You are on page 1of 549

Digitally signed by

Dr Z Joseph H Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph H
Joseph Zernik, PhD Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@e
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; arthlink.net, c=US
Location: La
Verne, California
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net Date: 2010.02.15
17:34:40 -08'00'
Blog: http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/ Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Free_the_Rampart_FIPs

09-09-09 SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) Dr Joseph


Zernik’s Affidavit and Appendices in opposition to settlement then
pending before the court.
On August 3, 2009, Complaint (Dkt #1) in SEC v Bank of America Corporation (1:09-cv-06829) was filed,
pursuant to cause of action of Securities Fraud – 15 USC §77. Litigation in this matter continues to this date.

Concomitantly with the filing of the complaint, the parties noticed the court of their intent to file a proposed
Consent Judgment in the case – in the sum of ~$30 millions.

The August 25, 2009 Order (Dkt #13) stated:


This Court has the obligation, within carefully prescribed
limits, to determine whether the proposed Consent Judgment settling
this case is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest.

Both parties filed papers in support of their proposed Consent Judgment.

On September 9, 2009, Dr Zernik submitted, as an affidavit letter to chambers, copied to the parties,
objection to the proposed settlement. Such affidavit was submitted following instructions from
chambers regarding the procedure permitted for such affidavit.

The September 15, 2009 Memorandum Opinion (Dkt #22) rejected the proposed settlement, then
pending, and ordered the parties to set schedules for trial in February 2010.

The core arguments in the September 9, 2009 Affidavit by Dr Zernik in opposition to the then proposed
settlement can be summed as follows:
• Conduct of Bank of America Corporation following the takeover of Countrywide Financial
Corporation demonstrated adamant refusal to comply with the law.
• Conduct of SEC and other US banking regulators in recent years demonstrated adamant refusal
to enforce the law, and cover up of the alleged and opined criminality in banking operations.
• SEC and Bank of America Corporation never arrived in court as adversarial parties, and therefore,
neither the settlement, nor an attempt to litigate the complaint were likely to be effectual.
Following records include:
1) Table of Contents - ii - iv
2) September 9, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s Transmittal Letter for the Affidavit –1
3) September 9, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s Affidavit – 2 - 25
4) September 9, 2009 Dr Joseph Zernik’s Appendices for the Affidavit – 26 – 545

i
z Page 2/4 February 15, 2010

Table of Contents

No Letter Title Page


Designation No
09-09-09 Transmittal Letter for Affidavit 1
09-09-09 Affidavit 2
1) Appendix A 09-08-27 Confer letter in re: SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) – Filing a letter 26
with the Hon Jed Rakoff in re: Settlement
2) Appendix B 09-09-02 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) – requests to replace or withdraw 32
Prof Grundfest’s Affidavit (Dkt #10)
3) Appendix C Rapid Communication 57
BEYOND VOTING MACHINES – CASE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
Public-policy concerns based on review of a court’s central computer
system
4) Appendix D 125. How do we know that 00/00/00 means voiding/disposing of minute 62
order?
5) Appendix E Rapid Communication 63
CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (CMS’S) AND THE COURTS:
LONG-TERM CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS, AND
ACUTE PROBLEMS IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT.
6) Appendix F Table I. Minute Orders, Other Orders & Notices in Paper and 90
Electronic Court Files.
7) Appendix G Fraud Expert Robert Meister’s Opinion Letters in re: (1) Record which 102
was fraudulently represented by Nivie Samaan as a September 7, 2004
Prequalification Letter by Victor Parks, (2) Record that was fraudulently
represented by Countrywide and Nivie Samaan as Uniform Residential
Loan Applications (1003) of Nivie Samaan, as issued by Loan Broker
Victor Parks.
8) Appendix H Countrywide Record : Uniform Residential Loan Application (1003) of 119
Nivie Samaan. Produced in response to legal subpoena in Samaan v
Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.
9) Appendix I Zernik’s Record: Notice of Samaan’s fraudulent loan applications, the 122
history of their underwriting by Countrywide, and fraudulent claims made
regarding such underwriting by Countrywide and by Samaan. Filed in
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at the US District Court, Los
Angeles.
10) Appendix J Countrywide Record : October 14, 2004 Underwriting Letter on Samaan’s 285
loan applications. Produced in response to legal subpoena in Samaan v
Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.
11) Appendix K October 18-20, 2004 Email Correspondence between Realtor Michael 287
Libow and Victor Parks regarding alleged fax fraud scheme by Samaan,
Parks, and Countrywide. Records produced by Realtor Michael Libow in
response to legal subpoena in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
z Page 3/4 February 15, 2010

12) Appendix L Zernik’s Record: Notice of Countrywide’s fraudulent record, which was 289
purported to be a real estate purchase contract, and was shown to be the
product of the fax scheme fraud by Samaan/ Parks, and Countrywide.
The purchase contract was produced by Countrywide in response to
subpoena in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and the Notice was filed in
Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550).
13) Appendix M Opinion Letter by Fraud Expert Robert Meister in re: Record fraudulently 318
represented by Countrywide in court as an October 14, 2004 Underwriting
Letter.
14) Appendix N Zernik’s Record: Notice of Key fraudulent Countrywide record which 339
was an October 26, 2004 invalid Underwriting Letter, and was
fraudulently represented by Countrywide and Samaan in court as a valid
October 14, 2004 Underwriting Letter.
15) Appendix O Zernik’s Record: October 18, 2007 Complaint filed with FBI Los 370
Angeles: BEYOND FINANCIAL RECKLESSNESS –
COUNTRYWIDE AND CORRUPTION OF THE COURTS IN LA.
16) Appendix P Opinion Letter by highly decorated FBI veteran, Fraud Expert James 371
Wedick, in re: Fraud in conveyance of title on Zernik’s property by
Attorney David Pasternak on behalf of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
17) Appendix Q March 25, 2008 The Daily Recorder reporting Los Angeles County 391
designated by FBI as the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and
mortgage fraud.
18) Appendix R Zernik’s Record: May 15, 2008 Complaint Filed with White Collar Crime 394
Squadron, Los Angeles FBI, regarding real estate and other financial fraud
by Countrywide, Samaan, and others, under the caption of Samaan v
Zernik (SC087400).
19) Appendix S August-September2008 Inquiries by US Congress on FBI and US 396
Department of Justice, and Responses by Kenneth Melson, Director, US
Dept of Justice and Kenneth Kaiser, Assistant Director, FBI, regarding
complaints by Zernik of racketeering by judges of the Los Angeles
Superior Court.
20) Appendix T 09-07-31 Zernik’s Meet & Confer with Atty McCormick for LA 406
Superior Court and Judge David Yaffe in re: Caption of Fine v Sheriff
(09-71692), and Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914), where Zernik alleged
the McCormick falsely appeared for Judge David Yaffe and the Los
Angeles Superior Court, while not Counsel of Record, and as such
filed fraudulent records on their behalf.
21) Appendix U 09-08-01 Zernik’s Request for investigation by Terry Nafisi, Clerk of 408
the US District Court, LA, in RE: Concerns regarding docketing,
maintenance of
Court records, and conduct of clerical staff, U.S. District Court, Los
Angeles, in Fine v Sheriff (2:09-cv-01914) and Zernik v Connor
(2:08-cv-01550).
22) Appendix V 09-08-22 Zernik’s Request for an opinion letter by fraud expert, decorated 416
FBI veteran James Wedick in Re: Fraud in the Clerks Offices of the
courts.
23) Appendix W 09-08-27 Email notice by John Amberg, Bryan Cave, LLP, who 423
falsely appeared on behalf of Countrywide and Bank of America,
while not Counsel of Record, relative to Countrywide and Bank of
z Page 4/4 February 15, 2010

America Corporation communications


24) Appendix X 09-08-29 Zernik’s Request for access to court records, to inspect and to 424
copy in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829), and related questions about Rules
of the Court at U.S. District Court, Southern District of NY
25) Appendix Y 09-08-30 Zernik’s Letter to Counsel in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) – 434
requesting copies of litigation records
and actions to prevent delays in Dr Zernik’s letter to the Hon Jed
Rakoff in re:
settlement proposal
26) Appendix Z 09-08-31 Zernik’s Cover email for response to message from Att John 438
Amberg, Bryan Cave, LLP
27) Appendix AA 09-09-02 In re: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Zernik’s demands for Clerk 439
of the Los Angeles Superior Court, John A Clarke’s compliance with the
law
28) Appendix BB 09-09-02 Zernik’s Correspondence with Atty Samuel Bezek, SEC, 444
and Prof Grundfest, Stanford University,
in re: Dr Zernik’s complaints to SEC re: CFC and/or BAC
29) Appendix CC 09-09-02 AA above repeated in error. 493
30) Appendix DD 09-09-02 Zernik’s Correspondence with General Tommy Franks, former 498
member of the Bank of America Audit Committee, in re: Integrity in
Operations of Bank of America, or lack thereof, and refusal of General
Franks to make any statement on the records regarding integrity of
operations at Bank of America Corporation.
31) Appendix EE 09-09-04 Zernik’s request to access court records of the US District 500
Court, Los Angeles, to inspect and to copy
32) Appendix FF 09-09-04 Further correspondence between Zernik and General 512
Tommy Franks, former member of the Audit Committee in re:
Integrity of Operations at Bank of America Corporation
33) Appendix GG 09-09-04 In re: Zernik v Melson et al (1:2009cv00805) – Zernik’s 522
demand for mitigation of damages by the US District Court, DC Clerk
of the Court: (1) Mark invalid court records as such, or (2) Remove a
false docket from public
view, no later than September 17, 2009
34) Appendix HH 09-09-05 Zernik’s request for individual members of U.S. Congress to 525
issue welcome statements to
international visitors/study groups/observers for Los Angeles County
California.
35) Appendix II 09-09-07 Zernik’s request for peer review by Stanford Law Faculty of 538
Affidavit of Pro Joseph Grundfest
36) Appendix JJ 09-09-08 Zernik’s demand for Clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court, 540
John A Clarke to stop alleged collusion with Countrywide and Bank of
America Corporation in the fabrication in re: A fictitious “Protective
Order” and in its use for alleged obstruction and perversion of justice.
1 / 545
2 / 545
3 / 545
4 / 545
5 / 545
6 / 545
7 / 545
8 / 545
9 / 545
10 / 545
11 / 545
12 / 545
13 / 545
14 / 545
15 / 545
16 / 545
17 / 545
18 / 545
19 / 545
20 / 545
21 / 545
22 / 545
23 / 545
24 / 545
25 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

09-08-27 Confer letter in re: SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829 ) –


Filing a letter with the Hon Jed Rakoff in re: Settlement
TO:
1) SEC (by email)
Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by Joseph O. Boryshansky
Phone:(212) 336-0113
Fax: (212) 336-1348
Email: boryshanskyj@sec.gov
Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by Maureen F. Lewis
Phone:(212)-336-0125
Fax: (212)-336-1317
Email: lewism@sec.gov
Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by David Rosenfeld
Phone:212-336-0153

2) BAC (by email)


Defendant: Bank of America Corporation represented by Shawn Joseph Chen
Phone:(202)-974-1552
Fax: (202)-974-1999
Email: schen@cgsh.com
Defendant: Bank of America Corporation represented by Lewis J. Liman
Phone:212-225-2000
Fax: 212-225-3499
Email: lliman@cgsh.com

CC:
1) FBI 1 (by fax)
Fax: 12022782478@efaxsend.com
2) US Department of Justice (US DOJ) 2 (by email)
Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

3) Basel Committee 3
4) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights 4
5) Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China in the U.S.5

1
FBI - Added to the list since allegations are stated pertaining to FBI’s cover-up of criminality at
CFC/BAC.
2
US DOJ - Added to the list since allegations are stated pertaining to DOJ’s cover-up of criminality at
CFC/BAC.
3
The Committee should be interested in being informed regarding the state of integrity, or lack
thereof, in the U.S. financial system, and enforcement, or lack thereof, by the U.S. Government – even
at a time of crisis such as we witness now.
The Committee is asked to consider sending a delegation to the U.S. including banking, human rights,
and court administration experts. There is a need for all involved inside the U.S. to hear the
perspective of an objective, friendly, outside body regarding events now taking place in the U.S.,
which are of historic proportions. In addition, conditions in the U.S. are rapidly shifting, and the
international community, needs to better understand such facts, in order to conduct its business in an
informed and effective way.
4
The comments below detail severe violations of Human Rights pursuant to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights in Los Angeles County, California, largely related to widespread corruption of the
courts. Details are provided regarding the involvement of Countrywide in corruption of the courts.
26 / 545
z Page 2/6 August 27, 2009

Please take notice:

A. Proposed schedule for exchange of comments prior to submitting letter to court.


Dr Zernik proposes the schedule listed below for exchange of comments with the
parties on his planned letter to the Court of the Honorable Judge Rakoff. The reason
Dr Zernik is soliciting such comments is that the claims made in such letter are of
high public policy significance, and he would like to ensure that the parties
mentioned had a chance to correct him, in case of errors:
1) Zernik will fax to parties his DRAFT letter to the Hon Jed Rakoff no later than
9:00am EST of business on Monday, August 31, 2009.
2) Parties will fax to Zernik (801-998-0917) comments or objections, if any, no
later than 5:00pm EST, on Friday, September 4, 2009.
3) Zernik will fax parties and the court his FINAL letter no later than 9:00am
Tuesday, September 8, 2009.
Please respond by Friday, August 28, 2009, 5:00 pm, if you would be interested in
engaging in the proposed exchange.

B. Requests were forwarded on August 25, 2009 to BAC to take action in re:
Putting an end to material violations of the law
On August 25, 2009 Requests were forwarded (attached) to Officers and
Directors, the Audit Committee, and the Independent Auditor of BAC – in re: “Doing
the right thing…” 6
The note concerned alleged criminality perpetrated against Dr Zernik by
Countrywide, which was initiated in 2004, and which continued to this date – under
BAC control - as deceitful court proceedings7 at the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Bryan Cave, LLP, a large international law-firm continued to appear at the LA
Superior Court, claiming to be counsel of record for BoA, which it was not. It also
falsely self-designated as “Non Party” for the past 2 years – while the court
interchangeably designated it “Plaintiff”, “Defendant”, “Intervenor”, “Real Party in
Interest” and other designations, with no legal foundation at all. Such alleged
criminality directly involved Angelo Mozilo – CEO and also Sandor Samuels –
5
The People’s Bank of China is standing to be the single biggest loser from the recklessness of U.S.
Financial institutions such as Countrywide, due to the size of deposits in dollar denominations.
Therefore, the People’s Republic of China has direct interest in the integrity of the U.S. banking
system, and in effective enforcement of the law. On the other hand, the People’s Republic of China is
the partner whose cooperation the U.S. government needs more than any other, in shoring the current
crisis –through adjustment of exchange rates. According to media, the Chinese government
expressed its concerns during the visit in May 2009 of Treasury Secretary Geithner, regarding banking
regulation in the U.S., its efficacy, and reliability of U.S. government data and control systems. All
parties to the case must realize that it is being watched and would be assessed as indicative of the
U.S. government resolve to assert its authority in the current financial crisis.
6
The quote is from CEO Kenneth Lewis preface to the BAC Code of Ethics posted online.
7
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
27 / 545
z Page 3/6 August 27, 2009

formerly Chief Legal Officer of Countrywide, who today serves as Associate General
Counsel of BAC. Dr Zernik himself never even had any business with Countrywide.
The August 25, 2009 Requests included the following:
1. That BAC would prohibit any further appearances by Bryan Cave, LLP, at the
LA Superior Court purporting to be Counsel of Record for BAC, since such
conduct contradicted BAC’s published Code of Ethics, and BAC’s published
Outside Counsel Procedures. The next such appearance was listed online
as scheduled for September 23, 2009. Accordingly Dr Zernik requested an
early notice by September 8, 2009, regarding BAC action in this regard.
2. That BAC would notice Dr Zernik in writing,8 who was authorized and
assigned to represent BAC in matters pertaining to Dr Zernik.
3. That BAC would have the Audit Committee review the CFC involvement in
the matter, claimed to have been material violation of the law: It directly
involved Mozilo and Samuels and the CFC Legal Department. It is alleged to
have involved the production of hundreds of pages of false banking records,
a full set of false declarations and the fabrication of loan underwriting
histories. Such efforts were all for the cause of perpetrating real estate fraud
on Dr Joseph Zernik, who had no business with CFC whatsoever.
In previous complaints filed with the BAC Audit Committee pursuant to
Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002), it was proposed that such review by focused on
review of a list of six (6) records that were repeatedly filed in court in Los
Angeles, even after the July 1, 2008 take over by BAC. Such records are
considered the core of the fraud by Countrywide/BAC against Dr Zernik.
That list is again attached to this notice.

C. The Court of the Hon Jed Rakoff permitted Dr Zernik to provide input in re: the
SEC/BAC proposed settlement agreement.
Yesterday, August 26, 2009, the court of the Hon Jed Rakoff, permitted Dr Zernik to
submit comments in re: Proposed settlement agreement in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-
06829 ), in a letter form.
Dr Zernik believes that he would be able to provide the court with substantial
insights into the history of enforcement, or lack thereof, by U.S. agencies such as
SEC, FBI, US DOJ, and other, when complaints were filed with such agencies
providing detailed evidence of criminality at Countrywide. Furthermore, such
agencies refused to provide any protection to Dr Zernik against such ongoing
criminality either.
Following the take over of Countrywide by BAC, there was no indication of an
attempt by BAC to bring its Countrywide subsidiary into compliance with the law.
Instead, patterns of alleged criminal conduct that were typical of Countrywide, are
now observed at BAC.

8
In over a year since BAC took over Countrywide, several senior staff at the office of BAC General
Counsel informed Dr Zernik that Bryan Cave, LLP was NOT authorized to appear, but BAC failed to
respond to numerous requests to provide written notice who its Counsel of Record was.
28 / 545
z Page 4/6 August 27, 2009

The Honorable Jed Rakoff expressed his concern regarding the lack of
transparency in the settlement agreement. Dr Zernik would like to focus attention on
another presumed agreement that remains entirely concealed:
BAC agreed to acquire Countrywide on January 11, 2008, in the context of markets
turmoil, after the publication of the fact that Countrywide attorneys filed in a
Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Court three (3) “recreated letters” as evidence. 9 And while
media elaborated on the financial aspects of the transaction, there was no mention
of the evident – that BAC had to be concerned about assuming criminal liabilities in
the process of acquiring Countrywide.
Already in February 2009, Dr Zernik provided his opinion to a former Commissioner
of the SEC, that in their short-sighted conduct, U.S. officials most likely made
promises or representations to senior BAC Officers that amounted to indemnity for
future criminality. The former Commissioner dismissed such notion as unreal.
However, Dr Zernik believes that the April 23, 2009 New York Attorney General
Andrew Cuomo letter to U.S. Senate provides support to such notion. Regardless
if such provisions are within or without the realm of the law, it appears that U.S.
agencies such as SEC, FBI, and US DOJ conduct their business with BAC under
such terms.
It is only under such understanding that one can rationalize the conduct of BAC in
allowing itself to be found liable of Securities Fraud on December 6, 2008 in a New
York Court. Media then expressed astonishment. It is also only under such
understanding that one can rationalize the conduct of BAC in allowing Bryan Cave,
LLP to continue its conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of activity that
included since July 1,2008 alone numerous alleged predicated acts.10
It is only under such understanding that one can rationalize the alleged fraud
perpetrated by FBI Assistant Director – Kenneth Kaiser, and US DOJ Director –
Kenneth Melson, in September 8, 2009 responses to inquiries by the
Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Senator and Honorable Diane Watson,
Congresswoman, on behalf of Dr Zernik.
Finally, It is only in the context of such understanding that one may comprehend the
proposed settlement now before the Court.
It is proposed that the existence of such confidential agreements regarding
indemnity from future criminality cannot be allowed to remain a mystery. The nature
of the relationship between the two parties cannot be defined, and the settlement
cannot be approved absent full and complete disclosure on such matters.
Needless to say, such presumed understanding may have entirely undermined
enforcement by SEC at BAC, and also provided permission to BAC to abuse the

9
It is estimated that in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), Countrywide, and separately BAC in the period
since July 1, 2008, each filed in court at least 100 fold more false records than in the case of S D Hill
(01-22574), in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Pittsburgh, PA.
10
Comments to be submitted to the Honorable Jed Rakoff will provide detailed evidence of a false
OSC Contempt filed by Bryan Cave, where the purported contempt by Dr Zernik consisted of – calling
the office of General Counsel of BAC, and obtaining evidence that Bryan Cave, LLP, and Judge Terry
Friedman were engaged in alleged perversion of justice – since Bryan Cave, LLP was not authorized
to appear in court in the first place. Such perversion must also be deemed retaliation, harassment, and
intimidation, obstruction, and it also included the production of numerous false court records.
29 / 545
z Page 5/6 August 27, 2009

civil rights of Los Angeles resident Joseph Zernik under the color of law, in collusion
with the local court.
It is in the context of such agreements that one should also read the August 21,
2008 email notice received by Dr Zernik from decorated veteran FBI agent James
Wedick, explaining the refusal of FBI to provide Dr Zernik equal protection under the
law.

D. The presumed conduct of U.S. officials relative to BAC – as seen in the Merrill
Lynch and the Countrywide mergers, should be reviewed – since it is likely to be in
violation of the law, and contrary to the public policy interests of the U.S.
The conduct of such U.S. Officials in the context of the Merrill Lynch and
Countrywide mergers with BAC must be reviewed by the courts. Such presumed
conduct would likely be found in violation of the law. Moreover, it would undermine
the rule of law.
Moreover, the combination of the waiver on deposits at BAC, combined with such
presumed understanding that resulted in conduct by BAC that is likely to be found
as amounting to criminality, generated intolerable risk to the U.S. financial systems.
The spectacle of the largest U.S. banking institution found twice in the course of one
year as participating in Securities Fraud, which is believed to stem from such
understanding, is not likely to instill confidence in U.S. financial markets among
investors at home or abroad.

E, Background
SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829 ) the August 3, 2009 Complaint was filed under
Cause of action 15 USC §77 Securities Fraud. According the WSJ August 11,
2009, Bank of America agreed to pay the sum of $33 m to settle charges that it
failed to disclose that Merrill Lynch & Co. had agreed to pay up to $5.8 billion in
bonuses just before its merger with Bank of America. As part of the settlement,
Bank of America didn't admit or deny wrongdoing.
"I would be less than candid if I didn't express my continued misgivings about
this settlement at this stage," said Rakoff, according to the Journal.
Rakoff said the agreement lacked transparency, and "would leave uncertain the
truth of the very serious allegations made" by the SEC. Rakoff also wanted to find
out whether the settlement funds would come from money lent to the bank by the
government, added the paper.
In the August 25, 2009 Order Judge Rakoff stated:
This Court has the obligation, within carefully prescribed
limits, to determine whether the proposed Consent Judgment settling
this case is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest. To
that end, the Court heard argument on August 10, 2009 and, having
insufficient information to make an informed assessment, directed the
parties to make initial written submissions on August 24, 2009
responding to certain areas of the Court's concern, to be followed by
further written submissions on September 9, 2009.
30 / 545
z Page 6/6 August 27, 2009

E. Concerns regarding additional, ongoing, Securities Fraud that should be


considered at the time of settlement or sentencing
In his letter to the Honorable Jed Rakoff, Dr Zernik will point out that his first notice to
CEO Lewis and CFO Price of the alleged criminality by Countrywide, was in
February 4, 2008 certified notices, where Dr Zernik requested that they look into
the matter as part of their due diligence. A February 12, 2008 letter from the office
of CEO Lewis provides indisputable confirmation of that notice. Numerous other
notices followed. And yet, both CEO Lewis and CFO Price repeatedly signed
Certificates pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) in periodic reports to SEC, which
entirely ignored the fact that they themselves were involved in permitting at that time
the continued alleged racketeering in the Los Angeles Court.

Joseph Zernik
Los Angeles, California

31 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net; PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750

09-09-02 SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829) – requests to replace or withdraw Prof Grundfest’s


Affidavit (Dkt #10)

Executive Summary
The collapse of Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC) in January 2008, signaled a turning point in
the current financial crisis. It allowed the public world-wide first clue to allow any estimate of the
scope of the escalating financial disaster. On the other hand, it demonstrated the failure of U.S.
banking regulation, and also involved actions by senior Bush administration officials to usher, some
say to coerce, the merger of CFC with Bank of America Corporation (BAC). Similar events recurred
in the collapse of Merrill Lynch, which led to an April 2008 letter by NY Attorney General Andrew
Cuomo. 1 In response to that letter – some media called for criminal indictment of senior U.S. and
BAC Officers, including FRB Chair Henry Ben Bernanke, and BAC Chair Kenneth Lewis. Evidence
from various court actions and a year long study by the U.S. Trustee, documented conditions at CFC
in the years preceding its collapse, which included non-functional external and internal audit structure,
headed by Chair Mozilo, underwriting department that disregarded the law, large data processing
systems that were crippled, and a Legal Department, headed by Chief Legal Officer Samuels, which
was routinely engaged in undermining the integrity of court actions across the U.S.2 , 3 Disregarding
such mounting evidence of alleged racketeering at CFC, involving its most senior officers, including
those holding direct reporting duties to SEC, law enforcement and banking regulators, routinely
refused to investigate complaints. Given the nature of operations at CFC, the insistence of senior U.S.
officers on merging it into BAC, instead of letting it be liquidated, with no indication of any attempt at
enforcement before or after the merger, remains inexplicable, or worse. Concerns regarding
ineffective banking regulation in the U.S., which poses risks to financial markets at home and abroad,
were repeatedly raised, e.g. during the recent visit by U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner to Beijing.
In proceedings of SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829), filed on August 3, 2009 at the U.S. District Court,
NY, SEC appeared to engage in enforcement action against BAC. The parties came before the Court
for approval of a proposed settlement. To assist the Court in reviewing whether the proposed
settlement was “fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest”, Prof Joseph Grundfest,
Stanford Law School, former Commissioner of SEC, produced an Affidavit (Dkt #10), filed by BAC
August 24, 2009. The affidavit supported approval of the settlement. Dr Joseph Zernik, a Los
Angeles County, California resident, asked and received Court permission to provide his input as well.
Dr Zernik filed complaints with FBI, SEC, Thrift Supervision, and Federal Trade Commission,
starting January 2007, providing credible documenting of alleged large scale fraud by CFC against
U.S. Government, which in early 2007 he estimated at hundreds of billions, and which involved CFC
officers holding direct reporting duties. He filed further complaints with the Audit Committee of BAC
after the merger, regarding alleged violations of the law that involved Mr Kenneth Lewis, Mr Joe
Price, and Mr Timothy Mayopoulos – all holders of direct reporting duties. Furthermore, in February

1
April 23, 2008 letter of NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to U.S. Senate
http://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-text-of-cuomo-letter-on-merrill-lynch-takeover-marketwatch.pdf
2
1) Borrower Sharon D Hill ( ), U.S. Court, Pittsburgh, PA, and related actions by U.S. Trustee.
2) Borrower William A Parsley () U.S. Court, Houston TX, Memorandum Opinion of the Honorable
Jeff Bohm (Dkt #248), and related year-long study by U.S. Trustee.
3) Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) LA Superior Court
4) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) U.S. District Court LA, CA
5) Zernik v U.S. Dist Court ((08-72714) U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
6) Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) U.S. District Court, Washington, DC
3
Many of the court records in (2), above, were copied under index in:
http://inproperinla.com/
32 / 545
z Page 2/18 September 2, 2009

2009 Dr Zernik and Prof Grundfest engaged in discussion of the refusal of SEC to engage in
enforcement in re: BAC and its subsidiary CFC, and records were forwarded to Prof Grundfest, as
credible evidence of material violations by officers holding reporting duties. Prof Grundfest later
stated that he forwarded the records to the Head of Enforcement at SEC. SEC again refused to
investigate complaints against CFC and BAC. 4
Dr Zernik forwarded instant letter to Prof Grundfest, BAC, and SEC, requesting that the Affidavit
(Dkt #10) either be rewritten or entirely withdrawn. Dr Zernik stated that the Affidavit in its current
form, in the docket as it appear online in Pacer, 5, 6 is false and deliberately misleading in itself, and
also provides legitimacy to proceedings which so far fail to demonstrate the essential elements of a
valid, effectual U.S. Court Action. Such Affidavit lends support to one in chain of events where
certain senior U.S. officers and some members of the U.S. and California judiciary, with CFC
and BAC officers, conduct U.S. banking in a manner that is contrary to public policy interest -
recklessly setting up the grounds for a new, bigger financial calamity, which may leave the U.S.
entirely crippled.
This letter was also forwarded as requests to:
1) Stanford Faculty – to assess the academic integrity of Prof Grundfest’s Affidavit, and its
potential harm to U.S. financial markets and law enforcement.
2) General Tommy Frank, and Admiral Joseph Frueher – to issue “Farewell Addresses” to the
public at large, in relationship with their departure from the Audit Committee of BAC.
3) Basel Committee and U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights – to send a delegation,
including banking regulators, Human Rights experts, and court administrators, to observe
conduct of U.S. and State agencies in the current financial crisis. It is proposed that such
observation start in Los Angeles County, defined by FBI as “the epicenter of the epidemic”.

DISCLAIMER:
1. I am forwarding this writing in its current state, to allow parties and Prof Grundfest
sufficient time to decide on response. Albeit, I deem this writing only as a DRAFT,
and never had sufficient time to review it with the necessary care.
2. Any opinions expressed in this writing that are of legal nature, are the opinion of a
layperson only, with no formal legal education at all.
3. To indicate the INCOMPLETE state of instant record, and the fact that it was NOT
intended to be relied upon, I left it unsigned on its last page.
4. I added a digital certificate at the top, only to indicate that no changes were allowed
without authorization.

August 30, 2009

1) Counsel for SEC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)


4
February 2009 - Correspondence Zernik-Grundfest-Bezek:
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-compiled-corresopndence-grundfest-bezek-2009-s.pdf
5
date Letter to the Clerk, U.S. District Court, NYC, requesting access to records:
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-31-cover-emai+-zernik-requests-explanation-from-bryan-cave-llp-s.pdf
6
date Letter to SEC, BAC, requesting records and actions in re: Docket of SEC v BAC.

33 / 545
z Page 3/18 September 2, 2009

Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by Joseph O. Boryshansky


Phone:(212) 336-0113
Fax: 12123361348@efaxsend.com
Email: boryshanskyj@sec.gov
Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by Maureen F. Lewis
Phone:(212)-336-0125
Fax: 12123361317@efaxsend.com
Email: lewism@sec.gov
Plaintiff: Securities and Exchange Commission represented by David Rosenfeld
Phone:212-336-0153
(by email and by fax)

2) Counsel for BAC in SEC v BAC (1:09-cv-06829)


Defendant: Bank of America Corporation represented by Shawn Joseph Chen
Phone:(202)-974-1552
Fax: 12029741999@efaxsend.com
Email: schen@cgsh.com
Defendant: Bank of America Corporation represented by Lewis J. Liman
Phone:212-225-2000
Fax: 12122253499@efaxsend.com
Email: lliman@cgsh.com
(by email and by fax)

3) Prof Joseph Grundfest


Stanford Law School
grundfest@stanford.edu
(by email)

Timely response requested by Friday, September 4, 2009, 5:00 pm

Attorneys for SEC & BAC, and Prof Grundfest:7


I write to request that you let me know as soon as possible, but no later than
Friday, September 4, 2009, 5:00 pm, what your intent would be in regards to
requests in this letter. I would like to be able to complete my letter over the
Labor Day weekend, possibly still be able to forward to you drafts and get some
comments, and submit it to Court by Sept 9, 2009.
A. General:
1. The scholarship and professional experience of Prof Joseph Grundfest were
fully appreciated and recognized, not only from the writing in instant action,
but also from my personal acquaintance and discussion of related matters
with Prof Grundfest beforehand.
No objections were raised as to the opinion per se, provided by Prof Joseph
Grundfest (Dkt #10), neither was Dr Zernik qualified to challenge Prof
Grundfest’s opinion and scholarship on the specific technical issues of
settlement dynamics, motivations, and decision-making processes by parties
to settlements.
2. Prof Grundfest neglected to define the question he was addressing in his
affidavit opinion, or for that matter, to clearly state who posed such question
7
Recipients of the letters on paper, can find an online copy at index : http://inproperinla.com/
where correspondence in chronologically archived. The online copy makes referral to footnotes links
much easier.
34 / 545
z Page 4/18 September 2, 2009

to him. Regardless, as a Stanford Law Professor, and as a Former


Commissioner of SEC, we must assume that he was readily familiar with
review standards applicable to such settlements, which were stated by the
Honorable Jed Rakoff – to establish whether the proposed settlement was
“fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the public interest”.
3. Therefore, Prof Grundfest’s affidavit is seen as inordinately narrow in it
construction, focusing on theoretical questions related to settlement
dynamics, while on the other hand claiming to have reviewed publicly
available records related to SEC enforcement in re: BAC.
4. I have first hand knowledge, based on my discussions with Prof Grundfest in
February 2009, that he was fully aware of a large volume of credible
evidence, derived from various court actions, 8 indicating material violations
of the law by officers of CFC and later BAC, holding direct reporting duties.
Some of the violations, particularly in the Legal Department of CFC, should
be deemed racketeering per RICO 18 USC §1961-8 upon review by court.
5. Prof Grundfest was fully aware of multiple complaints filed with SEC, which
SEC inexplicably failed to respond to at all.
6. Prof Grundfest was fully aware of repeat conduct in various California and
U.S. courts, where CFC, BAC, SEC, or FBI were named Defendants or Real
Parties in Interest, which fell outside the realm of normative court
proceedings.
7. Prof Grundfest was fully aware of my claims that following collusion with
certain members of the judiciary in alleged criminalities, CFC was effectively
vested in immunities, of “indemnities for future criminalities”, and that
following the merger, BAC started engaging in such alleged collusion as well,
and therefore, gained the same status. Prof Grundfest at the time
considered such interpretation as contrary to the law, and therefore unlikely.
However, the letter of NY Att General Andrew Cuomo two months later, fully
supported such interpretation of current events.
8. In view of the ongoing crisis, Prof Grundfest’s affidavit was construed on a
basis that was too narrow failing to educate the Court regarding the context
in which the proposed settlement emerged – evidence of non-compliance by
BAC, and deliberate refusal by SEC to engage in effective enforcement.
9. Prof Grundfest made the following representation in his affidavit (p3, ¶4):
“… significant public policy concerns [were] raised by this Court in
connection with its review of the pending settlement in this
proceeding…”.
The essence of my request was that Prof Grundfest clearly defined the intent
of his affidavit, so that his opinion address the significant public policy
concerns inherent in current matter.
10. Prof Grundfest also made the following representation (p19, ¶44):
“…Bank of America is a highly regulated entity.”

8
February 2009 – correspondence Zernik-Grundfest-Bezek:
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-compiled-corresopndence-grundfest-bezek-2009-s.pdf
35 / 545
z Page 5/18 September 2, 2009

Such statement appeared of questionable validity. Prof Grundfest should


educate the Court regarding the foundation of such statement – including the
regulations, compliance - or lack thereof, and enforcement - or lack thereof.
5. Recent events in LA County, California, were of historic proportions,
including, but not limited to:
a. The ongoing false confinement of the estimated 10,000, Rampart-
FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons) 9 a full decade after they were
confirmed to be falsely convicted and falsely sentenced. They
were almost exclusively Black and Latinos – the case dwarfs
Guantanamo Bay by comparison.
b. The unprecedented alleged widespread corruption of government
and business in Los Angeles California, which was tolerated and
patronized by FBI and USDOJ for at least two decades.10
c. The losses to the U.S. treasury related to the collapse of LA –
based Countrywide Financial Corporation (CFC).
d. The alleged criminality at CFC, which was most noticed at the
conduct of the Legal Department and litigation practices of CFC.11
e. The close working relationships between CFC and the judiciary in
LA County in perpetrating alleged criminalities. 12
f. The frequent of alleged real-estate frauds by the LA Superior
Court, in a county which was defined by FBI as the “epicenter of
the epidemic”.
g. The central role of computerized case management systems, such
as “Sustain”, in enabling alleged criminality at the LA Superior
Court. Installation of such system was accompanied by: (1)
Elimination of public access to public records that were - the
Registers of Actions (California equivalents of dockets), the Book
of Judgments/Electronic Index of Judgments, and Calendars of the
Courts; 13 (2) Development of a “Local Custom” of “Waiving” the

9
of thousands of Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons), a full decade after investigations
demonstrated that they were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-
imprisonments-s.pdf
10
August-September 2008 Correspondence between U.S. Congress and FBI, USDOJ, related to my
request that a Special Counsel be appointed, pursuant to 28 CFR §600, under a short-term, limited
mandate – to establish public access to the electronic (computerized) public records of the
courts in LA, to inspect and to copy, pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications (1978). In
parallel, I suggested that “Truth & Reconciliation Commissions” be established.
http://inproperinla.com/08-09-08-congresswoman-watson-senator-feinstein-inquiries-resposes-kaiser-
fbi-melson-usdoj.pdf
11
In that respect, Sandor Samuels, Chief Legal Officer of CFC was the “top figure”, and the fact that
he was not forced to retire, and instead was informed to be Associate General Counsel of BAC, must
be one of the most worrisome details in U.S. government sponsored merger of CFC and BAC.
12
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the LA Superior Court; Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) at
the U.S. District Court, LA.
13
Correspondence with Counsel of the LA Superior Court, and denial of access to court records:
36 / 545
z Page 6/18 September 2, 2009

due process right for notice and service of court orders. With that –
the LA Justice system regressed to earlier time in history, with
frequent summons, judgments, statute of frauds frauds - all of
medieval infamy.
h. The secret payments taken by all ~450 judges of the LA Superior
Court for over a decade, which were ruled in October 2008 14 as
“not permitted”, and were labeled by media “Bribes”.
i. The alleged fraud by the LA Superior Court, that was publicly
represented as an effectual court action –in Sturgeon v LA County
(BC351286), at the LA Superior Court, where the legality of such
payments was reviewed.15
j. Retaliation against attorney Richard Fine, 70 yo, former U.S.
Prosecutor, civil rights activist, who was instrumental and vocal in
denouncing the “not permitted” payments, and alleged collusion in
criminalities by the LA Superior Court and the LA County Sheriff
Department, that allowed Attorney Fine’s ongoing jailing, with no
effectual judgment as its legal foundation, under strange and
unusual conditions.16, 17

14
California Court of Appeals, 4th District ruling that payments secretly taken by ALL LA Superior
Court judges, were “not permitted”.
http://inproperinla.com/08-10-10-cal-ct-app-4th-dist-la-county-judges-payments-not-permitted.pdf
15
The alleged frauds in representation of sturgeon v LA County, were detailed in August 12, 2009 ex
parte application for a leave to file, and motion for Mistrial, filed under such caption, and copied under
Index of http://inproperinla.com/
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-ex-parte-application-orders-for-access-leave-to-file.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-i.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part1.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part2.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part3.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4a.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4ai.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4aii.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part4b.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part5.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part6a.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part6b.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part7.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part8a.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-12-motions-vol-ii-part8b.pdf
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-17-denial-zernik-exparte-leave-to-file.PDF
• 00-00-00-la-sup-ct-sturgeon-v-la-county-09-08-24-requests-elated-to-august-17-2009-minute-order-s.pdf
16
August 23, 2009 Letter to veteran FBI agent, fraud expert James Wedick, requesting opinion on
alleged fraud in March 4, 2009 Judgment for jailing of Att Richard Fine, which was stamped FILED
with the date of March 4, 2009 by the LA Superior Court, was part of habeas corpus petition stamped
March 19 or 20, 2009 (tampered with), and bears certification by Judge Yaffe, which is dated March
24, 2009.
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-23-request-wedick-opinion-letter-on-fraud-in-judment-record-att-fine-
draft-s.pdf
37 / 545
z Page 7/18 September 2, 2009

k. The commonality of sham court actions in both U.S. and state


courts across the U.S. - where counsel, and often judges as well,
know that the proceedings failed to amount to valid, effectual court
action, and yet continue the show as if it were true litigation.18
l. The strange conduct of certain U.S. officers, who in the face of the
collapse of institution(s) that were allegedly engaged in various
criminalities, insisted on securing continuity of such alleged
criminalities by coercing their mergers into BAC, and the
subsequent changes in the conduct of BAC.

6. One key feature that was common as enabling alleged criminalities both in
banking institutions and in courts, was the alleged fraudulent use of large
computer systems. Prof Grundfest was not interested or considered himself
unqualified to review the data on such issue, but it was probably the single
most important finding in Dr Zernik’s records, involving EDGE – the
underwriting monitoring system at CFC, SUSTAIN - the case management
system at the LA Superior Court, and the duality of PACER vs CM/ECF in
the U.S. Courts.
7. Regarding PACER and CM/ECF: The U.S. Courts recently completed a
major project of dual (or triple if paper dockets are counted) dockets,
separate and unequal, where the court could segregate the parties at will.
The single most important difference between the systems was that in Pacer,
all digital signatures were deliberately stripped, and therefore, none of the
records was authenticated. 19 There was no reason that could be even
remotely related to the furtherance of justice that could justify such the
construction of such dual docketing systems at the courts. In parallel – U.S.
Courts seem to refuse to recognize Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc, as
part of the law of the land.20, 21, 22
8. I am the first to admit that I was unqualified for handling any of this.
However it became evident to me a while ago, that this was probably a
17
July 31, 2009 Letter of meet and confer to attorneys of LA Superior Court and LA County Sheriff
Department, in re: Marina v LA County (BS109420) and the false judgment for jailing of Att Richard
Fine:
http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-meet-and-confer-la-sheriff-department-fontana-s.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/09-07-31-meet-and-confer-la-sup-ct-yaffe-mccormick-s.pdf
18
August 1, 2009 Request for investigation by Clerk of the U.S. Court, Los Angeles, of alleged
tampering with court records, and fraud in the conduct of litigation under Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-
cv-01550), and Fine v Sheriff of LA County (2: )
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-01-us-dist-ct-la-nafisi-reques-for-investigation-s.pdf
19
Example of NEF as it appears in CM/ECF, as authentication of court records through digital
signatures, such NEFs and also any digital signatures in the docketing sheet were eliminated from
Pacer:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-a-nef-w-digital-sig-louisiana.pdf
20
Letter to Clerk of the U.S. Court, NY, following denial of access to court records:
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-29-zernik-request-to-ny-clerk-access-to-instpect-and-to…-s.pdf
21
Correspondence with office of the Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles, and denial of
access to court records:
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-19-denial-of-accessto-court-records-at-us-district-court-s.pdf
22
Request filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, for access to court records:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-app-ct-9th-zernik-v-connor_09-07-28-req-nefs-s.pdf
38 / 545
z Page 8/18 September 2, 2009

“karmic” event in my life, and that I fell into this trap, allegedly set up by
Judge Jacqueline Connor, the Legal Department of CFC and others for a
purpose – to document it, and to use my unusual mix of eclectic skills to
expose certain parts of it, which nobody else would.
A. Specifics:
11. Matters of Form:
a) The paper was adequately faced by Prof Grundfest. However, the
manner in which the paper was filed in court by BAC was inadequate.
The record as it appeared in the docket failed to clearly indicate on its
face who its filer was - Counsel for Defendant BAC.
b) Similarly, it was not readily apparent from the writing itself whether or
not it was solicited by Defendant BAC, by SEC, or by both, and the
exact nature of the solicitation, if any, was not disclosed.
The Affidavit (Dkt #10) stated in one place (p3 ¶4):
Bank of America Corporation (“Defendant” or “Bank of
America”) has agreed to reimburse expenses, if any,
incurred in conjunction with my participation in this
proceeding.
The same paragraph (p3 ¶4) started by stating:
Because of the significant public policy concerns raised by this Court in
connection with its review of the pending settlement in this proceeding,
and because of the implication of those concerns for the Commission’s
and respondents’ ability to settle disputes over alleged violations of
federal securities law, I am providing my services in this matter on a pro
bono basis.
9. The specific Intent of the Affidavit of Joseph A Grundfest was never defined,
and more importantly - who defined such Intent: Prof Grundfest, or Counsel
for BAC/SEC or both.
From the qualification section, one could conclude that Prof Grundfest relied
on the totality of his scholarship and experiences in law, business and
government, and provided a comprehensive opinion regarding the Court’s
quest, within the defined limits –
“…within carefully prescribed limits, to determine whether the
proposed Consent Judgment settling this case is fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the public interest.”

Prof Grundfest, in the Affidavit stated (p3, ¶4):


The National Law Journal listed me as among the 100 most
influential attorneys in the United States in 1997, 2000 and 2006,
and Directorship Magazine has listed me as among the 100 most
influential leaders in the field of corporate governance for the
last two years.

And further in the Affidavit he stated (p2, ¶2):

39 / 545
z Page 9/18 September 2, 2009

I have personal knowledge of the procedures involved in settling


SEC enforcement actions. As a Commissioner, I participated in
the review and approval of hundreds of settled administrative
and injunctive enforcement proceedings.
Prof Grundfest was no doubt uniquely qualified to provide the court with
opinion on the issues at hand.
10. The “Summary Opinion” provided overview of the procedures and dynamics
of settlements between SEC and corporations under its regulatory
jurisdiction. In addition, it provided a statement that indicated that Prof
Grundfest researched publicly available information pertaining to
enforcement by SEC in re: BAC.
Prof Grundfest, in the Affidavit stated (p3,¶6):

Publicly available information, including filings with the


Commission, establishes that there is substantial risk to the
Commission that it would not prevail if this matter were
litigated to judgment because a court or a fact-finder could
readily conclude that Bank of America did not violate the federal
securities laws. More precisely, as explained in Part IV,
Defendant has a powerful claim that it engaged in no
misrepresentation or omission. Defendant has a further powerful
claim that any misrepresentation or omission, even if one was
found to exist, was immaterial and hence not actionable.
11. Such affidavit would have perfectly fitted the bill under normal
circumstances, where the Settlement was reached as part of standard
business practices of SEC, and where BAC was “highly regulated” (see
below). However, such were not at all the circumstances in the case at
hand.
12. Some of the fundamental questions that were not addressed at all, but
should not be ignored in such case:
a. Did Plaintiff and Defendant, separately and together, convey an intent to
fulfill their legal obligations relative to regulations of the SEC and their
enforcement?
b. Did they come with clean hands?
c. Was the SEC regulatory system considered as functional at all at this time?
d. Were there any reasons to believe that the court action by SEC, as well as
the Proposed Settlement did not represent good faith enforcement actions,
but instead were merely a show piece?
The litigation addressed the issue of bonuses, which surely was a public
pleaser and a headline grabber, but the evidence as a whole indicated that
SEC routinely failed and refused to enforce the fundamentals of the law at
CFC, and now at BAC.
e. Was instant litigation in and of itself a valid effectual litigation?
Dr Zernik identified sham court actions as a frequent occurrence in U.S. and
State Courts. Prof Grundfest, was uniquely qualified to assess such
questions as well. Even with limited access to court records, Dr Zernik
40 / 545
z Page 10/18 September 2, 2009

claimed that at present, the proceedings in the court under caption SEC v
BAC (1:09-cv-06829) were not deemed part of an effectual legal action.
13. The same agencies and the same U.S. officers have already run a U.S.
financial institution outside the realm of the law once before – at CFC, with
well-documented results. The U.S. officers and agencies which by now set
the grounds for a repeat of such circumstances at BAC were likely to cause
colossal harm to the U.S.
14. Prof Grundfest stated (p19, ¶44):
“First, Bank of America is a highly regulated entity.”
Assessment of that statement had to be an important part of the opinion, but
was missing in the current affidavit. It was also where the current opinion
was deficient, due to its deliberately narrow approach.
Furthermore, the proposed Settlement itself, was inseparable from the
current financial crisis, since it pertained to circumstances that would not
have come into being unless for the current crisis.
A. Prof Grundfest and Dr Zernik discussed the matters in February 2009 23
15. Around February 2009, Dr Zernik discussed with Prof Grundfest credible
evidence regarding material violations of the law at CFC prior t July 1, 2008,
by officers holding direct reporting duties, and refusal of SEC to enforce the
law. Such officers included first and foremost SANDOR SAMUELS – then-
CFC Chief Legal Officer, now- associate General Counsel of BAC, and
ANGELO MOZILO- CEO President of CFC. 24

23
February 2009 – Correspondence Zernik-Grundfest-Bezek
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-compiled-corresopndence-grundfest-bezek-2009-s.pdf
24
Such allegations, evidence, including copies of complaints filed with the Audit Committee of BAC can be viewed
as documents (Dkt #256-260) in the case of Borrower Parsley (05-90374) in U.S. Bankruptcy court in Houston,
TX, and are copied also under index at: http://inproperinla.com/
As documents with individual links under:
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-02-doc-256-0-NOTICE #1.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-02-doc-256-1-NOTICE #1.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-02-doc-256-2-NOTICE #1.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-02-doc-256-notice1.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-15-doc-257-0-NOTICE #2.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-15-doc-257-1-NOTICE #2.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-15-doc-257-2-NOTICE #2.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-04-15-doc-257-notice2.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-258-notice#3.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-259-1-notice#3-exh-a-1.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-259-2-notice#3-exh-a-2.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-259-3-notice#3-exh-a-3.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-259-4-notice#3-exh-a-4.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-259-5-notice#3-exh-a-5.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-259-6-notice#3-exh-a-6.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-00-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-01-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-02-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-03-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-04-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-05-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-06-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
41 / 545
z Page 11/18 September 2, 2009

16. Around February 2009, Dr Zernik discussed with Prof Grundfest credible
evidence regarding material violations of the law at BAC after July 1, 2008,
by officers holding direct reporting duties, and refusal of SEC to enforce the
law. Such officers included KENNETH LEWIS – CEO/President, JOE PRICE
- CFO, and TIMOTHY MAYOPOULOS – former General Counsel. 25
A. Examples of alleged violations of the law that were the basis for complaints
that CFC and BAC would not respond to, and SEC would not investigate.
17. EXAMPLE NO 1: Alleged obstruction & perversion of justice, retaliation,
harassment, and intimidation of a witness, informant, and victim, and various
other alleged criminalities through false engagement of outside counsel –
Bryan Cave. 26
On Friday, August 28, 2009, at a time that Dr Zernik was communicating with
attorneys for SEC and BAC regarding instant matter, Dr Zernik received the
following email, unsolicited, from Att John Amberg, of the large international
law firm of Bryan Cave, LLP: 27
At 04:50 PM 8/28/2009, you wrote:
Dr. Zernik,
Please direct all of your communications for Bank of America or Countrywide to me
or Jenna Moldawsky of this law firm, rather than to employees. We are not
authorized to accept service.
John Amberg
John W. Amberg
Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 576-2280
18. On August 30, 2008, Dr Zernik responded with a detailed message to Mr
Amberg, 28 and also to the law-firm headquarters in St Louis, MO, asking the

• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-07-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-08-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-09-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-10-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-11-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-12-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-13-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-14-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-15-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-16-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-17-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-18-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-19-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-20-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-21-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-22-notice#3-exh-b.pdf
• 00-00-00-us-dist-ct-tx-parsley-09-05-08-doc-260-23-notice#3-exh-b.pdf

25
Same as #1 above.
26
August 31, 2009 – Request for clarifications by Bryan Cave, LLP.
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-31-cover-emai+-zernik-requests-explanation-from-bryan-cave-llp-s.pdf
27
August 28, 2009 email message from Att Amberg:
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-28-email-notice-from-amberg-bryan-cave-re-countrywide-bac-s.pdf
28
http://inproperinla.com/09-08-31-cover-emai+-zernik-requests-explanation-from-bryan-cave-llp-s.pdf
42 / 545
z Page 12/18 September 2, 2009

firm to stop conduct that it had engaged in since July 2007. For all practical
purposes it was a repeat of the dishonest conduct by CFC relative to
employment of outside counsel, which was rebuked in the Texas court in
March 2008, 29 and which CFC promised not to repeat. The dishonest
conduct by Bryan Cave, LLP, was procured by CFC only days after Dr Zernik
sent several communications to Sandor Samuels and Angelo Mozilo,
regarding alleged criminalities that were perpetrated by the Legal
Department, under the guidance of Sandor Samuels. 30, 31 With that, Dr
Zernik established the direct involvement of such senior officers who held
direct reporting duty to SEC, and plausible deniability was lost.
19. Direct involvement of Sandor Samuels in alleged criminalities was further
established in January 2008, when he filed Notice of Interested Person in
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the LA Superior Court. 32
20. The essence of the scheme, as Dr Zernik understood it limited access to
records was and is as follows:
a. Bryan Cave was procured in a roundabout way, and NOT as
counsel of record. Its mission was to engage in obstruction and
perversion of justice – the kind of conduct that is explicitly listed as
prohibited by the BAC Outside Counsel Procedures, 33 and BAC
Code of Ethics 34– “doing the right thing…”
b. Most likely, procurement of Bryan Cave, LLP services also
included, as was the case in Texas, 35 a “no communications
clause”, which prohibited it from ever communicating with CFC or
BAC.
c. Under such terms, Bryan Cave, LLP, then started appearing in
court, purporting to be authorized by CFC, and later, by BAC.
d. When Dr Zernik called the Legal Department of BAC after the July
1, 2008 merger, he was repeatedly informed by senior staff of the
BAC Legal Department that Bryan Cave, LLP, was NOT
authorized to appear on BAC’s behalf in court, or represent them
in any matter pertaining to Dr Zernik.

