 0*."DIlI ...
M1IJrCewt TfIII SCOi2145
~"TNI
JUDGIetT
,. {Z] IYOEFAULT
a Defendant ... properly MrY8d will • OCIPY d tlelummonl 8nd ~nt
b Defendant failed to ...... the ~ 0 1 ' . - ' 8nd ew.nd tie actio"..., ..
lime aIIowecI by 1ft
c. QefendanI'I def8UII wu .,....,., by" dart upan .,..,.. ~ l
d. 0
CIertl'a JudgmMt (Code Qy Proc., '585(.:0 D**'" _ BUIld only on • oonIraCt 01' jUdgrnenI fA. COUIt d
thlI . . . tor the rece:MWY d money.
e [Z] Court.ludgrnanl (Code CN Proc.• '5e(b» The court oonaidafe~
(1) 0 p1aintift'l ..... 'lOlry and oe.~.
(2) [l] pIaW1tIf'/'I wntten dednIiDI. (Coda C1v. Prot.,' 585(d».
2. 0 ON STl'ULATION
a Plaintiff end defendwlllIgI1NId (1tipAated) ltat.;IIdgmant be..-.d "I thIa caM. The oour1 ~ . . ~
judgment and
b 0 the algned wntten Itipulation ... Ned in hi CMa.
c 0 the ItIpUatlon . . . stated in open 00UIt 0 the ItIpUIIIIon w• .-..d on . . I1ICXlftI
3·0 AFTER COURT TRIAL The /UfY ... waiYed. The Ol:JUlt c:onU*'ed \he 8\~
a. The C8H . . . tried on (dfIte and time).
before (name of judicial officer1,
b. Appearances by
o P1alntllY (name NCh)· CJ PIaintlIr. ettomey (name NCh)
(1 ) (1)
(2) (2)
o Continued on Attachment 3b
o Defendant (name each) [::J Defendant's attorney (name each)

(1 ) (1 )
(2) (2)
o Continued on Attachment 3b
c D Defendant did not appear at tnal Defendant was proper1y served with notice of tnal
d 0 A statement of declSlor (Code C,V Proc... § 632) 0 was not 0 was requested
..... '.11
r,)I"T1 ""'{'I"",,,,.,,,: I.W ':,(~,~. ')W
JUDGMENT C ,... '" ., ,_> .... PI')l';e4J," M~ 864 e
,h.id~:3 _J,;>,f ~ Car.tJl1~
1';[ ' f 'w"" d'~rl' .:·)..... 21
,.'\ W\\ d, '1~I>S5Id'N (om
-33-
, PlAINTIFF Hakart Corpomax Amenc8, Inc, et 81 .----------[(~;-;.---.;. SC092145
214/ 259.____.
J
!DEFENDANT P,'_itlJ",-e..;.,_lnc---",_8_t81 . •__ ... " ... _
JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AS FOllOWS BY; 0 TlfE COVAT !.:::J THE Cl£ftK
4 0 StipulaMd JtIdgrMnt. Judgll'lOOt is 8I'IIenld acc:on:ltng to !he stlPlJ/atlOl'l of the IJ8I1Mlll
5, PIl1tft. Judgmenl is
a [l] lor plaintiff (rwne NCh) cOlor C1OSS~"W"rn.nlf! HC~J
. Haka" Corpomu Amenca, I"C
and againSt Mfendant (IW'fIeS) and 108I1lS1 r:rou-OOf'ltldM' (rlMTIfI Hdll

PIaoe,Inc
o Continued on AnactvnenI sa. CI Conbnued on A~ !Ie

b. 0 lor defend8nt (neme Hdl) dOlor CfOII-dtIIeIIdlInt (rnIII'Ifl Hett)
6. Amount.
a. [Z) o.r.mnt named In llem sa above mull c 0 CI'ota-delelldenl named In Item !Ie 8tJo¥tt IYlUlIl pity
PlY paintIfr on Itle oompIIlnI. cn:.~onthe~
(1) [Z] D8mIIQeI S30,385.03 (') 0 r~ S

(2) 0 PrejudgrnenC S-o- (2) 0 f~ S
inlerest at the 'nterwl .. \tle
amuall1Ite of % IMU8ll1lteof %
(3) 0 Attorney fees S-o (3) 0 "nomeyfees S
(4) [lJ Costs S358.50 (4) 0 Coals S
(5) 0 Other (specify) 5-0- (5) 0 Other (sp«Jfy) S
(6) TOTAL S30,723,53 (6) TOTAL S
b 0 PIatntlft ~ recetve nochinO fmm defenclIlR d 0 f:fOII~ to!WCelYe ~ fmm

named in Item 5b I~ '*'*'
In IWII ~
o Defendant named In Item 5b to nlCCMlf
costs S
o ~ ~ II'lllem ~~NCO¥ef
lXlItI S
o and attorney fea S o II'ld Mtomey'" S
7 0 0lIlef (rpecify).'
Date AUG 13 l007 ~ 'A ' •• y.

",
Om D~.by , 0IiPU'Y
(SEAi.l C1.ERK'8 CERTIFICATE (Opt;onel}

I certify 1M! thilil • true <lOP)' of the origlNII judgment on fife In the 00\Jt't
Dale
C\et1(. by . _ - - _ . Deputy
,.. ....
JUO-HIO\*- _ , 1002!
JUDGMENT
-34-
, 215/ 259
Fl-820,
'r7 Wil~l ..,lIQHl(v , _ I N I _ I
J~ c (' .- ,
~"\
('
,
'011 CCUfT LeI OM. Y
. ,
r
JlJ
.cYRl'!i_'
~PERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
FILE))
tc lOS ,4,:-l(irJ fli SLl'rRlll\{ (1.( :RT
lJTM(El AOOAEISII I 7l .. - 1.\', " • f.- «(, ~, <"'" \ () .L
UAlMQ ACJ()fl(A
U1YMDrtI'~ . • 1 ~'" h • i\' '. ", ~ -\

\ < Rf-C€.\\/EO AUG 1 4 ZOOl
IlI'WIICHHMoIl JOHN" ':U,,;;'<h ',:;l.L:i~K
IWRAGI or
PiiltlUNERS
HUSBAND". Jes Christensen
~\}G \ 0\ 11lGl ~I
: DE M, rlEPVrY
"?- COU?:t
WIfE; Malle Delgado S\)i'::'\\\~\\i"I\\C'1
REQUEST FOR JUOGM£Nl'. RNo ~Gl :MiiMENl'il CAII-..a
·..:\102·\727

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

,. The JOiIJI PtIIIkJn lot &.mrwy DWo*lIM at AMIriIQe (Ionn R.-8ClO) . . MIMI on (dille): CO r:- 9 1. 2007
2. No rIllIl» d ~ till bien lied Md!he . . . . hawa not bIcorne reeoncW ' L' 1
3. ' . . . . . . . ~ d dMeok..... d rnamagII be
•. 0 ...,., to be efI8dIye now.
b. 0 entered to be llftectI\Ie (nlft pro Ulc) . . d (<**,:
tor !he foIIowIlO reeaon:
, declarf ~ qena~ l6lder trIe!awl ~ ltIe State at ~ that ltIe b'egOinQ IS true and correct.
Da18: AUlJ I 1 LWI
..
. ~.\" ~. . ) i
~
\
",
,!
•
"
-
Jt:!i ehri sten.o;en r L, L \,..... I j l--· \_
,rVP( OR .....-r _ I 'SIGNA ~ OT HUIlIINCl Oft_£)
.. 0 Husband, 0 WIfe. wtlo ctd not request his 01 her own former I'IlUM be restofed when he Ot stoel9*lltle ,om
petition. now requestalhat it be restofed. The appli(;8nI'llormef name is:
08..:
'rvPf.OA _ _ 1
• (SIOIIA1\JIlE'~"1lRfY
,----,-----------
--..0 TO HAllE HIli Oft HER _ AEST~ot
,. . e.wt LIIo ~
JUDr. .", OF DIUOLUT1ON fJ' MAJUIAGE

5 THE COURT OROERS
• A~ cf dIUdutkln at m.arnaoe WIll be entered. and 1M parbelI are ~td to Irle status C'J unmamed pet'SOIlS,
b §~ The Jud\7T1en( at dlUc*JIIOn at marnage WIt be entered nunc pro Iln: .. 01 (dare):
c. WIfe'1 former name is restOl8d (~.
d, HuItllInd'I former name IS reAnd (6P«dY1:
~ comply WlItI MTy ac.1eement attac::tled 10 the peCIbOn, ~. 1.1 ~1
- - - -.- - ,,---- D
8. HIAband. IIld WIte.
- ,."
0 ....., tJ 1
I'lii'" /1'J'~
,. t _ ---
r~ ~- - - -
,./

.IXXIt: 01 nc 8Ul"lfIO'I ca.RT
~
NOT1Cf: ~ may ~ c..c:eI !tie ngr.tlI 01 • spouI(I Inter . . ~ apoJM" ..... 11lMf. . . ., ... beneftI pIar1, ~ of
~. !WI' Otl dMlt1 I'Jar* ¥COUtIl ltIINfw Otl . . . . , lf4Ihde ~ ~ ~I to Illy ll'~ owned II'l /Olf1Ilenrq, and .".,
othet .."..., INnlJ II daft nIX aulO1TV1ttc;a1y c.M'CeI lt1e nt,1l\& cJ a fC)OUM as ber*'aIIy of Thl octlIlf ~'. Ille nur.-.ee pdIcy y OIJ UlouId
re\'_ ItIeU INnenl. as well as if')' Ctd eNds. Olt>e< Cfedlt acGOtlOla, inIur8nc4I polIciei reoremert benetJl planl, and credit r~ 10
~f\W1e ~ ~ ~ tlf! ct-anged Of wt>e4tlet )"')IJ VlOuld UIQ Iffy octw adIOnI,
... _. -. - - ---._-"-
.__
. --_. - - -
_.'.
- - _._-----
,_ _ ,__ , ..
--
.
--
.
----- - - ----
. . _ _ _ _..... ~!!.J.
- '--y~""~.uw REQUEST FOR JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT Of DtSl;QLUTION :.....""'Z.c;=~ ..

