Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 1 of 31

..
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TRAl DISTRICT Of CAlIFO NtA
D E ~ U T Y
Case # CV08-1550-GAF(MAN)
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
Joseph Zemik
2
2415 Saint George St.
Los Angeles, California
3
Tel: (310) 435 9107
4
Fax: (801) 9980917
Plaintiff
5
in pro per
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
JOSEPH ZERNIK
Plaintiff
VERIFIED EX PARTE APPLICATINS
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER(S) & ORDER(S) TO SHOW
CAUSE & EXHIBITS
v.
13
14
JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL
15
Defendants
16
17
TO THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF
18
RECORD: Plaintiff Joseph Zemik is herein setting forth his Verified Ex Parte
19
Applicationfor Temporary Restraining Orders & Orders to Show Cause:
20
21
I.
INTRODUCTION
22
Plaintiff is approaching U.S. District Court with this urgent application to avoid
23
criminal record and jail sentence likely by Friday, March 7, 2008, in a case where he
24
is the victim, but is vilified by the court. Plaintiffs complaint, filed March 5, 2008,
25
alleges that Countrywide Home Loans, Inc (CHL) colluded with Nivie Samaan's false
26
claims in the LA Superior Court, West District (Case #SC087400), to defraud Plaintiff
27
Zemik ofhis home and his equity.
28
--1--
PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO & OSC
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 2 of 31


1
2
In September 2004 Samaan submitted an offer to purchase Plaintiff home, and
3 Plaintiff and Samaan entered a contract, albeit, based on fraudulent inducement by
4 Samaan, who produced a forged and false Prequalification Letter and engaged in other
5 misrepresentations regarding her occupation, income, and fmancial ability. Plaintiff
6 knew none of that until December 2006 or early 2007.
7
By late October 2004 Samaan could not get her loans approved, and would not
8 remove her contingencies even after a Notice to Buyer to Perform, and Plaintiff
9 eventually issued Instructions to Cancel Escrow.
10
Plaintiff was entirely ignorant regarding Samaan's loan applications until
11 December 2006 or early 2007, when he gradually uncovered the true facts in the
12 matter:
I3 - That Samaan's husband (Jae Arre Lloyd) and his cousin (Victor Parks) were "Loan
14 Originators" for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc (CHL), in San Rafael, California,
15 - That Samaan submitted to Countrywide extremely fraudulent loan applications that
16 she prepared by herself with her husband (unlicensed and a spouse), but were
17 fraudulently signed in Victor Parks name,
18 - That such applications were suspended by the Senior Branch Underwriter Diane
19 Frazier on October 14,2004, after Samaan refused to provide corrected loan
20 applications (1003),
21 - That regardless of the fraud, Branch Manager Maria McLaurin removed Samaan's
22 loan applications from Underwriter Frazier, and tried to fraudulently approve them
23 herself,
24 - That the fraudulently approved 2
nd
Lien Loan application was eventually presented
25 by CHL for funding by Countrywide Bank on Jan 27, 2005, and were immediately
26 denied funding.
27
In October 2005, regardless of all the facts listed above, Samaan filed claims
28 against Zemik in the Los Angeles Superior Court, for Specific Performance and for
-2-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 3 of 31

1
Damages. Eventually, she by November 2006, she developed, with help from Victor
2
Parks, from Maria McLaurin, and from her then new counsel, Att Mohammad
3
Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin et all) completely fraudulent claims, based on the
4
allegation that Zernik prevented her loans from being funded in 2004.
5
In August 2006 the CFC Legal Department produced Samaan's loan file in
6
response to Zernik's subpoena. But as Zernik realized by 2007, this subpoena
7
production was replete with fraudulent documents that intended to cover up the true
8
history ofSamaan's loans underwriting, which was in violation of the law and
9
regulations. Instead, a false history was created for the loans' underwriting process.
10
With that, the CFC Legal Department became an active co-conspirator in
11
Samaan's fraud in the LA Superior Court.
12
From November 2005 to Sept 10. 2007 Defendant Jacqueline Connor presided
13
in Samaan v Zernik. Plaintiff alleges that she colluded with Samaan and Keshavarzi's
14
fraudulent claims, primarily to benefit Countrywide Horne Loans, Inc, and
15
Countrywide Financial Corporation. Plaintifffurther claims that she had no authority
16
in Samaan v Zernik at least since July 6, 2007, when she engaged in willful
17
misconduct to benefit Countrywide, that was the subject of disqualification filing per
18
CCP §170.3 on July 12, 2007, which Defendant Connor dishonestly dismissed.
19
Defendant Connor eventually agreed to be disqualified by PlaintiffZemik on Sept 10,
20
2007.
21
On December 7,2007 the case was transferred to Defendant Terry Friedman,
22
with no authority at all. Defendant Friedman acts as the eighth Presiding Judge in
23
Samaan v Zemik. Defendant Friedman has known connection to CFC's Chief Legal
24
Counsel, Samuels (Exh
), yet he dishonestly refused twice to disqualify, on Jan 11,
25
2008, and Jan 15, 2008. With that he continued the abuse of Plaintiff's rights for Due
26
Process under the color of the law of California.
27
On Feb xx, 2007 Defendant Friedman held a hearing on Plaintiff's request for
28
an order to release the funds that the court is holding with no legal foundation
-3-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 4 of 31
ll.
REQUEST FOR INJUCTION
STATEMENT OF CASE 17
18
1 whatsoever, originally over $700,000, that are Plaintiffs proceeds from the sale of
2 Plaintiff's home, action that lacked legal foundation in and of itself. Defendant
3 Friedman denied Zernik's application with no explanation at all, in continued abuse of
4 Zernik's rights for Due Process and Possession under the color of the law of
5 California.
6
On Feb 15,2007 Defendant Friedman held a hearing on CHL's motion for
7 sanctions exceeding $16,000 against Plaintiff, based on the non-existent July 23, 2007
8 Protective (gag) Order by Defendant Connor, who was also without any authority by
9 July 23,2007. Defendant Friedman dishonestly awarded such sanctions exceeding
10 $16,000 to CHL. Yet he failed to enter any order to that effect or notice it to Plaintiff.
11
In the same Feb 15,2007 hearing, Defendant Friedman ordered a hearing on an
12 Order to Show Cause for Friday, March 7,2008. Defendant Friedman warned
13 Plaintiff Zernik that such a hearing is likely to result in additional sancations, in a jail
14 sentence, and is of criminal nature.
15
16
19
Plaintiff Joseph Zemik alleges that Defendant Sandor Samuels and Defendant
20 Countrywide Home Loans, Inc (hereto after referred as "CHL"), and/or Countrywide
21
Financial Corporation (hereto after referred as - "CFC") colluded with Samaan
22 (plaintiff in LA Superior Court Samaan v Zemik SC087400), in fraud against Zernik
23 under the color of the law of California, in legal action in LA Superior Court.
24
Unbeknown to PlaintiffZernik until 2007, Samaan's husband (lae Arre Lloyd)
25 and his cousin (Victor Parks) were and are "loan originators" for Defendant Cm."
26 Defendant CHL and/or CFC provided Samaan with fraudulent documents in their Aug
27 2006 and subsequent productions in response to Plaintiff Zernik's subpoenas.
