You are on page 1of 75

Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 50

Digitally signed by
Joseph Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik,
email=jz12345@ear
thlink.net, c=US
Date: 2009.02.24
00:58:59 -08'00'

· Digitally signed by
h
1 Joseph Zemik
2 2415 Saint George St.
J0 Se P i ., Joseph Zernik
I ON: cn=Joseph Zernik,
.)~:i1=jZ~345@earthl
Los Angeles, CA 90027 Zern I;;. 1'11§l!~t.c~~U5
/I\.'~ Date;2'110S.05.15
3 Tel: (310) 4359107 ' " 10:30:28 -<l]'OO'

4 Fax: (801) 9980917


Plaintiff
5 in pro per
()::! t...:»
6 ~fYt g
-z.:o co
.... ;7<. :It
7 r- :0 c: :P"'

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\
(~~0
,.~~
~
.....J
-rfT\
~

9 \ ""','~, .;:i -0
:x o
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL \, r-~o
...... '.... x-
10 i V'()n ••
\ ~o s::-
11 i~~' 0
12 CASE NO. CV-08-01550-VAP-CW
JOSEPH ZERNIK,
13 Plaintiff HON C. WOEHRLE, JUDGE
14
15 vs.
16 FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED
JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL. COMPLAINT, FOR DECLARATORY
17 Defendan~ AND INJUNCTIONAL RELIEF FOR
18 VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
19
20
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
21 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
22 PURSUANT TO FRCP 15(a) WAS
FILED MAY 9, 2008.
23
24
25
DATE: MAY 15, 2008
26
27
28
--1--
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL. , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 2 of 50

1
2 COMPLETE LIST OF DEFENDANTS:
3
Jacqueline Connor, Allan Goodman, John Segal, Linda Hart-Cole, Patricia
4 Collins, Terry Friedman, and Gerald Rosenberg - individually and in his/her
5 official capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, West District
and
6 Los Angeles County and Los Angeles Superior Court, West District
7 and
Debbie Witts - individually and in her official capacity as Court Manager, Civil
8 Unlimited, the Superior Court of Los Angeles Country, West District
9 and
Vivian Jaime - individually and in her official capacity as Courtroom Clerk,
10 Department I, the Superior Court of Los Angeles Country, West District
11 and
Retired Judge Gregory O'Brien - individually and in his capacity as Proposed
12 Referee, and
13 ADR Services, Inc - as a corporation, and its capacity as a neutral provider that
employed Retired Judge O'Brien,
14 and
15 David Pasternak - individually and in his official capacity as Receiver in Samaan v
16 Zernik (SC087400)
and
17 Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels - individually and in their capacities as Officers
18 of Countrywide Financial Corporation
and
19 Countrywide Home Loans, Inc
20 and
Mara Escrow Company
21 and
22 Thomas Brown - individually and as a partner in Brown and White, LLP
and
23 Zacharty Schorr - individually, and as principal of Schorr Law
24 and
Lilit Vardanian - individually
25 Doe 1-20
26 Defendants
27
28
--2--
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL. , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 3 of 50

1 COMES NOW, Plaintiff JOSEPH ZERNIK, and hereby filing his FIRST
2 AMENDED COMPLAINT against the parties listed above for severe and protracted
3 abuse of Plaintiffs U.S. Constitutional rights for Due Process, for Free Speech, and
4 for Possession in the litigation ofthe Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Los Angeles
5 County Superior COUlj-from Oct 2005 to. the present. ')-. A.1 _ ~
6 ~ ')l..~, I rV\l rr-
1>G t'\'\ ~~ J V (l..v) I)M, , L./ !

a. Amended First Complaint filed in Conjunction ~ith Moti~n for Leave t I


7 File
8 Plaintiff is filing this First Amended Complaint in conjunction with a Request
9 for a Leave to File First Amended Complaint Pursuant to FRCP 15(a), filed under a
10 separate cover. This First Amended Complaint also addresses issues raised in
11 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Complaint filed by Defendants - namely - claims of
12 immunity of the judges, receiver and proposed referee and the Younger doctrine as a
13 reason for the US Court to abstain from any action in this case.
14 b. Requestfor Affirmative Action - Access to Trial Court Litigation Records
15 and to Amend this Comlaint again Once Such Access is Allowed.

16
Plaintiff filed with this Court last week a Requestfor Affirmative Action - Court

17 action to allow Plaintiff access to Public Records that are his own Trial Court
18 Litigation Records. Denial of access to such records was and is central to the abuse
19 inflicted upon Plaintiff by Defendants. Moreover, such denial of access is again
20 placing Defendants in advantageous position in this litigation. Defendants should not

21
be allowed to benefit from the outcome of their abuse of Plaintiffs constitutional
22 rights in this litigation.

23 Plaintiff is hereby repeating his request that this Court provide relief as it deems
24 fit:
25
1. to allow Plaintiff access to his litigation records, as detailed in Docket #_ ,
26 Designation ofRecords on Consolidated Appeal.
27
28
-3-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 4 of 50

1 2. to allow Plaintiff to amend this Complaint again once such access to records is
2 provided.
3 c. Request for Leniency as Pro Se
4 In filing this First Amended Complaint Plaintiff requests special leniency as a
5 pro se litigant - for his "inartful pleading" (Erickson v Pardus, 2007). In particular, I
6 am not qualified in assessing the validity of legal theories. I ask the court to ignore
7 any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory I claim, and do take into consideration the
8 claims themselves, if they can support some other valid theory. Haddoc 1985.
9 d. Request for Incorporation by Reference ofExhibits Previously Filed
10 Plaintiff requests that this court incorporate by reference all of Plaintiff's filings
11 that are on the Docket.
12
13 I.
14 PARTIES
15 1. Plaintiff Josep Zernik is a natural person residing at 2415 Saint George Street,
16 Los Angeles County, California.
17
2. Defendant Jacqueline Connor, is a natural person residing and employed in Los
18
Angeles County, California, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik
19
(SC087400) from November 1,2005 to September 10,2007.
20
3. Defendant Allan Goodman, is a natural person residing and employed in Los
21
Angeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from
22
September 10 to October 3, 2007.
23
4. Defendant John Segal is a natural person residing and employe in Los Angeles
24
County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from October 5 to
25
December 4,2007.
26
27
28
-4-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 5 of 50

1 5. Defendant Linda Hart-Cole is a natural person residing and mployed in Los


2 Angeles County, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from
3 December 4 to December 7, 2007.
4 6. Defendant Patricia Collins is a natural person residing and employed in Los
5 Angeles County, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC87400) on
6 December 7, 2007.
7 7. Defendant Terry Friedman is a natural person residing and employed in Los
8 Angeles County. He held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC87400) from
9 December 7, 2007 to the present.
10
11 8. Defendant Gerald Rosenberg is a natural person residing and employed in Los
12 Angeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in his
13 autority as Supervising Judge, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.
14 9. Defendants LA Superior Court and Los Angeles County - is part ofthe judicial
15 branch of the State ofCalifonria, and is employer of the Judges and Court
16 personnel listed above.
17 lO.Defendant Debbie Witts is a natural person residing and employed in Los
18 Angeles County, she acted in relationship to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in her
19 autority as Court Manager, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, West
20 District, Civil Unlimited.
21 1 1. Defendant Vivian Jaime is a natural person residing and employed in Los
22 Angeles County, she acted in relationship to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in her
23 autority as Courtroom Clerk, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, West
24 District, Department 1.
25 12.Defendant Retired Judge Gregory O'Brien is a natural person residing and
26 employed in Los Angeles County, he acted in relationship to Samaan v Zemik in
27 the capacity of Proposed Referee.
28
-5-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 6 of 50

1 13 .Defendant ADR Services, Inc is a neutral services provider to the Los Angeles
2 Superior Court, and as such it provided Retired Judge O'Brien's services as
3 proposed referee for Samaan v Zernik.
4 14.Defendant David Pasternak is a natural person residing and employed in Los
5 Angeles County, he acted as Receiver from Nov 9, 2007 to the present.
6 IS.Defendant Sandor Samuels is a natural persons residing and employed in Los
7 Angeles County, he is an Officer of Countrywide Financial Corporation and Chief
8 Legal Counsel, who directs the Legal Division that serves also Countrywide Home
9 Loans, Inc.
10 16.Defendant Angelo Mozilo is a natural persons residing and employed in Los
11 Angeles County, and is an Offider of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
12 17.Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, is a finacial services corporation,
13 subject to New York jurisdiction.
14 18.Defendant Mara Escrow Company is an escrow company.
15 19.Defendant Thomas Brown - is a natural person residing and employed in Los
16 Angeles County, and is a partner in Brown and White, LLP
17 20.Defendant Zachary Schorr - is a natural person residing and employed in Los
18 Angeles County, and is the principal of Schorr Law.
19 21. Lilit Vardanian - is a natural person residing and employed in Los Angeles
20 County
21 22.Defendants Doe 1-20 are natural persons, they acted in relationship to Samaan v
22 Zernik (SC087400) in their autority as staff ofthe Superior Court for the County of
23 Los Angeles, West District.
24
II.
25
JURISDICTIONAL BASIS
26
27
1. Plaintiff claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III § 2 which extends the

28
jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution.
-6-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 7 of 50

1 2. Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 for violations of
2 certain protections guaranteed to him by the First (Free Speech), Fifth (Due
3 Process), and Fourteenth (Due Process and Possession) Amendments of the
4 Federal Constitution, by defendants acting as officials of the State of Califomia
5 under the color oflaw of the State ofCalifomai in their capacity as a Judges, Court
6 Manager, and Courtroom Clerk, Proposed Referee, and Receiver, respectively, in
7 the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

8 3. Plaintiff also claims federal jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.C. Code §1331 - for a
9 Federal Question, and U.S. Constitution, Art. III, § 2 and Title 28 U.S. Code §
10 1332, which extend to cases involving diversity ofjurisdictions among the States.
11 Here, majority of Defendants are employed in Los Angeles County, Califomia, but
12 the corporations involved include:
13
a. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc - subject to New York jurisdiction
14
15 4. Plaintiff also claims federal jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.C. Code §1331 - for a
16 Federal Question:

17 a. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 18


18 U. S. Code §1962(c) - for an interstate enterprise;
19 b. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 15
20 U.S. Code §45 - unlawful, unfair methods of competition;
21
c. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 18
22
U.S. Code §1343 - fraud by wire, radio, or television;
23
24 d. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 31

25 U.S. Code § 3729 - false claims;

26 e. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 18


27 U.S. Code §1512 - tampering with witness, victim, or an informant;
28
-7-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 8 of 50

1 f. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 18


2 U.S. Code § 1513 - retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
3 g. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels - 18
4 U.S. Code §1517 - obstructing examination of financial institution;
5
5. Defendants claim immunity as members of the judiciary, such claims are addressed
6
below under
7
8 6. Defendants claim that this United States Court should abstain from action
9 following the Younger Theory, such claims are addressed below _ _

10
11 III.
12 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
13 1. Defendant Jacqueline Connor, is a natural person residing and employed in Los
14 Angeles County, California, she held the court file for Samaan v Zemik
15 (SC087400) from November 1,2005 to September 10,2007. Her authority as
16 Presiding Judge in Samaan v Zemik is contested at least for part of the period of.
17 During the period listed she engaged in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights:
18 a. For free speech
19 Claim #1- by allowing the July 6, 2007 and July 23, 2007 hearings by
20 Countrywide for a purported Portective (gag) Order
21 b. For Due Process
22 Claim #2 - by denying Zernik access to Court File, to Minute Oders, to Notices
23 Claim #3- by deceiving Zernik by posting Trial Date only after her
24 disqualification while making false claims in that regard on April 22, 2007
25 to deny extension of Discovery Cutoff Date.
26 Claim #4 - by deceiving Zernik by entering judgment on Aug 28, 2007, but
27 back-dating the entry to Aug 9, 2007
28
-8-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 9 of 50

1 Claim #5 - by posting after disquaification a false and misleading Sept 10, 2007
2 Minute Order denying Zemik's allegations that Countrywide's documents
3 were fraud.
4 Claim #6 - by allowing the July 6, 2007 and July 23, 2007 proceedings where
5 Countrywide apeared unlisted in Minute Orders and in court records, and its
6 counsels listed at times as for Defendant and at times as for Plaintiff.
7 c. For Possesion
8 Claim #7 - by generating a false and misleading Aug 9, 2007 Summary
9 Judgment against Zemik
10 2. Defendant Allan Goodman, is a natural person residing and employed in Los
11 Angeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from
12 September 10 to October 3, 2007, his authority as Presiding Judge is contested for
13 that full period.
14 He engaged in violation of Zemik's right for Due Process:
15 Claim #8 - he presided with no Re-assignement Order
16 Claim #9 - he failed to recuse himself based on his close personal friendship
17 with Sandor Samuels.
18 3. Defendant John Segal is a natural person residing and employe in Los Angeles
19 County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from October 5
20 to December 4, 2007. His authority as Presiding Judge is contested for that full
21 period. He engaged in abuse of Zemik's rights:
22 d. For Due Process -
23 Claim #10 - by presiding with no Re-assignment Order
24 Claim #11- by appointing a receiver for no reason at all and with no reference
25 to any section of the code, no reference to judgment, no reference to
26 purchase contract.
27 e. For possession -
28 Claim #12- by appointing a receiver with no legal foundation
-9-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 10 of 50

1 Claim #13- by ordering such a receiver to hold Zemik's equity indefinitely for
2 no reason at all
3 Claim #14- by engaging in all the above even after Plaintiffs Counsel noticed
4 him that he did not recognize the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court.
5 4. Defendant Linda Hart-Cole is a natural person residing and mployed in Los
6 Angeles County, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from
7 December 4 to December 7, 2007. Her authority as Presiding Judge is contested
8 for that full period. She engaged in abuse of Zemik's rights:
9 a. For Due Proces-
10 Claim #15 - by allowing the Dec 7,2007 ex parte hearing for gag order defying
11 logic
12 Claim #16 - by allowing in that hearing counsel for Mara Escrow to appear
13 incognito and refusing to introduce him.
14 Claim #17 - by ordering after disqualification an ex parte hearing 30 min later
15 in santa monica with no authority at all.
16 b. For Free Speech -
17 Claim #18 - by initiating such hearings on Dec 7, 2007
18 5. Defendant Patricia Collins is a natural person residing and employed in Los
19 Angeles County, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC87400) on
20 December 7, 2007, and ruled in it in an ex parte appearance on that day in her
21 authority as Depute Supervising Judge, West District, Superior Court of the
22 County of Los Angeles. She egaged in violation of Zemik's rights:
23 a. For Free Speech
24 Claim #18 - she approved a Dec 7, 2007 gag order that defied logic.
25 b. For Possession
26 Claim #19 - she did so to prevent Zemik from defending his rights for
27 possession and therefore allowed his home to be seized.
28 c. For Due Process -
-10-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 11 of 50

