Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Digitally signed by
Joseph Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik,
email=jz12345@ear
thlink.net, c=US
Date: 2009.02.24
00:58:59 -08'00'
· Digitally signed by
h
1 Joseph Zemik
2 2415 Saint George St.
J0 Se P i ., Joseph Zernik
I ON: cn=Joseph Zernik,
.)~:i1=jZ~345@earthl
Los Angeles, CA 90027 Zern I;;. 1'11§l!~t.c~~U5
/I\.'~ Date;2'110S.05.15
3 Tel: (310) 4359107 ' " 10:30:28 -<l]'OO'
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\
(~~0
,.~~
~
.....J
-rfT\
~
9 \ ""','~, .;:i -0
:x o
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL \, r-~o
...... '.... x-
10 i V'()n ••
\ ~o s::-
11 i~~' 0
12 CASE NO. CV-08-01550-VAP-CW
JOSEPH ZERNIK,
13 Plaintiff HON C. WOEHRLE, JUDGE
14
15 vs.
16 FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED
JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL. COMPLAINT, FOR DECLARATORY
17 Defendan~ AND INJUNCTIONAL RELIEF FOR
18 VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
19
20
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
21 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
22 PURSUANT TO FRCP 15(a) WAS
FILED MAY 9, 2008.
23
24
25
DATE: MAY 15, 2008
26
27
28
--1--
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL. , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 2 of 50
1
2 COMPLETE LIST OF DEFENDANTS:
3
Jacqueline Connor, Allan Goodman, John Segal, Linda Hart-Cole, Patricia
4 Collins, Terry Friedman, and Gerald Rosenberg - individually and in his/her
5 official capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, West District
and
6 Los Angeles County and Los Angeles Superior Court, West District
7 and
Debbie Witts - individually and in her official capacity as Court Manager, Civil
8 Unlimited, the Superior Court of Los Angeles Country, West District
9 and
Vivian Jaime - individually and in her official capacity as Courtroom Clerk,
10 Department I, the Superior Court of Los Angeles Country, West District
11 and
Retired Judge Gregory O'Brien - individually and in his capacity as Proposed
12 Referee, and
13 ADR Services, Inc - as a corporation, and its capacity as a neutral provider that
employed Retired Judge O'Brien,
14 and
15 David Pasternak - individually and in his official capacity as Receiver in Samaan v
16 Zernik (SC087400)
and
17 Angelo Mozilo and Sandor Samuels - individually and in their capacities as Officers
18 of Countrywide Financial Corporation
and
19 Countrywide Home Loans, Inc
20 and
Mara Escrow Company
21 and
22 Thomas Brown - individually and as a partner in Brown and White, LLP
and
23 Zacharty Schorr - individually, and as principal of Schorr Law
24 and
Lilit Vardanian - individually
25 Doe 1-20
26 Defendants
27
28
--2--
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL. , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 3 of 50
1 COMES NOW, Plaintiff JOSEPH ZERNIK, and hereby filing his FIRST
2 AMENDED COMPLAINT against the parties listed above for severe and protracted
3 abuse of Plaintiffs U.S. Constitutional rights for Due Process, for Free Speech, and
4 for Possession in the litigation ofthe Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Los Angeles
5 County Superior COUlj-from Oct 2005 to. the present. ')-. A.1 _ ~
6 ~ ')l..~, I rV\l rr-
1>G t'\'\ ~~ J V (l..v) I)M, , L./ !
16
Plaintiff filed with this Court last week a Requestfor Affirmative Action - Court
17 action to allow Plaintiff access to Public Records that are his own Trial Court
18 Litigation Records. Denial of access to such records was and is central to the abuse
19 inflicted upon Plaintiff by Defendants. Moreover, such denial of access is again
20 placing Defendants in advantageous position in this litigation. Defendants should not
21
be allowed to benefit from the outcome of their abuse of Plaintiffs constitutional
22 rights in this litigation.