28
-4-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 5 of 31

1
Defendant CHL also provided Samaan with fraudulent declarations by Maria
2
McLaurin, Branch Manager, San Rafael.
3
Such collusion was aimed to cover up CFC and CHL unlawful conduct relative
4
to Samaan's loans underwriting in 2004. In providing such fraudulent documents and
5
declarations, Defendant Cm.., and/or CFC engaged in obstruction ofjustice and
6
willfully harmed Plaintiff Zemik.
7
Samaan, who never managed to get her loans approved by Defendant CHL in
8
2004 (since she was grossly unqualified), used such documents in fraudulent claims in
9
above action to claim Zemik's residence.
10
Judges of the LA Superior Court, some of them with known connection to
11
Defendant CIa and/or CFC and/or Defendant Sandor Samuels actively assisted in
12
this fraud under the guise of legal action. With that, judges of the LA Superior Court,
13
named here as Defendants, in fact abused and are still abusing, under the color of the
14
law of Califomia, Plaintiff's civil rights per the US Constitution, for Free Speech, for
15
Due Process, and for Possession, Amendments the First, the Fifth and the Fourteenth.
16
On July 6, 2007 Defendant Connor allowed Defendant CHL (listed on that day
17
as Plaintiff, although it did not have any clear standing in the case, and still does not
18
have a clear standing in the case - see Exh
) to appear ex parte in court, in a
19
procedure that defied any notion of due process, and apply for a wide range gag order
20
against Zemik, to prevent him from talking about Countrywide.
21
On July 6, 2007 Defendant Connor denied Defendant CHL's application, but
22
allowed it a shortened notice hearing on July 23, 2007. She also allowed it to amend
23
its application, but failed to set a deadline for the filing ofthe amended moving
24
papers, while setting a deadline of July 12,2007 for Plaintiff Zemik's opposition.
25
By July 12, 2007 Plaintiff Zemik was still not served with Defendant CHL's
26
movmg papers.
27
On July 12, 2007 Plaintiff Zemik filed in open court papers pursuant to CCP
28
§170.3 for Defendant Connor's disqualification, based on her partial treatment of
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 6 of 31
1 Defendant CHL and the abuse ofPlaintifTZernik's rights for Free Speech and for Due
2 Process. In open court Defendant Connor immediately ruled that the filing was
3 pursuant to CCP 170.6, therefore untimely, therefore struck. She then immediately
4 went on presiding in proceedings in Samaan v Zernik.
5
PlaintiffZemik holds that with this dishonest conduct Defendant Connor in fact
6 established herself and a judge who refused to be disqualified, and all her actions after
7 that were and are void and null (see references below), at least since that date, July 12,
8 2007. But more likely, Defendant Connor had no authority whatsoever in Samaan v
9 Zernik since July 6, 2007 - the date that the events listed in Plaintiff Zemik's July 12,
10 2007 Disqualification papers took place. And probably Defendant Connor lost any
11 authority in Samaan v Zernik much earlier than that - at least since April 22, 2007 -
12 listed in the July 12,2007 Disqualification papers as the date Defendant Connor and
13 Defendant Jaime colluded in deceiving PlaintiffZemik regarding the date that the then
14 current Trial Date was set.
15
On July 23, 2007, Defendant Connor, by then surely with no authority at all, in
16 open court stated that she would issue the Protective Gag Order at Defendant CI--a's
17 request (by July 23, 2007 it was more narrowly formulated). However, Defendant
18 Connor never produced such a signed order, never entered such an order, and
19 Defendant CI-a, who was ordered to notice it, never noticed such an order, even after
20 repeated reminders by Plaintiff Zernik.
21
Defendant Friedman is the eighth LA Superior Court acting as Presiding Judge
22 in Samaan v Zernik. Defendant Friedman has been acting as Presiding Judge in
23 Samaan v Zernik since Dec 7, 2007. But in fact, like the five judges before Defendant
24 Friedman has no authority at all in Samaan v Zernik. Defendant Friedman never
25 obtained a Re-assignment Order. PlaintiffZemik repeatedly asked Defendant
26 Friedman to notice him of a Reassignment Order, but Defendant Friedman refuses to
27 do so. There is no Re-assignment order listed in the electronic docket either. With
28
-6-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 7 of 31

1 that - Defendant Friedman was engaging in abuse of Plaintiff Zemik's right for Due
2 Process under the color of the law of California from day one.
3
On January 11, 2007, Defendant Sandor Samuels filed a Notice of Person in
4 Interest in Samaan v Zel'nik ( E x h ~ . In his notice he described his relationship with
5 Defendant Friedman. Defendant Sandor Samuels was and is the President of "House
6 ofJustice" a prominent Jewish charity for free legal services. Defendant Friedman
7 was the Executive Director of "House ofJustice". Defendant Sandor Samuels
8 acknowledge their relationship, but claimed that they had not discussed Samaan v
9 Zernik, in fact alluding that they still meet in some context or another.
10
On Jan 11, 2007 PlaintiffZemik filed in court for disqualification ofDefendant
11 Friedman per CCP §170.3 based on his relationship with Defendant Samuels, which
12 Defendant Friedman had never acknowledged, although he had been acting as
13 Presiding Judge since December 7,2007. Similarly, Defendant Allan Goodman acted
14 with no authority at all, and with no Re-assignment Order as Presiding Judge in
15 Samaan v Zernik for almost a month in Sept-Oct 2007, before recusing and
16 acknowledging a long-term close personal friendship with Defendant Sandor Samuels.
17
On Jan 11, 2007 Defendant Friedman struck Plaintiff Zemik's filing per CCP
18 §170.3 AND filed a verified statement opposing Zemik's claims, in effect denying any
19 knowledge of his relationship with Defendant Samuels.
20
Plaintiff Zernik holds that Defendant Friedman had no authority in Samaan v
21 Zernik from the outset on December 7, 2007 for the following reasons:
22
a. He had no Re-assignment Order
23
b. He had engaged in dishonest conduct, failing to state his relationship with
24
Sandor Samuels
25
c. He had never filed any statement as required by the Judges Ethics Code
26
(Exh ) regarding gifts, loans and funds he may have received from
27
Samuels, whose personal wealth is in the many millions, or possibly in
28
the low billions.
-7-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 8 of 31
Plaintiff Zernik holds that Defendant Friedman at least had no authority since
2 he struck the Jan 11, 2008 disqualification filing, since:
3
a. Defendant Friedman was dishonest in denying his relationship with
4
Samuels
5
b. Defendant Friedman both struck Plaintiff Zemik's papers as lacking on
6
their face any legal basis AND filed a verified statement opposing
7
Zemik allegations. Such is not allowed per the California Judge Bench
8
Guide published by the Judicial Council of California. Such filing also is
9
self contradictory and defies all a logic, and therefore is invalid.
10 On Jan 11, 2008, in open court, Defendant Friedman also denied aU Plaintiff
11 Zernik's applications included in an ex parte appearance before Defendant Rosenberg,
12 including vacating rulings, orders, and judgments by Defendant Connor pursuant to
13 CCP §170.3. With that, Defendants Rosenberg and Friedman in fact colluded with
14 Defendant Connor's dishonest conduct. Moreover, Defendant Rosenberg issued to
15 Plaintiff Zernik on a previous occasion a letter claiming, in blatant violation of the
16 law, that he had no authority to vacate such rulings, orders, and judgments by another
17 judge. CCP§170.3 clearly states the opposite.