1 Claim #20 - she ran the Dec 7,2007 hearing in violation of Due Process rights
2
3 6. Defendant Terry Friedman is a natural person residing and employed in Los
4 Angeles County. He held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC87400) from
5 December 7, 2007 to the present. His authority as Presiding Judge is contested
6 for that full period. He is engaging in continues to engage in violations of
7 Zemik's rights:
8 a. For Due Process
9 Claim #21 - by allowing Countrywide to appear in court with no party
10 desination and with no legal foundation.
11 Claim #22 - by allowing motion for sanctions exceeding $16,000 based on a
12 non-existing order
13 Claim #23 - by allowing a OSC re: Contempt based on same
14 b. For Free Speech -
15 Claim #24 - by validating a non-existent gag order of July 23 2007 by Judge
16 Connor
17 c. For Possesion -
18 Claim #25 - by refusing to release Zemik's home equity for no reason at all.
19 7. Defendant Gerald Rosenberg is a natural person residing and employed in
20 Los Angeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
21 and ruled in it in an ex parte appearances, and also acted relative to this case
22 otherwise, in his autority as Supervising Judge, Superior Court for the County
23 of Los Angeles.
24 a. For Due Process -
25 Claim #26 - by refusing to issue any Re-assignment order for the last 5 judges
26 Claim #27 - by refusing to allow Zemik access to electronic court file data
27 Claim #28- by allowing physical abuse of Zemik in his courtroom on Aug 31,
28 2007
-11-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 12 of 50

1 8. Defendants LA Superior Court and Los Angeles County - is part of the


2 judicial branch of the State ofCalifonria, and is employer of the Judges and
3 Court personnel listed above. As such, is responsible for claims listed against
4 the individual judges and court personnel.
5 9. Defendant Debbie Witts is a natural person residing and employed in Los
6 Angeles County, she acted in relationship to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in
7 her autority as Court Manager, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
8 West District, Civil Unlimited. She engaged and still engages in violation of
9 Zemik's rights:
10 Claim #29 - by refusing to allow Zemik access to court file
11 Claim #30 - by refusing to certifY exisgtence or non-existence of key
12 documents in court file
13 Claim #31 - by failing to secure a court file that is a permanent secure public
14 record.
15
16 to.Defendant Vivian Jaime is a natural person residing and employed in Los
17 Angeles County, she acted in relationship to Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) in
18 her autority as Courtroom Clerk, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
19 West District, Department 1.
20 Claim #32 - by colluding and connspiring with Judge Connor in violations of
21 Zemik's due process rights.
22 11. Defendant Retired Judge Gregory O'Brien is a natural person residing and
23 employed in Los Angeles County, he acted in relationship to Samaan v Zemik in
24 the capacity of Proposed Referee, his authority is contested for the full period of
25 his involvement in Samaan v Zernik
26 Claim #33 - according to plaintiff's counsel, he repeatedly engaged in ex parte
27 communications with that counsel
28
-12-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 13 of 50

1 Claim #34 - he met with that counsel on Sept 10, 2007, and according to
2 Plaintiffs counsel schemed with him to seize Zernik's residence based on
3 entry of an "Oral Judgment'.
4 12.Defendant ADR Services, Inc is a neutral services provider to the Los Angeles
5 Superior Court, and as such it provided Retired Judge O'Brien's services as
6 proposed referee for Samaan v Zernik. It engaged in violations ofZernik's due
7 process and possession rights -
8 Claim #35 - by allowing O'Brien to engage in his dishonest connduct and
9 obstruct justice.
10 13.Defendant David Pasternak is a natural person residing and employed in Los
11 Angeles County, he acted as Receiver from Nov 9, 2007 to the present. His
12 authority is contested for the full period of his involvement. He violated Zernik's
13 rights:
14 Claim #36 - by agreeing to an appointment as a receiver based on an order that
15 is in blatant vioaltion of due process
16 Claim #37 - by moving for a gag order against zernik on Dec 7, 2007
17 Claim #38 - by generating two ex parte hearings on Dec 7, 2007, out of
18 compliance with any standard of Due Process;
19 Claim #39 - by generating an ex parte hearing before Judge Hart-Cole, where a
20 corporate attorney - for Mara Escrow- appeared incognito, and both said
21 attorney and Judge Hart-Cole refused to identify either the attorney or his
22 client.
23 Claim #40 - by moving and obtaining gag orders to prevent Plaintiff Zernik,
24 Defendant in pro per in Samaan v Zernik, from speech that is protected as
25 his speech for defense of himself.
26 Claim #41- by moving and obtaining indeminity agreeement for Mara Escrow
27 - at Plintiffs expense - to cajole it to participate in inherently fraudulent
28 real property transaction.
-13-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 14 of 50

1 Claim #42 - by moving and obtaining orders to allow him to defer payment of
2 taxes on the real property transaction for no reason at all, and at great
3 expense to Plaintiff Zemik.
4 Claim #43 - by seizing Zemik's horne and selling it to another
5 Claim #44 - by recording the transfer of the title to Zemik's horne with no due
6 authority - in collusion with others in the fraud relative to the Aug 9, 2007
7 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP §437c.
8 Claim #45 - by holding Zemik's equity in the horne for no reason at all
9 14.Defendant Sandor Samuels is a natural persons residing and employed in Los
10 Angeles County, his actions and ornrnissions relative to Countrywide documents,
11 that are alleged by Plaintiff to be at the heart of the fraud against him, allowed that
12 fraud to proceed.
13 Claim #46 - as Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide, he is resonsible for all
14 litigation matters, per his own listing on the web site of "House of Justice".
15 He allowed the porduction of fraudulent subpoena documents in Samaan v
16 Zemik, and refused to authenticate or repudiate such documents for over a
17 year.
18 Claim #47 - He initiated the July 6, 2007 and July 23, 2007 hearings on gag
19 orders
20 Claim #48 - He initiated the hearing on sanctions on Feb 15,2008 and the
21 hearing on OSC on March 7, 2008
22 Claim #49 - He is ultimately responsible for the obstruction oftestimony by
23 Diane Frazier.
24 Claim #50 - He is ultimately responsible for the death threat against Zemik.
25 Claim #51 - He is ultimately responsible for the repeated filing of false and
26 misleading documents by Countrywide's Legal Department in Samaan v
27 Zernik, and the refusal to correct such obstruction even after repeated
28 requrests.
-14-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 15 of 50

1 Claim #52 - He is ultimately responsible for the various retaliatory acts of


2 Coutntrrywide against Plaintiff in Samaan v Zemik.
3 Claim #53 - He is ultimately resposible for the ongoing attempts to cover up
4 the wire fraud underlying the documents filed by Countrywide in response to
5 subpoena in Samaan v Zernik
6 Claim #54 - He is ultimately responsible for the conduct of Countrywide's
7 Legal Department, which repeatedly produced fraudulent documents in
8 rewsponse to subpoenas, in 1st in Aug 2006, 2nd, 3rd , 4th , in Jan-Feb 2007,
9 and 5th , in April 2007.
10 IS.Defendant Angelo Mozilo is a natural persons residing and employed in Los
11 Angeles County, his actions and ommissions relative to Countrywide documents,
12 that are alleged by Plaintiff to be at the heart ofthe fraud against him, allowed that
13 fraud to proceed.
14 Claim #55- as president and chair fo the intrnal audit committee he was in
15 position to prevent the fraud, but did not.
16 Claim #56 - Even after being notified, never did anything to stop the fraud.
17 Claim #57- Shares responsibility with Sandor Samuels for claims listed above
18 under Samuels.
19 16.Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, is a finacial services corporation,
20 subject to New York jurisdiction. It was documents produced by Countrywide
21 Home Loans Corporation through the Legal Department of Countrywide Financial
22 Corporation, and declarations by Maria McLaurin, Branch Manager, Countrywide
23 Home Loans Branch Manager, San Rafael California, that allowed the faud to go
24 on in court.
25 Claim #58 - Produced the fraudulent documents that allowed Samaan to
26 continue with this fraud under the guise of legal action.
27 17.Defendant Mara Escrow Company is an escrow company. It was involved in
28 some of the fraud in Samaan v Zernik litigation through its frormer employee-
-15-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 16 of 50

1 Gail Hershowitz, and it also was invovled in abuse of Zernik's free speech, due
2 process, and possession rights in Decmber 2007.
3 Claim #59 - Its counsel appeared incognito in a gag order hearing on Dec 7,
4 2007
5 18. Defendants Thomas Brown - is an attorney. He engaged in services for
6 Plaintiff, but failed to warn Plaintiff of his relationship with Att Mohammad
7 Keshavarzi, who was listed in the conflict list. Later, when Plaintiff found out
8 about it, he refused to provide copies of email corresopndence with Keshavarzi that
9 was part of the serrvices that Plaintiff paid for.
10 Claim -#60 - obstruction ofjustice and negligence.
11 19. Zachary Schorr - is an attorney. While he was engaged in a agreement to
12 provide legal services for Plaintiffhe had Plaintiffs Opposition brief for the Aug
13 9,2007 adulterated in his office prior to its transmission to the LA Superior Court
14 for filing.
15 Claim -#61 - obstruction ofjustice, fraud, and negligence.
16 20. LUit Vardanian - is an employee of Defendant Schorr. After Plaintiff
17 discovered the adulteration of his filings in court for the Aug 9, 2007 Summary
18 Judgment hearings, Defendant Schorr provided a verified statement claiming Ms
19 Vardanian was the one who did it.
20 Claim -#62 - obstruction ofjustice, fraud, and negligence.
21 21. Defendants Doe 1-20 are natural persons, they acted in relationship to Samaan v
22 Zernik (SC087400) in their autority as staff of the Superior Court for the County of
23 Los Angeles, West District.
24 Claim #60 - to be detailed at a later day
25
26 IV.
27 REVIEW OF EVENTS IN LITIGATION OF SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)
28 AT THE LA SUPERIOR COURT - BASIS FOR CURRENT ACTION
-16-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 17 of 50

1 1. General Timeline ofthe Litigation


2
Notice: Defendants that are Judges ofthe LA Superior Court at times conveniently claim that
3 the unusual events ofSamaan v Zernik are the result ofPlaintiffs appearance pro se. The
timeline below shows that Plaintiffappeared in Court for the first time in Jan 2007. Falsifying
4 records, and other abuses ofDue Process are documented starting January 2006.
5
Sept-Oct 2004 - Samaan fails to obtain loans from Countrywide to purchase
6
Plaintiffs residence, is found engaging in wire/fax fraud,
7
and Zernik cancels escrow.
8
Prior to October 2005 - Att C. Cummings Retained
9
Oct 2005- Samaan fileS complaint and Notice of Lis Pendens
10
Oct 2005- Judge Neidorfis assigned to the case, Samaan files a
11
Peremptory Challenge.
12
January 2006 - Judge Connor presides in a hearing on Demurrer, OSC, ISC
13
July 2006 - Att Cummings takes Samaan's Deposition, where she
14
admits much ofthe fraud relative to preparation ofthe Loan
15
Applications. In retrospect Plaintiff realizes that Att
16
Cummings had by that time additional information, but
17
avoided asking Samaan any incriminating questions
18
regarding the Prequalification Letter and the Loan
19
Applications, and he concluded the deposition so that
20
Samaan would not be deposed again. Cummings would not
21
be able to explain his conduct later on.
22
Nov 2006- Att Cummings runs Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens, which
23
he lost, but some comments along the way raise Plaintiffs
24
concerns.
25
Dec 2006- Plaintiffstarts review of Discovery materials in Cummings
26
office, and immediately realizes that there is substantial
27
criminal/fraud activity in the background of the litigation.
28
-17-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 18 of 50

1 Plaintiff sends Cummings a short list of questions regarding


2 his conduct ofthe litigation. Cummings offers $25,000
3 waiver of fees if Plaintiff would agree to relieve him of
4 representation.
5 January 2007 - Plaintiff appears in Judge Connor's Court for the fIrst time.
6 Feb 2007- Att Schorr is retained.
7 March 2007- Some inexplicable interactions between Schorr and
8 Plaintiffs Counsel Keshavarzi lead to relieve Schorr as
9 Counsel of Record, but Plaintiff continues to consult with
10 him.
11 March 2007- Plaintiff approaches Samuels and Mozillo with a request to
12 authenticate or repudiate the Underwriting
13 Decision/Condition Letter (Docket #44)
14 April 26, 2007 - Judge Connor set sanctions on Plaintiff. Plaintiff senses that
15 Judge Connor and Att Keshavarzi were acting dishonestly,
16 but is not clear about the situation.
17 Early May 2007 - Plaintiff commissions a review/analysis of the case from the
18 office of Att. Johnson, and the short (1 page) analysis report
19 comes back titled "Errors in Adjudication". Plaintiff
20 realizes that Judge Connor was deliberately setting him up.
21 Att Brown refuses to provide copies of his email
22 correspondence with Keshavarzi, block subpoena service.
23 May 16, 2007 - ADR Mediation with Retired Judge Schoettler. Schoettler
24 fInds that "Samaan has no case at a/f'. The contrast with
25 Judge Connor's fIndings is disturbing.
26 May 22, 2007- Judge Connor cuts off discovery. Together with Clerk Jaime
27 they try to deceive Plaintiff regarding the Trial Setting.
28
-18-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 19 of 50

1 Plaintiff realizes for the first time that Sustain is a critical


2 component in the fraud by the Court on him.
3 July 6, 2007- Countrywide appears in court in an ex parte procedure that
4 is obviously out of any standards of the court.
5 July 9, 2007 - Judge Connor enters an entirely fictitious July 9,2007
6 Minute Order of a hearing on Motion for Reconsideration,
7 creates ambiguous records.
8 July 12, 2007 - Plaintiff serves Judge Connor with 1st Statement of
9 Disqualification for Cause. Judge Connor rules on the spot
10 it is an untimely peremptory challenge.
11 July 23, 2007 - Judge Connor generates an ambiguous Protective Order for
12 Countrywide - never entered, never noticed, never found
13 signed.
14 July 26, 2007 - Plaintiff discovers that his opposition papers for Summary
15 Judgment were adulterated by the office of Schorr, passages
16 about fax/wire fraud - damaging to Samaan, were crudely
17 removed. Schorr claims it was done by Secretary Vardanian.
18 Aug 2,2007- While Judge Connor is on vacation, Zemik gets access to
19 some litigation records for the first time.
20 Aug 9, 2007- Judge Connor grants Summary Judgment Motion to
21 Samaan, ambiguates the entry ofjudgment
22 Aug 21,2007- According to Att Hoffinan, Judge Connor refers to plaintiff
23 as "a Pest" and explains that she "treats him accordingly."
24 Aug 30, 2007 - Judge Connor generates ambiguous appointment of O'Brien
25 as escrow referee.
26 Sept 7, 2007 - Plaintiff demands from O'Brien his appointment papers, and
27 discovers he has none.
28
-19-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 20 of 50

1 Sept 10, 2007 - O'Brien holds a "hearing" with Samaan's husband and
2 Keshavarzi, but refuses to report about it.
3 Sept 10,2007 - Plaintiff serves 2nd Statement of Disqualification for Cause.
4 Judge Connor disqualifies, then enters a false and
5 misleading, fictitious Minute Order of hearing on Motion
6 for Sanctions per CCP §128.7.
7 Sept 20, 2007 - Judge Goodman runs an instantaneous hearing on O'Brien
8 Proposed Order for Appointment as Referee. Attempts to
9 deceive relative to its origin.
10 Oct 3,2007- Plaintiff serves 1st Statement of Disqualification for Cause of
11 Judge Goodman. It turns out that Judge Goodman has just
12 disqualified, disclosing his friendship with Samuels.
13 Oct 5,2007- Judge Biderman disqualifies.
14 Oct 11, 2007 - Defendant Segal attempts to mislead Plaintiff relative to
15 Referee/Receiver.
16 Oct 15,2007 - Plaintiff files 1st Statement of disqualification for cause for
17 Defendant Segal.
18 Nov 9,2007- Defendant Segal appoints Defendant Pasternak Receiver, but
19 refuses to acknowledge validity of the Aug 9, 2007
20 Judgment by Court.
21 Nov 26, 2007 - Plaintiff files 2nd Statement ofDisqualifiication for cause on
22 Def. Segal.
23 Dec 4, 2007- Defendant Segal disqualifY.
24 Dec 7, 2007- Pasternak runs two ex parte appearances, with Hart=Cole
25 and with Collins - for gag orders, indemnity for Mara, and
26 other stipulations.
27 Dec 17,2007 - Pasternak fraudulently transfer title to the property.
28
-20-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 21 of 50