23 Plaintiff is hereby repeating his request that this Court provide relief as it deems
24 fit:
25
1. to allow Plaintiff access to his litigation records, as detailed in Docket #_ ,
26 Designation ofRecords on Consolidated Appeal.
27
28
-3-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 4 of 50
1 2. to allow Plaintiff to amend this Complaint again once such access to records is
2 provided.
3 c. Request for Leniency as Pro Se
4 In filing this First Amended Complaint Plaintiff requests special leniency as a
5 pro se litigant - for his "inartful pleading" (Erickson v Pardus, 2007). In particular, I
6 am not qualified in assessing the validity of legal theories. I ask the court to ignore
7 any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory I claim, and do take into consideration the
8 claims themselves, if they can support some other valid theory. Haddoc 1985.
9 d. Request for Incorporation by Reference ofExhibits Previously Filed
10 Plaintiff requests that this court incorporate by reference all of Plaintiff's filings
11 that are on the Docket.
12
13 I.
14 PARTIES
15 1. Plaintiff Josep Zernik is a natural person residing at 2415 Saint George Street,
16 Los Angeles County, California.
17
2. Defendant Jacqueline Connor, is a natural person residing and employed in Los
18
Angeles County, California, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik
19
(SC087400) from November 1,2005 to September 10,2007.
20
3. Defendant Allan Goodman, is a natural person residing and employed in Los
21
Angeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from
22
September 10 to October 3, 2007.
23
4. Defendant John Segal is a natural person residing and employe in Los Angeles
24
County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from October 5 to
25
December 4,2007.
26
27
28
-4-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 5 of 50
1 13 .Defendant ADR Services, Inc is a neutral services provider to the Los Angeles
2 Superior Court, and as such it provided Retired Judge O'Brien's services as
3 proposed referee for Samaan v Zernik.
4 14.Defendant David Pasternak is a natural person residing and employed in Los
5 Angeles County, he acted as Receiver from Nov 9, 2007 to the present.
6 IS.Defendant Sandor Samuels is a natural persons residing and employed in Los
7 Angeles County, he is an Officer of Countrywide Financial Corporation and Chief
8 Legal Counsel, who directs the Legal Division that serves also Countrywide Home
9 Loans, Inc.
10 16.Defendant Angelo Mozilo is a natural persons residing and employed in Los
11 Angeles County, and is an Offider of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
12 17.Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, is a finacial services corporation,
13 subject to New York jurisdiction.
14 18.Defendant Mara Escrow Company is an escrow company.
15 19.Defendant Thomas Brown - is a natural person residing and employed in Los
16 Angeles County, and is a partner in Brown and White, LLP
17 20.Defendant Zachary Schorr - is a natural person residing and employed in Los
18 Angeles County, and is the principal of Schorr Law.
19 21. Lilit Vardanian - is a natural person residing and employed in Los Angeles
20 County
21 22.Defendants Doe 1-20 are natural persons, they acted in relationship to Samaan v
22 Zernik (SC087400) in their autority as staff ofthe Superior Court for the County of
23 Los Angeles, West District.
24
II.
25
JURISDICTIONAL BASIS
26
27
1. Plaintiff claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III § 2 which extends the
28
jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution.
-6-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 7 of 50
1 2. Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 for violations of
2 certain protections guaranteed to him by the First (Free Speech), Fifth (Due
3 Process), and Fourteenth (Due Process and Possession) Amendments of the
4 Federal Constitution, by defendants acting as officials of the State of Califomia
5 under the color oflaw of the State ofCalifomai in their capacity as a Judges, Court
6 Manager, and Courtroom Clerk, Proposed Referee, and Receiver, respectively, in
7 the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
8 3. Plaintiff also claims federal jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.C. Code §1331 - for a
9 Federal Question, and U.S. Constitution, Art. III, § 2 and Title 28 U.S. Code §
10 1332, which extend to cases involving diversity ofjurisdictions among the States.