29
March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion by the Honorable Jeff Bohm:
http://inproperinla.com/08-03-05-coutnrywide-hon-jeff-bohm-us-judge-decision-rebuke-s.pdf
30
June 25, 2007 Letter to Angelo Mozilo
http://inproperinla.com/07-06-25-countrywide-first-email-mozilo-samuels-s.pdf
31
June 22, 2007 Letter to Sandor Samuels
http://inproperinla.com/07-06-22-letter-hand-delivered-to-bet-tzedek-for-samuels-s.pdf
32
January 11, 2008 Notice of Interested Person by Sandor Samuels, then Chief Legal Officer of CFC:
http://inproperinla.com/08-01-11-samuels-notice-of-intersted-party-s.pdf
33
Outside Counsel Procedures of BAC:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-08-12-11-boa-outside-counsel-procedures-s.pdf
34
BAC Code of Ethics:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-00_09-08-22-bac_code-of-ethics-cover-text-a.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-00_09-01-02-revised-bac-code-of-ethics-s.pdf
35
March 5, 2008 Memorandum Opinion by the Honorable Jeff Bohm:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-countrywide-08-03-05-case-of-borrower-parsley-outside-counsel-
scheme-hon-jeff-bohm-us-judge-decision-rebuke--s.pdf
43 / 545
z Page 13/18 September 2, 2009

e. However, BAC never made any effort to stop such appearances,


even after multiple notices to officers of BAC, such as Lewis, Price,
Mayopoulos, and the Audit Committee.
f. Given that Bryan Cave, LLP, was NOT counsel of record, Mr
Samuels, Mr Mozilo, Mr Lewis, Mr Mayopoulos, Mr Price, and the
Audit Committee, probably decided that there was no reporting
requirement pursuant to Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) regarding any
of the actions of Bryan Cave, LLP in violation of the law.
g. Bryan Cave, LLP, listed CFC, and BAC as “Non-Party”, in
appearances for over 2 years at the LA Superior Court. The Court
designated CFC and BAC interchangeably as “Plaintiff”,
“Defendant”, “Real Party in Interest”, “Intervenor”, and more, all
with no legal foundation. Such conduct of court proceedings in
and of itself is alleged as evidence of various criminalities.
h. Given their self-designation as “Non-Party”, CFC, and later BAC -
with the import of Sandor Samuels as Associate General Counsel,
probably determined that there was no reporting requirement
regarding such court action as litigation either.
i. Bryan Cave, LLP, was left free to engage in alleged obstruction
and perversion of justice, as long as it was not directly traceable to
Mr Sandor Samuels and Mr Angelo Mozilo.
21. Superimposed on this basic generic CFC scheme, was a secondary scheme
related to a fictitious “Protective Order” in the case of Dr Zernik:
a. Bryan Cave claimed that Dr Zernik was subject to an effectual
Protective Order from 2007 by Judge Jacqueline Connor.36
b. Such purported Protective Order was falsely claimed to prohibit Dr
Zernik from communicating with anybody except Bryan Cave, LLP,
regarding CFC, and BAC.
c. In the two year that Bryan Cave, LLP and CFC repeatedly made
such false claims in court, Bryan Cave, LLP, never produced such
mysterious Protective Order that directed all communications to
Bryan Cave, LLP.
d. Moreover, the prohibition on communications with BAC, was a ex
post facto construction by Bryan Cave, LLP and Judge Terry
Friedman, based on the argument that BAC was an affiliate of
36
Judge Jacqueline Connor was best remembered for derailing the First Rampart Trial (2000). Dr
Zernik claimed that investigation of his allegations regarding conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) carried particular public policy significance, because it documented in
great detail alleged racketeering by Judge Connor. Judge Connor’s conduct in the First Rampart Trial
could be claimed as the direct cause for the continued false confinement in Los Angeles of thousands
of Rampart-FIPs (falsely imprisoned persons), a full decade after investigations demonstrated that
they were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced. Therefore, clarifying the nature of Judge Connor
conduct would facilitate resolution in the case of the Rampar-FIPs.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-01-chemerinsky-57_guild_prac_121_2000.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-report.pdf
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-05-01-pbs-frontline_rampart-false-
imprisonments-s.pdf
44 / 545
z Page 14/18 September 2, 2009

CFC, and that therefore, the provisions of the non-existent


Protective Order from 2007, applied to BAC, following the
acquisition of CFC by BAC in July 2008.
e. Based on the two schemes described above, Bryan Cave, LLP,
engaged in various acts of obstruction, perversion, intimidation,
harassment, and retaliation against Dr Zernik in the past 2 years,
including, but not limited to two void, not voidable, judgments by
Judge Terry Friedman for Contempt, a quasi-criminal record.
f. The second of the two contempt charges stemmed from Dr
Zernik’s conduct that consisted of calling the office of BAC General
Counsel, and establishing repeatedly that Bryan Cave, LLP, was
NOT authorized to appear in court on behalf of BAC.
22. Regarding the law-firm of BRYAN CAVE, LLP, one must note that Dr Zernik
repeatedly notified the St Louis headquarter and Don Lent, Chair of the Firm,
of conduct of Att Amberg and Att Moldawsky in Los Angeles offices. In one
such instance Dr Zernik was notified that the risk assessment committee of
Bryan Cave, LLP, was fully informed of the case. 37
23. One must also note that Bryan Cave, LLP, was considered as close to the
“establishment” as you could get. Wikipedia stated the following:
Its partners include former US Senators Jack Danforth and Alan Dixon,
former New York Mayor Ed Koch, former Indiana Attorney General Jeff
Modisett, and former Tennessee Attorney General Charles Burson, who also
served as former Counsel to Vice-President Al Gore. 38
It was noted with special concern that Mr Jeff Modisett, former Indiana
Attorney General, was the Managing Partner of the Los Angeles Office, and
was fully aware of the conduct of Att Amberg and Moldawsky.
24. The other large law firm that was directly involved in various types of alleged
criminality with the judges of the LA Superior Court was SHEPPARD,
MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP. Attorney MOHAMMAD
KESHAVARZI, an Associate, operated under the supervision of Partner
PHILIP DAVIS. Involvement of Sheppard Mullin raised special concerns
since Judge CHARLES “TIM” MCCOY, former partner at Sheppard Mullin,
was Presiding Judge of the LA Superior Court during part of the period. He
was personally informed of alleged criminalities by Judge Jacqueline
Connor, but refused to take any action.
25. Att Keshavarzi and Judge Connor together perpetrated various frauds such
as described below:
26. EXAMPLE NO 2: Alleged obstruction and perversion of justice through
production of false banking records in alleged collusion with Sheppard

37
Response from the St Louis office of Bryan Cave, LLP, stating that the risk assessment committee
was fully aware of Dr Zernik’s case.
http://inproperinla.com/08-05-19-van-cleve-response-risk-management-a.pdf
38
Information about Bryan Cave, LLP, derived from Wikipedia entry:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-bank-of-america-09-08-31-bryan-cave-wikipedia-the-free-
encyclopedia.pdf
45 / 545
z Page 15/18 September 2, 2009

Mullin, LLP, and Judge Jacqueline Connor: November 2006: Ex Parte Sur
Reply in Motion to expunge lis pendens,
In such proceeding, two days before a noticed hearing, Att Mohammad
Keshavarzi, of the law firm of Sheppard Mullin, with ruling in his favor by
Judge Jacqueline Connor, entered for the first time new evidence for such
motion – false and deliberately misleading banking records procured from
Countrywide’s Branch Manager Maria McLaurin. Dr Zernik’s counsel entered
an evidentiary objection. Not only was the admission of evidence untimely,
the record itself had no valid authentication, and was also an unsigned bank
letter. Judge Connor overruled, but never issued evidentiary rulings, as
usual.
The CFC invalid October 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter,39 was
misrepresented as an October 14, 2004 underwriting letter, and a whole set
of false claims was fabricated around such banking document false
representation. It was repeatedly entered in court as evidence after that
date.
The false representation was since then confirmed by a fraud expert. 40
Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels, were repeatedly asked to either
authenticate or repudiate the false representations, starting June 2007, but
refused to respond at all, to this very day. Similarly - the BAC Audit
Committee, Kenneth Lewis, Joe Price, and Timothy Mayopoulos, were asked
to either authenticate or repudiate the false representation by Maria
McLaurin. So far BAC refused to respond either.
27. EXAMPLE #3: September 15, 2004 Real Estate Purchasing Agreement,41
a. Copy produced by CFC in legal subpoena –
Purportedly faxed from Washington State by Victor Parks to CFC
San Rafael on October 25, 2004, 5:03 pm.
Truly faxed from Nivie Samaan in LA to her husband Jae Arre
Lloyd in LA on October 25, 2005, 5:03 pm (per fax log). CFC loan
file included no evidence to authenticate the record. However, it
was speculated that it was transmitted at some later time by Jae
Arre Lloyd, a convicted felon and “Loan Originator” for CFC to
Maria McLaurin, Branch Manager, as a PDF attachment.
b. Copy produced by Mara Escrow –
Was designated by Mara Escrow counsel – “the clean copy”. All
fax header imprints were stripped away from the record, and in
addition some hand signatures were moved around. Most likely
was a scanner + Photoshop type job. No authentication was
provided for such record either.
39
October 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter was falsely represented as an October 14, 2004 or mid-
October, 2004 Underwriting Letter. It came with no signature and no valid authentication:
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-doc-44-countrywide-fraud-underwriting-letter.pdf
40
Fraud expert opinion regarding dating of Underwriting Letter for CFC:
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-opinion-letter-countrywide-underwriting-letter-oct-26-s.pdf
41
By the time I completed discovery there were some 5 or 6 independent specimen of the record,
none of them an authenticated record, and almost all misrepresented.
46 / 545
z Page 16/18 September 2, 2009

Based on Dr Zernik’s experience in LA County – none of the financial


institutions involved complied with UETA 42 regarding electronic
transactions and transmission of banking records. Moreover, it is alleged
the ALL of them engaged in various schemes of falsifying the
authentication of fax communications, even when they had available to
them the most sophisticated devices to ensure automatic authentication.
a. CFC – engaged in the most elaborate scheme – where anonymous
fax header imprints, listing date and time, but not sender, were
imprinted in an entirely different time and place, while the
transmission of the records was most likely as PDF attachments to
emails. The email cover sheet, was then eliminated from the loan file.
Such practice was also contrary to the stated policy of CFC. 43
b. Mara Escrow – a subsidiary of Old Republic Title Insurance. The
escrow officer, Gail Hershkowitz, eventually provided Sheppard Mullin
a declaration that inferred that the contract record, which she kept on
escrow file, was false (which was a true statement), and the false
contract record produced by CFC was authentic (which was a false
statement).
c. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage –
Produced the same ”clean”, unauthenticated copy as Mara Escrow,
and it was likely that such “clean” copy originated from Coldwell-
Banker.
Financial institutions that were not publicly traded and engaged in
alleged falsification of fax transmissions:
d. USC Credit Union – only a few months after the consummation of the
fraud by Att David Pasternak, Dr Zernik realized that the Credit Union,
where he held a mortgage, had to collude in the fraud as well.
When Dr Zernik demanded records to establish the authorization to
execute transactions in his account without his knowledge, it was
claimed that transactions were initially executed based on a phone
call, with no written documentation at all. Later, some papers were
produced, but none with fax header imprints. Various versions were
recounted regarding the authentication of the records. Regardless, no
record of a valid Judgment or a Writ of Execution was ever produced,
since none existed.
28. An opinion by Prof Grundfest, which would address the refusal of SEC to
investigate alleged material violations of the law, as seen in the employment
of false outside counsel in the case of Borrower Parsley and in the case of
Dr Zernik, and also as seen in the production of false banking records as
seen in the case of Borrower Parsley, the case of Borrower Hill, in the case
of Dr Zernik, and as evidenced in a study by the United States trustee, would
provide essential services relative to public policy concerns.
42
UETA- uniform electronic transactions act:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-us-ueta_final.pdf
43
Fax machine operations – policy and practice manual of CFC:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-countrywide-06-09-01-fax-use-policy-and-practice-manual.pdf
47 / 545
z Page 17/18 September 2, 2009

29. An opinion by Prof Grundfest which would address the refusal of CFC, and
later BAC, to respond in any way to complaints of alleged production fraud
banking records in the case of Dr Zernik would also provide essential service
relative to public policy concerns.
A. The Mergers – secret agreements – and current Proposed Settlement
30. BAC is unique in its significance among U.S. financial institutions, not only by
size, but also relative to its role in the current crisis. BAC acquired as part of
the unfolding of the crisis both Merrill Lynch and Countrywide (CFC). Both of
these acquisitions were transacted under unusual circumstances, involved
conduct by U.S. officer that possibly amounted to coercing officers of BAC to
act contrary to their better judgment, and to engage in violations of the law.
31. Concerns were raised regarding compliance with the law by both U.S. and
BAC senior officers relative to at least the former acquisition. A letter by NY
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to U.S. Senate earlier this year,44 led some
media to call for indictment of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve! 45 In
conjunction with the latter transaction, BAC was awarded a waiver on the
deposits limit - a key provision for limiting the risks to U.S. markets as a
whole by default of any single institution. Combined with the other indicators
of what took place at BAC since the merger, it appeared as a deliberate
attempt to set up the grounds for another catastrophic financial institution
failure.
32. It was safe to bet that in conjunction with both acquisitions, agreements or
understandings were reached between senior corporate officers and senior
U.S. officers under the Bush administration in its final days, which were not
in publicly accessible then, and are not publicly accessible now. Such
agreements or understandings were never duly reviewed in compliance with
corporate governance, were never reviewed by U.S. Congress, and were
likely to have included provisions that were not within the authority of such
U.S. officers to offer, or within the authority of BAC officers to accept in
compliance with the law.
33. For example, as described below, it is likely that in the course of acquisition
of CFC, BAC and its officers acquired not only substantial financial liabilities,
but also legal liabilities of both civil and criminal nature. It was unreasonable
to assume that officers of BAC that agreed to the transaction, even under
duress, did not demand, and were not provided some assurances in this
regard.
34. It were such agreements that were believed to be the reason for entire
refusal of all law enforcement agencies, such as SEC, and also the Audit
Committee of BAC to respond to complaints regarding violations of the law in
any way. Such agreement were also likely to be the perceived permission
for Sandor Samuels, now at BAC, and Bryan Cave, LLP, to continue to this
date the deception regarding outside counsel engagement. Needless to say-
44
April 23, 2009 Andrew Cuomo letter to U.S. Senate:
http://inproperinla.com/09-04-23-text-of-cuomo-letter-on-merrill-lynch-takeover-marketwatch.pdf
45
Responses to the AG Andrew Cuomo letter:
http://inproperinla.com/09-04-24-
Mish's%20Global%20Economic%20Trend%20Analysis_%20Let%20the%20Criminal%20Indictments%20Begin_%20Paulson,%
20Bernanke,%20Lewis.pdf
48 / 545
z Page 18/18 September 2, 2009

with that – alleged corruption was introduced by U.S. officers into BAC
operations.
35. It were such agreements that were believed to be the reason for the lack of
evidence that BAC engaged in any attempt to enforce the law at CFC
following the merger.
A. The proposed settlement now before the court was most likely merely a
distraction, relative to the refusal of SEC to enforce the law at BAC
36. Therefore, conduct of Plaintiff and Defendant, which resulted in the
settlement now before the court, cannot be understood or assessed without
discovery of such confidential agreements. The potential existence of such
confidential agreements was discussed with Prof Grundfest in February
2009, as the only plausible explanation of a range of fact in the matter, which
otherwise remain inexplicable. An opinion by Prof Grundfest that would
address such concerns and lead to discovery of such agreements would also
provide a uniquely valued service to public policy concerns, and also for
stability of U.S. financial markets.
A. Alternative view – refusal to investigate was the result of collusion with the
judiciary in alleged criminalities
37. An alternative, but similar explanation, was offered by decorated veteran FBI
agent James Wedick, in an email note, in August 2008, soon after he
finished discussion of the matter with FBI Los Angeles Special Agent
Connolly. 46 The explanation that was provided there, was that investigation
of the case would have inevitably resulted in addressing alleged judicial
corruption, and therefore, FBI would not investigate crime, which both James
Wedick and Special Agent Connolly, per that email, agreed had taken place.
38. In practice, the two explanations converge into the same effect: Following
the merger of CFC and BAC, BAC engaged in alleged criminalities in
collusion with the judges of the LA Superior Court, therefore, BAC attain the
status of immunity.
A. Immunities, or indemnities for future criminalities – as practiced in California
today.
39. In the discussion in February 2009, Dr Zernik suggested to Prof Grundfest
that there was no way to comprehend the conduct of officers of BAC, unless
as based on assurances that had been obtained that amounted to what Dr
Zernik designated: Pardons for past criminalities and indemnities for future
criminalities.
40. Prof Grundfest was disturbed by the concept, and dismissed it as impossible
– since it was on its face in violation of the law. Dr Zernik was in no position
to challenge Prof Grundfest’s analysis of the legalities involved. However, Dr
Zernik pointed out to Prof Grundfest already in February 2009 the legal
practices in the U.S. today among corporations and government, as seen in
example (a) below. Dr Zernik was not aware of Example (b), which took
place around the same time.
46
August 21, 2008 Email note from decorated FBI veteran and Fraud Expert James Wedick:
http://inproperinla.com/08-08-21-refusal-to-investigate-fbi-wedick-letter-s.pdf
49 / 545
z Page 19/18 September 2, 2009

a. December 7, 2007 – Indemnity agreement for Mara Escrow, a


subsidiary of Old Republic Title Insurance.
On December 7, 2007, Dr Zernik participated, in order to record his
protest, in two ex parte appearances noticed by Att DAVID
PASTERNAK, a close friend of Sandor Samuels – then Chief Legal
Officer of CFC. Att Pasternak acted as a purported Court Officer in a
purported action of the LA Superior Court, where Dr Zernik was
named Defendant. On December 7, 2007 Att Pasternak, filed an
application for an indemnity agreement for Mara Escrow, for alleged
future criminality – to collude with him in the fraudulent conveyance of
title. Judge Patricia Collins never found any problem with that (but she
secretly voided her actions later, with no notice to parties). 47,48, 49,
50 51 52
, ,
b. February 20, 2009 – Pardons for past alleged criminalities and
indemnity for future alleged criminalities for all ~450 judges of LA
Superior Court were signed into law by the Governor of California.

47
Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), complaint filed October 25, 2005, at the LA Superior Court, but
filing fees never paid in full. CFC, now BAC routinely appear in such litigation as “Non Party” for the
third years now, most times represented by a large international law firm – Bryan Cave, LLP, albeit –
such appearances, at least part of the time were without any authorization, but with full agreement of
the clients.[1] The Court designated CFC, and now BAC “Plaintiff”, “Defendant”, “Intervenor”, “Cross
Defendant”, “Real parties in Interest”, all with no foundation at all.[2] The court made representation
that were deliberately deceptive regarding entry of Judgment on August 9, 2007, for “specific
performance of real estate purchase agreement”, but court file to this date marks the judgment as
“pending”. [3], [4] The Court forced me to displace under the threat of force based on an order, which
on its face is of questionable nature at best. [5]. Att Pasternak purported to conduct conveyance of title
on my home on behalf of the Court, which was opined by decorated FBI veteran, James Wedick as
“fraud”. [6] I, the owner, never received a penny from the proceeds of the purported sale, in December
2007, to this date. [3] Director of the U.S. Department of Justice, Kenneth Melson, in response to
inquiry by Congress stated that it was “Foreclosure” and that I was complaining about being
“improperly fined”.[7] Sandor Samuels, today Associate General Counsel of BAC filed Notice of
Interested person in the case in January 2008 [ ]. Judge Terry Friedman, another friend of Mr
Samuels, is holding the “file” for over a year and a half, with no Assignment Order at all. [8] The clerk
of the Court
48
Dr Zernik’s declaration regarding events of Dec 7,2007
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-07-doc-41-plaintiff-declaration%20in%20re-dec-7-07-ex-parte-
proceedings-by-pasternak.pdf
49
Att David Pasternak’s ex parte application for an Indemnity Agreement for alleged future
criminalities.
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-07-pasternak-ex-parte-appl-order-indemnity-gag-grant-deed-tax-
records.pdf
50
December 7, 2007 Reporter’s transcript from ex parte appearance of Att David Pasternak before
Judge Hart-Cole:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-samaan-v-zernik-transcripts-07-12-07-att-pasternak-ex-
parte-judge-hart-cole-gag-orders-indemnity-fraudulent-grant-deed.pdf
51
December 7, 2007 Reporter’s transcript from ex parte appearance of Att David Pasternak before
Judge Collins, as it was received from Court Reporter.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-samaan-v-zernik-transcripts-07-12-07-att-pasternak-ex-
parte-judge-collins-as-received-from-court-reporter.pdf
52
December 7, 2007 Reporter’s transcript from ex parte appearance of Att David Pasternak before
Judge Collins, as it appeared in Reporters’ Transcript prepared by Clerk of the LA Sup Ct.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-la-sup-ct-samaan-v-zernik-transcripts-07-12-07-att-pasternik-ex-
parte-judge-collings-as-it-appeared-in-reporters'-transcript-produced-by-clerk-of-la-sup-ct-to-ct-of-
appeals.pdf
50 / 545
z Page 20/18 September 2, 2009

The California Constitution prohibited ex post facto laws. California


Code prohibited indemnity agreements for future violations of the law.
Neither stopped the Governor from signing on February 20, 2009 into
law the Sbx-2-11 which provided pardons for LA Superior Court
judges for any criminalities related to the past taking of “not permitted”
payments, moreover, it included indemnities for any future taking of
“not permitted” payments. 53 It was included in the much larger budget
bill through the efforts of a lobbyist retained by the judges, with no
referral to committee, and in violation of the rules of the California
legislature. Moreover, it was intended to undo a ruling of the California
Court of Appeals, 4th District, which ruled on October 10. 2008 54 that
determined that payments of ~$45,000 per judge per year, taken
secretly for over a decade by all ~450 judges of the LA Superior Court
were “not permitted” on Constitutional grounds. Media called them
“Bribes”.

41. Dr Zernik’s experiences– where regulatory agencies refuse to perform their


duties and investigate CFC or BAC
In February 2009, Prof Grundfest was intrigued by my ability to file with FBI
office in LA in mid January 2007 a complaint backed up by credible
evidence, which claimed that CFC was involved in various types of
criminalities, including large scale mortgage frauds against the U.S.
government. Furthermore, by March 2007, I filed an Addendum with FBI in
LA, with rough estimates that the scope of liabilities to U.S. government from
the fraud in lending by CFC would be in the range of hundreds of billions. At
that point, Special Agent Vallese, from the White Collar Crime Squad,
headed by Steven Goldman, told me that there was no interest in my
complaint, and please not to file anymore papers.
42. Dr Zernik also informed Prof Grundfest in February 2009 how he had filed
written complains in the previous 2 years with other U.S. regulatory and law
enforcement agencies as well, but all without exception refused to even
investigate the matter. In contrast, banking and corporate regulators,
including in particular SEC – failed to prevent the current crisis from
happening, failed to detect It ahead of time, and saw no reason for
indictments even today.
43. Dr Zernik also informed Prof Grundfest of his experience regarding FOIA
requests to bank regulators – he could never retrieve even his own written
complaints from such agencies, and Dr Zernik suspected that such
complaints regarding CFC, and now BAC, are routinely destroyed.
44. In that context, Dr Zernik also informed Prof Grundfest that his impression
from a phone conversation with Att Samuels Bezek at SEC, was the same –
that none of Dr Zernik’s complaints were ever logged, and that such
53
Documentation of processing the SBX-2-11 bill:
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-la-fine-v-la-county-sheriff-doc-01-exh-09-02-20-sbx-2-11-
budge-bill.pdf
54
October 10, 2008 ruling of California court of appeals, 4th District:
http://inproperinla.com/08-10-10-cal-ct-app-4th-dist-la-county-judges-payments-not-permitted.pdf
51 / 545
z Page 21/18 September 2, 2009

complaints were possibly eliminated. Att Bezek objected to Dr Zernik’s


interpretation of the conversation. However, Att Bezek never explicitly denied
that none of Dr Zernik’s complaints were ever logged, and that such
complaints were eliminated. 55
45. FBI refuses to perform its duties, while making public statements about
investigations that must be deemed deliberately aimless.
The contrast is especially stark when it comes to performance of the FBI. I
filed with FBI initial complaints in January to March 2007, with evidence and
claims of criminality by officers of CFC. By June/July 2007, I had solid
credible evidence of criminality by both Sandor Samuels – then Chief Legal
Officer, and Angelo Mozilo – then CEO/Chair. The claims of wrongful
conduct focused on the one hand on alleged corruption of underwriting in the
San Rafael Branch of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, with special focus on
operation of data processing and underwriting monitoring systems - EDGE,
and on the other hand on the conduct of the Legal Department of CFC, in
particular relative to conduct of the Chief Legal Officer – Sandor Samuels.
As such, he also held direct reporting duties to SEC.
In the two and a half years that passed, Dr Zernik’s assessment were
supported, at least in part, by events that unfolded. However, Dr Zernik was
not aware of any corrective action taken by either U.S. agencies, CFC, or
BAC to address such material deficiencies.
As part of the dialog, Dr Zernik also forwarded to Prof Grundfest some
papers, which should mostly deemed as public records, or at least were
based on and quoted public records- court records from California state and
U.S. District Courts.
46. The crisis was directly related to CFC litigation practices.
The claim that a key to understanding the current financial crisis was in law
and litigation practices (compared to the focus on accountancy in the Enron
crisis), could be claimed to be born out by market behavior.
a. December 27, 2007 – Recreated Letters filed by CFC as evidence in PA
court.
The final collapse of CFC was not related to, or attributed to, performance of
some loan portfolio. It was the direct result of the publication 56 of the fact
that CFC attorneys filed in a PA Court evidence including three (3)
“recreated letters”.57 The news was published January 8, 2008, led to
tremors in markets, and led U.S. officers to chaperon the negotiations that
led to the January 11, 2008 joint announcement of the acquisition of CFC by
BAC.

55
Email dialogue with Att Bezek, SEC, relative to phone conversation, and the disposition of Dr
Zernik’s previous complaints to SEC in re: CFC and BAC:
http://inproperinla.com/09-09-02-compiled-corresopndence-grundfest-bezek-2009-s.pdf
56
Gretchen Morgenson, NYT, January 9, 2008,
57
U.S. Bankruptcy Courts Borrower Sharon Dianne Hill, Pittsburgh, PA (01-22574)
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-us-dist-ct-pits-hill-07-12-27-three%20recreated%20letters-transcript-and-news-item-bdinder.pdf

52 / 545
z Page 22/18 September 2, 2009

b. March 5, 2008 – Memorandum Opinion rebuking CFC legal practices,


and U.S. Trustee study documenting abuse across the U.S.
Deficiencies and non-compliance related to the Legal Department of CFC
were also highlighted two months later in a 72-page memorandum opinion
entered by the Honorable Jeff Bohm. 58 Such opinion was described by
media as “rebuke”, and was based in part of a year long study by the United
States Trustee across the U.S., which showed a pattern of abuse of the legal
process by CFC legal department, which led Judge Bohm to state that CFC
and its outside counsel
'have shown a disregard for the professional and ethical obligations of the legal
profession and judicial system'. (p8),
Hearings were also held in U.S. Congress59 regarding questions and
concerns that the current crisis was fueled at least in part through
wrongdoing in the courts.
47. The current crisis is likely to transform U.S. social fabric
A separate claim, supporting the need to carefully examine instant Proposed
Settlement- Some of the most conspicuous misrepresentations in the current
crisis were by Mr Samuels, to the effect that conduct of CFC was aimed to
widen the base of home-owning middle-class in U.S. 60 I believe that some of
the data may already be publicly available, and projections must also have
been generated regarding the expected outcome of the current crisis on U.S.
social structure – in significant changes in asset distribution and undermining
of the home-owning middle-class that evolved over many decades.
48. The current crisis undermined confidence in the U.S. currency, and therefore
– shackles the U.S. government
The current crisis also undermined confidence in the U.S. financial
institutions and in the U.S. currency. Based on concerns of that kind, the
President of the People’s Bank of China floated earlier this year a proposal
for the creation of a new international currency, aimed to replace the dollar.
In addition, the current crisis undermined the U.S. government ability to
control its currency, which some would claim amounted to loss of
sovereignty. A number of high level U.S. delegations visited Beijing in the
past few years, the latest, in May 2009, was led by Treasury Secretary
Geithner. In all instances the Chinese government declined to cooperate
with U.S. requests to devalue the dollar. Media reported that in the May visit,
questions related to U.S. financial institution stability, and the competency of
U.S. banking regulatory agencies were at the center of Chinese concerns.
49. Recent changes in the Board at BAC fell short of instilling confidence.
A look at changes in the corporate Board at BAC in recent months, shows
fast turnover of members of the Board. The Audit Committee, for example,
was considerably shrunk. Public figures like General TOMMY FRANK and
Admiral JOSEPH FRUEHER departed. The latter is particularly noted, since

58
Borrower William Alan Parsley, Houston, TX (05-90374), Dkt #248:
http://inproperinla.com/08-03-05-coutnrywide-hon-jeff-bohm-us-judge-decision-rebuke-s.pdf
59
missing reference
60
missing reference
53 / 545
z Page 23/18 September 2, 2009

he was former ambassador to China, and therefore was probably an asset in


increasing Chinese confidence in the U.S. financial systems. The addition to
the Audit Committee to replace those who departed was Don Powell.
50. Concerns abound regarding the credibility of financial data at BAC following
the acquisitions, and recent periodic reports by BAC resorted to the use of
“Taxonomies” in accounting, in sharp departure from previously established
accounting practices. President Obama’s administration, on its part, soon
after inauguration floated the idea of resorting to “Stress Tests” in assessing
the stability of U.S. financial institutions. The proposal, in and of itself had to
be seen as an admission of inadequacy of financial data available to the
President which may be derived in part from periodic reports by corporations.
With that – again – there was departure from established practices, and
credibility was undermined. Obviously, the credibility of U.S. banking
regulators is constantly doubted.
51. In addition – Dr Zernik’s experience demonstrated denial of access to the
courts, in matters pertaining to violations of the law by judges and by CFC or
BAC.
In addition, in papers and discussions with Prof Grundfest, Dr Zernik
described his personal experience, related to claims of wrongdoing by CFC
and BAC, which could be summed up as a alleged denial of access to the
courts. As part of the context of any banking regulatory system one must
consider the judicial system in which it was embedded. Conditions in the
U.S. at present are such that one was denied access to the courts when
attempting to address grievances related to alleged criminalities by CFC and
BAC, which regulators and law enforcement refused to investigate. 61
Prof Grundfest was uniquely qualified to assess current conditions relative to
the ability of an individual wrong by BAC or CFC to address such grievances
in U.S. courts.

52. A Dark Image – hypothetical narrative for events described above:


Following was a hypothetical narrative, aimed at clarifying where one had to
follow the money…
An alleged “cult of criminality” or the alleged LA judiciary racket (“LA-JR”) is
well established in the LA Superior Court. In its current manifestation is
dated back to 1985 – and installation of the first computerized case
management system “Sustain”, which was alleged as the enabling tool of the
racket.
The alleged “cult of criminality” among the judiciary engaged in various
criminalities in the courts, including alleged real estate frauds, and also false
imprisonments on a large scale.
Using FBI to their advantage, the LA-JR gained control of Countrywide.

61
1) Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) U.S. District Court LA, CA
2) Zernik v U.S. Dist Court ((08-72714) U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
3) Zernik v Melson et al (1:09-cv-00805) U.S. District Court, Washington, DC
54 / 545
z Page 24/18 September 2, 2009

Such large banking institutions from then on was able to engage in various
alleged criminalities under immunity, but had to pay protection fees on a
regular basis to a large group of patrons. Such allocations were in part the
reason for the collapse of the institution, but also the reason that accounting
was deliberately made incomprehensible.
With the pending collapse of their protégé in January 2008, the LA-JR was
not willing to lose such asset. Therefore – the merger with BAC.
Directors and Officers of BAC, who could not tolerate the new circumstances
simply left. Elimination of the deposit limit was undertaken in order to ensure
that the LA-JR never had to go through this one again… Next time around,
BAC would be too big to fail… and the LA-JR would then own the U.S.
Treasury itself…
What was Prof Grundfest’s role going to be in such narrative? Potential new
Chair of the SEC?
Please notify me by Monday, August 31, 2009 5:00 pm, of your intent in this regard.

_____________________
Joseph H Zernik
Los Angeles County, California
CC:
1) BAC Audit Committee:
D. Paul Jones,
Thomas J. May, Chair
Donald E. Powell
C/O Corporate Secretary
Bank of America Corporation,
101 South Tryon Street,
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
"ATTENTION: THOMAS MAY"<ir@nstar.com>
"ATTENTION: BAC AUDIT COMMITTEE "< joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com,
patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com >
(by email and by fax)

2) BAC Executive Committee


Kenneth D. Lewis
CEO/Chairman/President
Signer of SEC reports and certificates per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)
Charles K. Gifford,
Walter E. Massey, Chair
C/O Corporate Secretary
Bank of America Corporation,
101 South Tryon Street,
NC1-002-29-01
Charlotte, NC 28255
"ATTENTION: BAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE "<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com,
patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com>
(by email and by fax)

3) BAC - Signers of SEC Reports and/or


55 / 545
z Page 25/18 September 2, 2009

Holders of Reporting Duties per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)


Edward O’Keefe
General Counsel
Neil A. Cotty
Chief Accounting Officer
Signer of SEC reports
Joe L. Price
Chief Financial Officer
Signer of SEC reports and certificates per Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002)
By Fax and By Certified Mail
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 North Tryon St
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255
Fax: 17043887342@efaxsend.com
"ATTENTION: Edward O’Keefe, Neil A Cotty, and Joe L Price"<joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com,
patrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com>
(by email and by fax)

4) BAC Independent Auditor


PriceWaterhouse
Independent Auditors for BAC
214 N Tryon St, Ste 3600
Charlotte, NC 28202-2366
Fax: 17043444100@efaxsend.com
(by fax)

5) Basel Committee
[redacted-jz]
(by email)

6) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights


[redacted-jz]
(by email)

7) Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China in the U.S.


[redacted-jz]
(by email)

8) FBI
Fax: 12022782478@efaxsend.com
(by fax)

9) US Department of Justice (US DOJ)


Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
(by email)

56 / 545
Rapid Communication

BEYOND VOTING MACHINES – CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS


Public-policy concerns based on review of a court’s central computer system
Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles

Voting machines focused the computing community’s attention on its critical duty in the
safeguard of democratic institutions in the transition to a digital society. Here we review,
possibly for the first time ever, a Case Management System (CMS), which is the
cornerstone of any court today. Sustain, the Los Angeles Superior Court’s CMS, introduced
in the early 1980’s, and based on dBase or one of its derivatives, today reveals a system that
combined with human neglect and abuse, contributes to the production of contradictory,
false and misleading records, that are deliberately hidden from the public, under the claim of
“privileged” status 1. Circumstantial evidence also strongly suggests that such records from
Sustain are directly available to the California Court of Appeal without the knowledge or
notice to the parties involved 2. Our analysis is based on limited records since Sustain
records are typically not accessible to the public (in what appears as defiance of CRC 2.500
et seq), and mostly explored internal inconsistencies and incompleteness of the records
among various paper and electronic sources:
1) Minute Orders - are written by the judge after each proceeding – in open court or
chamber, and the clerk is required to have them mailed to each party and entered into the
court file; with Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing and Entry, bearing his/her hand signature, all
on same day as the proceeding.
2) Case History - a report, which in Los Angeles Superior Court also serves as Register of
Actions - the definitive formal concise record of all transactions in a given court case, and
together with Indexes of All Cases – one of the two primary documents that allow oversight
of the integrity of the courts.
Our findings can be summarized as follows:
a. Inherently Invalid Data Entries - Case History report listed documents as filed on dates
that were at times years prior to the date of filing of the claims - the start point of the
case (Fig 1). Such obviously invalid data entirely undermined the validity and
reliability of the record as a whole. Additional data provided conclusive evidence that

-1-
57 / 545
entries in this record were critically modified later than the date which appeared as
intended to convey the date of entry of such data.
b. Routine back-dating of minute orders to date of the proceedings - Minute orders that
were retrieved from memory, invariably showed different dates as the “Date Minutes
Entered” compared to copies of respective records that were retrieved from paper file.
The copies from the paper file were back-dated and without exception were precisely
dated on the date of the proceedings, as required (Fig 4a). The records from electronic
memory, showed that the true entry date was at times months later (Fig 4b). Such
findings undermine the validity of any dates recorded in this system, and the validity and
reliability of the system as central depository of the court’s litigation records.
c. Reversing orders with no notice to parties in a case - Certain minute orders that in paper
court file carried valid values for entry (Fig 2a), carried invalid dates , such as
“00/00/00” or “33/33/33”, in the copies retrieved from memory (Fig 2b), which were
otherwise identical in their text. Such invalid entry date invalidates a legal record, and
indeed, it appears that such invalidation was intentional, since 00/00/00 is listed as the
day the records are to be disposed (Fig 1), indeed - the common feature of the
invalidated records was that they were unusual, and if valid, would have likely raised
concerns upon review. But the paper file does not include any evidence that such
invalidation, if indeed intentional, was ever noticed to the parties in the case. Possibly,
this specific field was programmed to accept dates as data, and also as an invalidation
command, the latter – formulated in a date format, in order to reduce memory
requirements.
d. Contradictory recordings of critical data - In one extreme case, the electronic record
alone includes recording of a Demurrer - a decisive action, which can nip a litigation in
the bud - as both “Granted”, “Overruled” (Denied), and vacated (Fig 3). Again, there is
room for concern that such ambiguity was introduced to camouflage a decision (here –
overruling of the demurrer) that if clearly recorded, would have raised concerns
regarding integrity of the proceedings.
e. Partial recordings, discriminating against the paper/public record - Certain minute orders
that appeared in copies retrieved from memory were altogether missing from
counterparts retrieved from paper files. The opposite appears to never happen. Such
discrimination against paper – which in this case is also the only public record – was
apparently intentional – beyond the one sidedness of the omissions, certain court

-2-
58 / 545
proceedings were marked in electronic records as “Proceedings not recorded” and then
indeed were missing from the paper file.
f. Critical legal records that fail to comply with any standard at all - In one extreme case, a
judge who was requested to disqualify for a cause (- served with a Statement of
Prejudice) responded with a combination of a Strike and Answer (a combination that is
not allowed per Judge’s Bench Guide of the California Judicial Council), later than the
10 days allowed by law (CCP §170.3), back-dated it 11 days - to day 1, then added an
improvised judge’s certificate of mailing for self (not allowed), addressed to one party
only (not allowed), unsigned (unverified), never mailed out at all, and yet entered into
the electronic record, but not the paper/public record.
The operation of such CMS’s as Sustain puts at peril any notion of Due Process - a basic
right, presumably guaranteed by the 1st, 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The next generation of such systems must distill and mimic the essence of some older court
traditions. On his own, neither a Clerk, nor a Judge, could mail the minutes out. The Judge
could rule, order, adjudicate, but had to rely on the Clerk, who had the sole authority to
incorporate such pronouncements into the formal records and thus make them actions. 3 No
such segregation of authorities appears to have been implemented in Sustain. A new
generation of such systems, introduced under public comment and challenge (pursuant to the
Rule-Making Enabling Act, which was entirely defied in setting up Sustain, on more aspect
than one) must help enforce the safeguard of court records that are coherent, consistent and
transparent, in all respects, including exact timing of "birth" (at the bench or in chambers)
true time and form at “entry” (by the Clerk), with adequate due notice and service to parties,
after which further read/write actions by any party must not be allowed. This is not the case
with Sustain.--and other systems currently in use 4. Contemporary encryption, protection,
transaction–handling, and security methods, can provably implement such procedures at
very low cost [at least if 99.9999 ...% security is acceptable]. Supported by re-indoctrination
of court personnel regarding their duties to the public at large – a CMS could be a guardian
of Due Process. Yet, full transparency of Public Records is possibly the most cost/effective
long-term security measure. Sustain must be an extreme – a data entry and a legal deposit
system with what appears like effectively no quality assurance measures whatsoever.
Sustain, the CMS reviewed in here, allows the generation and propagation of court records
of quality that is far removed from any standard that would reasonably support Due Process
of the Law.

-3-
59 / 545
WORD COUNT: 1224

NOTES:
1
This short communication is not intended as a legal review. ‘The basis for open
court records is a common law right “to inspect and copy public records and
documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner
Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)’. Recently reviewed in: Public Access
to Electronic Court Records and Competing Privacy Interests, Susan Larson,
Judgelink June 6, 2008. <http://a2j.kentlaw.edu/Insights/2001/E-Records/>
2
The result could be an absurd where Appellant/Petitioner’s brief is based on one
record, and the review is based on another, materially different record, that the
appellant/petitioner was never even privy to, and 100% of trial court decisions are
upheld.
3
CCP § 167 provides: "Any act required or permitted to be performed by the clerk of a court may
be performed by a judge thereof." A judge can perform all acts performed by a clerk, but
neither a clerk nor a judge is allowed to execute proof of service for self.
4
Some exposure to C|C – the California Court of Appeal CMS, and Pacer – the
Federal CMS. Pacer is by far superior, albeit, they all reflect a combination where
the operators are equally important. As a rule of thumb, any CMS which presents
a Register of Actions to the public that is different than that used by the court
should be held suspect, and same for any CMS that presents a “Docket”, or
Register of Actions where entries are not enumerated. Pacer’s transparency is
admirable, e.g. operators are required to enter initials with their comments. The
open record and visible and identifiable signature are critical for instilling
recognition of accountability. Notice and Service are largely automated through
email, an example how technology improved Due Process, but Pacer at present
harshly discriminates against the Pro Se party, exposing him/her to multiple levels
of human bias in filing and entry that the licensed attorney, much better equipped
for such encounters is entirely spared.

KEY WORDS:
Amendment, 14th
Amendment, 5th

-4-
60 / 545
Answer
California Code of Civil Procedure §170.3
California Rules of Courts 2.500 et seq
Case History
Case Management System
Clerk
Clerk’s Certification of Mailing and Notice of Entry
CMS
Computers
Constitution, United States
Disqualification for a Cause
Indexes of All Cases
Judge
Los Angeles Superior Court
Minute Order
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978)
Notice
Public Record
Quality Assurance
Register of Actions
Rulemaking Enabling Act 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071 - 2077
Security
Service
Signature
Strike
Sustain
Voting Machines
END

-5-
61 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

“ Judge shall be faithful to the law…”


Cal Code Jud Ethics 3B(2)
“The rule of law must never be confused with tyranny of the courts”
Anonymous

125. How do we know that 00/00/00 means voiding/disposing of minute


order?
This question is critical for understanding the records in Sustain, since the Dates Minutes Entered appears as 00/00/00 on
the last page of specific minute orders in Sustain, but does not appear on the counterparts in paper court file. The conclusion
that such notation in Sustain means 00/00/00 that the respective minute order was disposed, or voided, although no notice or
service was provided to parties, was based on the reasons listed below.

In a visit to the Santa Monica Courthouse on Nov 14, 2008, I met with H. James McGlynn, Administrator II, assistant to Mr
James Manczarek, the top administrator of the Santa Monica Courthouse. I asked him regarding the meaning of the
00/00/00 as the date minutes entered on specific minute orders. He answered that I should just ignore such notations, since
the are just “computer glitch”. When I asked him if I may see a Sustain manual to verify that his answer was correct. His
answer was “Mr Zernik, you asked that question before, and you know that you are not allowed to see that”.

The fact that the Los Angeles Superior Court allows itself to run a register of actions and minute orders with secret notations
that would not bee understandable by most readers, and that officials of the court try to mislead litigants in the reading of the
records, in and of itself makes such records fraudulent.

1) Review of the electronic copies of the minute order, we see numerous minute orders that were aborted or deleted
(and it begs questions why). But almost all of them show 00/00/00 either as the date of the event or the date minutes
entered. And it is obvious that these were not meant to be valid minute orders.

2) The minute orders that appear in paper court file, but were voided by changing the date minutes entered to 00/00/00
are not any kind of minute orders. They are divided into two groups, with some overlap:

a. Minute Order where a judge ruled in blatant violation of the law: For example:

i. On Nov 5, 2007 , Judge Segal granted Samaan a 4-day notice hearing on motion to appoint a
receiver. What kind of receiver? Not any kind that is allowed by law. Therefore, he secretly
voided that decision.

ii. On Dec 26, 2007, Judge Rosenberg denied any and all my Due Process requests, but he
immediately voided his own decision, secretly.

iii. On Jan 30, 2008, Judge Friedman denied my request for the $750,000 that were purportedly the
proceeds from the sale of my home. And he denied it with prejudice, and threatened sanctions if I
ask for it again. But then he immediately voided his decision. Secretly.

b. Minute Orders where the case would be pegged to the Master Calendar:

i. Judge Goodman’s Oct 3, 2007 Recusal – voided.

ii. Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Dec 7, 2007 Recusal per CCP §170.6 – voided.

iii. Judge Friedman March 19, 2008 response to disqualification – voided.

c. On page 1 of Case History, upper right corner – until there is a judgment in the case, the Date of Disposal is
00/00/00.

d. On Feb 5, 2007, Judge Connor was going to issue Att Cummings a minute order continuing the hearing,
since I was late for the hearing. But once I arrived she writes – since defendant arrives, I am vacating the
minute order and writing a new one. And indeed we find a 2/05/07 Minute Order with 00/00/00 for date.

62 / 545
Rapid Communication

CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (CMS’S) AND THE COURTS:


LONG-TERM CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POLICY CONCERNS, AND ACUTE
PROBLEMS IN THE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT.
Part II – Registers of Actions and Indexes of All Cases – Critical
Safeguards that are Public Records

Joseph Zernik

This report presents findings, based on limited access to “Sustain”- Los Angeles
County’s Superior Court Case Management System (CMS), the California Court of
Appeals Case Management System, and the U.S. Circuit Courts Case Management
System (Pacer). Such systems are the governing system in the courts today, since the
key documents in court administration, in court review, and in safeguard of the conduct
of the courts – Registers of Actions, and Indexes of All Cases, are nowhere on paper any
longer.
We hold that these instruments are critical for the integrity of our democratic system,
and that traditions that were developed over hundreds of years to ensure the safeguard
of the system were hastily discarded in the transition to digital court management,
with no public scrutiny.
Our study is based on limited access to these system. Moreover, it is compromised by
the bias introduced by one of the authors, who is an interested party. However, he
obtained unusual insights into these systems that are still of critical significance in
drawing attention to systems that have so far escaped public scrutiny. We could not
find a single reference in the computers/public policy area to this question.

-1-

63 / 545
When it comes to the Federal Court, Pacer clearly holds a Docket – or Register of
Actions each case. The system can be seen as a model – it is transparent – easily
accessible, and provides additional valuable reports such as the Related Transactions.
Pacer allows the litigants who are counsels to post their papers directly online. That
feature alone, is held by this writer as a unique guarantee of justice, and the
establishing of new rights and freedoms in conjunction with the transition to digital
technology, when other courts acted otherwise. The significance of Pacer in
establishing Federal Courts as a standard will surely will be appreciated with the
passage of time.
The key

Sustain is the governing system in that court today, since its introduction was
associated with the elimination of the paper Registers of Actions and Indexes of All
Cases. CMS’s in most counties and most states of the U.S.A. today assume similar
central position in the Court House, but CMS’s somehow managed to largely escape
public scrutiny and public awareness. In the case of Sustain, the public at large, as well
as litigants and counsels have minimal, if any access to the system. Therefore, the
current report presents unique collection of records. The current report focuses on
Sustain’s recording of dates and signatures, particularly – dates and signatures as
pertaining to Minute Orders and to the Certificate of Mailing by the Clerk/Notice of
Entry of Order, which is a part of the Minute Order which carries authentication. The
processing of Minute Orders is seemingly one of the most routine and mundane court
procedures.

Our results indicate that the records of Minute Orders found in the paper Court File are
routinely back-dated, misstating the date that the orders were in fact issued. It may
also be deemed, upon legal review, as misidentification and misrepresentation of legal
records. Neither the paper Court File, nor Sustain, the computerized records, retain

-2-

64 / 545
adequate records of Minute Orders and Certificates of their Mailing. It appears that the
widest variation from standard procedures appear in proceedings of unusual nature,
but that correlation needs to be better documented. It appears that many of these
deficiencies could not exist if features supporting them were not provided in the
software. The availability of such features or routine use of such features in a Case
Management System is unreasonable, and it may require action for the safeguard of
Due Process. It remains to be found if such features were originally built into the
system, or system integrity deteriorated over the years in the absence of safeguards for
its integrity.

New technological instruments and new respective legal procedures should be


developed and implemented in order to restore public confidence in large computer
systems that are pervasive in large corporation or in the public service today.

1) Records Analyzed
a. “Minute Orders” – written by a Judge, Processed by a Clerk (Fig 2a,
2b), are an integral part of “Trial Court Litigation Records”, and are
issued through Sustain.
Minute Orders must by law be issued after each proceeding, whether in open court or
in chambers, on the very same day (i.e. post stamped at most one business day later).
Minute Orders are an integral part of the permanent records of the litigation – “Trial
Court Litigation Records”.

Any action by the Court, and any paper added to Court File must be noticed to the
parties. In the case of Minute Orders, the mailing of the Minute Orders to parties
satisfies the requirement of “Service of Notice” – a key concept in Due Process. Absent
mailing of the Minute Orders or comparable notice judges could act secretly in

-3-

65 / 545
chambers, without the knowledge of the parties. Certificate of mailing is also part of
the permanent record.

The court is required to keep such in permanent record for a specific number of years as
“Public Records” that are available for viewing by the public at large. That requirement
is critical for transparency of the justice system - a critical safeguard for its integrity,
and is one of the United States Constitutional rights established in the Amendments to
the Constitution (5th and 14th).

b. Notice must be served on parties when Minute Orders are issued, and
Proof of Service must be added to the permanent record – both
executed by the Clerk, and implemented in Sustain.

Whether Notice is served on parties by a judge, or by one party filing papers in court on
the other parties, the service (typically by mail) must be certified by a person other than
the party, or in the case of the court – other than the judge. Such certification satisfies
the requirement for “Proof of Service”.

Proof of Service, or certifying the mailing in case of service of notice of a Minute Order
or any other order by a Judge, is done by the Clerk. The requirement for Clerk’s
certification of mailing, and similarly the requirement for Clerk’s certification on any
paper by a judge or by a party that is entered into the Court File, is an integral part of
the safeguards of the integrity of the Court Files and the justice system. It also
generated a system of checks and balances between the judicial and the ministerial
(clerical) arms of the courts.

c. Minute Orders are Part of Litigation Records – in paper Court File


and also in Sustain – electronic Court File (Fig 2a, 2b).

Minute Orders become part of Litigation Records in LASC – both the paper Court File
and the electronic Court File – i.e., Sustain. A copy of the Minute Order, signed by the

-4-

66 / 545
Clerk (see below) is entered into the paper court file, and the Minute Order itself is also
stored with other litigation records in Sustain, and copies can be printed by the clerk’s
office upon demand.

2) Analysis Methods
a. This study is biased
The secondary author is personally involved in this case, and therefore it was evident
from the start that it would not be reasonable if he conducted the analysis of the system
alone. However, the unique combination of records and finding of facts was also the
outcome of the coincidental combination of skills and events that came together in this
case, presenting this unusual opportunity to present evidence to the computer science
community and the public at large. Therefore, we felt that it was our responsibility to
try to present the data for peer-reviewed publication, albeit, with minimal claims
relative to the findings.

b. Identification of Data Variations among the Sources


The comparison of the data from the different sources reveals numerous instances
where data varied in a meaningful way between the Minute Orders from the various
sources. Even in the few examples shown below, one can see data variations that
would clearly be sufficient to define the system as inappropriate for the purpose it was
presumably intended – easily accessible by the Court, long term, secure and accurate
record of litigation data.

c. No Legal Analysis for Compliance was Undertaken


No attempt was made to perform legal analysis and formulate opinions regarding
compliance with the law. However, some of the results strongly indicate that there is a
need for legal analysis of compliance in this system.

-5-

67 / 545
3) Results

a. Minute Orders as part of the records in Sustain – No Authenticated


Records Stored (Fig 2b, 3b, 4b, 7b).
In LASC, Minute Orders are issued through Sustain. The text that was entered by the
Judge into the Minute Order is stored in memory as part of the final copy of the Minute
Order. A permanent record of the Minute Orders that were mailed out to parties in the
case is held in Sustain, and can be printed by the Clerk’s office upon demand.

Separately, the text that was entered by the judge is typically also entered as part of the
description of the proceeding (“Events”) of the day - in another Sustain record - “Case
History” (Fig 1 a). At times, the Clerk’s Office in LASC provided copies of “Case
History” report from Sustain is response to requests for the “Register of Actions” – the
permanent record that is the concise formal definitive representation of a court action
(at times also named “Docket”).

All such records are “Trial Court Litigation Records”. The clerks of the court are
charged with their safeguard. They are also “Public Records”, and they must be readily
available for inspection and copying by the public at large.

b. Implementation of Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing in Sustain.


In order to complete the Minute Order mailing procedure in Sustain, a Clerk has to log
in as well, and issue a Certificate of Mailing by Clerk (the Proof of Service). The text of
the standard mailing certificate is added at the end of the text of the Minute Order that
was already entered by the judge. Copies are printed mail-ready for window envelopes
- parties’ names, counsels of record, and mailing addresses are already stored in the
system.

-6-

68 / 545
c. Authentication of the Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing and the Record in
Sustain
On the paper copies that are printed, space is provided for a “wet” signature of the
clerk. Paper copies of Minute Orders from paper Court File, or such that were received
by mail by a party, bear the hand-signature of the Clerk.

However, when copies of Minute Orders are printed out from Sustain by the Clerk’s
Office at a later time, they would still include no hand signature or image of the hand
signature of the Clerk. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no permanent, complete
record of the authenticated Minute Orders in Sustain.

d. Minute Orders – as part of the records in paper Court File (Fig 2a)
After mailing, the Clerk also enters a copy of the Minute Order printed by Sustain –
bearing his/her “wet” signature on the Certificate of Mailing - into the paper Court File.
Therefore, one could conclude that the system was designed with the notion that the
paper Court File would be the definitive record of the litigation. However, the “Register
of Action” that used to be a paper record prior to the introduction of Sustain was
eliminated. One may then conclude that the intention was that the definitive records
would include the paper Court File and the electronic Register of Actions – i.e. Case
History report in Sustain.

All papers entered into in the paper Court File bear a stamp certifying the filing and
entry, and a hand signature by a Clerk:

FILED
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
MAR 28, 2007
JOHN CLARKE, CLERK
<Signature>
BY VIVIAN JAIME, DEPUTY

-7-

69 / 545
The date in the stamp above is an impression of a pre-set stamp, and the signature is a
“wet” hand-signature of the clerk named under the signature line..

However, none of the copies of the Minute Orders derived from the paper Court File
shown here (Fig 2a, 3a, 4a, 7a), or any of the others that were inspected bears the
FILED stamp like the rest of the records in the paper Court File. The reason may be
that the Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing by Clerk includes language that may substitute for
the “FILED” stamp and Clerk’s signature. In fact even the title states: “Notice of
Entry of Order.”

CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/


NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the


above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of
11-1-05 upon each party or counsel named below by
depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
in Santa Monica, California, one copy of the original
entered herein in a separate sealed envelope
for each, addressed as shown below, with the postage
fully prepaid.

Date:
John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk

By: ___________________
T. McDonald

JAY R. STEIN
1801 Century Park East
Suite 2400
Los Angeles California, 90067-2326

However, whereas the language used above may be sufficient for a truthful certificate of
mailing, it is not adequate or truthful for a Notice of Entry of Order. This certificate
states:

“I served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of 11-1-


05 upon each party or counsel named below…”

-8-

70 / 545
Named below in this case was only one party, out of two. This is not an unusual finding
in this case. While one party never got notice, other parties did receive notice from the
court. There were exceptions – for example the July 12, 2007 Minute Order, where a
judge certified mailing of own order, and mailed it only to one party again, but the one
party that was normally excluded from notice (Fig 6).

California Rules of Court state:

Chapter 3. Service and Filing


Rule 1.21. Service
a) Service on a party or attorney
Whenever a document is required to be served on a party, the service must
be made on the party’s attorney if the party is represented.
(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(b) “Serve and file”
As used in these rules, unless a statute or rule provides for a different
method for filing or service, a requirement to “serve and file” a document
means that a copy of the document must be served on the attorney for each
party separately represented, on each self-represented party, and on any
other person or entity when required by statute, rule, or court order, and that
the document and a proof of service of the document must be filed with the
court.
(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007.)
(c) “Proof of service”
As used in these rules, “proof of service” means a declaration stating that
service has been made as provided in (a) and (b). If the proof of service
names attorneys for separately represented parties, it must also state which
party or parties each of the attorneys served is representing.
(Subd (c) adopted effective January 1, 2007.)
Rule 1.21 amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective January 1,
2007.

The Rule is clear – “each party” - not each party in an exclusive list made up at will.
And it is explicit in the requirement to file the Proof s of Service with the court as well.

Therefore, the Minute Orders produced through Sustain are inadequate. The system
deliberately had the Defendant not entered, and therefore, his name typically never
appeared in the mailing list. Fig 1a – opening pages of Case History in Sustain, was
printed out on Aug 1, 2007, as noted in the footer. At the top of page 1, the header
provides space for Plaintiff(s) and Defendant(s) names, counsels’ names, address and

-9-

71 / 545
phone number. Of four parties listed in this case by Aug 1, 2007, only one is listed. The
three unlisted parties are still unlisted in a printout date April 30, 2008. Therefore,
Sustain, a system that was presumably designed to implement the law and assist in the
administration of justice, has become and instrument for abuse of Due Process rights of
litigants.

Recording in Sustain of documents that are incorporated into the Court File is through
a “Document Filed” notation. For each paper document filed in Court File, there is
matching data entry in Sustain, e.g.:

08/09/07 Document Filed MEMO


Order
Court
GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF NIVIE SAMAAN

However, none of the Minute Orders, generated through Sustain, then entered into the
paper Court File, is recorded in Sustain as a paper document that was incorporated into
the paper court file.

Therefore, if “Case History” report in Sustain is serving as the “Register of Actions”, it is


missing any adequate record of any of the Minute Orders - significant part of Litigation
Records, and the Minute Orders are never stamped as “FILED” into the paper Court
File either.

e. Minute Orders - time stamps


i) Paper Court File (Fig 2a, 3a, 4a, 7a): Two notations of date appear on
each and every page of a Minute Order. The first is at the top left corner, and is marked
as in the following example:
DATE: 10/03/07

The second date notation appears in a box at the lower right corner, for example:
MINUTES ENTERED
09/10/07
-10-

72 / 545
COUNTY CLERK

The latter date notation, associated with the words “entered”, and “county clerk”
resembles to a degree the stamp “FILED”, described above, which also includes the
date. However, the box in the lower right corner of each page of the Minute Order
includes no signature. Therefore, it could neither serve for authentication of the filing
or entering of the record into the Court File, nor for the date of such action.

ii. Electronic Court File (Fig 2b, 3b, 4b, 7b)


The same format of double date notation at upper left and lower right corners of each
page is also found in all copies of the Minute Orders derived from the permanent record
in Sustain.
The text of the Minute Order is most times also recorded under “Event” in the Case
History report in Sustain, but it does not appear there as an explicit order, and there is
no authenticated recording there of the date of mailing or entry into the Court File
either.(Fig 1 a, p 3-4).

f. Electronic Court File - Case History Report in Sustain


The first few page of the report are copied in Fig 1a. This report was provided by the
Clerk’s Office in response to a request for “Register of Action”. The Court at times
also described this report as the “Docket”. But other times, the Court claimed that the
“Case Summary” report (Fig 1c), which is part of the online, freely accessible
Courtnet system is the “Docket”. However, disclaimers (Fig 1d) that are posted by the
Court itself on the web warn against the use of that document, and declare that it is not
an official court document.

We analyzed the printout of a Case History report of about 200 pages, which was
made available from one single case (SC087400), since the LASC severely limits public
access to Sustain data, held by the court as – “privileged – for the Court only”.

-11-

73 / 545
Data in the report were compared with photocopies of the Minute Orders:
i. As entered and retained in the paper Court File of the litigation, and/or
ii. As seen in batch printout at purchased from the Clerk’s office, and
iii. Minute Orders received by a party by mail. Only few Minute Orders were
indeed receive by mail in this case. In many of the Minute Orders there is a
note: “Notice waived”, no Certificate of Mailing by the Clerk appears in
such Minute Orders, and no copies were received by mail by a party.
Anecdotal information from other cases indicates that such situation is not
uncommon at the LASC.

g. Variations in Date notations between Minute Orders from paper


Court File and as printed from Sustain.

i. The Date Minute Orders were Entered is almost without exception


later in copies originating from Sustain compared to date noted in
copies incorporated into the paper Court File (Fig 2a vs 2b, 7a vs
7b, 8a vs 8b).
Examination of the dates notations in copies of Minute Orders originating from the
paper Court File, reveals that in all cases with no exceptions, the date listed as date
minutes entered in the box at the lower right corner of the Minute Order is identical
with the date of the proceedings listed at top left. And the same date appears again, a
third time in the Clerk’s Certification of Mailing by the Clerk, as the date of mailing, and
a fourth time, as part of the authentication of the Clerk’s Certification of Mailing. Such
records may generate the impression of perfect compliance with the law – all Minute
Orders are produced on same date as the hearing, mailed out on the same date, and
filed in the paper Court File on the same date.

-12-

74 / 545
However, the picture is entirely different upon examination of Minute Orders derived
from batch printouts from Sustain. In such Minute Orders, there is hardly ever
unanimity between the date listed at top left and the date listed at bottom right- the
date listed as date minutes were entered is always a later date, and it can be as much as
almost 3 months later than the date listed as date minutes entered in the copy of the
Minute Order that is incorporated into the paper Court File.

The most plausible explanation for this variance is that the date in the batch printouts
is the date of the Audit File – or true date of entry, whereas the date on the printout of
the Minute Order that is incorporated into the court file is simply user-defined. This
explanation also explains the great reluctance of the Court to mail out any Minute
Orders, since the postal stamp will provide evidence for the variance.

Indeed, in one of the cases when the Minute Order was mailed out (Fig 8, a, b, c), the
records show the following:

• Minute Order from paper Court File (Fig 8a)


Copy of the Minute Order derived from the paper Court File lists Date of Proceeding:
08/21/07, minutes entered 08/21/07, date of service by mail: 08/21/07, and date of
Clerk’s Certificate of mailing: 08/21/07, with “wet” hand signature of the Clerk.

• Minute Order mailed to Party (Fig 8b)


Copy of the Minute Order received by mail by party lists exactly the same data for dates:
date of proceeding: 08/21/07, minutes entered 08/21/07, date of service by mail:
08/21/07, and date of clerk’s certificate of mailing: 08/21/07, with “wet” hand
signature of the Clerk.

-13-

75 / 545
• Postal Stamp on Envelope in which Minute Order was mailed (Fig 8c)
The postal stamp on the Minute Order shows a date of 08/28/07.

• Minute Order printed later from Sustain (Fig 8d)


Date of proceeding: 08/21/07, date of service by mail: 08/21/07, and date of clerk’s
certificate of mailing: 08/21/07. This copy bears no “wet” hand signature of the Clerk,
and on page 3, the date in the box for Minutes Entered is 8/28/07.

Therefore, one may reasonably conclude that already at the time of data entry, the user
is establishing double records with two very different values under the field of Minutes
Entered.

Needless to say, dates of filing and entry of documents are critical in any litigation, and
therefore deliberately generating incorrect records should not be allowed, and should
not be acceptable in programming for the Court. Lack of Notice, or delayed notice is
always detrimental to party in litigation. However, in some of the instances listed in
the figures, the harm is greater, since the number of days allowed to elapse between the
date the notice is given and the date of appeal is only 10 days, therefore, failure to issue
the Minute Order on time could cause irreparable harm to a party.

ii. “Minutes Entered” date in Sustain, but not in paper Court File may
assume invalid values of 00/00/00 or 33/33/33, therefore
invalidating the record. (Fig 3a vs 3b, Fig 4a vs 4b)
We believe that any Minute Order that shows a date of entry such as 00/00/00 or
33/33/33 is an invalid court record, for the simple reason that it has an invalid date of
entry. In addition, one may notice that on page 1 of Case History (Fig 1a) at the upper
right corner, it states clearly regarding the case as a whole –

# Children :
Filed : 10/25/05

-14-

76 / 545
Age : 645
Disposed : 00/00/00

It is not clear if it must be entered at the time of issuing the Minute Order, or at a later
time. But the data shows that the time between entry and invalidations was as short as
less than a week in one case.

Obviously, parties in a litigation must be informed if the records were changed in such
drastic way. There is no evidence of notice of the invalidations, neither is there any
evidence of an attempt to notice the invalidation.

iii. Back-dating of visible records, and invisible to the public recording


of the true dates, are common throughout the System (Fig 1a vs
1b)
Fig 1a shows the opening pages of Case History in Sustain. That page include some
unusual notes entered as “Document Filed” listings. For example, in litigation in
Trial Court, the term or party designation “Real Party in Interest” is hardly ever
used. But the note on page 1 (Box added) states:

07/24/04 Document Filed


Opposition
Real Parties in Interest
( BY COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS)

As noted above, the same page, at the upper right corner provides the date complaint
was filed in this case – 10/25/05. Therefore, this note is listed at a date that is prior to
the creation of this file in Sustain. As such, this listing shows a failure in the logic of
the programming.