W J:J
" ~;,.....:.;::,~~.~.:... OF UARRIAG&. AND Nonc& OF ENTRY OF JUDGUENT """
' ' ' ' _ _ 11. • • • • 00 , . •• _ _ , . _ . "' ••• 1•••' _ . ,
-35-
•
216/ 259
•
,~NA ~.;,.,~: E. :,1 ~ :JA~~[.
~ .~NN;'. ~·:lt~: E' ,.; :.LI LA!\: l~; r~ F"L::

~4Cl CAPFI:L: PLV~
~AP V:~:h, ~~ ~JCtt
Bar No.:
..
:1 Attorr.eyts) for
E
f S'JPERIOR COURT CF CALIFORNIA, COUN':"t r_~ 1-.1. ~:n £<t
9
.l '-,
:~ F[ ~HE MARRIAGE OF: tJ'.:':. ~.)~ ~ '-;
: 3 DONI';" ~AP:~, G I LLI LAND \ ST1Pt·:" .. ~F~j ~t·~·;~t~.T
~4
Petit loner
• [C
dr"o
lE
PAUL ED~AFC GILLILAND
Respondent
:t<n THiS STIPULATEC JUDGEMENT 15 made and entered lr.~c, cr. ;"p,: :;. 4.'
:,
a~ Santa Marllca, california, by and betwt'en tt0NNA MAfiIE' ,;1:'L:;.',: ..
,ceferc{,j c( t'.erein as "PetltlOnf>c"l and PAUL f~'~'!\"~' ~;:: 1 ;:.K~.:
L.II \!eferrt'G to hereln as "Respon,1ent"l, both If'ferrp,j t' .'~~';" .~.!t- •. ~.
"Tr.e F.,!' ,,",5," ar.d 15 based ·"por. t~,e fol10 .... 1r.;;: fj"~ Io",;.!. ",f> ri't~. '!'.
"1 ...1 l E- t'" • t;- t c ... e ;
;., :-~.,. par:~es .... ere IT,arrlt-'') t) eact, rt.t.t'! .... ~"-<f": :& r t ." p ~ t
. ~4~r .:,: '>/II ~ :- e :.- en t 1 n u. 0 ~ s ~ / .. ~'.•_ ! 1
~ :-. c :.. 1 0 t.l E~ d ~ f f p r . . . :- ~ e 5 d r c .s e t t ': ,,' f~ f- • t ~ t t. ,'] ~ • : t- .:. . ~ ;
·~~t-?'J. .. aC~f- o.teakl "';. ~ 'Lt"lf ~,dr: 1~1-. 'j: . ; ; ~ ..

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

.:"'"\ -~-
~Illi t .J~1 .h
dl. ll"
-36-
217/ 259
~-~
{.d l'.//
t"VA.'\.f'~
STATE OF ( .-
COUNTY OF L C'. -~,
------ 55.
~~
appeared~iwI~7,
On "-+ (J..b I 2
), c
before me, ....... An <n-o. "'4 r
--_.=:.:..._- personally
'*- personally known to me o proved to me on the

basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument

and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her
authorized capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument
the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the persun acted,
executed the instrument.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
(SEAL)
1dt~M!Jtr'1foiAf~ - . -:-
,- C'~ . t~'
.....n-...,.
JIOTARY. CItftOI
~fiIF l.J7l~
-37-
J 'l. -t.:: "f" ...
218/ 259
( ,'1,11'1
MARITAL SETTlEMElfT AGREEMENT

2B The parties hereto enter into this Mamal Settlement Agreement (hereinafter
3 • "AGREEMENT") and make it effectrve as of thl! date of exetu1ion tet forth hereinafte'
4I This AGREEMENT ~ m:1de between potitioner STEVEN l SloeS (hereInafter
5 I "PETITIONER") and respondent KATAUN M. SlOCS (hereinafter "RESPONDENT1 in
6 I the County of Los Angeles, State of California and conSists of ten (10) pages total
7 I NOW THEREFORE. in consideratIOn ()f the foregoIng premises and the mutual
8 I agreements, covenants and provisions conta lned herein, said parties agree al fofJows
9I 1. STATISTICAL INFORMATION
10 (A; The parties wene married on Nt>vember 7, 1993 and separated on
11 September 26.2003
12 (B) The parties ha..~ no minor child
13 (C) Irreconcilable differences havfl arisen between the parties by reason of
:4 wh,ch the parties have lived S4~parate and apart because of thft
15 irremediable breakdown of thf! marriage and have agreed to live free from
16 any interference by the other party.
17 (0) The parties ac:knowledge tha't there is an actIon pendtng In the Superior
18 Court of the State of California. County of los Angeles. Case No SO 021

19 451 for a dissolution of the marriage k/t~ /c;L.$
20 (E) The partial intend this AGREEMENT shall.t>KfiIed'W1th the Court but
21 that all Ordor~ shall be enforced pursuant to the term:; of thl5
22 AGREEMENT only
", 2. PURPOSE ()F THE AGREEMENT
~4 II The purpose of thiS AGREEMENT is to make a flna! and complete settlement of
25 U the party's rights and oblt!Jations as set fl)rth herein
~6 II (A) The parties '~pectfically agree that their mat~!ag(: of 1110711993 be
27 II dissolved based on Irreconcilable differences under Family Code,
28 §2310(a)
I
\1
-
KMS n~~
MARIT.AI. SETTLEMENTAGREE.MENT·
\1 (j c.. I
II ~:::;>\l~
'I
-38-
..
219/ 259
Appendix X
220/ 259
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
10-03-19 Richard Fine: Dr Zernik – Mr Carrizosa Correspondence in re: Case Caption.
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:35:04 -0700

To: "Carrizosa, Philip" <Philip.Carrizosa@jud.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Request for information - Fine case
PHILIP R. CARRIZOSA
Office of Communications
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th floor
San Francisco CA 94102-3688
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
philip.carrizosa@jud.ca.gov
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
The favor of a response within 2 business days was requested.
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you again for your expedient attention and care of my requests. Let me again clarify my requests:
a) Mr Carrizosa's March 16, 2010 2:50 PM email stated the case caption as:
Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court.
b) Dr Zernik's March 16, 2010 11:41 PM email requested that the case caption be stated as:
"the full caption of the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as it
appeared in the US District Court PACER docket"
c) Mr Carrizosa's March 19, 2010 2:50 PM email stated the case caption as
Fine v. Sheriff .
d) Dr Zernik's March 19, 2010 12:58 PM email repeated the March 16, 2010 request that the case
caption be stated as:
Again, I apologize for any burden that I created on your office. Herein, I respectfully repeat my request, that
your good offices issue a response that could not possibly be viewed by any reasonable person as vague
and/or ambiguous, therefore, stating the case caption as:
The matter at hand pertains to a person's Liberty. Regardless, if through my own lack of care, I unintentionally
created in my requests for correct listing of the caption of the case at hand a burden, which could not be
accommodated by your office, please let me know, so that I do not bother you by repeating the same request
again.
Truly,
221/ 259
Page 2/6 March 19, 2010
Joseph Zernik, PhD

http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
Please sign our petition - Free Richard Fine: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/free-fine
Patriotic pics of Beyonce' Knowles, Sharon Stone, and Charlize Theron,
Coming soon- deep house music!
At 01:23 PM 3/19/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:

Mr. Zernik,
Perhaps I do not understand your request. I resent the message using the case title
and number as you stated it in your original e-mail. What is it about the resent
message that is incorrect?
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
After 4 p.m. and weekends: 415/407-4615
"Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians"
At 12:58 PM 3/19/2010, Dr Zernik wrote:

Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 12:58 PM
To: Carrizosa, Philip
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you for your timely response. Given that ambiguity was created in the original
response by your office, relative to the identity of the case at hand, the March 16,
2010 letter, copied below, explicitly requested that "you ... resend the message
below, with the full caption of the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly
stated, as it appeared in the US District Court PACER docket."
The favor of a corrected response from your good offices, including "the full caption of
the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as it appeared in the
US District Court PACER docket" is again requested.
Please bear with my additional request for correction - instant request is merely an
exact repeat of my March 16, 2010 request letter. I hope that you would be able to
abide with me in this clerical issue.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

222/ 259
Page 3/6 March 19, 2010

At 11:24 AM 3/19/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:
Mr. Zernik,
In response to your March 16 request to resend our response with the case title and
number that you used, I offer our response:
The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham
law firm to represent the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and
Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff, 2:09-cv-1914, pursuant to Government Code
section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules of Court, which require the AOC
to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the responsibility to select legal
counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin McCormick is a partner in the
retained law firm.
We cannot respond to your other hypotheticals.
I hope this answers your inquiry.
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
From: joseph zernik [ mailto:jz12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: Request for information - Fine case
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you again for your prompt response. Upon re-reading of your response below,
I realized that you had an typographical error in stating the caption of the case that
was the subject of my request for information. Therefore, for the record, in order to
have a valid response from your office on the matter at hand, I would be grateful if you
could resend the message below, with the full caption of the case of the habeas
corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as it appeared in the US District Court
PACER docket.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

223/ 259
Page 4/6 March 19, 2010
Mr. Zernik,
In response to your March 13 request for clarifying information and confirmation of

your five hypothetical assertions, I offer our response:
Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court, Case No. CV 09-1914,
pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules
of Court, which require the AOC to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the
responsibility to select legal counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin
McCormick is a partner in the retained law firm.
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 3:23 PM
Cc: McCormick, Brenda; McCormick, Kevin M; Attention: Judge David Yaffe and the
LA Superior Court C/O John Clarke, Clerk
Subject: Richard Fine: California Chief Justice Ronald George and Alleged Fraud in
Appearances of Attorney Kevin McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the
habeas corpus petition at the US District Court, LA
March 13, 2010
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
RE: Richard Fine: California Chief Justice Ronald George and Alleged Fraud in
Appearances of Attorney Kevin McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) -
224/ 259
Page 5/6 March 19, 2010
the habeas corpus petition at the US District Court, LA
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you again for your past help in clarifying information pertaining to the California
Administrative Office of the Courts. I again request your help.
In recently published online notes in several forums, I alleged dishonest and/or

fraudulent conduct by Attorney Kevin M McCormick of the law-firm of Benton, Orr,
Duval & Buckingham, relative to his appearances in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) -
the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine at the US District Court, Los Angeles. I
further alleged that his conduct was key to affecting the ongoing false hospitalization
of Attorney RICHARD FINE - a political dissident. [1], [2], [3]
Following the online postings at the ABA Journal, I received unauthenticated,

unverified communications, which lead to the formulation of the following five (5)
hypothetical assertions:
1) Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK's wife, Attorney BRENDA MCCORMICK, was
Court Managing Attorney for the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura.
2) Appearances of Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON,
ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) were not pursuant
to his engagement by the Intervenors in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - DAVID
YAFFE and the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES.
3) Appearances of KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON, ORR,
DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) were pursuant to his
engagement by the California Administrative Office of the Courts, an arm of the
Judicial Council, chaired by California Chief Justice RONALD GEORGE, and/or
through related entities.
4) Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON, ORR, DUVAL &
BUCKINGHAM was never authorized as Counsel of Record by the Intervenors in
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - DAVID YAFFE and the SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
5) Engagement of Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON,
ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM by the California Administrative Office of the Courts,
and arm of the Judicial Council, chaired by California Chief Justice RONALD
GEORGE, and/or related entities. included a stipulation prohibiting Attorney KEVIN
MCCORMICK from communicating with the Intervening parties - DAVID YAFFE and
the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - regarding
Attorney KEVIN MCCORMICK's appearances in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914).
Request is for confirmation on behalf of the California Administrative Office of
the Courts, and the Chairman of the Judicial Council, California Chief Justice
Ronald George, the five (5) hypothetical assertions, listed above, regarding
engagement of Attorney Kevin McCormick to appear in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-
01914) - the habeas corpus petition.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