11 Here, majority of Defendants are employed in Los Angeles County, Califomia, but
12 the corporations involved include:
13
a. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc - subject to New York jurisdiction
14
15 4. Plaintiff also claims federal jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.C. Code §1331 - for a
16 Federal Question:
10
11 III.
12 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
13 1. Defendant Jacqueline Connor, is a natural person residing and employed in Los
14 Angeles County, California, she held the court file for Samaan v Zemik
15 (SC087400) from November 1,2005 to September 10,2007. Her authority as
16 Presiding Judge in Samaan v Zemik is contested at least for part of the period of.
17 During the period listed she engaged in violation of Plaintiffs civil rights:
18 a. For free speech
19 Claim #1- by allowing the July 6, 2007 and July 23, 2007 hearings by
20 Countrywide for a purported Portective (gag) Order
21 b. For Due Process
22 Claim #2 - by denying Zernik access to Court File, to Minute Oders, to Notices
23 Claim #3- by deceiving Zernik by posting Trial Date only after her
24 disqualification while making false claims in that regard on April 22, 2007
25 to deny extension of Discovery Cutoff Date.
26 Claim #4 - by deceiving Zernik by entering judgment on Aug 28, 2007, but
27 back-dating the entry to Aug 9, 2007
28
-8-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 9 of 50
1 Claim #5 - by posting after disquaification a false and misleading Sept 10, 2007
2 Minute Order denying Zemik's allegations that Countrywide's documents
3 were fraud.
4 Claim #6 - by allowing the July 6, 2007 and July 23, 2007 proceedings where
5 Countrywide apeared unlisted in Minute Orders and in court records, and its
6 counsels listed at times as for Defendant and at times as for Plaintiff.
7 c. For Possesion
8 Claim #7 - by generating a false and misleading Aug 9, 2007 Summary
9 Judgment against Zemik
10 2. Defendant Allan Goodman, is a natural person residing and employed in Los
11 Angeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from
12 September 10 to October 3, 2007, his authority as Presiding Judge is contested for
13 that full period.
14 He engaged in violation of Zemik's right for Due Process:
15 Claim #8 - he presided with no Re-assignement Order
16 Claim #9 - he failed to recuse himself based on his close personal friendship
17 with Sandor Samuels.
18 3. Defendant John Segal is a natural person residing and employe in Los Angeles
19 County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from October 5
20 to December 4, 2007. His authority as Presiding Judge is contested for that full
21 period. He engaged in abuse of Zemik's rights:
22 d. For Due Process -
23 Claim #10 - by presiding with no Re-assignment Order
24 Claim #11- by appointing a receiver for no reason at all and with no reference
25 to any section of the code, no reference to judgment, no reference to
26 purchase contract.
27 e. For possession -
28 Claim #12- by appointing a receiver with no legal foundation
-9-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 10 of 50
1 Claim #13- by ordering such a receiver to hold Zemik's equity indefinitely for
2 no reason at all
3 Claim #14- by engaging in all the above even after Plaintiffs Counsel noticed
4 him that he did not recognize the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court.
5 4. Defendant Linda Hart-Cole is a natural person residing and mployed in Los
6 Angeles County, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) from
7 December 4 to December 7, 2007. Her authority as Presiding Judge is contested
8 for that full period. She engaged in abuse of Zemik's rights:
9 a. For Due Proces-
10 Claim #15 - by allowing the Dec 7,2007 ex parte hearing for gag order defying
11 logic
12 Claim #16 - by allowing in that hearing counsel for Mara Escrow to appear
13 incognito and refusing to introduce him.
14 Claim #17 - by ordering after disqualification an ex parte hearing 30 min later
15 in santa monica with no authority at all.
16 b. For Free Speech -
17 Claim #18 - by initiating such hearings on Dec 7, 2007
18 5. Defendant Patricia Collins is a natural person residing and employed in Los
19 Angeles County, she held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC87400) on
20 December 7, 2007, and ruled in it in an ex parte appearance on that day in her
21 authority as Depute Supervising Judge, West District, Superior Court of the
22 County of Los Angeles. She egaged in violation of Zemik's rights:
23 a. For Free Speech
24 Claim #18 - she approved a Dec 7, 2007 gag order that defied logic.
25 b. For Possession
26 Claim #19 - she did so to prevent Zemik from defending his rights for
27 possession and therefore allowed his home to be seized.