Moreover, for each and every entry in this program there is a matching “Audit File”
including the login time stamp and User ID respective to that data entry. Such data is

-15-

77 / 545
never shared with the public. Fig 1b is the Audit File data associated with this peculiar
listing:
On page 1 – at the bottom of the page the listing appears of the note copied above.
On page 2 – at the top of the page – the end line of that note.
On page 3 – in the middle of the page – Audit File data:

AUDIT
Date Time Function User ID User Name
7/24/07 8:36am Add 6815 Jaime, Vivian

Obviously, the date when the note was entered was 7/24/07, and the date of 7/24/04
was a user defined date. It is likely that the same is true for the dates as seen on the
Minute Orders, that the date shown in printouts that were incorporated into the paper
file was the user defined date, and the date that was recorded always on the last page of
the Minute Order, in the Minutes Entered box, is the Audit File data for that entry.

iv. Back-dating allowed entering of Minute Order at a Time that the


User should have been without Authority to Enter Data in that File
(Fig 7 a, b).

Fig 7a, b show Minute Order of Sept 10, 2007. That Minute Order in Court File notes
Minutes Entered 09/10/07. The Minute Order from Sustain notes: Minutes Entered
09/11/07. However, the judge in this case was disqualified on Sept 10, 2007.
Therefore, the judge had no authority to enter that data file on Sept 11, 2007.
Unfortunately, that failure of the CMS to establish authorities properly allowed entering
of a false and deliberately misleading data in this case. The hearing that is recorded
never took place, as demonstrated by transcript of the same date.
It is not clear to what degree the system defines authorities clearly enough, since there
are several other instances of posting that would have been blocked had authorities
been defined adequately.

-16-

78 / 545
v. Variations in the Wording among Records of Same Order (Fig 5 a,
b, c)
The July 6, 2007 Minute Order includes some variations in wording that may initially
look like an innocent error to the naïve reader. In Sustain’s “Case History” report,
which is hardly ever seen by litigants or counsels, the following note was added at the
end of that Minute Order (2nd page in the figure, page 58 of Case History):
“Proceedings not recorded”
We take this note at face value – that the proceeding was “off the record”. There are
additional findings relative to this proceeding that support that reading of the text. That
proceeding was conducted in a manner that was extremely unlikely for any “on the
record” proceeding. The writings left from this proceeding, as well as the proceeding of
July 23, 2007, which was its sequel, appear to have been intentionally ambiguated.

There is no evidence that any party was notified in advance of the intention to conduct
proceedings off the record on that date. There is no evidence that parties were notified
after the fact that proceedings were off the record either. Moreover, there is no
evidence that any attempt was made to notify parties of the unusual nature of the
proceedings either. Needless to say, most reasonable parties would avoid participation
in any proceedings that are “off the record”.

vi. Variations in the Wording of the Standard Certification of Mailing


(Fig 9a,b)
The Minute Order of July 12, 2007 is unusual, since it presents an improvised
Certificate of Mailing by a Judge, albeit, unauthenticated. In contrast with other errors,
which could be ascribed to lower level staff errors, it is unlikely that this record was
generated by staff, albeit – it needs to be examined in more detail. In addition – this
record is not the kind that could be generated through omission or simple neglect. First
the normal Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing had to be eliminated, and then, a new
certificate had to be composed. Furthermore, there had to be a reason to go through
such effort.
-17-

79 / 545
Fig 9b presents the Minute Order as seen in the permanent record in Sustain, where it
is dated July 23, 2007, or 11 days after the date of the proceeding, which in this case
was disqualification of a judge – therefore – the time of mailing was critical. A judge
who does not serve a response within 10 days is disqualified.

The unusual nature of the proceeding may also be related to the fact that the Clerk did
not sign this particular record, since the law ascribes to the Clerk a particular function
in cases like this (California Code of Civil Procedure §170.3). It is possible that the clerk
refused to sign this particular certificate.
The paper file fails to present any copy of this particular minute Order, and Party’s
records show no Minute Order like this particular one was received by mail either.

vii. Records missing Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing by present in paper


Court File

Many of the Minute Orders present in the paper court file in this case are missing the
Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing. Indeed they are missing altogether from the party’s
record. Therefore, a reasonable conclusion is that indeed they were never mailed out in
the first place.

When asking attorneys practicing in Los Angeles, it turns out that this is indeed the
local custom. The Los Angeles Superior Court does not mail out the Minute Orders to
the counsels. Instead, the requirement is waived on a regular basis. Why would any
counsel in his right mind waive such right? And why would a court of law establish it as
a local custom not to mail out its minute orders?

viii. Records missing altogether from the paper Court File

-18-

80 / 545
h. Correlations between the Nature of the Proceedings and Variations
in Data Among Sources
The data shown above are not sufficient to demonstrate conclusively the assertion that the
more unusual the nature of the proceeding, the more likely it was that the records would
show variations in dates or in wording among sources. Most of the examples listed in the
figures, are associated with procedures that are not the most common in litigation. For
example – the July 6, 2007 record, where there is a variation in wording between the Minute
Order and Case History, and the note: “Proceedings not Recorded” added in Case History.
That proceeding was an ex parte procedure, scheduled at an irregular time, for the purpose
of setting a gag order on an individual at the request of a large corporation.
Ascribing motivations would require a much more thorough study of the system.

We may add, that the findings presented here are just a very small selection that is focusing
almost entirely on the issue of determination of dates, since it was believed to be the easiest
finding to present, and for readers to understand. Most people have a sense that back-dating
documents is inherently wrong, and back-dating court documents is not something that
sounds like a sound practice in a court of Justice.

But the findings of the analysis of the data as a whole strongly suggests that many more
proceedings in this case were of the type that the judiciary considered “off the record”, but
never notified the parties of that fact. Again, this type of data is more complex in nature,
and it was excluded from this report.

3. Conclusion and Recommendations

a. Any change in CMS should be deemed change in Rules of Court,


and accordingly approached.

-19-

81 / 545
The Rule Enabling Act (part of U.S. Code) demands publication of any new rules and
reasonable opportunity for public challenge. The introduction of Sustain was
unquestionably a major departure from prior Rules of Court, but there is no indication
that the Rules of Court were accordingly updated. Sustain is for example never
mentioned in the Rules of Court of LA County. Not even once.

No new case management system should be allowed before giving public notice and an
opportunity for comment.

However, when it comes to computer systems, public comment is incapacitated absent


detailed information regarding system specifications. Therefore, rules must be
developed regarding the method of presentation of such systems for public comment
(similar to rules that evolved in the past regarding presentation of building plans for
public comment). In such posting for public comment, the logic of the programming
code may need to be reduced to a set of assertions in natural language. Moreover, in
consultation with experts from the field of mathematics and logic, standardized
presentations may be developed, and methods of certification, to ensure that such
presentations in natural language are true and correct reflection of the code. Such
certification is comparable to a certification on a building plan by an engineer or an
architect, stating that the drawing indeed represents a true and correct representation
of the detailed plans that may be not be fully included in the item presented for public
view. In addition, it may be necessary to certify that the logic of the system is consistent
with the legal code that is implemented in it. Mathematical and logical methods such as
“formal verification” and “simulation verification” are in existence that may be utilized
for this purpose. But none of it has been done in the past, when large computer
systems were introduced in public agencies, and at present, when such systems are
being replaced with second or third generation, there is no indication that there is any
intention to do so either.

-20-

82 / 545
b. State of the Art Security and Signage Measures Must be
Implemented.

Based on the little that Plaintiff has learnt about Sustain, it is reasonable to assume that
it was modified over the years, and that such modifications were not uniform in all
locations of the Court. Any ad hoc changes in a CMS are a major risk to its integrity,
and rules must be developed to safeguard the systems against such changes in the code.

The system as it is operated now implements User ID’s and passwords. But such are
hidden from public view in the Audit Files. That is out of compliance with the of the law
relative to implementation of electronic and digital signatures. Such laws as the U.S. E-
sign Act of 2002 and the California regulations regarding electronic signatures
mandate that wherever such signatures were traditionally open to public view – and
they definitely were open to public view in traditional Books of Court - they must be
made accessible for public inspection also in their digital permutation.

c. New methods and procedures should be developed for


public review and comment on logic machines.

The problem inherent in CMS’s is to a degree similar to that of Electronic Voting


Machines – extremely high value is placed from public-policy perspective on
verification of such processes, which are some of the foundations of democratic society,
and long-term safeguard of their integrity. The two systems differ however, in that
CMS’s reflect a more complex logic, and require networked implementation and
ongoing data input by various users with different authorities, more comparable to a
production monitoring system.

Beyond that – the major difference is that introduction of Electronic Voting Machines
was to a large degree interrupted, due to public awareness and public protest of the lack
of verification. CMS’s were introduced at a time when such awareness was hardly

-21-

83 / 545
existent. Therefore, they provide in a way a reflection of a branch of government (the
Judiciary in this case) operating based on its own rules, with minimum oversight, if
any.

d. Lessons must be distilled from the traditional paper-based


systems

It appears that with the computerized revolution, the traditional systems were
discarded without giving them a second thought. Primary consideration should be
given to strengthening the ministerial arm of the court, as a counter balance to the
judicial, with highly educated and skilled clerks in key positions. The authorities of the
judicial and the ministerial arms should be carefully prescribed and segregated, to
generate appropriate checks and balances.

e. CMS’s Must be Utilized to Safeguard Due Process and to Monitor


the Quality and Integrity of the Courts

The significance of correct docketing must be emphasized, and the systems must not
allow easy ways to bypass the menu-driven, rule-based docketing. Without accurate
docketing, the system is useless. With accurate docketing the system can become a
valuable instrument in safeguarding Due Process. The contribution of the ministerial
staff in this process needs to be emphasized, and their personal accountability for each
act of docketing, which must bear a personal digital signature that is easily visible, and
easily associated with an individual.

f. The best safeguard for integrity in operations of CMS’s is in


transparency through public access to electronic Court File
records.

The single factor that may contribute more than anything else to safeguard of the
integrity of the operation of CMS’s is public scrutiny through public access. Therefore,

-22-

84 / 545
the fact that Sustain gained a “privileged” status in Los Angeles Count, is alarming in
and of itself, probably at the source of the problem. CMS must be treated like Court
Files that they are – the public has the right to view these public records.

Word Count: 5915

-23-

85 / 545
Please notice:
Figures are provided here in a more complete fashion to support rigorous review.
Prior to publication the size of the figures will be drastically reduced.

LIST OF FIGURES:

1. OPENING PAGES OF CASE HISTORY REPORT/SUSTAIN


This is the formal record of litigations, but it is hardly ever seen by
attorneys practicing in LA County, since the Court holds that “Sustain
data are privileged – for the Court only”. Instead, most rely on
records such as “Case Summary” described in 1c.
Note that the all three entries on page 1, are back-dated prior to the time of
initiation of litigation. The bottom note on Page 1 of Case History is back-
dated July 24, 2004 – prior to filing of claims and prior to relevant
events ever taking place. In fact it was entered on 7/24/04, as seen in 1b.

a. Copy from printout of the visible data in the electronic Court File (Sustain)
Case History report.
Filing Date – 07/24/07

b. The electronic Court File (Sustain) Audit File of same note. The audit data
is normally invisible, and is never provided to the public -
Filing Date – 07/24/07
Note on page 3-4 the typical sequence of opening and closing an “Event”
typically starting with “Document Filed”, proceeding through an
“Event” where the Minute Order is recorded, and ending with “Event
Complete”.

c. Copy of opening sequence of the “Case Summary” report in Courtnet,


which is easily accessible to the public on the web, but is disclaimed on the
same web pages, as not a formal document of the Court.

d. Disclaimer regarding “Case Summary”

2. BACK-DATING OF COURT ORDERS


Nov 1, 2005 Minute Order – re-assignment of a case to a judge
following peremptory challenge.

a. Copy of the Minute Order from paper Court File:


Date of Entry - 11/1/05.

b. Copy of the Minute Order from electronic Court File – Sustain:


-24-

86 / 545
Date of Entry - 01/30/06.

3. INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS WITH NO NOTICE.


Oct 3, 2007 Minute Order – recusal by a judge -

a. Copy of the Minute Order from paper Court File:


Date of Entry - 10/3/07

b. Copy of the Minute Order from electronic Court File - in Sustain:


Date of Entry - 00/00/00 – record invalidated
(also see note on page 1 of the Electronic Court File regarding date of
00/00/00 - Fig 1, above)

4. INVALIDATION OF COURT ORDERS WITH NO NOTICE.


Jan 30, 2008 Minute Order – Ex-parte request by an individual
for the Court to release funds held by the Court.

a. Copy of the Minute Order from paper Court File:


Date of Entry - 1/30/08 -– Denied with prejudice

b. Copy of the Minute Order from electronic Court File - Sustain


Date of Entry - 00/00/00 - Record invalidated
(also see note on page 1 of the Electronic Court File regarding date of
00/00/00 - Fig 1, above)

5. NOTING A PROCEEDING AS “OFF THE RECORD”


July 6, 2007 Minute Order - Ex parte request by a large
corporation for a gag order on an individual.

a. Copy of the Minute Order from electronic Court File (batch print job):
Date of Entry - 07/06/09 - Motion denied, no clerk certificate.
b. Copy of the Minute Order from electronic Court File (Case History):
Date of Entry – date of entry not marked in Case History – notice
comment “Proceeding not recorded”
c. Copy of the Minute Order from paper Court File:
Date of Entry – no copy of the Minute Order in paper Court File

-25-

87 / 545
6. MINUTE ORDER WITH A DEFECTIVE CERTIFICATE OF
MAILING - BY A JUDGE.
July 12, 2007 Minute Order – Disqualification of a judge for a
cause.

a. Copy of the Minute Order from the paper Court File - this Minute
Order is unsigned in the paper file, and it contains at its end
what appears as an unauthenticated Certificate of Mailing by a
Judge – an un-allowed type of certificate

b. Copy of the Minute Order in electronic Court File – in Sustain

i. Missing the typical Certificate of Mailing by Clerk,


ii. Includes at its end an improvised certificate of mailing by
the judge for self – an invalid certificate of mailing
iii.Mailing listed to one party only – and no evidence that it
took place at all.
iv. Back-date, true date of entry is July 23, 2007. By law it
had to be served within 10 days, otherwise, the judge is
deemed disqualified.

7. FICTITIOUS MINUTE ORDER


Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order – Disqualification of a judge for a
cause – but a hearing on Motion for Sanctions that never took
place was recorded.

a. Copy of the Minute Order from the paper Court File:


Date of Entry – 09/10/07 - unsigned

b. Copy of the Minute Order from the electronic Court File:


Date of Entry – 09/11/07 – when Judge was already disqualified.

8. BACK-DATING CONFIRMED BY POSTAL STAMP.


Aug 21, 2007 Minute Order – ex parte for ”entry of judgment” -

a. Copy of the Minute Order from the paper Court File:


Minutes Entered – 08/21/07 – with hand signature of clerk

b. Copy of the Minute Order from the electronic Court File:


Minutes Entered – 08/28/07 – with no signature

-26-

88 / 545
c. Copy of the Minute Order as receive by mail by Party:
Minutes Entered – 08/21/07 – with hand signature of clerk

d. Copy of the Envelope that the Minute Order was mailed in:
Postal Stamp – 08/28/07

-27-

89 / 545
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
“ Judge shall be faithful to the law…”
Cal Code Jud Ethics 3B(2)
“The rule of law must never be confused with tyranny of the courts”
Anonymous

Table I. Minute Orders, Other Orders & Notices in Paper and Electronic Court Files.
Start (*) in column 7 indicates a minute order or other record that is particularly dishonest of fraudulent.

The main claim in this table is about a fact that is simple to prove – that the court routinely engages in back-dating its own records, by days,
weeks, months, and sometimes years.

Another claim is that the judges, without exception engaged in the habit of secretly voiding/invalidating/disposing orders from
chambers, which in paper court file appeared as valid orders, such records appear with a “Date Minutes Entered” of 00/00/00 or 33/33/33.

Otherwise, Judge Connor routinely produced false and deliberately misleading records by invalid piggy-back registration of proceedings,
where only one is truly registered court action, the other ones- off the record.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No Judge Actions - Sustain Events Event Paper File Electronic File
Date Page # and Page # and Event Date
Event Date on First and on Last Page

Paper Notice of Case Assignment to Individual Calendar Court,


1)
on paper only, no comparable record in Sustain.
10/25/05 01 - - - - -

2) Neidorf Plaintiff’s Peremptory Challenge of Judge Neidorff 11/01/05 04 11/01/05 2 11/01/05 1 011/1/05
*
3) Lefkowitz Re-assignment to Connor by Lefkowitz – back-dated 3 months. 11/01/05 02 11/01/05 5 11/01/05 6 01/30/06

1) Demurrer per Statute of Frauds: Overruled, Granted, Voided. *


4) Connor? 2) Initial status Conference – Off the record 1/30/06 06 01/30/06 7 01/30/06 9 00/00/00
3) OSC RE; Contempt for POS – Off the record

5) Connor? Voided 00/00/00 - - - - 10 00/00/00 *


90 / 545
6) Connor? Voided 00/00/00 - - - - 11 04/06/06
7) Connor Status Conference 04/6/06 09 04/06/06 = - 12 06/13/06 *
8) Connor 06/13/06 10 06/13/06 13 06/13/06 13 09/19/06
9) Connor 09/19/06 - 09/19/06 14 10/17/06 14 10/17/06
Paper Stipulation to Continue Hearing Date for Defendant’s
10) Connor
Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens
10/17/06 13 10/17/06 - - - -
11) Connor Present Stipulation as above 10/17/06 17 10/17/06 15 10/31/06 15 10/31/06
12) Connor Old cont date of hearing on lis pendens- shell only 10/31/06 - 10/31/06 16 11/07/06 16 11/07/06
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Sur Reply for entry of Evidence - Fraudulent
13) Connor
Countrywide records- Granted
11/7/06 18 11/07/06 17 11/0906 17 11/0906

1) Further Status Conference –Motion Denied


14) Connor 2) Trial Setting Conference – Off the Record 11/9/06 19 11/09/06 18 11/09/07 21 01/16/06
3) Defendant’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens – Off the record

15) Connor Defendant’s Motion to be Relieve as Counsel – shell only 01/16/07 - - 22 1/16/07 22 1/16/07

Ex parte application of Att Cummings for short-notice hearing of *


motion to be relieved as counsel - Granted and Voided*
16) Connor - Incomplete Event, yet minute order issued. 01/16/07 - - 23 00/00/00 23 00/00/00*
- *In copy 11/14/08 date was restored, but event still
incomplete
17) Connor Voided 00/00/00 - - 24 02/05/07 24 02/05/07
18) Connor Defendant’s Motion to be relieved as Counsel 02/5/07 24 02/05/07 25 02/05/07 26 03/06/07
19) Connor Further Status Conference. Schorr 1st appearance. 03/6/07 25 03/06/07 27 03/28/07 27 03/28/07
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on July 5, 2007, less
20) Connor than 30 days before trial - Granted 03/28/07 26 03/28/07 28 04/03/07 28 04/03/07
Trial advanced July 13 to Aug 10, 2007.

91 / 545
Paper Order granting permit for hearing summary judgment
21) Connor motion on July 5. No POS. A signed order by Connor that 3/28/07 28 3/28/07 - - - -
appears valid.
Defendant’s ex parte application for the appointment of a
22) Connor
discovery referee: Denied.
04/03/07 30 04/03/07 29 04/06/07 29 04/16/07
Motion to compel Zernik deposition and continue trial date:
23) Connor Granted. Depo – April 20, 2007, later canceled by Keshavarzi, 04/16/07 30 04/16/07 30 04/19/07 30 04/19/07
Trial continued to Sep 7, 2007.
Paper Order to compel Zernik Deposition on April 20, 2007. No
24) 04-16/07 32 04/17/07
POS. A signed order by Connor that appears valid.

1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents -


Continued
25) Connor 2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel inspection of land and property – 04/19/07 34 04//19/07 31 04/26/07 31 04/26/07
Off the record

1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents – *


Granted with Sanctions of $1,700.00
2) Plaintiff’s motion to compel inspection of land and property –
Off the record, with sanctions of $870
26) Connor No sanctions listed in title, but sanction of $2,570 are 04/26/07 35 04/26/07 32 4/26/07 35 05/01/07
imposed, with no adequate order.
Judge Connor never signed an order for sanctions, yet Attorney
Keshavarzi made fraudulent notice of such, enabled by denial of
access to records to Defendant.
Further Status Conference: Mediator Scholtes, MSJ Aug 2, Final
27) Connor
Status Conference –Aug 30, 2007, Trial – Sept 7, 2007.
05/01/50 39 05/01/07 36 05/01/07 36 05/14/07
Plaintiff’s Paper Notice of order to compel and sanctions. Not
28) signed by Connor, Not stamped Filed. Based on Tentative 05/01/07 40 05/01/07 - - - -
ruling. Deemed fraudulent.
Defendant’s ex parte application for shortened notice hearing for *
29) Connor
reconsideration: Denied, Voided.
05/14/07 44 05/14/07 37 05/14/07 37 00/00/00

92 / 545
Defendant’s ex parte to extend discovery cut off: Shell only,
30) Connor
Voided
00/00/00 - - - - 38 05/22/07
31) Connor Defendant’s ex parte to extend discovery cut off, Denied 05/22/07 45 05/22/07 - - 39 05/23/07 *
32) Connor Blank - 05/23/07 - - 40 07/06/07
Defendant’s notice of Ruling on denial of Discovery Cut Off
33) Connor
Date.
05/22/07 46 05/23/07 - - - -

34) Post mediation Status Conference 05/23/07 50

Überparty Countrywide’s ex parte off the record, off the calendar *


for a gag order, proceeding not recorded. (no minute order in
paper court file: Denied? Continued?
Court ruled on its own, with no motion by either party or court, to
hear another motion on same matter on 7/23/08, again off the Missing in
35) Connor record, without service to defendant of the new moving papers of 7/6/07 - Paper - - 41 07/09/07
such motion prior to his deadline for opposition. Countrywide lists Court File
itself as “Non-Party”, the Court lists it as “Plaintiff”.
No minute order of this proceeding exists in the paper court file.
Electronic Court File, Register of Actions states: “Proceedings
not recorded”. Uniquely abusive.
Paper Proposed Order of July 6, 20007 – Denied
36) Connor
Crossed out in red across face of the proposed order.
07/06/07 51 07/06/07 - - - -

Paper Proposed Order of July 6, 2007 – Denied


37) Crossed out in red across face of the proposed order. Separate 07/06/07 53 07/06/07 - - - -
copy than previous.

93 / 545
Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of sanctions: Denied & *
Granted.- Fictitious
Fictitious minute order, including fictitious listing of scheduling
Missing in
in Case History. No transcript exists of this hearing, which is
38) Connor
claimed to have been held “telephonically”. Zernik never
7/9/07 - paper 42 070/9/07 44 07/12/07
court file
talked with Connor by phone. Two contradictory adjudications
were entered, Denied, and Granted – typical for frauds by
Connor.
1) Plaintiff’s Motion to compel deposition – Granted, to take *
place prior to July 20.
2) Plaintiff’s motion to deem admissions admitted – off the
record
3) Judge Connor’s response to Disqualification for a Cause – off
the record.
39) Connor
Disqualification per CCP §170.3, served July 12, 2007: Strike &
7/12/07 55 07/12/07 45 7/12/07 54 07/23/07
Answer.
Fraudulent back-dated minute order –
Judge Connor first fraudulently ruled upon it in open court on July
12, 2007: Struck as untimely peremptory challenge per CCP
§170.6.
Plaintiff’s Notice of Order – Deposition set for July 20, 2007, and
40) Connor
disqualification “denied”. Fraudulent.
07/12/07 65 07/19/07 - - - -

Paper Order denying Peremptory Challenge and Striking


41) Connor Statement of Disqualification. Also Verified Answer. 07/12/07 72 ? - - - -
Stamped July 12, 2007.
1) Defendant’s motion to expunge lis pendens - denied *
42) Connor 2) Überparty (Countrywide) motion for protective (gag) order – 7/23/07 79 07/23/07 55 7/23/07 58 07/24/07
off the record – no adjudication listed (p74)

Paper Überparty (Countrywide) Joint stipulation and proposed


43)
order for protective gag order against Zernik – unsigned.
07/23/07 87 07/23/07 - - - -

94 / 545
1) Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a discovery referee –
Granted in part;
2) Defendant ex parte application to compel production and
sanctions – Off the record, no adjudication listed,
44) Connor
3) Defendant’s ex parte application for leave to amend,
07/24/07 90 07/24/07 59 7/24/07 60 07/27/07
alternatively – for short notice for hearing on leave to amend –
Off the record, no adjudication listed in Register of Actions

45) Connor 07/27/07 - 07/27/07 - - 61 08/01/07


46) Connor Duplicate print of above. 07/27/07 - 07/27/07 63 7/27/07 64 08/01/07
Defendant’s Exparte proceeding to continue hearing of Plaintiff’s
47) Segal
motion for summary judgment – no adjudication listed.
08/1/07 - 08/01/07 - - 65 08/02/07
Defendant’s Exparte proceeding to continue hearing of Plaintiff’s *
motion for summary judgment – Denied listed in Minute Order.
48) Segal
No adjudication listed in Register of Actions, only
08/2/07 92 08/02/07 - - 66 08/09/07
“Completed”.
*
Paper Judgment
49)
No mention of entering, no herein, no forthwith.
08/09/07 94 08/09/07 - - - -

Motion for Summary Judgment – Shell only


50) Connor 08/9/07 - - - 67 08/09/07
1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment –“Granted in *
part”
51) Connor
2) Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend – Off the record
8/9/07 95 08/09/07 71 08/09/07 78 08/14/07
No adjudication listed in Register of Actions.
Paper Notice of Order: Denial of Leave to Amend.
52) Connor Based on Tentative Ruling, fraudulent. 08/09/07 103 08/10/07 - - - -
Shows that no minute order was available.

Paper Notice of Order: Motion for Summary Judgment.


53) Connor
Included “Conformed” stamped copy of the order.
08/09/07 109 08/13/07? - - - -

95 / 545
54) Paper Order Granting Summary Judgment 08/09/07 115 08/09/07

Plaintiff’s ex parte application for order for entry of *


55) Connor
judgment – Continued
8/14/07 118 08/14/07 - - 79 08/16/07
56) Connor Paper Notice of Ruling – entry of judgment. 08/14/07 119 08/15/07 - - - -
Defendant’s ex parte application for evidentiary rulings -
57) Connor
Continued
8/16/07 122 08/16/07 - 80 08/21/07
1) Plaintiff’s ex parte application for order for entry of *
58) Connor judgment 8/21/07 126 08/21/07 81 8/21/07 83 08/28/07
2) Defendant’s ex parte application for rulings –Off the Record

59) Connor Defendant ex parte application to continue trial – Granted. 8/28/07 127 08/28/07 - - 84 08/30/07
60) Connor Paper Order to Continue Trial 8/28/07 128 8/28/07 - - - -
Defective order appointing discovery referee, where Judge *
61) Connor Connor was to appoint an Escrow referee.. Typical fraud by 8/30/07 134 08/30/07 - - 85 09/05/07
Connor – pretense of error.
1) Defendant’s ex parte application for terms of Escrow Refere7 *
62) Connor
2) Defendant’s ex parte application for notice.
9/5/07 09/05/07 - 86 09/10/07

91 09/11/07 *
1)Motion for sanction per CCP §128.7 – Denied – Fictitious.
2) Connor
2) Disqualification for a cause – off the record.
9/10/07 09/10/07 87 9/10/07

3) Goodman 1. Peremptory 9/11/07 09/11/07 92 9/11/07 93 09/11/07 *


4) Goodman 9/17/07 09/17/07 94 9/17/07 95 09/20/07
5) Goodman 9/20/07 09/20/07 96 9/20/07 97 09/20/07
6) Goodman Prop order refer 9/20/07 09/20/07 98 9/20/07 99 00/00/00 *
7) Goodman Blank?/Voided 00/00/00 - - - 10/03/07
8) Goodman Recusal/Voided 10/03/07 10/03/07 10/03/07 00/00/00 *
9) Biderman Blank?/Voided 10/05/07 00/00/00 101
- - 104 10/05/07 *
10) Biderman Recusal 10/05/07 10/05/07 10/05/07 10/10/07
96 / 545
Defendant’s ex parte application for orders to enforce Due
11) Segal
Process of the law: Under Submission
10/10/07 10/10/07 - 10/10/07
109
Defendant’s ex parte application for orders to enforce Due
12) Segal
Process of the law: Under Submission
10/10/07 10/10/07 10/10/07 10/10/07
110 112
13) Segal 10./11/07 10./11/0 - 10/16/07
14) Segal 10/16/07 10/16/07 10/16/07 10/17/07
15) Segal Court’s response to Disqualification for a Cause. 10/17/07 10/17/07 10/17/07 10/22/07 *
117 119
16) Goodman Defendant’s Motion for Due Process of the Law/Blank 10/22/07 10/22/07 - 10/23/07
Defendant’s Motion for Due Process of the Law: Under
120
17) Segal
submission
10/23/07 10/23/07 - 10/23/07
121
18) Segal Defendant’s Motion for Due Process of the Law: 10/26/07 10/23/07 10/26/07 10/26/07
122 124
Defendant’s Motion for Due Process of the Law: Under
19) Segal
submission
10/26/07 10/26/07 - 10/26/07
125
20) Segal Defendant’s Motion for Due Process of the Law: Denied 10/26/07 10/26/07 10/26/07 11/05/07
21) Segal Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions- Off Calendar – fees not piad 11/05/07 11/05/07 126
- - 12 11/05/07
Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a short-notice hearing on motion *
22) Segal
to appoint a receiver – Granted/Voided
11/05/07 11/05/07 11/05/07 33/33/33
130 132
23) Goodman Defendant’s Motion for New Trial: Blank/Voided. 33/33/33 11/08/07 - 11/08/07 *
1) Status Conference - fossil
2) Defendant’s motion of due process rights.
24) Biderman
3) Motion fo sanctions
11/08/07 11/08/07 - 11/09/07
134
4) Motion for new trial.

97 / 545
1) Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of receiver: Under
Submission
25) Segal 2) Defendnntns ex parte application for shortened notice hearing 11/09/07 11/09/07 - - 11/09/07
on order to set bond – off the record 135
3) Motion to set calendar – off the record

1) Plaintiff’s 4-day notice motion to appoint a receiver- Granted


2) Defendant’s ex parte application for shortened notice hearing
to set bond – off the record
3) Defendant’s ex parte for calendar – off the record
Moving paper for motion for receiver included fraud and perjury:
26) Segal Under Tab 1, declaration stated the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by 11/09/07 11/09/07 11/09/07 11/14/07
Court was attached. In fact, another record was inserted. In 136 138
open court, moving party stated he did not recognize a valid
Judgment in this case. Accordingly, the order never referred to
any section of the code as the foundation for the authority of the
“Receiver” in this case.

27) Segal New Trial 11/14/07 11/14/07 11/20/07 11/20/07


28) Segal Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of receiver: Voided 11/20/07 - - - 00/00/00 *
29) - - 00/00/00 - - - - 11/21/07
142

98 / 545
*
1) Receiver’s ex parte application for: a) order to vacate and b) to
issue unlawful detainer. INCOMPLETE, NO REGISTRATION,
yet order signed.
2) Defendant’s ex parte for temporary stay and to set bond – no
adnudication – off the record
30) Segal The language says order was signed this date – but the order 11/21/07 12/04/07 11/21/07 12/04/07
was never served. It has strange language:”as if writ of 143 145
execution was issued, to the extent the sheriff can do so”.
order was ever found or served. N. Estrada (regular clerk was
Alma Mora) is signed on the certificate, 2 weeks back-dated. NO
REGISTRATION

Response to Disqualification for a Cause file 11/17/07.


31) Segal The Minutes are dated 12/04/07, but Mora signed 12/5/07. - 12/04/07 12/04/07 12/04/07
146 148
32) Segal Response to Disqualification and Recusal - 12/04/07 12/04/07 12/07/07
Receiver’s Exparte proceeding for Gag Orders, Financial *
Abusive Orders, Indemnity Agreement to entice escrow to
collaborate in frauds with the court – Granted
Invalid registration in Sustain.
33) Collins
This proceeding included “approval” by the court of a
12/07/07 12/07/07 12/07/07 12/07/07
fraudulent Grant Deed for the property presented by Att
Pasternak as part of his fraudulent conveyance of title.

Receiver’s Exparte proceeding for Gag Orders, Financial *


Abusive Orders, Indemnity, and Defendant’s Peremptory
Challenge- Recusal, Voided
Hart-
34)
Cole
This proceeding included an incognito appearance by Att 12/07/07 12/07/07 12/07/07 165 00/00/00
Richard Ormond (Buchalter Nemer) for Mara Escrow, where 163
both the Judge and the Attorneys present refused to reveal
his identity or the identity of his client.

99 / 545
Überparty (Countrywide) ex parte application for an order
35) Friedman setting hearing on motion for sanctions for Feb 7, 2008: 12/13/07 12/13/07 - 12/17/07
Granted. 166

Case review, order setting hearing for Jan 11, 2008 Case
36) Friedman
Conference.
12/17/07 - 12/17/07 12/26/07
167 168
Defendant’s ex parte application for Due Process of the law, *
37) Rosenberg
Voided
12/26/07 12/26/07 00/00/00
169 171
38) - Voided 00/00/00 - - - 12/13/07
39) - Blank - Voided 00/00/00 - - - 1 2 00/00/00
1 3
1) Sanctions
40) Friedman
2) Disqualification
01/11/08 01/11/08 01/11/08 01/15/08
175 178
Defendant’s Peremptory Challenge – Struck.
41) Friedman Fraudulent minute order, Disqualification for a cause, not 01/15/08 01/15/08 01/15/08 11/18/08
Peremptory Challenge. 179 180

Überparty (Countrywide) ex parte application for an order Jo


Friedman setting hearing on motion for sanctions for Feb 15, 2008: 01/18/08 01/18/08 01/29/08
se
42) 01/29/08
Granted. 181
43) Friedman Defendant’s ex parte to release funds – Denied 01/29/08 h 01/30/08 - 01/30/08
44) Defendant’s ex parte to release funds – Denied/Voided
Friedman 01/30/08 01/30/08 - - 00/00/00 *
Voided 183
Überparty (Countrywide) Motion for sanctions against
45) Friedman
Defendant per ex post facto order of 1/11- Blank
02/07/08 03/03/08 - - 02/15/08
184
Überparty (Countrywide) Motion for sanctions against
46) Friedman Defendant per ex post facto order of 1/11, and for a hearing 02/15/08 02/15/08 02/15/08 03/03/08
on order to show cause - Granted 185 188
47) Defendant’s ex parte application to continue OSC hearing
Friedman 03/03/08 03/07/08 - - 03/07/08
48) Friedman OSC Re: Contempt per unregistered ex post facto 03/07/08 03/07/08 03/7/08 189 03/19/08 *
order1/11/08 11 2008

100 / 545
Disqualification Response (for disqualification of 3/12/08) – *
49) Friedman
Answer (unadjudicated), Strike, Voided
3/19/08 03/19/08 03/19/08 00/00/00
193 194

101 / 545
Powered By Pitney Bowes Page 1 of 1

~
"tJ c
I

l!-
(JJ
e: "tJ
en (JJ
"tJ
en "tJ
c
-4
m
r- -
::0
::r
Ct
en
;.
<:
m o
:0
Ct
11/
en
..
CD
~
(")
--I
::0
~
'<
oz -<
..o
!!
'tI
s:
»-
11/ ::tJ
'<
s:
~ r-
zo @)

-- X ------------------------------------
Cut on dotted line

Instructions Online label Record


1. Adhere the shipping label to the package. A self-
adhesive label is recommended. Iftape or glue is Delivery Confirmation Number:
used, DO NOTTAPE OVER BARCODE.Be sure all 420900279101128882300388948641
edges are secure. Print Date: 08/19/08 (GMT)Ship Date: 08/19/08
2. Place the label so it does not wrap around the edge of PriorityMailPostage: $4.75
the package. ElectronicOption DeliveryConfirmationFee: NONE
3. Photocopyingor other counterfeitingof US Postage is Flat Rate Envelope: Yes
punishable by fine or imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. Section From: Forgery Finders, LLC
501. 120 N. MillCreek Rd.
NoblesvilleIN46062
4. Please use this shipping label on the ship date
selected when you requested the label. To: JOSEPH ZERNIK
2415 Saint George
5. For informationon pickup options, go to the USPS LOS ANGELESCA90027
Pickup page at
http://www.usps.com/pickup/welcome.htm.

Shipping label technology provided by Pitney Bowes, Inc.

102 8/19/2008
https://ibdswebp l-ext.pb.comlimages/USPS/HTMLFolders/HTML 15/f9c37be77-a939-4f7... / 545
August 19, 2008
Joseph Zernik DMD Phd
2415 Saint George St.
Los Feliz, CA 90027

Dear Mr. Zernik,

Enclosed is our professional opinion concerning the authenticity of the documents that
you furnished to us. We are identifying these as Case 2 and Case 3.
Weare including a copy of the submitted documents, together with the professional
opinions of Robert Meister and Scott Meister.
Additionally, we are including the CV from each of us.
We appreciate this opportunity to perform our analysis and provide you with our written
opInIOn.
If you should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me at,
(317) 443 -1616

Sincerely,

Robert Meister, FDE


Enclosures

103 / 545
Robert A. Meister
Certified Document Examiner
120 N. Mill Creek Road, Noblesville, IN 46062
Office: 317.770.1000 * Fax: 800.786.2629

Emai1:experts@forgeryfinders.com
WWW.~Otggty~if1d(m:.com
Questioned Document Examiner Letter
Questioned Siguature of Victor Parks - Case 2
Date: August 19, 2008
I have examined three (3) submitted signatures. One signature, the questioned signature of
Victor Parks, found on the PRE-QUALIFICATION LETTER dated September 7, 2004
identified herein as "Ql." Two (2) ,signatures were presented as "known signatures" of Victor
Parks. The first "known signature" found on the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
VICTOR PARKS executed on November 6, 2006 is identified herein as "Kl." The second
"known signature" found on the DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS executed on October 27,
2006 is identified herein as "K2." These "known signatures" were used to determine the
authenticity with the "Ql" signature. For the purpose of this examination, a comparison was
made between "Ql" and the aforementioned "known signatures."
Today I have compared the "known signatures" of Victor Parks to the questioned signature of
Victor Parks "Q 1," to determine the authenticity of the questioned signature.
The signatures provided for this examination were viewed side-by-side and enlarged at multiple
scales by the use of a computer to aid the examination and comparison process. Common
features of the "known signatures" were compared to the questioned signature. Additionally,
unusual features of "Q 1" were compared to the "known signatures."
Based upon thorough analysis of these items, and from an application of accepted forensic
document examination tools, principles and techniques, it is my professional expert opinion that
a different person authored the name of Victor Parks on "Ql." The author of the known Victor
Parks signatures is not the author of the Victor Parks signature on the questioned document,
"Q I."
I am willing to testify to this fact in a court of law.
Respectfully submitted,

Robert A. Meister .'


~IW~ ",-
....
'.'
.
SWORN BEFORE ME on this 19thday of August, 2008 t :-
. '.
Robert A. Meister did appear before me. ....
I
STATE OF INDIANA
COUNTY OF HAMILTON . ,~
mary Public-' StateoflI\91ana
My Commission Expires I tJ.11J'dtJIO

104 / 545
Scott R. Meister
Certified Questioned Document Examiner
120N. MillCreekRoad,Noblesville,IN 46062
Office: 317.770.1000Fax:800.786.2629
Email:scott@forgeryfinders.com
WWW.~Otggty~indgt~.com
Questioned Signatures of Victor Parks - Case 2
Date: August 15,2008
I have examined three (3) submitted signatures. One signature, the questioned signature of Victor
Parks, found on the PRE-QUALIFICATION LETTER dated September 7, 2004 identified herein as
"Ql." Two (2) signatures were presented as "known signatures" of Victor Parks. The first "known
signature" found on the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS executed on
November 6, 2006 is identified herein as "Kl." The second "known signature" found on the
DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS executed on October 27,2006 is identified herein as "K2."
These "known signatures" were used to determine the authenticity with the "Q 1" signature. For the
purpose of this examination, a comparison was made between "Q 1" and the aforementioned
"known signatures."
Today I have compared the "known signatures" of Victor Parks to the questioned signature of
Victor Parks "Ql," to determine the authenticity of the questioned signature.
The signatures provided for this examination were viewed side-by-side and enlarged at multiple
scales by the use of a computer to aid the examination and comparison process. Common features
of the "known signatures" were compared to the questioned signature. Additionally, unusual
features of"Ql" were compared to the "known signatures."
Based upon thorough analysis of these items, and from an application of accepted forensic
document examination tools, principles and techniques, it is my professional expert opinion that a
different person authored the name of Victor Parks on "Ql." The author of the known Victor Parks
signatures is not the author ofthe Victor Parks signature on the questioned document, "Ql."
I am willing to testify to this fact in a court of law and I will prove to the Court that my opinion is
correct.
Respectfully submitted,

Scott R. Meister

SWORN BEFORE ME on this 15thday of August, 2008


Scott R. Meister did appear before me.

" ,

STATE OF INDIANA
-...
"
COUNTY OF HAMIL TON
otary Public - State 0tlPdiana
My CommissionExpires~ 7IJ/O.JtJ/O

105 / 545
Scott R. Meister
Certified Questioned Document Examiner
120N. MillCreekRoad,Noblesville,IN 46062
Office: 317.770.1000Fax:800.786.2629
Email:scott@forgeryfinders.com
WWW.rOtgBtyrindBt!:.COm
QuestionedSignaturesof VictorParks - Case3
Dat~: August 15,2008
I have examined four (4) submitted signatures. Two signatures, questioned signatures of Victor
Parks, found on the UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL LOAN APPLICATION (for the amount of
1,374,400) dated September 7, 2004 identified herein as "Ql" and on the UNIFORM
RESIDENTIAL LOAN APPLICATION (for the amount of 171,800) dated September 7, 2004
identified herein as "Q2." Two (2)'signatures were presented as "known signatures" of Victor
Parks. The first "known signature" found on the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
VICTOR PARKS executed on November 6,2006 is identified herein as "Kl." The second "known
signature" found on the DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS executed on October 27, 2006 is
identified herein as "K2." These "known signatures" were used to determine the authenticity with
the "Ql" and "Q2" signatures. For the purpose of this examination, a comparison was made
betwe,en"Ql" and "Q2" and the aforementioned "known signatures."
Today I have compared the "known signatures" of Victor Parks to the questioned signatures of
Victor Parks "Ql" and "Q2," to determine the authenticity of the questioned signatures.
The signatures provided for this examination were viewed side-by-side and enlarged at multiple
scales by the use of a computer to aid the examination and comparison process. Common features
of the "known signatures" were compared to the questioned signatures. Additionally, unusual
features of"Ql" and "Q2" were compared to the "known signatures."
Based upon thorough analysis of these items, and from an application of accepted forensic
document examination tools, principles and techniques, it is my professional expert opinion that a
different person authored the name of Victor Parks on "Ql" and "Q2." The author of the known
Victor Parks signatures is not the author of the Victor Parks signatures on the questioned documents,
"Q 1" and "Q2."
I am willing to testify to this fact in a court of law and I will prove to the Court that my opinion is
correct.
Respectfully submitted,

~c... tr ~ . Me;ster
Scott R. Meister

SWORN BEFORE ME on this 15thday of August, 2008


Scott R. Meister did appear before me.
STATE OF INDIANA

COUNTY OF HAMILTON
Not§ry Public - State of Indi _ ,

My Commission Expires I(j ./() .)0/0


106 / 545
Robert A. Meister
Certified Document Examiner
120 N. Mill Creek Road, Noblesville,IN 46062
Office: 317.770.1000 * Fax: 800.786.2629

Email:experts@forgeryfinders.com
WWW.~Otg(!ty~ind(!t~.com
Questioned Document Examiner Letter
Questioned Signature of Victor Parks - Case 3
Date: August 19, 2008
I have examined four (4) submitted signatures. Two signatures, questioned signatures of Victor
Parks, found on the UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL LOAN APPLICATION (for the amount of
1,374,400) dated September 7, 2004 identified herein as "Ql" and on the UNIFORM
RESIDENTIAL LOAN APPLICATION (for the amount of 171,800) dated September 7, 2004
identified herein as "Q2." Two (2) signatures were presented as "known signatures" of Victor
Parks. The first "known signature" found on the SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
VICTOR PARKS executed on November 6, 2006 is identified herein as "Kl." The second
"known signature" found on the DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS executed on October 27,
2006 is identified herein as "K2." These "known signatures" were used to determine the
authenticity with the "Ql" and "Q2" signatures. For the purpose of this examination, a
comparison was made between "Ql" and "Q2" and the aforementioned "known signatures."
Today I have compared the "known signatures" of Victor Parks to the questioned signatures of
Victor Parks "Q 1" and "Q2," to determine the authenticity of the questioned signatures
The signatures provided for this examination were viewed side-by-side and enlarged at multiple
scales by the use of a computer to aid the examination and comparison process. Common
features of the "known signatures" were compared to the questioned signatures. Additionally,
unusual features of "Q 1" and "Q2" were compared to the "known signatures."
Based upon thorough analysis of these items, and from an application of accepted forensic
document examination tools, principles and techniques, it is my professional expert opinion that
a different person authored the name of Victor Parks on "Ql" and "Q2." The author of the
known Victor Parks signatures is not the author of the Victor Parks signatures on the questioned
documents, "Q 1" and "Q2."
I am willing to testify to this fact in a court of law.

2?~tred'
Robert A. Meister

SWORN BEFORE ME on this 19thday of August, 2008


Robert A. Meister did appear before me.
STATE OF INDIANA
COUNTY OF HAMILTON

107 / 545
Robert A. Meister
Forensic Document Examiner
Forgery Finders, LLC
120 N. Mill Creek Road
Noblesville, In 46062
P~one: (317) 770-1000 Fax: (800) 786-2629

Forensic Examination Provid.ed For:


Disputed documents or signatures, including wills, checks, contracts, deeds, account
ledgers, medical records, and autograph authentication.

Education

BS Civil Engineering, Bradley University, 1968


-MS Engineering Administration, Bradley University, 1975
Certificate in Electronics, DeVry Institute, 1972

Training and Apprenticeship


School of Forensic Document Examination
Training Completed between 10/2004 -
10/2006
Certification as a Forensic Document Examiner, 10/2006
Analyzed Documents from over 70 Cases in 28 States, Canada and D.C.
Instructor for Handwriting University's School of Forensic Document Examination,
2006 - 2007

American Institute of Applied Science


Certification in Questioned Documents, 9/2005

Specific Areas of Training:

Handwriting Identification and Discrimination


Signature Comparison
Techniques for Distinguishing Forged Signatures
Disguised Handwriting
Altered Numbers
Anonymous Writing
Laboratory Procedures
Ethics in Business and the Legal System

108 / 545
Robert A. Meister, FDE Page 2

Laboratory Equipment used for examination:


Precision Nikon Digital Camera
Precision Flat Bed Optical Document Scanner
AmScope Stereo Microscope ST60 5x-30x, with Digital Output Camera
Assorted lighting devices and measuring scales and rulers

Library

Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals, Roy Huber, 1999


Document Examiner Textbook, Jess E. Dines, 1998
Between the Lines, Reed Hayes, 1993
Dishonesty in Handwriting, Andrea McNichol, 1993
Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents, Ordway Hilton, 1993
Red Flags on Forged Checks, Joe Lucas, 1995
Written In Crime, Reed Hayes
Forensic Handwriting Examination, Reed Hayes 2006
Attorney's Guide to Document Examination, Katherine Koppenhaver, 2002
Document Examination manuals from American Institute of Applied Science
Black's Law Dictionary
Barron's Law Dictionary

Conferences Attended & Presenter

2005 Document ExaminationTraining Conference.


2006 Document ExaminationTraining Conference
Dallas, Texas
Publications

"The Concise Technique for Forgery Detection",


Co-Authored Robert & Scott Meister
"Use of PowerPoint in Determining Document Authenticity"
Co-Authored Robert & Scott Meister
"Advanced Computerized Techniques in Exhibit Preparation"
PC Video Presentation + Paper
Co-Authored Robert & Scott Meister

Professional Affiliations

Registered Professional Engineer, Illinoisand Indiana

109 / 545
Scott Meister
Forensic Document Examiner
Forensic Document Examiners, LLC
. 120 N. MillCreek Rd
Noblesvllle, IN 46062
Phone: (317) 441-4845 Fax: (317) 770-7788
www.foraervfinders.com

..
Forensic Examination Provided For:

Includes but not limited to disputed documents or signatures, including wills, checks,
contracts, deeds, account ledgers, medical records, and autograph authentication.

Education

Bachelorof Science In BusinessAdministration, May 2000


Mastersof ScienceIn Accounting,July 2001

Training and Apprenticeship


School of ForensicDocument Examination
-
Training completed between 10/2004 10/2006
Certification as a Forensic Document Examiner, 10/2006
Analyzed Documentsfrom over 63 CasesIn 23 States
Instructor for HandwritingUniversity'sSchool of Forensic Document Examination
2006-2007

AmericanInstitute of AppliedScience
CertificationIn Questioned Documents, 9/2005
Specific Areas of Training:
HandwritingIdentificationand Discrimination .. j
Signature Comparison
Techniques for DistinguishingForged Signatures
Disguised Handwriting
Altered Numbers
AnonymousWriting
laboratory Procedures
Ethics in Business and the legal System

110 / 545
Laboratory Equipment used for examination:
Computer
Adobe Photoshop
Photocopier
Scanner .
Magnifyingdevices
Stereo Microscope5x-30x, with DigitalOutput Camera
LIbrary

HandwritingIdentlficatloh: Facts and Fundamentals, RoyHuber, 1999


Document ExaminerTextbook,Jess E. Dines, 1998
Between the Lines,Reed Hayes, 1993
Dishonesty In Handwriting,Andrea McNichol,1993
Red Flags on Forged Checks, Joe Lucas, 1995
Written In Crime, Reed Hayes,
Conferences Attended

2006 Document ExaminationTrainingConference


Dallas, Texas
2005 Document ExaminationTrainingConference
Dallas, Texas

2004 Document ExaminationTrainingConference


Dallas, Texas
Publications

"The Concise Technique for Forgery Detection",


Co-Authored Robert & Scott Meister
"Use of powerPoint in Determining Document Authenticity"
Co-Authored Robert & Scott Meister
"Advanced Computerized Techniques in Exhibit Preparation"
PC Video Presentation + Paper
Co-Authored Robert & Scott Meister
.. j

111 / 545
0405:12p 50!,. 271 7845 p.2

Pc1cif'tCMortngc Con$ult)r:f:~
7',):; :.;1,i<1;pur~f\{!.~~ ur\';!1': 1/~7S
L~.,~-:-~)t~,C.~:dc'::"~;.~9J9

{&n!) t>l~~g;. !):"I)(~


(S(}O) :'7"-1~~ j:"y
V.f.:\\t(..:j';v:i'J,,-,,: :,::'
.
Nivlc Sam:1:1n
d..."7~S, Alfl'C(1Sln:..:1
~ J\n~I;J~s.C/\ 90035

RE:I'RE-QUALIFICATI0N

L>c:lf Nivi,,;

'111;1111.Y"I' I"r II~ upJ'Klr1unily hI ('In)r&:~>liI\na\ly :"UW )I"'" Our ,,!'Ii!:!: h..:oi r':"';l;wcd yn"r itlC(tmc.
cn.-dit. and source or fund!;. uod wc'n; happy 1.0Ct)nlinn that you've; been prc-qualilicd Iu pUNhl1~c a
$1.700.000 home with 80/10/10 ('jnllncin~. Thi~ pr:..q"aliticntion ill ~ubjcct to written vcrification
;uuJ lilll al'pr~w..1 I'rt\lll ~'III' undcrwdlinp.dCl1'lnm':/\I.

My team and I :m~d\-dicutcd It) giving y()UIhe hc~t ~rvjcc. ~uPI'('Irt.and product anywhere! We;un:
l:utllic.lclI{ Ih"l yuu wililind ,llIr Icvcl ,,1' service :md cmnnlill1\~nl ~L:c()nt.lln 11I>1\C!

I lut.k ftlrwuru In ",,,rkin~ with you to :t !'ucccssful closo of \,;.'icr(lw.SI'l'llld YOIIdesire IIdditklRal
inlorm:llitm. pl~;/M: 1i:t:1 frlX 111Ct)nlacl 1110:.Il: (ggg) 57S~56L>3. .

;z;c-
ViC((1r"arks
~r. 1.0:111Com;u.ltal\t
~t-

~1!:D!N'ig "3MCJ10~ :A9 lN3S

112 / 545
1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS
2 I, Victor Parks, state and declare as follows:
3
.
4
1. I am a Senior Loan Consultant with Pacific Mortgage Loan
5 Consultants. I submit this declaration in support of Nivie Samaan's Sur-Reply to
6 defendant Jospeh Zemik's ("?emik") Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens. [have personal
7 knowledge of the facts set forth herein, which are known by me to be true and correct, and
8 if called as a witness, [ could and would competently testify thereto.
9
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 js a true and correct copy of the
10
Purchase Agreement that Mara Escrow me on October 22, 2004. The fax line on the top of
11 .. .
the documents shows that Mara Escrow sent it on October 22, 2004, at 3:42 p.m. This
12..
document was not signed or initialed by the defendant
13
14 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 28, is a true and correct copy of a letter I
15
received nom Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., dated November 6, 2006, confInning that
16
on or around October 14,2004, Countrywide suspended the processing of Ms. Samaan's
17
loan because they had not yet received a copy of the fully executed Purchase Agreement.
18 This letter is accompanied by the actual Notice of Suspension that Countrywide sent me in
19" October 2004.
20
2111 I declare under penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the State of California

2211that the foregoing is true and correct.


23
24 Executed on November 6, 2006 at San Diego, CaJifomia.
25
26 Cz -I( I
27 Victor Parks
28

JOB #2
PAGE 5
113 / 545
1
2 Contingencyby October 11. We bad one full week before the deadlinefor close of
3 escrow. It wouldhave only ~en a few days for the loan documentsto be prepared.
4 Based on my experienceI believethat the partiescould have closedescrowby November
1, 2004.
S
6
r declare under penaltyof pe1juryunder the Jawsof the State of California
7 that the foregoingis true and correct.
. 8
9

10 ExeCutedon October~ 2006 at S~ D1~,~ 1 California.

.11
12
13
eZ-k-z..
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

.7.2_IJ.:-
23 :....
24 F.-~
.'. ,."..
i
2S ..
..
. ..
26
27
"
28 ~, ,., ..~~...

W02-\\'EST:IMMK.J\400HIJ ~].J

DECLARA nON OF. VICTOR: MRK-S- .

-'~:..:;=~':':...~. ~"""--'
.JOB #
~._"

114 / 545
SChcdul~ 01 Rul
. VI.ASSeTSAND-i.lABiLfrtE~ (cent.).
EslaIO Owfted (11addlilOnal pIDpeI\Ies are owned, use canUnuoUons~ee1)
. ..
JnSUtanee,
Property Address (OIIIorS 1/sold. PS II pend!ng solo
orRIIrenlalbeinghaldlorIncome) I
Typo01 Pres~1
PIQPSrtyMarketVaJus
1
Amount01
I Mortgages
Gross MotIgege
&Uens Rentallacome Payments I MaIntanaru:e. NBI
I
ToxBS&MJsc. Rentaflncome

'$ $ $ $

. ...
I VII. DE;TAJL:S'OF. TSAC'ApN- VIII, \)ECLARATION I
a. Purchaso prir.a S 1.718,000.00 you ....WIIt"y.S.1o ony qu..Uo"" a through pI.a.. un contlllUatlen Bo""""" Co-SotrGwor
b. AlleraUons,lmprovema,",. repairs .hoetf.roxpla""U.n. Yea No Yes No
c. Land (IIe'"lulred separately) L AnIIh.reanyoutstandill9JudgmenlsBgllnslycu? 0&1 00
II. Relil1anca (1ncI. deblB 10 ba paid oro b. HaysyouboendedaredbonJuuplv.iD1lnlhBpul7yeB"" 0&1 DO
e. EsUmeIed p..pald I10ms 6.288.33... Hnveyouhad_artylo..Qooed uponorglvenUUe0<deed Inlieu1h0le0l 0&1 00
I. Eslimated cIo&lng eos\S 21.816.00 In\he last 7 years?
g. PMI.MIP.FtmdlnoFee II. Anlyoaapanymalawsuh? O 00
h. Dlsaluol (11e.rrowerwRI pay) .. Have youdHeCII'/ orlrufll9dJybeBnoblipled on anyloanwhichruuUed In 0&1 00
I. Total costs (add llema a thR>ugh hi 1.748,116.33 IoIadouu8, lranst...oIlitlaln lIou orforeciOSUt8, orJu<lgmont'l
(Ib!a....w_4._IoIns.._"'""Oogo..w,SIlA......IIcmt
171,800.00
SUbcnllnale nanclng
k. IIonowoI's cIoslno costs paid by Seller
=:.=
Iddt8Utlt..... fK.\ orVACI..f'I.I'CIJ>tt.tnr.aM fIUQN twmtKGot\)
L Olhar Cradils(expIaIn) L Ar\I yoa pres","1yddl>quentOf In defautl on8'IY Fed.... debtorony olher o DO
Cash Doposlt 30,000.00 loan, mOltQsga,linandalobllgalJon, bond, or loan guamnl8l?
U"f....oMI alblloo d..riadh GIo,....CIII q1IOS\.Ion.
II- AnIyouobliVal8d to psy efimony. cI1IIdIupJ)OIt, orseparala maInltftance? 0&1 00
I\.IsanypollollhB d.wnpayment_ 0&1 00
l AnIyoua........urorendOtae1on
anoia? [J&I DO
--..................
....-.................................... ......-...........
m.L.anamounl
Ar\I you a U. S. cI11ztn1 GlJO DO
1,374,400.00
(oxdude PM MIP,FundingFoo finllOcocf. Ie. AnI you 0 permanent resld 011IoIJeII? 0&1 00
L Doyeu Inlandto CCl:upytho prop.rty.. yourpnmlry "'tldence? O 00
n. PM!.MIP,FIIIdIngFe. flOancad R"Y....__ri..mbe1<w.
m.HaYI you had on C>Wno/$l\lphle:oslln a PR>ponyln IJ10lasl thno. ycara? 0&1 DO
0. Loan amount (odd m &n) . 1,374,400.00 (I) What lIPo 01 propenydld)W .eskIeI\eO (PR),
....,nd home (5H), or_lIMnt P'Dparty (1P)?
p. Cash IJomllo Bonower 168.815.33 (2) Hgo,¥did you hold IiIIeto th. homHoJolt byyouraoll (S).
(Iubtlactl. k,1 &0 Im Q Jelntl)'wilhyour
spouso(SP),or jalnUyvOlh
ono1her_ (0)1
I IX.ACKNOWls,DGI\1_ENT
-AN.D.
AGMm: I
Eacll.fOlD vnd8ioli1..~spodrlCOlli,.pnWinlS
11>
Len".ian410 Lend.f. oClul>l og.nts, brake... ~
0<polonlloJ .~omoyo, omsando..Ions
~r:::~~:..~:~"iJ~O:=I~~~...:~~~cIw8~~~:uu::.~~~~:o~:':.,":.:::=:\:"rn~~..=~
rell upon .n, mll/OIIIO-IontaUon UtIli how mad. on U\IJ .ppl"'Uon.IJIIjfCf In _ penoI1Ieslnl$ldlno. bill not ImI1aIlo, fin. Dr l..pIIo_ or _ tmderlhD provIol...