CC:
1. McCormick, Brenda - by email
2. McCormick, Kevin - by email
3.Yaffe, David and the LA Superior Court - by fax
225/ 259
Page 6/6 March 19, 2010
4. Others of Interest
LINKED:
[1] The American Bar Association's motto is: "Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice"
[2] ABA Journal article and comments: 70 Year Old Lawyer Hits One-year Mark In
Jail In Contempt
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-
year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#comments
[3] March 13, 2010 ABA Journal article and comments: 70 Year Old Lawyer Hits One-
year Mark In Jail In Contempt, as copied:
http://inproperinla.com/10-03-13-aba-journal-article-on-richard-fine-and-comments-
s.pdf
226/ 259
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
10-03-22 Richard Fine: Final response by California Judicial Council - false and deliberately
misleading
Ronald George, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court,
Chair of the California Judicial Council
Los Angeles, March 22 - following is the latest, March 22, 2010 response, [1] which was received from the
Judicial Council. The case caption stated in such response is false and deliberately misleading. The case
caption stated in the response by the Judicial Council is "Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court," The case
caption as stated in the US Court docket is: "Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County."
The California Judicial Council is chaired by Ronald George, Chief Justice of the California Supreme
Court. No further attempt would be made to have the California Judicial Council correct this record.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] March 22, 2010 response by the California Judicial Council.
X-MSK: CML=1.001000
From: "Carrizosa, Philip"
To: joseph zernik
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:58:26 -0700
Thread-Topic: Request for information - Fine case
Thread-Index: AcrHwfYJBnu5MkmISiKkBZ5LohiLpgCSAP4w
Accept-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
acceptlanguage: en-US
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Mr. Zernik,
In light of your revised request, I am again sending our original response which we believe contains the correct and true
227/ 259
z Page 2/2 March 23, 2010
caption for the case.
The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham law firm to represent the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court, Case No. CV
09-1914, pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules of Court, which require the
AOC to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the responsibility to select legal counsel on behalf of courts and
judicial officers. Kevin McCormick is a partner in the retained law firm.
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
228/ 259
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
10-03-23 Richard Fine: Requesting Ronald George, Chair of the Judicial Council to Take
Corrective Actions in re: Conduct of Attorney Kevin McCormick
Hon. Ronald M. George

Chief Justice of California
Chair, Judicial Council
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
By Certified Mail, Restricted
The favor of a response within 10 days was requested.

Dear Chair George:
I write to you in your capacity as Chair of the California Judicial Council, and as a California
Judge, to reliably inform you of the conduct of Attorney Kevin McCormick, and to request
review of his conduct in the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine, which was affected
through a retainer by the Judicial Council, regardless of any error that may have fallen in the
case caption, as listed in the retainer agreement drafted by the Council.
Conduct of Attorney McCormick was alleged as fraud on the court, obstruction and
perversion of justice, deliberately intended to affect the false imprisonment of Richard Fine.
Please let me know if the you, personally, and/or the Judicial Council and its subordinate
offices plan on reviewing the allegations in the correspondence copied below, and if found
valid – initiate corrective actions.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Attached:
1) Correspondence with Mr Carrizosa in re: Allegations regarding conduct of Attorney
McCormick
2) Correspondence with Mr Carrizosa in re: Case caption of the habeas corpus petition.
229/ 259
z Page 2/16 March 23, 2010
1) Correspondence with Mr Carrizosa in re: Allegations Regarding Conduct of

Attorney McCormick, Retained by the Judicial Council and/or Its Subordinate
Offices
On 3/23/2010, Mr Carrizosa wrote:
X-MSK: CML=1.001000
From: "Carrizosa, Philip" <Philip.Carrizosa@jud.ca.gov>
To: joseph zernik <jz12345@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:30:41 -0700
Subject: RE: Richard I Fine: Request for review of allegations of fraud
misconduct by Attorney McCormick, and for initiation of corrective
actions.
Thread-Topic: Richard I Fine: Request for review of allegations of fraud
misconduct by Attorney McCormick, and for initiation of corrective
actions.
Thread-Index: AcrKvd/6nca/TFBYSTed8tc5ESYGCwAARY2g
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Mr. Zernik,
You may mail your communication to:
Hon. Ronald M. George

Chief Justice of California
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
On 3/23/2010, Dr Zernik wrote:

Subject: RE: Richard I Fine: Request for review of allegations of fraud misconduct by Attorney
McCormick, and for initiation of corrective actions.
Mr Carrizosa:
Would you please forward my communication, copied below, to the office of Ronald George, Chief
Justice of the California Supreme Court and Chair of the Judicial Council?
Alternatively, please provide and email or paper mail address for him.
Joseph Zernik
Mr. Zernik,
You should write to Chief Justice Ronald George directly with your allegations, not to me.
Philip R. Carrizosa
230/ 259
z Page 3/16 March 23, 2010

Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
On Monday, March 22, 2010 Dr Joseph Zernik wrote:

Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:24 PM
Subject: Richard I Fine: Request for review of allegations of fraud misconduct by Attorney McCormick,
and for initiation of corrective actions.
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you again for your expedient responses, and for clarifications in the March 22, 2010
communication [1] of the position of the Judicial Council, chaired by the California Chief Justice Ronald
George, relative to representation of Judge David Yaffe and the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, by Attorney Kevin McCormick in a matter pertaining to Richard I Fine.
I write to inform Chief Justice Ronald George, the Judicial Council, and its subordinate offices of alleged
violations of the law by Attorney Kevin McCormick in appearances on behalf of Judge David Yaffe and
the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, which upon investigation would be found to have
been the outcome of his being retained by the California Judicial Council pursuant to Cal Gov Code,
811.9 and Cal Rules of Courts 10.202, regardless of an error that may have fallen in the case caption,
as stated in the Judicial Council's retainer agreement with Attorney McCormick. Such allegations were
previously listed in my March 17, 2010 communication with the Judicial Council, [2] and are again
detailed below. I also write to inform Chief Justice Ronald George, the Judicial Council, and its
subordinate offices of alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct by Attorney Kevin
McCormick in appearances on behalf of Judge David Yaffe and the California Superior Court, County
of Los Angeles.
Pursuant to Cal Gov Code, 811.9, Cal Rules of Courts 10.202, and California Code of Judicial Ethics,
Canon 3D(2), I write to ask that Chief Justice Ronald George, and/or the Judicial Council, and/or its
subordinate offices review such allegations, listed below, and initiate corrective actions in this matter.
Conduct of Attorney McCormick in caption of Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Case No
CV 09-1914, [2] was alleged as founded in fraud, and as intended to affect obstruction and perversion
of justice as well as the deprivation of liberty of Richard I Fine. Such conduct included, but was not
limited to the following:
(a) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file the certifications required by Local Rules of the US Court,
Central District of California, as Counsel of Record for Judge David Yaffe and/or the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles in the Case;
(b) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file any declaration by Judge David Yaffe and/or by any Officer
231/ 259
z Page 4/16 March 23, 2010
of subordinate of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles in the Case in support of his
brief;
(c) Nowhere in the papers filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick in the Case was there any signature by
Judge David Yaffe and/or by any other Officer or subordinate of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles;
(d) Nowhere in the papers filed by Attorney McCormick in the Case was there any indication that he
had ever consulted, directly or indirectly, with Judge David Yaffe and/or any other Officer or subordinate
of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, or that such parties, on whose behalf he
purported to appear, had any knowledge of his appearances in the Case;
(e) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed declaration by Counsel only in support of his brief in the Case, albeit
Counsel was not a competent fact witness in the matter at all; [3]
(f) Attorney Kevin McCormick never filed any record in the Case that was obtained from Judge David
Yaffe and/or from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - the parties, on whose
behalf he purported to appear in the Case;
(g) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed as part of Exhibit A to his declaration in the Case, linked at [3],
below, false and deliberately misleading, record, titled "Remand/Removal Order", [4] which bears no
relevance to the case at hand, unless in its capacity to mislead;
(h) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed as part of Exhibit A to his declaration in the Case, linked [3], below,
false and deliberately misleading record, titled "Judgment and Order of Contempt re: Richard I Fine".
[4] Such record was never adequately verified by Judge David Yaffe, and was never authenticated
either. Such record could not possibly be deemed a Judgment that was entered by the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles in compliance with the law, and which required "full faith and
credit". In short - it was NOT an honest, valid and effectual Judgment of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles;
(i) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file with his brief and declaration the Register of Actions
(California civil docket) - the essential record that would have provided the foundation for any other
record in the case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, from which the Case at
hand originated.
Please let me know whether Chief Justice Ronald George, and/or the Judicial Council, and/or its
subordinate offices will review such allegations, listed above, and if found valid, would initiate corrective
actions in this matter.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

LINKS/NOTES:
[1] March 22, 2010 response by the California Judicial Council.