28 c. For Due Process -
-10-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 11 of 50
1 Claim #20 - she ran the Dec 7,2007 hearing in violation of Due Process rights
2
3 6. Defendant Terry Friedman is a natural person residing and employed in Los
4 Angeles County. He held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC87400) from
5 December 7, 2007 to the present. His authority as Presiding Judge is contested
6 for that full period. He is engaging in continues to engage in violations of
7 Zemik's rights:
8 a. For Due Process
9 Claim #21 - by allowing Countrywide to appear in court with no party
10 desination and with no legal foundation.
11 Claim #22 - by allowing motion for sanctions exceeding $16,000 based on a
12 non-existing order
13 Claim #23 - by allowing a OSC re: Contempt based on same
14 b. For Free Speech -
15 Claim #24 - by validating a non-existent gag order of July 23 2007 by Judge
16 Connor
17 c. For Possesion -
18 Claim #25 - by refusing to release Zemik's home equity for no reason at all.
19 7. Defendant Gerald Rosenberg is a natural person residing and employed in
20 Los Angeles County, he held the court file for Samaan v Zernik (SC087400)
21 and ruled in it in an ex parte appearances, and also acted relative to this case
22 otherwise, in his autority as Supervising Judge, Superior Court for the County
23 of Los Angeles.
24 a. For Due Process -
25 Claim #26 - by refusing to issue any Re-assignment order for the last 5 judges
26 Claim #27 - by refusing to allow Zemik access to electronic court file data
27 Claim #28- by allowing physical abuse of Zemik in his courtroom on Aug 31,
28 2007
-11-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 12 of 50
1 Claim #34 - he met with that counsel on Sept 10, 2007, and according to
2 Plaintiffs counsel schemed with him to seize Zernik's residence based on
3 entry of an "Oral Judgment'.
4 12.Defendant ADR Services, Inc is a neutral services provider to the Los Angeles
5 Superior Court, and as such it provided Retired Judge O'Brien's services as
6 proposed referee for Samaan v Zernik. It engaged in violations ofZernik's due
7 process and possession rights -
8 Claim #35 - by allowing O'Brien to engage in his dishonest connduct and
9 obstruct justice.
10 13.Defendant David Pasternak is a natural person residing and employed in Los
11 Angeles County, he acted as Receiver from Nov 9, 2007 to the present. His
12 authority is contested for the full period of his involvement. He violated Zernik's
13 rights:
14 Claim #36 - by agreeing to an appointment as a receiver based on an order that
15 is in blatant vioaltion of due process
16 Claim #37 - by moving for a gag order against zernik on Dec 7, 2007
17 Claim #38 - by generating two ex parte hearings on Dec 7, 2007, out of
18 compliance with any standard of Due Process;
19 Claim #39 - by generating an ex parte hearing before Judge Hart-Cole, where a
20 corporate attorney - for Mara Escrow- appeared incognito, and both said
21 attorney and Judge Hart-Cole refused to identify either the attorney or his
22 client.
23 Claim #40 - by moving and obtaining gag orders to prevent Plaintiff Zernik,
24 Defendant in pro per in Samaan v Zernik, from speech that is protected as
25 his speech for defense of himself.
26 Claim #41- by moving and obtaining indeminity agreeement for Mara Escrow
27 - at Plintiffs expense - to cajole it to participate in inherently fraudulent
28 real property transaction.
-13-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 14 of 50
1 Claim #42 - by moving and obtaining orders to allow him to defer payment of
2 taxes on the real property transaction for no reason at all, and at great
3 expense to Plaintiff Zemik.
4 Claim #43 - by seizing Zemik's horne and selling it to another
5 Claim #44 - by recording the transfer of the title to Zemik's horne with no due
6 authority - in collusion with others in the fraud relative to the Aug 9, 2007
7 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP §437c.