.1'I1I!o18, UnilodSIOIa.Cad.. See:.101l1."~: (2)th.""'n roqu d pVl1vantto U\IJopplioallon(tho"Loon")... be d by. mortgoO.ordeed oIlnISlon 111~
=~==~='il:mronot.:,:;..:~:~r.r=.,~~.~":.t':=":=~ ~':v~~n~.:v'%r:"'~~"f:.odIn~
oppb..uan lrom 11I1)' riamId
Is n.Upprovod; m 111. Lend" andU"oonts. bro
~~
oppIcaUon. and Under. b lUl:CCSa... or olll1ln. 0111 retain tho OIIgInoIondior on e!odn>nlo r=xd 01U\IJ .pplicalion. avon Uth. L...
lnovrm. 101V1I:en:..ucee end 0I8IOn. OIlY"'"U u.11 rllr Do'tho In!annollon _In tho oppWoa1Ion. and 10..
obIIQ.l8d \0 a..ei14 andlcr supplament 1I1.lnIormoti.n PftIVIdodIn 1h!a.pplitali.n U 8I!'f cI tho tIIItorIAJlacts thai I hI._ ,..",..ontad horem ohouId d10nse prior 10 doling ., 1110
Lean; (8) In Iho mmlthat "" pa)'llllnts ... Iho Loon becomo dalinqvant.Ih_ ownOf or Icrvloor 01 \lIO Lean may, In addillon to any other nghls ond dlelth.1 II 11\I)'how
!dolingto ouchdoli_, t8j>OIt
"" nomaandoccovnlln/.rmaUon to or ""'"' "'n CtOdII rtlng rI... (II)own...hlp oIlho Loononlllota4m1n1slnllion 01tho
Loon 1..., be ,_ wlth.uchnob y be requ!rodbylaw: (10) ~r Londor nor Iloauonlo, bro""... """""_oro or OII;gn. has modo oor
rop ntaIion orworronl'l, UJI erlnlJ:lied, 10 mo rooonfing th_ propOlty or Iho tand~ton or voIuo 01111.pro""rty: and (11) my InInImbsIon 01this oppico\lon 'e!Idn>nio
=Jsa":":~Is:;=O:C=~~..~:::.::.n~=::.::r=~~~~~-:=J=~~ro~~~:~=:.:~~..~
iini1l no 8
:n~=
. tgna\U!e Data Co-Bonowal'S
Slgnatura DolO
'.~ q-~1~~x
'X. NF.ORMATION
FOR:GO~"'!Ufr .PURPOSES
.N!ONlTbRJN.G
TheloUowlnglnfonnallonlsrequestedbyOloFederaiGovemmenllorcertallltypos ollolll1arelallld t.a dwalDnglnonlerlomonllorlhol.nd comp1faftceWiihequalCr!d1t
opportutlllY,lalrhollslngandhom_mc>IIgaDediscloauralaw5. YouarenolrequlRrdlolumisllU1Js'lIIormaUon,bulare8l1COUragedlDdoso. TholawprovldoslhataLendormay
dl&c:rIminalanellheronlhebaslsollhfllnlonnallon,tIOtonvmothoryoud1oosololumlshLllyoufumishUtelnlonnaUon,plea.ap/lMdoboOlolhntcl!yandn>ce. Forraco, you
moyd1eckmoreUtanonBdoslgnsUon.l/youdonotlllmlsheUmlQIy.race.orsox.lJndOrFoderalre9u1aUona,U1JsfBnderlsrequiradlonota\helnConnallDnonlhobaslsolvisuai
obseMtGonorsumeme.llyoudOftol\Ylshtolumlshlhelnlom1aUon,peaseehodllhoboxbeJOW. (LendermuslrevlllWlMabovemaleliallollSSurelhal\heclisdoauressalis/y
ID requlremenls IoWhJch Iha Isnder Is subjectunder appilcabloslalalavrlorlhapal1Jtul8rtype olloan opplledlor.)
BORROWER [JI d.notl'lllh IOfumllhlhlslnIonnanon CO.BORROWER01 do notwtshlOrUmtsh III1Ilnfo:mallon
Elhnl~I\y: o Hbpllllk>orLoUno ~ N.IHi.panioorLo1in9 Elhnlelly: OHbpanico<LeIino ONolHbpllllloorLotlno
Raea: OAm nlt1cf!onor 0 Allan [Jeloalter Roca: (JAmm lndJano< 0 1an OBl.alter
AIuIaINallY8 AlricoftAmoI\oon AIaokDN.Uvo AIIIoonAmon;on
o NativeHawollanor
01hCtPodIIeIIIlnder
GZIWhOa ONotivoHawolionO<
OlhorPadlic ISlander
OWhiIa

Sox: GlJl'cm1IIo Sox: OFomaIo O/olal.


To beCompletedbyInlolVlaw.r
Inte omeandAddressorII1lerviewnEmployer
ThIsappl'iCOUcn
wastakellby. e PaelllcMortgageConaullanls
OFaoo-to- a
OM.1I
GZlTeJop
olnlllmal
2 ~~' I '1.
~
..,l./. OrJI Larkspur.
700LarkspurLandlng ClrcloIIrl6
CA.94939
(P)888-575-5893
IF)3100496-3256

Fonn!.Maofenn 1003 01104


flUfdio Moc farm e5 Q1104
COI1XfOllll 1003 LoonapjI3Jrm Q1104
Computer GeneratedPago3 Dr4
Handwritten 1003
J'B #3
~lGE 5

115 / 545
.' ..,";@.i;:;:f'ii+l;<":i.',i:;);,"~::,ji?':+;X;:;/~~;i'::!~~,iiWr~.:~;s~~t$tANPJ.j16.BiLiTIi;~l.
(cO"~)~::':::f5(\';~i/;:~~;:T;;t;B;1~:(:l0~;;\?j!~;i~;';~:i1:':;it);:/~;;W:;£1~S~~i
Schedule of Real Estate Owned (If addlllonelpropertiesare owned,use conlinuaUon sheet) Insurance
...................
PropertyAddress(enterS Ifsold,PS If pendingsale Typeof Presenl Amountof Gross Mortgage Maintenance, Net
or R If rentelbeingheld lor Income) Property Markel Value Mortgages& liens RentalIncome Payments Taxes & Mlsc, RentalIncome

$ $ S $ $ $

$ $
- Totals $ $ $ -----
$
List any ai/dillonal names unilo,.whlcli credit hes previously been recel"oirand Indicate appropriate creditor name(s) and account number(s}:
Alternate Name Creditor Name Account Number
'.

1',:'.:;.;;:,i,:Vli,i'iJETt.S;'OF.;'TRAN5ACtlqNi%D,\H':;,;F\,,;';:j";/M,:Z::i(;'.'i2:';;i'li{:f!:J'::g;;;VjlittiEGi;:AMt,ciNa£;H!D;;::i+;;'i:igi,';i::'J?:Pi0i,;:t:f'?il
a. Purcheseprlca $ 1,118,000.00 If youanswer"yes"to any questions u through I,ploaso U8econtinuation Borrowe Co.Borrower
sheet forexplanatfon. Ve. No Yea No
b, Alterations,Improvements,repelrs
c. land (IIacquiredseparately) a. ArethereanyoulStandlng
Judgmenls
agaln.tyou? o6lJ 00
d. Refinance (Incl.debtstobepaidofl) b. Haveyoubeendeclaredbankruptwithinthe pa.t 7years? O 00
e, Estimated prepaidlIems c. Haveyouhadproperty
forecloseduponorgivenIilleordeed Inlieuthereot O 0 0
f. Estlmeted closing costs in the last 7 yea,s?

g. PMI, MIP, Funding Fee d, Are you a party to a lawsull? O 00


h. Dlscounl (If Borrower w/ll pay) e. Haveyoudlrecllyor IndlrecUy
beenobligaledon anyloanwhichrosulledIn O 00'
1,718,000.00 foreclosure, lransfer or //lie In lieu of foreclosure, or Judgment?
I. Total costs (add lIems a through hi (ThisWOtJd RfudelUCh toanl 8S home mortgage loans,SBAloam:. homeimprovement
J.Subordinate financing lOin., aducaltonalbool, manufactured
obligation. bond. «loan
(mobtIe)
{luatontoo.
horn.kJlnl, an)' mortgage,ftnancIei
".....81: proyIdo dotaUl.lndudIng dalo. Mme and
k, Borrowes closingcosts paid by Seiter eddroSlellender. FHAorVACI.e nwnber,lfany. and,e8sons (orthe edoo.)

I. Other C,edlls(explaln) I. Are you presenlly delinquent or In default on any Federal debt or any olhor O 0 0
30,000.00 toan, mol1gege,financialobllgetlon,bond,orloanguarantee?
Cash Deposit quo.non.
If""(os: givedotallsat dosa1badInehopreeed1no
g. Are youobligated (0 pay alimony.child 9UPP0r1,orseparate
ma1nlensnce1 O 00
h, Is any pal1 or the down paymont borrowed? O 0 0
1,374,400.00 l Areyouaco-makerorendorser ona nole1 O 0 0
NewFirst Mortgage .....................................................--..................................
New1st Mtg Closing Coste (28,115.33)
], .AreyouaU. S.clUzen? O 00
m.loan amounl 171,800.00 k. Areyoua permanenlresidentalien? O 00
(excludePMI, MIP. FundingFee financed o 00
I. DoyeuIntendtooccupythopropertyasyourprImaryresIdence?
n.PMI, MIP. FundingFoe financed Ir-Vel'- complolo quesUonm balow.
m.HayeyouhadenownershipInterestIna propertyInthe laslthreeyears? O(;!) 0 0
o. loan amounl(add m & 0) 111,800.00 (I) What type 0' property did you own.princlpal residence (PR),
sooondhome(SH), or Investment property (IP)?
p. Cash from/lo Borrower 169,915.33 (2) How did you hold tlUe to the home.sololy by yourself (S),
(subtract J. k. I & 0 Irom I) jointlywithyourspouse(SP), orlolnllywithanolherpe'son(O)?
I.' ;..,'<;.,;,;.;;frjij;;,'i.O:.:;.;.;,; i" .'Xi....; ';,,:;;':,;;\::',i:;;i IX; A,qI<NOWLEDGM!;NtANQ1U>.GRE:I;MENTrri;ilr.11i''i:j,A:::j'J@{;'3i:;i;J'N:iri;1l,:'?:;c,§1@{)l;);' l
;:t8:~e~: :~e;~~e~~~nl:~~ ~f~~:e~~~:~~::~;:~~e1;
J~e~~:r':p~~~~o~r1r~~n:~:g:~Jr::~8iJ'~Od~~s:~~.f~~~~~~I~:~~~'I:neD~U~:r:n:u=s:;.
w~~~S~f:~
PBoligentmisrepresentationofthisinformation conlalnedIn this applicationmay resultIn clvUndbllily.Includingmonetary damages, to anyperlon who may au".' any Ion due to
In criminalpenaltiesIncluding,but notlimited to. fine Dr ImprisonmentDr both under the provisIons
relianceupon any ml.reprenntatJon that I have made on this appricatfon.anr:tlar

~~~:~:'h~~;~~ (~;at: ~~::rt~~n~~'bee~:~'iJ;~~eJl~:~1


:~~~:~r~t~d(:~~:~
::1~::P:~)~:~t~~ee~~:~n~~I:
r: ~r~;:'i~II:::~O~~~:f:reth~~~:d ~b::rn~rt:
resldenUal mortgage loan:(5) theproperty wl1lbe DCcuplod as Ind~ted her~ln:(8) anyownerDr lervlcer of the Loan may verify or revertfy any InformaDoncontainedIn the
appncationfromany sourcenamed In this application. and Lendor.lis successorsoralslgns mayretainthe originalandloran electronicrecord orthisappncatlon. even Ifthe Loan
Is not approved;(7) the Lender and itl agenls. brokers.Insurers.service,., successorsandassigns may continuouslyrelyon the InformationcontainedIn Ute application.and I am
obllgaled to amend andlorsupplementthe In'ormation providedIn thl. applicationIf eny0' themeletisl faels thatI haverepresented hereinlhoutdchangeprior10dOlingof the
loan: (8) it) the evenllhat my payment. on the Loan become dennquent.the ownor or servlcerof the LoGnmay, In addlUonto .oy other rights and remedlolthat It may have
relotlng10 such dennquenC)'. reportmy name and accountInformallonto one or more consumercredit reporVngagendes; (9) ownershiportheLosnand/oradministration ofthe
Loan accountmaybe lIansferred withsuch notice 8S may be requIred by law; (10) neither lender nor Its agents. brokers.Insurers.servlcers. 8UCCesi0l1 or 851lgnshas made 8n)'
ropresentation or warranty.express or Implied.to me regardingthe propertyor the condillonor "stueof (he property; and(11) my transmissionofthisappllcatJon asan"electronic
recofd"containingmy "electronic Ilgnature: al Ihose terms are dafined In applicabferederal end/or state fawl (excluding audio and video recordings). or my facsimile
transmJnkm 0' thisappllcallon
containing
8 facsimile 0' myslgneture,shallbe as effective. enfofceableandvalidallf 8 peperversion 0' thisappRcaUonwere deliveredcontaInIng
m ori Inalwrillen sI nature.
Borr oWe(S gnaIUre

7t
Date Co-Borrowe~sSionatura Date
/ . ~' 1 'l
X.' . JIAA-( t:tr11.-vIL<..-'L- .{ -01 -0 X
2.<;/,:;:1;'ts'X';;;INFPRMATION1FO~~QOVE~NMENT;~I'iIQNir9R.I~c'4~.~iJ~~Q~E$\q~~:;,2;:iII:'i;'{i;i:!''C;r;:(fV:('';V:i'ii!;k~1.i:;:::;:::
The followingInformotlonIsrequestodbythaFede,alGovernmenlforcertaintypesof loansrelatedloa dwellingInorderto monllorthelende~scompllancawilhequelcredll
opportunity,lalrhouslngandhomemortgagedlsclosurelaws.VouarenolrequlredtolurnJshthlslnformallon,butareencouraged lodoso. ThalawprovldesthataLendermay
discriminateneltheronthebasisorthIsInformallon.noronwhetheryouchoosetofurnishII. Ifyoufurnishthelnrormallon,pleeseprovldebothelhnlcllyendraca.Forrace,you
maycheckmorethanonedeslgnallon.Ifyoudonol fumlshethnlcliY,race,orsex,underFederalregulallons,thlslenderlsrequlredlonotethelnlormeliononthebasisofvisual
observationorsumame.IfyoudonotwishtolumlshtheInformation,pleesechecktheboxbelow.(landermustravlewlhe abovematertelloessurethallhedlsclosuressatlsfy
all requirementsto whichthe lenderIs subjectunderapplicablestate lew for the pertlculartypeof loan appliedfor.)
BORROWER 0 I donol wishto lumlsh'his Information CO-BORROWER 0 I donotwishto furnIshIhl.lnrormatlon
Ethnlclty: 0 Hispanic Of lallno ~ NotHispanicor letlno Ethnlclly: 0 Hisponlcor latlno 0 NotHispanicorlaUno
Race: 0 American Indian or 0 Aslon 0 Black or Raca: 0 American Indian or 0 Asian 0 Black or
Ale.ke Notlye AllleanAmellean AlaskeNallye AlrlcanAmerican
o NativeHawaIIanor ~ While 0 NallveHawallon0' 0 White
OtherPacificIslander OtherPacificIslander
Sox: blJFamale Sex: 0 Fomale 0 Mole
To be Complotedby Interviewer NameandAddress01Intervlewe(sEmployer
This applicationwas takenby: Pacll1c Mortgage Consultants
o
o
o
Face.t0
MaR
blJTelephone '011((
Inlernel
rtj"-
tervlew 00 Larkspur landing Circle #215
Larkspur, CA 94939
(P) 888-575.6693
(F) 310-496-3256
'

Freddie Mac Fo,m 85 01104 {:@mlJuh~,f' Geller«!te:d FannieMeeForm1003 01104


CalyxForm 1003loanapp3.f'm OtlO4
HWlcllA,..i'i.t~m
m03Pago 3 of 4
JOB #3
1168 /
PAGE 545
1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF VICTOR PARKS
2 I, Victor Parks, state and declare as follows:
'.
3
1. I am a Senior Loan Consultant with Pacific Mortgage Loan
4
5 Consultants. I submit this declaration in support of Nivie Samaan's Sur-Reply to
6 defendant Jospeh Zemik's ("~emi.k")Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens. [have personal
7 knowledge of the facts set forth herein, which are known by me to be true and correct, and
8 if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.
9
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of the
10
Purchase Agreement that Mara Escrow me on October 22, 2004. The fax line on the top of
11
the documents shows that Mara Escrow sent it on October 22, 2004, at 3:42 p.m. This
12
document was not signed or initialed by the defendant
13
14 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 28, is a true and correct copy of a letter [
15
received from Countrywide Home Loans. Inc., dated November 6, 2006, conflnning that
16
on or around October 14,2004, Countrywide suspended the processing afMs. Samaan's
17
loan because they had not yet received 8 copy of the fully executed Purchase Agreement.
18
This letter is accompanied by the actual Notice of Suspensionthat Countrywide sent me in

1911October 2004.
20
21 [ declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State ofCalifomia
22 that the foregoing is true and correct.
23
24 Executed on November 6, 2006 at San Diego, California.

25
C!3KI
26
27
J~
Victor Parks
28

JOB #3
PAGE 11
117 / 545
111 Contingency by October 1I . We had one :fullweek before the deadline for,close of
. a few days for the lOandocumentsto be prepared.
2 "escrow. It wouldhave only ~en
'

3 II Based on my experienceI believethat the partiescould have closed escrowby November


4 tl 1, 2004.
S

6" r declare under penalty of perjwy under the laws of the State of California
711that the foregoing is true and correct.
'.
~
8
9
10 ExeCuted on October ~ 2006 at S~ D1t..,~
, California.
-11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
':>2_/1..~:-
23 :....
24
2S "
, "
26
27
"
28 ~\ ,,' ,-~,.'

W02-V.'ESt:I MMKJ\400H IJ ~I.I


DECLARA nON OF. \f.JCTOR: P-ARK-s- .

"~"'" -'-:.:''::::';';... -'


~OB #3
~""~'--~ ;'.'---', .~' .. ...~._..

118 / 545
119 / 545
120 / 545
121 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 50

1 Joseph Zemik
2 2415 Saint George St.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
3 Tel: (310) 4359107
4 Fax:(801)9980917
jzI2345@earthlink.net
5 Plaintiff
6 in pro per {,
~,:'
Dlglt~yslgnedby
Joseph Z.tnik
~'_: )J . ON: cn=Jollph Zem!k.
) • ·~L:~.'.".Jlln45Oearth.
~~et.;G;;l.IS
7 ~te: 2008.64.1 5
12;32;44-oTOO'

8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,::; c;;
," f-~

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: -< C"'l~


r f1, j_~
c:;)
c. ::~
10 ;;:.:;~ c..P

11
JOSEPH ZERNIK No. CV-08-01550-VAP-C ~.....-J
12
Plaintiff HON Co WOEHRLE JUD E ~~:~:; "'"'j
•......... ,.
r~·-:':--·-..
13
14
JI: . \ ~. ;-~.~ =;;
JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL NOTICE OF DOCUMENTS\PREVi~U~Y
15 Defendants FILED LASC: . =l
i
16 NOTICE OF SAMAAN'S FRAUDULENT
17 LOAN APPLICATIONS, THE mSTORY
OF THEIR UNDERWRITING BY
18 COUNTR~DE,ANDFRAUDULENT

19 CLAIMS MADE REGARDING SUCH


UNDERWRITING BY COUNTRYWIDE
20 AND BY SAMAAN.
21
FILED IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN
22 SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REQUEST TO
CONTINUE, ALTERNATIVELY TO
23 CONSOLIDATE HEARINGS
24
DATE: APRIL 15,2008
25
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:
26
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE of the following document, previously filed in LASe in
27
28 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) -
-1-

NOTICE OF SAMAAN'S FRAUDULENT LOAN APPLICATIONS & UNDERWRITING BY COUNTRYWIDE.

122 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 2 of 50

THE
NOTI CE OF SAMA AN'S FRAU DULE NT LOAN APPL ICATI ONS,
TRYW IDE, AND
2 HISTO RY OF THEIR UNDE RWRI TING BY COUN
TING BY
FRAU DULE NT CLAIM S MADE REGA RDIN G SUCH UNDE RWRI
3 COUN TRYW IDE AND BY SAMA AN.
ffs ex parte
This document is filed in United States Court, Los Angeles in support of Plainti
4
date hearings.
application to continue hearings on Motions to Dismiss, alternatively - to consoli
5
th
Dated: Apri114 , 2008
6
7 Respectfully submitted.

8
9 JOSEP H ZERN IK
Plaint iff
10 in prope r
11
FRAU DULE NT
STAT EMEN T OF VERIF ICATI ON OF NOTI CE OF SAMA AN'S
12 AND FRUA DULE NT CLAIM S
LOAN APPL ICATI ONS, THEI R UNDE RWRI TING,
UNDE RWRI TING.
13 BY SAMA AN AND COUN TRYW IDE REGA RDIN G SAID
I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant & Cross Complainant in Samaan v Zernik
14 t, I am also Appellant
(SC087400) matter heard in Los Angeles Superior Court, West Distric
15 in Zernik v Connor et
in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior Court: (B203063), and also Plainti ff
16 al (CV 08-01550) matter heard in the United S~tes District Court,
Los Angeles, California.
LOAN
17 I have read the foregoing NOTI CE OF SAMA AN'S FRAU DULE NT
IDE, AND
18 APPL ICATI ONS, THEI R UNDE RWRI TING BY COUN TRYW
I know the content
19 FRAU DULE NT CLAIM S RE: SAID UNDE RWRI TING and
dge as
thereo f to be true and correct. It is correct based on my own personal knowle
20 ing is true and
Defendant in pro per in said case. I make this declaration that the forego
21 correct under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of California and the United States.
th
this 14 day in
22 Executed here in Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, California, on
23
24
25
April, 2008.

).~
Josep h Zerni k'
,--'1-4 .
L.-··..·:"
26 Plaint iff lv '
in pro per \../
27
28

-2-
WRITING BY COUNTRYWIDE.
NOTICE OF SAMAAN'S FRAUDULENT LOAN APPLICATIONS & UNDER

123 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 3 of 50

Joseph Zernik
in proper
2 2415 Saint George St
Los Angeles, California 90027
3 Tel: 310-435-9107
Fax: 801-998-0917
4
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10

11 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual, Case No. SC087400


12 No Valid Assignment On File Since Sept 10,
Plaintiff,
20071
13 v.
14 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, and DOES 1 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF SAMAAN'S
15 through 20, inclusive, FRAUDULENT
SEPT 27, 2004 LOAN APPLICATIONS
16 Defendants. SUBMITTED TO COUNTRYWIDE,
17 THEIR UNDERWRITING PROCESS,
JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, THEIR SUSPENSION,
18 DENIAL OF THEIR FUNDING.
Cross-Complainant,
19 &
v. FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS
20 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL TO THE CONTRARY
21 BROKERAGE; MICHAEL LIBOW, an
MADE IN COURT BY
individual, SAMAAN & COUNTRYWIDE.
22
23 Cross-Defendants.

24
DATE: Feb 29, 2008
25
26
27
28

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

124 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 4 of 50

TABL E OF CONT ENT


2
3 Cover 1

4 Table of Conte nts 2

5 I. I NTRO DUCT ION ........ ......• ........ ..... 4


R
6 II. BRIE F HIST ORY OF SAMA AN'S LOAN APPL ICAT IONS , THEI
MAD E
7 UNDE RWR ITING BY COUN TRYW IDE, AND FALS E CLAI MS
I N THIS REGA RD BY SAMA AN & COUN TRYW IDE.. ....... 5
8
Table 1. Chronological table of Samaa n/Cou ntrywi de's fraudu lent claim... ... ... .... 11
9
III. POIN TS AND AUTH ORIT IES 16
10
16
11 Table 2. Fraud ulent Inducement by Samaa n & Parks against Zernik ...
Loan
12 Table 3. Fraud and Deceit by Samaan against Zernik RE: Underwriting of
'" , . 17
Applica tions (1003)
13 . 18
Table 4. Bank Fraud by Samaa n against Countrywide and against Zernik
14 rywide . 19
Table 5. Wire Fraud by Samaan against Zernik and against Count
15 . 20
Table 6. Fraud ulent Claims by Samaa n & Countrywide against Zernik
16 Zernik 21
Table 7. Statut e of Fraud s Fraud by Samaa n & Countrywide against
17
18 ........ 23
IV. DECL ARAT ION OF JOSE PH ZERN IK
19
20 37
V. EXHI BITS
21 ........ 38
ExhA - Sept 27,200 4 _pf Lien Loan Application
22 ExhB - Sept 27,200 4 _zst
Lien Loan Application ........ 42
........ 46
23 ExhC -San Rafae l "Conversation Log" blankf orm.
........ 48
24 ExhD - Nov 3-6, 2006 Correspondence McLau rin! Lloyd! Keshavarzi
... 61
25 ExhE - Oct 4, 2004 Broke r Certification and Origination Agreement.
........ 64
26 ExhF - Oct 6, 2004 -Rever se Yellow Pages Looku p
........ 66
27 ExhG - Phase 1 Quality Assurance Documents:
28 1. 0 ct 13,200 4 Quality Verification and Documentation Questionnaire
-2-

Fraud ulent Repres entations


Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applications andn & Countrywide
Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa

125 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 5 of 50

2. Oct 13,200 4 Compliance Verification Forms


2 3. Oct 13,200 4 Unsigned Countrywide Home Loans Disclosures.
System) 82
3 Exh H - Oct 14,200 4 Clues Report (Computerized Underwriting Expert
91
4 Exh I - Oct 14,2004 pi Lien Underwriting Letter
'" 93
5 Exh J - Oct 25, 2004 McLaurin's Exception Request, Branch Input
st 97
6 Exh K - October 25, 2004 Ortin's Email Note RE: Exception Reque
99
7 Exh L - October 25, 2004 McLaurin/Ortin's Appraisal Review Order
file" 101
8 Exh M - Oct 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter, unsigned, "not part ofloan
104
9 Exh N - October 29,200 4 Gadi's Exception Report
108
10 Exh 0 - Oct 29,200 4 Underwriting Letter
111
P - Nov 3,200 4 Appraisal Review Report
11 Exh
114
12Ex h Q -Nov 3,2004 Underwriting Letter
117
Exh R- Jan 27, 2005 -Countrywide Bank's Denial Letter
13 119
Exh Q - July 2006, Samaan's Deposition .
14 149
Exh S - Oct 27,2006, Parks' Court Declaration
15 157
Exh T - Sept 7, 2006 Samaan 's Prequalification Letter
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

Fraud ulent ~epres entations


Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applications andn & Countrywide
Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa

126 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 6 of 50

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:


2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

3 Enclosed are copies of Sarnaan's fraudulent loan applications (Exh A - First Lien Loan
4 Application, Exh B- Second Lien Loan Application) dated Sept 27, 2004, which were
5 submitted in 2004 to Countrywide, and other Countrywide underwriting documents
6 substantiating extensive fraud in the litigation of Sarnaan v Zemik (SC087400) at the Los
7 Angeles Superior Court.
8
9 I. INTRODUCTION
10 Defendant & Cross-Complainant Zemik is filing this notice, and filed previous
11 notices in Samaan v Zemik for ease of reference relative to fraud by Countrywide and others
12 in Samaan v Zemik:
13
a. Feb 27, 2008 Notice ofSamaan-Countrywide fraudulent Loan Applications
14
b. Nov 15,2007 Notice offraudulent Real Property Purchase Contract document
15
16 c. Dec 19, 2007 Notice ofa fraudulent Underwriting Letter.

17 A three additional documents are yet to be completed to allow full review of the
18 extent offraud in litigation of Samaan v Zernik:
19
d. Fraudulent Verified Statements in Samaan v Zernik
20
e. Fraudulent Inducement perpetrated by Samaan & Parks against Zernik in Sept
21
2004
22
23 f. False Claims by Countrywide against the U.S. Government and the California

24 Government.
25
26 The frauds documented in the current filing include, but are not limited to:
27 1. Extensive fraud by Sarnaan against the U.S. Government in completing such loan
28 applications, where most of the critical information (employment, income, residence,

-4-
Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations
Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

127 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 7 of 50

place of employment) were false and deliberately misleading.


2 2. Extensive fraud by Countrywide Legal Department - Todd Boock & Sanford Shatz,
3 Countrywide Custodian of Records - Mariela Garcia, Countrywide Branch Manager _
4 Maria McLaurin, Countrywide Chief Legal Counsel - Sandor Samuels, Countrywide
5 President and CEO - Angelo Mozilo, Nivie Samaan, Mohammad Keshavarzi
6 (Sheppard Mullin), and others against Zernik, against the Court, and the People of
7 California and the United States in Samaan v Zernik.
8
9 II. BRIEF HISTORY OF SAMAAN'S LOAN APPLICATIONS AND THEIR
10 UNDERWRITING BY COUNTRYWIDE, AND FALSE CLAIMS MADE IN
THIS REGARD BY SAMAAN & COUNTRYWIDE.
11
12 The main elements of such frauds were as follows:

13 I. Nivie Samaan, with full support through fraudulent verified statements by Maria

14 McLaurin (Countrywide Wholesale Branch Manager, San Rafael, California), Victor


Parks (Loan Broker, PMC), and Att. Mohammad Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin et at)
15
made fraudulent claims based on false representation of the underwriting history of
16
17 such loan applications at Countrywide San Rafael.

18 2. The Legal Department of Countrywide, (Att Sanford Shatz and Att. Todd Boock -

19 who claimed religious observance of the Jewish holiday of Passover to avoid being

20 called for a motion to compel regarding their fraudulent subpoena productions) re-

21 engineered the underwriting history of Samaan's loan applications at Countrywide in

22 their fraudulent subpoena productions from August 2006 through April 2007,
included in the subpoena's numerous fraudulent documents, refused to provide email
23
24 correspondence related to the applications and various reports related to the

25 applications, claiming that such did not exist.

26 3. Two Countrywide top officers were fully aware of the fraud since early 2007:

27 a. Sandor Samuels, Board Chair of "House of Justice" - Bet Tzedek - a prominent

28 Jewish Charity, and member of the board of numerous other Jewish organizations in

-5-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Undenvriting by Samaan & Countrywide

128 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 8 of 50

Los Angeles, old friend of Judge Allan Goodman, and old acquaintance of Judge
2 Terry Friedman, and Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide,
3 and
4 b. Angelo Mozilo, President and CEO of Countrywide
5 Both failed to stop the ongoing fraud in the courtroom, and refused to authenticate or
6 repudiate key fraudulent Countrywide documents in Samaan v Zernik for about a
7 year.
8

9 Fraudulent claims relative to Samaan's loan applications include, but were not limited
10 to the following:
11 1. That the fraudulent Sept 27,2004 Samaan's Unifonn Residential Loan Applications
12 (l003) (Exh A, B) were the outcome of a phone interview by licensed loan broker
13 Victor Parks, and Victor Parks signed the statement to that effect on the Unifonn
14 Residential Loan Applications (1003) on Sept 27, 2004 (both 1sl and 2nd Lien Loan
15 Application, Exh A and B, respectively).
16 • In fact, Samaan stated in her deposition in 2006 (Exh L) that Parks had never been
17 involved in the preparation of her loan applications, and that she had never even
18 talked with him abont the loan applications at that time, that the loan applications
19 had been prepared by her and her husband, JR Lloyd (Parks first cousin and
20 business associate).
21 • In fact, Parks signature on the loan applications bears no resemblance to Parks
22 signatures in court declarations (Exh R).
23 2. That the fraudulent Sept 27,2004 Samaan's Uniform Residential Loan Applications
24 (l003) (Exh A, B) were valid performance of the contractual duty of Samaan to "act
25 honestly and diligently to obtain designated loan".
26 • In fact, the loan applications were replete with false and deliberately misleading
27 data regarding Samaan's employment, income, residence, and place of employment.
28 • In fact Samaan refused to list proper loan fees in the 1st lien oan application (0.75%
-6-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwrifmg by Samaan & Countrywide

129 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 9 of 50

1 amounting to more than $10,000), and would therefore never sign loan disclosures
2 either.
3 • In fact, after suspension on October 14, 2007 Samaan failed to notice Zeruik of the
4 suspension.
5 • In fact, after the suspension on October 14, 2007 Samaan failed to address the
6 conditions listed in the suspension notice in a timely manner.
7 • In fact - throughout the period of Sept- Nov 2004, Samaan never filed valid loan
8 applications with Countrywide, let alone any other lender.
9 3. That Samaan's sole employment in the 4 years preceding the signing of the loan
10 applications was as President and Sole Owner of Spellbound Inc (the Supernatural
11 Superstore - selling Tarot cards, crystal balls, anointment oils, divining objects and
12 other retail goods for followers of the psychic and the occult). That Samaan's income
13 from such was $400,000 per year.
14 • In fact, in deposition in 2006 (Exh 0), Samaan stated that she was employed during
15 that period as a cosmetics saleswoman in a department store.
16 4. That Samaan was a single woman at the time she signed the applications (Sep 27,
17 2004).
18 • In fact, in deposition in 2006 (Exh 0) Samaan stated that she was married to JR
19 Lloyd at that time, and the Lloyd, unlicensed, and a spouse, was the one who
20 prepared the fraudulent loan applications.
21 5. That Samaan's loan applications conformed with the loans designated in the Purchase
22 Agreement
23 • In fact, the loan applications violated the terms of the designated loans, seeking to
24 minimize Samaan's down payment beyond that which was allowed in the Purchase
25 Contract
26 6. That Samaan's Loan Applications (l003) demonstrated that she was indeed qualified
27 in 2004 to purchase the Zernik property
28 • In fact, Samaan's loan applications demonstrate that she was not qualified at all to
-7-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

130 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 10 of 50

purcha se the proper ty.


ent funds to close
2 7. Samaa n's Loan applications (l003) demonstrate that she had suffici
3 the escrow on the designated loans.
sufficient
4 • In fact, Samaa n's loan applications demonstrate that she did not have
the escrow.
5 funds owned by her, and by her alone, as requir ed by lenders, to close
on October 12,
6 8. Samaa n's Loan Applications were first submitted to Countrywide
of October
7 2004: In fact, the loan applications were first submitted in the first week
8 2004.
San Rafael
9 • In fact, the loan applications bear two "Date Received" stamps from
as well, is
10 Count rywid e's Home Loans Branch. The earlier one, from Octob er
11 . defaced. The later is dated. Octob er 12, 2004 (Exh A, Exh B).
lent
12 • In fact, loan documents produced by Countrywide show that fraudu
duly assigned
13 employment data in Samaa n's loan applications was uncovered by the
to the
14 under writer - Diane Frazie r - already on Octob er 6, 2004 (that is prior
e lookup
15 purpo rted date of receipt per Countrywide and Samaan), based on revers
16 of Samaa n's fraudu lent work phone numbe r (Exh C).
only at Zemik 's
17 9. Samaa n's loan applications were suspended on October 14,200 4,
18 fault.
s:
19 • In fact, suspension notice was issued primar ily for the following reason
#1, Exh
20 a. False work phone - traced back to Samaa n's residence (Condition
21 D- Oct 14,200 4 Under writin g Letter )
22 b. Failur e to include any fees to Countrywide in the stated closing costs
to
23 (Condition #2, Exh D - Oct 14, 2004 Under writin g Letter ) amounting
24 violation of Count rywid e's progra m rules (Exh E - Oct 14, 2004 Clues
25 Repor t).
rnia
26 c. Failur e to sign Loan Disclosures within 3 days, as manda ted by Califo
27 law (Exh F - Oct 14,2004 Hand writte n underw riting forms)
ed on October
28 10. That SamaanlParks were notified that the loan applications were approv
-8-

ulent Repres entations


Notice of SalOaa n's Fraud ulent Loan A{JplicatioDS and Fraud rywide
Regar ding their Under writlD g by Samaa n & Count

131 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 11 of 50

18,200 4.

2 • In fact, Samaa n entere d as evidence the Oct 14,2004 Underwriting Letter showing
3 the suspension of her loans on that date (Exh D).
loan applic ations
4 • In fact, Samaa n also claimed in a contradictory statem ent that the
5 were approv ed only late in the day on Octob er 25, 2004.
ent - a
6 • In fact, Samaa n entere d as evidence yet anothe r contradictory docum
suspended on
7 purpo rted Oct 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter showing the loans as still
8 Octob er 26, 2004 (Exh J).
false statem ent
9 • In fact, Samaa n never produced any document to substa ntiate the
10 that her loan applications were approved on Octob er 18, 2004.
ents and
11 • In fact, this statem ent is contradicted by the prepon deranc e of statem
12 docum entary evidence entered by Samaan.
on Octobe r 25,200 4
13 II. That Samaa n's loan applica tions were approv ed by Countr ywide
of a Real
14 follow ing the facsim ile transmission on Octobe r 25, 2004, at 5:03pm
gton to
15 Proper ty Purcha se Contra ct by ViCtor Parks from the State of Washin
ion, and
16 Countr ywide San Rafael in the State of Califor nia (to a financial institut

17 across state lines).


ate
18 • In fact, the Octob er 25, 2004 facsimile transmission was part of an elabor
(McLaurin?).
19 wire/fax fraud by Samaa n, Lloyd, Parks, and a Count rywide insider
er 25, 2004,
20 The facsimile transmission of the purcha se contra ct document on Octob
also in
21 at 5:03pm was in fact from Samaa n in Los Angeles, to her husban d, Lloyd,
, San
22 Los Angeles, and there is no way to know when it arrive d in Countrywide
document -
23 Rafael (see under separa te cover - Notice of a fraudu lent Count rywide
24 Purch ase Contra ct).
t for
25 • In fact, on Octob er 25, 2004,M aria McLa urin filed a fraudu lent reques
Under writin g
26 approv al exception for Samaa n's loans with Demetrio Gadi (Division
on Octob er
27 Suppo rt) (Exh H), and Gadi responded with a conditional approv al only
28 29, 2004 (Exh K - Gadi's to Exception Request).
-9-

Fraud ulent Repres entations


Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Allplications andn & Countrywide
Regar ding their Under writm g by Samaa

132 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 12 of 50

sal review,
1 • In fact, on Octob er 25, 2004, Maria McLa urin filed a reques t for apprai
Appraisal
2 and results of such arrive d only on Nov 2, 2004 (Exh M - Nov 2, 2004
3 Report).
underw riting
4 • In fact, Samaa n never entere d any documentary evidence from the
5 period in 2004 to suppo rt this fraudu lent claim.
by November 1,
6 12. That Samaa n's Loan Applications (1003) were ready to be funded
7 2004, closing date.
condit ions-
8 • In fact, the Nov 3,2004 Underwriting Letter (Exh M) still lists 'unmet
9 including but not limited to
supplied
10 a. Parks ' Broke r's Certification of Document, which in fact was never
11 even later (Exh M - Nov 3, 2004 Underwriting Letter).
t,
12 b. Samaa n's mothe r certification of ownership of funds in the join accoun
13 which in fact was never supplied at all.
riting in
14 • In fact, Samaa n never entere d any documentary evidence from underw
15 2004 to suppo rt this fraudu lent claim.
nd g by
16 • In fact, Samaa n's loan application (2 Lien) was presen ted for fundin
Count rywide Bank on Jan 27, 2005, and was summarily denied! (Exh
N)
17
ance with the Real
18 13. That Samaan was ready, willing, and able to close escrow in compli

19 Property Purchase Agreement on Nov 1,2008.


docum ents
20 • In fact, the loan applica tions (1003) and Countr ywide' s Underw riting
to close escrow,
21 demon strate that Samaa n was never ready, never willing, never able
even by Jan 27, 2005.
22 neither by Nov 1, 2004, nor by Nov 3, 2004, or for that matte r- not

23 //1

24 /II
25 /II
26
/II
27
/II
28
-10-

Fraud ulent Repres entations


Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and
Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa n & Count rywide

133 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 13 of 50

1
TABLE #1 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF SAMAAN/COUNTRYWIDE'S
2 FRAUDULENT CLAIMS VS THE TRUE FACTS REGARDING UNDERWRITING OF
3 SAMAAN'S FRAUDULENT LOAN APPLICATIONS (1003)

4 SAMAAN/COUNTRYWIDE'S TRUE FACTS IN TIllS MATTER


FRAUDULENT CLAIMS
5 Sept 27, 2004 Sept 27, 2004
6
• Loan Applications (1003): prepared by
• Parks never participated in the applications
preparation (Samaan Deposition, 2006)
7 Parks, signed by Samaan & Parks
• Parks never signed the applications, the
signature is not his
8
• Samaan and her husband, Lloyd, unlicensed
9 and a spouse prepared the applications
(Samaan Deposition, 2006)
10 October 1-6, 2004 Oct 1-6, 2004
11 • The applications never arrived yet at • The applications arrived at Countrywide first
Countrywide. time in the first week of October, and "Date
12 • No explanation whatsoever for the Receivetf' stamp placed on them, later - this
defaced "Date Receivetf' stamps. stamp was defaced with black ink.
13 • No explanation whatsoever for the Oct 6, • By October 6, 2004, Senior Underwriter
2004 reverse yellow pages lookup Frazier discovered the fraudulent
14 employment data based on reverse yellow
pages look up of the work phone #.
15
Oct 1-12, 2004 Oct 1-12, 2004 :
16 0 N 0 underwriting documents were ever There must have a series of standard
produced by Countrywide, since the loan underwriting documents of phase I and
17 applications never arrived yet. receipt and data entry at San Rafael, and at
least one Underwriting Letter issued by
18
Countrywide San Rafael.
19 • All evidence of underwriting prior to Oct 14,
2004 was systematically destroyed, the only
20 remaining evidence is:
0 The inexplicable double "Date
21
Received" Stamps
22 0 The Oct 6, 2004 yellow pages reverse
look up.
23 October 12, 2004 October 12, 2004
24 • Samaan's loan applications arrived at • Samaan's loan applications were stamped
Countrywide San Rafael for the first time. "Date Received" and scanned at San Rafael
25 for the second time.
October 14, 2004 October 14, 2004
26 0 Samaan's applications were suspended • Samaan's applications were suspended
primarily because of missing primarily because of:
27 initials/signature of Zemik's on the Sept 0 False employment data
28 15, 2004 Purchase Contract 0 Failure to state loan fees >$10,000

-11-

Notice of Samaan's ¥raud~lentLoan~pplications and Fraudulent ~epresentations


RegardlDg theIr Underwnting by Samaan & CountrywIde

134 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 14 of 50

• Such suspension was noticed on October 0 Refusal to provide new, valid loan
14,200 4, or in mid-October, 2004, by an applications, and re-submitting the
2 Underwriting Letter, unsigned, and time same false applications a second time
stamped twice Oct 26,200 4. on Oct 12,200 4.
3
• Samaan loan applications could not possibly
4 be suspended because of missing Zemik' s
initials on the Sept 15,200 4 Purchase
5 Contract, since Samaan never submitted any
copy of that Sept 15,200 4 Purchase Contract
6
to Countrywide until Oct 22, 2004!
7 • The unsigned and time stamped Oct 26, 2004
Underwriting Letter could never be received
8 by SamaanlParks on October 14,200 4 or
mid-October 2004, it was not generated yet.
9 Oct
• The suspension was notice by a genuine gned
14,200 4 Underwriting Letter, hand-si
10
by Senior Underwriter Frazier, and allowing
11 Samaan 10 days to correct the deficiencies in
her applications.
12 Octobe r 14-18, 2004
Octobe r 14-18, 2004
13 • Samaan 's loan applications were suspended,
• SamaanlParks repeatedly inform
but she never disclosed that fact to Zemik,
14 Libow/ Zemik that the applications are on
the verge of being approved, and provide neither did she try to address the deficiencies
15 no explanation for the delay. that led to the suspension in the frrst place.
Octobe r 18, 2004 NOTIC E TO BUYE R Octobe r 18,200 4 NOTIC E TO BUYE R
16
Samaan informs Zemik that the she was • There is no documentary or other evidence
17 • from Countrywide that Samaan 's loan
re-assured verbally by Countrywide that
loan applications were approved, therefore applications were approved on Oct 18,200 4.
18
she removes the loan contingency, but • Samaan had done nothing to address the
19 refuses to remove the appraisal deficiencies, and the loans were still
contingency regardless of the fact that she suspended.
20 already had an appraisal at sales price.
21
Octobe r 18, 2004 Octobe r 18, 2004
22
NO COMM ENT AT ALL • LmOW AND ZERN IK DISCO VER THE
23 • WIRE SCHE ME, WHER EBY SAMA AN
24 WAS COMM UNICA TING WITH
-
LmOW /ZERN IK AND COUN TRYW IDE
25 AS IF SHE WERE PARK S. LmOW
ASKS PARK S BY EMAI L 3 DAYS IN A
26 ROW TO PROV IDE EXPLA NATIO N.
27 Octobe r 22, 2004 Octobe r 22, 2004

28 Parks received AM bv fax from Mara • Samaan/ParkslLloyd/Countrywide were



-12-

ulent Repres entatio ns


Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan A&plic ations and Fraud rywide
Regar ding their Under wri 109 by Samaa n & Count

135 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 15 of 50

Escrow a copy of the Sept 15,2004 engaged in wire/fax scheme.


Purchase Contract, and immediately faxed • Parks never received and never sent any of
2
it to Countrywide. Albeit, this copy was the faxes he falsely claims to have received
3 missing Zernik's initials on the original or faxed. None of these fax transmissions
offer and was unacceptable to was ever authenticated.
4 Countrywide.
• Samaan AM faxed to Countrywide for the
5
• Parks received a second copy of the first time ever a copy of the Sept 15,2004
Purchase Contract by fax from Mara Purchase Contract, but it was a copy missing
Escrow, sometime in the afternoon. And a critical authentication: Samaan's initials on
6 nd
immediately faxed it to Countrywide. the 2 Counter Offer, for Acknowledgment
7 of Acceptance.

8
• Samaan never mentions this deficient copy
transmission, ignores its existence altogether.
9 • Samaan received AM from Mara Escrow
another copy ofthe Sept 15, 2004 Purchase
10 Contract.

11
• For some inexplicable reason, she never
faxed it to Countrvwide.
12 October 25, 2004 October 25, 2004
• Samaan never produced any evidence that
13 • Monday morning Samaan's appraisal either she or Parks ever faxed the Purchase
review was immediately obtained, and her Contract she received from Mara Escrow to
14 loan applications were immediately Countrywide.
approved.
15 • On Monday, at 5:03pm, Samaan faxed the
• Monday morning, alternatively afternoon, Purchase Contract to her husband Lloyd, and
Samaan removed the appraisal that transmission was misrepresented as a fax
16
contingency. transmission from Parks to Countrywide.
17 • Monday afternoon, at 5:03 pm, Parks
• In fact, no evidence was ever provided when,
faxed the new copy of the Purchase if ever Samaan faxed the Purchase Contract
18 Contract he received from Mara Escrow, to Countrywide.
and that somehow led to the appraisal
19
review and loan approval earlier that day.
• No documentary evidence or any other
evidence from 2004 was ever produced to
20 demonstrate that the loan applications were
approved on Oct 25,2004.
21
• Appraisal Review Order was issued by
22 McLaurin on Oct 25, 2004, review never yet.

23
• Also on Monday, Oct 25, 2004, McLaurin
filed false Exception Request with Mr Gadi,
listing Samaan's annual income at $4m per
24 year, but no approval from Mr Gadi was
25 obtained yet.
October 26, 2004 October 26, 2004
26
27
• Samaan's loan applications were • The unsigned, Oct 26, 2004 Underwriting
approved since the previous day. Letter, which Samaan misrepresented in
Court as being of Oct 14,2004, in fact shows
28
-13-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent ~epresentations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

136 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 16 of 50

that on Edge, the underwriting monitoring


system, Samaan 's loan applications were far
2 from approval on Oct 26, 2004 - they were
still suspended.
3
Octobe r 29, 2004 Octobe r 29, 2004
4
• Samaa n's loans were purportedly • Samaan 's loans were far from approval, as
5 approved and ready to be funded since shown by the conditional Exception
Oct 25, 2004. Approval by Mr Gadi, which arrived on Oct
6 29, 2004, and explicitly stated it is not an
approval,
7
• Also the Oct 29,200 4 Underwriting Letter
8 shows that Samaan was still far from
Approval.
9 • Gadi explicitly stated that: e new loan
0 Samaan had to produc
10 applications listing the 0.75% loan
fee
11
0 A correct Clues Report had to be
12 produced.
0 Samaan 's loan applications had to be
13 reviewed and approved by an
Underwriter (vs McLaurin- a Branch
14 ManaQ'er)
15 Nov 1,2004 Nov 1,2004

Samaan 's loans were purportedly • Samaan 's loan applications were far from
16 • approval:
approved and ready to be funded since
17 Oct 25,200 4. • The appraisal review never arrived yet.
18 • The date stipulated in the Sept 15, 2004 • Other critical documents were never received
Purchase Contract as Closing of Escrow. yet.
19 According to Samaan, Parks, McLaurin, • Inexplicably - Samaan loannever filed valid loan
• tions listing the fees yet.
Samaan declarations in 2007, Samaan was applica
20 was produc ed yet.
ready, willing, able to close escrow on • No Clues Report loan
21 that date. • No underwriter had reviewe her 2004
d
and
According to Samaan, Parks, McLaurin applications yet, both the Oct 29,
• riting Letter were
22 declarations in 2007, Samaa n's loan the Nov 3, 2004 Underw
applications were approved and ready for signed by McLaurin and not by an
23 funding on that date. Underwriter, as instructed by Mr Gadi.
Nov 3,2004 Nov 3, 2004
24
• Samaan 's loan applications were far from
25 • Samaa n's loans were purportedly
approval.
approved and ready to be funded since
26 Oct 25,200 4. • The appraisal review finally arrived on this
date.
27 • The Nov 3, 2004 Underwriting Letter shows
28 that critical documents were still missine::

-14-

Fraud ulent Repres entations


Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan AJ?plications and
Regar ding their Under writm g by Samaa n & Count rywide

137 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 17 of 50

• Certification of documents from Parks was


never received, with no explanation at all
2
• Certification from Samaan's mother that
3 Samaan was allowed to use the funds in their
joint ownership account never arrived, with
4 no explanation at all.
Jan 27,2005 Jan 27,2005
5
6 • Samaan's loan applications were • Samaan's 2nd lien loan application, the one
purportedly ready for funding since Oct more likely to be approved and funded, was
7 25,2004 presented to Countrywide Bank for funding
• Countrywide bank immediately issued a Jan
8 27,2004 Denial Letter.
9
• Tn March 2007 investigation by the Office of
Thrift Supervision Countrywide Bank states
10 that it would never have funded Samaan's
loans.
11

12 III
13 /II
14 III
15 /II
16 III
17 /II
18 /II
19 III
20 //I
21 III
22 //I
23 III
24 III
25 //I
26 //I
27 //I
28
-15-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan AJ!plications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & Countrywide

138 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 18 of 50

III. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES


2
TABLE #2 FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT BY SAMAAN & PARKS
3 AGAINST ZERNIK
4
5
CODE SECTION/ ELEMENTS: REFERENCES:
6
DEFINITION
7 FRAUDULENT (1) Mis- (1) Samaan misrepresented the per-
INDUCEMENT representation qualification letter and numerous
8
Deceit, Civil Code § 1709, other facts from September 4 to
9 1710 Zemik's Acceptance on September
1709: FRAUDULENT 15,2004.
10 DECEIT.
I1 One who willfully deceives (2) knowledge (2) Samaan knew the pre-qualification
another with intent to induce of the falsity letter was false given the fact that she
12 him to alter his position to his had never spoken with Victor Parks
13 injury or risk is liable for any and she had not submitted documents
damage which he thereby to substantiate the pre-qualification.
14 suffers. (3) intent to (3) Samaan knew, through the course
1710. Deceit Dermed. defraud, i.e. to of dealings with Libow, that Zemik
15
DECEIT WHAT. A deceit, induce reliance required a pre-qualification letter from .
16 within the meaning of the last her before he would consider her
section is either: offer. She, therefore, intended that
17 1. The suggestion, as a fact, Zemik rely on that pre-qualification
18 of that which is not true, by letter to accept her offer.
one who does not believe it to
19 be true;
2. The assertion, as a fact, of (4) Justifiable (4) Zernik did not have the oPf0rtunity
20
that which is not true, by one Reliance to examine Samaan's financia
21 who has no reasonable condition or her subsequent loan
apRIication therefore he was justified in
ground for believing it to be re yin~ on what he, at that time,
22
true; thoug t was an impendent pre-
23 3. The suppression of a fact, qualification.
by one who is bound to
24 disclose it, or who gives (5) Resulting (5) Zemik has been tied up in
25 information of other facts Damages litigation for the past three~ears. He
which are likely to mislead has been unable to access e equi% in
26 his property or to otherwise encum er
for want of communication of his property.
27 that fact; or
4. A promise, made without
28 any intention ofperforming
it. 4'"
·.Lv·

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan AJ.lplications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & Countrywide

139 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 19 of 50

1 TABLE #3 FRAUD & DECEIT BY SAMAAN AGAINST ZERNIK RE:


2 UNDERWRITING OF LOAN APPLICATIONS (1003) BY COUNTRYWIDE
3
4
5
6
7

8
CODE SECTION/ . ELEMEN REFERENCES:
9 ~ ... I~ • • n'N' TS
DECEIT, CIVIL CODE § 1709, I.Misrepresen 1. Samaan never revealed to
10 1710 tation, Zemik the problems she was
- of failure to properly file for concealment having with her loan application
11 designated loans, or non- while she continued to
- of failure to obtain designated disclosure misrepresent to Zemik that his
12 loans as a result of the above. loan would be anoroved
1709: FRAUDULENT 2. knowledge 2. Samaan knew her loan was not
13 DECEIT. of falsity being approved yet she continued
14 One who willfully deceives to allow Parks to represent that it
another with intent to induce him was near annroval.
15 to alter his position to his injury 3. intent to 3. Because Samaan knew that
or risk is liable for any damage defraud or to Zemik had the right to cancel
16 which he thereby suffers. induce escrow when she did not remove
reliance her loan and appraisal
17 1710. Deceit Defined. contingencies, she misrepresented
DECEIT WHAT. A deceit, the status of her loan and her
18 within the meaning of the last financial condition so as to induce
19 section is either: Zemik not to cancel at an earlier
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of date.
20 that which is not true, by one who 4. justifiable Zemik was not privy to Samaan's
does not believe it to be true; reliance application to get a loan from
21 2. The assertion, as a fact, of that Countrywide or her discussion or
which is not true, by one who has lack thereof with her loan broker,
22 no reasonable ground for therefore Zernik had no reason or
believing it to be true; why to question the truth behind
23 3. The suppression of a fact, by her representations regarding her
one who is bound to disclose it, loan status
24
or who gives information of other 5. resulting As a result, Zemik did not cancel
25 facts which are likely to mislead - damage at an earlier date. Sine then,
for want of communication of Samaan has concocted a new story
26 that fact; or
wherein she now claims that
4. A promise, made without any
27 intention of performing Zernik did not cancel before she
removed her contingencies, which
28 is also false.
-17-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

140 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 20 of 50

TABLE #4 BANK FRAUD BY SAMAAN AGAINST COUNTRYWIDE AND


2 AGAINST ZERNIK

3 BANK FRAUD: (1) Whoever (1) Samaan devised a scheme Wlder


4 (18 USCS § 1344). knowingly executes, which she would obtain a loan from
- Against Countrywide, or attempts to Countrywide, which she was not truly
5 a government-backed execute, a scheme or qualified to obtain, which was
lender. artijice- (1) to reasonably calculated to deceive
6
- also secondarily defraud a jinancial Countrywide and Zernik.
7 counted as FRAUD institution
against seller - since
8 the contract stipulated or (2) to obtain any (2) Samaan attempted to obtain a
9 that "buyer shall act ofthe moneys, funds, Government-Backed Residential Loan,
diligently and in good credits, assets, i.e., a credit, for First Lien in the
10 faith to obtain securities, or other amount of$I,343,181 and for Second
designated loans". property owned by, Lien in the amount of$174,000.
11
or under the custody
12 or control of, a
jinancial institution,
13
(3) by means oJJalse The Unifonn Residential Loan
14 or fraudulent Application was replete with false and
pretenses, fraudulent pretenses and
15
representations, or representations.
16 promises;
17

18 /II
19
20 III
21
22 /II
23
24 III
25
26 III
27
28
-18-

Notice ofSamaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwrifmg by Samaan & Countrywide

141 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 21 of 50

TABLE #5 WIRE FRAUD ACROSS STATE LINES, AGAINST AN


2 INDIVIDUAL (ZERNIK) AND AGAINST A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
(COUNTRYWIDE)
3
4 WIRE FRAUD (l) Devise or (1) Libow's emails of October 18,19,20,
.(18 U.S.c. § 1343) intend to 2004. Machines such as the HP Laserjet
5
which provides for devise a scheme Printer/Scanner/Copier lend themselves
6 enhanced or artifice to easily to such manipulations, with forward
penalty of any defraud another and header ID easily programmable.
7 criminally person based on a
8 fraudulent activity if material
it is determined that representation;
9 the activity involved
10 electronic
communications of (2) With the intent (2) Samaan switched back and forth
11 any sort, at any to defraud; between two identities in a deliberate
phase of the event. I manner.
12
13 (3) through the use 3) Samaan used the phone network,
of interstate wire· connected to Parks in the State of
14
facilities Washington, and other parties in
15 California

16 (4) where the (4) Countrywide one of the victims, was


17 alleged victim is a an is a financial institution.
financial
18 institution, to
19 enhance
sentencing
20
21 //I
22 III
23 //I
24 //I
25 //I
26 //I
27 //I
28

-19-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent ~epresentations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

142 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 22 of 50

1 TABLE #6 FRAUDULENT CLAIMS IN SAMAAN V ZERNIK


2
3
FRAUDULENT (l) Make a claim in litigation in ~1) Samaan's action is based on a
CLAIMS relationship to a contract or ailed business transaction for the
4 (CCP § 128.7) business transaction Property at 320 South Peck Drive.
andlor malicious
5 prosecution (2) Knowingly misrepresent the (2) Samaan never presented the
nature of the contract or the court with an executed contract in
6 business transaction in filings the whole course of this litigation.
with the court The reason is that such a contract
7 wOlllil rp.fntp. hp.r "I"",..,,,,
(3) For the purpose of (3) Samaan requested the court to
8 mlsleadin& the court to issue a issue judgment based on
• .l" "I"",..,,,,
9 (4) in an attempt to obtain funds (4) Such erroneous judgment
or property from defendant based on misleadi~ claims
10 through such court order would have defrau ed Defendant
of his residence and much of his
11 lifp.'~

12
/II
13
/II
14
/II
15
/II
16
III
17
/II
18
III
19
III
20
III
21
III
22
III
23
III
24
III
25
III
26
III
27
/II
28
-20-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan AJ!plications and Fraudulent ~epresentations


Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & CountrywIde

143 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 23 of 50

TABLE #7 STATUTE OF FRAUDS


2
3
STATUTE OF (1) Contract must be in (l) Samaan has consistently
4 FRAUDS. writing and signed by party argued that Zemik failed to initial
5 (Civil Code § against whom enforcement is and sign the "Purchase
1624) (a) "the sought - for the sale of land. Agreement". Further, Samaan
6 following argues that Zernik's failure to
contracts are "fully execute" the "Purchase
7 invalid unless Agreement" prevented her from
they, or some note being able to obtain a loan.
8 or memorandum
thereof, are in (2) Defense by way of Statute (2) Defendant has timely raised
9
writing and of Frauds was raised in a such defense.
10 subscribed by any timely manner by Defendant
party to be charged in Demurrer.
11 or by the party's
agent: (3) an (3) Close to 2 years later, (3) But Samaan has never
12 agreement for the Plaintiff still has not presented provided to the court any fully
13 sale of real the court with the relevant signed writing purported to
property. writing. document the sale of the property
14 in writing.
Neither has she indicated that such
15 document is available, nor has she
produced such document in
16 response to.subpoena, nor
17 acknowledged its existence in
subpoena production of
18 Countrywide. Therefore, Samaan
cannot satisfy the Statute of
19 Frauds.
(4) In fact, in view of
20
Plaintiff's claims that the
21 contract was not "fully
executed", and as in the case
22 of Riley v. Capital Airlines,
Inc., the court mayfind this a
23 case ofpart performance
24
25
26 III
27 /II
28

-21-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

144 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 24 of 50

Dated: Feb 29, 2008 Submitted by:


2

3 JOSEPH ZERNIK

4
5
)~.~
. ...

6
JOSEPH ZERNIK
7 Defendant and Cross Complainant
in pro per
8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18

19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
-22-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

145 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 25 of 50

1 IV. DECLARATION OF JOSE PH ZERN IK


2
I, JOSEPH ZERN IK, hereby declare as follows.
3 s County
1. I am Defend ant & Cross-Complainant in Samaan v. Zernik, Los Angele
4 dge of the facts set
Superior Court Case No. SC087400. As such, I have personal knowle
5 s, I could and
forth herein, which I know to be true and correct and, if called as a witnes
6 ted in
would competently testify with respect thereto. This declaration is submit
7 and Fraud ulent
connection with Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan Applications
8 rywide .
Repre sentati ons Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa n & Count
9 ber 2006
2. I first saw any of the discovery materials in Samaan v Zernik in mid Decem
10 ous in early
at the office of then my Couns el- Charles Cummings. I became suspici
11 Samaan v Zernik.
Novem ber that something is awkward or worse about the litigation of
12 law fmn
Mr Cummings, then the Managing Partner of Sullivan Workman and Dee, a
13 a year and a
dealing exclusively with Real Estate Law, had represented me for almost
14 even recognize the
half at that time. Upon my first visit to Mr Cummings office, I did not
15 to me that
name Countrywide. But within less than half an hour, it was obvious
16
underlying the case was substantial fraud activity and white collar crime.
17 to read the
3. Mr Cumm ings was trying to convince me that I simply had no clue how
18 ence that my
documents, and that there was no fraud involved. Indeed, I had no confid
19
reading of the documents was correct.
20 Depute
4. I therefore approached the California Department of Real Estate, and a
21 the basics in Real
Commissioner there spent substantial time explaining to me some of
22 Estate Code of California. He also took copies of some of my key docum
ents for review
23 most significant
by the Legal Depart ment of that that agency. They responded that the
24 ment by
finding regarding my position in Samaan v Zernik was Fraudulent Induce
25- ings never made
Samaan in Septem ber 2004. They expressed surprise that Mr Cumm
26
any defense or dispositive claims to that effect.
27
28
-23-

Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and & Fraud ulent Repre sentati ons
. Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa n Count rywide

146 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 26 of 50

some time
1 5. I also approached the FBI in Los Angeles, and again, an agent there spent
underlying the
2 with me going over the materials, and again, confirmed my suspicions that
for the first time
3 case was substantial fraud and white collar crime activity. Here I learned
in Los
4 about an "epidemic ofreal estate and mortgage fraud' with an "epicenter
Angeles". But most important was the realization from the FBI literatu
re that the in the
5
. The FBI
6 vast majority of these cases, the fraud is perpetrated by realtors or loan brokers
int against
7 agent also expressed his surprise that my attorney had never filed cross compla
8 Samaan for Fraud and Deceit.
ns
9 6. By late December 2006 I sent an email to Mr Cummings, with series of questio
to respond.
10 regarding his conduct in representing me in Samaan v Zernik. He refused
elderly
11 7. I then met with one of the surviving marquee partners of the law firm, an
n without
12 attorney, retired Mr Workman. I asked for his help in resolving the situatio
shop in West
13 getting into a dispute with the law firm. We spent about an hour in a deli
e Court case,
14 LA. He quizzed me regarding Eminent Domain, the New London Suprem
the subject of
15 the shifting compositions of the U.S. Supreme Court, but never touched
ted my
16 our meeting. When he was ready to leave, he got up and stated that he suppor
for his conduct
17 position, that an attorney owed his client an explanation in plain English
y. Mr
18 in the case. But he also stated his full confidence in Mr Cummings integrit
office, and I
19 Cummings next offered me a $25,000 waiver of fees if I agreed to leave the
20 did.
21 8. What struck my attention first in the discovery materials was:
A,.
22 a. The double "Date Received" stamps on Samaan's loan applications (Exh
23 p38. and Exh B, p42).
24 b. The fraudulent employment and income information in the same loan
a
25 applications. She represented herself to me as a realtor closing a few deals
26 year. Later it turned out that she was a cosmetician. In the Loan Applications
was
27 she was stating that the only employment she had for the previous 4 years
28
-24-

Fraud ulent Representations


Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan AJ?plications andn &
Regar ding their Underwriting by Samaa Countrywide

147 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 27 of 50

ent
as President and sole owner of a retail company, but her bank statem
2 showed biweekly payroll deposit from the dept store.
3 c. Countr ywide' s subpoe na production included blank fonns for "Conv
ersation

4 Log" from San Rafael. (Exh C, p46) is a true and correct copy of a " San
5 Rafael Conversation Log" blank form as received in Countr ywide' s
6 subpoenas in Aug 2006 and Jan-April 2007. It appear ed completely
would
7 inconsistent with the totally computerized body of the records, that they
and
8 use such ancient paper fonns. Indeed, later, I manag ed to track down
riter
9 discuss the matter by phone with Diane Frazier, the fonner Senior Underw
sloan
10 at San Rafael, who was duly assigned to the underwriting of Samaa n'
had not
11 applications. She told me that to her knowledge, these paper forms
that she
12 been used in San Rafael at least since 1989, which was the first year

13 was employed there.


er at San
14 9. In late Decem ber 2006 I also called Maria McLaurin, the Branch Manag
she prepared the
15 Rafael. I was surprised that she agreed to talk with me. She stated that
of Countrywide.
16 subpoe na produc tion in close collaboration with the Legal Depart ment
that the Legal
17 Regarding the paper fonns "Conversation Logs" she explained to me
subpoena I had
18 Depart ment detenn ined that email correspondence is not subjec t to the
19 served them.
ywide to discuss
20 10. In late Decem ber 2006 I also called the Legal Department of Countr
plan on submitting a
21 the deficiencies in their subpoe na production. I also told them that I
subpoena,
22 repeat subpoena, in hope that they respon d more truthfully. In the repeat
aph to that effect..
23 served in January 2007, I also entered an unusual introductory paragr
ings in Aug
24 But the resulting subpoe nas were identical to that obtained by Mr Cumm
was strangely
25 2006, except that I insisted on a Custodian of Records declaration, which
protocol, whereby my
26 missing from Cumm ings subpoe na production. I also established a
where the docwnents
27 subpoe na produc tions were received by a Legal Services company,
28
-25-

Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and Fraud ulent Representations
Regarding their Underwriting by Samaa n & Countrywide

148 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 28 of 50

1 were immediately scanned and saved on CD's before they even got to me, to establish
2 exactly what documents were received and in which order.

3 11. In Meet and Confer telephone conference in early 2007 with Att Shatz and Att Boock
4 of the Legal Department of Countrywide, they claimed that there simply was no
5 explanation for the double "Date Received" stamps on Samaan's loan applications. They
6 also denied that there was any report in Countrywide that could shed light on this
7 mystery. For example, I asked for any Internal Audit report on these documents,
8 establishing the identity of the person who created these stamps, the time it was done, the
9 authority by which it was done, and the reason for it. I also asked for any Imaging Report
10 that would show if these loan applications were scanned twice, once in early October and
11 once on Oct 12,2004. I also asked if there was any evidence in Edge, the underwriting
12 monitoring system, for another receipt and underwriting prior to Oct 12,2004. I also
13 asked for a Pipeline Report - to see if any applications by Samaan were noted prior to
14 Oct 12, 2004. On all of these questions Att Shatz and Boock answered that I am asking
15 for non-existent reports.
16 12. Prior to the Meet and Confer phone call, I wrote a detailed letter, signed and sent
17 under the name of my then Counsel Zachary Schorr. In it, I specifically again asked for
18 the various types of reports that Countrywide surely had to have regarding Smaan'sloan
19 applications, especially that the Legal Department had now twice reviewed in detail the
20 documents. They denied any existed. In the Meet and Confer Letter I also listed one by
21 one all the Underwriting Letters provided in the Subpoena production. It was clear to
22 me:
23 a. That they omitted at least one Underwriting Letter from the period prior to Oct
24 12,2004, and
25 b. That the unsigned, invalid Oct 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter, which was
26 entered by Att Keshavarzi in Sur Reply to Defendant's Motion to Expunge Lis
27 Pendens in Nov 2006, was never present in any of Countrywide's 4 (four)
28 subpoena productions received by that time. That unsigned, invalid

-26-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

149 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 29 of 50

the made
Underwriting Letter was supposed to be the only connection between
the loan
2 up claims from 2007 and the true facts in this matter as documented in
was
3 file. But that Underwriting Letter was from Oct 26,2004, a date that
ore,
4 useless for Samaan, since by then the escrow was surely canceled. Theref
4, and
5 they fraudulently misrepresented that letter as being dated Oct 14,200
6 having been received by Oct 15,200 4, or mid-October 2004 by Mr Parks.
d
7 Such was obviously false, since the fax header imprint stated it was receive
8 on Oct 26, 2004, and the "Edge" underwriting monitoring system at
also time
9 Countrywide, which automatically produced the Underwriting Letter,

10 stamped it on Oct 26, 2007.


ed all the
11 13. After Att Shatz and Boock repeatedly reassured me that they produc
why the Oct 26,
12 Underwriting Letters that were part ofSam aan's loan file, I asked them
tions. They
13 2004 Underwriting Letter was never included in their subpoena produc
riting Letter
14 appeared surprised, and it was clear that they had never seen that Underw
Underwriting
15 prior to that day. Their immediate response was that the Oct 26, 2004
in 2004.
16 Letter was not part of Samaa n's loan file from the underwriting period
Oct 26,200 4
17 14.1 demanded an explanation for the appearance of that extraneous
r subpoena
18 Underwriting Letter. In response, I received on April 12, 2004 yet anothe
inserted some 20
19 production (albeit - I never asked for it). In the few hundred pages were
not appear as a
20 new pages, including the Oct 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter. But it did
. Instead, it
21 stand alone Underwriting Letter -like the rest of the Underwriting Letters
two years after the
22 appeared only as part of correspondence in Nov 3-6, 2006 (more than
23 underwriting period ) between Keshavarzi, Lloyd, and McLaurin.
documents - Nov 3-6,
24 15. Exh D (p 48) is a true and correct copy of Countrywide subpoe na
ywide.
25 2006 Co"espondence, as received by me in April 2006 from Countr
and the
26 o that Lloyd, Samaa n's husband was an acquaintance of McLaurin,
length
27 relationship between McLaurin and Samaan was not a typical arm's
dubbed
28 Bank Manag er - Borrower relationship. Prior to that- Att Keshavarzi
-27-

Fraud ulent Repres entations


Notice ofSam aan's Fraudulent Loan Allplications and
Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & Countrywide

150 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 30 of 50

my claims that Samaan and McLaurin were in cahoots in this fraud as


2 "conspiracy theory". After I received this correspondence, he back off that
3 dismissive argument.
4 o that on Nov 3, 2006, Lloyd is suggesting that maybe this letter could be used to
5 substantiate a claim that missing initials of Zernik caused delay in the final
6 approval ofSamaan's loans in 2004. But by Nov 6, 2006, 3 days later, a set of
7 coordinated fraudulent declarations were produced in court, claiming that the

8 missing initials caused the immediate suspension of Samaan loan applications

9 on Oct 14,2004, two days after their purported first receipt in San Rafael.

10 o That in Nov 2006 Maria McLaurin was still hesitant to become a full pledged
participant in the fraud against Zemik. She refused to sign the verified
11
statement offered by Keshavarzi, and instead supplied a letterwhich should not
12
have been admissible in court. Later, she changed her position, and submitted
13
blatantly fraudulent verified statements.
14
16.Exh A (p 38) is a true and correct copy of Samaan's Sept 27,2004 [it Lien Loan
15
Application (1003), obtained by subpoena from Countrywide, showing double "Date
16
Received" stamps, signatures of Parks that do not resemble his signature in Court
17
Declarations (Exh R, p~, and umpteen false and deliberately misleading data entries
18
(detailed in text of notice).
19
17. Exh B (p 42) is a true and correct copy of Samaan's Sept 27,2004 zst Lien Loan
20
Application (1003), showing double "Date Received" stamps, signatures of Parks that do
21
not resemble his signature in Court Declarations (Exh S, p 149), and umpteen false and
22 deliberately misleading data entries (detailed in text of notice).
23 18. Exh E (p 61) - is a true and correct copy of the document Oct 4, 2004 Broker
24 Certification and Origination Agreement from Countrywide subpoena productions.
25· Notes:
26 a. This fax document, produced by Countrywide, presumably documents
27 transmission from Parks (Washington State) to Countrywide (San Rafael,
28 Califomia). But in fact, the fax header imprint is anonymous in violation of
-28-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan AlJplications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Undenvritmg by Samaan & Countrywide

151 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 31 of 50

FCC regulations. The fact that such an anonymous document was received in
2 Countrywide as part of a loan file applications is in violation of both "sound
3 banking principles" as required by Regulations B of the FRB, and also in
4 violation of Countrywide's own Policy and Procedure manual regarding the
5 use of fax machines. The fax header on this document perfectly matches the
6 fax header on documents such as the Oct 25,2004 fax transmission of the Sept
7 15, 2004 Purchase Contract, which is part of the convoluted fax/wire scheme

8 of Samaan, Parks, Lloyd, and Countrywide (see Notice ofDocument: Sept 15,

9 2004 Purchase Contract) against a financial institution, and across state lines.

10 b. This document provides Samaan's certification of the documents, but fails to


provide Parks' Broker's Certification. Such Broker's Certification was in fact
11
never provided, therefore entirely invalidating the two loan applications.
12 \

c. This document is missing Parks' signature on the Broker's Certification, p 12,


13
but bears a purported Parks' signature on Origination Agreement, p 13, albeit,
14
the signature on p13 bears no resemblance to Parks' signature on either the
15
Loan applications (Exh A, p 38; B, P 42), or the Court Declarations (Exh S, p
16
149).
17
d. If one is to accept this document as a fax transmission from Parks to
18
Countrywide on Oct 4,2004, then it contradicts the claim that Samaan's loan
19
applications were first received in Countrywide only on Oct 12,2004. In fact,
20
neither in the loan files, nor in the court room was any of these fax
21
transmissions authenticated.
22
19. Exh F (p 64)- is a true and correct copy of the Countrywide underwriting document
23
from Samaan' Loan File subpoena- Oct 6, 2004 Reverse Yellow Pages Lookup of
24 Samaan's work phone (323) 655-5654 - locating it to Samaan's residence - 1227 S
25 Alfred St, Los Angeles, CA 90035. It was this finding that gave rise to the requirement
26 to explain employment information as the very first condition in the Oct 14, 2004
27 Underwriting Letter and suspension notice. This document also on its face contradicts
28 Samaan/Countrywide claims that the loan applications were first received by
-29-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

152 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 32 of 50

missing Zernik 's


1 Countrywide only on Oct 12,200 4. It also contradicts the claims that
has not documentary
2 initials caused the suspension of Samaa n's loan applications, which
3 evidence from 2004 whatsoever.
ents from Samaa n's
4 20. Exh G (p 66) - are true and correct Countrywide subpoena docum
5 loan file:

a. Oct 13,200 4 - Quality Verification and Documentation Questi


onnaire, hand
6
under:
7 comple ted by Senior Underwriter Frazier, showin g derogatory notes
i. Identity theft preven tion
8
11. Emplo yment re-verification
9
signed
b. Oct 13, 2004 Compliance Verification fonns - showing missing
10
disclosures.
11
Such
c. Oct 13,200 4 Unsigned Countrywide Home Loans Disclosures.
12
since
disclos ures had to be signed within 3 days from loan application, but
13
there was no agreem ent on fees, such disclosures could not be signed.
14 from
21. Exh H (p 84) --,- is a true and correct copy of Countr ywide' s subpoe na docum ent
15 ywide' s
Samaa n's loan file - Oct 14,200 4 - Clues Repor t. Clues is Countr
16 ous derogatory
Compu terized Underw riting Expert System. This report shows numer
17
comments:
18
a. violati on of progra m rules,
19
b. multi layered risk, etc.
20 ds as
c. it also states that a realtor is prohib ited from using commi ssion procee
21 se
part of the funds to close. Samaa n constru cted the Sept 15, 2004 Purcha
22 Contra ct in a way that directly contradicted this rule. Therefore, had
Samaa n
would
23 submit ted her Purchase Contra ct with the initial loan application, that
of progra m
24 have created anothe r hurdle for her approv al- yet anothe r violati on
25 rules.
instead referring
26 This Oct 14,200 4 Clues Report, denied approval ofSam aan's loans,
in her efforts to
27 them to Divisio n Underw riting Support. On Oct 25, 2004 McLaurin,
the Oct 25,200 4
28 push forwar d fundin g of Samaa n's fraudulent loan applications, filed
-30-

Fraud ulent Repres entatio ns


Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and &
Regar ding their Under writm g by Samaa n Count rywide

153 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 33 of 50

1 Exception Report with Demetrio Gadi (Exh J, p 93), in violation of the conditions set by
2 the duly assigned Senior Underwriter Frazier - that such be done only after Samaan filed
3 valid Loan Applications (l003) listing the 0.75% loan fees. In addition, McLaurin failed
4 to submit to Gadi a Clues report, instead making up fraudulent fictitious complimentary
5 credit determinations for Samaan, and in the process also hiking her income to $4m per
6 year. Gadi unfazed, added specific restrictive conditions to Samaan's loan applications in

7 his Oct 29, 2004 Exception Report (Exh N, p 104), which did not reflect confidence in

8 the integrity of McLaurin or data she provided regarding Samaan's loan applications:

9. - He re-affirmed the requirement for valid Loan Applications (l003) listing the loan
fees of 0.75%
10
- He added a condition that a valid Clues Report be produced prior to funding
11
- He added a condition that all such documents be reviewed and approved by a Branch
12
Underwriter (rather than Branch Manager McLaurin).
13
22. Exh I (p 91)- is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoena document from
14
Samaan's loan file - Oct 14, 20041s1 Lien Underwriting Letter, showing a suspension
15
notice with:
16
a. Condition #1- explanation of false employment data, and
17
b. Condition #2 - resubmission of loan applications with correct listing of loan
18
fees to Countrywide
19
23. Exh J (p 93) - is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoena document from
20
Samaan's loan file - October 25,2004 -McLaurin's Exception Request-Branch
21
Input.
22
Notes:
23 a. McLaurin's submission of this Exception Request is in direct violation of the
24 conditions set by the duly assigned Underwriter - Frazier, that Samaan submit·
25-
a valid Loan Application (1003) listing the 0.75% loan fees. Mr Gadi in his
26 Oct 29, 2004 Exception Reply reaffirmed these conditions.
27 b. Samaan's annual income figure is a blatant handwritten adulteration of a
28 digital document. As evidenced in Exh K (P--l, McLaurin submitted this
-31-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan A{)plications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & Countrywide

154 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 34 of 50

,000 per
report to Mr Gadi with false statement of Samaa n's income - at $4,000
2 year. On the Exception Request itself, instant exhibit, a printout from
to
3 electronic file, the figure was adulterated by hand. Countrywide refused
ess of
4 provide an authentic printout of the Exception Request document, regardl
5 multiple requests.
, she
6 c. McLaurin failed to include with the report a printout of Clues. Instead

7 included false statements regarding Samaan's credit worthiness, that

8 diametrically contradict the determinations made in the authentic Clues


ed and
9
Report. Gadi added a condition that an authentic Clues report be produc
(Exh
reviewed by a Branch Underwriter in his Oct 29,200 4 Exception Report
10
N, p 104).
11
na document from
24. Exh K (p 97}- is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoe
12
ion Request.
Samaa n's loan file - October 25,200 4 - Ortin's Email Note RE: Except
13
Samaa n's incom e-
This email note is supposed to correct McLau rin's false statement of
14 note by the time
at $4m per year. It is not clear whether Gadi was aware of Ortin's email
15
he produced the Oct 29, 2004 Exception Report.
16 na document from
25. Exh L (p 99)- is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoe
17 Review Order.
Samaa n's loan file - October 25, 2004 - McLaurin/Ortin 's Appra isal
18 ion Request,
This order by McLaurin, like the submission of the Oct 25, 2004 Except
19 review was
diametrically contradicted Senior Underwriter Frazier conditions - such
20 Request, which
supposed to be ordered only after Corporate approval of the Exception
21 evidence the fact
did not arrive until Oct 29,200 4. Together, the following documents
22 fraudulent loan
that by Oct 25,200 4 McLaurin, a Bank Manager, removed Samaa n's
d their
23 applications from the duly assigned Senior Underwriter Frazier, and handle
24 underwriting herself:
25 a. Oct 25, 2004 Exception Report
26 b. Oct 25, 2004 Appraisal Review Order
27 c. Oct 29, 2004 Underwriting Letters
28 d. Nov 3,200 4 Underwriting Letters.
-32-

Fraud ulent Repres entations


Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and
Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

155 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 35 of 50

e any of her direct


1 In her fraudulent court declarations in 2007 McLaurin did not disclos
, she falsely
2 involvement in the Underwriting of Samaa n's loan applications. Instead
riting documents
3 portrayed herself as a bank manager who was in 2007 reviewing underw
ing her
4 that were produced in the normal course of business in 2004, and provid
ed that she
5 interpretation of such docwnents as a Bank Manager. She never disclos
after removing
6 herself was the unauthorized underwriter of Samaan's loan applications,
- Frazier.
7 the applications from the responsibility of the duly assigned underwriter
Appraisal Review
8 This docum ent also contradicts Samaa n's/Co untryw ide's claim that the
d on Oct 25, 2004,
9 was delayed because of Zernik 's initials, and that it was finally obtaine
and the loan
and with it also loan approval was obtained. Both the appraisal review
10
approval were far from being obtained on October 25,200 4.
11
na document
12 26. Exh M (p 101)- is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoe
rin, and Lloyd
produced as part of Nov 3-6, 2006 Correspondence of Keshavarzi, McLau
13 loan file by
- Oct 26, 2004 -Underwriting Letter, unsigned, claimed as not part of the
14
by Keshavarzi as an
Legal Department attorneys in Meet and Confer in 2007, but entered
15 by McLaurin.
Oct 14, 2004 valid Underwwriting Letter, with a dubious support letter
16 tions were still
This Oct 26, 2004 Underwriting Letter in fact shows that the loan applica
17 that approval
suspended on Oct 26,200 4, contradicting Samaa n's/Co untryw ide's claims
18
was issued on Oct 25,200 4.
19 na document from
27.Ex h N (p 104) - is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoe
20 at 10:46am by
Samaa n's loan file - October 29,200 4 Gadi's Exception Report, issued
21 rin's Oct 25,200 4
Division Underwriting Suppo rt- Demetrio Gadi's response to McLau
22 Exception Request:
ed by Oct 25,
23 a. It contradicts the false claim that loan applications were already approv
24 2004.
ed with
25 b. It shows numerous conditions added by Gadi that were never compli
26 throug hout the life of these applications.
but McLau rin's
27 c. Gadi stipulated his approval upon veracity of data provided to him,
28 input was false and deliberately misleading, therefore, as stated by Gadi:
-33-

Fraud ulent Repres entations


Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applications and
Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

156 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 36 of 50

IS NULL AND VOIDI


"IF ALL CONDITIONS ABOVE ARE NOT MET THIS EXCEPTION
DECISIO N ONLY AND NOT A LOAN APPRO VAl." .
THIS IS AN EXCEP TION
2
na docum ent from
28.Ex h 0 (p 108)- is a true and correct copy of Countr ywide' s subpoe
3
Samaa n's loan file - Oct 29,200 4 Underwriting Letter, showing:
4 er
a. This Oct 29,200 4 Underwriting Letter was signed by Branch Manag
5 and in
McLau rin instead of the duly assigned Senior Underw riter Frazier,
6 manage
violati on of the condition set by Mr Gadi, that a Branch Underw riter
7
the underw riting of Samaa n's loan applications.
8 still not
b. As of Oct 29,200 4, appraisal review ordere d on Oct 25,200 4 was
9 and
received. Such data contradicts false claims made in court declarations
was
10 briefs, that such appraisal delayed approv al of the loan applications,
ed by Oct
11 receive d on Oct 25,200 4, and that the loan applications were approv
12 25,200 4 as well.
valid Loan
13 c. As of Oct 29, 2004 Samaa n had never filed the required corrected,
not file
14 Applic ations (1003) listing the loan fees of 0.75%, and therefore could
tions
15 the disclos ures either. In fact, never in the loan file are valid loan applica
16 (l003) to be found.
d. The fraudu lent fax transmission produc t Sept 15,200 4 Purchase
Contract (see
17
under separa te cover - Notice ofDocument: Sept 15 2004 Purcha
se
18
19 Contract), falsely and misleadingly represented as the produc t of fax
to
20 transm ission on Oct 25, 2004, 5:03pm, from Parks in Washin gton State
not part of
21 Countr ywide in San Rafael Califor nia (across state lines), was still
riting Letter
22 the loan file on Oct 29,200 4. Theref ore, the Oct 29,200 4 Underw
Oct 25,
is a suppor t docum ent for demonstrating that the fax transm ission on
23
ver, the fact
2004 was falsely and misleadingly misrep resente d in court. Moreo
24
n's Loan
that the Sept 15, 2004 Purchase Contract is still missin g from Samaa
25
File on Oct 29, 2004 entirely contrad ict the fraudu lent claims that Zemik
26
that it was
delaye d the delivery of the Purcha se Contra ct to Countrywide, and
27
28
-34-

Fraud ulent Repres entations


Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applications andn & Countrywide
Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa

157 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 37 of 50

iate
1 delivered on Oct 25, 2004, and that such delivery resulted in the immed
4.
2 obtainment of both Appraisal Review and Loan Approval on Oct 25,200
access to
3 e. The statement from Samaa n's mother regarding the ownership and
received.
4 funds in the joint account that were essential for closing, was still not
5 In fact, it was never received during the life of this loan file.

6 r. Conflicting business and residence addresses, first identified by the duly


lved. In
7 assigned Senior Underwriter Frazier on Oct 6, 2004, were still unreso

8 fact, such was never resolved during the life of this loan file.
such was
9 g. Broke r Certification ofDocuments was never received yet. In fact,
never received during the life of this loan file.
10
demonstrate
h. Wells Fargo Bank Statement was still never received, required to
11
availability of funds to close.
12
na document from
29. Exh P (p 111)- is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoe
13
12:25pm,
Samaa n's loan file- Nov 3,2004 Appraisal Review Repor t- issued at
14
25, 2004 and also
contradicting the false claims that such appraisal was obtained on Oct
15
allowed the loan applications to be approved already on Oct 25, 2004.
16 na document from
30. Exh Q (p 114) - is a true and correct copy of Countrywide's subpoe
17 showing:
Samaa n's loan file - Nov 3,2004 Oct 29,200 4 Underwriting Letter,
18 Manager
a. This Nov 3, 2004 Underwriting Letter was again signed by Branch
19 in
McLaurin instead of the duly assigned Senior Underwriter Frazier, and
20 e
violation of the condition set by Mr Gadi, that a Branch Underwriter manag
21
the underwriting of Samaa n's loan applications.
22 b. Valid Loan Applications (1003) listing the true closing costs with
loan fees of
23 0.75% were still not received. No Loan Disclosures were signed yet either.
to
24 c. The Sept 15, 2004 Purchase Contract, fraudulently claimed as faxed
of the
25 Countrywide on Oct 25,200 4,5:03 pm was still not incorporated as part
yet
26 loan file. In fact, there is no evidence that it was received by Countrywide
27 on Nov 3, 2004!
28
-35-

Repres entatio ns
Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applic ations and Fraud ulent
rywide
Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa n & Count

158 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 38 of 50

to close was
d. Statem ent from Samaa n's mother regarding owners hip of funds
2 still missing.

3 e. Broke r's Certification was still missing


4 f. Conflicting work and residence addresses were not yet resolved
not yet
5 g. Missin g Wells Fargo Statement to demonstrate funds to close was

6 received.
na docum ent from
7 31. Exh R (p 117) - is a true and correct copy of Countr ywide' s subpoe
funding by
8 Samaa n's loan file - Jan 27,200 5 - Denial Letter, showing denial of
loans were
9 Countr ywide Bank, contradicting claims by Samaan/Countrywide that
by Nov 1, 2004.
approv ed by Oct 25, 2004, and Samaa n was able, willing, ready to close
10
ywide Bank stated
In investi gation in 2007 by the Office of Thrift Supervision Countr
11
that it would never have funded Samaa n's loan applications.
12
Parks was never
32. Exh S (p 119) - July 2006, Samaa n's Deposition, showin g that
13
prepar ed the loan
involved in her loan applications, that her husban d was the one who
14
the time of the
applications, falsely signed by Parks, that Samaa n was employ ed at
15 icting false
application as a cosmet ics salesw oman in a department store, contrad
16
statements about her employment in loan applications.
17 of contrad iction regarding
33. Exh T (p 149) - Oct 27,200 6 Parks' Court Declaration - full
18 this docum ent bears
the underw riting proces s, as outlined in Table I. Parks' signatu re on
19 (Exh A)or the
no resemb lance to his signatures on the Sept 27, 2004 Loan Applications
20 any
Sept 7, 2004 Prequalification Letter (Exh. J. The latter two do not bear
21 ation file there is not
resemb lance to each other either. In the whole Samaa n Loan Applic
22 a single authen tic signature by Parks.
23
34. Exh U (p 157) - Sept 7,2004 Park's Prequalification Letter
of the state of
24 I make this declara tion under penalty of perjury pursua nt to the laws
25 California. Signed here, in Los Angeles, California, Feb 29, 2008.
26
27

28
-36-

Fraud ulent Repres entations


Notice ofSam aan's Fraud ulent Loan Applications andn & Countrywide
Regar ding their Under writin g by Samaa

159 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 39 of 50

1
2 ),~
3
4 JOSEPH ZERNIK
DEFENDANT & CROSS COMPLAINANT
5
in pro per
6
7
8
9

10
11 v. EXHIBITS
12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

24
25
26
27
28
-37-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Allplications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

160 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 40 of 50

2
3
4

5
6

10
11

12
13

14
15
16
17
18

19

20
21
22
23

24
25
26
27 EXHIBIT A
28
-38-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide

161 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 41 of 50
.~.

unifo rt Residential Loan Ap,tc ation

Plllpelty",l be:
PrimOII' Re>l!lena> Dsoa>ndiuy _...,.0 Investment

rolal(a+bl

Omalltl Olobomaclo

llllewiB

Sautee or Da..n PlIjIllenl. Selllemenl ChBl1l<$ en_SUbanlino1e F':"nclng (e>Illolnl


ChlcldnglSovlngs

1227 in S. Allred SIRlt


Los Angol... CA 90035

Bonowi!r
NDme 'Addrasof Empl_
SpollbDund enterprise. Inc.
133 S. Pick OIlVll. Suite 104
BwerIY HIli.. CA 90212

PlllSldcnt
IImployorll n l:I1ml1ll_lUort for Ius lIIBllIWD yon or"curran
p,.,. III. foa.wllllI'
....ployod In /IIOte tIwJ .". posillon, c....

Nmno'MdmssofEmployot

oso
lD1eSS p,- {II!d.'" CIlllII

F_IIiooFon nl003 11104


FlOlktololacvonnBS DllOe
CoIyxF.... l.a.t LoontppI.... Dll1M
Computer Generote~1 oI~
Handwritten 1003

162 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 42 of 50

I
G.........lhlyl._
Bas. EmpI. _me' S
IlaInlWlT
33.333.00

\1. MONTIiLV WCOME AND COMBINED HOUSING EXPENS~ INFORMAnON

$
Co-Bo.-r
S
T.tal
33,333.00
~=.':'
Rtlll
. $
_I3,390.00
'.

,
..
P'Ojl...d
..
I

0vaItime ""It Morcaaa. (P&I) Is 6,aU3


90IIusN Diller financing (P&~ 1,121l.60
00lil/iii$$i0.. H""""Nurallte 400.87
Dlvldtndlllnl.resl Rnl Es1ate T.... 1,789.58
NBlRonIBI_
Olhet __ MllI1gag: InsDnlllCO
_,"""-DlIOl
... 1tl.llIII:eh....
.... _ • .-oj ~
0lIl0r.
Tola! S . 33,333.00 S S 33,333.00 Tola! S 3,390.00 S 9,618.38
·s.11 ElIIJIlDYtd e........rj.) 1llIIY'" RqIllrod to provlde .ddlUonoI dow_IlIUon ..cIlottu..-. end fin••oW _moab.
D.sU'lbo OtMrmcolll. NoUt:a: ADma~. chnd auppan. or sep.'" mahttonlltea IDeoJDI nled not be ntVU)td Utn_
BOrrDW1Ir (8) ar eo.&otrowc:r(C} doe5 not c:hooso to i1allO It eonsldeml forrcpilytng dab 10011\,

~r-------I'--
. . VI. ·ASSETS AND LIABILiTIes .. .. ..,
This IIlem.lIllUldenyopp cablasuppoltingscll.dulesmaybecampleled . lIybybolhrnanledandulUll'llriedCOoI>oITllWOlll • as_and 1;.liIle..... ,,"n
JoInod••lhlllIhIStatemonlcanbeme.nlnglU/lyoadraillyp..._.nocomblnlld_;DIhaJWlsa...pamleSlilimanllOndSchedulB&Bl8requinld.HIhaCo-Bom'l'I.r
••ctlon was ccmpleled /lbouI a _,1hIs Slalomenl and .ujlpOltiag Wledules musl be ......ltl.d aboul thaI.pousa olso.
CGmpI_ DJolnlly G!lN.lJolnlly

~
ASS6TS Cash or Mark.t
Valuo dallls, illrJoJdIllo ...... 1>/> 1oalI•• rBVOlvlnO dla'lJ9 e.....
-plelJll... de. \he .._ _ ~ Uaecusaoy.1Ildita1O bVM _e _whidlwlUbe
".IUI_
UUruDcsandPJtdged Ass.... LlStthaaet2lofsname. address MdarmuntfU'll;wlotll outstandlng
loans, aIillIIlny, dIIId $Uppal\.
CA!IldlllOofI_ pt.I'CIlase hlld by: 5 _upon ••teol .... UlOleOl'4lOd ................... oIth. O1IlIltdPOO_·
Mara I!llcroll/ 30,000
Monthly poyment & Unllllld Blton..
UAIIlunES Mlsf'th,_ t..n to Prq

LUI chocklng,nrI UlI/np ,ceo""," "",ow NImIlllIIlcldre.. o I ~ n'oyJIlentlMOl1t/lS 5


Nama Illd IIddIesS 01-' S&I. CI CredIt UnIOn FIRST USA
PO BOX296:W
Wills FDlVD BInI< PHOENIX. A:l. 85038
P.O. 80_ 6995
POIIIand, OR 97228-6995 9,870
Accl. no. 4332370011040372 197
181,097 Nomelllld address 01 C _ 5 I'ayrnonlRVIonI 5
Acd. I\ll, 881-4098380 $
Naml and add"'ss of BanI<, 5&1. or Qed" UI1IDII FST ENlRIlNT
6735 FOREST LAWN
Will. FDlVD Bank HOLLyWOOD. CA 90OS8
P.O. BDI 6995
portland, OR 97228-6995 266/60 9,033
1ACCt.-. .. 92584OS00
_DIIIId oddlessol CDmpany SPDymDnllMOlllJ\S 5
Acct....
750.0194399 S 02,325
WASHINGTON MUlUAL BANK
_and_SD B..k. S&L, or Ctedll UOIOn
POBDX1093
NORTHRIDGE. CA 91328

Accl.... 1OO100000000082B083611 102 7,904


.... and llIdreSI.rcempany 5PaymelllJlol_
AcCl. no. 5
t/OlIl8 ond addle6S III Bonk, S5I., or \;;,edIl UOiOn em
POll 8241
SIOUX FALLS, SD 67117

iAaI. no. 642411069919 132 8,347

$
r_1IIld _ . oICOftlp;lny 5 PaymoiiVlMnlhS S
Acd. ~ ••
5 BARNEYS NY CRED CO
=r&IloB~c:"lIIYnameI 1101 V!'Jl.E'( BROOK AVE
LYNDHURST, NJ 07071

114 1,477

uri _co
no! cash value
F_ _ 5
600.000
S
Ae:t. aD. 6003355682
Nama and _ _ 01'-"1' 5 ll\'IIle.-1hI S

S_1Jaald Assets S 293,422


Accl.no.
=~ow:s~~~"'1S NwnoW\ll address or COlIlPlny S~

~Inlerutn .. 44,000

N.IWOI1lI 01 buslness(es) 0WlIlld S 600,DllO


lallDch WndaI slaIerilallt)
AuIllftl6IlIlU owned (nsalla ana yw) p
25,000
Accl.11O.
~~WrtlSep _ _1IDlICO ..
2002 Honda Accord

0Ibet AueIS (ltemile) 5


160,000 [Job Rl1aIed E>pens' (c:IIlfd ..... lIIIIDn d.... iIc.) 5
PumllwS1
J.....lry 100,000

IT'1s1 MO~fhaymonlS $ 811 ...

Tollll AsselS.. S 1,112,422 IloIWDflh'


amlnui'bl.
....
-
> :1$ 1,077.791 TOlII LIIb11llla... $ 34,831 I
IlcImM'Ol . . - MIl FCllIl '00) d\1D4
F _ I0\OI: FCIIIll 65 O,1Dt
~ FOIIII ,00) LoonIppiUlm 011l)l
Computer GenerGtec!gO
ro
• 0/ • 0 •
Co-....r _
Handwritten 1003

163 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 43 of 50

. . .. . '. ..' . . VI, .ASSETS AND LlABliJnEli (coiit.1 .


sheel) .
Schedul. of ROIl Esu•• OWn.d pIaddlllanal pIIIpeIlf.. are owned. un CXlIIlIr<lalioll
Insuroro<a.
PnIpe11y Addlass (enIl!rS Ul<lI4. PS llpendirlg sole Typeol Present
or RII IOllIal being held lor "'tom., AmollIlIor Gnlss
Pnlpotly MatfcalVQI. Mortgages & Uem RentoIlnc:orne
UortgBge
Pa)'menb
t.blnllNra. Nel
T.... &Mlsc. R.nlallnaxne

S S ~ S S S

ToIaIs S • S S S S
. lAdle.... 'pptop,1ate clOClllor _O/slond accoun'
numll.rj.):
U.' .nV .ddltlon.' "10" lIIIdo,.,bleb crodll nas plllVl.UI'V ....n NQ. . . . . . .

I ..lON-
VII. DETAIl:S" OF TRANSACT 'VlI~ !lEC~TION$' I
.. !'lRllaso prtu $ 1,718.000.00 :=::~:::llllVquesllarrs.lh",ugn~p1"•• u•• """"""",
D......... eo.ao",,,..,
b. AlIeIWIlons, imp_IllS . "pails Yet No Yo No
Co Land Ilf 1Cqllft~ ~BlII!lvl "1n-Il\'_lbD~aglllAst~ D~ DO
d. R.iIlBncB (Ind. dell" I. bit paid 011) b. -JOVbae ft_-",hoil w.lll.pa.1 7Y9'1'/ O~ 00
.. Eslillllied propa'" flBms 6.299.33 c. -JOVI1od, ..,.!Jlr ....dooed_orpv .nlllloordee dln ... _ O~ 00
J. I!sIJnaled cIosms costs 2U16.00 "' ....... 7 yurs?
S. PMUMP, F_S F.. ll.lnyou. ·plIlly"._ O~ 00
b.DIscount (1I80nowvwll pay) ., -YOU~"'ln dhdfybell llollliga ltclOll"' t""_r_'"
_
O~
........ _
00
_......... ___
...lleuolillOd_ It?
L Toto! costs (ad~ Items .1IIrovgb h) 1.745.115.33 - ._
(lNO . .... _srCllillelll orJudJllOlI

~ Sul>onlInaIa wndng
..... tllll'lll..-='=:
=.... .:=':'~~==--=.=
171.800.00
k. _ . doslns costs psJd bySdor FW..VA. . tmlllII. .,..,.U1d~"I!I.ICIion.)

L Olhm' CIedlIs("""" 1 L AlaJOV~doltquenl.,,,, -"'8II'/Fedo taIdclll.,lIl Iyolher O~ 00