X-MSK: CML=1.001000
To: joseph zernik
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:58:26 -0700
232/ 259
z Page 5/16 March 23, 2010

X-ELNK-AV: 0
Mr. Zernik,
In light of your revised request, I am again sending our original response which we believe contains the correct
and true caption for the case.
The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham law firm to represent the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles
Court, Case No. CV 09-1914, pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California
Rules of Court, which require the AOC to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the responsibility to
select legal counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin McCormick is a partner in the retained law
firm.
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
[2] March 17, 2010 letter by Dr Joseph Zernik to the California Judicial Council.
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:32:30 -0700
Subject: RE: Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) - petition for a writ of habeas
corpus
March 17, 2010
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
The favor of a response within 10 days was requested.
RE: Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) - petition for a writ of
habeas corpus
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
233/ 259
z Page 6/16 March 23, 2010
Thank you again for your response, copied below. Request for correction of the error in the case
caption in your response was separately emailed. I write as a follow up on your response, regarding
the caption and case number referenced above - Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914) ("the Case") at the United States Court, Central District of California.
You listed the Cal Gov Code, 811.9 and Cal Rules of Courts 10.202 as the legal foundation for the
conduct of the Administrative Office of the Court in retaining Attorney Kevin McCormick to represent
Judge David Yaffe and/or the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles in the Case.
Cal Gov Code 811.9 states in pertinent part [underlines added - jz]:
811.9.
...
(b) To promote the cost-effective, prompt, and fair
resolution of actions, proceedings, and claims affecting the
trial courts, the Judicial Council shall adopt rules of court
requiring the Administrative Office of the Courts to manage
actions, proceedings, and claims that affect the trial courts
and involve superior courts, superior court judges,
subordinate judicial officers, court executive officers, or
trial court employees in consultation with the affected
courts and individuals. The Administrative Office of the
Courts' management of these actions, proceedings, and claims
shall include, but not be limited to, case management and
administrative responsibilities such as selection of counsel
and making strategic and settlement decisions.
Rule 10.202 states in pertinent part [underline added - jz]:
(b)Duties of the Office of the General Counsel

...
... the Office of the General Counsel under the direction of the
Administrative Director of the Courts and the General Counsel,
must:
...
(3) Select and direct any counsel retained to represent any trial
or appellate court, justice, judge, subordinate judicial officer,
court executive officer or administrator, and trial or appellate
court employee being provided legal representation under (2),
after consultation with the trial or appellate court and any such
individual defendant;
My questions and requests regarding the Case are as follows:
1) By law, as quoted above, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, through
and by the Office of the General Counsel were required to consult with Judge David Yaffe, and
accordingly advise, direct, and manage Attorney Kevin McCormick to conduct the Case in a manner
that was aimed to promote a fair resolution.
Question 1:
Did the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and/or the Office of the General
Counsel indeed comply with Cal Gov Code 811.9(b) and CRC Rule 10.202, Section (b) (3) regarding
consultation with Judge David Yaffe?
Did the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and/or Office of the General Counsel
conduct consultation with Judge David Yaffe and accordingly - did they jointly and/or severally direct
and manage the counsel retained in the Case - attorney Kevin McCormick - to conduct the Case -
Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-01914) - in a manner that was strategically
aimed to promote a fair resolution?
By law, as quoted above, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts, through and
234/ 259
z Page 7/16 March 23, 2010
by the Office of the General Counsel retained administrative and case management duties in the Case.
Therefore, I write to point out to attention of the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts,
and/or the Office of the General Counsel the conduct of Attorney Kevin McCormick in the Case:
(a) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file the certifications required by Local Rules of the US Court,
Central District of California, as Counsel of Record for Judge David Yaffe and/or the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles in the Case;
(b) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file any declaration by Judge David Yaffe and/or by any Officer
of subordinate of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles in the Case in support of his
brief;
(c) Nowhere in the papers filed by Attorney Kevin McCormick in the Case was there any signature by
Judge David Yaffe and/or by any other Officer or subordinate of the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles;
(d) Nowhere in the papers filed by Attorney McCormick in the Case was there any indication that he
had ever consulted, directly or indirectly, with Judge David Yaffe and/or any other Officer or subordinate
of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, or that such parties, on whose behalf he
purported to appear, had any knowledge of his appearances in the Case;
(e) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed declaration by Counsel only in support of his brief in the Case, albeit
Counsel was not a competent fact witness in the matter at all; [1]
(f) Attorney Kevin McCormick never filed any record in the Case that was obtained from Judge David
Yaffe and/or from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - the parties, on whose
behalf he purported to appear in the Case;
(g) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed as part of Exhibit A to his declaration in the Case, linked at [1],
below, false and deliberately misleading, record, titled "Remand/Removal Order", [2] which bears no
relevance to the case at hand, unless in its capacity to mislead;
(h) Attorney Kevin McCormick filed as part of Exhibit A to his declaration in the Case, linked [1], below,
false and deliberately misleading record, titled "Judgment and Order of Contempt re: Richard I Fine".
[2] Such record was never adequately verified by Judge David Yaffe, and was never authenticated
either. Such record could not possibly be deemed a Judgment that was entered by the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles in compliance with the law, and which required "full faith and
credit". In short - it was NOT an honest, valid and effectual Judgment of the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles;
(i) Attorney Kevin McCormick failed to file with his brief and declaration the Register of Actions
(California civil docket) - the essential record that would have provided the foundation for any other
record in the case of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, from which the Case at
hand originated.
A reasonable person, upon review of the matter as a whole, would conclude that the case of the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, from which the Case originated, included neither
an honest, valid, and effectual warrant for the arrest of Richard I Fine, nor any honest, valid, and
effectual judgment, conviction, or sentencing record.
A reasonable person, upon review of the matter as a whole, would conclude that Attorney Kevin
McCormick was either incompetent, or else - that Attorney Kevin McCormick engaged in false and
deliberately misleading conduct, which was strategically aimed not at promoting a fair resolution of the
Case, but instead - at perverting justice and at affecting continued false imprisonment of Richard I Fine;
Moreover - that Attorney McCormick achieved such aim through false appearances - without ever
being authorized to do so by Judge David Yaffe and/or by the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles and through the filing of false briefs and false court records; Finally - that Attorney Kevin
McCormick aimed to provide Judge David Yaffe and/or the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles full and complete deniability of any knowledge or collusion in such conduct and such
235/ 259
z Page 8/16 March 23, 2010
perversion in the Case.
Of note, I have repeatedly informed Attorney Kevin McCormick, Judge David Yaffe, and the the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, of the grave concerns listed above. All refused to
respond at all. There is no indication that any of them initiated any corrective actions.
I therefore request that you forward this communication to the Judicial Council, the Administrative
Office of the Courts, and the Office of the General Counsel, with the following question:
Question 2: Why would the Judicial Council, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and/or the Office of
the General Counsel not review the concerns listed above, pursuant to their duties by law, regarding
conduct of Attorney Kevin McCormick in the Case - Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914)?
If such concerns, as listed above, are found valid - why would the Judicial Council, the Administrative
Office of the Courts, and/or the Office of the General Counsel not take corrective actions to immediately
release Richard I Fine from alleged false imprisonment?
Thank you again for your help in this matter, where Liberty is at stake.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

LINKS:
[1] Declaration of Attorney McCormick in Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-
01914) - petition for a writ of habeas corpus:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-1_declaration-by-counsel-
for-la-sup-ct-in-support-of-response-f&e-may-1-2009.pdf
[2] Exhibit A to Declaration of Attorney McCormick in Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914) - petition for a writ of habeas corpus, including (a) "Remand/Removal Order", and (b)
"Judgment and Order of Contempt re: Richard I Fine":
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-of-
contempt-in-marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf
[3] Declaration of Attorney McCormick in Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County (2:09-cv-
01914) - petition for a writ of habeas corpus:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-1_declaration-by-counsel-for-la-
sup-ct-in-support-of-response-f&e-may-1-2009.pdf
[4] Exhibit A to Declaration of Attorney McCormick in Richard I. Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County
(2:09-cv-01914) - petition for a writ of habeas corpus, including (a) "Remand/Removal Order", and (b)
"Judgment and Order of Contempt re: Richard I Fine":
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-16-2_exh-a-judgment-of-contempt-in-
marina-hoa-v-la-county.pdf
236/ 259
z Page 9/16 March 23, 2010
2) Correspondence with Mr Carrizosa in re: Case caption of the habeas corpus petition of
Richard Fine, Where Attorney Kevin McCormick Appeared, Retained by the Judicial
Council and/or Its Subordinate Offices.
On March 22, 2010 Mr Carrizosa wrote:
X-MSK: CML=1.001000
To: joseph zernik
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:58:26 -0700
X-ELNK-AV: 0
Mr. Zernik,
In light of your revised request, I am again sending our original response which we believe contains the correct
and true caption for the case.
The Administrative Office of the Courts retained the Benton, Orr, Duval & Buckingham law firm to represent the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court,
Case No. CV 09-1914, pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules of
Court, which require the AOC to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the responsibility to select legal
counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin McCormick is a partner in the retained law firm.
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
At 17:09 on 3/19/2010, Dr Zernik wrote:
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:09:26 -0700

Subject: Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Richard I Fine, at the US District Court, Los Angeles,
where Mr Kevin McCormick was retained by the Judicial Council to represent Judge David Yaffe and
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
PHILIP R. CARRIZOSA
237/ 259
z Page 10/16 March 23, 2010
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588

Mr Carrizosa:
I am sorry to bother you again.
As you know, I am no attorney, not even by a long short, while you represent the Judicial Council,
chaired by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. In order to avoid any error in the record,
which is your response on behalf of the Judicial Council and therefore - the Chief Justice of the
California Supreme Court, I request that you delete from the response, which you mailed to me at
03:01 PM 3/19/2010, copied below, the following text:
"Fine v. Sheriff, 2:09-cv-1914 with the full caption of the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine
correctly stated, as it appeared in the US District Court PACER docket,"
I previously suggested that your office could use the PACER docket as a guideline, or an aide in an
effort to ensure that the caption and case number, as you list them in your response, are true and
correct. However, upon second thought, I would withdraw such suggestion. I am in no position to offer
any legal advice, whatsoever, to the Judicial Council and the Chief Justice of the California Supreme
Court. Instead, I request that you consult with the legal authorities, to whom you have access at the
Judicial Council, Administrative Office of the Courts, and/or the Office of the General Counsel.
Consequently, please state in your response whatever the Chief Justice of the California Supreme
Court, the Judicial Council and its subordinate offices deem to be the true and correct, full and
complete, honest and valid caption and case number of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of
Inmate Richard I Fine, at the US District Court, Central District of California, where Attorney Kevin
McCormick appeared, retained by the Judicial Council, as you indicated below.
I again apologize for any trouble incurred by my requests, and please excuse my ignorance in legal
matters.
With that, I hope that you would be able to provide an adequate response on this matter, which no
reasonable person would be able to deem vague or ambiguous.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Mr. Zernik,
I think this is what you want. If I am incorrect, please let me know.
Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff, 2:09-cv-1914 with the full caption of the case of
the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as it appeared in the US District
Court PACER docket, pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of
238/ 259
z Page 11/16 March 23, 2010
the California Rules of Court, which require the AOC to manage litigation affecting the
courts, including the responsibility to select legal counsel on behalf of courts and
judicial officers. Kevin McCormick is a partner in the retained law firm.
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588