8 Claim #45 - by holding Zemik's equity in the horne for no reason at all
9 14.Defendant Sandor Samuels is a natural persons residing and employed in Los
10 Angeles County, his actions and ornrnissions relative to Countrywide documents,
11 that are alleged by Plaintiff to be at the heart of the fraud against him, allowed that
12 fraud to proceed.
13 Claim #46 - as Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide, he is resonsible for all
14 litigation matters, per his own listing on the web site of "House of Justice".
15 He allowed the porduction of fraudulent subpoena documents in Samaan v
16 Zemik, and refused to authenticate or repudiate such documents for over a
17 year.
18 Claim #47 - He initiated the July 6, 2007 and July 23, 2007 hearings on gag
19 orders
20 Claim #48 - He initiated the hearing on sanctions on Feb 15,2008 and the
21 hearing on OSC on March 7, 2008
22 Claim #49 - He is ultimately responsible for the obstruction oftestimony by
23 Diane Frazier.
24 Claim #50 - He is ultimately responsible for the death threat against Zemik.
25 Claim #51 - He is ultimately responsible for the repeated filing of false and
26 misleading documents by Countrywide's Legal Department in Samaan v
27 Zernik, and the refusal to correct such obstruction even after repeated
28 requrests.
-14-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 15 of 50
1 Gail Hershowitz, and it also was invovled in abuse of Zernik's free speech, due
2 process, and possession rights in Decmber 2007.
3 Claim #59 - Its counsel appeared incognito in a gag order hearing on Dec 7,
4 2007
5 18. Defendants Thomas Brown - is an attorney. He engaged in services for
6 Plaintiff, but failed to warn Plaintiff of his relationship with Att Mohammad
7 Keshavarzi, who was listed in the conflict list. Later, when Plaintiff found out
8 about it, he refused to provide copies of email corresopndence with Keshavarzi that
9 was part of the serrvices that Plaintiff paid for.
10 Claim -#60 - obstruction ofjustice and negligence.
11 19. Zachary Schorr - is an attorney. While he was engaged in a agreement to
12 provide legal services for Plaintiffhe had Plaintiffs Opposition brief for the Aug
13 9,2007 adulterated in his office prior to its transmission to the LA Superior Court
14 for filing.
15 Claim -#61 - obstruction ofjustice, fraud, and negligence.
16 20. LUit Vardanian - is an employee of Defendant Schorr. After Plaintiff
17 discovered the adulteration of his filings in court for the Aug 9, 2007 Summary
18 Judgment hearings, Defendant Schorr provided a verified statement claiming Ms
19 Vardanian was the one who did it.
20 Claim -#62 - obstruction ofjustice, fraud, and negligence.
21 21. Defendants Doe 1-20 are natural persons, they acted in relationship to Samaan v
22 Zernik (SC087400) in their autority as staff of the Superior Court for the County of
23 Los Angeles, West District.
24 Claim #60 - to be detailed at a later day
25
26 IV.
27 REVIEW OF EVENTS IN LITIGATION OF SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)
28 AT THE LA SUPERIOR COURT - BASIS FOR CURRENT ACTION
-16-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 17 of 50
1 Sept 10, 2007 - O'Brien holds a "hearing" with Samaan's husband and
2 Keshavarzi, but refuses to report about it.
3 Sept 10,2007 - Plaintiff serves 2nd Statement of Disqualification for Cause.
4 Judge Connor disqualifies, then enters a false and
5 misleading, fictitious Minute Order of hearing on Motion
6 for Sanctions per CCP §128.7.
7 Sept 20, 2007 - Judge Goodman runs an instantaneous hearing on O'Brien
8 Proposed Order for Appointment as Referee. Attempts to
9 deceive relative to its origin.
10 Oct 3,2007- Plaintiff serves 1st Statement of Disqualification for Cause of
11 Judge Goodman. It turns out that Judge Goodman has just
12 disqualified, disclosing his friendship with Samuels.