1 Jan 11, 2008 - Plaintiff serves DefFriedman with 15t Statement of


2 Disqualification for Cause, Friedman falsely denies his
3 relationship with Samuels.
4 Jan 15,2008- Plaintiff serves DefFriedman with 2 nd Statement of
5 Disqualification. Friedman again refuses to admit
6 relationship with Samuels or file statement on the record on
7 the subject.
8 Feb 15, 2007 - DefFriedman sets sanctions >$16,000, contempt re;
9 Connor's missing July 23, 2007 Protective Order. Threatens
10 to jail Plaintiff.
11 March 7, 2008 - Def Friedman finds Plaintiff in Contempt, sets sanctions
12 >$7.000, on same charge as Feb 15,2008.
13
14
2. Countrywide's Legal Division provided fraudulent records and Branch
Manager Maria McLaurin -fraudulent declarations to support fabricated
15 claims in litigation ofSamaan v Zernik
16
News from courtrooms coast to coast provide evidence of Countrywide's
17
deceptive and dishonest litigation practices. On March 5, 2008, Judge JeffBohme,
18
U.S. District Court, Houston, Texas, entered his opinion (Docket #31), rebuking
19
Countrywide's legal division for:
20
"a disregardfor the professional and ethical obligations ofthe
21
legal profession andjudicial system".
22
23 Judge Bohm's 72-page opinion about Countrywide's litigation practices was
24 based on what transpired in his own courtroom, and also on a report of a nation-wide
25 investigation by the United States Trustee.
26 But Defendants that are Judges of the LA Superior Court continue to accord
27 Countrywide and its legal team Courtroom privileges that are entirely contradictory to
28
-21-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 22 of 50

1 basic notions of Due Process, at the expense of severe abuse of Plaintiffs rights for
2 Due Process for free speech and for possession.
3 Plaintiff also requested Judicial Notice in Docket #31 of well publicized news
4 reports of stock market events on Jan 8. 2008, when the NYT published report that
5 Countrywide's counsels admitted filing "recreated letters" as evidence in a
6 Pennsylvania court.
7 Relative to Countrywide records in Samaan v Zernik, Plaintiff alleges:
8 a) Recreated Underwriting Decision/Condition Letter
9 Docket #44 presents a Countrywide record that is in fact a "recreated letter".
10 This record is a key document in the fraud against Zemik by Countrywide and
11 Samaan. This letter is clearly dated and time-stamped for its date of issue as:
12 Oct 26. 2004. Moreover, on some of the copies of this record one finds fax
13 header imprints indicating that it was also faxed from Countrywide to an
14 unknown recipient (Samaan?) on Oct 26,2004.
15 This record, was introduced as evidence in Judge Connor's court under
16 unusual circumstances -
17 i. As part of Sur Reply,
18 ii. It was never authenticated.
19 iii. Plaintiffs Counsel filed evidentiary objections.
20 Throughout the litigation of Samaan v Zernik Judge Connor practically refused
21 to issue any evidentiary rulings, no matter how hard Plaintiffpressed for such.
22 And obviously she relied on such evidence in her rulings and judgment,
23 regardless ofthe fact that such evidence should have been excluded.
24 McLaurin, Countrywide Bank Manager, and a business associate of
25 Samaan's husband, contributed key fraudulent declarations that were
26 quintessential for the fraud in the litigation in LA Superior Court. Plaintiff
27 requested Judicial Notice of Docket #38 - a compilation of McLaurin's
28 declarations and analysis ofvarious fraudulent statements made in them.
-22-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 23 of 50

1 Regarding instant Underwriting Decision/Condition Letter (Docket #44)


2 - McLaurin states:
3 "I have been informed ofMr Zernik's allegation that
4 the October 14,2004 suspension letter was issued on
5
October 26, 2004 and is "an instrument ofdeception."
There is no merit to Mr. Zernik's allegations. The
6
suspension letter was issued on October 14,2004 as
7 evidenced by the date on the second page. The
8 document was printed on October 26, 2004, not issued
on that date. This suspension letter appears to be a
9
printout from Countrywide's Computer program and
10 to my knowledge is accurate and valid. There is no
11 requirement that such letters be signed by the
12 underwriter. The fact that the letter is not signed does
not mean that it is not valid."
13
In fact, McLaurin is repeating Countrywide's "recreated letter"
14
routine..
15
16 b) Real Estate Purchase Contract
17 Docket #45 is the center ofthe fraud in litigation of Samaan v Zernik:
18 l. It was first introduced in Reply brief to Sarnaan'sAug 9,2007
19 Motion for Summary Judgment,
20 ll. It was never authenticated,
21 iii. Plaintiff objected
22 iv. It provides false evidence ofa fax transmission on Oct 25,2007,
23 5:03 pm, which in fact was part of the fax/wire fraud scheme.
24 The essence of the misrepresentation relative to this document is a false
25 claim that it was transmitted by fax from Parks to Countrywide on Oct 25,
26 2004, at 5:03pm, and that such transmission was critical for Sarnaan's loans
27 approval. In fact that document was never faxed on that day from Parks to
28 Countrywide.
-23-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 24 of 50

1 These false claims were based on the fax header imprints on this document.
2 However, the imprint is missing the identity of the sender, in violation of FCC
3 Regulations. Moreover, Plaintiff presented in the Aug 9, 2007 Summary Judgment
4 Hearing evidence that such imprints were generated as part of a convoluted fax/wire
5 fraud scheme. The fax/wire fraud scheme is described below. Plaintiff also requested
6 Judicial Notice of Docket #40, where the various fraud cases are summarized per
7 element in a table form, the wire fraud is found at Docket #40, pi9.
8
9 3. Samaan and Others were involved in a convoluted fax/wire fraud Scheme
10
against Plaintiffand against a Financial Institution

11 Samaan claimed that the contract was faxed by Parks to Countrywide on Oct
12 25,2004, at 5:03pm, but this document, like all other writings introduced by Samaan,
13 was never authenticated. As part of his objection to the entering of such records as
14 evidence, Plaintiff presented evidence that demonstrated that Samaan, Parks, Lloyd,
15 and an unknown person at Countrywide (McLaurin?) were engaged in an elaborate
16 wire/faxfraud scheme across state lines. Such scheme was used to mislead
17 plaintiff, an individual, and his realtor, and also to generate false loan records at
18 Countrywide, a financial institution. The essence of that fraud was that Samaan
19 (residing in Los Angeles) received and transmitted faxes on behalf of her loan broker,
20 Parks (residing in the State of Washington), assuming his identity, and operating a fax
21 machine with no fax header ID. The transmission on Monday, October 25,2004,
22 5:03pm was in fact from Nivie Samaan in Los Angeles to her husband, Jae Arre
23 Lloyd, also in Los Angeles.
24 When and how did that recordfind its way into the Countrywide loan file?
25 Plaintiff holds that the answer to that question is a key to understanding the
26 fraud perpetrated by Countrywide against Plaintiff and against the United States
27 government. Countrywide produced in response to subpoena what was
28
-24-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 25 of 50

1 misrepresented as true records ofSamaan's loan files. However, these documents are
2 inherently contradictory, and are lacking any record of their origin.
3 Countrywide must keep record of such transmissions in compliance with
4 Regulation B ofthe Federal Reserve.
5 As a first approximation, Plaintiff believes the scheme to work like this:
6 I. Samaan would fax the documents to Lloyd, in part in order to generate on
7 them the desired time stamp in the fax header imprints, adjusted at will.
8 ii. Lloyd would receive them on a digital machine, or scan them.
9 111. Lloyd would email them to McLaurin.
10 IV. McLaurin would insert them into the loan file.
11 Samaan falsely claimed that the Purchase Contract arrived at Countrywide on
12 Monday, October 25, 2004, 5:03pm and effected dramatic progress in her loan
13 approval- but is clear that the contract was not part ofSamaan's loan file even by
14 Nov 3,2004. The Nov 3,2004 Underwriting Letter (Docket #40, pl15) still lists it as
15 missing, under Condition #4:
16 "Provide complete executed purchase contract, escrow
17 instructions will not act as a substitute".

18 Samaan's counsel presented evidence that was inherently illogical- as


19 described above, and he failed to authenticate the records. Plaintiff objected on the
20 basis that such records were part of fraud. In addition, as Plaintiff reminded
21 Defendant Connor in the Aug 9,2007 hearing, Defendant Connor's Court's calendar
22 had a hearing scheduled for Plaintiff's Motion/or Sanctions per CCP §128. 7 against
23 Samaan's Counsel, Att Keshavarzi, for filing such fraudulent documents.
24 Defendant Connor refused to issue evidentiary rulings in this regard (Docket
25 #53, Exh Vol II, p273), as was the case in other herings (Docket #53, Exh Vol II,
26 p253). Defendant Connor clearly relied upon such fraudulent evidence (Docket #45)
27 and claims made by Samaan in this regard in her Aug 9, 2007 Order Granting
28 Summary Judgment (Exh Vol IV, pl15).
-25-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 26 of 50

1 " .. .and the fax from Victor Parks to Countrywide on October 25,
2
2004 (Opposition, Exhibit U)".

3
Defendant Connor similarly (Exh Vol IV, p119) states:
4
"As of October 25, 2004, Ms Samaan ha fulfilled all
5 obligations, except for removal of the appraisal contingency.
6 The appraisal contingency could not be removed until Ms
Samaan received loan approval [sic - usually it is the other way
7 around - jz). Approval of the loan was delayed because
8 Countrywide had not received a fully executed copy of the
purchase agreement."
9
10 The records ofSamaan's loan underwriting (in contrast with McLaurin's false
11 declarations) do not support any such finding:
12 1. Branch Input Exception Request to Mr Gadi (Docket #40, Exh J).
13 ii. Oct 29,2004 Gadi's Exception Request Response (Docket #40, Exh N)
14 111. Appraisal Review - Order Form (Docket #40, Exh L)
15 IV. Appraisal Review Report (Docket #40, Exh P).
16 v. Denial Letter from Countrywide Bank (Docket #40. p118).
17
18 Samaan, her Counsel, and McLaurin for Countrywide (Docket #38)
19 misrepresented in the Aug 9,2007 Motion/or Summary Judgment, that Samaan's
20 Loan Applications were approved on Oct 25, 2004, by 5: 18pm, just 15 min after the
21 falsely claimed arrival ofthe fax transmission on Monday, October 25,2004,5:03 pm.
22 In fact - the results of Appraisal Review would arrive only on Nov 3,2004.
23
24 4. Countrywide's Samuels and Mozillo Refused to Stop the Fraud
Perpetrated against Plaintiffor Make any Statement regarding the
25 Authenticity ofthe Underwriting Decision/Condition Letter and the Real
26 Estate Purchase Contract.
27
28
-26-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 27 of 50

1 Countrywide was closely related to this case. Countrywide's Chief Legal


2 Counsel Samuels is a close personal friend of Defendant Goodman ( ), and also a long
3 term friend of Defendant Friedman ( ). Moreover, during much ofthe litigation
4 Samuels served as President of the Board of Bet Tzedek - the "House ofJustice".
5 Samuels prominently called for fighting fraud in these web pages. (Exh ), and
6 solicited calls for help from fraud victims.
7 Mr Mozillo is featured in web pages on Corporate Ethics, and Coroporate
8 Resonsibility, where he also solicits calls in re: Fraud.
9 In early 2007, Plaintiff approached Mr Mozillo and Mr Samuels, expressed his
10 concerns that Countrywide was involved in fraud against him, and asked that they
11 authenticate or repudiate the documents that Plaintiff holds to be the key to the fraud-
12 the Underwriting Decision /Condition Letter (Docket #44), and the Real Estate
13 Purchase Contract (Docket #45).
14 Bet Tzedek web pages were removed from the web soon after that, and later
15 Countrywide appeared in Defendant Connor's Court, and initiated procedures that
16 were some of the most abusive of Plaintiffs rights for Due Process and Free Speech-
17 the July 6, 2007 Ex Parte Application and the July 23, 2007 Short Notice Hearing,
18 both for Protective (gag) Orders (see below).
19 In over a year that passed since Plaintiff first approached Mr Mozillo and Mr
20 Samuels in this regard, Countrywide has consistently refused to make any statement
21 whatsoever regarding the authenticity ofthe documents in question. At the same time,
22 McLaurin, a Countrywide Branch Manager, continued to produce false and
23 deliberately misleading declarations (Docket #38), colluding with Samaan in her
24 fraudulent litigation in LA Superior Court.
25
26 5. Countrywide's Appearances in the LA Superior Court were some oUhe
Worst Abuses ofPlaintifFs Civil Rights for Due Process. Free Speech. and
27
Possession
28
-27-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 28 of 50

1 The July 6, 2007 Ex Parte Hearing purportedly allowed Countrywide a


2 Discovery Motion, when discovery motions were no longer allowed to other parties in
3 this case. Defendant Connor than made rulings after the fact, July 12, 2007, that
4 Discovery Cut OffDate did not apply to Countrywide, but only to Plaintiff (Docket
5 #53, Exh Vol11 p240).
6 Defendant Connor denied Countrywide's July 6, 2007 Application. She allowed
7 Countrywide to re-file its moving papers, without giving it any deadline, she set a
8 deadline for Plaintiff to file his opposing papers by July 12, 2007, and she set a
9 shortened notice hearing for July 23, 2007 (July 6, 2007 Minute Order, Exh Vol II.
10 p236). Plaintiff was denied a copy ofthis Minute Order, based on a false and absurd
11 notation "Notice Deemed Waived",
12 Countrywide served Plaintiff with moving paper after he his deadline for the
13 opposmg papers.
14 Later, Plaintiff discovered in Sustain Case History that Defendant Connor ran
15 these proceedings as "offthe record" procedures (e.g. Docket #39: Docket ofSamaan
16 v Zernik, pp57-58) :
17 '~7ro6ro7 Event
Exparte proceeding
18 Jacqueling A. Connor
9:00am
19 NON-PARTY, COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,
INC,'S EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR
20 PROTECTIVE ORDER
21
22 Proceeding not recorded"
23
In fact, now Plaintiff knows that many or most ofthe proceedings at LA
24
Superior Court of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) were considered by Defendants that
25
are Judges to be "offthe record" proceedings. Had Plaintiff been aware ofthat at the
26
time, he would have never taken part in such travesty ofjustice. Such proceedings are
27
28
-28-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 29 of 50

1 severe abuse of Due Process rights per Amendments j'h and 14th ofthe United States
2 Constitution. (see more below)
3 After July 6, 2007, Countrywide Counsels appeared on a regular basis in court
4 hearings of Samaan v Zemik (SC087400), albeit their party designation was never
5 determined. Plaintiff appeared before each and every one of Defendants that are
6 Judges of the LA Superior Court with Requests for Safeguard of Due Process, which
7 included a request for determination of Countrywide's party designation. Plaintiffs
8 requests were always denied, and to this very day, Countrywide appears in litigation
9 records as: Non Party, Defendant, Plaintiff, Cross Defendant, Intervenor, Objector.
10 Etc.., without any legal foundation, at times two , three, or even four conflicting
11 designations in one record.
12 The Feb 15, 2008 Transcript (Exh Vol III p642) records Countrywide's request
13 for a court declaration:
14 "that Countrywide has no Oblilf,ation to Respond Further to Defendant
Zemik Regarding This Action. '
15