18 Therefore, on Jan 15,2008 PlaintiffZemik filed in open court a second time for
19 Defendant Friedman's disqualification, on the grounds of his dishonest ruling on Jan
20 11, 2008. This time Defendant Friedman struck Zernik's filing instantaneously, and
21 ruled that his reply from Jan 11,2008 was also applicable to the Jan 15,2008
22 disqualification papers. Again Judge Friedman engaged in dishonest conduct and still
23 failed to make any statement regarding his relationship with Defendant Samuels.
24 On Feb 15,2008 Defendant Friedman held a hearing on Countrywide's motion
25 for Sanctions exceeding $16,000 against Zemik for purported violation of the non-
26 existent July 23, 2007 Protective Gag Order, by then presiding judge lacking in
27 authority Defendant Connor. Defendant Friedman in open court dishonestly validated
28 the Protective Gag Order, although it still had never been produced, entered, or
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 9 of 31
1 noticed, and was never included in the Feb 15,2007 CHL moving papers. Defendant
2 Friedman granted Defendant em... sanctions exceeding $16,000, and ordered Plaintiff
3 Zernik to pay within 20 days (now due).
4
On Feb 15,2007 Defendant Friedman also ordered a hearing on ose Re:
5 contempt for March 7, 2008. And he warned Zernik of the criminal nature of the
6 hearing, and the likely jail sentence. Therefore, it is obvious that Defendant Friedman
7 was already determined not to impose civil sanctions, if any, but sanctions of criminal
8 nature.
9
Defendant Friedman also ordered Defendant em... to serve Plaintiff Zemik with
10 the moving papers by Feb 19 2008, and ordered Plaintiff Zemik to serve his
II opposition by Feb 27, 2008.
12
But Defendant Friedman to date - failed to enter an order regarding his ruling
13 and order for sanctions, and such an order was never noticed to Zemik. Therefore,
14 Zernik cannot even appeal it. It was also essential for Plaintiff Zernik to see such an
15 order in order to write his opposition. Also - CHL never adequately served Plaintiff
16 Zemik with the moving papers for the March 7, 2008 ose hearing. Judge Friedman
17 signed the order for Hearing on OSC only on Feb 19,2008, and Zemik found the
18 papers in an envelope outside his door on Feb 20,2008 in the evening.
19
On March 3, 2008 PlaintiffZemik applied ex parte for continuance ofthe
20 March 7, 2007 ose hearing. eHL appeared
t
but never filed opposition papers. In
21 open court Defendant Friedman asked Defendant CHL if it agreed to the continuance
22 and Defendant eHL said: No. Defendant Friedman then asked for the reason.
23 Defendant em... said that it knew that PlaintiffZemik had had some issue with the
24 service, but that it really did not matter, since Plaintiff Zernik knew already that a
25 hearing was scheduled for March 7, 2008. Defendant Friedman then ruled denying
26 the continuance.
27
28
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 10 of 31
1 Judges of the LA Superior Court have already:
2 • Robbed PlaintiffZemik of2 years of his life
3 • Robbed PlaintiffZemik ofhis home
4 • Are holding what was originally over $700,000 ofPlaintiffZemik's home
5
equity with no reason at all
6 • Have destroyed PlaintiffZemik credit rating by appointing a Receiver, with
7
no reference to any section of the code.
8 And now they are trying to jail Plaintiff Zemik and saddle him for life with a
9 criminal record, when in fact, he is the victim of criminal conduct.
10 Plaintiff Zemik's fault - he figured out that the judges were engaged in fraud
11 and deception and obstruction ofjustice in favor of Defendants CHL, Samuels, and
12 Mozilo, and he did not yield to their fraud and deception.
13
14
15
III.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
17
16 Do Jurisdiction ofthis court
Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 reads as follows:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects,
or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law,
suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
23
18
19
20
21
22
Here, PlaintiffZemik is alleging abuse of his rights per the 1
st
, 5
th
, and 14
th
24 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by conduct ofjudges ofthe LA Superior Court,
25 named here as defendants and their collaborators.
26 Such defendants, through their conduct, abused Plaintiff's right for Free
27 Speech, for Due Process, and for Possession. They did so over a long time period, in
28 a coordinated fashion, as willful misconduct to obstruct justice.
-1 -
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 11 of 31
1
2
CCP §170 says (underines added):
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
170. A judge has a duty to decide any proceeding in which he or she
is not disqualified.
170.1. (a) A judge shall be disqualified if anyone or more of the
following is true:
(1) (A) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary
facts concerning the proceeding.
(8) A judge shall be deemed to have personal knowledge within the
meaning of this paragraph if the jUdge, or the spouse of the judge,
or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of
them, or the spouse of such a person is to the judge's knowledge
likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(2) (A) The judge served as a lawyer in the proceeding, or in any
other proceeding involving the same issues he or she served as a
lawyer for any party in the present proceeding or gave advice to any
party in the present proceeding upon any matter involved in the
action or proceeding.
(B) A judge shall be deemed to have served as a lawyer in the
proceeding if within the past two years:
(i) A party to the proceeding or an officer, director, or trustee
of a party was a client of the judge when the judge was in the
private practice of law or a client of a lawyer with whom the judge
was associated in the private practice of law.
(ii) A lawyer in the proceeding was associated in the private
practice of law with the judge.
(e) A judge who served as a lawyer for or officer of a public
agency that is a party to the proceeding shall be deemed to have
served as a lawyer in the proceeding if he or she personally advised
or in any way represented the public agency concerning the factual or
legal issues in the proceeding.
(3) (A) The judge has a financial interest in the subject matter
in a proceeding or in a party to the proceeding.
(B) A judge shall be deemed to have a financial interest within
the meaning of this paragraph if:
(i) A spouse or minor child living in the household has a
financial interest.
(ii) The jUdge or the spouse of the judge is a fiduciary who has a
financial interest.
(e) A judge has a duty to make reasonable efforts to inform
himself or herself about his or her personal and fiduciary interests
and those of his or her spouse and the personal financial interests
of children living in the household.
(4) The judge, or the spouse of the judge, or a person within the
third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such
a person is a party to the proceeding or an officer, director, or
trustee of a party.
(5) A lawyer or a spouse of a lawyer in the proceeding is the
spouse, former spouse, child, sibling, or parent of the judge or the
judge's spouse or if such a person is associated in the private
practice of law with a lawyer in the proceeding.
(6) IA) For any reason:
(i) The judge believes his or her recusal would further the
-ll-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 12 of 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
interests of justice.
(ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or
her capacity to be impartial.
(iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a
doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.
(B) Bias or prejudice toward a lawyer in the proceeding may be
grounds for disqualification.
(7) By reason of permanent or temporary physical impairment, the
judge is unable to properly perceive the evidence or is unable to
properly conduct the proceeding.
(8) (A) The judge has a current arrangement concerning prospective
employment or other compensated service as a dispute resolution
neutral or is participating in, or, within the last two years has
participated in, discussions regarding prospective employment or
service as a dispute resolution neutral, or has been engaged in such
employment or service, and any of the following applies:
(i) The arrangement is, or the prior employment or discussion was,
with a party to the proceeding.