PHILIP R. CARRIZOSA
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you again for your expedient attention and care of my requests. Let me again
clarify my requests:
a) Mr Carrizosa's March 16, 2010 2:50 PM email stated the case caption as:
Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court.
b) Dr Zernik's March 16, 2010 11:41 PM email requested that the case caption
be stated as:
"the full caption of the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as
it appeared in the US District Court PACER docket"
c) Mr Carrizosa's March 19, 2010 2:50 PM email stated the case caption as
Fine v. Sheriff .
d) Dr Zernik's March 19, 2010 12:58 PM email repeated the March 16, 2010
request that the case caption be stated as:
Again, I apologize for any burden that I created on your office. Herein, I respectfully
repeat my request, that your good offices issue a response that could not possibly be
viewed by any reasonable person as vague and/or ambiguous, therefore, stating the
239/ 259
z Page 12/16 March 23, 2010
case caption as:

The matter at hand pertains to a person's Liberty. Regardless, if through my own lack
of care, I unintentionally created in my requests for correct listing of the caption of the
case at hand a burden, which could not be accommodated by your office, please let
me know, so that I do not bother you by repeating the same request again.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Mr. Zernik,
Perhaps I do not understand your request. I resent the message using the case title
and number as you stated it in your original e-mail. What is it about the resent
message that is incorrect?
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588

Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you for your timely response. Given that ambiguity was created in the original
response by your office, relative to the identity of the case at hand, the March 16,
2010 letter, copied below, explicitly requested that "you ... resend the message
below, with the full caption of the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly
stated, as it appeared in the US District Court PACER docket."
The favor of a corrected response from your good offices, including "the full caption of
the case of the habeas corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as it appeared in the
US District Court PACER docket" is again requested.
240/ 259
z Page 13/16 March 23, 2010
Please bear with my additional request for correction - instant request is merely an
exact repeat of my March 16, 2010 request letter. I hope that you would be able to
abide with me in this clerical issue.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Mr. Zernik,
In response to your March 16 request to resend our response with the case title and
number that you used, I offer our response:
Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff, 2:09-cv-1914, pursuant to Government Code
section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules of Court, which require the AOC
to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the responsibility to select legal
counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin McCormick is a partner in the
retained law firm.
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588

Subject: Re: Request for information - Fine case
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you again for your prompt response. Upon re-reading of your response below,
I realized that you had an typographical error in stating the caption of the case that
241/ 259
z Page 14/16 March 23, 2010
was the subject of my request for information. Therefore, for the record, in order to
have a valid response from your office on the matter at hand, I would be grateful if you
could resend the message below, with the full caption of the case of the habeas
corpus of Attorney Fine correctly stated, as it appeared in the US District Court
PACER docket.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

Mr. Zernik,
In response to your March 13 request for clarifying information and confirmation of

your five hypothetical assertions, I offer our response:
Judge David Yaffe in Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles Court, Case No. CV 09-1914,
pursuant to Government Code section 811.9 and rule 10.202 of the California Rules
of Court, which require the AOC to manage litigation affecting the courts, including the
responsibility to select legal counsel on behalf of courts and judicial officers. Kevin
McCormick is a partner in the retained law firm.
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588

Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 3:23 PM
Cc: McCormick, Brenda; McCormick, Kevin M; Attention: Judge David Yaffe and the
LA Superior Court C/O John Clarke, Clerk
Subject: Richard Fine: California Chief Justice Ronald George and Alleged Fraud in
Appearances of Attorney Kevin McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - the
habeas corpus petition at the US District Court, LA
March 13, 2010

242/ 259
z Page 15/16 March 23, 2010
Philip R. Carrizosa
Direct 415/865-8044, Fax 415-865-4588
RE: Richard Fine: California Chief Justice Ronald George and Alleged Fraud in
Appearances of Attorney Kevin McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) -
the habeas corpus petition at the US District Court, LA
Dear Mr Carrizosa:
Thank you again for your past help in clarifying information pertaining to the California
Administrative Office of the Courts. I again request your help.
In recently published online notes in several forums, I alleged dishonest and/or

fraudulent conduct by Attorney Kevin M McCormick of the law-firm of Benton, Orr,
Duval & Buckingham, relative to his appearances in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) -
the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine at the US District Court, Los Angeles. I
further alleged that his conduct was key to affecting the ongoing false hospitalization
of Attorney RICHARD FINE - a political dissident. [1], [2], [3]
Following the online postings at the ABA Journal, I received unauthenticated,

unverified communications, which lead to the formulation of the following five (5)
hypothetical assertions:
1) Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK's wife, Attorney BRENDA MCCORMICK, was
Court Managing Attorney for the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura.
2) Appearances of Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON,
ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) were not pursuant
to his engagement by the Intervenors in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - DAVID
YAFFE and the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES.
3) Appearances of KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON, ORR,
DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) were pursuant to his
engagement by the California Administrative Office of the Courts, an arm of the
Judicial Council, chaired by California Chief Justice RONALD GEORGE, and/or
through related entities.
4) Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON, ORR, DUVAL &
BUCKINGHAM was never authorized as Counsel of Record by the Intervenors in
Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) - DAVID YAFFE and the SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
5) Engagement of Attorney KEVIN M MCCORMICK of the law-firm of BENTON,
ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM by the California Administrative Office of the Courts,
and arm of the Judicial Council, chaired by California Chief Justice RONALD
GEORGE, and/or related entities. included a stipulation prohibiting Attorney KEVIN
MCCORMICK from communicating with the Intervening parties - DAVID YAFFE and
the SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - regarding
Attorney KEVIN MCCORMICK's appearances in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914).
Request is for confirmation on behalf of the California Administrative Office of
the Courts, and the Chairman of the Judicial Council, California Chief Justice
Ronald George, the five (5) hypothetical assertions, listed above, regarding
engagement of Attorney Kevin McCormick to appear in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-
01914) - the habeas corpus petition.
243/ 259
z Page 16/16 March 23, 2010
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

CC:
1. McCormick, Brenda - by email
2. McCormick, Kevin - by email
3.Yaffe, David and the LA Superior Court - by fax
4. Others of Interest
LINKED:
[1] The American Bar Association's motto is: "Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice"
[2] ABA Journal article and comments: 70 Year Old Lawyer Hits One-year Mark In
Jail In Contempt
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/70-year-old_lawyer_hits_one-
year_mark_in_jail_in_contempt_case/#comments
[3] March 13, 2010 ABA Journal article and comments: 70 Year Old Lawyer Hits One-
year Mark In Jail In Contempt, as copied:
http://inproperinla.com/10-03-13-aba-journal-article-on-richard-fine-and-comments-
s.pdf
244/ 259
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
10-
10-03-
03-06 Addendum to complaint against Bank or America Corporation (#00971981)
filed with Office of Comptroller of the Currency.
1) Addendum to complaint filed with OCC against Bank of America

Corporation (#00971981)
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:12:41 -0800
To: <john.c.dugan@occ.treas.gov>, <kevin.bailey@occ.treas.gov>, "Office of Comptroller of the
Currency" <713.336.4301@metrofax.com>
Subject: Addendum to complaint filed with Office of the US Comptroller of the Currency against Bank of
America Corporation (#00971981)
March 6, 2010
John Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency

Kevin Bailey, Deputy Comptroller of the Currency
Office of Comptroller of the Currency
RE: Addendum to complaint filed with Office of the US Comptroller of the Currency against
Bank of America Corporation (#00971981)
Dear Mr Dugan, Mr Bailey, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency:
Please accept this notice, and the attached, digitally signed letter, copied below, addressed to Brian
Moynihan, President of Bank of America Corporation, as an Addendum to my complaint against Bank
of America Corporation (#00971981).
Please also notice the failure of Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to issue a determination in
this matter- complaint which was filed with your office on September 29, 2009.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

2) Complaint filed with David Kotz, Inspector General of SEC regarding refusal
of Mary Schapiro and SEC to accept complaints against Bank of America
Corporation.
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:03:21 -0800
To: "SEC-IG David Kotz" <Kotzd@sec.gov>
Subject: Complaint filed with David Kotz, SEC Inspector General against Mary Schapiro, Chair
245/ 259
Page 2/10 March 6, 2010
of SEC for her refusal to treat complaints against Bank of America Corporation as such
March 6, 2010
David Kotz, Inspector General

SEC
RE: Complaint filed with David Kotz, SEC Inspector General against Mary Schapiro,
Chair of SEC, for her refusal to treat complaints against Bank of America Corporation
as such
Dear Mr Kotz:
Please accept this notice and the attached, digitally signed letter, addressed to Brian
Moynihan, as an addendum to complaint previously filed with your office, against Mary
Schapiro, SEC Chair, for her refusal to treat complaints against Bank of America Corporation
as such, and to issue SEC Complaint reference numbers.
Please issue in response to this notice a complaint number or other reference number for the
complaint, indicating that it was received as a Complaint by Office of the Inspector General of
SEC.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

3) Complaint filed March 6, 2010 with Mary Schapiro, SEC Chair, against Brian
Moynihan and Bank of America Corporation.
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 12:56:59 -0800
To: "Schapiro, Mary L." <SchapiroM@sec.gov>
Subject: Complaint filed with Mary Schapiro, Chair of SEC against Brian Moynihan
and Bank of America Corporation, and request for the issuance of an SEC Complaint
reference number.
March 6, 2010
Mary L Schapiro, Chair

SEC
Dear Ms Schapiro:
Please accept this notice and the attached, digitally signed letter, addressed to Brian
Moynihan, as a complaint filed with SEC against Mr Brian Moynihan and Bank of
America Corporation, for various types of fraud and other criminalities.
Please issue in response to this notice a complaint number or other reference number
for the complaint, indicating that it was received as a Complaint and a request for
investigation by SEC.
246/ 259
Page 3/10 March 6, 2010
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

4) Request filed with Ed O’Keefe – General Counsel of Bank of

America Corporation, to disclose to the Audit Committee alleged fraud
and other criminal conduct by Brian Moynihan, President and CEO.
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 12:51:08 -0800
To: "General Counsel Ed O'Keefe" <ed.okeefe@bankofamerica.com>, "Attention General
Counsel Ed O'Keefe C/O Ryan, Patrick C -Legal" <patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com>,
Subject: Requesting Brian Moynihan to disclose pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) to
Bank of America Audit Committee fraud by management - Brian Moynihan and Sandor
Samuels.
March 6, 2010
Ed O'Keefe, General Counsel