~~~~~~=:-.7
Co&hDopoo lt :Ill,llDn,.n
Iv. A1wl'O"ObIlPlad.. POV8IInDIlI'. -1IVpJlOIt, .,s._16 _ _ 7 O~ 00
00
II. 1..lll'PIIlollll.'*'Mlpa)!llll1l............a O~
O~ DO
--......................................... -. -...............................-...........
L Arel'OOO ._.. end........ no~,

00
~ .... ~aU.s._ ~o
.... 1.0........1 1,374,4Dll.00
te. AlciOUapennanentresldellleJenl O~ 00
1 -PMI. Mil', Fuming Fu r_cod) Bdt.oClCCllpylha~ .. JO... pllnlorr_d.....' ~o DO
Oo,...InlI
L ."Y...• _ _.. bdaw.
n. PM!. MIP, FIIIdino Fee InIllCOd
no.""."'" 1lId ....... mI\Ip lrltoJa>l In. PIll_in lh.lasIlluto_7 O~ 00
(t)_tljpBor~dldl""~I...-(PR),

_or_
Do LDan amounl (add m & ., 1,374.400.00
--tSH J•.,bNulmonl_SllV(1P)'
p.CasllflllllllloBonower 189.116.33 (2lH""' tJd lOUl>oIitlillelo
)Ilnltfwilh _ _ .\SPI. or/llltlllY..." lllSllll(S). (0)7
... ....-.,by)'O
(.lIbltBdI.k,I&olnlmQ
.. IX. ACKNOWlEDGMENT'AN!1 AG~E.m: I
I

·X. P0RM4T10N FOR: GOVERliIjlENT MONlTOR!N.G .PURPOS~


typetof..ansrelaledl oadwBllng "'_.. monborOle_ CIlIIlp!anl:
a\'ltlbaqualc:ndl
Tbaf..""Jnglnfotmll""'.. raquestBdbvlb.FBd<lllGonmmenlfor.. .....uilo1lafllmish lJllslnformellon,bu1...~lod o... TballwpnMdlslhal'Landerm~
oPPorturdlY,talrboUlln!l.ndhom.1I1OIl9OlledlsclDSIII'I'-. VOll...nolraq PlO\lidGbo IhetlvlJcllva nd..ct. Forrace.you
llL lfyoufwmhlh tln-.,please
dl&crlmlnallneilheranlbebaslsolllllslnloroaUon,nor0ll1llllallleryoudl"...,lorumlo lIlIullllons .Olla.. aderltl\!lllll lllllollOlalb llln_..,IlI.ba sfsofvieull
IIIt1fcbad<mortlll...... c!lslgnallon. lfyoud.llIlllumJsb.llIIl/dl,... ... Ol...._rF_ _ILendermusll8Vlawlhelb6velllBl8rlBllo...... Ibal...
olloelvdanor"""ame.llro.lfonolwlshlobnlthlhelnlorrndon.lIlUoeclladtlllBlloJl
ronder" subject under.pplIcablaslalalaWf.,llI6palticu1srlype .1IoanllPllbd
for.)
_·saIlsfV
aD raqulram.llI5lOwlIIcIIlbo
CO-BORROWER oldonol_ .. ~thI B_
BORROWER Old....."'h .. flmJhUlb W_n
_A_
--
__
0J_"UlI ., 0 .... _.,..... .,
Elhnlelty: DHb,lIIllo.
0 _ _« ,Ldlo IilI H..HI''''''"'., ........ EUtnICIllI: IlIl
O_or
Race, DAIIaIl 0 -... !lbc.: _ leaN_ D-
i\Iosl:llNaIlva 0 _ _..
- 0-
0--« ~ WbIIB
O.... PadIlo_e '
OIhor_bl.1 IllBr
oUOlo Sn: of_ 0_
~-
S• .,
..... and_so r~Elrl pIojat
Toba eoraplcltd by " ' I l l _ I.~ ::a~M 1nl
ThIs .JPIiQlII.., was 1II<en Ily. P,cIIIc IItoIlOage eoMullaIl1a
700 Llrlcspur I.Indlng CItdo '275
Ii VIV ~1~' ;2~' O'"(
oF~1nhlMaw In
Larkspu', CA 94939
OMall I IPl888-S7U 593
IilJTalepbono 11n- sPh... _l'ld. .... codt)· IF) 310.496-325$
Dlnlenllll 31..275-5353

Fm.ls Ioltc Form 15 01104 Computer Generated'IDS ~ 01 ..


cqxr.... IIlO3 ......JlI'1J.. 01,0(
Handwritten 1003

164 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 44 of 50

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 EXHIBITB
28
-42-

Notice of Samaan'sFraudulent Loan AJ?plications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaa n & Countrywide

165 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008n Page 45 of 50
Uniform Residential loan Appucatiothis form as 'B""owa~' ·Co-8llIfower". as
This appncaUon Is designed 10 be completed by Ihe applicant(s) with thalende~s
asslslance. Appllcanls should completa or
"Borrower"
box checked) when Olhe income or ssseis 01 a parson other !han Ihs
applIcable. Co·Borrower Informallon musl also be provfded (and lhe sWroprl.ls
0 of lhe Borro~s spouse will no! ba used as a basis for loan
(Including Ills Borrowa~s spouse) win be used as a basis Tor loan qua/ilJcallon or Ihe Incoma or assels
In a communlty
resides In a community property slale. the sacurily proparty Is locsted
qualllicallon. bul his Or her lI.blllllss mu.t ba consldared becausa tha Borrower
relying on olher property located In a community property slata as e basis lor repaymenl 01 the loan.
property slate. or the Borrower Is
!;
I.. TYPE OF MORTGAGE AND TERMS OF. LOAN ..¥. ( ," .. :o.

Mortgage OVA Olher (explain): Agency Case Number lender Case Number
Apptlld lor: 0 FHA

Amount
$ 171,800

Properly will be:


Primary Residence 0 Secondary Rasldence 0 Investment

(b) Cost olfmprovements Tolal(a+b)

S $
$
CompTele Ihls line If this Is a refinanco loan.
Original Cosl Amount Extsllng Usns Purpose or Refinance Descrfbe Improvemenls 0 made 010 bs mads
Year
Acqulred

$ CostS
$
Manner In which Tills will ba held Estate will be held In:
TIlle will be held In what Name(s) Nivle Samaan

i'n.:::::-;;:;'=:;;;-"F.:;=====:-::=====~===== --L.:.A:::n:...:U:::n.::m:.:a=rr:.:.l:.:e.::d..:W.:.o:::m:::=an:.:..- -i'"'lr:easeSlmhople,d


;;::=:":
of Down Payrnanl. SeWement Charges and/or Subordinale Financing (explain)
Source (.how e.pralon dIll)
Chocking/S avIngs

.~ .. ~. .... III. BORROWER INFORMATION ." ·.Co.Borrowe;. .. ,.';'


Co·B""ows rs Name (Include Jr. or Sr. If appllca Ie)

VIS, School

1227112 S. Alfred Slreet


Los Angeles, CA 90035

Mailing Addrsss.lf dlllersni Irom Presenl Addr

If residing al presenl address for '/1$'


lI,an I
Former Address (slreel. cily. stale. ZIP)

.,1,.; ,",,', ',: Borrowsr .1'; ....,IV:EMPLOYMENTINFORMATION


~ Sell Employsd Yrs. on Ihls lob Name & Address of Employer
Name & Address 01 Employer
4yr(s)
Spellboun d Enterprise , Inc. Yrs. e!I'P1oyad In lids
Yrs, employed In this line of Wodc1prolesslon
133 S. Peek Drive, Suite 104 Uns of worklproJesslon
Beverly Hills, CA 90212 20
PoslllonlTlllelType of Business Business Phone (Incl. area COde)
Po Ilon/T1ltefType. 01 Business Business Phone (incl. area code)

PresIdent 323·655·5654
employed In more than ons position, complefe the following:
If employed In CUtTOnI po.lUon for leu than two years or If cummtly
Name & Address of Employer Sell Employed Dales (from·lo)
D Name & Address of Employer o
Self Employsd Dales (from-Io)

Monlhly Income
Monlhly Income
$ S

Posillon1TllleIType of Business rUsfneSS Phone (Incl. area code) PoslllonlTltleITypa of Business rOSineSS Phone (Incl. area code)

Nama & Address of Employer D Sell Employed Dales (from-Io) Name & Addrsss 01 Employar o Self Employed DIIlllS (Irom-lo)
Monlhly Income
Monthly Income
$
$
PoslilonITftlelType of Business IBuslness Phone (Incl. erea code)
PosllJontTUlelType of Business rUSlneSS Phone (Ind. area code)
-43-

Fonnlll Mao Fann 1003 01/004


Coml31f1'l;w l,.'jeI1etla·S'~J ... 1 .. 4
BorrOW81
Freddla Mac Form 85 01/004 _
Calyx FOf'M 104» L0W12pp1Jrm Dtl().l Co-Borrower

Hl,md,~wi'i"i'I?t1 100::t

166 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 46 of 50
I V. MONTHLY INCOME AND COMBINED HousiNG EXPENSE INFORMATIOl>i , ".~ .,
t"~ :
.1
Gross Monthly Income Borrowor Co..Borrower Tolal Combined Monthly
Prosent Proposod
HousIng expense
Base Empl. Income' $ 33,333.00 $ $ 33,333.00 Renl S 3,390.00
Overllme Flrsl Mortgege (P&\) S 6,299.33
Bonuses Other Financing (P&I) 1,128.60
Commissions Hazard Insurance 400.81
Dlvldends/lnleresl Real Eslale TaKes 1,789.58
Net Rental Income Mortgage Insurance
other (belol. compl811n(J. Homeowner Assn. Dues
1&0 111.nob lSI "dosalbD
olher 1neomO." billow) Olher.
Total $ 33,333.00 $ $ 33,333.00 Total $ 3,390.00 $ 9,618.38
Selr Employed Borrowor(s) may bet required to provide additional documontatlon such as lax returns and nnanclal statemonts.
D.scrtbe Olher Income Notice: Alimony, child .uppoll. or seporate malnlenance Income need not be reveeled "tho
Borrower IB) or Co·Borrower Ie) does.not choose to hove II con.ldered forrepaylng 1111. loan.

~-------------------------I' ~~-,
I ' vi. ASSETS AND,LlABILITIE~ , . . .;' ·1
ThIs Sletemeni and anvapplicable supportlno schedules may be completedjolnlly by both married and unmarrIed Co-borrowers Irthelrassels and lIablUUes are sufficlenlly
joined so Ihet Ihe Slatement can be meenlngruilyand ralrlypresenl.d on acombined basis; olherwlse. separale Slal.ments and Schedule. are required. "'he Co-Borrower
secllon was compl.ted about a spouse. Ihls Stalem.nt and supporting schedul.s musl be compleled about thai spouse also,
Compleled 0 Jolnlly lllI Nol JolnUy
ASSETS Cash or Market L1ablllUos and Pfedgod Assets. LIst the credlto(s name, address and account number rOf all oulstandlng

.; g~: i:~: :dT.p~: :~: :nsl:"tr;towa=: :rd~p: u: :rc:th~a: se:;hi: .:; ld; by: : -i: r.$--......:V::•.::lu::·---l::::·~~~:~g.f~I~::'~I~~~~I~;~~~~~lf~~~:.c:.~~Jf~:":r.:'it,~":.;~~tW::~hfc~~~~~rt.
satisfied upon sale or real estate owned or upon refinancing of the subject property.
Mara Escrow 30,000
Monthly Payment & Unpaid Balanc.
LIABILITIES Months Loft to Pay
List checking and savings accounts botow Nam••nd .ddress of Company $ Paym.nllMonlhs S
;N~am~e~an::d;;;ad::;"d';:'res:;s;'o:;ti:!B~a;;nkr:.-isi&~L.:":o:;:r';;c:::r."'d;;:'17;u'=nl~0::"n-----1 FIRST USA
POBOX 29620
W.lls Fargo Bank PHOENIX, AZ 85038
P.O. Box 6995
Portland, OR 97228·6995
Ace!' no. 4332370061040372 197 9,870
Nam. and address Dr Company $ PaymenUMonlhs $
Ace!. no. 681-4098380 1$ 181,091
Nam. and addreSS Dr Bank. S&I.. or Credll Union FSTENTRMNT
6135 FOREST LAWN
Wells Fargo Bank HOLLYWOOD, CA 90068
P.O. Box 6995
Portland, OR 97228·6995 9,033
AccI. no, 925840600 266160
Nama and address of Company $ PavmenUMonlhs
Acct, no, 760-0194399 $ 82,326
Name and address of Bank. 5&1.. or Credll Union WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK
POBOX 1093
NORTHRIDGE, CA 91328

Acel. no. 1001000000000629063611 102 7,904


AccL no. Is Nama and address of Company $ PaymenlJMonlhs 1$
;;N::am:::...:.e::en:..d.,..a-d"'dc--re-ss-o""""'B:-a""'nk,.......S"'&.,..I..""'o"'r"er,..l.l:id"'11 U:-n:-lo.".n------l cm
7
poe 6241
SIOUX FALLS, SO 57117

Accl. no. 542418069919 132 6,347


Ace!. no. S Name and addr.ss of Company $ Paymenl/MOnlhs S
:.;S;:IO;ck,:,S::;&'"'B'"'O'"nd"'.,...,.,s(C"'o"'m:::p::an"'v"'n"'a::m"'eJ..--l;;$--------l BARNEYS NY CREO CO
numb... & d••eriptlM) 1201 VALLEV BROOK AVE
LYNDHURST, NJ 07071

AccI. no. 6003355682 114 1,411

=========__-II.- IName and address Dr Company


$ PaymenUMonlhs $
L1f. Insuranc. nel cash value $

Face amount: $ 500,000


Subtolal LIquid Assets $ 293,422
Ace!. no.
Real estal. owned (enl.r mark.1 value S $ PeymenllMonlhs $
from schedul. of real.state owned) Name and address Dr Company

Vesled Intereslln rellramenl rund S 44,000


0'
N.t worth buslne..!es) owned
(.Ilach Rnandal slal.ment)
$ 500,000

Automobiles owned (mak. and ye.r) $ Ace!. no.


2002 Honda Accord 26,000 $
\<'i t:.,::, ';', '1.'"
.-'t :~ . .;!' :: I, .1

Other Assets Olemlze) 1.