(ii) The matter before the judge includes issues relating to the
enforcement of either an agreement to submit a dispute to an
alternative dispute resolution process or an award or other final
decision by a dispute resolution neutral.
(iii) The judge directs the parties to participate in an
alternative dispute resolution process in which the dispute
resolution neutral will be an individual or entity with whom the
judge has the arrangement, has previously been employed or served, or
is discussing or has discussed the employment or service.
(iv) The judge will select a dispute resolution neutral or entity
to conduct an alternative dispute resolution process in the matter
before the judge, and among those available for selection is an
individual or entity with whom the judge has the arrangement, with
whom the judge has previously been employed or served, or with whom
the judge is discussing or has discussed the employment or service.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, all of the following
apply:
(i) "Participating in discussions" or "has participated in
discussion" means that the judge solicited or otherwise indicated an
interest in accepting or negotiating possible employment or service
as an alternative dispute resolution neutral or responded to an
unsolicited statement regarding, or an offer of, such employment or
service by expressing an interest in that employment or service,
making any inquiry regarding the employment or service, or
encouraging the person making the statement or offer to provide
additional information about that possible employment or service. If
a judge's response to an unsolicited statement regarding, a question
about, or offer of, prospective employment or other compensated
service as a dispute resolution neutral is limited to responding
negatively, declining the offer, or declining to discuss such
employment or service, that response does not constitute
participating in discussions.
(ii) "Party" includes the parent, subsidiary, or other legal
affiliate of any entity that is a party and is involved in the
transaction, contract, or facts that gave rise to the issues subject
to the proceeding.
(iii) "Dispute resolution n e u t r a l ~ means an arbitrator, mediator,
temporary judge appointed under Section 21 of Article VI of the
California Constitution, referee appointed under Section 638 or 639,
-12-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 13 of 31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
special master, neutral evaluator, settlement officer, or settlement
facilitator.
(b) A jUdge before whom a proceeding was tried or heard shall be
disqualified from participating in any appellate review of that
proceeding.
(c) At the request of a party or on its own motion an appellate
court shall consider whether in the interests of justice it should
direct that further proceedings be heard before a trial judge other
than the judge whose judgment or order was reviewed by the appellate
court.
170.2. It shall not be grounds for disqualification that the judge:
(a) Is or is not a member of a racial, ethnic, religious, sexual
or similar group and the proceeding involves the rights of such a
group.
(b) Has in any capacity expressed a view on a legal or factual
issue presented in the proceeding, except as provided in paragraph
(2) of subdivision (a) of, or subdivision (b) or (cl of, Section
170.I.
(c) Has as a lawyer or pUblic official participated in the
drafting of laws or in the effort to pass or defeat laws, the
meaning, effect or application of which is in issue in the proceeding
unless the judge believes that his or her prior involvement was so
well known as to raise a reasonable doubt in the pUblic mind as to
his or her capacity to be impartial.
170.3. (a) (1) If a judge determines himself or herself to be
disqualified, the judge shall notify the presiding judge of the court
of his or her recusal and shall not further participate in the
proceeding, except as provided in Section 110.4, unless his or her
disqualification is waived by the parties as provided in subdivision
(b) .
(2) If the judge disqualifying himself or herself is the only
judge or the presiding judge of the court, the notification shall be
sent to the person having authority to assign another judge to
replace the disqualified judge.
(b) (1) A judge who determines himself or herself to be
disqualified after disclosing the basis for his or her
disqualification on the record may ask the parties and their
attorneys whether they wish to waive the disqualification, except
where the basis for disqualification is as provided in paragraph (2).
A waiver of disqualification shall recite the basis for the
disqualification, and is effective only when signed by all parties
and their attorneys and filed in the record.
(2) There shall be no waiver of disqualification if the basis
therefor is either of the following:
(A) The judge has a personal bias or prejUdice concerning a party.
(8) The judge served as an attorney in the matter in controversy,
or the judge has been a material witness concerning that matter.
(3) The judge shall not seek to induce a waiver and shall avoid
any effort to discover which lawyers or parties favored or opposed a
waiver of disqualification.
(4) If grounds for disqualification are first learned of or arise
after the judge has made one or more rulings in a proceeding, but
before the judge has completed judicial action in a proceeding, the
jUdge shall, unless the disqualification be waived, disqualify
-13-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 14 of 31
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
himself or herself, but in the absence of good cause the rulings he
or she has made up to that time shall not be set aside by the judge
who replaces the disqualified judge.
(c) (1) If a judge who should disqualify himself or herself
refuses or fails to do so, any party may file with the clerk a
written verified statement objecting to the hearing or trial before
the jUdge and setting forth the facts constituting the grounds for
disqualification of the jUdge. The statement shall be presented at
the earliest practicable opportunity after discovery of the facts
constituting the ground for disqualification. Copies of the statement
shall be served on each party or his or her attorney who has
appeared and shall be personally served on the judge alleged to be
disqualified, or on his or her clerk, provided that the judge is
present in the courthouse or in chambers.
(2) Without conceding his or her disqualification, a jUdge whose
impartiality has been challenged by the filing of a written statement
may request any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and
act in his or her place.
(3) Within 10 days after the filing or service, whichever is
later, the judge may file a consent to disqualification in which case
the judge shall notify the presiding jUdge or the person authorized
to appoint a replacement of his or her recusal as provided in
subdivision (a), £E the judge may file a written verified answer
admitting or denying any or all of the allegations contained in the
party's statement and setting forth any additional facts material or
relevant to the question of disqualification. The clerk shall
forthwith transmit a copy of the judge's answer to each party or his
or her attorney who has appeared in the action.
(4) A judge who fails to file a consent or answer within the time
allowed shall be deemed to have consented to his or her
disgualification and the clerk shall notify the presiding judge or
person authorized to appoint a replacement of the recusal as provided
in subdivision (a).
(5) A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not
pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in
law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed
by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be
heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties
who have appeared or, in the event they are unable to agree within
five days of notification of the judge's answer, by a judge selected
by the chairperson of the Judicial Council, or if the chairperson is
unable to act, the vice chairperson. The clerk shall notify the
executive officer of the Judicial Council of the need for a
selection. The selection shall be made as expeditiously as possible.
No challenge pursuant to this subdivision or Section 170.6 may be
made against the judge selected to decide the question of
disqualification.
(6) The jUdge deciding the question of disqualification may decide
the question on the basis of the statement of disqualification and
answer and any written arguments as the jUdge requests, or the judge
may set the matter for hearing as promptly as practicable. If a
hearing is ordered, the judge shall permit the parties and the judge
alleged to be disqualified to argue the question of disqualification
and shall for good cause shown hear evidence on any disputed issue of
fact. If the judge deciding the question of disqualification
determines that the judge is disqualified, the judge hearing the
question shall notify the presiding judge or the person having
-1 -
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 15 of 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
authority to appoint a replacement of the disqualified judge as
provided in subdivision (a).
(d) The determination of the question of the disqualification of a
judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ
of mandate from the appropriate court of appeal sought only by the
parties to the proceeding. The petition for the writ shall be filed
and served within 10 days after service of written notice of entry of
the court's order determining the question of disqualification. If
the notice of entry is served by mail, that time shall be extended as
provided in subdivision (a) of Section 1013.