16 In that hearing Defendant Friedman set sanctions exceeding $16,000 on


17 Plaintiff, again based on unauthenticated objectionable evidence. He also allowed
18 Countrywide a shortened notice hearing for a Bench Trial for Contempt (Feb 15, 2008
19 Minute Order, Exh Vol11 p380. March 3, 2008 Minute Order, Exh Vol II, p384,
20 March 7, March 7 Minute Order, Exh Vol 11 p385). Non of these Minute Orders
21 were available to Plaintiff in time for challenging such procedures in California Court
22 of Appeal.
23 Furthermore, this case present issues that are pertinent in California outside of
24 Los Angeles County, and also beyond California - the handling of Case Management
25 Systems in the Courts. This case demonstrates how such systems can easily be abused
26 for wholesale obstruction of justice.
27 This case also pertains directly to the dishonest operation Countrywide under
28 the leadership of Officers including Defendants Mozilo and Samuels. The outcome of
-29-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 30 of 50

1 their conduct will be burden the American taxpayer in years to come. The cost of the
2 sub-prime crisis to the Treasury and the burden it will generate on the U.S. economy
3 is difficult to even estimate at this time, but the impact on many thousands of families,
4 who are losing their homes all around the country is visible and real.
5 Almost without exception those losing their homes, are almost the last one
6 families or individuals who held residential mortgage loans generated by
7 Countrywide, re-financed with Countrywide, or serviced by Countrywide after being
8 originated by others.
9 In that respect this case is unique - Plaintiff never had any business dealings
10 with Countrywide whatsoever. In fact, as late as November-December 2006, when
11 he first saw the name on subpoena papers, he did not even recognize the name. That
12 is over a year after litigation in Samaan v Zernik was initiated in the Los Angeles
13 Superior Court.
14 And yet, Countrywide, a giant corporation is operating its massive machinery to
15 impact extreme violation of Plaintiff's civil rights under the hands of the Los Angeles
16 Superior Court, West District. The judges of West District, Officials of the State of
17 California have been engaging in perpetrating such abuse of Plaintiff under the color
18 ofthe law for the third year in a row, and have brought him to the brink: ofdestruction,
19 both financial and physical. Some ofthese judges are close personal friends or
20 acquaintances of Countrywide's Chief Legal Counsel, Defendant Samuels -like
21 Defendant Goodman, and Defendant Friedman. Other judges are otherwise
22 determined to obstruct justice on behalf of Countrywide, although Plaintiffmay not be
23 aware of their exact motivation.
24 For example, Defendant Connor - her court entered as on July 24, 2007 the
25 following note in "Case History" in "Sustain" - the Court's case management system,
26 in the opening screen, ensuring its permanent visibility -
27 "Countrywide Home Loans, Inc
Real Parties in Interest'
28
-30-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 31 of 50

1 See more detailed description of this issue in our Docket #46: Inexplicable
2 under assumption ofhonesty No.2 - Sustain Case History page #1.
3 Also, our Docket #39: Sustain Case History ofSamaan v Zernik, "Case History"
4 (Exh Vall Exh p 1).
5 Another example, Defendant Segal- his dishonest Dec 4, 2007 Minute Order:
6 Judge Segal's Disqualification Statement (Docket #52: Exh Vol II. pp 343-355.
7 states:
8 "[Plaintiff] contends that Countrywide Home Loans, which is
not a party, is somehow involved in these proceedings. There
9 have not been any proceeding before the undersignedjudge
involving or relating to Countrywide ... "
10
11 And next (Exh p348):
12 "In this case, Countrywide is not a party. At best, Countrywide is
a witness which has sought a protective order. "
13
14
Both of these are false and deliberately misleading statements on their face:
15
First - Judge Segal did preside in proceedings, short as they might be, on both Aug 1
16
and Aug 2,2007, in which Countrywide was involved. At the outset of the
17 proceeding on Aug 1, 2007 he even expressed his amazement, when counsel for
18
Countrywide inserted herself right before him, and remained standing between
19
Plaintiff and Defendant. He first paused in the introductions to ask her:
20
"And who are you?"
21 To which she identified herself as usual, as Counsel for Countrywide, without
22
any party designation. Defendant Segal then asked her at least twice:
23
"What are you doing here?"
24
To which she never answered, not even a word. Then Defendant Segal made a
25
comment to the effect that it was not his case, and he might not be able to figure it out
26
fast enough ...
27
28
-31-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 32 of 50

1 He could have spared himselfall of that, had he bothered to look at the


opening
2 screen of "Case History" in the computer screen on his desk, at the
note left there by
3 Judge Connor on July 24, 2007 before leaving on vacation, but backd
ated to July 24,
4 2004, ensuring its place on the opening screen (Exh Vol I, Exh pl).
5 And Defendant Segal, in his dishonest and deliberately misleading Dec
4, 2007
6 Disqualification Statement says (Exh Vol II. p348):
7 'lIn this case, Countrywide is not a party. At best, Countrywide is
a witness which has sought a protective order. "
8
9 But at the same time, the same Dec 4, 2007 Disqualification Statement
(Exh
10 p345) designates Countrywide's Counsel:
BRYAN CAVE
11 ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR
12
Attorney for "Intervenor" - as it has been designated for many months,
13 with no
legal foundation at all.
14
Elsewhere in these disqualification statements (Exhp 341) Countrywide
15 is
designated "Defe ndanf ' as it has always been:
16 SHATZ, SANFORD
17 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
18
Again, with no legal foundation at all.
19
(while according Countrywide a status above the law in Samaan v Zernik
20 , and
routinely claiming that any suggestion by Plaintiff of an interest for Count
21 rrywide in
this case is a "Conspiracy Theory".
22
While at the Dec 4,200 7 Disqualification Statement, one notes that on
23 Ehx
p355 the entry date of this legal record is Dec 7,200 7, while on the
24 12 preceding
pages ofthe same document, the entry date is Dec 4, 2007.
25
26
Judge Segal' s exchange at the opening ofthe Aug 1, 2007 Ex Parte Proce
27 eding
All ofthat was deleted from the Reporter's Transcript (Exh Vol III, Exh
28 p429-430),
-32-
ZERNI K v CONNOR ET AL , VERIF IED FffiST AMEN DED COMP
LAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 33 of 50

1 which for that reason was designated by Plaintiff"Objectionable", and Plaintiff


2 requested to to inspect the Reporter's raw-, or shorthand notes. As is the case in much
3 of the litigation records in this case, Defendants LA County and LA Superior Court
4 are adamant in their refusal to provide Plaintiff access to his own litigation records, in
5 blatant defiance of the California Public Records Act, the California Constitution, and
6 the u.s. Constitution Amendment 5th and 14 th - Due Process of the Law.
7 A similar, albeit demonstrating a more defiant, deliberate determination to
8 abuse Plaintiff's Due Process rights was recorded in the Aug 9, 2007 Transcript-
9 Motion/or Summary Judgment (Exh Vol III. Exh p445), where Countrywide's
10 counsel appeared before the judge as party for all practical purposes, was allowed to
11 file motions against Plaintiff, while Plaintiff was barred from filing motions or claims
12 against Countrywide, for reasons that Plaintiff could not and still cannot comprehend:
13 "MR ZERNIK: FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO ASK YOUR
HONOR IF YOU CAN CLARIFY WHAT IS THE REASON THAT
14 ATTORNEY FOR COUNTRYWIDE IS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM
RIGHT NOW?
15 THE COURT:
SHE WANTS TO BE HERE.
16 MR ZERNIK: SO SHE HAS FULL RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN
17 THESE PROCEEDINGS?
THE COURT: DO
18 YOU HAVE A PROBLEM?
MR ZERNIK: YEs. I HAVE A PROBLEM, BECAUSE I
19 BELIEVE SHE IS NOT A PARTY•."

20 Plaintiff is not experience in legal matters, but Plaintiff believes that in the
21 United States, circumstances such as described above are extraordinary under the
22 protections extended by the Constitution. Plaintiff believes that conditions in Samaan
23 v Zernik are extraordinary, and therefore justify the unusual review by the United
24 States District Court.
25
For much of the litigation (from its onset - October 2005 to Aug 2,2007 - over
26 19 months, access was entirely denied - see Sept 10, 2007 Judge Connor
27 Disqualification Statement, Exh Vol IV, Exh p_), a California State Court entirely
28 denied a U.S. Citizen and his counsels acc.:j~_to his litigation records. And the same

ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 34 of 50

1 Court is still continuing to deny timely access to critical records today, including, but
2 not limited to:
3 a) Paper court file documents,
4 b) Electronic court file data,
5 c) Raw/short hand transcripts of specific reporters' transcripts
6 d) Minute Orders,
7 e) Notices of orders, rulings, judgments
8 f) Assignment Orders of Presiding Judges in the case, and for months also
9 refused to even provide even a f) certified copy ofthe Aug 9. 2007 Judgment
10 by Court, is an extraordinary case, justifYing protection by the United States
11 District Court.
12 Obviously, under such situation, any further review by the California Court of
13 Appeal or the California Supreme Court is futile.
14 The primary reason that Plaintiff found himself seeking protection of the United
15 States Court, is that he lost hope to ever gain access to his litigation records through
16 the California State Justice system (see below).
17 , ..
18 for reasons that may take more discovery to uncover.
19
20 The U.S. economy may be sliding into recession that many attribute to the sub-
21 prime crisis - where mortgage and real-estate frauds were main causes. But review
22 off Samaan v Zernik reveals a group ofjudges of the LA Superior Court that simply
23 refuses to recognize Real Estate Fraud and/or Mortgage Fraud as part of reality.
24 Judge Connor ruled it to be a "red herring". One is only left to wonder what part
25 such permissive approach of the courts had in getting Los Angeles listed in FBI
26 reports as "the epicenter" of a fast growing national epidemic of real estate and
27 mortgage fraud that is a high national priority to fight.
28
-34-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 35 of 50

1 6. Defendants that are the LA Superior Court and its Judges held many or
2 most proceedings in Samaan v Zernik "offthe record", and are not part
ofproceedings for which they may claim judicial immunity.
3

4 The typical entry in Sustain allows only one "on the record" event per
5 time slot scheduled. Judge Connor, typically would schedule two or three events, but
6 only one ofthem would eventually recorded, not necessarily correctly. In general, the
7 record of litigation produced is corrupted to the point that it would be impossible for
8 an any court reviewing this case to figure out what indeed took place.
9 Example: Running Litigation Where Most Procedures are "off the record"
10 - First Hearing Presided by Defendant Connor -1130/06 (Docket #53, pp7-10)

11 11129/05 Scheduled Event


Demurrer
12 Jacqueline A. Connor
01130/06 at 8:35am
13
14 2. OSC RE: PROOF OF SERVICE
3. INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE
15
12/02/05 Document Filed
16 NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE
Attorney for Plaintiff
17
ISC AND OSC HEARING ARE ADVANCED
18 TO THE DEMURRER DATE OF 1130/06
19
20 1130/06 Event
Demurrer
21 Jacqueline A. Connor
8:30am
22 DEFENDANT (JOSEPH ZERNIK) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT;
23 INITIALSTATUSCONFERNECE
24 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF
SERVICE
25
26 Matters are called for hearing.
[full page text on demurrer decision]
27
Order to Show Cause and Initial Status Conference are held and
28 discharged.
-35-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFmD FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 36 of 50

1
2 1130/06 Event Complete
Demurrer
3 Motion Granted
4 2) OSCI RE: POS
3) INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE
5
6
The final record for the Jan 30, 2006 hearing:
7
• The only procedure that was concluded "on the recorel' was the demurrer.
8
• The record states that Demurrer was "Granteel', in fact it was denied.
9
• There is no evidence that an OSC procedure, which probably was the reason for
10
the Affidavit of Prejudice in the first place, ever took place.
11
• Parties never saw this record: "Notice is waived"
12
13
7. Defendants That Are The LA Superior Court And Its Judges Failed To
14 Issue Assignment Orders To The Judges Named As Defendants In This
15
Case. TherefOre. These Judges Are Not Eligible (or Judicial Immunitv In
This Case.
16

17 Although Plaintiff appeared on several occasions before the Judges named as


18 defendants in this case, and also before the Defendant Rosenberg, the Supervising
19 Judge, to ask for Notice ofRe-Assignment Orders ofSamaan v Zemik to the several
20 judges who acted as Presiding Judges, such requests were always denied.
21 The only Re-assignment Order found in this case on the record that appears
22 legitimate is for Defendant who is Judge Connor (Exh Volll- Minute Orders. pp200-
23 1). However, this record is likely to be subject of some alteration or adulteration in
24 Sustain. Page one ofthis order is dated 11/112005 as its date of entry in the record,
25 whereas page 2 of the same order is dated 1130/2006. Plaintiff demands his right for
26 full access to electronic Trial Court Records, to inspect the detailed record and its
27 Audit File.
28
-36-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 37 of 50

1 At the disqualification of Judge Connor, she re-assigned the case to Judge


2 Goodman, in what appeared a procedure out of compliance with the law. Much later
3 Plaintiff found ''Notice of Transfer" in the Court File, dated Sept 11,2007, that is a
4 day after Judge Connor ordered the re-assignment to Judge Goodman.
5 Reading the Los Angeles County Rules of Court, Transfer is defined in rule 2.0,
6 and is not relevant to the procedure of re-assignment.
7 No Reassignment Order was ever found for any of the other Defendants who
8 are judges.
9
10 Example: Correct Docketing of Disqualification and Re-assignment "on the
record" - Judge Neidorf, 11/1/05*
11
12 *In this case there is concern ofadulteration, since the 11/1/05 Minute Order by
Supervising Judge Lefkowitz itself, shows elsewhere a date ofentry ofJanuary 30,
13 2006.
14
11/01/05 Document Filed
15 Affidavit of Prejudice - Premptory
Attorney for Plaintiff
16
17 AGAINST JUDGE NEIDORF

18 11/01/05 Event
Affidavit of Prejudice
19 Richard Neidorf
9:00am
20 PREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO SECTION 170.6 OF
TIlE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
21

22 [full page text re: premptory challenge minute order + clerk certificate of mailing]
23
11/01/05 Event Complete
24 Affidavit of Prejudice
Transferred to Other Department
25
11/01/05 Event
26 Case Ordered Reassigned
Linda K. Lefkowitz
27 3:30pm
[full page text re: re-assignment to Judge Connor + clerk's certificate of mailing.] *
28
-37-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 38 of 50

1
11/01/05 Event Complete
2 Case Ordered Reassigned
Case reassigned per 170 CCP
3
4
Exam ple: False Docketing of Disgualification - Judge Conno r, July
12, 2007
5 (Docket #39, pp 62-70)
6 07/12/07 Event
Motio n to Compel
7
Jacqueline A. Connor
8 8:30am
PLAINTIFF (NIVIE SAMAAN) MOTION TO COMP EL DEPOSITIO
N
9
PLAINTIFF (NIVIE SAMAAN) MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR
10 ADMISSIONS ADMITTED:
11
Mattters are called for hearing.
12
13
[full two pages text ofre:
Motion to Compel Deposition Motion to compel and sanctions - Denie
Motio n to deem admissions admitted - Denied d
14
15 Defendant files an affidavit pursuant to CCP section 170.3 in Open
Court. ... It will be ruled upon as an affidavit pursua nt to 170.6 of the
16 Code of Civil Procedures and is Denied as untimely.
17
[full two pages oflega l discourse - in fact an answer]
18 Good CAUS E APPEARING, THEREFORE, IT is so ordered.
19
Date: JULY 12, 2007
20 Hon. Jacqueline A. Connor
Judge ofthe Superior Court
21
Verified Answ er of Jacqu eline A. Conn or
22
I, Jacqueline A. Connor, declare:
23 1....
[formal generic answer]
24
25 Jacqueline A. Conno r
26 The original Orderr and verified Answer as stated above is signed and
filed this date.
27
28
-38-
ZERN IK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIF IED FIRST AMENDED COMP LAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 39 of 50