13 Oct 5,2007- Judge Biderman disqualifies.
14 Oct 11, 2007 - Defendant Segal attempts to mislead Plaintiff relative to
15 Referee/Receiver.
16 Oct 15,2007 - Plaintiff files 1st Statement of disqualification for cause for
17 Defendant Segal.
18 Nov 9,2007- Defendant Segal appoints Defendant Pasternak Receiver, but
19 refuses to acknowledge validity of the Aug 9, 2007
20 Judgment by Court.
21 Nov 26, 2007 - Plaintiff files 2nd Statement ofDisqualifiication for cause on
22 Def. Segal.
23 Dec 4, 2007- Defendant Segal disqualifY.
24 Dec 7, 2007- Pasternak runs two ex parte appearances, with Hart=Cole
25 and with Collins - for gag orders, indemnity for Mara, and
26 other stipulations.
27 Dec 17,2007 - Pasternak fraudulently transfer title to the property.
28
-20-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 21 of 50
1 basic notions of Due Process, at the expense of severe abuse of Plaintiffs rights for
2 Due Process for free speech and for possession.
3 Plaintiff also requested Judicial Notice in Docket #31 of well publicized news
4 reports of stock market events on Jan 8. 2008, when the NYT published report that
5 Countrywide's counsels admitted filing "recreated letters" as evidence in a
6 Pennsylvania court.
7 Relative to Countrywide records in Samaan v Zernik, Plaintiff alleges:
8 a) Recreated Underwriting Decision/Condition Letter
9 Docket #44 presents a Countrywide record that is in fact a "recreated letter".
10 This record is a key document in the fraud against Zemik by Countrywide and
11 Samaan. This letter is clearly dated and time-stamped for its date of issue as:
12 Oct 26. 2004. Moreover, on some of the copies of this record one finds fax
13 header imprints indicating that it was also faxed from Countrywide to an
14 unknown recipient (Samaan?) on Oct 26,2004.
15 This record, was introduced as evidence in Judge Connor's court under
16 unusual circumstances -
17 i. As part of Sur Reply,
18 ii. It was never authenticated.
19 iii. Plaintiffs Counsel filed evidentiary objections.
20 Throughout the litigation of Samaan v Zernik Judge Connor practically refused
21 to issue any evidentiary rulings, no matter how hard Plaintiffpressed for such.
22 And obviously she relied on such evidence in her rulings and judgment,
23 regardless ofthe fact that such evidence should have been excluded.
24 McLaurin, Countrywide Bank Manager, and a business associate of
25 Samaan's husband, contributed key fraudulent declarations that were
26 quintessential for the fraud in the litigation in LA Superior Court. Plaintiff
27 requested Judicial Notice of Docket #38 - a compilation of McLaurin's
28 declarations and analysis ofvarious fraudulent statements made in them.
-22-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 23 of 50
1 These false claims were based on the fax header imprints on this document.
2 However, the imprint is missing the identity of the sender, in violation of FCC
3 Regulations. Moreover, Plaintiff presented in the Aug 9, 2007 Summary Judgment
4 Hearing evidence that such imprints were generated as part of a convoluted fax/wire
5 fraud scheme. The fax/wire fraud scheme is described below. Plaintiff also requested
6 Judicial Notice of Docket #40, where the various fraud cases are summarized per
7 element in a table form, the wire fraud is found at Docket #40, pi9.
8
9 3. Samaan and Others were involved in a convoluted fax/wire fraud Scheme
10
against Plaintiffand against a Financial Institution
11 Samaan claimed that the contract was faxed by Parks to Countrywide on Oct
12 25,2004, at 5:03pm, but this document, like all other writings introduced by Samaan,
13 was never authenticated. As part of his objection to the entering of such records as
14 evidence, Plaintiff presented evidence that demonstrated that Samaan, Parks, Lloyd,
15 and an unknown person at Countrywide (McLaurin?) were engaged in an elaborate
16 wire/faxfraud scheme across state lines. Such scheme was used to mislead
17 plaintiff, an individual, and his realtor, and also to generate false loan records at
18 Countrywide, a financial institution. The essence of that fraud was that Samaan
19 (residing in Los Angeles) received and transmitted faxes on behalf of her loan broker,