Furniture 150,000 Job Related Expensa (child cere. union dues•• 'e,) 5
Jewelry 100,000
.... ,.
"I I r

Total Monthly PaYfl\snls $ 811 " .',


Total Assots a. $ 1,112,422
~etWoith.
illnlnus bl
,'."'!~-.I$
,: • ~<'!'" 'I~
1,077,791 Total L1abIllU.s b. $ 34,631
1
Fannie M... Form 1003 01104
Freddie Mac Form 65 01104
Calyx Form 1003 !.oanapp2.frm 01104
Computet·, G~ltWt~te.d Page 2 of 4 Borrower
CC)-Borrower _
HandlJllf'I';"h?tl :tOO~

167 / 545
Case .2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document
.... '.' .' . . . ' . ' .,' ·if'.ASs~TS 40 Filed 04/17/2008
ANDUASIi..rrIES·(con~)' Page 47 of 50
Schedule 01 Real Ealale Ownod (If addlllonal propellies are owned. Use conlinualion sheel) .
Propelly Address (enler 5 If sold. PS If pending sa'e Typeo' Insurance,
Presenl Amounlof Gross Mot1gaoe
or R If renlal beIng held for Income) Propet1Y Markel Value Mollgages & Liens Renlallncome Malnlenance. Nel
Paymenls Taxes & MIse. Rental Income
$ S S S $ S

TOlals S $ S S $ $
LIst any addillonal names under whIch crodll has provlously been rocolved end Indlcale a o ria
ppr p 10 credllor nama!s) and accounl number(.).
Allemale Name Credllor Name Accounl Number

, ,
I VII.· DETAILS OF TRANSACTION' " . "' .."
, ; Vill,DECLARATIONS .. '~!' I,:":" '''r'
:I
a. Pwd,sso price S 1.718.000.00 rryou answer".,es·· to any queaUoRS • through I, pJ.~sa use conlinuaUon
shuet for eXplanation. Borrowe r Co-Borrowet
b. AJloraUon•• Improvements, repairs
Yo. No Vel No
c. Lend (If acquired sepamle/y) a. Arelhere eny oulstandltlg judgmenls egaln.1 you? 0 ~ 0 0
d. Ronnanee (Incl. dabls to be peld off) b. Heve you been declared bankrupl wlthln Ihe pasl 7years7 0 [YJ 0 0
e. E.Umaled prepaid Items c. Have you hed proplll1y loredosed upon Of given Iitle or de.d in Yeu "",reol 0 @J 0 0
f. 8timeled closing co.ls In Ih. la.I 7 years?
g. PMI, MIP. Funding Fee d. Are you a party 10 alawsull? 0 ~ 0 0
h. Dlscounl (If Borrower wOl pay) 0 ~
e. Have you directly or IndirecUy been obYgaled on any loan wllich resulled In 0 0
L Tolal cos•• (add Ilems a through h) 1,118,000.00 foreclosure, Iransfer 01 lilleln Ueu 01 for.closure, or judgmenl?
J.Subordinate I,nanclng ~:='-=="~""::(==,~Il;'.':"~~,=~MI
otjgllion. band. «bin ouaronloo. II ""(e.," provida detaIs,lf\WdinD dale, name end
k. Borrower's closlog co.ls paid by Seller addtoss oJ lendef. FHA. 01 VA case runb8r. il8f1)', Dl1d ,..sons lot Ihe KJIor1.J
I. Olher Credll.(explaln) f. Are you presently dolnquonl or In derauR on any Federal dobt or any other 0 I'II 0 0
Cash Deposit 30,000.00 loan. morlge!/O, financl.lobilgeUon, bond, or loan guaranle.?
• '"(DI," oIW d6f". 01 dOlct.hd I" tho precatlng quosllon.
g. Are you obioaied '" pay alimony. chlld !UPI'M. or soparale malnfenence? 0 ~ 0 0
h. I. any part 01 II. down paymenl borrowed? 0 ~ 0 0
New First Mortgege 1,314,400.00 f. Are you a co-maker or endOtser on a nole7 0 @J 0 0
New 1st Mtg Closing Cost. (28,115.33) o' . . . . . . . o' . . . ~_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . __ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

m. Loan amounl 171,800.00


J. Are you a U. S. clllzen? [YJ 0 0 0
(exclUde PMI. MIP. Funding Fee financed)
k. Ate you a permanent resident eYen? O~ 0 0
I. 00 you Intend to occuPY' the property as your prImary r.sldenee? [YJ 0 0 0
n. PM!. MIP. FundlnO Fee financed Ir~e,.·COP'fIIDIa quoaUOnmbdow.
m. Have you had en ownership Inlerest In a property 10 Ihe la.lthree years? 0 [YJ 0 0
o. Loan amount (add m & n) 111,800.00 (1) Whallype or property did you own·prlnclpal resldenc. (PR).
second home (SH), or Investm.nl property (IP)?
p. Cash fromllo Borrower 169,915.33 (2) How did you hold WI. 10 Ihe _.olely by yoursell (5).
(sublract J. k.1 & 0 from 0 joinlly with your spouse (SP), or jolnlly wllh _.,.,son (O)?
I IX. AqKNOWLEDGMENT' AND. AGREEMENT .. .I! "I t
.. P,:
,. ).: ;' . .. !;''',.I
Each of the undersigned specUiaPy teplesants 10 Lender lind to lend.... actual Of potanUaI acrenLs. brokers, procassOlS••Uamoys. Insurers, servlcer•• succeSIOI5 and assigns
.nd ogre•• ond edcno....dg•• thet (1)lh. InIormallon provided In 1hI. appllcaUon Is IN. olld corr.d as 01 Ihe date se' IotIh opposlle my .lgnaltJre end Ihel .ny Inlenllonei or
nl!()lgent misrepresentatlDn af lhis inlormaUon contained In OJI, .appl~Uon may restM In dviJ dabWly, IndotIng mon.lary dam'Q415, to .ny per.on who ruy .uf/er any 50... due 10
tellance upon any mlsrapnt,cmlaUon lhal I have mad. on Ulis appiicaUon. andlor In crImIll8I penallles kdJcIng. but nollmlled 10, lina or Imprisonment or balh under the provisions
~~;~:.~·h~~~~(~:~: ~~:rt~:A ~~~'b.-:';:jio(:~m':~, ~::'=l:=: ~::fq:rsl~~:..;;:'~~ ~~i.CO:~~t~~n:.:"fo~~ ~-=o~r~~l=
re,ldenUal morlOioe Joan: (5) the property win be oc.eupled 8. indlcal.d het~ln; (6) anv owner or I.Meet of lhe Loan may verify or revarlfy any Information contained In the
appllcaUon from any source named In this .ppllcalion, Bnd Lender, liS successots or assigns may tetaln the ortglnalendlor ,iii" electronic record 01 this application. oven if the loan
Is not apPJDved; (7) Ute Lender and Us egen's. biobrs. insureJs, SeMC8lI, IUCceUOfS and assigns may continuously rely on lhe inform.Uon GOnIBlned In lhe appUc.lkm, and I am
obligel.d 10 amend end/or oupplemenl the ",Iormotion provided In Ihi. epplJcatlon ~ any 01 tho molerlel 'ecls thel I hove represented heroin .houId <hInge prlor /0 doting or Ih.
Loon; (0) In ItuI ..ent !hoI my peymenls on tho Loan become d.lnquent, the owner or servlcer 0I1tuI Loan mey. In odellllon 10 any other rilihb end remedies thot R m.y heve
releflng 10 such doflnquenq. report my n.me end account Inronnation 10 one or more consumer ....dIt reporUng agancles; (9) ownership allhe Loen end/or edmInlslnlllon 0I1tuI
Loan account mey be tr....r"'ed wlIh such notice os may ba requlred by law; (10) nollhor Lendor nor lis ogenls, broker•• Insure"•••_ , _ _• or elllll'l' hOI medo any
reprolenl.llon or warrenly. expros. or Impll.d, to me regerding th. property or Ihe condition or v_ oIl11e pJOpelly; Ind (11) my trensmlsslon of lIIlo applicallon o. an ".Ieclronlc
record" c:onlaJnlnq my "electronic algnelur.," as those lerms are d.,.,ed In applfcilbfe federal end/or Iiale laws (exdudlng audio end "ideo recoJdlngs). or my facslmUlt
ban.ml.-IM 0' th•• oppl/OIIl1on conlolnlnp ,. roczdmlJo 01 my den.lur_,
Ina! wrlllen lure.
.t.".,. ,.• .".cfJy-., lMIo,CIJlJW. and v.WId tu it -. pepe,v"'.'M of Ihb appJic.Ucm ~ d.JJ",.,.d conJltlnI'ng

Borrower'. ~nature Dale Co·Borrow.(. Signature Dale

X ~7 1t.1 . t:~",n-""""/t.-- '1' -.;J '1-0 ' / X


x; INFPRMATION FOR GOVERNMENT MQNlrORING PURPOSES' ,."
The foMowfng In'ormelfon Is requeeled by til.. Fed.ral Gouemmenl for cet1a1n Iype. 01 loIns reteled 10. dwemng In o,d.rlo monitor !he lender'. compQlncewllh equal credll
oppolluoily, fairhousing endhomemot1gagedlsclo!Urelaws. Youare nolrequi'edlofurnlshlhlstnlormaUon, bUtareencouraged todoso. Thelawprovldes lIIataLendermay
dl.crlminal. neltheron the baslsoflhls Informalion, noronwh.lheryou choos.lo furnish iI. lIyoufurnish lhelnform.lion, p1easeprOllldeholhethnlcllyand race. Forraee, you
maycheckmOfethanonedeslgnaOon.lfyoudonoflumlshelhnlclly.race,or.ex,uoderFedoralregulallons,lhlslenderlsTllqulredtonotelhelnfOfmallononlhebaslsofvlsuai
ob.ervalionorsurneme.llyoudonolwlshlolurnlshlhelnformatlon,pIeasechecklheboxbelow. (L.ndermuslrevlewtheabovematerlallo•••urethallhedlsdosur....,lsfy
all requllemenls 10 which the lender Is sUbjecl under applicable stale law for lIle pallicular type of loan appRed for.)
BORROWER 0 I do no! wlsh to ftKnl.h Ihi. lnIormollon CO·BORROWER 0 I do not wish 10 fUrnish "'10 IntormeUon
Elhnlclly; 0 HI.panlc or Letlno ~ Not Hlspank: or L.tino Ethnlclty: 0 I'hpenle or Latino 0 Not H1sponlc or LoOno
Race: OAmerfcanlndlenor o ....ian olllecleor Race: OAmet1canlndlanor oA.lan oBlec:kOl
Alaske NaOve Alrlcen Am.rlcan Alnka Nali.e Alrlcan Americ8n
o Native HaweUen or ~ Whll. 0 Native HawaIIan or 0 WhU.
Oilier Pacl~c IsIar1der Other PIlCM<: l.landOr
Sax: @JFameJa 0 M.1e Sex: 0 Fern. 0 Male
To be Completed by Inlervlower Inlorviewer's Name (print or type) Name and Adelt... ollnlervlewer's Employer
This application was laken by: V ctor Parks Pacific Mortgage Consultants
o Face-Io-face interview Int ( S gn 00 Larkspur landing Circle #275
OMaM Larkspur, CA 94939
~ Telephone (P) 888-615-5693
o Internet (F) 310-496-3256

Freddie "'eo Form 65 01104


COmpute...•GteI1et'dted F.nnI. Me. Form 1003 01104
Calyx Form 1003 Loenepp3.frm 01104 Ht.Uldwl'lthm W0:3pege 3 014

168 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 48 of 50

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 EXHIBITC
28 -46-

Repres entatio ns
Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan Applic ations and Fraud ulent
rywide
Regar ding their Under wrifui g by Samaa n & Count

169 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 49 of 50

.. '. :'. . :

.'
-.'
-".-'

.' .... ...:.-_ _-..:_ _


- ...ll. .......' :~.t-.-;"-:"~;:-t'-:-'~: . , - - - - - - - - - ' ' - - - - ' : ' ' ' ' ' ' - - - -
": ' . '0'

_.0 ...:....:.:.:. .:..::':" .Jo.~·: ':'.1 ~


._. ~:. :·':t:·.::t::'·.::·.f:";~>:~:·s·~· ~-, -,, :,- _-- --~ -:- ~--
..
.. -·
.. '" 0

.-~ '.' .....


" •• ~ I ... : .';. ••.•

...,.----
:~;=::-:---'-:-.:...-_---------:=...:......_--_-.:.._....
-::::":-"~";'~",:'
". ... "-
-'-' ,.-.... '. . ",:.:' ".
~ :.':.: .:... '~~ ...
:.:.:.:. •• ~~. ~:.:.:. :':' '.:.~ :', i.. ; .
, • t ..... '. ' "r ...;.

- ~..
:~''=:'~'''-:': . :.
'-'...... ,,'
.:--:=:. " ' : - ; . - ' - , - . . . : . - -
_ ------:----------
--

.' .
..,....:.....:...;....--.-.;---~,--~~--~--~-
~ "

. -.' "---'I"''':~'-';

_ ...;. 't::.: ~\-:::-:Y::::::~~.···


. . .' ',.::' ', ..•:'::!....:::~ ....:.'
File St~cking Order

L.eft Side , .~;ght S!cfe..;


• -Conversotion Log • Underwriter App,rovol
• Cc?py·of CC?nditlC?n5 • Underwriter Worksheet'
• Reeommltm~t screen • Quality Verificlltion &
.' boc;ument:. Q'lec:klist .
i Lock-in' ogree/l)lmt
• Pre-c!oli~9 Employment
• Lock-in 'SCr~en Yerlfi~tlon'
~.. Copr Package
• Int~1 Cr~d.lt· ~epor~
• Copy of GFE & Reg Z .
. :. Or!gi~QI con(lIilo~
-47- • Original. LOan Pocl<age

,.
... ;-.::' ,

170 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 50 of 50

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 EXHIBITD
28
-48-

Representations
Notice ofSam aan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent
rywide
Regarding their Under writin g by Samaa n & Count

171 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 50

".:I!!e ~JJ;B:Upyd" To "Marla McLaurin" <Maiia...MClaurin@CountryWide;corn>


",jr1loyil@sbctlIObl!I;n~p.
..':.....•
·..
.
",
','
"
'... .
...
..•..-. .
. .
.

11103/2006 03:21 p~
ce
bee
Siil)jeclijl'ttll.!liWs.usJlanse fromCollntryWide

Hi Maria.
Here is the suspe:l se issued by Countr ywide. J\gaill;
we just need a st:atem er:t or
9uideJ ,ine showin g that the FuLL¥, Execut ed 'Pu'rbha
se Agreem ent is reC[o.1ired ~y
C9untr ywiq~ for FinaJ, Lqa:t~, J\ppro val.

Thank you,
;J. R. Lloyd £or Victor P<l;rl<;s
~no. 21'5.53 53

Gr1.!.:~l!f
~
'Allacl\'ecJl;PDF

\
,.

-49-

172 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 2 of 50

:rmoCT 262004 10:54/S'T. :0:53/110. 6334870m p

Brancht, ODci(f~3.3 8tilkM'~ot v:Jir;;;Ql\"~>'l


1$(l"~lIQAa:Q$~;'$TE110 ...... =,;;:....:=:;.::..------....--..,-------
S;l-N1lAlr~Lla~94.~Ol: 8mlitrf'llaM'
Phol\e,. (41!i)2"'7-2101

~~qu.#iOfIS.~ItI ...... !~:.;Si:t.t'li.~pI1Qrie, i'lilrib(lra:i:!ove,.


LOail,A\Ir1II1'lor '81'1'373"5' liaa be:~!l ~;,ieY~"l: eM fiil).O',;;1."'<;l:t1DU .£o.r Nivn:SAMMlf<

~""~Jri; lCC~n. ~ ,~, .• rilt:er"lri:Cll>ly ~r~, ~" oeCUP·:tElO


~;fl>9' ~Cll:o
~ TIPO' l't,l!'P~S~. lit", .
"~~3~O;SJit~PR
~'t HtLliS Ch
~~-:; 7.2i
9'0'21'2 ~3'l'iJ I "'p<:~ ~pir~~i<iit
~'I' S~ '. Dil:f!':"
~.~ ii';st

lbltRig . iti.~,
.~·.~:a.iJ -o.JJll;U,

TII:l.;~:rb~~~sl;i.-."S-t.tS~~I:1a:P uilt..~.l.l;h\t fcfqolliil§~'sI'JiC>~tioll t!i,,~;'i.~; .• jf. "Ul>~ ~e,~"''''!


l:~.i.li irifl)J:I'l.WMbY ro~tt~12004.t£ ..e ...doi'l6t;:rec~~~ ... t by·-l;hat.Jd"M.! ~1"""",t:4o.. "I!e-,f;le
lor ,i:i"io..p;t.te..."". '1flI.n._ re".,:'ve tilie ·.iriilio~tion, ~"'ia,1t 'Z:'e'vdOew·tttli*,4;-li.!!J:,qr t.Ift-l: lter
·c1"tenllinaH'On.

omdihon eonlSil:1Cin DUll/eo"*,,,hI:S


.:,~~~~~---;-~-~-~-~:~~~.-~-~-
L'
... .
~_ ~-----~~.-:--_--:-~--~~._---------
,ci;%P;~~"!'L ~4oq·<l.·f"rl:M' .~Q~FCl9;ro'"""'_-'''5'''-.<I!l''c1"c>~
... -'"-

:c.,.
.il .~PY. ~~~-j.Dn" p~r9v.i_de • ·oeatpJ....te,¢OW_ --ptlCPg:e al"onq wleh·
:~11.'~do\i<4';'lCin~ .l,iI .. rlPiJ;41:. .

2. p~'.l.ci'l\<i to !i" "..#eCl1;lod to olio" •7,5' ~:"ot" .. tQ:r: tllb.nh."ooed


~*<l.~l,o)I.,Pt'O~:U
p . 1'de Y"l t.
-~iIT·~;iJobF:;.::~~~~:~~~'~~y-~~ .".. ,- - .-- -,
. ~,*'ocI- ·l(r"O~.c. -COd1tXAm;. •.• ~.~~-·,"i.~t-t\J¢C1.~n~

I
~

cl1.. s~n.9.'dt>.......n"",'w£l.l'.i>.""d...".1;1.01>1-. when ~iWf~1:~$/1!\!(:;~1\9~Hl!~·Il>:! ~;:.,


Cl>nd~);· (iQit<!tl;*i<!nli••.<i"c~!it..

~~~~~~l~tr~~":i~~=~f~:~~·::~t~
ak~·~ite~
- - .

.
- .. -.. . ,. -j -~---. . . ~. . . . . . . . "" ... ~_ . .,--~-

~ ~~~!i,:~ !p1l3 tj,T~,.~"W,tS)


.I'!#ityj>ll Df:;~,'.!.ne:~'

(Page ~: Qf .2 (fO,,2JI~.o.:O"'1o.dl9l)

~.~~.\\Ul

I: I

II
i;:
r' j
II': I I I
1'1 I I II
I
:
I "I"
I I
I"
I I ,I;
I I I

-50-

173 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 3 of 50

.Bclrri:i'iwWr'• . --"s;:.~=:.
.••:.:.:..'...;IU~V:.;I:::£:.--
",.", ___'

~"'f~i i:i&.. ~.~ '1n"t.:i!'t:


"':YO;tl~ J'loll~g
\:~"tll!!d yourl~.
tl.oll'l:
VheD .~lIe· foHo..in9 =oncU.tlon s a.,. ....:t(t:h... ~' :~ i)i~ "ll~ "ll'9'a~<
.... I:
t~H~r__~;~~:re~~~~;;;~t~-;±;-~::;-~------~----~-~~--"--'-
u I\li;f\l~d'hY t212p~oYlde ach'hel>y .x;: "
.. "nc.1tt
7 ~fl'.A'19Nf~1'l!A~~llI\ 'rOI!IlCll'lJ1I:~t'W~it~E
'P'rw1:du' .:i):~_ --*"J1 ...dt1;t.t;1oh~l lI!1't of eo10.1; p::wtQS

8 uoUllO:Il.T X£XCATX 9K '11IU lW. COl'XU ~ r.tQ& MD OQRllEeT


lJ· 1\S.i;riC-. tOP... ·pr r'1!\$l: K~A(U NO,",
CQDQuxr.a e· ¢I.o •• w.i..:t'h .:2nd-" at-- "51 'l'IQO .l pro'Vidi!' nQ~·.
1:0 1~-"OM\'LE1'E/$IGimD, r01lH4S'n6 I 95_01

·\tk C;;'~li,,::it '$;fO,O:ap pulsa1 fh!ld revi... tee 'fx." brvr Jell ".or""

,",!ftlI;'Jl'!lI-f~~~~t!01nQ.Yoour ~'>l""to ..count:tYWid,'" "i:\ol"".d..


~'ii-~~#J !o,~, ~ .,. 1'Jlll!rlc.• '" Irl:n<lut ~.tne"'dI'OPl"'-i·.""
cij\;f£:l'FllAiftB.

--:"~';"'----"-'-"';':--~"f'"':~~

~-.-- ...........,--'---"~-
Pate

.11\" :t~.lJi~nq.~6ridl"~.~~ .hav"l>4o.v'" _..ti"Ued and are ohe.." n.,r.. tOJ:


teter.II"_ only:
~~~t1p~ ~:~.~~J :~~~~-, -
_ _,_~~_~_-"- ,,,!,,;.:.;._~_.. __ -:--~__ ..... --..-.-._ _ ~.-,--~-, -""l"""
.. . ~ IiIlX'rBl!! "~1!l'!JlA:nOJ! t\£Gl\IlI>Pl'~_
:~~~~,~t~)~.i!'~!'7'i~~ -y.""s""..... j;nUl. ~w.r•• ~s dn:1oi:37 lIP

li.d4.y $"01< on .,cIOPO~j,t. wi o""rOW' til ~ou~ce ",,"1:~1:l.tIct


id,,;Vl,~,O"!' ~ii.#..,,~. U""".o." ",ciI"Ale ttar _.1,~Yj,n9 fh¢'d last.:2
y.~ :ipl.lI'" """ "'''l't:~J,C!]'~ ..l;iae J,<i¢at.iQD
1it,]~1(3t#! d8!l..·•.p9.8} 80' tor 'l7J2 i:hiu 8J.1Zat ,no\<

\1'li9. 2 of 2 1;O/it6/l0 01 ll): 44,52)

.~~Ii 1\ICl .~u;m ;Il:' ~


,-,~, ~

-51-

174 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 4 of 50

~MaelKesbpvcu~l· To marliullclaurtn@countrywide.com
; ..... ,.'. <~Ka~havarzl@sheppar.('jh1UII
~;.~- --',:
............................. in.com;.; .. .' cc
•.. 1 1/06/2006 03:22 PM bet
Su!>i:ect- ~iiletter'

Maria,

Attachedplease!ihdth~ d~¢laJ3ltiORanqJetter. I would really appreciate your help, as we-are onIyaskinQ


fpf'thedocurpentt~'bea.uthep~ca~lil~ ... lfYOI;thave any qiJestions please let
me know. Ifit i§ acol':lptableto
you plea$~$fgn ,and fa)(ittp 21'3-'44'3-2910. Thanksagaii1~

<:<DOe;PtlF»
Moe KEishaVilf:Zi;lBsq.
Sheppard Mlillln;Richter·&Jd;~mpton, LLP
~3~ ·S:9~tIl·t'lo~$'teef.4.~'tb ~jAlqr
/,;o~A.n9~1~siCA·~g()Y1-1~~
DireClUrie: 213'61'7..,$5414
Fax:~1~~~491~
Email: rriJ(~ha\(~l'Zi@~b~!'l'PlarqUlUUII1.90m

'J;'pi's l11e!-l$g,g¢!L$ f1~1ft py~ l'l+W f'irJl)·apam~ypqfltainiJ


;l;;fo;rmat:j,.pn t,h~t is
pd~;i.te·9~d.-·.~;t;~qI1$i"d,~~~;:\iai. :L;~.YQU :r~(:~ive4 thiB"'b rapsini ossion in error; . pleas~
oQt:ify the $~D4~'~ pr
tep1y¢-:iit~il ando,e letetb emess a,ge and any attacru nents,.
~beppa:rd.~~ll::i.:Ii. a1etliti:! :t &: 1f~pton t.~

-52-
~r2C
Q.l; ,'

175 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 5 of 50

&BGLARATTON'DP:MAR.IA McLAURIN
2 1, Maria ti4~Lauri:p.):Stateanddec;tareasfoll()ws:
3'
:4 1. Lam the bran.chman~g~tfortheS~Rafael bJanch ofCountrywiae
5 Horne Loans, Inc" the'branch thatptocessecl Ms.:Samaan'sloan (loan number 81737375).
6: ,In oratoundOcto'Qer 14, ZOo~,.Counti}Nlidesti.$peI1dedMs< Satnaan's loan because
7 CountryWiqe,qadnot y~t re.c.eived acopy.ofthefulJte~Quted pUJ:dlaseagreemC::ut.
8 'A.t:tac~ed heret.o as Exhibiit'3'Ois airue ana correct cppy,of1:heletier that Countrywide sent
9 JO Ms. Samaap.'s broker, Victor ParKS.
lQ.

13
14
15-
16-
17;,
1"$;
I
19 '
I,
20';'
21;',
I
2,2
23,
24,
25
'16
27
28
. _. -

\V92,wES"t:~Mtdl';.I\4ll!!IHI'S;;I'
...

......
)!)Ec~trQNrDrMARlAMCLAL'IUN
]
.. 1
'

176 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 6 of 50

@OQJ

SREPJ~ARD lVIUIJ.JN
5Hr.p°':.~rJ r,:UI.l~\J RleHIJ;" ~. HM..·VI(,)N ~t.~ 46th Floor I 333;'Sou1h HClpeSfreet I Lc!I·A(lll.ete". CA: 9<iO"1-144B
213~"17BDoffl!::lr 1'?13-f!2P.1300~xl wWVi.ihepp_rl1m.uihll.t:om
AT 'r 0' RN F··Y 5 A3 I. A W

FA C S LMLLE GO V lilt SHE, ET

JfallP:fl:~·.~. :n9t.p'9liliy~cl,;plc;llSQ.~1
D.avlclz~lqmat<213"62Q.l!7&OfEXt .. 45(:)7

to.: :FA:~eNo.
MarlaN.1cLalltin
',. <.... : :,.,~ . ,.,-.-...;.:.,. '. --,.- :"'..•..,,: '."~.> .
(gt~l ~;i!2~'5397

6'&nl:' MoeKes1]avarzi
get ;S'tui:.l~x,~

177 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 7 of 50

~XCBA&:t< J.a.'¢~o·~,lLI.X ~1i3"'~~%"C


OO.R'l'GAGr:<:O!!~~\t$

:~i~~~P~~ ~ 110 e.-r~ ;..V:;lC::.;'l:;;:O;.:;;a.... ~'::S


,p:.:.ARIt:=. -... ..... _

·~.~L' ~.~.J6~ 8R>Iojlf"""'~;


"'~.f(*l$t~$'7~?lr;ll .

l .... ~ 1'iC!$'il~AJlK·:r;. .~~y' ~TI'I?": ~Q>;.~:rSD


"-~nT~: RZ.QUCl<:1>
'~T,,"; "Y~~!!= """'~. 'ilji;.'

'~~!:ti~!F~, b
e.-.:..;~, 723
Lo,*~i'~"a;LQn
DIi:t~:

:ct'~; ;i=~"

~l ::-:;0 ... , ." ,;:- ,~~~ . . Q

.~~ i:'~~~:i~~~j.f:~:~~~~ ~~ti:~,~::~~~O~t9~~~:=~~~~~.~?;);1.,


wm:n". J:.ece-ive ~N: ii>.l!0Xlll6Hot., "'~ will i;C'Villw 1::11"" £j;3.1l J!9i:' ltU;l;:~
:tor in~~.eAllIeeo.
~1;l!lXlllli"'~~~<11l;

l'*I#~<'l'~'~ ~~e.; ~i>'~ ...... 1~~ ~.. ~ t,~tor,t,"~~ .."I......DO>d


.~~~q>ft~!l,..~·
::·Jinlvi1:~_,,_c:~_~~•.• N.~~~ pUI'_ClhCtl--:_OOS\t.~t cacr'Qv j.?1~~c,~!l_~~
.~.~ 'jj'~'~:'~" '",l>loo,U~""o '<.

~ll>J'-lI'lI<~l!<o~lI~'li~1 '!>e","~- ia1i4f;lio1l1", *"fL.... ~.lJi..,n:"ll" c<>JV#,to,ihb" .."" ..~ ...

'5!;~~:~=~~'~!:~'~'J!fgS~~,f~ .. ~';';"';"",,"' ~~--,.


.... ........
$~j711l ~~. ~cIci1~ ~e .""'*" ~o' bn-.t;
I1l "tii.<'I:<;fll~ ....L1l11b.i'lD'''l.
" CCi <
";.1'" ot<;ivr
"
llf~.r

S~~~~~~:t.tL-~_Di-M:tE)

tl'atJo iJ. Of!Z, 1012'6/200. ilhH; ~U

;"~.PIlCJ!iI~~a.'l'M"

• -55-

178 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 8 of 50

". ..... .... .... ... ,. ..... .- ......


~.
. .
~
IitJOO,3

'oWl!. ~1 b-t .w..• 1;.~ ~ut1cl_:yt:I\rC i~ .,)wlt c'hc- E61..lov:L09 .~O'ncU.:::1.Cin'S ~~


. .c (tk,e ,.~~ N~ '~IIO 'PPOo:('
01'" 'Y:.OUZO· eio::in.~. i.a:.t:.x~,.di:~.D1Sll '
~"t,,~C;o>i'dt1O~o.;i~""'{~b
, '~~A~:~~~I=~~~'Z-;""--}-'-n-_~----'------
~~'1~~t~~~2tA~,h~~;~~:
1I~",~~~,:,l!l1!1"raO\r fIH.,C:Q!',~;S '!!'II' ~,"l!h ~
Su.oc, __ CCl>;rQF'~ 1IO'tiI\-~
I:101l"U....- C iiiolici ia~!, ~ ·~t;;l,niJO. '£ 'F""l.d:" .note

10 t'iiCa;;;r:~~s:~i0ll.ll.4'SO,·f 8h01
'~.q::' ,••'6il.~id~ ~"J,il>~w~"""{~i;",,,J',ro''' ..,In dO"""

riw.4"Y.Il~ql' ",,~'i:.~,your·'i_ItA ~~i,d,,< J\lo,o::,,~ca 's ~~..~.,


Y"UJ!bU!U.~,,'li,
....." '. ... .~~"I ~ •. ;q,,~lo' -aP.#~t>.",
.. '
1iJj>UJ2~4
~--~-.",,-~,-----

.--~.'"

---_ .... '-~._'-~-----


.rNroJiitP.tP:si4,·
-----";,,,.---------
..

.~d~¥' .i~j",o ......_i"'• .i:t .i/tJ,..• .,rpW .1 ....~,_;rj.\Ue<i


.'.0. ."

~:(~,?~\~nl~,ij~~~~~~=""""~'~~"9

WF"J!)";iI!~ .~~·"'.I!P,~~,q fO!#'1'Il;;."~' 1/,;2 ~.:;1'1ll,¢


A",,~,~,!'i ~:lH!\!~"'~*'* "'~.;'\i\!il';#' ,.,.q~d~i;>'" ·:ltIll.

'l'11oi1QII 2 ·of2 (lM2,6121l01 liO.44152 1


~" ~' WL Q

-56-

179 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 9 of 50

75:0 Lindarb
$uile·ttO
San Rafael, CA 94901
~Clunt"@
AMSRICA'S WHOLESALE LEN£>ER~

-=...
r-. .
Maria McLaurin, Blanch Manager

Phone: It /{£/~
f'uFtom: (41S)?59~08?5

Pho...~: (415)257~2703

•. COmments:

Confid~rrtialitY.· • Notice: .Theif*)rtnatfQncoQ~il1eo·irl.and • ttaR~.~edltViththi$COmmUIl~tion.·fs . strictly


confjdent1~I,.isjnt~nded'Qnlyt<?r.tlJe···use·.Qfthe.·~.t~ndect.~~fen~ •. aQ~.is.the·.PJPpterty.ofClountr:ywide
Fioal1ciaICQrpo/ration'oFitsaffjllr:tte~·aT1dSUl)Sidiali~ •.. lfyoua~notth~'inter1d~Jeci~ent you are
herebynotifled fQatatlyuse·oftheinro .cohtainedin.• oruan13rtiltle<jWifhtl1ecornmunication.or
dissemlnatipn;.distribLltion,orcqPYin~ ". COil1m ". ' .. '~;p~l1iplte'db¥law'lf¥9uhave
recsivedthj~?Qmrnunicationinem;Jr.pleas~i.. . ... . no~~sem:Serbyernail or telephone and
dalE!telheorl9inalmeSS,agEl.oranY·CQW\bf·itirryqurpoS$~i6i1.· ""Phanl< YOu,

-57-
41
·M ·.•· ·.'!JI.
:-~_,_,':~W

180 / 545 I
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 10 of 50

.C8UI1~.~
Affi;:itl'¢;~:SWltG~~ALE'LENDER

S,AN RAFAEL CO Rii'OR",T ? Cl;NT2~


159' '!;.1t;>J?;-..ltqI.?Tll.~;;:T; St,lI'TEI lO
SAN R'ryN';E~,bALII:QR"Nl'"94901
(41'5} 257.27 00
(415) iS9':'0ll c6(n'Ax

November 6, 2006

VietOl'Patks
Pacinc MQrt~a~e Consultants

Re: Nivie:Samaan
Loati;Nuro~r SI73 7375
J:>t6.perty :ad~ss{320 'SP~k ]»t
Bevtrly Hilis,CA 96212
Mr.,Parks,
This'is to confirtntbal G(jurtwYWid~FIQn;re LQans~rQ.g~ss:etl'!tb.e,Elb~"Yr~fer~nped
tnorma:ge appiication 6n;ora:r:<lUod'<)cto,bet 14, 2004. 'the loanwas~uspe
n,~~pet)diI~g
T~e"~pt'Qf acqp)' ,of the {tiny eX~llt~pl,l1"cll!iSeagr,eel'.Q;ent. A:~ob~lsa,'~l;)lWQfthe
lettedsS\ledbyC6ImtryWtdeHom'eLo@S~ , ,

~Y:~\l,

11~ 1J1~)f~
Ma.riarvle)jaurin
~l'ancb, Map,ager.

-58-

181 / 545
......Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 11 of 50

Mrc~ ~~.~ O'RErLL~ OBA'PbCIF1C


I()RTGl\~CQil$Ol;TANfS

BI:,!l~"b .•" QPP:9Sl33 1lI_~ VICTO~~Mi<s


is(! ~x{QPl\R O.4~lIl11ft 110
SAN~N:Io,c}\.94'9&1
~:..:..:i."" "'=:;;:"' ~_~_-. ,.. _
~ Pnor\t:
p~'O~!,: . 'i:t)SJJ2$7':2:'iOl
,ax:",:-. p.:-: '.-' .', .,' '"~,,., :,' ',','
, ' , ' , . 8RJkH'Fult.
1'~:tiAV".~Ill!~thllllttt.(i 'P!"'IIIi~ us ~t: ttiQ.phOl\ e l)~'l'iib9U'e.
Wan,t\ul lber an31315 hifSbeQn rev:1'¢.ie d at the .filllOlf"'fl <] te.ru foi:Niil:rli: $A~<

L.... ~ .~ ~f1-L.Nt JfZQ~l': elitOUJ; 'y Ol:QIpalIC)'-'typt: ¢1INEROI;:ClJUEO


I;Ull1'9CEP .
~Tl'PfI:
'=~I[j~~.. J~; 'C:!-"
:9~2i~ J'11;$
~~!
.r.o~k ·cip.i:riIt ion
PIA
723
.
~Je: =:.t . Data,

Thb :llJl!I;;:ts u ·~.•n stlhtwl!:P' uriU.l the £o11o"i ng in'fo¢ft\a tion


106 .1IlP"~ ~'1"~*,,,e
il!l p'I'ovide<
e!lilicii1fl)~t~l'ti 'l>Y lQ!2$120»4. If .... do riot re"eivc itbyt;.h at da1;e<'; •..,.l. 1IlUSt:
iot. ~;P~,..;p1e't~~JlO.. llberi "10, t:eejOi ve the irlfoL"1l\lltl;on, we "nl);oV i"," t!le£ile ·6i,!):ii)t"'l\t/ file"
J!E!l:" tiilither
detc:rru!'nA.t-iOi'l ..

__'i
~~~_~~
~~~~~,
__
con4$il.'D1l COncl:b:1-cn DH<:/CO... ..rits
~~~~
_~~

:e.:P'A J'F.-i, ~·~ fpr'th.l;j ,rlhArI'!od )S~'W~ >II ;~5.


~ __ .__ __ __
~~
~~ ~ M_~~~~_
~~
~ ,~~~~_.

"c1c1~ r.p ,
f·e.,:·.~,.ny .,,,mll;'!''' ''''' 1>z~~i<!o'.~;,,;.pl;'!i€o wl'Y p,o ck
.):-1. C;Pl'dld'oo s"lll' t:r.J:pU",,"~'; 4<lo • .1,01"9 "'J.~ll
'7::1.I#",v. '~~ ;~b., eor·rwrm::ed: to ,sho,," .'.". ~ 'l:·o .~~--' ~~;:" Y}~: __. :~nt(~,,#.~~
.....~j;OJj~ 'iF...'
'> .,< .'.

X:1~.lM 4O'cU*I"ji1:'$,;;j:tU l:>!I ..a\t,&~n),abl....i.en,tlle U:U""1n'1


CCll'lCl1_t*ii~ "'~ '''''It'
~~~}ll",'ij;:~~;~.~~;_;~;~;-_ . ') __~'- __' _·_a...-- _.... '-~_..."...c
Sh7111,cOQO !J)"~~ ill!J.II')t~6 a~ " ...., to brwr, ..Ul o"cWr Aftel;'
~p'~iOri;i~ a"'.l- t~ra _,:IlVl"~/-(l')
..
$<~. l~~~ i~~: t.IATMc;t-: ul-RAT&1

If~9,jJJ oil 2 10n6/~004 lQ.H:S ll


~~~l $ri£ Fi;Y .t:o

182 / 545
\
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 12 of 50

~ "",",,:._~ ::::.!..'..:ll~'I:.:'l~t::E~.....,.
....;S:::M.::!'lMN:.:. -,- _

w.."U1 be able 1;0 tundyOU1 : loa•.wn.... ~1I~ f<!l1.""i"9. "ond:l;e!o n. :ore N~ (tk...
on youx t:10dl1.? .tn.t;lCiId:i~M'.' .'
lte"",wU 1'al'So ap~.1l-t
e":ndi,,,;o. Ccmd!.l:ion D.... "/~~IJ.."
:..;"-~ .....y~~:~-..: ..._-.~ ...;;.:_
,............ ...-.. _._
...... _...... ~---;.._:-.;.,,- .... ';":.-~-'--.:.,;--~"""-~":'-~_ .....-.-... ~ ...... -~ ... ~-
......._...-._.. -..- '
6 ~~RA;lS1U. ..~~,'tJ," 'IiF:CIl ~l~~~II1 ~!ltll! yJ\f..
1.£ ,n!"l;>fllno;l~I'Ib.Y 111(2 p~ov~~ ~,<Ix:f",o!Ii)',\Ili:>!l" • ~-J rea.,tt

,W~~~~~~Z~~~1n~'1:~~~i,~~;
.!lltill.t!!:I.\ 'gJ\,'Jip'iJ:¢7'1'l'!l.llTIlAT ~:tl; ~Ol':~:W;·'tRllE"')/O clilW:ct

'~~'l~~~#1l'l'~~;~~~~l~O • 1>l'o,,~~ opt..


'10 Il!J=l;IIlIZ.. t:~m(SJ~~gJllltW'4 ( 11~'"(!1

thA.. lI:~nu t'ox n\l;lm.itt1 n9 your· 10.... eo t:QuD"::Y"ict.i


~:t"iCi4~S "hOl••~l.. ~ntl~j;1 H. sine""""ly .~••e.bt..
yow; J>O'sinllss,

~!",--~-.~-~~~"'~~~:"!"-~-
Ii%Nlcb.Hb.ililge:r
-.
I)"'h
. , .
------. ...~--: ""':"""---:---,.. ...
'" __
- .-.......--...:- _ _-0.0.-...... _
~-~iJ·;~·~~~~-··---·-~~~~~--­
_.,..
~--..
_.

'\
Tb<i .fnl.lcliiljj'i·:~n!l1~l/:!j\lt:.haY" i:i<>_i\a.t.j:.he<i a,nd an :ihown,n..r .. fox'"efe~~I',nly,

v."t:!Y',$},!lJo:~,~ ~J,><i,1,,'1i(1 ",.(:<911:.,1.;01'1.""1' \,~J;\tU

;~~~~~~~~t~~j!~~"Ig.m~{~X ~"l*n!1
"I!f' l>~ ~~!I,!\ •.".~~~"~l!'.n;8'~Vtojf ,lI-!;r'l@' ll,/1'2, "'~., ;;1'8.l1JC '
Mc"\l'i"'P~~ '~'~*fljjj>"""'",t :rlliH<!...~... ~q·4lql: 21'\cl

/'

(il'41l9;8, ~ '\It 2 ')O'I.,~WS~'o~,~O';'O~),S~1


~~g,j;I~)t;~

183 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 13 of 50

1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
EXHIBITE
28 -61-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Allplications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & Countrywide
184 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW

.--. , Document 40-2


"--_.-.. ¥-~----.

Filed 04/17/2008 Page 14 of 50

0,01: :lot 01 10: 24.!,.

C'C:(Hf'/@,isll)tl;;lii.: .
~I(<: "'k7,.~:' ~~~pir.~ CA _C)i,:~j3g
'" iu:'u.'pi"",.t1r..IO'7 ,'.

The< trflll,fnlixlj""R(fJlu:flmiJ.1JQU,!~/($j 111/~1!~J" . ·iJl,~("Ql.l;~1Jl~I''1o ((fi'!/i!!((~~ .-ldr(l


(('.~(J.c.~S- ~f''' ~Je1"~iJ#.r";. J!Rffi~·~k(jlli",!f!'lUiiJiia.~; .'!yl
l1r;itlp'itj'U!tli)ifYr"" :MJ'HJIt"itT<''lf'l1~tlltiJl!.'I:'W· . '. (/j:tlr().olig;lljJrl1l1t'llil~4'!'lvPT"Q '."". it.v
Il""/Ju"""wu(:i) IUlIiJw'I'!fr·l:t:TIljj·.I/JurflfJ.!·IJf'ifli{iUl.·,jg~lih!1J11~.iJlJlil!l.cqnlli!ltil;"yliliiTii!iJ/iji;,
·T4V~!"ili!n.\·i~"Q~~:(1r'jVhiJi:t1'i~'i.

"''ilrpl(rl'pS{!" "fiJ,•• 8rlikerIJIIJ/ Borr"W(!rl)""lIl1J~ntC.~I'((fjlYitiiNJ,~tiikitf;"IJ{I~I#/:(II}>jI(.fJ


.":C~(/'~!I!{JJt"!,!IJ,I,~lI,cltcelliflclJ(j(/h.~~rllii,;,'f" QiQ•.ttn!td(I·!lft~PI#~I,fll'f/'Viittilh..v
.!!ilrr'rwi'rlN'I(J·I"rtJj;i!/jilnmrfJli.'i<',' iifNt!~ .D,w:tt:<,.·i"II.·"",j~ti'J!~I;'11ftr.jll!c1(r.;jt~g'(Jildll1l!t
bu:llllitIlIllWf'AWt.iiiriiled (n thejfllk.;>ing: . '

P"J'Sl1/b..,'lii"'"i"l: S(((I""'I!~f~
W.2;ftiJ'n,.,
l,~tliVirJ,,(r1 Jt'.I·mnt:. TiX.tI?~Jitr" .. (IRSFllr", I/)4Q)
eU11IU'n.'Wp ill.>: kt:ll(rn~ XijfS P~rl?l 10'6S)
Cpr,pllrtit.rr Tax Jretllrnl:(ltl'Sl!tlrn; Jt2nj'
lfjiiikl!>ilfWg"';I("t!if(:I1iiilRlI~t;I11iltiSiI;t,MIt!ilt.'
~~itlliiJ(;llat:ks . .
Bii.,;,1<'.•.• RallJ1lI:e$h"ru (I."tJdrt¢(il1i~ St(JIL'riJt/.nl·
!te~(4! ~;;f~f:14;i/~ . .
PllrJut.:,·el::lJnif.a.Ct.';;IJ::r~lIII!titx .

fIi'IIe,ln l)rJ/t!OI'<:;;"Jplf.".(trli~l~..."nr r~"illriitl;rlt:'iJ;,*,.iiJi! ,Jj'nan.vdlli!,Llmd"TRI'V',r'!'1"Ih:


iJic.bofrq'wU-(:');lllprovli!e or!g}>uJ 9{;:1Ztttiu",.,·t/n.i1i4.fir,y,'llI:(1,p'{,:<I·v o/P".'?(ff"";I1i/.1li'ifl/;

/ti;lul/iwlrrI1K"i/ b.~:

!loti,'

-62-

185 / 545
I
/
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 15 of 50

p.e

PudHc MottWtlt\· C\ln nt~, Inc


7~myr~l!,,;Jr_~.nJl(h:\~_Cf~it,S4it;-2 u~_,d;\ 1)49:!lj
DRE. U:(n'~;;O;3784~2 ~'C7

r~''!(. -: '; u.•. __.. ,--.,:...u.:.. -'.' -:,.'.'- '.: ',,' ":,.:.'::. CO ',. . ' __ ;-t:II!;.iPi.?tJ:~':~~~t';II~_')t:!:'-':Mi~'lgMh¥-};Up:~~lJijJlf
AgruCllliht Wlllt 1'lJ<lfi~ ''lfiJnJ(itJr-, Co"'idritliW8r.~r "" Dr. 1",it!ptn~t(or:triJd<Ji' lu 4pplyI~'" r
(l(~,!IMlh'ltJ!1!tP~JNllI~:(f:~i!{!,.,'-~i'it,WitJ'"lt.:-~i~(i"t'.I;lfif-_~~_:'!",t-t'(':!lJfrrl,!",/",~u<II' 1~1~
.,I:!'l:W_Uj.·SlQ'-:III"IItII.,.mtl,~·_'r:9llirt'. "Yd~,:_;""ri"-i!-i'"1:IJ,'_'!t'5aKc,lp/lI~'Il~i~ ~~iJi:Pt'c~fjjy
. ",? . ;2IJ(J(. WI!(U't.licUhii!JJ-tiJl'II·"MtIf(lla..1(~.DrQ~r"llilt(i!rtkrti'lJll!iiJ~

..,1;pC:iilm;'~ J"OIiU'_~,.u/!li1llllif1tl'!..hip'.
J" wliliilii<11JntfJ!lJi:dtW:'
'Ii"I: ~I'i:tm ifJiI('pjlldt~ntC'iH'-'~II~UJr UIJd mlT-a.~.~"Iliii":r'I!t:H'.i
IItuJI"d, ~mtfNl(1I';'U)("i"iIU'-"I~'w!,1iW/~{#JIlS._I,'tltll~.\·.

It tiJr!~_vuu,.tm«nQUJnuti'f. -~~df1I'Vfl.--i!!¥Jrlb1l1iUm:lllld~:(JliJF_k~.i./cr.t
''kvt:4I1tlru,mtflK(ltllY#II~p.'lh,.lnH.·r/J,tpri(,I·~i(tlr~·~1/t't'-1rm'm'iJIJdr,Jif;"f.hi'_'lfa,.t'I~

'I ,,,t.
I
J,,~f:;~_ ~~~r;fUt.(,~l'f,/·n(f1)_j _ p',.tWfi!rtlll'~r~flJJ,,_-pTf)dJI_o/!J:_W M$:"t IIwl'iif~/fal~"«/~
:".,wJ,ri#J/~·rr.t"ml('. ((J{fllp",l/I~tJIlJJ~l-V!,·~'ifI;,,('1J,ifi;"II' ~DJ1fP(f/'4tfl1'''Jl4
;11111 Ii· <111i.I'

Jfl":~'$ff ~ilfc.¥o/:~litJiilJj~J,:I!i!j·r1~~ejI~" ({),i('~_:_Yu./,,:,·-'til!!I,_tr?';;"t!I{Yf~:,~~~,~,.:4t#jlsit_':~1 N,11R' Nf;h/ftil,-(hr


rnurllllpl«k llr (3) oJh.r~rvica"I:••,l" I>/' fudiiJit,' ptr/urmnturpNi.bkd by,,," In tbl' 1""1i,,.

A,rplit:unl

City. S~IlIi!. Zip

#13

-63-

186 / 545
,
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 16 of 50

2
3

5
6

7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBITF
28 -64-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide
187 / 545
Page 17 of 50

Yellow Pages search - Searched for "Spellbound Enterprise" in the "Los Angeles Greater" Yellow Pages directory on SMART... Page 1 of2

Ad. hVCftMI.
SMARTpages.com~ Sold In Marina dol Rey . IIHoma for Salo wilb a Bpat
s•• yout MIlrlnll d.1 Rey propaI!V r......p d_ Sold by Dock In V_Ill CDWlty Marinos HOIllC8 wIIl1S..cIl ....
YOlP' online Yellow Pages - and morel SM J.D. S...IDotk

I Home .I(fln~aper5on If Address flciok If DrMngOlrec~lons If Business Guides 11 ot,.GuJdes 11 lIfe.E1Ients 11 shOpprng'Guides !
Filed 04/17/2008

o Business Type.l!.Ql{B (!i Business Name City (or ZIP or Area Col1e) ~ .. Search Nearby
Find fueeJlb~~~~terprise ILos Angeles __ ~ &1 t~qT1 .. More Search Options

'.
j IpA

rAdv~rtiSQ-~~ Businesses Found: 1


Results for "Spellbound Enterprise" In the "Los Angeles, CA" service area.
~~AnTp<Jg~~
Narrow Your Search: Search only In Los Angeles. CA
Search OptlDns
- NewS"arch (Showing 1-1)
• N"ar An Address Jump to: ABC 0 E F G H IJ K L M N 0 P Q R ~ T U V W x v Z ReI/Ice Sort Order £!k Fea!llrl!d Bullnes..s
• BY ZIP COde
• By Am eqde ALLU&TINGS
- Recent Searchl!S ~pellbound Enterprise
- ~
Document 40-2

Inc. (323) 655-5654


1227 S Alfred 5.. Los Angaloa. CA e003~
I

MAl! Dill/inA D/mcllaDs ~Yrbll SalleAddres" ~


I

Narrow Your Search: Search only In Los Angeles. CA

(Showing 1-1)

• Purchase a mailing !1st from InfoUSA


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW

[i:.J;.iit·.::~·~~~:·::~
. <. PEOPLE wlTlr ADVANCED DEGREES
~:~.\ .. ",
EARN 95% MORE ON AVERAGE·
•u.s. tlr>p"'L'I\MJ 4{ ~r
I I I I I
Home Find a Person Address Book Driving DIrections Business Guides CilY Guides life Events Shopping Guides I I
I I I I
Help Contect Us About SMARTpages.com Privacy Policy,l Job Opportunities Internet Services International Directories Site Map I I
C 2004 SBC Knowledge vent,",s LP All rigllis reseNed.
sac, Ula SBC logo, SMARTpages. SMART YelloW Page" and other producl nllmes are lrademarks or sec Knowledge Ventures. L.P. andlorlls alanales. I.ial.!l!1PlIl!.@!!gn.
Sarna of the buclness InformaHon provided by InroUSA Omaha. NebraSka.

http://www.smartpages.comldirectory/search.jhtmIJsessionid=EUKVINNSDQOC5QFI4GDA4CQ?QueryType=2&QueryString... 10/612004

188 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 18 of 50

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
EXHIBITG
28 -66-

Notice ofSamaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Undenvriting by Samaan & Countrywide
189 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 19 of 50

. uniform&derwriting and Transmittfsummary


. It. Bonowetiliid.PIOPei!)' liiforinatlon . .... . .
80mlwuNtme Niyle SamalP SSN . 568-57.9489
Cc>BonoworH..... SSN
flroPG/IYAddm. 320 S. P~ok Drive. Beverlv Bi!Js. CA 90212 ---------
Proporty Type Project ClllSSIRcatlon Occupancy Slotus Addltlonal p",pcrty Information
~1un1 OAIIIlCondo oEPUD 01 Co-op 6aPrinwyR.sldenoo
o2-4111ll1s
OCllIlllomInllIn
OPUD oCo-op
0l1li1 Coodo OF PIJD 02 ClHIp
Den Condo
Pllljod Name
oSecond Home
Olnve.stment Properly
_
IIunlHr ofUnlts _1-=-:=,"",,=-
Seleo Price :: 1,718,000
AppralsedVolue S 1,718,000
9
Property Rlghls
oManuladln4 Housing
61lFee~
oSlng1e WIle oMullWdo
oLeuehold
IlL M0r!Qape.lnfonnaUori
Loen TypG AmoJ1izaUon Typo I
Loan Purposo LlenPoslllon
!ill Clll\VenOonal 0 F1xofl.Rlle----McnlhJy Paymonio Ii1JPurchan E/lFnIMort_
OFHA oF"lQd.Rate-8iweekIyPaynlents OCosI><ltJt Rrinance Arnlll8l/ oIS~e F"1lWlCOlg
OVA 0811_ oUm~.d Ctsh-Oul Refinance (Fannie) s 11r~
OUSDAIRHS 6aARM(Iyp8l ...r,-,I!LI~O,-
..,5""Y _ oNo CasMlul Rertnan<e IF-l ~IIlElOc. indude balance _ t1'r:dIt Iinll)
DOIha'Capecilyl _
OHome Impnl1l1,ment OS_......;o
OCtn_lo Perm.nelll
NOle Infonnatlon ~'ortg.go Orlglnato, Buydown If SecOIId Mortgago
OrlgfnalLoonArncunt 5 1,374,400 DS.le, DYes Ov.ncr 01 fIJst MonO.D.
InlIial P&I Paymant
lnllial Nola Rat.
",5_.:6",:,2~9:;;9:.":.3",,3...
5.500 .,.
!i1lBluker
DCo""'l'OIldell/
!i1lNo
Terms _
o Flllnle Mae 0 F...tdle 14.
OSalw/Olher
loan Ttml (In mDnlhSl _ ....3..6"'0"-'''''36:;0:::.... BrcllerlCorrupondenl Nam. and Cornpony Ntrne: OrigNI Loan Amount of first MoIlOags
c c Mort e CoDSnltan 5
ilL Underwillln .Inrormellon·
Appraisal Company Name
Property Sclepses
PruenlHouslng Paymont ,,5_....
3...
,3..9""0..,.....
00 .......
B_ Co-IIll/IVII8/" Total ProPOIIed Mon!llly payments
Base Incamt 33,333.00 S 33.333.00 Bor!'!wfe!s PrimervAastdence
other In_ S FIBl MoIlsaaa P&l 6,299.33
SocondMonaaoeP&1 ID"" ~s 1.128.60
~CUIlFlow $ $ HlIDInf_ s 400.87
""bleclllftlll8llYl s 33.333.00 5 33.333.00 T.... s· 1,789.68
Totallncom.
Io\DItaaatllUllr.lnce "s _
Qualilylng Rallos Loon-to-VDluo Rallo. HOAF... ...' _
PdmlllYHllus-.vEaptnsallllcome : 28.866. 'lO LlV 80.000 'h -,q!'n'S'JIll"iil'1r-
TotaIObII!PIionsIIncoma ;1.'1
DeblolO-llousJngGap_(Fr_l
3J4jis 'lO
~...
CLlVlll.lV
HCL1V1lill.lV
90.000 II
I; ='
Le.....Ground ReI\I
P.... ery HoIlolnD EJp!nSe
OIIter Obil:ioM
:-$
"':-9"'"i08'f-:::;"'8:-.3==8-

QualJ/yIng R.ato Level 01 Pnoporty Ravlow r.~~~irtt


E!lNlIIeRIIe 5.500 % E/lExleriottlnlorior q~f
o ' \ Abo.e Nole ReID --"~; OExiariorOrdy All ()the, MllllIIIlyPaymen\S s 811410
o % BelOI" Nole Rale % 0 No A/lptal$ll ~ ~ Tolal AI Mo~ Paymlll\lS s 10.i.l9.38
OBoughl.JlownRaI~ '/0 FOIIIlNumt>er. _~ _
OOlher % BOrroMr Funds to CI....
ID 4"
RIsk Assesoment
J.- I·· .....el..
Escrow IT&!)
Rtfl\Ilred
VedI!Id_
s
s
5IlMuval UJlIIIMIlIIno ~Yes ONo
SouratolF _
OAUS
000 DLP OOther _ No. or MonIhI Res.,...5
AUS_endalon 1nI!I1I_ party ContltlrllloN ,..
DLJ Cue IDII.P AUS KeyIl
LP Doc Clan [FrHdI.) COlMlunlty LendlnglAffonlablo Housing l.uu.uve Dyes EllIIo
RepresentallYo CrlldlUlndlaal... S.......7
...2='3=-__ Hom. 8uyeJSlHollleownershlp Ecluc.llon Celtln..... In ftle DYes 1!11 No

Seller Name PACIFIC MTG. CONSULTANTS ConlJlcl Nama BECKY KUCEM


SeIer Melius 700 LARKSPUR. LANDmG om CllIl\Idl1lle sa LOAN PROC§fl§DR
LARKSPUR. CA 94939 (}7 Contact Phone IQrllIer 925·242-9000
Seller No. ......torLo•• No, _
StllI' ....... No. CollllclSIgnMUre _
MastarCommMmIlllNo. _
D.... _
ConInlet No.
FIllddIe Mec Form Ion 01104 Fannie Mn Form 100a 01104
Calya Form T'onwm...2004.1rm 01104 Page 1 of1

190 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 20 of 50

'.

... ",.
:;·:.;::.;:.:_OF.F~srOCL{)SE·w$sBEET
..... .... . . .
.
.
~~~....-.m-
., •.( ......-. '., .•.~. P.R;ICF4lXISTINGLlENs,s,''_ _
".:,::. ., ....:: U~?n:_S:;AtL:DiBTTOBEl'AlI>:
.. ,', ' .. .. " . .
$,
:~. ,"
~ .....
., ; ... "; ". " i: -:::" ~ ';;~GlPREP.AID COSts, $'...... _

. ;·:;~Z~;:AMO~ .--.-~--
,~ , ".: .' ,....: '~: -" ·SEl.LER'S CREDlT:S, _
'S,-_~_

·~1l>.1Ii~1Iu1l

:,; ·':',\/~~;.::~·:;if':,~~~~;,~:<-=:;::=: :.
• '. •• ...." f," v:,·, ••... •
';,. r . \ \• •
_ . ~'Yooi6%ofS.I..l'rl...

, ", .',: "~$~~W~~j'" ,',


'$'-._---
NEEDEJ)../ cAm Otl'J,' s'Y£'DA>A> (A)
. cdr",. «,lite)'

I.Iq\lid AII.a:i
~ "$

$ ,-. . \

...,' ? .~~l~~f.~~~~m.(S.. Be\.!'>:. .:. _

$, -""'_

s
. '.
$ '(Il) "
cD) IIllUt be ~tbi.D CA)
",

"

191 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 21 of 50

2. Does dIl:nllIllUrlhc.t1... (PURCIIASE)iowaer (1ll!JlI) lOlttllonw:h oflhcfollowillCdotamall>'


WRrlE THE SI!lLEIlI9WNER NAME BEI.OW: •
L Slbl:onlml: ~ •• ApP1OlJIl: -z.,-~
.. TdlrlPRJlIn: ~ 4. CUJES(Sumtl'd,l),"jt:~
(1)pICl!lythlllnfoSlllll1ionis OIllh..obedale BoflbolldolPrellm.)
IC Ill. DI.... do DOlmotehJ!l'Oride.. IdlqlWC _lutlonllld dooll....L IC_I... _nO, c••I1<1 th F....d lIotll...
Resolution: _

3. FlOlDtlUcJprdlll\orCU1ES:
.. Do""Gr.>DlOrWI1lllOlyDc:dIOIhoSELLERJOWNEnatil1'ccdt.bo~llt!tOO1dod1
b. WImt It !be reoonIaI dale lIte_o........1lI/0Dd title 10 Ill. pI1lpClI)' ~" ..,
Yl!$ _ _ NoL
Provldedala or"tlTD" (U1lIb1o to Pel......)
D. n....le to dClorrulu leqaisiliD. mit, indiCllocbl••r........lI••ltp.. ---'.." v
d Udccd is "'I1l1mIlOtraNrertltletollteRUctlOWDCr, ""IQisiIiDndileor_monpPB Jess Ihen61l1OnlbspriorlO lboQllJ1lllJ tnIandloll,or...61.
t."dmrrl.o...rd... U·... alltclWnoCdd.JqlOll. lItYl... forpos.iblolli",filUowLomdFlippdcllnrsillWIDP&P. Explllo.ln1lesololiDn. 1/
u....101. raol"", ..lIlDel the Fraud H.tIIn..·
Ru.,.U.n': • _

QaP!!Dn 5 MUST be mmp1d!!11rt tht Apprrtnrllnd!!!!!llsr. JuI,,, U.dU'!!l1'v, or FaadsrlCJa.


EMPLOYMKNT RB-VIlllmC\1l0N filrall NmIll emplO)'lllOlll (includillC baslacss Idc:p.............. forodC"""I'loycd ""'"'-') _ for
qIllI!iGo::oIi... MllStbovorifiod.....,. '.~dlinf.pIny_ (lIequ1rd •• aIllolllS ucopl NINA ID4 co.n' &E)
N.t "'l"lIld f.r NoD-Co.rOrml~..~ IIt ... bas b.... q,nEtI. tlDpl.,..."llilleellt.lasl.ppUcatlon.
I2Il&mm. .41<... CMO!l!\OWI!R
S.lilIlploYDlCllI phD........... co -, r 1ltJtL..i. 5.1lmp1oymen1 pIl_llIlIIlborwu .oaliralal1htw&b=
;~. ~,='=vay... (z,J-'1 ~ ,,- O-q~;?(. b~ ~:=~vayollO
e)S1ritchboo\'d.eQnl ,.... K • SWiIohbooRlCOlll
c)
Rdilal
01) Reliral
d)
0) Dlubillcy Ll '2. I "'" /"1 "..1 .) DisobUI\r fr'V
I:!l> Ollla: ~!",;LA.,.: ~J,.7- 1#~;1 -~\O .. Of I) OIhcr::---:=:=:-..;'..;... _
F.rW.1 Wop E1saer ONLY '.rW·1 W"C.EInoerONLY
iIDploya'CIOJl....ealIIiYecollladc!: Employcr'.n:preomfillvocoalatted:
NAm. Nam. _
TIll. lItt. ...,.._ _
Dlto.fCoolzct lh1oorC _
IilIlploycd lIIU lim.? Y" _ _ No__ EmployalIilUtiIIIe'lY" _ _ No_ _
n,;~EmpIoynlClllS_ D>lll Emp")'IIt<IIl SlInal: _
IIorrowv'tJo1>TdIe:
Uuoal>Io 1O ....va\lY oruploymeat, _11'Qllll Hollin. for MsiIIaooe
nenlllll•.,
lIom......cJobTllle:~.~
If_bl. to ........'" 01IJI1oyDlcot.
IIasoladon:
_.mud
_
How.o for AsslI_.
_

For SBLF.£MPIPYBD BORROWEIlS ONLY , ...SELF-1lIIm.on» BORROWERS ONLY


Il pkoao IIlIIObcr not IbIaI, ,.~ MllS1' nrI/y lit. omplo_t will> r"
1'"'11'*"-11••
Il p1>oDo lID""'"
not lisIal. 100 t.llm'llOrifJ !be oruplll)'DlC;OlIViIll r"
puty doooraeoIolioIl
IdaIIIIY,.. pIlIy doenmenI.otilOl usa!: ldaldIYr"JW\l' docIuDeIIollot> IISCII:

BaiocssNotoe _
urw u.r
.IloaoNIllIIber====
BlIIioas Nutc
PTCCblClc: ~:---­ DOC _

Ilole:,::======-
Br._
Coroplolo Hoyt prior.o dollftc •
0Ilt:,,--=:====-
By._
CompII.l.3 d4rs pJlor tit dosInl
.F\mder,-_ _
Aadito> •
RiiV:I11lJ03
_ J

192 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 22 of 50

193 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 23 of 50

• l'IIIlnwwiU1ln 30day, of ~p111iWl!diadp~e. HJoan Is deIllid


· . . • . EnlndllipnlVlded to IluUlass PsJlner.
ECKED OM NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN . UM'OF 4)7
AlID,PHDIIEIII1l"BER OF CREDIT ~iJilEAU DISCLOSED ON THE IIOTlqE •
· . . . . .
Dilte:

• •• •
Date:... ---,....,

omnieots~ .... ;.
. . '
:1' '.,. .
y..~: ":'~.: ~~., .. :.
'.