1 a conformed copy of the order Denying Peremptory Challenge and


Striking Statement ofDisqualificatlOn and Venfied Answer of Jacqueline
2 A. Connor are mailed this date via U.S. MAIL to the Defendant,
3 Joseph Zemrik, DMD, PhD
320 South Peck Drive
4 Beverly Hills, CA 90212
5
6 07/12/07 Event Complete
Motion to Compel
7 Motion Denied
8
, Deposition
2) MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR
9 ADMISSIONS ADMITTED
MTN TO QUASH OIC PER M/P ON 6-26
10
11 7/12107 Document Filed
Affidavit of Prejudice - Premptory
12 Defendant & Defendant in Pro Per

13 PUR TO CCP 170.3 AS TO JUDGE


JACQUELINE A. CONNOR
14
07112/07 Document Filed
15 Order
Court
16
17 DENYING PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE AND
STRIKING STATEMENT OF
18 DISQUALIFICAnON AND VERIFIED
ANSWER IS SIGNED BY: JACQUELINE A.
19 CONNOR, JUDGE
20 Comments:
21
• The initial docketing was deliberately false - as Peremptory.
22
• No Event was generated as required, and therefore - no completion was
23
required either.
24
• The response is a combination of Strike and Answer, which is not allowed per
25
Bench Guide ofthe Judicial Council.
26
• The Answer must be adjudicated, for the judge to re-gain authority after event
27
is completed, but that was never done.
28
-39-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 40 of 50

1 • The order is missing clerk's certificate of mailing, and is therefore invalid


2 • It is written as if Judge Connor is certifying the mailing, which is not allowed.
3 • Plaintiff never got notice by mail as described here.
4 • Plaintiff holds that Judge Connor was without any authority and without any
5 immunity after July 12, 2007, if she had any prior to that, given the concern
6 regarding the 11/1/05 Minute Order ofRe-assignment adulteration.
7
8 In fact, none ofthe disqualifications and re-assignments in Samaan v Zemik are
9 in compliance with the Law and Rules of Court.
10
8. Defendants who are Judges ofLA Superior Court are not Eligible for
11
Immunity since they Officiated as Presiding Judges with no authority at
12 all after being Disqualified.
13
14 None of the Defendants who are judges had their disqualification adjudicated as
15 required by law. Therefore, after the first disqualification for each and every one of
16 them, they were acting without any authority and without any immunity.
17 The notion heard by Plaintiff that it is a "Local Custom" in LA County not to
18 adjudicate Answers to disqualification is out of compliance with the law, and a
19 fundamental abuse of Plaintiffs Due Process rights.
20 Defendants without exception entered responses to disqualifications that were a
21 combination of Strike and Answer. Such is deemed un-allowed response by a judge
22 to disqualification for cause by the Bench Guide of the California Judicial Council.
23 Regardless, the Answer had to be adjudicated for the Judge to regain his/her
24 authority after disqualification statement was filed, and with it to regain hislher
25 immunity.

26
9. Defendant Who is Judge Connor Entered at Least Twice Minute Orders
27
that were Entirely Fictitious and False. None ofthe Judges Who are
28
-40-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 41 of 50

1 Defendants Agreed to Co"ect such False Records. under False Claims


2 that Thev Have No Authority to Do So

3
a. July 9, 2007 Minute Order - Motion for Reconsideration (Docket #39. pp
4
59-61), recording conferring "telephonically" is entirely fabricated. The record - that
5
the motion for reconsideration was Granted is false. As is the case in the Demurrer, in
6
proceedings where Defendant Connor made decisions or rulings that may appear
7
unusual upon review, she simply entered false records.
8
Plaintiff would never know, since he never got notice.
9
b. Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order - Motion for Sanctions per CCP 128. 7 (!2ocket
10
#39. pp105-110), recorded a hearing that was never heard and a ruling that was never
11
ruled, as can be concluded by comparing the Minute Order to the Sept 10,2007
12
Transcript (Docket # unassigned yet. Exh Vol III. p510). As is recorded in the
13
transcript, Defendant Connor entered this false and deliberately misleading minute
14
order after her disqualification, with no authority at all. This Minute Order represents
15
Obstruction of Justice. Defendant Connor generated a false litigation record to the
16
effect that Countrywide records are not fraud at all.
17
In addition, this minute order and the respective transcript record the fact that
18
after disqualification, with no authority at all, she re-assigned the case on Sept 10,
19
2007 to Judge Goodman, who on Oct 3,2007 (Docet # 39, Exh Vol I, Case History,
20
pp 121-124), in his disqualification statement recalled his long-term close personal
21
friendship with Samuels - Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide.
22
23
24 10.Defendant who is Retired Judge O'Brien engaged in Obstruction and has
no Grounds for a Claim o(Immunity at all.
25

26 On Sept 7, 2007 in the late afternoon Plaintiff received by email a notice for a
27 "hearing" to be conducted by Proposed Referee O'Brien on the morning of Sept 10,
28 2007. That "hearing" conflicted with a court hearing scheduled for that same time.
-41-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 42 of 50

1 Plaintiff immediately requested that Defendant O'Brien provide the documents


2 that are the legal foundation for his appointment.
3 Defendant O'Brien, Proposed Referee, presented to Plaintiff on Sept 7, 2007
4 the following:
5 a) Aug 30, 2007 Minute Order by Judge Connor (Docket #53. Exh Vol II. p279).
6 This document surely was inadequate for an Escrow Referee for execution of a
7 Judgment by Court.
8 The Minute Order states:
9 ttThe Court appoint Honorable Greg O'Brien, Retired Judge as
10 Referee. The Court will prepare the order to appointing [sic-jzj
discovery referee. "
11
12 b) Aug 9, 2007 Order Granting Summary Judgment (Docket # unassignedyet,
Exh Vol IV- Minute Orders. Orders, Rulings from Paper Court File, p112)
13 This document, too, surely was inadequate for execution of a Judgment by
14 Court, and reflected the deceptive conduct of the LA Superior Court and the Judges,
15 who at once blamed Plaintiff for refusing to obey the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by
16 Court, and also made it clear that they did not consider it a valid record, by omitting it
17 from any record ofthe Court after Aug 9, 2007.
18 The Transcript says: (Docket #unassignedyet , Exh Vol 111- Transcripts. p537)
19 MR KESHAVARZI: THE REFEREE WON'T DO THAT,
20 YOUR HONOR. THERE IS A REASON E WON'T DO
THAT, BECAUSE JUDGE CONNOR'S ORDER DIDN'T
21 SPECIFY THAT THE REFEREE WAS BEING APPOINTED
22 PURSUANT TO 639 OF THE CCP. THE REFEREE WROTE
A LETTER TO JUDGE GOODMAN, ASKING JUDGE
23
GOODMAN TO CLARIFY THAHT HE WAS BEING
24 APPOINTED PURSUANT TO 639.
25
But all ofthat did not stop Defendant O'Brien from holding a "Hearing" on
26
Monday, Sept 10, 2007, where he conspired with Att Keshavarzi to execute an
27
28
-42-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 43 of 50

1 "Entered Oral Judgment', according to Keshavarzi (Docket #unassigned yet, Exh


2 Vol III- Transcripts. p538), quoting O'Brien:
3 WHY DON'T I ASK JUDGE GOODMAN TO CLARIFY
4 THAT I'M BEING APPOINTED PURSUANT TO 639 - I
BELIEVE - (A)(2), WHICH SAYS THAT AFTER AN ORAL
5 JUDGMENT IS ENTERED, THE COURT MAY APPOINT A
6 REFEREE TO OVERSEE ENFORCEMENT OF THE
JUDGMENT.
7
8 In addition, Defendant O'Brien himself conceded that he was operating without
9 any authority when he lodged a Proposed Order for his own appointment as an Escrow
10 Referee on September 14, 2007, that is after he conducted a hearing on Sept 10.2007.
11 (Docket #unassigned yet, Exh Vol IV- Minute Orders. Orders. Rulings. Judgments.
12 from Paper Court File. p170).
13 In an act that was a display of blatant dishonesty, and a gross abuse of
14 Plaintiffs Due Process rights, Judge Goodman conducted a entirely unnoticed
15 hearing on that Proposed Order on Sept 17,2007, while pretending that he did not
16 know its origin (Docket #unassigned yet, Exh Vol III- Transcripts. p512):
17 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THERE'S A DOCUMENT
18 THAT I DON'T KNOW THE SOURCE OF IT, BUT IT WAS
RECEIVED IN THE COURT HOUSE ON THE 14TH , AND
19 IT'S A PROPOSED ORDER WITH RESPECT TO RETIRED
20 JUDGE O'BRIEN SERVING AS THE ESCROW REFEREE.
AND I SEE FROM THE MINUTE ORDER OF AUGUST 30
21 THAT HE WAS APPOINTED AS REFEREE.
22
23 But at the same time, Judge Goodman entered on Sept 14, 2007 a note in
24 Sustain Case History, which in fact is the only entry on that day, and which normally
25 would never be seen by litigants, as follows (Docket #39, Exh Vol It Sustain Case
26 History. pI13):
27 09/14/07 Document Filed
Miscellaneous - Other
28
-43-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 44 of 50

1 Dism - Plaintiff In Pro Per


2 (2) documents received by facsimile
service and filed per the
3 direction of the Supervising Judge
4 of the West District, the Honorable
Gerald Rosenberg.
5 Filed By ZERNIK, JOSEPH Defendant
6
It is left to be discovered what documents exactly were filed on Sept 14, 2007.
7
8 Plaintiff again requests Judicial Notice of Docket #47 - Notice ofDocument
Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court-Inexplicable under Assumption ofHonesty,
9 No.8, Aug-Oct 2007 - APPOINTMENT OF ESCROW REFEREE O'BRIEN.
10
11 II.Defendant who is Receiver Pasternak was appointed through a fraudulent
motion procedure presided by Defendant Segal
12
13
Defendant Pasternak is not eligible for any immunity since his appointment on
14
November 9, 2007 was the outcome of a fraudulent motion by Att Keshavarzi (Exh
15
16
Exhibit A in that Motion, which would have been the legal foundation for the
17
appointment was stated in Att Kehsavarzi's Declaration under penalty ofperjury to be
18 the "Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP 437c" issued on Aug 9, 2007 by Defendant
19 Connor.
20
In fact Att Keshavarzi never included the Judgment in any document, since he
21
did not recognize it as a valid record, as he made clear in his comments in open court
22
in the hearing on Nov 9, 2007 Motion to Appoint Pasternak Receiver (Docket # not
23
assigned yet, Exh Vol III - Transcripts. p587). Instead he included under Tab A the
24
Aug 9, 2007 Order Granting Summary Judgment. Such an Order is not sufficient as
25
the basis for execution ofjudgment as entailed by Pasternak.
26
In the Nov 9, 2007 Transcript Att Keshavarzi explicitly states that the reason he
27
never included a copy of the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, which he blamed
28
-44-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 45 of 50

1 Plaintiff for stalling execution of, is that he had never seen such a document (Docket
2 #unassignedyet, Exh Vol III - Transcripts, p.58!):
3 "ONE POINT, YOUR HONOR, MR. ZERNIK SAID THAT
MY DECLARATION HAS A COPY OF THEN SUMMARY
4 JUDGMENT ORDER INSTEAD OF THE JUDGMENT.
THAT IS CORRECT. I'LL AGREE WITH HIM ON THAT.
5 THE REASON IS I HAD NOT SEEN A COPY OF THE
JUDGMENT. I BELIEVE - AND JUDGE CONNOR HAD
6 TOLD ME ON THE RECORD WHEN I SAID, " WE NEED
7 A JUDGMENT ENTERED". SE SAID, "I'M ENTERING
THE JUDGMENT" AND HER CLERK GAVE ME A COPY
8 OF THE ORDER AND SAID THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT,
BUT YOUR HONOR HAS A COpy OF THE JUDGMENT,
9 AND IT MIRRORS THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER.
THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT - ORDER GRANTING
10 SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS EXACTLY THE SAME. THE
ONLY THING DIFFERENT IN THE JUDGMENT IS THAT
11 IT'S A LITTLE BIT SHORTER."
12
Plaintiff objected to such a motion as based on fraud - founded on false and
13
deliberately misleading statements and misidentification oflegal documents. Judge
14
Segal, after hearing a detailed account of Keshavarzi's deliberately misleading, false
15
declaration under penalty of perjury signed the order nevertheless.
16
Defendant Pasternak was personally informed by Plaintiff of the fraud in the
17
Moving papers relative to the omission of the Aug 9,2007 Judgment by Court and its
18
replacement by the Aug 9, 2007 Order Granting Summary Judgment Motion.
19
Defendant Pasternak never followed the Rules of Court of LA Superior Court
20
re: Execution of Judgment (see below).
21
Defendant Pasternak is also involved in fraud relative to the transfer ofthe
22
Deed on the record in the office of LA County Register/Recorder.
23
The CCP does assign liability to Receiver even ifhis appointment were
24
adequate, in cases where the receiver violated the law, as in the case at bar.
25
26
12. Execution ofJudgment by Defendant Pasternak and Defendant Segal was
27 through Procedures that are not in Compliance with Los Angeles County
28 Rules of Court
-45-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 46 of 50

1 Los Angeles County Rules of Court say:


2
Local Rules
3 Chapter Three
4
Judgments And Post-Judgment Orders
5 15 3.0 JUDGMENTS (See Also LASCR, Rule 8.96)
15 (a) Original and Copy
6 15 (b) Court Trustee
15 (c) Execution by Clerk of Documents
7 15 (d) Entry of Judgments, Orders and Decrees
15 (e) Possession Plus Money
8
15 (f) Forms
15 3.1 POST-JUDGMENT ORDERS
9
15 (a) Application for Money Deposited, Code
10 Civ. Proc.,·· 708.710 - 708.795
15 (b) Property Otherwise Deposited
11 15 (c) Execution on Installment Order or
Judgment
12 15 3.2 ATIORNEY'S FEES
15 (a) Contract Provision or Note
13 15 (b) Mortgage or Trust Deed
15 (c) Foreclosure of Assessment or bond lien
14 15 (d) Itemization as to Extraordinary Services
15 (e) Services Benefitting a Minor
15 15 3.3 APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF, TO
VACATE, OR TO ENTER NUNC PRO TUNC ORDERS
16 15 3.4 JUDGMENTS DEBTOR PROCEEDINGS
15 (a) Application
17 15 (b) Proof of Service
15 (c) Failure To Appear At Hearing By
18 Applicant
15 (d) Failure to Appear At Hearing By Citee
19 15 (e) Continuance
15 (f) Claims Of Non-Service
20 15 (g) Claims That Statements In The
Application Are Untrue
21 15 (h) Examination After Voluntary Appearance
15 3.5 WRITS OF EXECUTION, POSSESSION AND
22 SALE
15 3.6 WRIT OF EXECUTION ON A DWELLING
23 15 (a) Application for an order for sale of a
Dwelling requires competent evidence of the
24
follOWing
25 15 (b) Order
15 (c) Notice of Right to Rehearing
26
27
28
-46-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 47 of 50