Bank of America Corporation
Dear Mr O'Keefe:
Please accept the digitally signed letter, attached, and copied below, as request to disclose
pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) to Bank of America Audit Committee fraud by
management - Brian Moynihan and Sandor Samuels.
The letter was also posted at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27937374/10-03-06-Bank-of-America-Requesting-President-CEO-
Brian-Moynihan-to-Disclose-His-Own-Fraud-to-the-Audit-Committee-s
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

________________
March 6, 2010
Dear Mr Moynihan:
Please accept the digitally signed letter, attached, and copied below, as request to disclose
pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) to Bank of America Audit Committee fraud by
management - Brian Moynihan and Sandor Samuels.
The letter was also posted at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27937374/10-03-06-Bank-of-America-Requesting-President-CEO-
247/ 259
Page 4/10 March 6, 2010
Brian-Moynihan-to-Disclose-His-Own-Fraud-to-the-Audit-Committee-s
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

______________
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
10-03-06 Requesting Brian Moynihan, BAC President/CEO to disclose to Bank of

America Audit Committee his own conduct as fraud by management, pursuant to
Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002).
March 6, 2009
Brian Moynihan, President/CEO

Bank of America Corporation
By Email:
<brian.t.moynihan@bankofamerica.com>
<patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com>
RE: Requesting Brian Moynihan, BAC President/CEO to disclose to Bank of America

Audit Committee his own conduct as fraud by management, pursuant to Sarbanes
Oxley Act (2002).
Dear Mr Moynihan:
Please accept this notice, and the attached digitally signed letter by Bank of America
stockholder, as a request that you disclose to the Bank of America Audit Committee fraud by
management:
1) Brian Moynihan, President/CEO
2) Sandor Samuels, Associate General Counsel.
Truly,
Joseph Zernik, PhD

248/ 259
Page 5/10 March 6, 2010
CC:
1) Ed O'Keefe - General Counsel
2) Mary Schapiro - Chair, SEC, as a complaint against Brian Moynihan and Bank of
America Corporation.
3) OCC, John Dugan, Kevin Bailey, as an Addendum to complaint #00971981 against
Bank of America Corporation, a national bank.
4) Basel Accords Committee on international banking
10-03-06 Alleged fraud and other criminalities by Brian Moynihan, President/CEO of

Bank of America Corporation related to real estate fraud and malicious court actions
against Dr Joseph Zernik, and response by office of Brian Moynihan to complaint of Dr
Zernik with Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (#00971981)
Overview
While the office of Attorney General of the State of New York was focused on pursuing alleged
securities fraud by senior officers of Bank of America Corporation (BAC) surrounding the
December 2008 merger with Merrill Lynch, chaperoned or coerced by senior US officers,
instant complaint finds the origins of such conduct in the earlier, January 2008
chaperoned/coerced merger with Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC). One focus of
investigations relative to the merger with Merrill Lynch was on the ouster, on December 10,
2008, of Mr Timothy Mayopoulos, then BAC General Counsel, in the midst of negotiation of
the Merrill Lynch merger, and his escort out of the BAC corporate headquarters by security.
Again, instant complaint correlated such events with conduct related to the earlier merger -
with CFC. Mr Mayopoulos was replaced on December 10, 2008, as BAC General Counsel by
Mr Brian Moynihan - today BAC President and CEO. Instant complaint finds the appointment
of Mr Brian Moynihan as General Counsel as tightly correlated with resumption of alleged
criminality related to CFC, which was halted during the tenure of Mr Mayopoulos as General
Counsel of BAC.
The evidence provided below alleged that the transformation of BAC into an allegedly corrupt
organization took place between January 8 and January 11, 2008, in the decision to merge
BAC with CFC. The collapse of CFC on January 8, 2008 followed publication in the NYT of
the filing of "recreated letters" as evidence in US Bankruptcy Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
[1] Financial markets were reported under "tremors". It should be noted that investors did not
distinguish between fraud in financial reports and fraud against individuals. The realization that
the Legal Department of CFC was engaged in fraudulent conduct in court undermined
investors' confidence. Neither does Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) make any such distinction.
It is claimed that the merger announced on January 11, 2008 could not be honestly accepted
by senior Officers and the Board of Directors of BAC consistent with the investors' interests.
Agreement was to purchase CFC for stock exchange at over $4 billions, whereas the true
value of CFC was in the negative many billions of dollars. Additionally, it is claimed that the
transaction harbored substantial criminal liabilities for BAC and its officers, which could not
escape the notice of General Counsel Timothy Mayopoulos. Such criminal liabilities stemmed
from conduct of the underwriting department of CFC, which had been engaged in false
underwriting and funding of government-backed residential loans for years, and in the litigation
practices of the Legal Department of CFC. Such litigation practices were documented in great
detail during the due diligence period, in the March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion of Judge
Jeff Bohm, US Bankruptcy Court, Houston Texas. [2]
Of particular interest in Judge Bohm's opinion were the detailed description of the false
appearances by false outside counsel for CFC, who was not Counsel of Record, and who was
employed with "no communications with client" clause. Additionally, the opinion cited a year-
long study by the US Trustee, conducted in conjunction with investigation by Judge Bohm of
CFC's litigation practices across the US. It is alleged that the evidence in that opinion should
have been sufficient for indictment of Sandor Samuels and the CFC Legal Department as a
corrupt organization, for looting of home owners across the US, and for securities fraud,
249/ 259
Page 6/10 March 6, 2010
stemming from failure to disclose such corrupt practices to investors and to the Audit
Committee of CFC.
Analysis of the records in the case of Dr Joseph Zernik, resident of Los Angeles County,
California - home base of CFC, allowed to draw entirely novel conclusions regarding events
related to the merger of CFC and BAC, which was announced on January 11, 2008, and was
concluded on July 1, 2008, and also regarding the ouster of Timothy Mayopoulos on
December 10, 2008:
1) Period from July 1, 2008 (takeover of CFC by BAC) to December 10. 2008 (ouster
of Mr Mayopoulos)
Based on conduct of the office of General Counsel of BAC under Mr Mayopoulos's leadership,
from July 1, 2008 (takeover of CFC by BAC) to December 10. 2008 (ouster of Mayopoulos),
on the one hand, and conduct of the various US law enforcement agencies, on the other, a
reasonable person would conclude that secret agreements were reached between BAC
leadership - particularly Mayopoulos, and senior US officers, regarding the alleged criminality
at CFC. It is claimed that such agreements were reached with no authority by the senior US
officers involved, and that such agreements stood contrary to the rule of law and the US
Constitution. Such agreements were never disclosed to investors or to the US Congress.
During this period noted above, Dr Zernik repeatedly called the office of Mr Mayopoulos, and
spoke with senior staff of that office. Dr Zernik also left voice mail messages with Mr
Mayopoulos himself, and also messages with his secretary. In all such interactions, it was
clearly stated by senior staff of the office of BAC General Counsel that Bryan Cave, LLP was
NOT authorized to appear at the Los Angeles Superior Court under caption of Samaan v
Zernik (SC087400). Conduct of Bryan Cave, LLP, under that caption was alleged by Dr Zernik
as malicious litigation by CFC and others, amounting to serious violations of Human Rights of
Joseph Zernik, and evidence of criminality by Mr Sandor Samuels - then Chief Legal Officer of
CFC, and others.
In all such interactions of Dr Zernik with office of BAC General Counsel during the period noted
above, it was clearly stated that Mr Todd Boock, in-house counsel of the former CFC Legal
Department, was the only counsel authorized as Counsel of Record for BAC in Samaan v
Zernik (SC087400).
Therefore, review of the records in the period noted above revealed that Mr Mayopoulos
prevented further alleged criminality by the Legal Department of CFC, who had engaged in
false employment of outside counsel in Dr Zernik's case, similar to what was described in
opinion of Judge Bohm. However, Mr Mayopoulos refused to take corrective actions regarding
fraud conducted by CFC prior to July 1, 2008. Complaints, which were filed by Dr Zernik with
the Audit Committee of BAC pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) were not reviewed. No
disclosures were made to the Audit Committee regarding fraud by management (Sandor
Samuels - Chief Legal Officer of CFC, by then - Associate General Counsel of BAC), and false
certifications were signed by BAC officers pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) in periodic
reports to SEC.
US law enforcement agencies would not enforce the law at BAC and CFC. No matter how
credible the evidence of criminality was in records that were filed by Dr Zernik with such
agencies. No US agency would take any action against these financial institutions. Such
conduct also amounted to refusal to provide Dr Joseph Zernik Equal Protection under the law.
Such absurd position was also evidenced in the litigation of SEC v BAC (1-09-cv-06829) at the
US District Court, NY.
2) Period from December 10, 2008 (replacement of Timothy Mayopoulos by Brian

Moynihan as General Counsel at BAC) and to this date
250/ 259
Page 7/10 March 6, 2010
Upon review of records in Dr Zernik's case, a reasonable person would conclude that BAC,
starting December 10, 2008, abandoned any notion of compliance with the law, which was
attempted under the leadership of Timothy Mayopoulos at the office of General Counsel. With
the appointment of Brian Moynihan as General Counsel on December 10, 2008, BAC started
flaunting of its alleged criminality. On the other hand - US law enforcement agencies continued
their position of refusal to enforce the law at BAC.
a) Resumption and flaunting of alleged criminality within 24 hours from ouster of

Timothy Mayopoulos.
Dr Zernik was not aware at the time of the ouster of Mr Mayopoulos. However, he was
astonished on December 11, 2008, with the resumption of alleged criminalities by BAC -
alleged retaliation, intimidation and harassment of a victim/ witness/informant through renewed
false appearances by Bryan Cave, LLP. [3]
The actions that were falsely taken by Bryan Cave, LLP and BAC at that time were seen as
flaunting of criminality: Brian Cave, LLP filed ex parte application for shortened notice hearing
on OSC contempt and serious sanctions against Dr Zernik. The main claim being that Dr
Zernik was guilty of contempt in calling the office of BAC General Counsel Mayopoulos and
finding out that Bryan Cave, LLP was engaged in alleged criminalities at the court in Los
Angeles. [4]
It was alleged that such conduct, taking place less than 24 hours after the ouster of Mr
Mayopoulos and his replacement by Mr Moynihan, could not have taken place absent
permission, or at least cognizance by Mr Moynihan. It was further alleged that upon discovery
it would be found that Mr Moynihan in fact permitted Mr Sandor Samuels to resume the
alleged criminal practices of the former CFC Legal Department, in fact relieving the CFC Legal
Department from requirements publicly stated in the BAC Outside Counsel Procedures, which
purported to guarantee investors and the public at large honest conduct by the office BAC
General Counsel. [5]
b) Flaunting by the former CFC Legal Department their exemption from procedures
of the BAC General Counsel
The flaunting of alleged criminality in appearances of Bryan Cave, LLP, and exemption of the
former CFC Legal Department from supervision by the BAC office of General Counsel
procedures was particularly noted in March 18, 2009 email notice by Todd Boock, [6] in-house
counsel of the former CFC Legal Department, to Dr Zernik. Mr Boock was repeatedly noted
by BAC office of General Counsel as the ONLY counsel authorized as Counsel of Record in
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). The email was addressed to Dr Zernik and copied to Phil
Wertz of the BAC General Counsel Office, stating falsely that Bryan Cave, LLP should be
addressed by Dr Zernik in matters pertaining to Samaan v Zernik, and that Zernik should
ignore all information he had previously received to the contrary from office of the BAC
General Counsel in that matter.
c) False and deliberately misleading responses by office of Brian Moynihan to the