" .0..

194 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 24 of 50

Amerlca's611lSa1e Lender, Itself or as agent

ISSUE DATE: 10/13/2004 Bank, N.A.


0'
for eountrJII"llfe Bank, e DivisIon Treasury

DATE: 10113/2004 Brucb t. 0000'33


BORROWER: NIVIE S2\HllAN 750 LUlnMo 8'l11SZT STE 110
$)J/ I\APAEL. CA ,.,01
CASE#:
~bone. 1415)25'-2701
LOAN lI: 81737375 8e Fax No.. IUS) 2S.-e8"
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 320 S PEeR DR
BSVERLY HILLS. CA 90212-3715

LOAN APPLICATION
DISCLOSURE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

AppllcaUon DIsclosure Handbook


lNJe acknowtedga receipt of the Appllcauon Disclosure Booklet and further acknDwledge the following:
Affiliated Buslnass Arrangement Disclosure Statement
lNJe have reBel the Affiliated Buslneas Arrangement DIsclosure Statemenl lJWe understand that the Lender Is referring
me/us to purchase seWement selVlces flOm providers with which It Is affiliated and may receive a fll'lanclaJ or oilier benefit
as a result of this referral.
Servlolng Transfer Disclosure
INVe acknowledge recelpl of the Servicing Transfer Disclosure and Understand Its contents, as evldenced by my/our
sfgnalure(s) below. llWe underslllnd thallhls acknowladgmenlls a requIred part of the mortgage loan appllcalion.
Hazard Insurance Requirements
llWe acknowledge receipt of the Hazard Insurance Requirements and understand tIlalllwe may obtain property Insurance
from any Insurance company that meets the Leneler's requirements,
Notice to Applicant RegaJdlng nile Company and ClOSIng Agent
lIWc Clchnowlcdgo rooclpl of the TIlle Company and C""'1ng Agent NoUoc and Golcollho following option (plca:lo aheol,
one):

B Agree to aBow llIe Lender to ordertKle.


Choose to select the folowlng closing agent:
Address·=---..---------Cfty
Name
State ZIp _ _
Title ColllianY _ ...... _

Borrower's Certlncatlon and AuthorlzalJon


lIWe acknowledge that IIwe have read and understand the secllon entilled, "Borrower's Certillcatlon and AulhDlizatJon."
lJWe give my/our. consent to the lender to provlde my/our loan appllcallon Information 10 any InVestor and/or investor's
affIlales In conjuncUDn with Ihe sale of my/our Joan.
Notice Regarding IRS DISClOsure
lNJe acknowledge redelpt of the IRS Disclosure Nolice and understand llIe Information explained in the piece. llWe ceIlify
that the tax retums submitted to the Lender are exact duplicates of 1lI0se submitted 10 Ihe IRS. I/'Ne give mylour express
. consent to the Lender to communicate wfth the IRS conceming any cfiSCrepsncies end to give the IRS copies of 1he tax
retums whioh Vwe submitted to the Lender.
Consumer Hand~ok on AdJlI$Illble Ral8 Mortgagas
If lIWe applied for an AdJustable Rille Mortgage. f1We acknowledge that I/We have read and understand the secllon
enlllled. "What Is an ARM?" .
HUD Booklet
If f1We appUed for a purchase loan. l!we have received a copy of tM booklellitled "Buying Your Home: SeWement CDSts
and HelpfullnformaUon.·
Home Equity Loana
If I/'Ne applied for a Home equItY Una of Credit, l!we have received a copy of the brochure titled 'When Your Home is on
the line: What You Should Rnow About Home Eqully Unes of Credt,"

Lender Representallve:_--j~~::!:::::~~~~~~60-.=.,.i- _

-72-

~~
• 0 a1 73 73 7.6 0 0'0 00 2 D 82 3 •

195 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 25 of 50

LOAN#: 81737375 .#:


Lender: Amezo1ca' I WholesaJ.a Lender·, itself or a~ agent for
COl>Dtrywide BaDII, a Div.ia1on of T"easuxy aank, II.A.
prepaz"., GBllALI> .IIIGJIAlIllH
GOOD FAITH ESTIMAJE
SaJes PIlc8: 1,718,000.00
Bual.olnM1DuPt 1,374,400.00
Address: 1199 North Fairfax St. St•• 500
Alexan=1a, VA 22314
Total LoIn """"lilt
1,374,400.00
Type of Ulan: COIN UNINStlREIl
Appbnl(.): NXVIE Sl\HMIl Da.. Plapanut 10/13/2004

Praparty Addno..: 320 S PEel( Dfl


BE\lERLX HILIoS, 0. 90212-3715
Thalnlollll8U.n provIded bel.wreOects es1IlII8los "I the cluIIJlos which you lie IIk.1y '0 Incur lithe selllomenl of your loan. Theleos
IIstod .leesllnDl..... lhe.ctu.l.hllflcsmaybllm.ra"rl.os. VourlnlllsatUonmaynollnvOlvealoolOreYlllYhom I~
Tha nlllllllels lIstod beslda fIl. astIrnaIllS genolllllV CllII8;SPDnd lD II. nurnbaled Iln&s cunlelnod In th.. HUD-l s.lIIe/l1lnl $lelemonl which y<uJ wIft
be IeceMngll.wttleInenL Th. HUD-1 setllemtnIsl*monllOlllllhowyau lhalduol ~ lorll8ms paid .. ielllemanL
1n1enstra18 5.500 • T..""olloan 30 YeAX'S
1BOO ITl!MS PAyABlE IN CONNECTlONWl'nl LOAN
801 $ LoIn QlgNUon Foe 0.000 %
802 S LoIn llbcz>unl %
803 $ a no AppdIsaI --------
804 $ 0 ad CIedIl Ropoll
80S S 0 on Land81's Inspacllon
806 S . a PO MoIl1ll9.llII\lIIIlIca Applcldlon Fee
8lI7 S a 00 Assumption Fee
808 S n on WlIIIlhouse F..
809 S 5.. 00 PIO_lIng Fe.
810 $ .0 on Tax SaMca - .dd 7.0: Tax :semc:e 'rovidu
811 S 26 OP AoodCbedtFee - Paid TOt Flood Suvico '<ovi. ."
813 $ 0 DO 1Mno7lansl.,
814 S 0 DO 9uydDwn Expense
815 S 0 aD reend1llO ...y he pUd c:e broker by landor in <&1\90 of O-ft
816 S 490 ao Undorvdtltlt1 r••
817 S 225 on DoCUlUnt l'nP"'ntion-Lendee
818 S - - 8rok.., Fe.. - -
819 $ 050 aa Brok.r FQl.l AppeaLs.l
820 S Jl op 8~Qket cred.lt Report
821 $,,'" 00 Broot Pointll
822 S
823 S
ISPP !!EMS REQUIRED BY LENDER 1'1) BE PAlD IN ADVANCE
801 $ ',213.00 _J_O_ _DaysI_OS 207.10 /Day
902
903
804
$
$
$
D.OO
D•DO
d. dU
Convonfonal PMIJFIfA Upollonl M1PNA FundIng !'eo
HluaRlIn..... co PI.mtum
Flood Xn:rurMCC !re.a.
PaJclCuh$
Flnancod $ ====
905 $
11080 RESERVES DEPOSITED WI!!! lENDER
1001
1002 $
S D.OO
0.00
_Ins...... __
MorlgagelnslllDllCD
D_MonthaO $ _ _~o,..if.0o.... hnonlh
_ _O_MonthaQ!l $ O.DD_III
1003 $ 0.00 Taxos ---l!..M..th.O $ 1,189.67 IInonth
1004 $ 0.00 Taxes _ _0_1.1. .111,(11 S 0.00 lmonth
1005 S O.OD Texas _ _D_ MonIhsQ!l S 0.00 ImDnIll
1006 $ 0.00 ~Ins_ __D_MonIhaO S 0.00· /IOonlh
1007 S 0.00 J\ggrvgaleAnalya!sAdjusm-nt
11100 'TlTLECHARGES
1101 8 1,250.00 Qasklg or Eocraw Fee
1102 6 6••6 Absnd or'l1h Soan:h
1103 $ 0.00 1l8a EumInaIlon
1104 S 0,00 llleln.-lIInder
1105 $ 100, DO DoCUlllelllPrapll1!tlon
1108 S 125.DO Notay
1107 S 0.00 AIIomayJSetIJomonl Aglnt
1108 $ 3,"&.DD llUolnsur.anee
1109 S 30.DO eoueln/bpeo.. H.1l-C10rt<J
1110 S
1111 $
11g GO'IERNMEN! RECORllING • T1IANSfER CHARGes
1201 S 100.00 Iloc:llIdIng Feu
1202 $ a•DO CIIyICounIp TIllIS......
12113 $ O. GO SlalaTIIll/SIemllS
1204 $ 0.66
11300 ADDmONAL SETTLBIENT CHARGES
1301 S 0.00 Survay
1302 $ • ••• Pesllilapeollon
1303 S 6.00 Hall and Septic lank Inspection Pee
1304 $ O.D.
S 27.407.00 TOTALESllMAT&DBORROWERBETTU:MENTCItAIIGES
"S" _ to an I"mdasl~II costl. be palcI bf SelIor (Nollnclllcfed In lh& lolaI).
"POC-L" nm to IIlIIIMI dasIgnaIis a - ' pald bf tluI LandoI (Nollnduclad In the ta1loJ).
"POC-B' nllXllo ""Item M,IgnaI•• a COSI pald by tile BoIlowet (Included In tho total).
"UndOlnoqul,.., the u.. of apaIllcIJlar IllO'o4dertorlhls 1lIlllemonI1aMca. S.. 1IIaclled .... fllIdIlonallnlOnnollon.
FIWIINCONV
a~~~~
2041Dol.lSI-lld)
7~
-".",ral2
----
'23991"
I -
" D B 1 7 8 7 3 7 5 .0 0 0 D 0 2 C 4 1 0 "

196 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 26 of 50


',J;J

'IOI'AL ES11MATED RINDS NEEDED 'Ttl CLOSe:


S 343, 600. DO Dawnpaymllilt S

'TtlTALES1IMATED MOImiLY PAYMENT
6,299.33 Initial IDte~est. Only
LOAN f: 81737375

S 21,194.00 Es1Irnratad Closing Cosls S 1,789.58 Tans


S 6,213.00 Eslfma1ed P18pa!d Uoll\!lRuHIVO. S 0.00 H_rd & FIaod I_co
S Olhor S 0.00 Marlg3golllSUl3llco
$ Anancad PMIIMIPNA Funding Fee $ 8,098.91 TOTALMOImlLYPAYMENT"
$ 371,007. DO TOTAL

'lIt_ estlmates of closing ,a!>lS '''0 provlded pursuenl to 1he Real Estale S,IIl_1 PrIIcedurea Al:I (RESPAj.1I your 101/1 lIJIpllcaUan ll'
far s DmUen realdenllal mlllll/llse and Is modo In DtnmseaUan 10 p\llChose a home, oddlUonallmpoll8hl Intormstl8n CIIl .... found In the
tnID SpeclallnfonnaUon Booklel provided 10 you byyaurlender ormollgoge broker.

DISCLOSURES CONCERNING REQUIRED USEOFSETTLB1ENTSElMCE PROVIDERS


If 011 estIlI1lllsd cha'!l. shown an poge 1 I5ldenlJlllld willi D dlublo aslerlsk r'), tho lender requlru lIle us. 01 a partlcalar plOVldar ollhal aolllomoni
sGJVIco. The esUmllllld charge shawn Is bUIld on th. chllllJos of the deslgnelad provlclor. Tho I1Ila1Jonshlp balwo8n tho lendo, IlI1d tho satUomonl
IIJVlce p1D\'ldor II that fila lender has ..p.... dly UlOd the provide.....aIVI... In tho pat. Tho lond" may dacldo to cha_ a dllIorenl pmvldor. tho
HUD-l or HUD-IA sIalemonlglvan 10 you .lsaltlam9llt will disclose tho pllllllclerUSlld.

Reserves deposited with lend~ may not inolude a proration of taxes due seller or a
credit due from seller at closing. For proration caloulations please consult your olosing
agent. •

• Do.. nallnclude OpUoI\llIInIU/UllC8.

Appllcant Data Appllcanl Oal.


IlIVn BAHlWI

Applk:anl Dlll8 Applicant

-74-

P"lla2ol2

197 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 27 of 50

.,

• •
America's Wholesale Lender, Itself or as agent
for Countrywide Bank, a Division of TreaslUY
Bank,N.A.
Branch " 0000933
DATE: 10/13/2004 750 LIIlIW\O Sl1U!21 51!: 110
BORROWER: NIVIE s.~ SAN I\l\PJIl.L, CA ,.'O~
CASE I: PhODO: 14151257-270~
LOAN#; 81737375 B. Fox No.: (415) 25'-08"
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 320 S PECK OR
BEVERLY BILLS, CA 90212-3715
ADDENDUM TO GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE

You have the rlghtto freely sel8Clthe pelSOn or organlzallon rendering Insurance services (as an agen~ ·broker or underwriter).
except Insurance or a guarantee provided by a government agency or pllVIl!a mortgage Insulilnce.

We do not fellUlle that any particular provider or B/fiUaled group of provlders be used to provide legal servIce, title exemlnaUon
services. tills Insurance policies. or seUlement services. However, we do insist that the provider you select be approved by us.
OUr desire Is lD ensure that any providers of these services are reputable, knowledgable and possess the flnanclal strength In
support any claIm agaInst tha title 10 plOpeny you are ollellng as seC2lrtly for thls loan.

.We ale 8lfI1laled wllh LandSafelltle, a provider of title Insurance and closing services. Under federal law, we may not require
you to use the services of Its affIllaled companies. You ale lree lD select Ihe seivlce provider thai best sub your needs.

It Is Importanllhat lIUe Insurance and selllement servlces be comPleled In a timely manner. Acoordlngly. as soon llll you have
slgned a pUR:hilse agreement 01 have compleled a mortgage Ioen IIpflftcation, you should c\loose II IIUe Inwrer and clos.r.
Pleae use Ihe allaohed form \0 designate your liUe IlIS1Jfer and closer, so thaI IVB may verily epPlllval.

AppIt:anI 0.10
NIVIe SN!MIl

-75-


' 238'"
--'081737375000002C607'

198 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 28 of 50

.. ~

P"paroc! by; GERALD INSRAHMl


• •
Amerlca's WhollisaJe I.ender,ltself or as agent
for CountTywlde Bank, a Division of Treasury
Bank, N.A.
DATE: 10/13/2004 Branc:b .: 0000'33
BORROWER: NIVIE SAMlIlIN 750 LDllllUlO 871\1!£7 S'fE l1D
CASE#: SAIl IW'IUlL, CA SUOl
Phone. 14151257-2701
LOAN #: 81737375 8. Fa. lIo.: IUS)Z59-D866
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 320 S PECK DR
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212-3715

SERVICING TRANSFER DISCLOSURE


NonCE TO FIRST LIEN MORTGAGE LOAN APPLICANTS: THE RIGHT TO COLLECT YOUR MORTGAGE LOAN
PAYMENTS MAY BE TRANSFERRED. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU CERTAIN RELATED RIGHTS. IF YOUR
LOAN IS MADE, SAVE THIS STATEMENT WITH YOUR LOAN DOCUMENTS. SIGN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
AT THE END OF THIS STATEMENT ONLY IF YOU UNDERSTAND ITS CONTENTS.

Because you are applying for a mortgage loan covered by \he Real Estate SetUement Procedures Act (RESPA) (12
U. S. C. Secllon 2601 et seq.), you have certain rights under that Federal law. This slalement tells you about those
rights. It also teUs you what the chances are that the selVlclng for this loan may be transferred to a different loan
selVicer. "SelViclng" refers to coUecllng your princfpal, interest and escrow acccunt payments, If any. If your loan
servlcer changes, \here are certain procedures that must be followed. This statement generally explains those
procedures.
TRANSFER PRACTICES AND REQUIREMENTS

If the servicing of your Loan is assigned, sold, or transferred to a new servlcer, you must be given written' notice of
lIIat uansrer. llte presem loan servlcer must sena you nonce III woung 01 tile assignment, sme or transler or me
servicing not less than 15 days before the effective date of the transfer. The new loan servlcl!r must also send you
nollce within 15 days after1he effective date of the transfer. The present servlcer and the new serviller may combine
this Informallon In one noUce, so long as the notice Is sent to you 15 days before the effective dale of the transfer.
The 15 day period Is not appficable If a notice of prospective wnsfer Is provided to you at settlement. The law allows
a delay In the tlme (not more than 30 days after a transfer) for selVicelll to notify you upon the occurrence of certa'n
business emergencies.
Nollces must conlain certain infom7aJion. They must contain the effective date of the transfer of the selVicing of your
loan to the new servlcer, the name, address. and toll·free or collect call telephone number 01 the new servlcer. and
toD·free or collect call telephone numbers of a person or department for both your present servicer and your new
servJcer to answer your questions. During the 60-<lay period followIng the effective dale of the transfer of the loan
selVicing. a loan payment received by youl old servicer before its due date may not be treated by the new loan
servicer lIS late. and a late fee may not be Imposed on you.
COMPLAINT RESOLUTION

Section 6 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. Section 2605) gives you certain consumer rights, whether or not your loan servicing
Is transferred. If you send a "qualified written requesr to your servicer. your servicer must provide you with a written
acknowledgment within 20 busIness days of receipt 01 your request. A "qualified written request" Is a written
correspondence, other than noUce on a payment coupon or other payment medIUm supplied by the servlcer. which
includes your name and account number, and the information reganling your request. Not later than 60 busfness
days after receiving your request. your servlcer must make any appropriate correclfons to your account, or must
provide you wfth a written ctarifIcaIlon regarding any dispute. During this 6o-buslness day period, your servlcer may
not provide Informallon 10 a consumer reporting agency concemlng any overdue payment relaled to such period or
qualified written request. Our address for quallfl9d written requests Is:
Loan Servlolng center, Attn: Customer Service SVB-314, P.O. Box 5170 • Simi Valley, CA 93062·5170

A Business Day is any day In which the offices of the business entity are open to the public for canying on
SUbstantially all of Its business functions.

DAMAGES AND COSTS


Section 6 or Re:SF'A 81:<0 provIdes ror oamllges lint! w5111 for Im:lMduals or classe5 or IndlvklUa/3 In circumstances
whera servicers are shown to have violated the requirements of that Section.

FIlA/WI/CONY
• SorvIdnlITlllIISIorDlJd..... Slxlomonl
2019'1·US 1D7103)(d) Pogo 1 012

-76-

·23991·
II~ 11111
3737150000020197·

199 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 29 of 50

SERVICING TRANSFER ESTIMATES BY LENDER


• • LOAN 0: 81131315

1. We presently intend to assign, sell, or transfer the servicing of your mortgage


loan. You will be informed about your servicer.

2. For aD the first lien mortgage loans that we make In the 12-month period after your mortgage loan is funded, we
estimate that the percentage of such loans forWllich we wHI transfer servicing Is between:

o 0%1025% 026%10600. . 051%1075% [!] 76% to 100%

This estimate does include assignments, sales or transfers to affiliates or


subsidiaries.

This is only our besl esUmale and it is not binding. Business condRlons or other circumstances may affect our
future transferring decIsions.

3. We have previously Bssigned, sold, or transferred the servioing of first-lien


mortgage loans.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MORTGAGE LOAN APPLICANT

Itwe have read this disclosure form, and understand its conlants, as ev'denc::ed bY my/our slgnalUre(s) below. ,/we
understand that thIs al1knowledgmenl's a reqUired part of the mortgage loan appUcallon.

1Iotro"'c: NIVIE SIIMI\.!\N

Bom>....

B..........

-77-
FIWIIMlONV
• ISaMctl;TnrulorDlsdastn Stolomont
2C187olJS lO1AlS) Pa;12c1Z

200 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 30 of 50

rIP..
TRUTH 'IN LENDING DISCLOSURE STA
~IIE
MENT
P'oparedl>y:GERAlDlNGRAHAM

., (THIS IS NEITHER ~ CONTRACT NOR A COMMrrMENT TO LEND)


LENDER:Amer~ca s Wholesale Lender, ~tself or as agent for
Countxywide Blink, II Division of Treasury Bank, N.A. Pl8l1mlnary l!J o Flnal
1199 NO~h Feirfax St. Ste.SOO DAlE 10/13/2004
Al.exandr~a, VA 22314
BORROWERS: NIVIE SAMAAN LOAN 81737375
CASE NO.
1yPe of Loan cow UNINSURED
NC 5/1 LIBR ARM
ADDRESS 1227 1/2 S ALFRED STREEI InterGstOnly
CIlY STATE I ZIP LOS ANGELES, CA 90035
PROPERTY 320 S PECK DR
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212-3715

ANNUAL PERCENTAGE ANANCE CHARGE Amount financed TOlal of PaymenlS


RATE The doUar amount the The amount of ciedit The amount you wID have
The cost of your credit credll wi. co&l you. proVIded to you or on paid alter you have made
as a yearly rate. your behalf. aI paymenla as sohewllid,
e 5.162 % s e 1,376,676.35 Se 1,351,992.00 S e 2,728,668.35
PAYUENT6CHEDULE:

NUMBElIOFPAYMENlS AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS WH£N PAYMENTS AHE DUE


e DU e b,:l~~.~~ M0N7BLY BEGINNING 12 01/2004
e 299 e 7,835.69 MONTHLY BEGINNING 12/01/2009
e 1 e 7,937.24 ILAST PAYKE:N'l' DUE 11/0112034

DSlAND FEATURE: [j[] This loan do.. nc! """0 a Demand Feab.. o 11111 loan has a Demand Falllln as 1o....1S:

VARIABLE RATE FEATURE:


IXJ1I1Is r.BIl h.... II VlIIlablo Rid. F.1Ilura Variabl. fiala DI.clo.ures have boon provldod to ~u oorhr.

SECURITY: You aro gl.ln9 II '.C1J~ly In_' In llIe proPlrty IoClllod at


320 S "'JilCK DR, BEVO;RLY HILLS, CA 90212-3715

ASSUMPTION: 50_0 buvtna lhb property 0 c:IIlltlOIusumo thal'l>lllalMlg ........ cillo under odgInqIlllDllgIg"tonna
IXJ
may 1ISSllIM, subJeel to IIfIlIo(. eond11lons. lb. remalnlng baIaneo due under adglnlll martgall" ianni.

PROPEII'TY INSURANCe: Hozanllnsun>noe. lnellollng aood Insuranco r tho proporty b In II Spadal FIoDd HaDnl Mo, Is 1llqU1rocI u ~ condlIIon ollhls
loin. You may oIlbIIn tit. Inturanc:o COVltagl I""" any Insuranee company """"pIobIo to 1M
wlt be pnIIo1dIld prior10 loan do.klll-
_"t.
CompIDte dolaIls _earning lnslmInes I'Ollldremonls

LAiI! CHARGES: Kyour PII'Im.nllo ""'IV !han 15 days lata, you wDl be ehargod 0 IlIto ohPlg. of 5.000 ",oIthl
OvonlUD paymlJll
l'Nil"A'I'IlIENT.·/I,_iMt·o>II'.....N""~; ,_

B: IZJwltnol
OO .... n.1
hay. to pay. ponally.
be Il11Illod 10 a r.lInd 01pili olll1e t1nIIme chllllo.
sao your _et dowmonts ror Dny ocIdlllonollnlollllllllon regonllng n.n-poymanl, deleult, required repoyllWllln lull b.tore scbedUlod dille,
IIIId prepayment retunds Dnd p.....lIlos.
"mans esIIInaIa
IIW" hereby IICl<nowIldgll1lldlng and rocoMng II co'"l'leto copy o/!hls cIIsdo.UlD.

BORROWERIllAlE BORROWERIllAlE
IIMIl SAlWIN

~'aI:t
-/8-

II
' 23091"
m __
"081731375000002C29S"

201 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 31 of 50


DEFINmON OF TRUTH-IN-LENDING TERMS
• LOAN j, 81737375

ANNUAL PERCENrAGB RATE


ThIs Is not the Note rate for which the borrower applied. The Annual Pen:entage Rata (APR) Is the cost 01 the loan in
percentage terms taking Into accounl various loan charges of which Interest Is only one suoh charge. Other chQlgss
which are used in caJcuJalkm of the Annual Percentage Rate are Private Mortgage Insurance or RiA Mortgage
Insurance PremiUm (when applicable) and Prepaid finance Chllllles (loan dlscount, orlglnatton tees. prepaid Interesl
and other credit costs). The APR Is calculated 6y spreading these charges over the ute of the loan which results in a
rale higher than the lnlarest rata shown on your MorlgagelDeed of TRlsl Nole. IIlnlerest was the only FInance Charge,
then the lnlllrest rate and the Annual Percentage Rate would be the same.

PllEl'AID mNANCE CBARGl!'S

Prepald Finance Charges are certain charges made In conneolJon wIIh the loan and which must be paid upon the
close of \he loan. These chllllles are defined by the Federal Reserve Board in RegulalionZ and the charges must be
paid by the borrower only, and nol the seller If applicable. Non-Inclusive examples of such chargll8 are: Loan
orlglnatlon fee. 'PolnlS" or Discount, Private Mortgage Insurance or FHA Mortgage Insurance. Tax SeJvlce Fee. Some
loan oharges are specifically exclUded from Ihe Prepeld Finance Chalge such as appraisal fees and oredit report fees.

Prepaid Finance Charges are totaled and than subtracted from the loan Amount (the face amount of the Deed of
TrustlMortgage Note). The net figure Is the Amount Financed es explained below.

The amount of Interest, prepaid finance charge and certain insurance premiums 6f any) which the borrower wHI be
expected to pay over ,he life of the Joan.

AMOUNT FINANCED
The Amount Financed Is the loan amount applied for less the prepaid ftnance charges. Prepaid finanCe charges can
be found on the Good Faith Estimate. For example 1/ \he borrower's note Is for $100,000 and the Prepaid Finance
Charges tOlal $5,000, the Amount Financed would be $95.000. The Amount Financed Is the figure on wlllch the
Annual Percentage Rate Is based.

TOTAL OFPAYMENTS

T11Is llgure represents \he IOtal of all payments made toward principal, interest and mortgage Insurance (if appHcable).

PAYMENT SCHEDULE
The dollar figures In \he Payment Schedule represent prIncipal. Interes~ pkls Private Mortgage Insurance 61
applicable). These ligures wm not rellecl taxes and insurance escrows or any temporary buydown paymenlS
contributed by the seller.

-79-

202 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 32 of 50

DATE: 10/13/2004
• Bank,HA

America's Wholesale Lender,lls8lf or as agent
for Countrywldll Bank, a DIvisIon of Treaswy

Branch I: ODOOU3
750 LtHDl\IIO S:rt\E27 9T& UD
BORROWER: NIVIE SAMAAN
SAll I'AFAEL. 0. '4901
CASE I: Phon., 14151257-2701
LOAN #: 81737375 Br Fu No.: (415)25"'0'"
PROPERlY ADDRESS: 320 S PECK DR
BEVERLY BILLS, CA 90212-3715

nc~AnQNOFAMOUNTRNANCED
1. Loan Amount 1.374,400.00
2. Prepaid FInance Charges:
Origination Fee 0.00
Discount Points 0.00
Tax Service Fee 60.00
Processing (Underwriting) 0.00
Prepaid Interest ( .l.lL- days)
of % per annum 6,213.00
Mortgage Insurance Premium 0.00
Mortgage Insurance Impounds 0.00
Warehouse Fee 0.00
VA Funding Fee 0.00
FHAUFMIP 0.00
Buydown 0.00
undBrw~itin9 Fee 490.00
Broker Points 13,744 .00
Courier/Express Mail-Cleng 30.00
Closing/Esc:coN 1,250.00
Flood Check Fee 26.00
processing Fes 595.00

TOTAL 22,409.00

3. Amount Financed (1 minus 2) 1,351,992.00

lIWe hereby acknowledge reading and receIVIng acompleted copy of this disclosure.

-
N IVm S»WU!

-
-80-

--
'0&17373750000020120'

203 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 33 of 50

DATE:
BORROWER:
CD-BORROWER:
10/13/2004
NIVIE SAMIIAN
• America,ao/essle lender, Its8lf or as agent
for Countrywide Bank, a Division of Treasury
Bank, N.A.
Sranch " 0080833
750 LINDllJIO 6:rJ1EJlT Sn: u a
SAIl lU\!'AlIL. CA 94901
CASE#: Pbone, (415)257-2701
LOAN #: 81737375 Dr Fax Mool (415)25t-0866
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 320 S PECK DR
BEVERLY BILLS, CA 90212-3715
noN SCHEDUlf::
PIofTPAVM1!NT PAlNCIPAL IH1Elll!5T BA1AIlCE pm PAYUeIIT PRlNCIPlU.1N'I!II£SI' 8A1AHCt! PUTPAWENT P_lU.1Il1I!REST BAlANCE

8e9LnnL09 Bol~nc., ~1.374.400.00 721835.69 2501.745333.951345021.611467835.69 3351.23 4U4.4&1129585.92


Intero"" line I 5.500\ 7) 7B35.69 2511.15 5U4.041342509.96 147 7835.69 3364." 4471.201126201.U
1 61'9.33 0.006299.331374400.00 74 7835.It 2521.59 5314.101331918.37 148 7B35.19 33n.n tc57.B81122B23.Il
2 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 75 7B35.0 2531.57 5304.12133745&.801497835.69 3391.1B 4444.511119432.44
3 6299.33 0.00 6199.331374400.00 7i 7835.0 2541.59 5294.101334915.21150 7835.69 3404.10 4431.091116027.84
4 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 77 7835.U 2551.65 5284.041332363.56 151 7835.69 3418.08 4417.611112609.76
562".33 0.006299.331374400.00 7B 7835.69 2561.75 5273.941329BOl.81 lS2 7835.69 3431.61 4404.081109178.15
6 6299.33 0.00 8299.331374400.00 "7835.It 2571.89 5263.881327229.9% 153 7835.69 3U5.19 U90.501105732.96
7 6291.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 80 7835.69 :1582.07 5293.621324647.85154 7835.69 345B.83 U76.86110227Q.13
8 1299.33 0.00 6299.331314400.00 81 7835.69 2592.29 5243.401322055.56 155 7B35.69 3472.52 4363.171098801.61
9 6299.33 0.00 6299.331314400.00 02 7835." 2602.55 5233.141319455.01 158 7835.69 3485.27 U49.4210953U.31
10 8299.33 0.00 1299.331374400.00 83 7835.dS 2612.86 5222.831311840.15 157 7835.69 3500.07 1335.12109J8r5.27
11 6299.33 0.00 1299.331374400.00 84 7835." 2623.20 5212.491314211.95 158 7U5.69 3513.92 4321.771081301.35
12 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 85 7835.69 2633.58 5202.111311513.37 159 7835.69 3527.03 4307.861084773.52
13 6299.33 0.006299.331374400.00 86 7835.69 2814.01 5191.181308139.31110 7835.69 3541.79 4293.901081231.73
14 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 B7 7B35.69 2854.47 5181.221306284.S! 161 7835.69 3555.81 4279.881077675.92
15 6299.33 0.008299.331374400.00 II 7035." 2&&4.98 5170.711303119.91 112 7835.69 3569.S! 4215.801074101.03
16 6299.33 0.00 6289.331374400.00 89 7835.69 2675.53 5350.161300944." 163 7835.69 3584.02 4251.671070512.01
17 G~~~.)3 11).00 Gt" .. 332,:'7i100.00 '0 'OJ:I: .. O ltGOG ..12 :a."P.S?l:,otGO • .2:G lGi ?03S.G9 ,:)IstD.C.). "&'').''010GGJ~3.DO
188299.33 0.006299.331374100.00 51 7835.69 2696.75 5138.941295561.51165 7835.69 3612.45 4223.241063311.35
19 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 92 7835.69 2707.43 5128.261292854.0B 166 7835.69 3126.75 4208.9410S96st.60
206299.53 0.00 6299.331374400.00 937835.69 2718.H 5117.551290135.94 167 7835.69 3141.11 4194.5810S8043.49
218299.33 0.006299.331374400.00 847835.02728.905106.791287407.041687835.69 3655.52 4180.171052387.97
228299.33 0.001299.331374400.00 957835.69 2739.70 5095.9912'4617.341169 7835.69 3169.99 4115.701048717.9&
23 6299.53 0.00 6299.331374400.00 "7835.69 2750.55 50B5.141281916.79 170 7035.69 3684.51 4151.181045033.47
H 6285.33 0.00 82".331374400.00 97 7815.69 2711.44 5074.251279155.35171 7835.69 3699.10 4136.591041334.37
25 6289.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 98 7835." 2772.37 5063.321271382.98 172 7835.69 3713.74 4121.951037620.63
28 8299.33 0.00 8299.331374400.00 "7B35.69 2783.34 5052.351273599.6C 173 7835.69 3728.44 4107.251033892.19
276299.33 0.00 6299.351374400.00 ~OO 7835.U 2794." 5041.331270B05.28 174 7835.19 5743.20 4092.49103014'.99
20 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 01 7835.0 2805.12 5030.271267999.86 175 7835.69 3758.02 4077.67102CJ90.97
29 8299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 102 7U5.69 2811.52 SOlt.171285183.34 171 7835.69 3772.B9 4062.801022818.08
30 6291.33 0.00 6298.331374400.00103 7835.69 2827.67 5008.0212623~.67 177 7835.19 3717.83 4047.861018830.25
31 U99.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00104 7135.69 2838.87 4996.8212n511.80 178 7835.69 3802.82 4052.871015027.43
32 6299.33 0.00 8299.331374400.00105 7155.69 2850.10 4985.591256868.70 179 7835.69 3817.87 4017.8Z1011209.56
33 82".33 0.00 62".331374400.00 106 7835.69 2861.38 4974.511253805.32180 7835.69 3832.99 9002.701007376.57
54 6289.33 0.00 1298.331374400.00~07 7835.68 287Z.71 4962.881250832.U 181 7835.69 3848.11 5"7.531003528.41
J5 6299.33 0.00 1299.331374400.00 ~Ol 7835.69 2081.08 4951.111248048.53 102 7835.69 3013.39 3972.30 999665.02
J6 8299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.001109 7835.S9 2U5.50 4940.191245153.03 183 7835.19 3878.1S 3957.01 995786.34
376299.53 0.00 62".331374400.00~10 7835.69 2906.96 4928.731242248.07 1847835.19 3891.04 3t41.65 981B92.30
38 8299.39 0.00 1299.3J137~400.00111 7835.69 2918.47 1917.221239327.60 185 7135.89 3901.45 3928.29 987982.15
39 6299.33 0.00 6299.331379400.0D~127835.69 2930.02 4905.671231397.581087835.19 3921.92 3910.77 984057.93
40 1299.33 0.00 6299.33137ttOO.OO~13 7855.69 2941.62 4894.071233455.96 IB7 7135.69 3840.41 3895.23 980117.47
41 8299.33 0.00 629,.331374400.00~U 7835.69 2953.26 4812.431230501.70 188 7835.19 3958.063879.63 976161.41
428299.33 0.006299.331374400.001157835.69 2964.95 4870.741227537.75 189 7135.69 3971.72 3813.97 972189.69
43 I2n.35 0.00 6299.331374400.0D 116 7835.69 2"6.69 4859.001224561.06 no 7835.69 3917.44 3848.25 968202.25
tt 6299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.00 iI17 7135.69 2188.47 4047.221221572.59 Itl 7835.69 4003.22 3832.47 914199.03
45 6299.35 0.00 8299.331374400.·00 18 7835.89 3000.30 4835.391218572.29'192 7135.69 4019.07 3811.62 910179.96
46 6299.33 0.00 1299.331374400.00119 7835.69 3012.17 4523.521215560.12 93 1835.69 403~.98 3800.71 9561tt.9B
47 8299.33 0.00 6299.331374400.001120 7835.69 3024.10 4811.591212536.02 154 7835.69 4050.95 3711.74 952094.03
48 6299.33 0.00 6289.331374400.00121 7155.69 3D36.07 47".62120,.99.95 95 7835.19 4066.98 3768.71 948027.05
49 6299.33 0.00 12".331374400.001122 7835.0 3048.08 4787.60U06U1.86 86 7135.69 .083.D8 3752.61 913943.97
5082".33 0.006299.331374400.001237835.03060.15 4775.541203391.71197 7835.69 4099.25 373S.Af 939814.72
51 8299.33 0.00 8299.331374400.001124 7135.65 3072.28 4763.4512005It.45 191 7135." 4115.87 3720.22 935729.25
52 6299.33 0.00 8299.33U71400.00l1ZS 7835.59 3084.43 4751.261197235.02 99 7135.69 4131.71 3703.93 931597.49
53 82".33 0.00 8299.33137UOO.00 126 7835.69 3096.63 4731.061194131.39200 7135.69 4148.12 9617.57 927441.37
54 6199.33 0.00 6299.33137UOO.00 127 7135.19 3108.89 4726.801191029.50201 7835.19 4164.54 3671.15 923284.83
$5 8299.33 0.00 6299.331374800.DO 128 7835.69 3121.20 4714.49118790B.30 202 7835.69 4181.02 3154.67 919103.81
5& 6299.33 0.00 1291.331374400.00 U9 7835.69 3133.55 4702.141184774.752037835.69 4197.57 3638.12 914506.24
57 6199.33 0.00 6291.331374400.00 130 7835.0 3145.'8 4889.731181828.79 204 7835.69 4n4.19 5621.50 910592.05
58 8299.33 0.00 6199.331374400.00131 7835.19 3158.41 4877.2811"470.38 05 7835.19 4230.87 3104.U 906481.Ie
59 62".33 0.00 6299.331374800.00 152 7835.19 3170.91 4664.7811752".97 08 7835." 4247.61 3581.08 902213.57
60 8299.33 0.00 8299.331374400.00133 7835.19 3183.41..4652.231172118.011207 7835." 4284.43 3571.26 197949.14
lntuest Rate :'.750\ 134 7835." 3196.06 4839.631168919.95208 7835.69 4281.31 3551.38 893&57.83
81 7835." 2395.36 5440.331372004.64135 7135.69 3208.72 4126.'71165711.23 209 7135.19 4291.25 3537.44 88"".58
62 7835.19 2404.84 5930.851369599.BO 138 7835.69 3221.42 4614.2711824".81 210 7835.'9 4315.27 3520.42 885054.11
6J 7835.69 2414.36 5421.331367185.84 137 7835.19 3234.17 4601.521159255.64 211 1835.19 4332.35 3503.34 180721.91
14 7835.6J 2425.91 5411.781384711.53 UI 7835.89 324i.97 4588.721156008,p 7835.6J 1212 4349.50 3481.19 '76372.18
85 7835.69 2433.51 5402.181362328.02139 7835.19 3259.81 4575.871152748.85 13 7835.69 4356.72 3'18.17 872005. H
" 7B35.6J 2.4f3.14 5392.551358184.81140 7835.69 327&F 4512.961149476.12 2It 7835.69 4584.00 3451.19 167621.74
" 7835.69 2452.11 5382.881357432.07 41 7835.69 5Zl1ilJr4550.011146190.48 215 7835.69 4401.35 383'.34 863220.39
" 7835.19 2462.52 5373.171354969.55 1C2 7835.69 5298.0 4537.001142891.75 216 7835.19 4418.78 3418.91 858101.11
69 1835.69 2472.27 5313.421352497.21 In 7835.69 3311.74 4523.951139580.01 217 7835.69 4938.27 33".42 854315.34
7D 7835.51 2482.05 5353.84135DOI5.23 44 7835.69 3324.85 8510.841136155.15 218 7U5.69 4453.83 3311.86 8499)1.51
71 7835.69 2491.88 5343.t11347523.35 US 7B35.&9 3338.01 4497.681152917.15 219 7U5.69 4471.463384.23 845440.05

Page 1012

204 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 34 of 50

....

Ptopotod br- GEllALD III:GRAHAM

DATE:
BORROWER:
co-aORROWER:
10/13/2004
NIVIE SAHAAN
• Amerlca·.Olesllle Lender, Itself or as egent
for CountrywIde Bank. 0 DIvision of Treasury
Bank. N.A.
a...nc~ I: 0000U3
750 LINDJ\IlO S7REeT 8m 110
S1o)I 1lAFAU., ClI tUOl
CASE': ebone: '4151257-2701
LOAN#: 817373" BE ,;axRo.: 14151259-0"6
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 320 S PECK DR
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212-3715
AMORTlZA1l0N SCHEDULE
PNTPAYMENTPIINCIPAL INTEREST BALANCe P,ITPAYIISlITPRlIlCIPAL INl1iIIesT DAl.ANCIl YII P A _ PRIltCIPAL IIIIl!R!STIIAtAHCa
220 1835.69 4489.16 33'6.53 840950.89 294 7835.69 6013.41 1822.21 454334.76 AIIlII/lIL 6 _ 1
2211835.6t 4506.83 3328.16 836443.96295 1835.1t 6031.20 1198.41 448291.48 ya r~T IllIERZST ~
222 7835.6' 4524.11 3310.92 831519.19 296 1835.69 6061.18 1714.51 442236.30!ee91nn!n9 Iialancc' 11.374,400.00
2231835.69 45U.68 32U.Ol 821316.51291 1835.69 6085.11 1150.52 436)51.13 1 75591.96 15591.961374400.00
224 '835.1t 4560.56 3275.03 822815.85298 1835.69 6109.26 1126.43 430041.87 2 75551.96 75591.96 1374400.00
2257835.69 4518.11 3256.98 018237.14 2U 1835.69 n33.H 1102.25 423908.43 3 75591.91 15591.96 1374400.00
2267835.6' 4596.83 3238.86 '13&40.31 380 1835.69 6151.72 1671.91 411150.11 4 75591.96 15591.96 1374iOO.OO
2211835.69 4n5.03 5220.56 809025.28 )811835.69 6182.09 1653.60 411lI68.62 5 15591.96 15!n.9I 1314400.00
228 1835.69 4633.30 32D2.39 8D4351.58 302 1835.69 6206.56 1625.13 405362.06 ~ 9402'.2' 64505.89 1315021.61
2297835.69 un.64 3184.05 15914D.34 3D3 1835.65 6231.13 1604.56395130.93 1 '402'.28 53223.62 1314215.95
230 7855.69 4610.05 3U5.64 155070.25 304 7835.69 6255.'0 1515.89 392815.13 • 94028.28 11129.1212'1916.11
231 1835.69 4688.54 3141.15 1903.1.75305 7135.69 6280.56 1555.13 386594.57 9 94028.28 60160.02 1248048.53
232 1835.69 4101.10 3128.59 185614.651306 1835.69 6305.42 1530.21 380289.15 10 94028.2' !8515.17 1212531.02
2331835.69 4125.13 310'.96 180"8.92 301 1835.69 6330.3D 1505.31 31395'.71 11 94020.2' "191.13 1115299.41
2301835.69 4744.43 30n.26 176204." 30B 7'35.69 6355.44 1480.25 J61603.JJ 12 '4028.28 54903.91 1136255.16
235 1835.69 4763.21 3012.4' 111441.2' 305 1835.65 6380.59 1455.10 361222.74 13 9402'.2' 530Bl.4' ID95315.3.
236 7835.65 4782.07 3053.52 766655.21310 1835.65 6405.15 1429.84 3548U.89 14 "028.2' 51100.51 1052381.91
2311835.69 4801.00 3034." 761858.21311 1835.65 6431.21 1404.48348385.68 15 "028;2. • "016.B8 1001376.51
231 1835." 4820.0D 3015.69 151038.21 312 7835.65 6456.66 1375.03 341925.02 16 '4028.28 46831.61 960119.96
2" 1835.65 4139.0B 2n6.n 152199.13 313 1835.65 64B2.22 H53.47 535446.80 11 86021.28 41510.31 910692.05
240 7835.65 4858.24 2571.45 141340.89 314 1835.69 6501.'9 1321.81 32893'.92 I' 94028.2' 42131.84 '58801.51
241 7835.65 4871.47 2'58.22 142463.42315 1835.65 6533.60 1302.05322405.28 19 91028.2' 39618.65 904391.'8
2427035.6' 4156.17 2938.52 137566.65311 1835.69 6559.50 1276.19315"5.78 20 '4028..2' 36917.19 747340.81
243 1835.U 4516.U 291'.53 732650.49 311 1835.65 6585.47 1250.:12 30t260.31 21 '4028.28 342Dl.41 681520.0'
244 1935.65 4535.62 250D.07 121114.873181835.6' 6611.53 1224.16 302648.18 22 5402'.28 31303.32 621795.12
2451935.65 4955.15 2890.54 122159.12 315 1835.65 6637.11 1191.58 296011.01 23 9402'.28 2825•• 14 559024.98
2U 1835.65 4"4.71 2960.52 111114.553201835.69 6663.98 1171.11 289347.09 24 94028.2' 2SCn.15 490051.'5
2417835.65 4950.46 2841.23 712190.t9 321 7835.59 5690.)6 1145.33 28:1656.73, 25 ,.02.;28 21711.14 411150.11
248 7835.69 5014.232821.46 101176.26322 1835.09 6115.84 1118.85 275535.'9 26 94028.29 18206.59 341929.02
249 1835.69 5034.08 2801.61 102142.18 323 1935.69 6143.43 1092.26265196.4' 27 9402'.28 14525.60 262426.94
250 1835..69 5054.00 2181.69 697698.18324 7835.69 6710.12 1065.51 262426.34 28 9402'.28 10615.92 179053.9'
251 1835.69 5074.01 2161.68 692614.11525 1835.69 6196.92 1038.11 255525.42 n 94028.29 611'.84 91'51.54
252 1835.69 5094.09 2741.60 597520.08326 1835.65 6823.82 1011.81 248805.60 30 94029.83 2375.29 0.00
253 1835.69 5114.26 21:11.43 682405.82 321 1035.69 5850.83 584.86 241954.77
2541835.65 5134.50 2701.15 611271.323281835.65 6877.'5 957.14 235016.BZ
'----
2128668.35 1354268.35
255 7935.69 5154.82 2680.91 612116.5032' 1835.69 6'05.18 930.51 22'171.64
256 7835.65 5115.23 2660.46 666541.21330 7935.69 6532.51 903.18 221235.13
2511835.69 5155.11 2639.99 661745.56 331 1135.Ot " " . " 815.74214215.18
251 1935.09 5216.2' 2619.41 656529.28332 1835.69 6587.50 848.19 201291.68
259 1835.69 5235.93 2598.16 651292.35333 1835.69 1015.16 '20.53200276.52
260 7135.69 5251.66 2578.03 646034.69 314 1835.69 1042.53 792.76 193233.59
261 7I35.n 5278.47 2551.22 640756.22 ~35 1835.69 7010.81 764.18 1'1112.78
262 lU5.69 5299.35 2536.33 535456.96~36 1835.69 1099.'0 736.1' 179063.98
·263 7835.69 5320.34 2515.35 630136.52331 1835.69 1126.~ 108.79 171931.08
264 7855.65 5341.40 2484.29 6un5.n 338 7835.69 1155.11 690.5t 164181.97
265 1835.65 5362.54 2413.15 619432.5' 335 1835.69 1183.43 652.26 151589.5.
266 7'35.69 5383.17 2~51.82 114048.813401835.69 1211.86 623.83 1503B6.68
261 1835.69 5405.082430.61608603.13 3U 7835.6' 72tO.U 555.28143146.27
268 7835.69 5U6.4, 2405.21 603211.25 342 7035.69 1218.01 566.62 135811.20
269 7835.18 5447.96 2381.13 "1769.29343 1835.65 1297.84 531.15 128575.36
2707835.69 5058.52 2366.17 592299.17 344 7835.69 132li.13 508.56 121252.63
211 7835.69 5491.11 2344.52 586808.60 345 1835.69 1355.13 41'.96 113B9&.90
212 7835.69 5512.51 2322.71 5812'5.69346 1835.69 1584.85 450.84 106512.05
213 1835.69 5534.13 2300.96 575760.96 347 7835.69 1414.08 4%1.11 99091.97
274 7935.59 5555.54 2279.05 570204.32348 7835.69 7443.43 392.26 91654.5'
215 7835.69 5518.63 2251.01 564625.69 349 1835.59 1412.1' 362.80 84181.65
215 7835.18 5600.11 2234.98 559024.991350 7135.69 1502 ••7 333.22 76679.18
271 7835.69 5622.88 2212.81 553402.10351 1835.69 1532.17 303.52 69141.01
278 1835.69 5645.14 2150.55 541756.96 3527835.69 1561.98 213.71 61585.03
279 1835.69 5667.49 2160.20 501201'.41 3537835.69 1591.92 243.17 53953.11
2.0 7835.69 SlSt.n 2145.17 535399.55,154 1835.59 7621.97 213.72 41571.14
2.1 7835.68 5712.44 2123.25 530681.11 ~55 1835.69 7652.14 183.55 3na.00
2'2 7835.69 5'35.05 2100.6t 524952.01355 7835.69 7682.43 153.25 31036.57
283 1835.69 5751.15 2017.94515154.313511835.65 7712.84 122.85 23323.13
284 lU5.19 5780.55 2055.14 513413.76558 1835.15 7743.31 n.32 15$10.36
2.5 1835.69 5803.432032.26 507610.331359 1835.69 7114.02 l1.iT 1006.34
286 7835.69 5826.40 20D9.2' 501183.53 360 lU7.24 7806.34 30.50 0.90
281 1835.69 5BO.46 15B6.23 495534.47
218 1835.69 5812.U 1963.01 00061.85
20t 7835.69 5'95.86193'.83 4841&5." -82-
2'0 1835.65 5519.20 1915••5 478246."
291 7835.69 5842.13 1893.06 412304.16
292 1835.69 '966.15 1869.54 465338.01
2'5 1835.59 stU.17 1845.92 46034'.24

Page 2012

205 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 35 of 50

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
EXHIBITH
27
28
-83-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide
206 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 36 of 50

CLUES LOAN ANALYSIS REPORT

=====~=~===
===;==========================
=================;;==~========

- CLUES -
countr ywide Loan Under writin g
Exper t System
Loan Repor t
=====~=======================
============================ 1.0 DECISION
Date: Thurs day, Octob er 14, 2004 11:49 AM
Credi t Decis ion: REFER.

Loan Number: 817373 75


Credi t: Accep table (MERGE-CREDIT)
Abili ty: Quest ionab le
Produ ct Comp liance : .-NO
Docum entatio n: ~UCED ~
c---
Appra isal Eligi bility : Stand ard Full Appra isal or 2055 I&E,
with an additi onal Field Review

This loan has been referr ed by CLUES due to the follow ing reaso ns:
~ ~ flO/IDII~ ~ ~
Abili ty: of layere d risk
The inform ation provid ed indic ates a combi nation asset s, high LTV,
facto rs which may includ e insuf ficien t liquid loan progra m
credi t histo ry, and/o r high debt ratios for the
selec ted.
Comp liance - Gener al: on the Non-C onf ARM Fixed
A- minimum of 6 month s reserv es are requir ed 9).
Perio d LIBOR Inter est Only progra m. (1886
ing Mega Loan.
Reduc ed docum entati on is not allow ed on a Non-C onform
(1517 2).

The max loan amoun t is $1,000 ,000 on Non-Conf ARM Fixed Perio d LIBOR
Inter est Only loans . (5998 ).
============================= 2.0 SUMMARY =============================
Borro wer: Nivie Sarnaan

Prope rty Addre ss:' 320 S Peck Dr


Bever ly Hills , CA 90212 -3715

Loan Progra m Name: NC 5/1 LIBR ARM _Ii4~erestOnly

Conve ntiona l Loan Amount: $ 1,374 ,400


Loan Type: n/a
Loan Purpo se: Purch ase Casho ut Amount:
Loan progra m ID: 657

207 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 37 of 50

Credi t Score :
Prope rty Usage :
72.
Prima ry Res. Appra ised Value : $ 1,718 ,000
Singl e Famil y Purch ase Price : $ 1/718 ,000
Prope rty Type:
Calcu lated LTV/CL TV: $ l,718~ OOO
Value for
Term: 360
Amor tizatio n: ARM
Note/Q ual. Rate: 5.5/5. 5%
Max Qual. Rate: 5.5%
First Lien LTV: BO.OO%
Secon d Lien'L TV: 100.00 %
CLTV: 180.00 %

Calcu lation s: All Borrow ers


Total Incom e: $ 33,33 3.00
Total Oblig ations : $ 10,46 5.91
PITI: $ 9,50.9 . .91
PITI Ratio : 28.53%
Total Debt Ratio : 31.40%
Month s Reser ves: 6.82
Reser ves amoun t: $ 64,84 3.00

===================== 3.0 UNDERWRITING CONDITIONS ===;=================


The follow ing condi tions must be satisf ied:
Abili ty: NIVIE SAMAAN has been
The SAtARY incom e, $3333 3.00, from a BASE job of ry of this incom e
used to rate the abilit y. Verif y 2 years histo
using Full or Alter nate docum entati on.

Appra isal: from the date of the


If applic able, if this loan close s over 60 days ment 2055 Exter ior Only
appra isal, obtai n an Updat e of Prior Assign
verify ing that no reduc tion in value has taken place . The Updat e of
must be dated withi n 60 days of
Prior Assign ment 2055 Exter ior Only
the Note date.
Stand ard Full Appra isal or 2055 Inter ior and Exter ior requi red.
Addit ional Field review done by a CHL appro ved review appra iser will
be requi red.
Incom e and Emplo yment : n/ has been with
Verif y that the self-e mploy ed borrow er, Nivie atSamaa
least 2 years using
the same b~siness and at the same locati on
e, (ii) CPA, (iii)R egula tory Agenc y
such sourc es as (i)bus iness licens verify ing emplo yment ,
or. Civ)P rofess ional Organ izatio n. Note: When
no incom e may be disclo sed. '

Asset s: y all asset s


The borrow er curre ntly has 6.82 month s reserv es. Verif
entere d into CLUES. .
most recen t accou nt
Must be verif ied by obtain ing the two (2) month 's wer's
VOD. The asset s m~3_b e the Borro own funds .
statem ents or
Other : to fundin g.
Obtai n a signed 4506 for borrow er NIVIE SAMAAN prior

208 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 38 of 50

==================~== JIt GENERAL LOAN CONDITIONS iIl==================


Based on the credi t repor t obtain ed in CLUES, this loan must close on or
befor e Febru ary 07, 2005 and credi t docum ents must be dated within 120
days of the closin g date. For new const ructio n, it must close on or
befor e April DB, 2005 and credi t docum ents must be dated within 180
days of the closin g date.

If the borrow er is a Realt or, saies assoc iate or [real estate ] broke r,
they may not use any comm ission earned from the sale of the subje ct
prope rty towar ds the downp aymen t, clos~ ng costs or reserv es for this
transa ction .
If applic able, provid e satisf actor y docum entati on to expla in any
varia tion betwe en the loan applic ation and the credi t repor t:
* Varia tion in the applic ant(s) addre ss in the prior 2 years
ant(s) employ ment
* Varia tion in the applic ant(s) name repor ted in the in the prior 2 years
AKA Inform ation
* Varia tion in the applic
sectio n of the credi t repor t
* Any indic ation of Socia l Secur ity Number discre pancy or fraud in the
Fraud Verif icatio n Inform ation sectio n
corre ct vestin g and
Review the prelim inary title commitment to verify chmen
and clear all liens and encroa ts that would
legal descr iption ct mortg age/de ed of trust .
impai r the prope r lien positi on of the subje
se.
Obtai n a copy of the Appr aiser' s curre nt valid state licen
Obtai n a signed and dated Final Loan A?pli cation .
d area, a valid
If the prope rty is desig nated in a speci al flood hazar to closin g eviden cing
flood insura nce polic y/bin der is requir ed prior
the appro priate lende r as the loss payee .

CHL will not financ e more than 4 loans to one as borrow er. This limit
. includ es loans alread y origin ated, as well loans in the branc h
pipel ine. Excep tions to this polic y can be 'made up to an addit ional 4
loans if the follow ing param eters are met:
Purch ase or Rate and Term refina nce
Fixed rate only
One Unit prope rties only
Maximum LTV is 60% the Divis ion's
Any excep tions to this guide line MUST be appro ved by
Under writin g Suppo rt.
appra isal.
Provid e a ~opy of the appra iser's invoi ce/bi ll for the
A valid hazar d insura nce polic y is requir ed evide ncing the appropria~e
lende r as the loss payee . Satisf actor y eviden ce of hazar d insura nce
cover age must b~' obtain ed prior to closin g. Satis facto ry eviden ce can
be anyon e of the follow ing: Decla ration page insura of the polic y, polic y
payme nt or compl ete hazard nce policy .
binde r with proof of value of the
Cover age must equal the lesse r of the insura ble
unpai d balan ce of the mortg age, with replac ement
impro vemen ts or the t of damag e or loss
cost endor semen t to compe nsate for the full amoun
Note: if the co~~e te hazar d insura nce polic y is not
to impro vemen ts. a post- closin g traili ng
obtain ed prior to closin g, it must follow as
docum ent. .

209 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 39 of 50

ba~
on occup ancy, loan
Loah must meet all othJlt publi shed requir ement s on type.
type, borrow er chara cteris tics and docum entati
==============
=================== 5.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY EVALUATION =====
-- 5.1 Publi c Recor ds Analy sis -----

Stree t Addre ss: 320 S Peck Dr


Bever ly Hills 90212
Owner of Recor d: Zerni k,Jose ph H
Prope rty Type: Single Famil y
Gross Livin g Area: 2,650 sq. ft.
Lot Size: 6,400 sq. ft.
Asses sed Value : $995,2 13 Year Built : 1930
Prevo Sales Date: 05/30 /1997
Prevo Sales Price : $442,5 00
3.00
# of Bedro oms: 4 # of Bathro oms:

Sales Comp arable s from analy sis of Publi c Recor ds:


Addre ss Sales ·Prc. Sales Date Dist. Dr Sq. Ft. Lot Size
----- ----- ----- --- --~-- ----- - ------ ---- ------ ------ ------ --
$1,525 ,000 06/02/ 2004 0.0 m S 2,719 7,680
3~5 Peck Dr S 7,336
3~4 Camden Dr S $1,445 ,000 08/02/ 2004 0,1 m SE 2,539
10/29/ 2003· 0.3 m NW 2,939 7,040
2~9 Linde n Dr S $1,50 0,000
7,680
308 Bedfo rd Dr S $1,500 ,000 08/27/ 2004 0.1 m W 3,014
$1,675 ,000 06/09/ 2Q04 0.2 m N 2,607 7,680
208 Peck Dr S 7,244
502 Hillg reen Dr $1,995 ,000 06/14/ 2004 0.5 m SW 3,499
$1,400 ,000 04/27/ 2004 0.4 m SW 1,911 9,100
439 Spald ing Dr S 7,680
3J.2 Camden Dr S $1,965 ,000 02/20/ 2004 0.1 m E 3,107
01/30/ 2004 0.2 m NE 3,904 7,040
225 Rodeo Dr S $1,800 ,000

==============
============================ 6.0 ANALYSIS ===============
-- 6.1 Score s ------ ------ ------ ----
FICO SC9re s:
Borro wer Code Credi t Score s
TRW EquiF ax TransU nion Final
P 723 723 730 723
Nivie Samaan
(Borro wer codes : P=Prim ary, X=Sco re Exclud ed)

FICO Facto rs for Nivie Samaa n. Score : 723


Number of inqui res within last twelv e month s.
al or other
Relat ionsh ip of balan ce to high credi t on bank/ nation
revolv ing/op en accou nts.
Lengt h of time since most recen t payme nt inform ation.
Outst andip g balan ces on revolv ing/op en accou nts.
-- 6.2 Credi t =87-

-- 6.3 Abili ty ----- ----- ----- ----- -


Total Incom e

210 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 40 of 50

Borro wer/Jo b Incom e Type Amount Total

Nivie Samaa n
Salary $ 33,33 3.00

Sub-t otal: $ 33,33 3.00

Total Incom e: $ 33,33 3.00

Ratio s: s:
The follow ing liabi lities were includ ed in the oblig ation
Type Accou nt Name Accou nt # Payme nt Dflt
Borrow er
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- ------ ----
290636 11 $ 182.00
Nivie Samaa n rvlv WASHINGTON .. .• 000006 200.00
Nivie Samaa n rvlv FLEET CC 430550 033675 $
FIRaT USA 433237 006104 $ 194.00
Hi-vie Samaa n rv1v
$ 114.00
Nivie Samaa n rvlv BARNEYS NY .. 600335 5682 266.0.0
Nivie Samaa n inst FIRST ENTE •. 925840 600 $
Total : $ 956.00

Dflt: Defau lted payme nt code: off.