1 Rule 3.0
(d) Entry of Judgments, Orders and Decrees.
2 Judgments, orders and decrees rendered by the court,
which are required by law to be entered, shall be entered
3 by the clerk in judgment books kept by him/her either in
the Public Services Division, of the Central District, or the
4 clerk's office in each of the several districts. The
judgment, order or decree shall be entered in the
5 judgment books in the district wherein the same was
rendered and no other entry thereof shall be required.
6

7 Rule 3.3
3.3 APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF, TO
8 VACATE, OR TO ENTER NUNC PRO TUNC ORDERS
Every application for the entry nunc pro tunc or the
9 vacation of an order or judgment after the hearing of the
matter, and any motion for the reconsideration of an
10 order as to a demurrer, motion or discovery shall be
presented to the judge who made the order and if he/she
11 is not available, to the Presiding Judge or the Assistant
Presiding Judge in the Central District, or, if the case is
12 filed in another district, (a) to the Site Judge for the
courthouse in which the case is filed if the case is filed in
13 a courthouse that has a Site Judge or (b) to the
Supervising Judge for the district in which the case is
14 filed if the case is filed in a courthouse that does not have
a Site Judge.
15 (Rule 3.3 [1/1/94] amended and effective 11/01/00.)
16 Rule 3.4
17 3.4 JUDGMENT DEBTOR PROCEEDINGS
(a) Application.
18
(g) Claims That Statements In The Application Are
19 Untrue. When the truth of material facts set forth in the
application filed in support of any order issued pursuant
20 to Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.110, 708.120, or
708.130 is disputed by the person, firm or corporation to
21 whom said order was directed, the Court shall first hear
and determine the dispute. If it appears that material
22 facts set forth in the application are untrue, the Court
shall immediately dismiss the proceedings without costs.
23
Rule 3.5
24 3.5 WRITS OF EXECUTION, POSSESSION AND SALE
(a) A party who makes an application for a writ of
25 execution, possession or sale shall prepare and complete
the following papers for the court:
26 (1) Application for Issuance of Writ of
Possession/Sale/Execution and Order.
27
(2) The writ of possession, sale or execution completed in
full except for the seal and signature of the deputy clerk.
28
(b) The completed applica~~~_and writ shall be presented

ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 48 of 50

to the Office of the Clerk as follows:


(1) Central District: Judgments Section, Room 426.
2 (2) other Districts: In the department or office
designated by the Supervising Judge.
3 (Rule 3.5 [1/1/97, 7/1/98] REPEALED in part, and
effective 7/1/04.)
4
Rule 3.6
5 3.6 WRIT OF EXECUTION ON A DWELLING
(a) Application for an order for sale of a Dwelling
6 requires competent evidence of the following:
(1) The fair market value of the property by a real estate
7 expert.
(2) Litigation guarantee or title report that contains a
8 legal description of the property, the names of the
current owners, a list of all deeds of trust, abstracts of
9
judgments, tax liens and other liens recorded against the
10 property, whether a declaration of homestead has been
recorded or whether a current homeowner's exemption or
11 disabled veteran's exemption has been filed with the
county assessor and, if so, the persons claiming such
12 exemption.
(3) The amount of any liens or encumbrances on the
13 dwelling and the names and addresses of the lienholders
and when the judgment creditor's lien attached. The
14 judgment creditor shall ascertain the precise amounts of
obligations secured by senior liens by making a written
15 demand for beneficiary statements from senior
lienholders pursuant to Civil Code section 2943. The
16 judgment creditor may need to conduct an examination
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.120 or
17 708.130 to determine the precise amounts of the junior
liens. The daily rate of interest due on the senior and
18 junior liens and encumbrances of record shall be included
also.
19 (Rule 3.6,(a),(3) [as Rule 3.5(a)(3) 1/1/96] amended
and effective 1/1/98.)
20 (4) The date of service on the judgment creditor of the
notice from the levying officer that the dwelling was
21 levied upon shall be stated in the application for order of
sale.
22 (b) Order:
The Court clerk will prOVide judgment creditor with a
23 certified copy of the Court order for transmittal to the
levying officer and if the judgment was entered in
24 another Court a certified copy of the order for transmittal
to the Clerk of the Court in which the judgment was
25
entered.
26 (c) Notice of Right to Rehearing. Where the judgment
debtor or judgment debtor's spouse does not appear
27 either in person or through an attorney, judgment
creditor shall comply with Code of Civil Procedure section
28 704.790.
-48-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 49 of 50

1
(Rule 3.6 [originally added as Rule 3.5 1/1/95,
2 renumbered as Rule 3.61/1/97, 7/1/95, 1/1/96, 1/1/97,
1/1/98] REPEALED in part, and effective 7/1/98.)
3
4
The conduct of Defendant Segal and Defendant Pasternak had no semblance to
5
the procedures described in the Rules of Court, and involved forgery and fraud in the
6
procedure for transferring title to the property.
7
First and foremost - per Avelina Richardson, Supervisor ofthe Clerk's Office
8
in West District (quoted with pennission, 5/13/08) - "There is no Book ofJudgments
9
in West District ever since the introduction ofautomation in the court' - i.e.
10
Sustain.
11
Plaintiff estimates that Sustain was introduced in West District over 20 years
12
ago. The Rules of Court above show numerous updates over these years, but the
13
Rules of Court regarding Judgment were never updated by the Court. Therefore, the
14
LA Superior Court generated conditions that allowed the abuse perpetrated by
15
Defendants Pasternak and Segal.
16
17
18 13. The facts disclosed in this complaint regarding the mode ofoperation of
the LA Superior Court and Conduct ofits Judges are extraordinary and
19 unusual and justify action bv the US District Court. where normally
20 abstention is preferred per the Younger Theory.
21 The facts that are disclosed in this complaint regarding Defendant that is the LA
22 Superior Court, its electronic Case Management System -Sustain, and the conduct of
23 Defendants who are Judges of that court, including but not limited to:
24 a. Conducting proceeding but denying litigant access to Trial Court Records:
25
Defendant that is the LA Superior Court and all Defendants that
26
are Judges of the LA Superior Court are engaging in this abuse of
27 Due Process.
28
-49-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 50 of 50

1 b. Conducting "off the record" proceedings without the knowledge ofthe


2 participants:
3 Many or most proceedings in Samaan v Zernik. Full access to
4 electronic Trial Court Records is required to document in full the
5 exact nature of each proceedings. Here are some notable samples:
6 1. Connor - Nov 9, 2006 - Trial Setting Conference
7 2. Connor - Nov 9, 2006 - Expunge Lis Pendens
8 3. Connor - July 6, 2007 - Gag Order for Countrywide
9 4. Connor - July 23, 2007 - Protective Order-
10 Countrywide
11 5. Connor - Aug 9, 2007 - Summary Judgment
12 6. Connor - Aug 9,2007 - Leave to Amend Claims
13 7. Rosenberg - Dec 26, 2007- Ex Parte for Due Proces
14
15 c. Conduct proceedings where they mislead litigants regarding the nature ofthe
16 proceedings:
17 1. Connor - Aug 30,2007- Plaintiff was informed and
18 believed it was a
19 Conference, was deemed a
20 Motion Hearing
21 d. Conducting proceedings where they switch on and off the record, at will,
22 without prior notice or agreement of the participants:
23 1. Connor - Aug 21, 2007 - Ex Parte Hearing
24 e. Invalidate/vacate proceedings and Court Orders after the fact without any
25 notice to litigants:
26 1. Connor - Jan 30, 2006 - Demurrer, OSC, ISC
27 2. Goodman - Oct 3,2007 - Recusal
28 3. Segal- Nov 5, 2007 - Short NoticelReceiver
-50-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 25

1 4. Hart-Cole Dec 7, 2007 - Recusal


2 5. Friedman Dec 13,2007 - Countrywide
3 6. Rosenberg Dec 26, 2007 - Ex Parte Due Process
4 7. Friedman Jan 30, 2007 - Ex Parte Release Funds
5 f. Conduct Bench Trials with disregard to basic concepts of Due Process
6 1. Connor - Aug 9, 2007
7 2. Friedman - March 7, 2007
8
9 Several cases of "offthe record" proceedings require special attention:
10 Countrywide's appearances on July 6, 2007, and later on July 23, 2007 for
11 Protective (gag) Orders against Plaintiff were in fact "o//the record" proceedings
12 (Docket #39, Exh Vol I, p5!)., In this case Defendant Connor even noted the fact
13 explicitly, albeit, in a record that she had no reason to believe a litigant would ever lay
14 his hands on: (Docket #39, Exh Vol I, p58) Fourth line from the top explicitly states:
15 Proceedings not recorded.
16 On July 23,2007, (Docket #39, Exh Voll p72), of the two procedures
17 scheduled that morning, Plaintiffs Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens was an "on the
18 record" procedure. Countrywide's Motion for Protective Order was an "offthe
19 record" procedure. Accordingly, Defendant Connor was evasive, and she avoided
20 signing any order, such as requested by Countrywide, as the outcome ofthat hearing.
21 Plaintiff was not expected to ever see the July 6, 2007Minute Order or the July 23,
22 2007 Minute Order either. Plaintiff never saw any Minute Order prior to that day.
23 It is not clear to what degree Defendant Connor shared such details with
24 Countrywide and its counsels. However, Defendant Friedman surely was able to read
25 the data off the system and fully comprehend it. Therefore, one must carefully
26 examine Defendant Friedman's conduct in the Jan 11, 2008 Hearing.
27
28
-51-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 2 of 25

1 a. Judge Friedman was served with a Statement ofDisqualification for


Cause, which listedfraud on litigants through Sustain as one ofthree
2
main reasons for disqualification.
3
4 i. Defendant Friedman responded to the Statement with the un-
5 allowed response of Strike and Answer.
6 ii. Defendant Friedman never had the Answer adjudicated.
7 Therefore, he never had any authority after that date.
8 Ill. Defendant Friedman never answered regarding the allegation
9 of dishonesty and fraud in the operation of "Sustain" beyond
10 the following comment:
11 "Defendant presents a nearly unintelligible conspiratorial theory
wholly lacking in substance."
12
IV. Another reason for the disqualification was the relationship
13
between Defendant Friedman and Defendant Samuels, based
14
on Samuels "Notice of Person ofInterest", which per the
15
"Case History" was filed on Dec 28, 2007 (Docket #39, Case
16
History p193). Following the California Code of Judicial
17
Ethics 3E(2), since he did not recused himself, Defendant
18
Friedman surely had to file a Statement on the Record on this
19
issue. Judge Friedman refused on that day and others to file
20
such a Statement on the Record. Furthermore, he dishonestly
21
denied any knowledge of the Statement by Samuels (Docket
22
#53, Exh Vol 11 Minute Orders p373):
23
"Defendant incorrectly refers to a December 28, 2007 Notice of
24 Interested Person filed by "Samuels".
25
v. Defendant Friedman used a "boilerplate" for his Order
26
Striking Statement ofDisqualification (Docket #53, Exh Vol
27
II, P370), which was entirely based on the notion that the
28
-52-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 3 of 25

1 California Court of Appeal denied Plaintiff Petition relative to Defendant


2 Friedman's refusal to disqualifY. Plaintiff holds that in that decision and other similar
3 decisions, the Justices of the Court of Appeal violated the California Code of Judicial
4 Ethics Canon 30(1): They were reliably informed regarding Plaintiffs abuse at the
5 hands of the Judges of LA Superior Court. They did offer some useful advise - to file
6 an appeal from the Order Appointing Receiver, rather than rely on the appeal from the
7 Judgment. But they never took any corrective action.
8

9 b. The Trial Setting Conference in November 2006 was an "offthe records"


10 proceeding.
11
12 c. The Aug 9, 2007 Summary Judgment Hearing was another "off the records"
13 proceeding.
14 The conduct of Judge Segal deserves particular mention in this regard. All
15 along, it was clear that Judge Segal, Att Keshavarzi, and Receiver Pasternak are
16 treating the Judgment as an invalid Court document. At the same time, that did not
17 stop them from using any opportunity to blame Plaintiff for his lack of cooperation
18 with the enforcement of the judgment.
19 Even in his Dec 4, 2007 Disqualification Statement, a uniquely dishonest
20 document, Judge Segal States (Exh Vol IV p305):
21 " Although judgment was entered on the complaint in this action
22 before this action was assigned to the undersigned
judge...:Joseph Zernik has sought to attack the judgment.."
23

24 For example, in the November 5, 2007 Transcript (the Nov 5, 2007 Minute
25 Order is one of those that Judge Segal expunged) mxh Vol III p558), Plaintiff states:
26 "..•the pending document,fraudulent in nature, and I've noticed
27 Attorney Keshavarzi about that.
For example, it's a motionfor appointment ofthe receiver
28 where the judgment is never provided. What is the Receiver going
-54-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 4 of 25

to be working on? And it's the same thing happened before with
2 the Referee. Keshavarzi never ever noticed the judgment by court
ofAug 9th that he was ordered to notice and he never included
3 any document where he said he was including it. He only
4 substituted itfor a notice ofOrder...