US Office of Comptroller of the Currency on Zernik's complaint (#00971981)
In late September 2009 Dr Zernik filed complaint against BAC with US Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (#00971981).
Three main issues were noted in the complaint:

1) Refusal of BAC and its Audit Committee to pronounce on hundreds of false banking
records produced by CFC and false court actions that were conducted by CFC and later BAC,
and were subject of repeated complaints by Dr Zernik to the Audit Committee of BAC.
2) False appearances by Outside Counsel which was not Counsel of Record - Bryan Cave,
LLP. A clear statement was requested by authorized person at BAC, whether Bryan Cave
LLP was Counsel of Record in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and if so - to specify the date of
such engagement.
251/ 259
Page 8/10 March 6, 2010
3) Collection of funds by parties that were related to CFC or BAC, purported as sanctions
against Dr Zernik, from Attorney David Pasternak, falsely representing himself as "Receiver"
for enforcement of judgment that never existed as a valid entered judgment, and who failed to
obtain valid appointment order as Receiver, as required by law. Such conduct by CFC and
BAC was alleged as money laundering, or monetary transactions in funds derived from
specified prohibited conduct.
By January 1, 2010, the date of appointment of Brian Moynihan as President and CEO of
BAC, BAC failed to respond at all on Dr Zernik's complaint to OCC, over 2 months earlier, in
disregard of standard time-frames stated by OCC. Moreover, by that time OCC claimed to
have twice "escalated" the complaint.
Such state of affairs was reported by Dr Zernik, starting late December 2009 to both Brian
Moynihan, by then announced as the newly appointed CEO/President of BAC, and to Mary
Schapiro, Chair of SEC. Both Schapiro and Moynihan acknowledged receipt of Dr Zernik's
notices. In such notices Dr Zernik claimed that the refusal of BAC to respond on complaint
filed with OCC, alleging fraud by BAC management, must be deemed material deficiency in
itself, given the seriousness of the allegations. Therefore, Dr Zernik claimed that the refusal to
respond on the complaint to OCC must be accordingly disclosed to the BAC Audit Committee,
and also in periodic reports to SEC and investors.
Consequently, on January 8, 2010, response letter was issued on the complaint to OCC
(#00971981) [7] [8] by the office of BAC CEO/President Brian Moynihan. Two copies were
provided below of such response. One [7] is the copy which was mailed to Dr Zernik, and the
other was the copy which was faxed to OCC, and was obtained by Dr Zernik through FOIA-
request. [8] Both copies show the same feature - although they were noted in the body of the
response as transmitted from Charlotte, North Carolina, office of Brian Moynihan, President &
CEO, they passed on the way through California, presumably at the former CFC Legal
Department, prior to being forwarded to their final destinations.
It was alleged that upon discovery, it would be found that such response amounted to fraud,
which was tightly coordinated by Mr Brian Moynihan himself and Mr Sandor Samuels and/or
Mr Todd Boock at the former CFC Legal Department.
The nature of the fraud was three-fold:

1) Regarding the alleged fraud in CFC banking records that had been produced in
response to legal subpoenas, BAC refused to make any pronouncement. Instead, it made a
false and deliberately misleading statement that it would not produce loan records to Dr
Zernik. Dr Zernik never requested production of loan records. All such loan records had
already been produced. Instead, Dr Zernik only requested review by the Audit Committee of
his claims of large scale fraud in banking records that had already been produced and falsely
represented as true and valid loan records..
2) Regarding authorization of Bryan Cave, LLP, if any, as Outside Counsel of Record
under caption of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), BAC failed to make any explicit, valid
statement by an authorized person. Neither did BAC state a date of enlargement. However,
BAC did make in its response a statement pertaining to Bryan Cave, LLP, that should be
deemed upon review as fraud.
3) BAC failed to respond on the issue of monetary transactions conducted with Attorney
David Pasternak. BAC never disclosed who the recipients of the funds were, and what the
designation of such transactions in BAC accounting was.
It should be noted that at least two such transactions were recorded by the false "Receiver"
Attorney David Pasternak, who was and is a close personal friend of Mr Sandor Samuels. [9],
[10]
It should also be noted that in a phone call by Dr Joseph Zernik to OCC on March 5, 2010, he
was informed that OCC had not made any determination on his complaint against BAC
(#00971981) to that date. Such delay was inexplicable, and fell outside any of the stated time
252/ 259
Page 9/10 March 6, 2010
frames for response by OCC on complaints by individuals against national banks, as stated by
OCC staff.
In sum:
The state of affairs stemming from the 2008 merger of BAC with an alleged corrupt
organization that was CFC, which was chaperoned/coerced by senior US officers, was that
BAC top management was flaunting alleged criminality, while US law enforcement agencies
were consistent in their refusal to enforce the law. Such state of affairs was inconsistent with
the rule of law, with the US Constitution, with the Basel Accords on international banking, and
with investors' interests.
Links:
[1] January 8, 2008 Three recreated letters and a transcript from Case of Borrower Sharon
Diane Hill (01-22574).
Publication of the story by the NYT on January 8, 2008 caused the collapse of Countrywide
Financial Corporation, and "tremors" to financial markets.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25003494/08-01-08-Countrywide-Recreated-Letters-Transcript-in-
case-of-Borrower-Hill-Pittsburgh-PA-s
[2] March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion of Judge Jeff Bohm, in case of Borrow William Alan
Parsley (05-90374).
The opinion provided detailed analysis of the malicious litigation practices of Countrywide
Financial Corporation in courts across the United States. Of Particular interest was Judge Jeff
Bohm's analysis of the practice involving employment of false counsel who was not counsel of
record and who was employed with "no communications with clients" clause. The opinion was
based in part on a year-long study by the US Trustee of litigation practices of Countrywide
Financial Corporation across the United States.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25001966/08-03-05-Countrywide-Judge-Jeff-Bohm-s-rebuke-of-
litigation-practices-Case-of-Borrower-Parsley-Houston-Texas-Dkt-248-re-Countrywide-s-false-
ou
[3] December 11, 2008 - false notice by Bryan Cave, LLP on behalf of Non Party Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc barely 24 hours after the ouster of Timothy Mayopoulos as General Counsel
of Bank of America Corporation resumption of obstructionist/malicious conduct by false
counsel, who was not counsel of record under caption of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the
Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles. Bryan Cave, LLP attorney deliberately
made such notices defective on their faces, nevertheless, the intended harm was affected.
The case number in the notice is false, and the signature was invalid - not even in the name of
an attorney, let alone counsel of record.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27932293/08-12-11-Bryan-Cave-LLP-Notice-of-Ex-Parte-
Appearance-on-Behalf-of-Non-Party-Countrywide-Home-Loans-Inc
[4] December 15, 2008 Ex parte application by Non Party Countrywide for short notice hearing
on contempt and sanctions against Dr Zernik. Such court actions were alleged
retaliation/intimidation/harassment against witness/victim/informant and also
obstruction/perversion of justice. The application was deemed as an act of flaunting criminality,
since it was based on a claim of contempt related to Dr Zernik contacting the office of BAC
General Counsel and obtaining information that Bryan Cave,LLP was NOT authorized to
appear in court under Samaan v Zernik (SC087400).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27932188/08-12-15-Countrywide-Ex-Parte-Application-for-a-Short-
Notice-Hearing-on-Motion-for-OSC-Contempt-and-Sanctions
[5] April 2008 the published BAC Outside Counsel Procedures. Obstructionist conduct by
outside counsel is strictly prohibited. Outside Counsel is not allowed to appear unless
authorized by BAC office of the General Counsel, and Outside Counsel is required to report
per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) section 307. Bryan Cave, LLP, and the former CFC Legal
Department, headed by Sandor Samuels were exempted from all such procedures starting
253/ 259
Page 10/10 March 6, 2010
December 11, 2008, under Bryan Moynihan.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27932516/08-12-11-Bank-of-America-Outside-Counsel-
Procedures-s
[6] March 18, 2009 email notice by Todd Boock, in-house counsel of the former CFC Legal
Department, addressed to Dr Joseph Zernik and copied to Phil Wertz from the BAC office of
General Counsel. While Todd Boock was the truly listed counsel of record in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400) according to the General Counsel of BAC, he refused to communicate on the
matter, and referred it to false counsel Bryan Cave, LLP. He copied the notice to Wertz, to
negate the opposite information, repeatedly provided by Mr Wertz to Dr Zernik, but with no
legal foundation.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27932604/09-03-18-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Email-notice-by-
Bank-of-America-In-house-Counsel-Todd-Boock-to-Joseph-Zernik-s
[7] January 8, 2010 copy of response from office of Brian Moynihan, BAC CEO & President on
complaint to OCC (#00971981) - as mailed to Dr Zernik. It was alleged that such response
should be deemed as fraud, tightly coordinated by office of Mr Brian Cave and the former CFC
Legal Department - Mr Sandor Samuels and/or Mr Todd Boock.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27932742/10-01-08-Bank-of-America-Response-letter-by-office-of-
President-CEO-Brian-Moynihan-to-Office-of-Comptroller-of-the-Currency-on-Zernik-s-
Complaint-0
[8] January 8, 2010 copy of response from office of Brian Moynihan, BAC CEO & President on
complaint to OCC (#00971981) - as faxed to OCC. It was alleged that such response should
be deemed as fraud, tightly coordinated by office of Mr Brian Cave and the former CFC Legal
Department - Mr Sandor Samuels and/or Mr Todd Boock.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27932890/10-01-08-Bank-of-America-Response-letter-by-office-of-
President-CEO-Brian-Moynihan-to-Office-of-Comptroller-of-the-Currency-on-Zernik-s-
Complaint-J
[9] January 14, 2009 Report by David Pasternak, listing payment on December 2, 2008 of
$7,500 to Countrywide Home Loans. Neither BAC nor Bryan Cave, LLP would answer
regarding the identity of the party that collected such funds and their designation.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27933024/09-01-14-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Attorney-David-
Pasternak-s-false-fourteenth-interim-report-s
[10] February 24, 2009 Pasternaks Report, listing payment of $5,564 50 to Countrywide Home
Loans.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27933161/09-02-24-Samaan-v-Zernik-SC087400-Attorney-David-
Pasternak-s-false-16th-interim-report
254/ 259
Appendix XI
255/ 259
Dr Z
Joseph Zernik, PhD
10-03-14 Richard Fine: Repeat complaint and request for responses by Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the
United States Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles in re: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-
cv-01914)
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 06:18:40 -0700