$10= Defau lt payme nt of $10 on accou nts to be paid
BAL= Defau lt payme nt of entire balan ce
5% = Defau lt payme nt of 5% of balan ce.

Month ly Housi ng Expen ses:


Item Amount Total .

MHE Prese nt:


P&I $ 6,299 .00
Rent $ ~,390 .00
HI $ 400.00
Tax $ 1,790 .00
Other Finan cing $ 1,020 .00
Expen ses
Total $ 12,89 9.00

MHE Propo sed:


P&I $ 6,299 .33
HI $ 401.00
Tax $ 1,789 .58
Secon dary Finan cing . $ 1,020 .00
------ ------ -
Total $ .91
9,509

On $1,37 4,400 .00 quali fied at 5.500% for 360 gmonth s. The MHE total
of $9509 .91 was used to calcu late the housin expen se of
28.53%
indic ated in the Summa ry Sectio n 2.0.

Quali fied at: 5.500% ; Amortization8~erm 360; P&I= $6299 .33.

Total Debt

211 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 41 of 50

Item Total

Perso nal Expen ses:


Credi t $ 956.00
MHE Propo sed:
PITI $ 9,509 .91
REO Expen ses: $ 0.00
------ ------ -
Total Debt $ 5.91
10,46

to calcu late the Total


Note: The. Total Debt of $1046 5.91 was used ry
Debt ratio of 31.40% indica ted in the Summa Sectio n 2.0.

Detai ls of Trans action :


Item Amount Total

Costs :
Subje ct: $l,71B ,qOO.O O
Exist ing
SUbo rdinat ing 2nd: $ 171,8 00.00
prepa id Escrow s: $ 6,213 .00
Closin g Costs : $ 20,54 4.00
Sub Total : $1,74 4,757 .00

Cash In:
Loan Amount: $1,37 4,400 .00
Dther Finan cing: $ 171,8 00.00
Sub Total : $ -J:546 200.00

Cash From Borro wer: $ 198,5 57.00

Reser ves calcu lation :


Type Amount Total

Li.qui d Als:>et: >:


Accou nts & Funds : $ 263,4 00.00
Sub Total : $ 263,4 00.00

Less Fees & Expen ses:


Cash to Close : $ 198,5 57.00
Sub Total : $ -198,5 57.00

$ 64,B4 3.00
Total Reser ves:
deduc ted from' the
The cash to close , in the amoun t of $198,5 57.00, was
liquid asset s.

=========================== 7.0 BOOKKEEPING ===========================


04.09 .28-FL (Sep ~7, 2004)
CLUES A*E Versi on:
Divis ion: Whole sale ~~anch Number: 00009 33-000
Input File: tmp4BD.tmp Reque st Versio n:C
Track ing Number: 022093 300000 817373 7503
Input Data: Detai l

212 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 42 of 50

Servi ce Pack Ver: 04.t. 28


Busin e~s Rules Ver: 04.10A .02 10/01/ 2004 12:01 :20
Busin ess Rules EC: Succe ss (156)
Public Recor ds EC: Succe ss (2a)
Refer ence Number: CC3796290512
Under writin g Based On: CLUES

- - -ONDERWRITER RATING- --
ABILITY POOR
CREDIT EXCELLENT
APPRAISAL N/a
UNDERWRITER COMMENTS

Under writer :
Decis ion: NO DECIS ION HAS HEEN SELECTED
Date: 10 14 2004
Loan Versi on: C

END OF REPORT~

-90-

213 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 43 of 50

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT I
28
-91-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan AJ!plications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & Countrywide
214 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 44 of 50

AMERICA'S WHOLESALE LENDeR-.


.t'
IlrokBr. IUCIlAEL Jl\MES O'REILL¥ DBA PACIFIC
Branch t: 0000933 BIokBt
750 LINDARO STREtI SIt 110
Conlacl: VICTOR PARKS
SAN Rl\F1IEL, CA 94901
IlrokBr
Phone: (415)257 -2701 Ph1lne: (4151444 -0448
Br Fax No.: (415)259 -0866 Iln>kBr
FUll: (4151492 -4388
SUSPENDED

DIANE FRJIZIER 10/14/20 04 3,p .1.1'1" - ?~I, j'1/£ .<n.,.. 71i.Dv


the terms listed below:
ThIs Is to Inform you that your loan submissIon was revl~wed at
_
Loanc: 81737375 Borrowe(.N"'"e:•..:S"AMAAN==".--:Nc"IV=I::E'--

Applied loan Amount 1,374,40 0.00 P~mm:NC 5/1 LIBR J\RM InterestO nly

PIJtpose: PURCHASE,OtlNER OCCUPIED, REDUCED


SlarITerm: 60 LTV: 80.00
StartRate: 5.500
~OAN AMOUNT: -=10::..3~7::-4:-,""4-:0""0 -:.0 '-:0"--
be able to approve
Subject to the specific conditio ns listed below, we will approval , no change
your loan SUbmiss ion. For all submissi ons, pend1ng final and the credit
in the borrowe r(s) financia l status or employment can occur,
documen ts and appraisa l must reMain current.
any items listed
To avoid having your submissi on closed for incomple teness, 10 days of the
below as 'Require d Prior to Approva l' must be received within
date shown above.
CondlUons at P~ 2 - ApptOVlll: 17

Roquirod CondlUon Cond1tlort


Pdo/to Status Codo CondUIon De3<iCommenb

~-~ BOlUlOliEl\ le1IRIT1'&I1 E:XPLl\NUI Oll REGARDING _


'X' ~ Acceptab
APPROVAL OPEIl
explanati on "hy business in 411 reverse J.:; on 1227 So
Alfred, L.A.

\X C2> Corp approval


APPROV1\L OPElI 138. Orm;;R COlIDUIOll 1
req'd for this enhallced prograDl wi added to ~
witb
any condition s, prov1de a complete copy package along
tf!i!J ,

APPROVAL OPEN

"'-'
e~
all condition s in triplicat e
139. 0Tlll::R CORDInOI l 2
Pricing to be oorrected to sbow .7St add to f.... for this
exception program
OTHERCOlIDInOH 4
enhanoed

APPROV1\L OPEN
erifll ~30k on depo.lt wi escrow wi source
veriUed

~
APPROVAL 91'EII 14 mER CONDInOl l S
ronde cOJDplete executed purchas@ contract, esorow instructi ons

~
ill not act as a aubstitut e
AP1'ROVAL OPEN 4. orm;;R C0I1DUIOl/ 7
g filed la:st 2
P.rovlde 03' bU:linesa license or CPA letter ver:Lfy~

~
yrs 1040' s as self e..ployed same location
OPElI • 0'I1lER CORDInOl l 8
IIF 10k stmt. '681-4098 380 for 7/12 thru 8/12 at ~180k
DOC1IHE:IlTS OPEN 006. APl'RAISA L-Aca:PTA BLE fIELD IlEVXEW (TO SlJPPORT
$--'
«««« ConcUeion informati on continues on att.ached addendum
»»»»

Total . . t..
~",'~"'.o",n...:..~",-9
Outst~&",:di _
10/14/20 04

Un_~SSII/ll~ U

DaIB
DVP'llIRVP'slRSM'. S1gnahnll

flWVNCOIfoI
• UNDElIWRIIlNG DECISIONItlONDIT101lIETre11
~(CJ7JO'ltd) .
-92-

215 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 45 of 50

i:Dan:: 81737375

ADDENDUM TO UNDEAWRrrlNG DECISIONlCONDmON lETTER
(PAGE2 OF2 )

Bo""""fc Namo:NIVJ:& SAlmAN

Requlnlcl Condlllon Condltfon DasetlpUan/Colrmonls


CondlOon
PriDrTo Status CodD
c_ds<Oo -ftQ',C,
$1,718,00 0 ptogralh guideline at cost to brwr, clll
.eo_p ep~1' 9ttar
DOCOHE:IlTS OPEN 064. CORl\ECI1!3l/S1GilEll 1003 tAT LOCK-m-ll ATE)
Show type of busine'"
DOCOt'lElfIS OI>EN ~ oTI!&R COIlDITlOl4 6
Acceptab le VOR coverinq prasen-c residence , .req'd for
2nd
VAL-$_)
FUlIDING OI>EN 007. A!>PRAISAL-ACCEPTABLE CBL/NEW M'PRAISAL (MIN
i f not funded by 1212 provide a drivoby ext as a recert
FlnlDIIIG OPEN 010. APPIlAISAL-Al>PRAISER TO PROVDlE CORIIEIIT LICENSE
Provide also an additiona l set. at color photos
AND COR!IECT
FUt,llING OPEn 028. BROKER CERTIFICA TIOl! TflAT ALL COPIES ARE TROE
FUNDING OPEN 077. RELOC - Copy OF FIRSt MORTGAGE NOn:
Concurren t close w1th 2nd. at $171800 , provide Dote
FOtlDIIlG OPEn 093. :rNaa€-CO~lPLETEfSIGIIEDFORM 4506 I 95-01
FtlHDnlG OPEN 140. OTHIlR COIlDITl011 3
Collect $:400 appraisa l field review feG from b~W1: in escrow

-93-
Fll.W1JCONV
• UNIlEllWlllT1NG Il5CISIO.'III(;ONOmo.~ lETIER
zcao.us (07104)

216 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 46 of 50

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
EXHIBIT J
27
28 -94-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & Countrywide 217 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 47 of 50

WLD EXCEPTION FORM - BRANCH

~~~~"40""P" M.!.~~~:tJ:?~ 7908113-a-;S by

80/90 to 1.5M usln Core Jumbo with .750% add to fee tor Reduced Doc

Borrower Last Name Borrower SSN FIle In Branch


Borrower Fl~t Name Yes
Nlvle Samaan 568579489
Co-Borrower Last Name Co-Borrower SSN Type of Submission
Co·Borrower First Name EPS Database

Branch Information
Region Branch Contacl: Conlactext Branch Requestor
Branch Number 2703 krislln
0000933 85 Marla mclalllin
orlonlWLO/CFICCI

SP Information
BP Source Code BPName
09894 Pacific Mortgage
... . Consultanls

Loan InformaUon 1st Lien


1st Lien Loan Program 1st Uen Loan Program· DacumentaUon Type:
LDan Number.
Name: Number.
NonConf ARM L1BOR 511 657 Reduced Doc
81737375
5·2·5 InlereslOnly
LTV CLTV MI
1st Uen Loan Amount: Na15HLUen? 90.00% No
1.374,400.00 Yes 80.00%
Loan Intormallon 2nd Uen 2nd Uen Draw
2nd Uen loan .Program 2nd Uen LDan Amount:
2nd Uen Loan Number 2nd Uen Loan Program Amount:
Number. Name:
HElOC 10yrDraWl15yr 171,800.00 5171800.00
81737383 373
Repay
Propertv InformeUon
Purchase Price Appraisal Value Year Acquired
1.718.000.00 1.718,000.00 2004 ~Celculate l TV/CI,TVI
Property City Property Slate OcaJpancy Type
Property Address Owner OccuDled
320 S. Peck Drive BeverlvHlIIs CA
Property Type
loan Purpose Condo Type
SFR
Purchase

.-
Borrower Informetron
Borrower Co-Borrower
Co-Borrower Income Co-Borrower Employer
_l:>nrm'......Inr:ome Borrower Employer
.1:.~ ,"b'?:l ::> Spellbound Enterprise, Inc•
BorrowerYears on job Co-Bo~SmfEmpfoyeed Co-Borrower Years on Job
BorrowerSenE~oyed
Yes 4
BomawerPosffionTnUe Co-Borrower PoslUonITIIle
PresIdent
If less than 2 ears on the lob
If·less than 2 ears on the lab Self Employed
Employer Self Employed Employer

PosifionTnlle Years on job Posi6onlnUe


'rears 00 lob

Borrower Credit Inrormallon


_u,,_
I I I

218 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 48 of 50

Monthly Obligation Ratios Reserves


PITI 64.843.00
9509.91 956.00 2.85%
3.14%
:9aicR!lti~
Credit Score· Borrower Credit Score - CO-Borrower
723
GOod Loan
credit COmments: Borrower's Rallo's Should be 28.85/31.40, Good Reserves.
Guideline Exception
OTHER (add comments below)
Comments for Other: SUDer Jumbo
Compensating Factors
Excellent Credit, Excellent Job Stablrrty, Excellent Reserves. HIgh F1cos
Requestor COmments

US/Secondary Comments

Standard Condilions

All the Information contained In thIs request Is accurate


The loan meets all other program guldellnes and requirements
The appraIsal supports the value and marketablfily of the SUbJect. are within a reasonable distance from the SUbJect.
The appraisal comps are: 1) similar In size and design 2) recent sales and 3)
If all conditions above are not met lhls exception Is null and voidl ID be In file plior ID closing
Non delegated Milo be obtained by the branch and a copy of the certJficate
If loan Is Treasury Bank eligible. please remove from the Bank's pipeline.

Additional Condillons

Requestor COmments (old):

.
j
-96-

219 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-2 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 49 of 50

2
3
4
5
6

8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27
EXHIBITK
28
-97-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan A{lplications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & Countrywide
220 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
1st Lien Amount: 1,374.400.00
• 2nd Loan Amount: 171,800.00

Appraisal Value: 1,718,000.00 Property Type: SFR Doc Type: Reduced Doc

Document 40-2
LTV: 80.00% CLTV: 90.00% . MI: No
*.~* •••,",••••,.,•••••• ,.*••• *.*.*,•••,••*.,.*,.,*'*.'*"""'*'*"'*"*""""""**""""""*'*""a***a,*****•••*
.
Exception Request DetaUs:

Filed 04/17/2008
: 80/90 to 1.5M using Core Jumbo with .750% add \9dee for Reduced Doc
Kristin Orton,10/25/2004 3:08:49 PM·>Borrower's'~6bme Should Be $33,333 Not $333,333
Mlcnelle petti, 1UJ2612UU4 3~U3:'4 PM~~elVea IOanlll£:ftO"aay
Demetrio Gadi, 10129/200410:29:57 AM·>File is approved with no exc;:eptlons under the Enhanced 80/90
program•
•••••,••••" ••••••••••••••*.'•••••a••••••••".•••••" ••••".,••",••••••••••••••,.*.*•••*.",.,•••".**•••",*",." ••••••

Page 50 of 50
'*
Conditions:

221 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 50

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
EXHIBITL
28
-99-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Undenvritmg by Samaan & Countrywide

222 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 2 of 50

WebTrak Order Entry -

WEBTRAK ORDER ENTRY


··
t.
, .- Page 1 of 1

Thank you for your order. The case has been assigned a tracking code of41004810.

ICategory II Data I
IOrder Number 1141004810 I
IJob Type II Field 2000 I
Loan Number 18 1737375
I
INlvle Samaan
f.§.M_ \320 S. Peck Drive
I
I
IProperty City II Beverly HHls I
IProp~r:ty State IleA I
CLIENT ALERT:
Ifthe'or~er confirmed on this page was a REVIEW PRODUCT, please send the appraisal to
be reviewed to:
[1} E-mail PDF copies to: Review Order Desk.
00 . ./
[2J Print this page and use as a cover sheet to fax the appraisal to LSI @.800-668-8585.

The review process will be initiated following receipt of your appraisal report.

Please be sure to note the order number carefully on your loan file. If you wish to make
changes to the information just entered or need to cancel the order, please contact one of our
customer service representatives at your nearest office.

To enter additional orders, please press the Order Entry button on the left menu ~ar.

ReportAES·1006W
CDpyrlght@1999Appralsal Enhancement Services

-100-

http://www ousleyinc.comIWebTraklclient_module/securedJ'ages/order_entry2.asp
1 10/2512004

223 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 3 of 50

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 EXH IBIT M
28
-101-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent


Repre
Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide sentations
224 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 4 of 50

e:ro-:.r.' KlCME'" JAMES O'llE'ILl>Y' DII'l'. PACltIc:


MOR'tGM& CWSOLIAN,TS

llranch I, 0000933 "aka<"""""'" .:.V.::IC::.T::.:O",R.:.'0,-,2",1<RK::c,::c',:::5-.:.' _

7~0 I.!NOJ\.ll.O S = l sn; un


SAN RllFIlEL, eA lt4901 -_
Phone: (415)257-2101
F*X: BltIIcw Fa·.r.
If you !l&Vt qUHllons aboulltll. ~, p1_ corrttet' us at tho< phone number 'Jli>¢'i'h
Xil)a.., n _ r 61737375 lias be"n ",,":levEl<! a" tho. fOllovinq t!lrntS f<ir NXVUo SA_I<:

~TYI>V: OI'l!fD:fl;OCCUPIIlO
~nTl't"I: ItSb'tl'Ci;O
finan.. Typo: 1'ClRCliAS£ R~k_: NIll;'
Proj)lta1y_lZO S Pl<CK OR C<>dISoo.,,, 723
Il!i'VBRXiY f1l:LLS, Ch
90212-3115 LO<.:k E:o-::pirat'ion"
::Ja:e:,
f'raI>ollt Typo: Sf'll
u.nP~: F),x:rt

1l-.-.aI
11.314.4,00.00 .
I~~
,~O. 500
""rnJoodvor""
0.00
_Aol.o
5.500
-p-
I. ?-ta.. aao. 00
DIooIi'llo·
0....0:00
~lradex """vIn : Pfopa.;....!.F\onOlty?
i~,I.H! 2.250 "$0., I(o;..ot'.~.

This lo-an has been SUSOCN.OEO urtt;;i.l tiM fallovin.g' ino£ortnation iI', :pl".ov,id4!d-~ {fe, "'11"•. &'e~e,iV"e.:
this infocmat.ion· by 10/2S1200-4 t If ""eo do. not. rece.i:v:-c i-t by th-at.: date';:· "'e- lIl\l,s:t ClOff.' tne:e- f:!le
.Ear inocu.pletenes3. Whetl wee recoe-ive. th~ ini£om:a:,t-i:oo r · we ...:ill, review ('he· (i.I.e' 50:t::" f,urth-e:--x:
determL'1ar.ion ..

1 corp- appro",,,-l req:d' for ~h.1:s; enh6rtI;M~ program vI . ')S~~dde<l to


t:~4 . Aliy cortcUt,1on" .p:-.ov;i:ue a C1aripJ.~ttt copy padlage a,l<mq with
"U CQhdJ....iol\:!I . .in ·~r,1pllc.t:..

2 ttZ·Jt:1n:'l>C'O .b-e' c01':r.ec-t..~tO- .how- .l9.\· -.do "to ['It'e' tOl: ~hl" ..nh..net!d
.xc~p.t1.on .pt'oQ'%aJlt-

PrOv.1cwcorupl.:I:.C: .•Kecu-zCdpu~ch4:i.,co-n~rllat.. fucrov .1,utt.tuet'-1on:a


vitlflot;·· .u:i;.· .... au,.l,~$.tvtt:oi:: ,
I

API'!lU$A!>"AC'"..r.PrAJlLl< !'±tL!> !tt.VrB1I' (TO !'.llP!'<l"J ' 1 .


$1#118~I1{)O: prOl1r-AJlt q\li1c!.U1J).•. 4.1:.. coct'td btV'r.. >"'i11 Q,tilc.:r ~ftex
ec.r~.6pp:rovJil (Ozdo~ad ~Q/~S:la'4j

s cdn~'!lVSIc;NED 1011:f IAr L<lC~-I1'I-Rll£1


.hOil,t~ otbusiMSS

{p",qe' 1 of :t 1.t1:6.f2004~O.44,511

"~OCCI6tQN/CoNomO'H.ETI1OR.
\'o\Il.
~I-

IIII
-o::nt.l·
-102-

225 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 5 of 50

LJ2UGX& At

(TIJ()OC~ 26 2DC, lG:~4/ST. :C:53/11O. 5334870666 P

Loon., 61737315 8otrc..... Nanw: :.:SAMAAN=='-',c....:":.:I::V:.:!:.:£=-- _

W. ",1.11. be oble 1::0 tund your loGAYl when tM following =ond1.tioCl~ are Net. (~he.e 1ulnS wtll aho appea[
on your clodnl) 1n3eruc:;ion,):

------------ .... ------------------------ .._-_ ... _------------_ ... _----------------- ... _-----
6 IMIN
APPRAISIl,!,.-ACC£Fi"l\SLE CKL/NI:W APPtU.Is.P.J, VAL-~_)
i.f not: fundod by 12/2 provide a d.rltteby e.K:: a" 0 r.o:ert

7 MPIU.ISAl.-~PAAI$r::1t To P'~O"""IDE CURR£NT LJC£fH~t


PrQI'VLd~ iiL:to an ..dd1I;Jon..l ut. of colot" p~o:;o,

Q 9MKER C£R'1":rFICATI0N TK!.'!' 1\1L copn;s Al\t Ti\CE P.1«) CQilR.£CT

9 E.&1O::- - copy OF ,.1MI' HOR:fGACE HOT!:


Concurrent: cloa8 with 2nd: At. $1'11800 " pro7ido f'lote

10 XlICCME-cOHI'I£reISIGIIED rOlll< <506 1 93-01

11, COllect 5400 appraiS'lll !1e-ld nviev ftt Ern.... br\lt 1.n •• C'xo,,",

Thank you for eubrRittlnq your loan to CouDt.:ryw1de-, I'JQerica's "holesale Len4ex I Ht slne..xc:ly 6pp,,"aeiat..
your bu:li.ae~n'.

DIAm: FRAZI£~ lO/H/200<

Date

DVI'I"RV!'/RSli Date

thft tol.lowlnq' eondir.ione have- b~tn ••ti:tC1.ed and an ,hown here. for reterenclt only;

Concl1tlon DeSc./CoauMnt.c

BO&R.OWliP. WRr!r~N ~I..AN""TION REGARDING _


Aec.pt.abl+ .xplllln4t.lon wny 01.. . 1n••• J.n 4lL reve-rse l ' on 1221 SO
AJ.treCl, ~.A.

V.rify $3011;. on 4"P03l1.C till e"croM' wi sourc. wr1tled

Provide OJ' b",~in.s:t lieens.. or: crA letter ~r!fY1n9 C.:U.ecl last. 2
yr: 1D40·. o.~ :sell cllployed .an& location

1iI" bk 3t..~ 1681-C0ge)80 for 7112 thr. DIll ot $10Bk

Accept-Able VCR cov~r.1n4 pre-,ent ruidan .... seq' Q for 2nd

(PB90 2 of 2 10/26/2001 10: 00: 52)


• utJDeJMAmNG DECI8/OtlIOONDf11ON LEmA • WID
2£2Il'·u&(OOIOI1

-103-

226 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 6 of 50

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
EXHIBITN
27
28
-104-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide
227 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 7 of 50

10/29/2004 10:46 AM

Demetrio. GadilWLD/CF/CCI To Kristin OrtonlWlD/CF/CCI@Counbywide
co Maria McLaurlnlWholesale/CF/CCI@COUNTRYWIDE


bee
SUbject Exception Certificate - Result: Final ApprovaVlSamaan I
JUMBO·

PRINT THIS DOCUMENT FOR THE LOAN FILE

EXCEPTION REQUEST RESULT: FINAL APPROVAL

Reason for Decline:

Terms of Counteroffer:
." •••• ' •• '1 "" " , a•• tU.U •• " , •••••• " "' " ••

Priclng Information: /
1st Mtg Risk-Based Add-on: 0.750

Applies To: Fee

2nd Mtg Risk-Based Add-on:

Applies To:

: The 'Risk-based add-ons' posted above, do not cantaln adjusl!nents for: low loan amount, escrow
waiver, non-e-Approve, 45·day and greater refinance, LTV>60 and Fico<620 (Conf only), or TAMI
Incentive. Before quoting price, where warranted, add the appropriate adjustments for these
characteristics to Wholesale Pricing Desk 'Risk-based add-ons' above.

Pricing Comments: Demetrio Gadi,10/29/2004 10:20:37 AM->Based on the current loan characteristics
noted on this form, standard add-ons must be applied as disclosed In ~ge pIus the base price must be
adjusted by 0.75 pts for Enhanced 80/90 reduced doc.

.• uu.~ "'••• a u*., U.U*.U.l.* UU" d&U&U U&***U • ........ AU •• U " ' . . lU" "

Borrower NE!me: Nivie Samean 1JUMBO· Branch Number. 0000933

Property Address: 320 S. Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, CA

Branch Requestor: kristin ortonIWLD/CF/CCI

DatelTime Requested: 10/2512004 02:59 PM DatelTime Decision: Demetrio


Gadi,1012912004 10:29:01 AM->Flnal Approvel
••"".."., " ,••" ",,*.., , , u., ,,,,,,, u, ,, .
..
Loan Purpose: Purchase Cashoul Amount: Occupancy: Owner Occupied

AI. ..:U as .. II .. 'U. *.1 U i.a "' •• "••• , at. al U , 'a. . ' il iii. Aa'" ai itl , at •• at •• it •••• 'al .
.. -105-

228 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 8 of 50

1st Lien Amount: 1,374,400.00


• 2nd Loan Amount: 171,800.00

Appraisal Value: 1,718,000.00 Property Type: SFR Doc Type: Reduced Doc

LTV:8Q.OO% CLTV: 90.00%· MI:No


at '.,_., it •• , •• , A.'"'''' tt:&" tit' it ',' iii: .. ill U i''''Ie'' L it "'i& Ii A•• ' *
" I." U .. iii ' it 'Ii" * .. Ai U"" 'i"':II, it * .

Exception Request Details:

: 80190 to 1.5M using Core Jumbo with .750% add to fee for Reduced Doc
Krislln Orton,10/2512004 3:08:49 PM->Borrower's Income Should Be $33,333 Not $333,333
Miohelle Petti,10/26/2004 3:03:14 PM·>Recelved loan file today
Demetrio Gadi,10/29/2004 10:29:57 AM·>File is approved with no ex<;eptions under the Enhanced 80190
program.
al _.'''.Ie ,."••••• 11 .. "'" "",.,.a.' , "' •••• au , •••, Ul ••••••••• ". as ai ,.. ,.a" It,•• AU *,:to . , . , "•• , ••

Conditions:

/ ' PRIOR TO DOCUMENTS (PTD) CONDITIONS I BRANCH TO REVIEW & SIGN OFF
, / -Field review by CHL approved review appraiser to be ordered by branch supporting va(u~ of no less than
$1,718,000
Satisfy all branch underwriting conditions & all CLUES conditions
CLUES to be accurate at close based on final EPS
Quality Verification and Documentation Checklist completed and executed by underwriter
/}JtuJ- -Letter from co-owner ofWells Fargo account # 6814098380 stating relationship to borrower and that
borrower has unrestricted access to all funds
;f/t,tJ--~- Appraiser with AG or AR designation to co-sign appraisal & mark box indicating "Did Inspeot Property"
~Calrlfy REO on credit report - 5353 San Vicente Blvd

PRIOR TO FUNDING (PTF) CONDITIONS 1BRANCH TO REVIEW & SIGN OFF


../........-aorrowers to sign/date 4506--T
......~opy of first mortgage note for 2nd td file
",<..-fst & 2nd td's to close conourrent
NOTE: clear to close

: Reduced doc, purchase, 5/1 L1bor 10, Enhanced 80190, 1st td $1,374,400 & heloc $171,800; no
exception

GUIDELINE EXCEPTIONS
-106-

229 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 9 of 50

IF ALL CONDITIONS ABOVE ARE NOT MET THIS EXCEPTION IS NULL AND VOIOI
THIS IS AN EXCEPTION DECISION ONLY AND NOT A LOAN APPROVAL.

*This represents the risk-based add·cns for the loan program. All other
add-ons such as CWBC fee. escrow waiver fee, elc. will still apply, as
applicable.

Branch Enby Screen ->~

-107-

230 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 10 of 50

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 0
28
-108-

Notice of Samaan 's Fraudulent Loan AJ;lplications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & Countrywide
231 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 11 of 50

&r ica 'S Who lesa J.e Len der •


Sulm issio n App rova l
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
Bmkcr. HIClIJ\El. JAMES O' REILLY
DBA PACIFIC
MORTGAGE CONSOI.TANTS
Bran ch '1
0000 933
750 LINDARO STR2ET STE 110 Broiler Contact: VICTOR PARKS
SAN RAFAEL, CA 9490 1
Sn>lIerPhol18:
~~~nel (415 )257 -270 1
If you have questions about this leiter
BrolIerFa. .: &$) &r-Y.?!f
, please coniaci us at t::;:b~e..jp~h2o~n~eLJnumber=t:=
Loan numb er 8173 7375 bas been revie wsd at ::::::ab'::'0-:-v-e-.--T,m.!r~;:
:I~~~=~'r'_-:a;:;-~-:O::;­
the foUo wing tem s for IUVI
E SNfJoAN(tj~~$?"" 79'" f>
lDan P"'IP"'"' M: 5/1 Lnm
llRM :ISlte xestO nly OccoJpanll)'Typo: OWNER OCllUPIEO
Ananco Typo: E'URCIll\SB DDClIII18IllalIan Type: REDUCED
PlOperty -..: 320 S PECK DR FUskGrada: N/A
BEVERLY Hn.J. S, CA CfodllScote: 723
9021 2-37 15 Lock Exp irati on
Proporty Type: SFR
Date :
LIen Pasltlall: Firs t

LonnAmaunl
Appraised Value Set... Pdco
1,37 4,40 0.00 0.00 LTVICLTV
CWIlfylngRala 1,71 8,00 0.00 110 •.00 1 90.0 0
5tlIIIRale
10.5 00 5.50 0
R&ba18Pb Disc PIs
Ind•• 0.00 0 0.00 0
Margin
2.46 1 Tonn P"'I>8l'f1'8nt Ponel\y7
2.25 0 360
This loan is APPROVED subj No, No. of Mos. 0
ect to the satis fact ory cOM
liste d belo w. It is impo rtant Pleti on of the speci~ic cond
to subm it all prio r ~o docu ition s
to ensu re time ly issua nce ment cond ition s in a time
of your loan docu ment s. This ly mann er
expi ratio n date indi cate d appr oval is vali d base d on
on your CWBC e-Ap prov e or
appr aisa l docu ment used for 120* days fr~ the olde st credthe
this tran sact ion. Chan ges it or
9l1lp lcyme nt duri ng this peri in the borr ower (s) fina ncia
od may inva lida te this apPJ l stat us or
'oval .

"For non- conf otmi ng A-pa per


prod ucts the appr aisa l is
vali d for 60 days .

Clo.i nq cIo~ nts


w:l.ll Ile made avail able "hen
the follo winq cond ition s are
...tc.:
COnd ition Cond ition Desc/COllm
ents
---~------
----------
FXELI> I\SV:IEW (TO SUl:'POIlr $--
1 Pl\A:ISl\I.-ACCEl'TABLE ----------
$1,71 8,000 prog r.... guid eline -1 -
at cost tc.o IlNr, lord. reel 10/25
/04)
2 J\PPlI AlSlIL -lIIlDE NIlIlH FROll
APP1lJ\ISllL !lEGll1Ul:mG: _
Appr ai.aer s 11eeo lle, appr aiser
co-si qu appx aisal , IllUk I>ox wJ.tb An O,J;" AI\ desi9l1at:.ion murJt
.indi catin g "Did Xnsp ect Prop erty'
3 CO~CTED/s:rGNED 1003 (AT LOClt-:I!'l-RlI1E)
shOW type of busin eDs

Prici ng to be cone oteel to SbOlf


exce ption p:rotp:8lIl .754 adel to fe. fo: this enhan
ced
5 Pl:OV1ele cOlllPlete execu tecl
"ill not act: .es a subs titutpuxch
e
ase cont:z:act, "sc:z:ow 1Jlstx uct:!.
ons
State....nt hOlR . Maxq aret SaIll"
"" stati nq I>oxrower has
ulU:e std.ct ecl. use of joint funds full acel
in lIFB 1681 -40'8 380
7 t.ettc.er of "xpla natio n "hy CX<ld
it repo rt refle cts Bdcl.1:en of
5353

(page 1 of 2 10/29 1200 4 14:0


3150 )
• llNll£JlWRIT1NG llEClStONlCONOmO
N LETTEfI· WlD
l!e281.\lS (1l".JlM)(d)

-109-

I" 239 91"

232 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 12 of 50

l.oanill: 81737375

Bonllwer's Name:

.::SAMMN:.::.::.:::~,:_:N:.:IV!=:.:E:..._ _
San Vicente Blvd, Los Angeles as of 1/04

lie "ill be able to tund your loan when the following' conditions an met (these items will also appear
OD your clos1.n9 instructions):

Condll:ion Condition Desc/CO....ents

APPRAISAL-ACCEPIABLE CllL/NEll APPI\AXSAL (KIN VJ\La$--l


if not funded by 12/2 p=V1de .. ddveby exta. a recen.

9 APPIlAXSAL-IIPPRAISE:R TO PROVIDE: CUIUU:RT LICENSE:


Provide also an add1t.ional set of color photos

10 BRoIlER =IFJ:CAXXON THAT ALL COPIES IUIE 'IRlJE: I\lID C01UlE:CT

11 IlELOC - COPY or FIRST MORTGAGE NOTE


Concurrent close with 2nd at $171800 , provide not."

12 INCQME:-COIlPLE:TE/SJ:GHI:tl FOllll 4506 I 95-01

13 Collect $400 apprahal field review fee frCllll brwr in escrow

14 RF bl: sbJlt '6Bl-409B380 for 7/12 thru B/12 at $lBOk

Thank you for su!:=ittiIlq your loan to Countxywide, lIJllerica' s WhOlesale Lender I lie sincerely appreciate
your busUJes9.

10/29/2004

nde >:iter Dat.e

dl:---dt
'Branch Manager
- ;k
~"-::_--
.
-flMM-------
Date

DVPIRVP IIlSIl Date

The following conc:l1tions have been satisfied and ate shown here for raference only:

Cond1tion DRSc/C_nu

.;. BORROlIIER lIRJ:TTEN EXPLANATION RE:Gl\RD%llG _


Acceptable e"pl"""t10n why business in 411 ;Mve:tse is on 1227 So
Alfred, L.A.

Corp approval req'd for this enhanced p%ogram vI .75% added to


fe.. , any conditi""". p:tovide a c""'l'lete copy package alon9 with
all conditions iII t:tiplicate

Ve:tify S30k on deposit vI "8""OW wI source verified

Provide 03' bua1nen 11cono.. 0% CPA letter verlfyio9 filed last 2


yr. 1040's as self eDlPloyed same location

Aoceptable vca c""edog' present %Csldence, x..q'd fox 2nd

-110-
(fage 2 of 2 10/29/2004 14:03:51)
• UNDiIl'M'IITlNG DEC1SIONICONDl11ON l.ETTER. Wl.D
2E2llt-IJS (0!lID4)

233 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 13 of 50

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
EXHIBITP
28
-111-

Notice of Samaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Undenvritmg by Samaan & Countrywide
234 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 14 of 50

• •
Urgent D~livery!
LSI File #: 41004810

Cover Sheet - Resllits Attached


rllv'!ice (Bi-monthly invoice summary mayfollow per clientprofile)

Addressee/Addressor
To:
Contact: IKristin Orton ClieJlt#: 19501
Conrpally: !Countrywide - Wholesale
1750 Undaro St., Sulle 110
ISan Rafael. CA 94901
Pllonc#: 1(415) 257-2716 I Ext:
Fax#: 1(415) 259.0864 --.:===--,
I r-I

From:
Compally:
Pllone It:
!LSI, Coraopolis
1~(8::::0~0)=:6::::fiT==-2~4~0~0 =, .....J

Fax#: 1(800) 668-8585

Date: 1111031200412:25 PMI


# o/Pages Sell I: 0
TfYDU I,ave DnJ' prDblOll!l wld,ll,. nDdpl oltllisIta, pl=e CDII/Dd Ih. DP~lItlonsdcportnl'"1 tJlllI. number
lIoID4 do... FDr 1111 othu quc:s/IDns, pl'DJ' lUk 10 speDk 100 CustOIIlD/' ReJDlJonJ ADDDunl Monogu.

File Identification
Borrower: INivie Samaan Job Type: IFleld 2000
Loan Number: 181737376

Property Addr~: ;;1~32;0~S~.;p=e~c;:k=D;n~'v=e===~=-=-=-=-=-=~=I.:IB=eve=r1Y=Hi='I=ls~---,11@ 1902121


Replew Valtte: IPlease see attached documents. I
Total Fee: I $255.00·1 Amounl Paid: I $0.00 I Balance Due: I $255.00 I
A.dditional Comments

-112-
Eastern ReglonDIOJliw
700 Cbcrrington Parln<Iy· ConIopolls, PA 1510&
ToR Frtc: 1·IOII-<rS1·2400 • FII: .-800.66I.asas

235 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 15 of 50


• Complete Appraisal, SummlllY Appraisal Report

One-Unit Residential Appraisal Field Review Report


• 81131315
FOe No. 41004810
The PUlllose of this eppralsal review Is to ve~fv the eccura~ of the fectual data and conclusions and to determlne·the
reasonableness of the value opinIon contlllne<fin the apprel5aJ report under review. When thl! value Is determined to be
unrBBsoneble, the review appraiser Is required to develop and report his or her O\Nl1 oPlnlon Of value. The Intended use 01 this
report Is for qual\ly assurance for the lenilerlcllent end mey be used as part 01 a slate licensing Of regulalDry board ralerrel.
Proo Addtess32l1 S. Peck Drive C Beverl Hias SlaleCA Code 90212
aI 0 lion Traol7710 ...,1 2S2 los Anoeles
Assessor's Parcel No. 4328-024-023 Mao Reference 632·F3 Census 1: 1010.00
Borrower Samaan . Cum!nt OwnerZtmiok
Pro .his raised X Fee 81m Ie leasehold eel l' e Cantlo PUD B'allve
loan No. 81731375 ElIedive Dale of 0 InaIADoraisa110J2I2004 ManufaduredHouslno YES)( NO
SCOPE OF WORK: In order 10 make a delennlnallon as to the reasonableness or Ihe o~nlon 01 value, the review ~raIser
~~~'f~~il::,u~p~~el=~~~o~~~~:.::e~:1s~~":J~":;,~c;,=.J~~~::'~ul'e"=~cta~I=~~~~~ all
i:rr~~~~~la~~p':a~~~lst~~a~'~':,~~PI~r:::~ r:~~~'19 ~~r~~ry':"urus. and assumed the property cOndUon reported
II the revlew appraiser determInes the opinion of value Is unreasoneble, he or ehe is r!'<lulled 10 provide an opinion 01 value. The
review appraiser Is not required to replicate Ihe ste~ ~Ieled by the original appraiser. Those lIems In the original ap~ralsal
[jrlW~n:,h~I~~~~d~~ ~gl:s~T~ bellaves 10 be~~i~:"(~Sp~)~§II~~~:d~hde~~~I~~~~~eb:'t'If.,":.~~1.l';~~~g;d\~ry
assumplion which is identined fin Queslion 2. II Ihe review appraiser delermlneslhe opinion of value Is
unreasonabj e, he or she must p aI dala thel h"" been researched and anelyzed to produce a credible opinion of
valua In accordance with the ep n of Standard , ollha USPAP.
Section I • Complete for all assignments
1. Provide a saleJlransfer and IIsUng hislory lor !he SIIbject property lor 8 minimum of three years prior to the ef(EClive dale of the
orilinal annralsal/lf the Inrormetlon Is available to . er in the llOlTnal course o'-huslness Irom I M1i:>h1A ""ureel.
8alelRecordino Dale &lIes Price UsVAskino Price Grantor/Grantee OaleSoUtCe
No RBllorted Transfer with Ihe
..t38 months. 081 oubllc records.

Analvze saleltransfer hisiorv lor the Bubiecl oroDerIv and """,rt IIs1mDact. ifanv. on the value oDlnlon in the BonralsaJ reoort under review:

IRW, lhe eppr;saJ report conlain the appropriale p~or sale(s) and/or prior nsUng(s) 01 lhe subject property and comparable sales?
X YES NQ.exoIain. ND reDorted transfer ,oAthln the last 36 monlhs. MLS#04-086856Ind1ca1es sublectls listed fer 61 695 000
and was exoosed to lhe marital for 52 d."". Sales actrement was nel Drovlded lor review.

2. Is the dala In the aDDralssl reDcrt ledual and 2CCUlBfe7. X YES-oravide a b,lelsummRlV. NQ.exoIaln "nd comDlele Seellon II.
Ovetall dala orovided within Ihe """,11 "nnears reasonable y,;th nr/v minor data lfrscreoancies bile records and MLS
verification of data.

X YE5-Drovide e brief oumm:vv_


M
3. ~~ final oplnlon 01 markel vakJe the subjecl properly reasonable as of the effective dale of the appralsal t.rlder _1e#II
NO-e>1llaln and comm"e Sodlnn_ II .nr1 lit Fin.t ....timBle Is within slandard revle\v ouidelines
fo' value vertanee and is Iherelore ouoocrled.

. • . ..
~ . . ..
1. Is the enalvsis 01 the neiohbomODd comnlele and accuale7
~ ... ~
VES-orovlde e brief summaN. . ND-e>Illeln.

2. ~e enalysls of the slle, InclUdingriY apparer4 edV6'S8 olle condillons and the highBlt and besl use, c:amplele and aa:urale7
YES-nRll'ide a brte/ summaN. NQ.ecolain.

3. Ara1heZlJnln,,,:lassificallon descriDtion. and ccmDli2nc:e eauale? YES-DlDvide 8 bile! summarY. NQ.elQllain.

4. Is the data In Ihe Imnrovsnen19 oecUon comnlete and aOClJ'llle? YES-DlOOIlde a brtelstmmsN. NO-exnlaln.

-_Ll -

236 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 16 of 50

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
EXHIBITQ
28
-114-

Notice ofSamaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwritmg by Samaan & Countrywide
237 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 17 of 50

.~

.L.ica' s Wholesa l.e Lender


Subm.is sion Approv al
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,INC.
KICBlIBL .J2\M6S 0' REILLY ORA PACIFIC
MORTGAGE CONSULTANTS
Branch t: 0000933 BroIcerConfBct VICTOR PARKS
750 LINDARO STREET STE 110
SlIN RA!"AEL, CA 94901 BIoker Phone:
Phone: (415)257 -2701
Fax: BrokGrFax#:
If yoU have questions about this letter,
please contact us at the
Loan number 81737375 has been reviewed -at the followin gpbone nUlllber above.
terms ~or NIVIE SAMAAN:
Loan Prograllt He Sil LIBR ABM Xute>:estOnl.y OcoIJpancy Type: OWN;;R OCCll!?IED
Doeumental!on Type: REDUCED
FInance Type: POIICRASE
ProperlY Addrll$ll,32 0 S PECK DR
RIsk Grade: N/A
CrodltS""",: 723
BEVERLr HILLS, CA
90212-31 15 Look Expirati on
ProperlY Type: SFR Date:
Usn PosllIan: First

lollllAmount AppraIsed Value Sal... Prl<:e


1,374,40 0.00 LTVICLlV
0.00 1,716,00 0.00 80.00 / 90.00
Qualllylllg Rate 6tarI Rate RllbalePIs Olso Plo
10.500 5.500 0.000 0.000
Indo. Morgin Tenn Pmpaymenl Penalty?
2.461 2.250 360
No, No. of Mos. 0
This loan is APPROVEO oubject to the satisfac tory completi
listed below. It is importan t to submit all prior to doc~enton of the specific conditio ns
to eneure timely issuance of your loan documen ts. Tbis conditio ns in a timely manner
approval is valid based on the
expirati on date indicate d on your cwec a-Approv e or 120·
days from the oldest credit or
appraisa l document used for this transact ion. Cbanges
in the borrowe r(s) financia l status or
employm ent during this period nay invalida te this approval
.

"For non-conf orming A-paper products the eppraisa l is


valid for 60 days.

Clo!)lng documentt : will be tAade available when the


foUowi... . 5J cond1t:ion s are mot:
COndition Condition Oesc/ColIIlIIents
APl'RAJ:Sl\L-ADOElIDUli FROM APPRAJ:SAL tu:GAROING I
Apprai.ez s llcanoe, appraiser witb lIG or llR de.ignati oo DlUst
<:o-.ign eppraisa l ~ mark box indicatin g "!lid In.pe..t Property
'
COM&C7EO/SIGNEO 1003 (liT LOCK-nHIl ITE:)
show type of business

3 Pricing to ba eonected to abow .75' add to fee for this enluulced


exception praqram

Provide c.eaplete execut4Kl purchase contract, esaow 1Ds'tX'Uct


wUl not set as a subst:itut e ions

5 Stat""",n t from HarlJaret S......an stl>ting borrower bes full and


unrestric ted use of joint funds in lIFB t681-4098380
Letter of explanati on wby credit report refleets address of
San Vicente Blvd, Lo. Angel"" as of 1/04 5353

(Page 1 of 2 11/03/20 04 18:04:53 )


.. UNDeRWRI11I'.'G qectSlONlCONOmON LETta\. WLll
2f2ll1-US (ll9tOl)(dj


-115-

' 2S&9 1'

238 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 18 of 50

~(f;;)----
• BcrroWlll'. Nam.:, -=SJlMAAN::=::==,...:;N:,:IVc:..:I:,:E:.- _

110 w11l be able to fund your loan wboo tho following


condition s ""e met (tbeee items will <11so appear
on you!: closing inetl:Ucti onsl :

COnd.l.tion Condition D<tsc/con oonts


7 APPRAISAL-ACCEl'tA!lLE CBL/NEW APFRIUSAL (MIn V1Ilo~~_)
i f not funded by 1212 provide a
driveby <txt as a reeut
APFRAISA ],-APPRAIS ER TO FROITIJ)E C1lRllElIT LICENSE
Prorid!! also an add.1tion al 8et. of color photo:;
9 BROKER CIlRTIFICA TION IlIAl' ALL COPIES ARE :mOE
J\ND CORREC:r
10 IIELOC - COl?Y OF FIRST MORTGAGE NOTE
COncurre nt olose with 2nd at ~171800 & provide note
11 INCOME-cO MPLE'tE/SI GNEll FORM ~506 I 95-01
12 Collect ~400 appraisil l £teld review fee from br..r in e.crow
13 WF bk stitt 1681-4098 380 for 7/12 thru 8/12 at
S180k

'thank you for aul:2m1.t.tinq your loan to Counuyw ide,


Alnerica. 1 s WholesalG Lende.r f tie Giace:ely approcia te
your business.

DXAllE FRAZIER
10/29/200 4
lln~l:iter Date

L!l-tUU- L~
B.ranch Hanaq&%
_ _{t~ k _
Date

DVP/RlIl'/R Sli
Date

The following concl1t1on s ha.ve bean sat.i3fied And are


shown bere for refeJ:enc:e only~

Condition ' Dellc/CDl1mlents


---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ,
BORROIIER lIIUTIEll ElU'L1Il~AT :tON REGARDnlG _
AceeptllbJ .. explanati on why bucines. in 411 :tellers" is
on 1227 So
Alfred, I..A.

COrp appzov<11 zaq'd for thi. enhanced pr01Jr.... 'Ill • 'S~


od<led to
fee , any conditJ.o n., pzovide a cODlplete copy package
along with
<111 condition s in triplicat e

vodfy 830k on deposit' ll esczDW wI souzee vedfied

Pzovide 03' business license 0: CPA letter verifying


filed last: 2
yl:B 1040' s .s self eJDP10yed same loCAtion

llFFRAISIIJ.-ACCt:P'%AIlLE FIELD REVIEW (to SIlPPORT


~--J
$1,718,00 0 pl:ogram guideline at cost to brwr, (ol:de.red
10/25/04)
ACc:.6ptable VOR covQl:inq prebent ::e"idstnce , X"eq'd. fox
2nd

-116-
(Page 2 of 2 11/03/20 04 18:04:54 )
• UNOElIWRIl1NG DEClSlONICONomoo IEI'TER. WID
2£:$HlS (OMU)

239 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 19 of 50

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
EXHIBITR
28
-117-

Notice ofSamaan's Fraudulent Loan Applications and Fraudulent Representations


Regarding their Underwriting by Samaan & Countrywide
240 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 20 of 50

Countrywide Bank, a division of Treasury Bank,


N.A.
ATE: 01/27/2005
225 West Hillcrest Drive
PPLICATION #: 81737383 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
YPE OF CREDIT REQUESTED: HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT Phone : (BOOI 731-40B9
E'ax : IB05) 371-6400
ROPERTY ADDRESS: 320 S PECK DR
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212-3715
rVIE SAMAAN

227 1/2 S ALFRED STREET


OS ANGELES, CA 90035
NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN
ou recenlly applied 10 Countrywide Home Loons ("Countrywide") 10 assisl you with your rcal eslale financing needs. As pari of your appUCtltion
'Ocess, Countrywide submilled your applicalion 10 us,
ountrywide Bank, a division of Treasury Bank, N.A.
,r considerolion. After carefully reviewing your applicalion, we are sorry 10 advise you Ihat we cannol grant a loan 10 you at Ihis lime. If ynu would
{C a slalemenl of specific reoSons wh}' your oppllcalion was denied, please contacl one of our underwriting specialisls 01
800) 731-4089 within 60 days of Ihe dale of this leller. We will provide you wllb Ihe slatement of rcosons
ifhin 30 days afler receiving your requesl

redilor's Nome: CountrywIde Bank, a division of Treasury Bank,


N.A. '

redUor's Address: 225 W. Hillcrest Dr., MS TO-44


Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
ATTN: UNDERWRmNG OVERSIGHT

we oblained informalion from a consumer reporting agency as part of our considerotion of your application, ils name, address, ond [loll-free]
lephone number is shown below. TI,e reporting agency played no part In our decision and is unable lo'supply specific reasons why we have denied
edil 10 you. You have a rig hi under Ihe Fair Credit Reporting Acl to know lhe Information conlained in your credillile 01 UJe consumer reporting
:ency. You have a tightlo a free copy of your report from Ihe reporting agency, if you requesl it no laler than 60 days after you received Ihls notice.
,addition, if you find lbat any informalion contained in Ihe repon you received is inaccurate or incomplete, you have lbe righllo dispute Ihe maUer
IIh Ihe reporting agency. You can find out aboullhe informalion contained in your file (if one was used) by conlacting:

ame: LAND SAFE CREDIT


ddress: 1515 WALNUT GROVE AVE
ROSEMEAD, CA 91770
:011 Freel Telephone Number: (800) 447-1692

,"cercly•

•nding Operations

OTICIl: 'Il,e federal Equal CrCllil OpportunilY Act prohibils credi.ors from discrirr.naling acllins! <redil applicanls on Ihe basis of race, rotor, religion, naliona!
igin, sex, manlalslalus, age (provided 'he appliconl has Ihe capacity 10 cnler inlo a binding eanlOlel); because nil or part of the applicant's income derives from nny
.blie ISSistAnce program; or becauselhe applicant has in good faith excn:iscd any righl under lbe Consumer Credil Prolection AcL The federal Dgency thai Ddministent
"lIpliancc with this law concerning lhis creditor is the
ffice of the Comptroller of the Currency, Customer Assistance Group 1301 McKinney Street,
uite 3450 Houston, Texas 77010-9050

iANNCXJIN
NoUce 01 Adlon Taken· Treasury Bank
;054-US (12103)(d)

III
2 S 9 9 1 •
-'0817S7383000001E054'

-118-

241 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 21 of 50

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
EXHIBIT S
-119-

Notice of Samaa n's Fraud ulent Loan AJ;Jplications and Fraud ulent Repres
Regar ding their Unden vritmg by Samaa n & Count rywide entations

242 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 22 of 50

310.372.1111 SOUSACDURTREPORleRS 71-4-)71-41111 310-3n.1111 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 71~-S71-U111

Page I

SUPERIOR COURT Of THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE DEPOSITION OF NIVIE SAMAAN, TAKEN ON BEHALf Of
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - WEST DISTRICT
DEFEND"'.NT AND CROSS-COOPL.a.IN...NT JOSEPH ZERNIK, AT 900 SOUTH

f'IGUEROA STREET, 12TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, AT

10:08 A.M., MONDAY, JULY 10, 2006, BEfORE PATRICIA E.

NAKANO, C.S.R. NO. 5624, ~ SHORTHAND REPORTER fOR THE STATE


NIVIE SAHAAN, AN INDIVIDlJ.ll,L,
OF CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO NOTICE.

PLAINTIFF,

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
VS. CASE NO. SC 081400

JOSEPH ZERNIK, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND


10 FOR PLAINTIFF:
DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
11 LAW OFFICES OF JAY R. STEIN
10
DEFENOANl'S. 12 BY: JAY R. STEIN, ESQ.
11
13 1801 CENTURY PARK EAST
AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.
12 14 SUITE :;!400

13 15 LOS ANGELES, CALIfORNIA 90061-2326


14
16
15
16 DEPOSITION OF NlVIE SAM}l.AN 11
17 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 18 fOR DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT JOSEPH ZERNIK:
18 HONDAY, JULY 10, 2006
19 SULLIVAN, WORKMAN , DEE, LLP
19
20 20 BY: CHARLES D. CUMMINGS, ESQ.
21 REPORTED 8Y: 21 900 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET
PATRICIA £. NAKANO
22 12TH FLOOR
22 C.S.R. NO. 5624
JOB NO. 547246 23 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90011
23
2'
24
25 25

NlVlESAMAAN 7tn'J06 NIVIE SAMAAN 11l0J06

Jl~J72-1l11 SOUSA COURT REPORTERS 714-S1I-0111 JI().]72·11I1 SOUSA COURTREPORttRS 7J.C-S71-OlIl

P~c-l

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: {CaNT. I I N D E X

WITNESS:
NIVIE SAMAAN
FOR CROSS-DEFENDANTS COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL

BROKERAGE AND MICHAEL LIBOW: EXAMINATIoN BY: PAGE:

COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE COMPANY MR. CUMMINGS

6 THE LAW DEPAATMENT

11611 SAN VICENTE BOULEVAAD


EXHIBITS
NINTH FLOOR
10
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049-6510 DEFENDANT I 5 PAGE:

IO (NOT PRESENT) 11
- NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND DOC1IMENT PRODUCTION 18
11
12 OF NIVIE SAKAAN, SEVEN PAGES
12 ALSO PRESENT:
13 2 - VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, BATES STAMPED 50001 16
13 JAE LLOYD THROUGH 50116, 116 PAGES

14 JOSEPH ZERNIK. (PAGE 9 TO PAGE 511 14

15
3 - PHOTOCOPY OF CHECK NO. 1074, DATED 9124/04, 59
15 IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000, ONE PAGE
16
10 - LETTER, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, ONE PAGE 91
11 11 5 - LETTER, DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, ONE PAGE 92

18 16 6 - LETTER, DATED OCTOBER 6, 2004, ONE PAGE 92

19
19 1 - LETTER, DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2004, ONE PAGE 93

20
20 6 - LETTER, DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2004, ONE PAGE 94
21 9 - LETTER, DATED OCTOBER 5. 2004, ONE PAGE 91
21 22 10 - FAX COVER ~H""T FROM MICHAEL J. LIBON, 99

22 -1 0- 23
10/15/04, WITH ATTACHED DOCUMENTS, SIX PAGES

23
11 - DOCUMENT, DATED NOVEMBER 8, 2004, FROM GAIL 101
24
24 HERSHOWITZ, ONE PAGE
25 25

HlVTE SAMAAN 7/1CW6 NlVlE SAMAAN l/10iU6


243 / 545
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 40-3 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 23 of 50
l1O-l11-1111 SOOSACOURTREPORTERS 11 ....HI-0111 lIO-l12·II11 SOUSACOIJRTREl'OR"ffiRS nl-Sll-4Hll

LOS ANGELES. CALI FORNIII; MONDIIY, JULY la, 2006 1 EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE INFORMAL PROCEEUINGS, AND

10,08 II.H. 2 THEY'RE IN MY Of'FICE, THE OATH YOU'VE TAKEN JS THE SAME

3 OATH THAT YOU WOULD TAKE I f' YOU WERE IN COURT, AND

NIVIE SPJiAAN, 4 YOU'RE SUBJECT TO THE SAME PENALTIES IF YOU DON'T TELL

THE WITNESS HEREIN, HAVING BEEN FIRST 5 THE TRUTH AS IF YOU WERE IN COURT AND DIDN'T TELL THE

DULY ADMINISTERED THE OATH, WAS EXAMINED 6 TRUTH.

AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: 7 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

A. YES.

9 ElU\I'fINI\TlON o. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND A QUESTION, I DON'T

10 BY MR. CUMMINGS, 10 WANT YOU TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. I WANT YOU TO TELL ME

II Q. CAN YOU PLEIISE STIITE /\NO SPELL YOUR FULL NI\ME 11 YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, WHY IT IS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND

12 FOR THE RECORD. 12 IT. I'LL ATTEMPT TO REPHRASE IT SO THAT YOU DO

13 A. NIVIE SAMAAN, N-I-V-I-E S-A-M-A-A-N. 13 UNDERSTAND IT.

14 Q. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME INSTRUCTIONS NOW 14 1 F MY VOICE DROPS AND YOU DON'T CLEARLY HE.A.R A

15 THAT WE TRY TO FOLLoW IN II DEPOSITION. 15 QUESTION, LET ME KNOW. I 'LL EITHER RESTATE THE QUESTION

16 ONE OF THE MOST IMPORT/\NT THINGS IS THAT ONLY 16 OR ASK THE REPORTER TO READ THE QUESTION' BACK TO YOU.

17 ONE OF US SPEAK liT II TIME; /\NO, THEREFORE, IF liT /\NY 17 IF YOU ANSWER A QUESTION, I'LL ASSUME THAT YOU

18 TIME DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS I STAAT A QUESTION BEFORE 18 HEARD THE QUESTION, YOU UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION, YOU'RE

19 YOU'VE COHPLETED YOUR ANSWER, PLEASE TELL ME, /\ND I' LL 19 ANSWERING THAT QUESTION, NOT SOME OTHER QUESTION.

20 LET YOU COMPLETE YOUR ANSWER. 20 IF, AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCEEDINGS, YOU THINK

21 IT'S IHPORT/\NT THI\T ALL of YOUR ANSWERS BE IN 21 OF SOMETHING THAT WOULD CLARIFY OR MODIFY A PRIOR ANSWER

22 AUDIBLE WORDS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, RATHER THAN NODS 22 YOU'VE GIVEN TO A PRIOR QUESTION. YOU JUST TELL US, AND

23 OR SHAKES OF THE HEI\D OR UTTERANCES SUCH lIS "UH-HUH" OR 23 YOU CAN GO BACK AND MODI fV YOUR ANSWER.

24 "HUH-UH." 'rHE REASON FOR THAT IS SO THAT WE HAVE A 24 1 F YOU WANT TO GET WATER OR COfFEE OR USE THE

25 CLE/IR RECORD. 25 RESTR