5 So it raises concerns that again he's engaging in fraud


6 14. This Court Should Not Abstain (rom Taking Action: Plaintifrs Prospects
7 for Safeguard ofhis Civil Rights are Dim Outside this Court-
Defendants Continued the Abuse bv Filing a False and Deliberatelv
8 Misleading. Misidentified Document as "Docket".
9
In response to the original Complaint Defendants that are the LA Superior
10
Court, Judges, Supervising Judge, Court Manager, Retired Judge and a Clerk, filed a
11
motion to dismiss (Docket #20-1). But that motion to dismiss was based on false and
12
misleading evidence.
13
The sole documentary evidence offered with that Motion to Dismiss was
14
Exhibit A (Docket #20-2 - Exhibit A, Online Case Summary), which was
15
misrepresented and misidentified as the "Docket" of Samaan v Zemik (SC087400).
16
In response to this filing, Plaintiff filed:
17
a. Docket # 34 - 1) Objection to Requestfor Judicial Notice and
18
2) Request for Evidentiary Ruling.
19
b. Docket # 39 - 1) Requestfor Judicial Notice of "Sustain - Case History"
20
- the electronic record that is deemed "Docket" by the LA
21
Superior Court itself.
22
- 2) Request for and Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt by
23
Defendants in filing a false and misleading document as
24
"Docket"
25
c. Docket # 51 - Requestfor Judicial Notice - Disclaimers Published on the
26
web by the LA Superior Court in re: Document filed in US
27
District Court as "Docket"
28
-55-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 5 of 25

1 a) In finding of such Samaan's outlandish fabrications as the true facts in this


2 matter,
3 b) In refusing to issue evidentiary rulings in the Summary Judgment hearing and
4 prior hearings (Docket #53. Exh Vol 11 pp 257,273),
5 c) In issuing of the Aug 9,2007 Order Granting Summary Judgment in Favor
6 ofSamaan and the Aug 9, 2007 Summary Judgment.
7
8 Defendant Connor's conduct in the hearing of Aug 9, 2007 Motion for
9 Summary Judgment was similar to her conduct in the course of the litigation before
10 and after that day. But in the hearing on that day she made an abundance of decisions
11 and rulings that entirely defY logic.
12 The fax/wire fraud was first uncovered by Plaintiffs realtor on Oct 18, 2004,
13 when he was trying to fax the Notice to Buyer to Perform to Mr Parks. From Oct 18,
14 2004 to Oct 20, 2004, Mr Libow sent each day an email to Mr Parks, and asked that
15 he clarifY the concerns regarding diversion of fax transmissions sent to him to
16 Samaan. Parks responded to the email, but he never responded in any way regarding
17 the fax transmissions questions.
18 Therefore, when Zernik issued instructions to cancel escrow on Oct 21, 2004, it
19 was not only because Samaan failed to obtain her loans approved and failed to remove
20 the respective contingencies. It was also because Plaintiffwas realizing that he was
21 involved with a group of well-trained real estate and mortgage fraud experts, all of
22 them professional in that field. Little did he know what was waiting in store.
23 And therefore, one is hard pressed to figure out how Judge Connor came up
24 with the following statement in the Aug 9, 2007 Order Granting Summary Judgment
25 in favor ofSamaan (Exh Vol IV, pll6) :
26 " ... resulting delay in Ms Samaan's ability to remove the appraisal
contingency, the concededly sole basis for Mr Zernik's cancellation
27 of escrow".
28
-57-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 6 of 25

1 In fact, Plaintiff spent the entire time of his oral arguments on Aug 9, 2007
2 Summary Judgment Hearing, on cataloging and detailing the various types of fraud
3 Samaan engaged in during the failed real estate transaction in 2004, and later, in the
4 litigation of Samaan v Zernik in LA Superior Court (Exh Vol III. p455). But
5 Defendant Connor was clearly not interesting in finding any fraud anywhere - not
6 with Countrywide, and not with Samaan, and likewise, she wanted to make sure that
7 Plaintiff would not even allowed to bring such arguments - by denying him the right
8 to amend his claims.
9 For convenient reference, some ofthe more blatant frauds are now listed in
10 tables in Docket #40, p16, with the relevant Code sections, elements, and references to
11 evidence satisfying the various elements.
12 And yet, at least one of the fraud types was demonstrated beyond any doubt.
13 That was the 'fraudulent inducement' - Samaan used false Prequalification
14 Letter, with forged signature ofMr Parks to substantiate her qualification as a buyer,
15 when in fact she was not qualified at all. On that issue, since the fraud was
16 undeniable, Judge Connor states:
17 " Finally, Mr Zernik's fraudulent inducement claim, based on an
allegedly fraudulent loan prequalification letter by Victor Parks dated
18 September 7, 2004, is no more than a red herring. Mr Zernik did not
cancel escrow based on any question regarding Ms Samaan's
19 prequalification in September 2004. "
20
21 Plaintiff described a buyer who provided checks that went NSF twice, that
22 asked escrow not to deposit her checks, since she had insufficient funds, who filed
23 fraudulent loan applications with Countrywide, since her true employment data would
24 never support the loans, and still she could not get her loans approved ... Yet Defenant
25 Connor finds no no relationship between the cancellation of escrow and the lack of
26 qualification of Samaan?

27
28
-58-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 7 of 25

1 16.Defendants that are the Los Angeles Superior Court and its West District
2 Judges continue to abuse ofPlaintifrs rights for due process. free speech.
and possession for the third year.
3
4 The collusion of a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court in real estate fraud
5 with a large corporation and others is only one of several aspects of this case which
6 show it to be extraordinary, presenting a "serious question", and high level public
7 policy interest, all of which contribute to justify review by the US Court.

8
9 17. An Epidemic ofReal Estate and Mortgage Fraud. where Los Angeles is
the Epicenter...
10
11 FBI Reports indicate that Los Angeles County is the "epicenter" of a "national
12 epidemic" that is a high priority to fight. The little of Samaan v Zernik that is
13 described above may explain in part how Los Angeles grew to acquire such
14 distinction... A permissive atmosphere, where the courts are lenient or even
15 supportive of real estate fraud could definitely be a contributing factor.
16 Plaintiff gradually realized that most likely his case is not unusual for Los
17 Angeles, when he interviewed attorneys who were experienced in real estate litigation.
18 A couple oftimes Plaintiff heard the estimate that he would have been much better off
19 had his case been heard in Central District, rather than West District. But beyond that
20 - when he discussed the specifics of the case with prospective counsels, again and
21 again they advised him never to mention any fraud in court.
22 Initially, it did not make sense at all. After all, in December 2006, as one ofthe
23 first steps in his review, Plaintiff consulted with staff of the California Department of
24 Real Estate, and he was told that fraud, and in particular the claim of fraudulent
25 inducement were some ofthe strongest points in this case. They also expressed
26 surprise that Att Cummings, who by then was on the case about 1.5 years, never filed
27 cross complaint for fraud and deceit.

28
-59-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 8 of 25

1 Plaintiff received a similar assessment when he visited the FBI in Westwood in


2 January 2007.
3 And yet, experience counsels made it clear that they would not be able to
4 engage in representation in court if Plaintiff insisted on mentioning any fraud in court.
5 At the end, the straight forward explanation came from an experienced real estate
6 litigation counsel, Att Rothstein in Woodland Hills, who stated:
7 "The judges will not listen to any claim offraud, and if anything, it
may only hurt your case. "
8

9 That again is a reason why there is a need for the United States Court to review
10 this case.
11
12 la.Full Access to Litigation Records is a Basic Requirement. Absent such-
13 PlaintiffCannot Expect Anv Safeguard ofhis Due Process Rights in
Review bv the California Courts.
14
15 At present, Plaintiff finds himself in an odd situation that defies any
16 expectations he may have had of the United States justice system:
17 After Plaintiff and his counsels were denied access to almost any litigation
18 records from October 2005 to Aug 2007, Plaintiff got some limited access. However,
19 in order to pursue the case effectively in the Los Angeles Superior Court or higher
20 California Courts, Plaintiff must gain access to full and complete litigation records.
21 Particular records that are essential were listed in the Designation ofRecords on
22 Appeal (Docket # 54).
23 Access to one's own litigation records is such a basic, that Plaintiff never
24 considered that he would have to argue for such rights. But until Plaintiff filed the
25 current claims in United States Courts, Plaintiff could not even get a certified copy of
26 the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court from the Clerk's office. Counsel Bianco, as a
27 special gesture, provided Plaintiffwith that certified copy after Plaintiff filed claims in
28 United States Court.
-60-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 9 of 25

1 Plaintiff believes, based on his experience in recent year an a half, that he has
2 no chance of gaining access to his own litigation records, unless through protection of
3 his Civil Rights by the United States Court.
4
5 19.Electronic Court File Records in "Sustain", which the LA Superior Court
6
Likes to Keep nprivileged" are at the Center ofthe Problem.

7 California Rules ofCourt, Title 2, Chapter 2 - the whole chapter is dedicated


8 to Public Access to Electronic File Data. And yet, Plaintiff finds himself in the last
9 year again and again before the Supervising Judge, Defendant Rosenberg, asking for
10 access to his own file data in Sustain, and Defendant Rosenberg repeatedly denies
11 access to such data.
12 From discussions with attorneys who practice in Los Angeles, it appears that
13 most never get to see any of the electronic file data. None of them even knew the
14 name of the Case Management System - "Sustain". Compare that to attorneys who
15 practice in Federal Court - without exception they know "Pacer". Most of those
16 practicing in LA Superior Court never see a Minute Order either. Minute Orders are
17 generated through Sustain as well. Many of the judges in LA Superior Court
18 apparently encourage counsels to waive notice.
19 Plaintiff is no counsel, but he finds this situation disturbing. Notice is the
20 comer stone of Due Process.
21 Plaintiff does not consider himself a computer expert either. As a young
22 teenager he took some college level classes in computer science in the premier
23 technological college of his native Israel - the Technion. In recent weeks, Plaintiff
24 was focusing analyzing the Los Angeles Superior Court Case Management System -
25 Sustain.
26 Plaintiff concludes that there is a very clear reason why Defendant Rosenberg is
27 insisting on a position that appears entirely indefensible, and even insulting for a
28 Justice to take - denying litigant his Due Process right for access to his own litigation
-61-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 10 of 25

1 records. Bad as the records look now, the more detailed the review, the worse LA
2 County Superior Court would appear. That is also the reason that the LA Superior
3 Court was compelled to deceive the US Court in filing the "Case Summary" as a
4 "Docket".
5 Plaintiff realized certain facts a while ago, and some more recently:
6 a. Sustain does not use an internal clock for many of the time stamps in the system,
7 as one would expect from such system. As a result - court personnel can indulge
8 in back-dating, such as seen in Page #1 of Sustain Case History (Docket #46).
9 b. The system allows certain procedures that should not have been allowed, at
10 least without notice to parties. Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court indulge
11 in various judicial acts that should have been noticed to litigants, such as
12 invalidating Minute Orders after such were noticed to litigants. Such instances
13 were listed above, here is more detailed description of examples:
14 i. On January 30th, 2008, Plaintiff appeared before Judge Friedman for an Ex
15 Parte Application to release funds that are Plaintiff's proceeds from the sale
16 of his home against his will. The LA Superior Court is holding these funds
17 with no reason at all. Receiver Pasternak, in a display of common sense,
18 actually supported Plaintiff's request in open court. Defendant Friedman
19 denied Plaintiff application with prejudice with no explanation at all. That
20 decision may appear unusual upon review. But Judge Friedman warned
21 Plaintiff that he will impose sanctions ifhe requested again the release of his
22 funds. Yet, the minute order of January 30, 2008 was invalidated after being
23 noticed, and the decision is by now expunge or vacated. Such was done
24 though simple manipulation of Sustain, but was never noticed to Plaintiff.
25 ii. On Dec 7, 2007, Plaintiff appeared in two ex parte applications by Receiver
26 Pasternak that signaled some ofthe worst abuse in the last 3 years. These
27 proceedings were outside any standard of Due Process of the Law. In the
28 appearance before Defendant Hart-Cole, an attorney appeared who refused
-62-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 11 of 25

1 to be identified, and Judge Hart-Cole refused to introduce him either. After


2 the hearing was concluded, Plaintiff realized he was counsel for Mara
3 Escrow, and that the ex partes were orchestrated to appease Mara Escrow.
4 It is not clear how Samaan v Zemik was assigned to Judge Hart-Cole in
5 Beverly Hills in the first place. Plaintiff is informed that she is assigned to
6 in a Civil Limited Department.
7 Plaintiff filed a Peremptory Challenge on that day.
8 Minute Order was generated and noticed.
9 Now, Plaintiff realized that that record was invalidates as well.
10 The ex parte appearances of Dec 7, 2007 are described in more detail in
11 Docket #41. Plaintiff requests Judicial Notice of that record.
12 Civil Rights violations, in particular violations of free speech are
13 deemed primary exception to the abstention of Younger Theory.
14 iii. The Supervising Judge. Defendant Rosenberg, invalidated the Minute Order
15 ofthe Ex Parte appearance on December 26,2007, for Safeguard of Due
16 Process of the Law, where he denied plaintiff's applications.
17 iv. Defendant Segal invalidated the Minute Order ofthe November 5, 2007
18 Proceeding, where he expedited the procedure for appointing Receiver from
19 very fast to super fast (it was scheduled on November 5,2007 to November
20 9,2007).
21 c. It is also only reasonable to suspect that Sustain allows financial
22 mismanagement as well. In Docket #39, Exhibits that are Samaan v Zemik Case
23 History in Sustain, one can notice the Journal Entries for the payments made at
24 the Clerk's Office in Santa Monica, typically each for $40.00. None ofthese
25 payments has any ID number attached to it, an unusual practice in any accounting
26 system. The single payment in the whole document that does have an ID number
27 attached - at the bottom ofpage 180, for a payment of#40.00 by Receiver
28 Pasternak for the Ex Parte before Judge Hart-Cole in Beverly Hills. One may
-63-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 12 of 25

reasonably conclude that there are specific differences in the operation of Sustain
between sites, even within the West District. Plaintiff holds that allowing such
variations in the system is not consistent with good management practices, and
raises concerns regarding the integrity ofthe system as a whole.
d. Plaintiffwas repeatedly told that Sustain "Case History" is the true "Docket" of
the system. But Plaintiff finds it difficult to believe that when the system was put
in place no "Register ofActions" was programmed, since the Register is a basic
management instrument in any court. However, once one realizes that judges like
Defendant Connor ran most ofthe proceedings "off the record", obviously the LA
Superior Court cannot allow the true register of actions to be disclosed, because it
would be the "smoking gun" of wholesale abuse of Due Process. For the same
reason exactly, this United States Court should not abstain from action in this case.
The abuse of Due Process in the LA Superior Court is surely not reserved for
Plaintiff alone. It is the duty of this court to safeguard the rights of the citizens of
this County like the rest of the citizens ofthe United States.

20.Regarding Case Management Systems

ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 13 of 25

1 a. Rules must be developed regarding the development and introduction


2 ofnew systems.

3 Plaintiff believes that the introduction of Sustain in the LA Superior Court, over
4 20 years ago, was a major change in the Rules of Court. But there is no indication
5 that it was treated that way. Likewise, there is no indication that the introduction of
6 the new system, CCMS, by the California Judicial Council is treated as such (Docket
7 #5Q). As an example - it is unreasonable that there is no reference at all to Sustain in
8 the written Rules of Court of Los Angeles County, based on a word search.
9 The United States Rule Enabling Act 28 U.S.CO § 2071 says:
10 (b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the
Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be
11
prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice
12 and an opportunity for comment.
Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by
13 the prescribing court and shall have such effect on
14 pending proceedings as the prescribing court may
order.
15
No new case management system should be allowed before giving public notice
16
17 and an opportunity for comment. However, when it comes to computer systems,
18 public comment is incapacitated absent detailed information regarding system
19 specifications. Therefore, rules must be developed regarding the method of
20 presentation of such systems for public comment (similar to rules regarding
presentation of building plans for public comment). The logic of the programming
21
22 code may need to be reduced to a set of assertions in natural language. Moreover, in
23 consultation with experts from the field of mathematics and logic, standardized
24 presentations may be developed, and methods of certification, to ensure that such
25 presentations in natural language are true and correct reflection of the code. In
26 addition, it may be necessary to certifY that the logic of the system is consistent with
27 the legal code that is implemented in it. Mathematical and logical methods such as
28 "formal verification" and "simulation verification" may be utilized.
-65-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 14 of 25

1
2 b. State ofthe Art Security and Signage Measures Must be
3 Implemented.