To: "Clerk of the Court" <terry_nafisi@cacd.uscourts.gov>, lawsters@googlegroups.com
Subject: Richard Fine: Complaint and request for information by Clerk Terry Nafisi, US District Court,
Los Angeles in re: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
Cc: "Record Supervisor" <dawn_Bullock@cacd.uscourts.gov>, "Attention Audrey Collins, Chief Judge"
<Angela_Bridges@cacd.uscourts.gov>
To Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the United States Court, Central District of California;
By email
RE: Richard Fine: Complaint and request for information by Clerk Terry Nafisi, US District
Court, Los Angeles in re: Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
Dear Clerk Nafisi:
It has also been over half a year that I have been denied access to court records in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-
cv-01914) at the US District Court, Los Angeles, [1] with no explanation at all, and since I filed a
complaint alleging dishonest manipulation of the records in the same caption at the Office of the Clerk
of the Court. [4] It has been a couple of months since I requested your responses on related
questions. I again write to request an explanation for the denial of access to court records at the United
States Court, Los Angeles, for responses on my complaint and the questions, which your office last
indicated were being researched. The matter involved the alleged abuses and deprivation of Liberty of
Richard Fine.
Questions addressed to your office included, but were not limited to the following:
1) Was the PACER docket of Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) held by the office of the Clerk of the
Court as an honest, valid and effectual court record of the US District Court, Central District of
California, in compliance with US law?
2) What was the legal foundation for the operation of PACER and CM/ECF at the US District Court,
Central District of California?
3) Why was the General Order 08-02, which I was informed by staff of your office was the foundation
for the operations of PACER and CM/ECF at the US District Court, Central District of California
unsigned, not even mentioning the name of its author? [2]
4) Why were procedures for authentication and certification of court records, which were drastically
changed with the introduction of PACER and CM/ECF, never published as Local Rules of Court,
as required by law?
5) Why was public access denied to the paper record which was the Habeas Corpus petition of
Richard Fine Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) in disregard of First Amendment rights?
6) Why was public access denied to the NEFs (notices of electronic filings) in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-
01914) in disregard of First Amendment rights?
7) Why was no honest, valid and effectual NEF ever issued for any of the minutes, orders, judgment
in in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) ?
8) Was Donna Thomas authorized as Deputy Clerk at the time that she engaged in transactions in
the docket of Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)?
256/ 259
Page 2/2 March 14, 2010
Your office last indicated that such questions were being researched. [3]
In addition, a complaint was filed August 1, 2009 with your office, regarding alleged dishonest
manipulations of the paper record that was the habeas corpus petition of Richard Fine in Fine v Sheriff
(2:09-cv-01914). [4] Such concerns were seconded by the Supervisor of the Intake Unit, Ms Sharon
McGee. At least two staff members of the US District Court, Los Angeles were alleged as involved in
such conduct, or worse:
a) Pro Se Clerk Chris Sawyer
b) Courtroom Assistant Donna Thomas.
Refusal of the Clerk of the Court to answer on any of these questions appeared to a lay person as
nothing more than "taking the Fifth", in a case that appeared for all practical purposes a fraud and
abuses by the United States Court on Mr Richard Fine, deliberately intended to deprive him of Liberty.
Respectfully,
Dated: March 14, 2010
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs
[1] Denial in person of access to court records in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) took place twice:
September 18, 2009 and December 29, 2009.
a) http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340297/09-07-31-Richard-Fine-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-
Request-to-Access-Court-Records-s
b) http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340080/09-09-18-Declaration-of-Joseph-Zernik-in-Re-Denial-of-
Access-to-Court-Records-at-the-US-District-Court-Los-Angeles-s
c) http://www.scribd.com/doc/24747753/09-12-29-Declaration-of-Joseph-Zernik-in-Re-Visit-to-United-
States-District-Court-Los-Angeles
[2] General Order 08-02 of the US District Court, Central District of California
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28339822/08-02-General-Order-US-District-Court-Central-District-of-
California-Authorizing-the-Operations-of-CM-ECF-and-Digital-Authentication-Attestation-in
[3] January 19, 2010 response by office of the Clerk, US District Court, Central District of California.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25442978/10-01-19-Office-of-Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-US-Court-still-
researching-whether-the-dockets-of-the-court-were-honest-valid-and-effectual-s
[4] August 1, 2009 Complaint and request for investigation filed with Terry Nafisi, Clerk of the Court
regarding alleged dishonest manipulations of the paper record that was the habeas corpus petition of
Richard Fine (commencing record) in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28340585/09-08-01-Complaint-and-Request-for-Investigation-Filed-with-
Terry-Nafisi-Clerk-of-the-Court-Regarding-Dishonest-Manipulation-of-Records-of-the-Hab
257/ 259
~~1BSPIS r~};
Lydia A. Yurtchuk
Staff Attorney
Legal Services Unit
l~~;;\
United States District Court (j
Central District of California ~....

321 N. Spring Street, Room 0-8
Los Angeles, California 90012
February 19,2010
Joseph Zerni, PhD

PO Box 526
La Verne, California 91750
Re: Fine v. Sheriff, case number CY.·09-1914
Dear Mr. Davis:
Your issues addressed to the clerk's office regarding the above-mentioned matter has
been fOlwarded to me for handling. You will receive a further written response when my
research is completed.
Very truly yours,
IKMd-ilL (J . ~
Lydia A. YurtchuQ
fly
258/ 259
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as:

Appendices for Motion to Intervene
on Respondents in this action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed
envelope, with postage fully prepaid in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:
4) Richard I Fine – Petitioner

Inmate RICHARD I. FINE (1824367)

450 Bauchet St.
5) Sheriff of Los Angeles County - Respondent

4700 Ramona Blvd.
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: 323 526 5000
Fax: <13232676600@efaxsend.com>
Email: "Baca, Leroy D." <ldbaca@lasd.org>
6) Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles and Judge David Yaffe -
Respondents
John A Clarke, Clerk/Executive Officer
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Phone 213 974 5401
Fax: 213 621 7952
Email: <jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org>
I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and
the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this date, April 15, 2010, in La Verne, County of Los Angeles, California
Joseph H Zernik
259/ 259
By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
1853 Foothill Blvd
Tel: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697

10-04-18 Fine V Sheriff (09-A827) DR Zernik's Motion To Intervene 5 Amended Appendices S

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10-04-18 Fine V Sheriff (09-A827) DR Zernik's Motion To Intervene 5 Amended Appendices S

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/ 259 Digitally signed by

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

AMENDED VERIFIED APPENDICES FOR MOTION TO INTERVENE

VERIFIED APPENDICES FOR MOTION TO INTERVENE

a) Attorney Paul Beach - Notice and requests for clarifications

b) Sheriff Leroy D Baca – Notice and attempt to confer

c) LASC – Notice and attempt to confer

d) Richard I Fine – Notice and attempt to confer

[Proposed] Intervenor Joseph Zernik

re: Inmate Richard I Fine, #1824367; Inmate Joseph Zernik, #2235341,

numerous other inmates

a) January 8, 2010 Records that were provided by the Sheriff in response to

inquiry by Los Angeles County Supervisor, the Hon Michael Antonovich.

c) Zernik’s Complaint, filed with the Sheriff’s Department, alleging unlawful

arrest and jailing and other violations of the law.

Appendix IV: LA County Sheriff’s Department: Marina v LA Couty (BS109420) ...P65

false records pertaining to arrest and imprisonment of Richard Fine

a) March 4, 2009 Removal/Remand Order

b) March 4, 2009 Judgment and Order of Contempt

c) LA County Sheriff’s Department -Removal Order for In Custody Defendant –

Appendix V: LA County Registrar/Recorder: Recording of a Grant Deed ... P83

#20072759874, which was opined as fraud

misleading judgment/appealable records

a) August 9, 2007 Judgment

b) November 9, 2007 Order Appointing Pasternak Receiver;

Register of Actions in Samaan v Zernik

and Rules of Court pertaining to Entry of Judgme

to maintain books of judgments.

access court records in Marina v LA County (BS109420), (ii) Request for

Reliably informing of alleged criminality in re: March 4, 2009 Judgment for

Contempt re: Richard I Fine.

Access to Records, Registers of Actions, Books of Judgments, and Local Rules

Appendix IX: LASC Microfilm Judgment Archive records ... P180

Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). No entered judgments was found.

b. April 16, 2010 Search for entered judgments in Marina v LA County

(BS109420), Samaan v Zernik (SC087400). No entered judgments were found.

Appendix X: LASC and USDC-CADC: False Appearances by Counsel ... 219

a) March 19, 2010 Correspondence with California Judicial Council, in attempt to

ascertain the nature of involvement of Attorney Kevin McCormick as counsel

in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)

of Attorney McCormick in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914)

intiate corrective actions relative to false appearance of Attorney McCormick in

Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) through false retainer by California Judicial

retainer of Attorney Sarah Overton as counsel in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-

e) Complaints filed with Office of Comptroller of the Currency against Bank of

America Corporation regarding false appearance of counsel.

Appendix XI: USDC- CAC ... P254

regarding dishonest conduct in dockets of Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and

Zernik v Connor (2:09-cv-01550).

c) February 19, 2010 Notice of investigation by Court Counsel, Lydia Yurtchuk.

Corporation regarding false appearance of counsel.

g) April 2010 Refusal of California Judicial Council to respond on any questions

pertaining to retainer of Attorney Sara L Overton in Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-

Appendix XI: USDC- CAC

c) February 19, 2010 Notice of investigation by Court Counsel, Lydia Yurtchuk.

I, the undersigned Joseph Zernik, served the documents described as:

1) Richard I Fine – Petitioner

2) Sheriff of Los Angeles County - Respondent

1) FAX NOTICE TO LA SUPERIOR COURT

Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:10:04 -0700

Response is requested by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, April 14, 2010,