170.4. (a) A disqualified judge, notwithstanding his or her
disqualification may do any of the following:
(1) Take any action or issue any order necessary to maintain the
jurisdiction of the court pending the assignment of a judge not
disqualified.
(2) Request any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and
act in his or her place.
(3) Hear and determine purely default matters.
(4) Issue an order for possession prior to judgment in eminent
domain proceedings.
(5) Set proceedings for trial or hearing.
(6) Conduct settlement conferences.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) of Section
170.3, if a statement of disqualification is untimely filed or if on
its face it discloses no legal grounds for disqualification, the
trial jUdge against whom it was filed may order it stricken.
(e) (1) If a statement of disqualification is filed after a trial
or hearing has commenced by the start of voir dire, by the swearing
of the first witness or by the submission of a motion for decision,
the judge whose impartiality has been questioned may order the trial
or hearing to continue, notwithstanding the filing of the statement
of disqualification. The issue of disqualification shall be referred
to another jUdge for decision as provided in subdivision (a) of
Section 170.3, and if it is determined that the judge is
diSqualified, all orders and rUlings of the judge found to be
diSqualified made after the filing of the statement shall be vacated.
(2) For the purposes of this subdivision, if (A) a proceeding is
filed in a single judge court or has been assigned to a single judge
for comprehensive disposition, and (B) the proceeding has been set
for trial or hearing 30 or more days in advance before a judge whose
name was known at the time, the trial or hearing shall be deemed to
have commenced 10 days prior to the date scheduled for trial or
hearing as to any grounds for disqualification known before that
time.
(3) A party may file no more than one statement of
disqualification against a judge unless facts suggesting new grounds
for disqualification are first learned of or arise after the first
statement of disqualification was filed. Repetitive statements of
disqualification not alleging facts suggesting new grounds for
disqualification shall be stricken by the judge against whom they are
filed.
(d) Except as provided in this section, a disqualified judge shall
have no power to act in any proceeding after his or her
diSqualification or after the filing of a statement of
disgualification until the guestion of his or her disqualification
-15-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 16 of 31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
has been determined.
170.5. For the purposes of Sections 170 to 170.5, inclusive, the
following definitions apply:
(a) "Judge" means judges of the superior courts, and court
commissioners and referees.
(bl "Financial interest" means ownership of more than a 1 percent
legal or equitable interest in a party, or a legal or equitable
interest in a party of a fair market value in excess of one thousand
five hundred dollars ($1,500), or a relationship as director, advisor
or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except as
follows:
(1) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds
securities is not a "financial interest" in those securities unless
the judge participates in the management of the fund.
(2) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal,
or civic organization is not a "financial interest" in securities
held by the organization.
(3) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual
insurance company, or a depositor in a mutual savings association, or
a similar proprietary interest, is a "financial interest" in the
organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could
sUbstantially affect the value of the interest.
(c) "Officer of a public agency" does not include a Member of the
Legislature or a state or local agency official acting in a
legislative capacity.
(d) The third degree of relationship shall be calculated according
to the civil law system.
(e) "Private practice of law" includes a fee for service,
retainer, or salaried representation of private clients or public
agencies, but excludes lawyers as full-time employees of public
agencies or lawyers working exclusively for legal aid offices, public
defender offices, or similar nonprofit entities whose clientele is
by law restricted to the indigent.
(f) "Proceeding" means the action, case, cause, motion, or special
proceeding to be tried or heard by the judge.
(g) "Fiduciary" includes any executor, trustee, guardian, or
administrator.
i. The basis for disqualification of Judge Friedman
Plaintiff Zemik's disqualification of Judge Friedman was based on the
following paragraph:
170.3 (iii) A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a
doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.
Defendant Friedman was the Executive Director of "House of Justice", yet an
employee ofthat organization. And Defendant Samuels, as a very wealthy donor, was
in a deciding position relative to that employment, typically Board Member, now
President of the Board.
-16-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 17 of 31
1
But that in itself was not the issue. The issue was that Defendant Friedman
2 took upon himself to preside in this case (with no authority), and did not bother to
3 make any statement to the effect that he had any relationship whatsoever to Defendant
4 Samuels, obviously the dominant figure in this litigation. He was dishonestly
5 protected by Judge Connor from having claims filed against Defendant CHL and
6 himself, but he remained the dominant figure in this litigation nonetheless.
7
And given that the question of bias towards CHL and Samuels was already at
8 the core of the disqualifications of Defendants Connor, Goodman, and Segal,
9 Defendant Friedman had to realize that such relationship would be considered relevant
10 by Defendant Zemik:
11 The California Code of Judicial Ethics says:
12
Canon 3 (E)(2) says:
13
14
15
"In all trial court proceedings, ajudge shall disclose on the record information that
the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the
question ofdisqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for
disqualification."
16
But Defendant Friedman, instead, after having this relationship pointed out to
17 him in disqualification statement, chose to in fact deny any such relationship, twice.
18
19 The California Code of Judicial Ethics says:
20
Canon 4(D)(5) says:
21
22
23
24
"Under no circumstances shall a judge accept a gift, bequest, or favor if the donor is a
party whose interests have come or are reasonably likely to come before the judge. A
judge shall discourage members ofthejudge's family residing in the judge's
household from accepting similar benefits from parties who have come or are
reasonably likely to come before the judge."
25
Plaintiff Zernik has explicitly asked Defendant Friedman in the hearing on
26 March 3, 2008 to make a statement to this effect. Judge Friedman is still mum about
27 his relationship with Defendant Samuels, and any gifts, funds, loans, or equivalents
28
-17-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 18 of 31
that he or family members residing in his household have received from Defendant
Samuels.
And the California Bench Guide says on this issue:
§2.8 Judge's Duty To Disclose Information Potentially Relevant to
Disqualification
A judge must disclose on the record information the judge believes
the parties or their attorneys might consider relevant to the question of
disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for
disqualification. Cal Code Jud Ethics, Canon 3E(2). The parties should
have an opportunity to weigh this information when considering whether
to challenge the judge. Many judges invite the parties to comment on the
disclosed information.
§2.9 Disciplinary Action for Failure To Recuse
A judge's failure to initiate recusal when grounds for disqualification
clearly exist may be grounds for disciplinary action. See In re YOllngblood
(1983) 33 C3d 788, 191 CR 171 (judge engaged in litigation against
corporation that was party in case assigned to judge); Rothman, Handbook
§7.36. However, a judge's failure to initiate recusal, even when recusal is
mandatory, is not a criminal violation of Govt C §1222 (willful failure to
perform duty required by law of public official) or a criminal offense of
any kind. Boags v Mllnicipal COllrt (1987) 197 CA3d 65, 69-71, 242 CR
681.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 ii. Validity and authority after disqualification
16 It may be open for debate what date Defendant COlUlor lost her authority, if she
17 had any to start out (her Reassignment Order is one of many documents from Sustain
18 of dubious character, it is dated both November 1,2005, and Jan 30,2006). But
19 surely, after the disqualificdation of July 12,2007, citing the dishonesty of July 6,
20 2007, she had no authority at all.
21 Similarly, Defendant Friedman, who never had any authority at all, absent a
22 Reaasignement Order, surely lost any authority by Jan 11,2008, and his dishonest
23 reponse regarding his relationship with Defendant Samuels.