4 Based on the little that Plaintiff has learnt about the system, it is reasonable to
5 assume that it was modified over the years, and that such modifications were not
6 uniform in all locations of the Court. Any ad hoc changes in the system are a major
7 risk to its integrity, and rules must be developed to safeguard the systems against such
8 changes in the code.
9 The system as it is operated now implements User ID's and passwords. But
10 such are hidden from public view in the Audit Files. That is in violation ofthe law
11 relative to implementation of electronic and digital signatures. Such laws as the
12 United States E-sign Act of2002 and the California regulations regarding electronic
13 signatures mandate that wherever such signatures were traditionally open to public
14 view - and they definitely were open to public view in traditional Books ofCourt -
15 they must be made accessible for public inspection also in their digital permutation.
16 Digital signatures must be introduced such that electronic filing (such has in
17 Pacer) or Minute Orders (such as in Sustain) are accompanied by the judge's and the
18 clerk's digital signature, where traditionally the "wet" hand-signature would be
19 imprinted in a traditional Book of Court.
20
21 c. Lessons must be distilled from the traditional paper-based systems
22
It appears that with the computerized revolution, the traditional systems were
23
discarded without giving them a second thought. Primary consideration should be
24
given to strengthening the ministerial arm ofthe court, as a counter balance to the
25
judicial, with highly educated and skilled clerks in key positions. The authorities of
26
the judicial and the ministerial arms should be carefully prescribed and segregated, to
27
generate appropriate checks and balances.
28
-66-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 15 of 25

1
2 d. CMS's Must be Utilized to Safeguard Due Process and to Monitor the
Quality and Integrity ofthe Courts.
3

4 The significance of correct docketing must be emphasized, and the systems


5 must not allow easy ways to bypass the menu-driven, rule-based docketing. Without
6 accurate docketing, the system is useless. With accurate docketing the system can
7 become a valuable instrument in safeguarding Due Process. The contribution ofthe
8 ministerial staff in this process needs to be emphasized, and their personal
9 accountability for each act of docketing, which must bear a personal digital signature
10 that is easily visible.
11
12
13 21. The Common Feature - The Culture ofSiIence

14
The California Court of Appeal surely offered helpful advice when it stated that
15
"true remedy is in filing an appealfrom order for appointment of
16 receiver".
17
18 But in fact one must deem the Justices of the California Court ofAppeal, like the
19 Judges of the LA Superior Court, in violation of the CalifOrnia Code ofEthics Canon
20 3D(l).
21 They all knew ofthe unethical conduct and the abuse perpetrated on Plaintiff by
22 Judges of LA Superior Court, but none followed the Code, which is clear cut in its
23 directive.
24 Canon 3D(l) says:

25 D. Disciplinary Responsibilities
(1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge
26 has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge
shall take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may
27
include reporting the violation to tbe appropriate authority. it
28
-67-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 16 of 25

2 Plaintiff prays that this Court ofthe United States take action in Zernik v Connor
3 et al. as part of an ongoing, much necessary reform in the government of the County
4 of Los Angeles.
5
6
III.
7 STATEMENT OF CASE
8 Plaintiff J osep Zernik is a natural person residing at 2415 Saint George Street,
Los Angeles County, California. III.
9
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
10 STATEMENT OF CASE
11 Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 reads as follows:
12 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory,
13
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
14 States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
15 by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
16 injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress.
17
18 The events related to this complaint, outlined below, are related to actions of
19 Judges and others at the Los Angeles Superior Court, that involved severe abuse of
20 PlaintiffZernik's rights for Free Speech, for Due Process, and for Possession. All of
21 that took place as part of litigation, still under way, in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400),
22 where Plaintiff Zernik is Defendant and Cross-complainant. Most of the abuses that
23 are the subject of instant Complaint were aimed to benefit large corporations at the
24 expense of robbing an individual of his rights and of his possessions. Such
25 corporations include:
26 a. Countrywide (herein after Countrywide designates Countrywide Financial
27 Corporation (C1577628, jurisdiction - Delaware and any and all of its subsidiaries
28 and subdivisions, jointly and/or severally, including but not limited to Countrywide
-69-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 17 of 25

1 Home Loans, Inc., C0568549, jurisdiction - New York), and two of its top officers,
2 namely - Angelo Mozilo, President and CEO and Sandor Samuels, Chief Legal
3 Counsel,
4 b. Mara Escrow Company (C1309311, jurisdiction - California) (a subdivision
5 of Old Republic Title Company, C0564951, jurisdiction - California, and/or Old
6 Republic Title Holding Company, Inc C0965299, jurisdiction - California).
7 Zernik had no business with Countrywide whatsoever. He had never applied
8 for any loan from Countrywide, he had never had any loan serviced by Countrywide,
9 and he had never been employed by Countrywide. In fact, in December 2006, when
10 Zernik for the first time started reviewing the court documents in Samaan v Zernik
11 (over a year into the litigation), and for the first time realized that he was the victim of
12 courtroom fraud by Samaan in collusion with Countrywide, he did not even recognize
13 the name "Countrywide".
14 And yet by that time it is obvious from facts outlined below that some
15 individuals in Countrywide Legal Department had decided already prior to August
16 2006 to support the fraudulent claims brought by Samaan in Samaan v Zernik, and
17 cover up the true facts related to the fraudulent loan applications of Samaan submitted
18 to Countrywide in October 2004, and their wrongful underwriting at Countrywide
19 Home Loans, Inc San Rafael Wholesale Branch.
20 Countrywide engaged in such willful wrongdoing regardless of the harm they
21 were going to cause to Zernik.
22 And on July 6, 2007 Countrywide appeared in court for an ex parte application
23 for a Protective (gag) Order against Zernik, in a procedure that defied any notion of
24 Due Process and Free Speech rights. Such abuses of Zernik rights went on through a
25 hearing on July 23, 2007 outlined below, and continued in a hearing on Feb 15,2008,
26 outlined below, and are expected to continue, unless prevented by this court, on March
27 8, 2008, with a sentence jail on Zernik.
28
-70-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 18 of 25

1 On Feb 15,2008 Countrywide appeared in Court for a hearing on sanctions


2 against Zernik exceeding $16,000, and for an order to show cause for contempt, based
3 on a non-existent order of July 23, 2007, and provided unauthenticated writings as the
4 basis for their claims.
5
6 3. Attempts to Address Wrongs within the State of California Jurisdiction
7 a. Los Angeles Superior Court-
8 Zernik disqualified Judges ofthe LA Superior Court on numerous
9 occasions, but these judges chose to ignore such disqualifications. Judge Friedman
10 alone was disqualified twice, on Jan 11,2008 and again on Jan 14,2008.
11 Moreover, Zernik filed a Writ Petition with the State of California Court of Appeal
12 regarding Judge Friedman's refusal to disqualifY, but the Court of Appeal denied
13 Zernik's petition.
14 In the cases where judges ofthe LA Superior Court did disqualifY, their
15 successors would not, as a matter ofprinciple, set aside or vacate any ruling, order,
16 judgment of their disqualified peers. Two of the motions for vacating such judicial
17 actions was heard by Supervising Judge Rosenberg, and he issued later a letter to
18 Zernik, falsely claiming that no judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court has the
19 authority to review another judge's judicial actions. But the California law,
20 specifically in CCP §170.3 provides such authority to Judges of the Superior
21 Court.
22 The refusal of Judges of the LA Superior Court to follow the CCP §170.3
23 does not end with the refusal to review and vacate acts of a disqualified judge,
24 good cause apparent. The judges ofthe LA Superior Court also refuse to ever have
25 their Answer adjudicated against verified statement of the litigant. For that reason,
26 they developed a standard response including a) an Order Striking the Filing per
27 CCP §170.3, combined with b) a Verified Answer. But such a response is
28 explicitly prohibited response by a judge to filing by a litigant for disqualification
-71-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 19 of 25

1 for cause - according to the California Bench Guide, published by the Judicial
2 Council. Indeed, it is logically flawed: If there was no legal basis to the litigant's
3 filing, on its face - condition that would justifY the Strike, then there is no room for
4 the Answer. If there is any argument that is necessary and written in the Answer -
5 then the Strike is dishonest - since there were legal grounds for the filing.
6 In short - this un-allowed response filing by Judges ofthe LA Superior
7 Court is deemed by them sufficient for continuing to preside, without having their
8 answer adjudicated by a peer, when in fact - until such an Answer is adjudicated
9 by a peer and is found prevailing, the Judge has no authority at all!
10 a) California Court of Appeal-
11 Zernik noticed two appeals related to the matter of Samaan v Zernik:
12 i. B203063 - noticed 10/5/07, from Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, and
13 ii. B204544 - noticed 12/10/07, from Nov 9, 2007 Order Appointing
14 Receiver.
15 The latter appeal was noticed as the recommendation of the Court of
16 Appeal itself, which in one of its order stated that true remedy may be in such an
17 appeal.
18 However, both appeals are still only in early stages of preparation of
19 records on appeal, and months away from any hearings.
20 Zemik filed several writ petitions with California Court of Appeal:
21 1. B199661- from April 22, 2007 Order Denying Continuance of Discovery
22 Cutoff Date - denied
23 ii. B204029 - from Denial of Stay and Set Bond re: Aug 9,2007 Judgment by
24 Court - denied
25 lll. B204164 - from Denial of Stay and Set Bond re: Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by
26 Court - denied
27 iv. B205195 - from Judge Friedman striking disqualification filings Jan 11 &
28 14,.2008 - denied
-72-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 20 of 25

1 v. B205686 - from Judge Friedman denial of application for Order to Release


2 Funds held by the Court - filed Feb 13,2008 - denied together still
3 pending. As of March 4th , 2008, Division 5 Clerk could not ensure with the
4 writ petition below for same reasons.
5 vi. B205737 - - from LA Superior Court's denial of access to electronic file
6 docket data and related documents, and refusal to certify key paper file
7 documents - filed Feb 14,2008. - denied together with the previous
8 petition, on the grounds of incomplete records. Zemik provided in his
9 estimate close to 2000 pages of records for these two petitions, as complete
10 as he could provide. But regardless, such decision of the Court ofAppeal
11 is circular - since the subject matter of petition itself was the denial of
12 access to court records. Zemik was asking the Court of Appeal help in
13 safeguarding his rights so that he would have full and complete records.
14 Absent review of the conduct of the LA Superior Court, there is not chance
15 that Zernik would ever have a fair hearing in any instance ofthe Califomia
16 Courts - since he would never have proper records.
17 vii. #B206838 - filed 4/4/09, calling upon the Justices ofthe Califomia Court
18 of Appeal to abide by the California Code of Judicial Ethics, to
19 acknowledge that they have been reliably informed through all the
20 petitions above of severe and ongoing ethics violations by Judges of LA
21 Superior Court, and initiate appropriate corrective action. Denied without
22 any explanation.
23
24 b. Commission on Judicial Performance -
Zemik filed complaints with the Commission, most recently against
25
Judge Friedman. The Commission decided to run its hearing on the complaints,
26
including the one related to Friedman in early February, regardless ofZemik's
27
28
-73-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 21 of 25

1 objections. At the time of the hearing, the commission never received yet the full
2 documentation of Judge Friedman's conduct, and such was still under way.
3 Zernik was excluded from any specific and detailed knowledge of the
4 filing ofjudges for the hearing by the Commission, or steps taken by the
5 Commission to investigate the situation. Zernik was informed that his comlaint
6 was found without merit. Moreover, when he submitted follow-up information
7 regarding current events in Judge Friedman Court, he received a letter from the
8 Commission refusing to accept such documents, since the complaint regarding
9 Judge Friedman was already heard and closed (Exh xx is a xx/xx/08 letter from the
10 Commission).
11 c. California Attorney General -
12 Safeguard of the civil rights of California citizens are within the charges
13 of the California Attorney General. Zernik had numerous communications with the
14 staff of the office of the Attorney General, including senior staff members such as
15 Att. Tom Green, Special Assistant, reporting directly to Att General Brown, and
16 Att Albert Sheldon, Head of the Section on Consumer Protection, and Head of the
17 section on False Claims. These officials appeared sincerely interested in Zernik's
18 claims against Countrywide, in the context of the Office of California Attorney
19 General own investigation against Countrywide. and Zernik was instructed to add
20 the Office of California Attorney General as a Party ofInterest on the Court filings.
21 Regarding Zernik's concerns in the areas of Civil Rights abuse and
22 Integrity of the Judiciary, the office of California Attorney General refused to
23 intervene, as stated in the letter ofxx/03/08 (Exh xx is a XX/03/08 letter from Tom
24 Green, Special Assistant to California Attorney General Brown).
25
26 PLAINTIFF ZERNIK IS HEREBY ENTERING HIS
27 COMPLAINT:
28
-74-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 22 of 25

1 1. This is a Civil Rights complaint for declaratory, injunctive and other appropriate
2 relief brought by Plaintiff, Joseph Zernik, a United States citizen, appearing in pro
3 per. Mr. Zernik brings this complaint for violations of his individual rights under
4 First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
5 in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985 and 1986.
6 2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and also pursuant to U.S.
7 Constitution, Art. III, § 2 and Title 28 U.S. Code § 1332 due to diversity of
8 jurisdictions among defendants in the various States of California, Delaware, and
9 New York.
10
11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joseph Zernik respectfully asks this Court to
12 grant him such declaratory, injunctive and other relief as it deems just and proper.
13 Plaintiff demands a Jury Trial in this case.
14
15 Respectfully submitted on May 15, 2008 by:
16 PLAINTIFF
17
18
19
20 JOSEPH ZERNIK
21 in pro per
22
23 IV.
24 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
25 WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS this Court issue equitable relief
26 as follows:
27 1. Injunctive relief against Defendants Judge Terry Friedman and the LA
28 Superior Court regarding any ~er judicial acts in Samaan v Zernik, and

ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 23 of 25

1 2. Injunctive against Defendant Pasternak, acting as Receiver, and the LA


2 Superior Court to stay any furthher expenditure from funds held by
3 Receiver, which are Plaintiff's proceeds from the sale of his home against
4 Plaintiff's will by the Court, which are held by the Court with no legal
5 foundation at all,
6 3. Declaratory relief and judgment that all judicial acts in Samaan v Zernik
7 starting July 12,2007 must be vacated, and Samaan v Zernik be ordered a
8 Mistrial.
9 4. Issue declaratory relief as this Court deems appropriate and just regarding
10 the operation of Case Management Systems, their installation, and
11 safeguard of their integrity.for the benefit of the citizens of Los Angeles
12 County and others in these United States.
13 5. Issue other relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.
14 6. Award Plaintiff damages as this Court deems appropriate and just, for the
15 value of his home, taken by the court against his will, including his equity
16 that is held by the Court, for Federal and State taxes incurred by this sale
17 against his will, which Receiver Pasternak deliberately is not paying,
18 therefore incurring Plaintiffwith additional penaties, for income lost in the
19 last two years, and for other incidental damages to be accounted by
20 plaintiff, and for punitive payments as deemed reasonable.
21 7. Award plaintiffhis costs of litigation.
22 8. Allow plaintiff- in pro per against his will- to amend this complaint and
23 the claims included in it at a later time as deemed necessary, after Plaintiff
24 was allowed full access to his own litigation records.

25 Respectfully submitted on May 15,2008 ) ,~


26
27 Joseph Zernik

28
-76-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 24 of 25

1 By: _
2 Joseph Zenrik
Plaintiff
3
in pro per
4
5
IV.
6
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT
7
I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant & Cross Complainant in Samaan v Zernik
8
(SC087400) matter heard in Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, I am also
9
Appellant in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior Court: B203063 - noticed 10/5/07, and
10
B204544 - notice 12/10/07, matters currently in preparation of records on appeal for
11
California Court of Appeal. I am also Petitioner in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior
12
Court: B205686 - to release funds held by LASC and secure Zernik's rights for Due
13
Process and Possession, filed 2/13/08, and B205737- to safeguard Zernik's rights for
14
Due Process re: Denial of Access to Court File and related public records, filed
15 2/14/08.
16
I have read the foregoing Complaint ofAbuse of u.s. Constitutional Rights
17
and I know the content thereof to be true it is correct based on my own personal
18
knowledge as Defendant & Cross Complainant, as Appellant, and as Petitioner in pro
19
per, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon information and belief,
20
and as to to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well.
21
I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of
22
perjury pursuant to the laws of California and the United States.
th
23 Executed here in Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, on this 15 day in
24
May, 2008.
25
).~
26
27 Joseph Zernik
28 Plaintiff
-77-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 25 of 25

1 in pro per
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-78-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

You might also like