24 Therefore, the validation on Feb 15,2008, by Defendant Friedman, lacking any
25 authority himself, of a non-existent order of July 23, 2007 by the then lacking in
26 authority herself Defendant Connor, is of no validity at all.
27 There are numerous decisions on the subject, and they are unanious:
28
-18-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 19 of 31
1 "[D]isqualification occurs when the facts creating disqualification arise, not
2 when the disqualification is established."
(Christie v. City of EZ Centro, supra, 135 Cal. App. 4
th
at p. 776.)
3
'(I]t is the fact of disqualification that controls, not subsequent judicial action
4 on that disqualification."
5 Giometti v. Etienne (1934) 219 Cal. 687, 688-689) (Rossco Holdings Inc. et a/., v.
Bank of America (4/19/2007, B189963) 2
nd
Appellate District)
6
7 Giometti v. Etienne, supra, states:
" this court has on several occasions pointed out that a judgment rendered by a
8 disqualified Judge is void."
9 (219 Cal. at p.689.)
10 "Orders made by a disqualified judge are void."
(Cadenasso v. Bank ofItaly (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 567-568; Christie v. City of
11 E/ Centro (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4
th
767, 776 )
12
13 "With regard to the entry of summary judgment by the disqualified judge, the
Urias court relied on a line of cases from 1920-1984 and found that a judgment
14 or order rendered by a disqualified judge is void whenever brought
into question."
15 T.P.B., Jr. v Superior Court (1977) 66 CA3d 881, 136 CR311; Civil Litigation
16 Reporter, April 2004
17
"Orders made by a disqualified judge are void."
18 (Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 567-568; Christie v. City
19 of EZ Centro (2006) 135 Cal. App. 4
th
767, 776 )
20 "There is a dispute in recent appellate authority as to whether such orders
21 should be considered void or only voidable at the option of a party; the
Supreme Court's latest opinion on the matter held them to be void."
22 (Christie v. City of El Centro, supra, 135 Cal. App. 4
th
at pp. 669-780;
23 Rossco Ho/dings Inc. et a/., v. Bank of America (4/19/2007, B189963) 2
nd
Appellate District)
24
25 "The law is clear that a disqualified judge's order are void, regardless of
26 whether thay happen to have been legally correct."
(Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy (1932) 214 Cal. 562, 568-569; Rossco Ho/dings
27 Inc. et al., v. Bank of America (4/19/2007, B189963) 2
nd
Appellate District)
28
-19-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 20 of 31
1 "Statutes governing disqualification for cause are intended to ensure public
2 confidence in the judiciary and to protect the right of litigants to a fair and
impartial adjudicator."
3 (Curle v. Superior Court (2001) 24 Cal. 4
th
1057, 1070)
0-
,
,
4
5
"A void order is void even before reversal."
Vallely v. Northern Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 254 U.S. 348,41 S. Ct. 116
6 (1920) (US Supreme Court)
7
9
8
15
11
13
14
12
ii. Allowable Responses to Disqualification
Defendant Friedman, like Defendant Segal before him and like Defendant Segal
10 before him, and like Defendant Connor before him, engaged in a dishonest and invalid
response to filings by Plaintiffpursuant to CCP §170.3: They strike it as having no
legal basis on its face, and then they file their verified response challenging the
allegations brought forth by Plaintiff Zemik.
Such a filing by a judge is not allowed per CCP §170.3. In fact, the verified
statement invalidates the ruling that the filings by Plaintiff Zemik had no legal basis
16 on its face. Therefore, the remaining item, the judge's verified statement had to be
17 heard by another judge. That never happened in any of the cases that Plaintiff Zemik
18 disqualified judges ofLA Superior Court, West District. They all disobeyance the law
19 in the very same fashion.
20
CCP §170.3(c)(S) says:
21
A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not
pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sUfficiency in
22
law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed
by a party. In that case, the question of disqualification shall be
23
heard and determined by another judge agreed upon by all the parties
who have appeared _
24
25
27
The law is also clear that until such hearing is concluded by another judge, the
disqualified judge has no authority at all:
26
CCP §170.4(d) says:
28
(d) Except as provided in this section, a disqualified judge shall
have no power to act in any proceeding after his or her
-20-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 21 of 31
..
disqualification or after the filing of a statement of
disqualification until the question of his or her disqualification
2 has been determined.
3
4
Therefore, Judge Terry Friedman, who twice filed such verified statements, but
never had any other judge pass upon them is still with no authority, if for no other
5
reason.
6
7
9
8
11
But if there was any doubt left, the California Bench Guide clarifies the issue.
Such a filing is not allowed, and indeed, it is oxymoronic in nature. The Bench Guide
says (bold and underline added):
10
d. Judge's Response to Statement of Disqualification
(1) [§2.28] Judge's Options
25
15
19
27
13
17
21
18
12 A judge whose impartiality has been challenged may take a number
of actions. The judge may:
• Request any judge agreed on by the parties to act in his or her
14 place, without conceding disqualification. CCP §170.3(c)(2).
! JUDICIAL TIP: If a statement of disqualification has been filed
under CCP §170.3 and there are no actual grounds for
disqualification, a judge should not circumvent the duty to hear a
16 case (CCP §170) by consenting to the disqualification or
requesting another judge to act in his or her place. Judges have a
primary obligation to decide cases. See CCP §170; Rothman,
California JUdicial Conduct Handbook §7.00 (CJA 1999).
• Consent to the disqualification within ten days of the filing or
service of the statement, whichever is later, and notify the
presiding judge or other person authorized to appoint a
replacement. CCP §170.3(c)(3}.
• Within ten days of the filing or service of the statement, file a
verified written answer, admitting or denying the allegations and
setting forth additional facts. The clerk must transmit a copy of the
judge's answer to each party or attorney who has appeared. CCP
23 §170.3(c}(3).
24 • Strike the statement if it was untimely filed (see §2.27) or, on its
face, discloses no legal grounds for disqualification (see §2.25).
CCP §170.4(b). A judge is not precluded from striking the
statement as untimely by the fact that the judge has previously
26 filed an answer to the statement under CCP §170.3(c)(3). These
procedural options are not mutually exclusive. PBA, LLC v KPOD.
Ltd. (2003) 112 CA4th 965, 972, 5 CR3d 532. However, a Judge
cannot consent or answer after striking the statement of
20
22
28
-21-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 22 of 31
1
3
disqualification. 112 CA4th at 973.
If no action is taken within the applicable time limits, the judge is
2 deemed to have consented to the disqualification. CCP §170.3(c)(4);
People v Superior Court (Mudge) (1997) 54 CA4th 407, 411, 62 CR2d
721.
4
5
iii Appointment of Subsequent Judge after Disqualification
6
CCP §170.3 is absolutely clear on the point that the disqualified Judge has no
7 authority to re-assign the case before him to another judge.
8
The disqualified judge has two options (beyond the immediate term):
9 ONE - refer the case back to the Supervising /Presiding Judge, or
170.3(c) the judge shall notify the presiding judge or the person
authorized to appoint a replacement of his or her recusal
170.3(a)"... the judge shall notify the presiding judge of the court
of his or her recusal and shall not further participate in the
proceeding"
(2) Without conceding his or her disqualification, a judge whose
impartiality has been challenged by the filing of a written statement
may reguest any other judge agreed upon by the parties to sit and
act in his or her place.
TWO - transfer the case to another judge agreed upon by the parties.
170.3(C)(2) says:
26
20
But in all cases starting with Defendant Connor, who indeed recused herself
after the Sept 10, 2007 disqualification per cep §170.3(c)(2), it was the recused judge
who transferred the case to the next judge, but with no consent of the parties. And
Defendant Rosenberg, the Supervising Judge, refused to issue Re-assignment Orders.
22
Therefore, Defendant Hart-Cole enaged in conduct in violation ofthe law - the re-
assigned the case to another judge - Defendant Terry Friedman, and Defendant
24
Friedman had no authority to start out with.
25
iv Authority of One Judge to Review and Vacate Rulings, Orders,
Judgments of Another after Disqualification
23
19
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
27
28
-22-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 23 of 31
The law says in 170.4(c):
...and if it is determined that the judge is
disqualified, all orders and rulings of the judge found to be
disqualified made after the filing of the statement shall be vacated.
(4) If grounds for disqualification are first learned of or arise
after the judge has made one or more rulings in a proceeding, but
before the jUdge has completed judicial action in a proceeding, the
judge shall, unless the disqualification be waived, disqualify
himself or herself, but in the absence of good cause the rulings he
or she has made up to that time shall not be set aside by the judge
who replaces the disqualified judge.
..
Similarly, CCP §170.3 is clear cut on the fact that one judge of the Superior
2 Court is allowed to review and vacate the action of another judge who was
3 disqaulified.
4
The law says in 170.3(b) (4):
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
The statement to the opposite provided by Supervising Judge Rosenberg in his
14 letter of xxx was dishonest, and without any foundation.
15
Logically, it does not make any sense either. If that was indeed the law, then
16 any case, no matter what stage, once a judge was disqualified, had to be moved to the
17 Court ofAppeal, since the disqualified Judge could easily irreperably taint the case.
18
19 c. Order to Show Cause - Contempt
20
Beyond the invalidity of the July 23,2007 Protective (gag) Order, Defendant
21 Friedman also showed abuse of Plaintiff Zernik's Due Process rights in his Feb 19,
22 2008 Order To Show Cause.
23
First - although he ruled in open court in this matter on Feb 15, 2008, and set a
24 shortened notice for the hearing, he signed the Order only on Feb 19,2008, and that-
25 according to Counsel for CHL was the reason it was never served on Plaintiff Zemik
26 on time.
27
Second - Defendant Friedman failed to spell out in his Order To Show Cause
28 the code section by which he will run that hearing. He did warn Plaintiff Zemik in
-23-
~
.
,
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 24 of 31
open court of the criminal nature of the hearing, but he never spelled out the code
2 section in this Order. Two vastly different code sections may be used, and two vastly
3 different standards of proof and adjudication may therefore be applied. Leaving such
4 ciritical issue vague is abusive in and of itself.
5 Third - he accepted CHL argument that the fact that Plaintiff Zemik knew of
6 the pending hearing was sufficient, was unreasonable. The notice is required not only
7 for the time and place, but also for other critical information - such as deliberately
8 withheld by Defendant Friedman -
9 a. the code sections by which he would adjudicate Contempt, and
10 b. the ruling and order that he used on Feb 15,2008 to validate the non-existent
11 July 23, 2008 Protecive (gag) Order.
12
13 d. Plaintiffis abusedfor over two years by officials ofthe State ofCalifornia, under
14 the color ofthe law ofthe State ofCalifornia, and the State has abandoned its duty
to protect its citizens.
15 Not only has the State of California allowed the ongoing abuse of Plaintiff
16 Zemik, it has abandoned its duty by law to protect him from such abuse.
17 Calfironia Government Code §270 says:
18 270. Every person while within the State is SUbject to its
jurisdiction and entitled to its protection.
19
20
21
22
IV.
ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS WRONGS WITIDN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA JURISDICTION
23
a. Los Angeles Superior Court -
24
25
26
27
28
Zemik disqualified Judges of the LA Superior Court on numerous
occasions, but these judges chose to ignore such disqualifications. Judge Friedman
alone was disqualified twice, on Jan 11, 2008 and again on Jan 15,2008.
Moreover, Zernik filed a Writ Petition with the State of California Court of Appeal
-24-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 25 of 31
However, both appeals are still only in early stages of preparation of
records on appeal, and months away from any hearings.
Zernik filed several writ petitions with California Court of Appeal:
1. B199661 - from April 22, 2007 Order Denying Continuance of
Discovery Cutoff Date - denied
2. B204029 - from Denial of Stay and Set Bond re: Aug 9, 2007
Judgment by Court - denied
3. B204164 - from Denial of Stay and Set Bond re: Aug 9,2007 Judgment
by Court - denied
1 regarding Judge Friedman's refusal to disqualify, but the Court of Appeal denied
2 Zemik's petition.
3 In the cases where judges of the LA Superior Court did disqualify, their
4 successors would not, as a matter of principle, set aside or vacate any ruling, order,
5 judgment of their disqualified peers. One of the motions for vacating such judicial
6 actions was heard by Supervising Judge Rosenberg, and he issued later a letter to
7 Zemik, falsely claiming that no judge in the Los Angeles Superior Court has the
8 authority to review another judge's judicial actions. But the California law,
9 specifically in CCP §170.3 provides such authority to Judges of the Superior
10 Court.
11 b) California Court of Appeal -
12 Zemik noticed two appeals related to the matter of Samaan v Zemik:
13 1. B203063 - noticed 10/5/07, from Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, and
14 2. B204544 - noticed 12/10/07, from Nov 9,2007 Order Appointing
15 Receiver.
16 The latter appeal was noticed as the recommendation ofthe Court of
17 Appeal itself, which in one of its order stated that true remedy may be in such an
18 appeal.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-25-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 26 of 31
4. B205195 - from Judge Friedman striking disqualification filings Jan 11
& 14,.2008 - denied
5. B205686 - from Judge Friedman denial of application for Order to
Release Funds held by the Court - filed Feb 13, 2008 - still pending. As
ofMarch 4
th
, 2008, Division 5 Clerk could not ensure that this writ is
on the schedule for a hearing this week.
6. B205737 - - from LA Superior Court's denial of access to electronic
file docket data and related documents, and refusal to certify key paper
file documents - filed Feb 14,2008 - still pending. As of March 4
th
,
2008, Division 5 Clerk could not ensure that this writ is on the schedule
for a hearing this week.
Zernik filed two addendums with the Court ofAppeal after the original
filing dates to update the conditions in LA Superior Court, and inform the
California Court ofAppeal of the urgency in Zernik's situation.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 b. Commission on Judicial Performance -
Zemik filed complaints with the Commission, most recently against
Judge Friedman. The Commission decided to run its hearing on the complaints,
including the one related to Friedman in early February, regardless ofZernik's
objections. At the time of the hearing, the commission never received yet the full
documentation of Judge Friedman's conduct, and such was still under way.
Zernik was excluded from any specific and detailed knowledge of the
filing ofjudges for the hearing by the Commission, or steps taken by the
Commission to investigate the situation. Zemik was informed that his comlaint
was found without merit. Moreover, when he submitted follow-up information
regarding current events in Judge Friedman Court, he received a letter from the
Commission refusing to accept such documents, since the complaint regarding
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-26-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 27 of 31
...
1
2
3 c.
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
Judge Friedman was already heard and closed (Exh xx is a xxlxxJ081etter from the
Commission).
California Attorney General-
Safeguard of the civil rights of California citizens are within the charges
of the California Attorney General. Zernik had numerous communications with the
staff of the office of the Attorney General, including senior staff members such as
Au. Tom Green, Special Assistant, reporting directly to Att General Brown, and
Att Albert Sheldon, Head of the Section on Consumer Protection, and Head of the
section on False Claims. These officials appeared sincerely interested in Zernik's
claims against Countrywide, in the context of the Office of California Attorney
General own investigation against Countrywide. and Zernik was instructed to add
the Office of California Attorney General as a Party ofInterest on the Court filings.
Regarding Zernik's concerns in the areas of Civil Rights abuse and
Integrity of the Judiciary, the office of California Attorney General refused to
intervene..
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joseph Zernik respectfully asks this Court to
grant him such declaratory, injunctive to prevent the hearing on OSC Re:
Contempt this Friday, March 7, 2008, to stop the abuse of his equity, to release his
funds held by the LA Superior Court with no legal foundation, and for any other
relief as the Court deems just and proper,
Respectfully submitted on March 6, 2008 by:
PLAINTIFF
7Jlv-
JOSEPH Z E ~ -
-27-
PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO & OSC
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 28 of 31
· ...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
in pro per
v.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS this Court issue equitable relief
as follows:
1. A Temprorary Restraining Order for Defendant Judge Terry Friedman re: hearing
on the Motion to Show Cause against ruled on Feb 2008, and
ordered on Feb 19,2007, currently scheduled for March 7, 2008.
2. A Temporary Restraining Order for Defendant Judge Terry Friedman and
Defendant Receiver David Pasternak re: execution ofpayment of sanctions against
Plaintiff Zernik exceeding either from Plaintiff Zernik or from his funds
currently held by the LA Superior Court.
A Temporary Restraining Order for Defendant Judge Terry Friedman and
Defendant Receiver David Pasternak, re: any furthher expenditure from funds held
by which are Plaintiffs proceeds from the sale of Plaintiffs home.
4. An order for Defendant Judge Terry Friedman and Defendant Receiver David
Pasternak to immediately release to Plaintiff Zernik the balance of the funds held
by Receiver, which are Plaintiffs proceeds from the sale of Plaintiffs home, with
a final accounting report.
5. An order for Defendant Judge Terry Friedman to show cause why he should not
immediately release to parties a statement on the record regarding his relationship
with Defendant Samuels and any gifts, funds, loans, or valuable goods or services
received by Friedman or his family members residing in his household from
Samuels.
15
16
3.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-28-
PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TRO & OSC
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 29 of 31
.., ." I "

/'/
/, iF"\
By: +b----:?'-/---
Joseph Zenrik
Plaintiff
in pro per
VI.
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT
8. Issue declaratory relief as this Court deems appropriate just.
7. An order for Defendant Judge Terry Friedman and Defendant Supervising Judge
Gerald Rosenberg to show cause why litigation ofSamaan v Zernik in LA Superior
Court should not be ruled as mistrial and transferred to U.S. District Court.
I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant & Cross Complainant in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400) matter heard in Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, I am also
Appellant in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior Court (B203063 - noticed 10/5/07 and
B204544 - notice 12110/07), matters currently in preparation of records on appeal for
California Court of Appeal, and I am also Petitioner Zernik v Los Angeles Superior
Court (B205686 - to release funds held by LASC and secure Zernik's rights for Due
Process and Possession, filed 2/13/08 and B205737- to safeguard Zemik's rights for
6. An order for Defendant Judge Terry Friedman and Defendant Supervising Judge
Gerald Rosenberg to show cause why all Defendant Judge Connor's actions in
Samaan v Zernik should not be vacated.
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9. Issue any other relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.
11
12 Respectfully submitted on March 5, 2008
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-29-
PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FORTRO & OSC
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 30 of 31
i '-
1 Due Process re: Denial ofAccess to Court File and related public records, filed
2 2/14/08, both still pending before the California Court of Appeal).
3 I have read the foregoing Verified Request/or Injunction (Amended, &
4 Exhibits and I know the content thereof to be true it is correct based on my own
5 personal knowledge as Defendant & Cross Complainant, as Appellant, and as
6 Petitioner in pro per, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon
7 information and belief, and as to to those matters, I believe them to be true and
8 correct as well.
9 I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of
10 perjury pursuant to the laws of California and the United States.
11 Executed here in Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, on this 6
th
day in
California Bench Guide, by the Judicial Council of California
California Judge's Ethics Code
Notice ofSamaan;s Fraudulent Loan Applications, Submitted to
Countrywide, Their Underwriting, Suspension, and Denial of Funding,
and Fraudulent Representations to the Contrary Made in Court by
Samaan and Countrywide.
Jan 11, 2008 Samuels Notice of Person of Interest
Jan 11,2008 Judge Frieman's filing in response to disqualification
Jan 15,2008 Judge Friedman's response to disqualification
Feb 15,2008 Zemik's Opposition to Sanctions
Feb 15, 2008 Zemik's Talking points
-3 -
12 March, 2008.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 Exhibit A:
22 Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
23
24
25 Exhibit D:
26 Exhibit E:
Exhibit F :
27 Exhibit G:
28 Exhibit H:
VII.
EXHffiITS
)
.--- IJ
C.·· .. I .
V )
Joseph Zernik
Plaintiff
in pro per
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 5 Filed 03/06/2008 Page 31 of 31
II.
Feb 15, 2008 Transcript
Feb 20, 2008 Notice to Appear March 7 for OSC Contempt.
March 3, 2008 Zernik's ex parte application to continue OSC re:
1 Exhibit I:
2 Exhibit J:
ExhibitK:
3 Contempt
4 Exhibit L: March 4, 2008 Zernik's addendum for Writ Petition
Exhibit M: March 5, 2008 Online docket of Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), LASC
5 Exhibit N: March 5, 2008 Online docket ofZemik v LA Sup Ct, Appellate docket
6 Exhibit 0: March 7, 2008 Zemik's opposition to OSC, including following exhibits:
7
Exh 1 - Notice of Countrywide fraudulent Oct 26, 2004 invalid Underwriting Letter,
8
represented in court as a valid Oct 14,2004 Underwriting Letter.
9
Exh 2 -.Notice of Countrywide fraudulent fax copy of Sept 15, 2 004 Purchase Contract
to
11
Exh 3 - Notice of Countrywide's fraudulent Samaan's Loan Applications (1003)
Exh 4 - Notice ofDocument: Countrywide in Samaan v Zernik
12
Exh 5 - NYT news item: "recreated letters" filed in court.
13
Exh 7 - Zemik's letter asking for certification of documents
14
15
16
Exh 8 - Talking points filed by Zernik in Court Feb 15, 2008
Exh 9 - Declarations of Alex Rodriguez and Jose Garcia
Exh 10 - Collection of unsigned, Denied proposed Protective Orders retrieved by Zemik
17
from Court File. No signed order was ever found, entered, or noticed.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 1-