20 Parks (residing in the State of Washington), assuming his identity, and operating a fax
21 machine with no fax header ID. The transmission on Monday, October 25,2004,
22 5:03pm was in fact from Nivie Samaan in Los Angeles to her husband, Jae Arre
23 Lloyd, also in Los Angeles.
24 When and how did that recordfind its way into the Countrywide loan file?
25 Plaintiff holds that the answer to that question is a key to understanding the
26 fraud perpetrated by Countrywide against Plaintiff and against the United States
27 government. Countrywide produced in response to subpoena what was
28
-24-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 25 of 50
1 misrepresented as true records ofSamaan's loan files. However, these documents are
2 inherently contradictory, and are lacking any record of their origin.
3 Countrywide must keep record of such transmissions in compliance with
4 Regulation B ofthe Federal Reserve.
5 As a first approximation, Plaintiff believes the scheme to work like this:
6 I. Samaan would fax the documents to Lloyd, in part in order to generate on
7 them the desired time stamp in the fax header imprints, adjusted at will.
8 ii. Lloyd would receive them on a digital machine, or scan them.
9 111. Lloyd would email them to McLaurin.
10 IV. McLaurin would insert them into the loan file.
11 Samaan falsely claimed that the Purchase Contract arrived at Countrywide on
12 Monday, October 25, 2004, 5:03pm and effected dramatic progress in her loan
13 approval- but is clear that the contract was not part ofSamaan's loan file even by
14 Nov 3,2004. The Nov 3,2004 Underwriting Letter (Docket #40, pl15) still lists it as
15 missing, under Condition #4:
16 "Provide complete executed purchase contract, escrow
17 instructions will not act as a substitute".
1 " .. .and the fax from Victor Parks to Countrywide on October 25,
2
2004 (Opposition, Exhibit U)".
3
Defendant Connor similarly (Exh Vol IV, p119) states:
4
"As of October 25, 2004, Ms Samaan ha fulfilled all
5 obligations, except for removal of the appraisal contingency.
6 The appraisal contingency could not be removed until Ms
Samaan received loan approval [sic - usually it is the other way
7 around - jz). Approval of the loan was delayed because
8 Countrywide had not received a fully executed copy of the
purchase agreement."
9
10 The records ofSamaan's loan underwriting (in contrast with McLaurin's false
11 declarations) do not support any such finding:
12 1. Branch Input Exception Request to Mr Gadi (Docket #40, Exh J).
13 ii. Oct 29,2004 Gadi's Exception Request Response (Docket #40, Exh N)
14 111. Appraisal Review - Order Form (Docket #40, Exh L)
15 IV. Appraisal Review Report (Docket #40, Exh P).
16 v. Denial Letter from Countrywide Bank (Docket #40. p118).
17
18 Samaan, her Counsel, and McLaurin for Countrywide (Docket #38)
19 misrepresented in the Aug 9,2007 Motion/or Summary Judgment, that Samaan's
20 Loan Applications were approved on Oct 25, 2004, by 5: 18pm, just 15 min after the
21 falsely claimed arrival ofthe fax transmission on Monday, October 25,2004,5:03 pm.
22 In fact - the results of Appraisal Review would arrive only on Nov 3,2004.
23
24 4. Countrywide's Samuels and Mozillo Refused to Stop the Fraud
Perpetrated against Plaintiffor Make any Statement regarding the
25 Authenticity ofthe Underwriting Decision/Condition Letter and the Real
26 Estate Purchase Contract.
27
28
-26-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 27 of 50
1 severe abuse of Due Process rights per Amendments j'h and 14th ofthe United States
2 Constitution. (see more below)
3 After July 6, 2007, Countrywide Counsels appeared on a regular basis in court
4 hearings of Samaan v Zemik (SC087400), albeit their party designation was never
5 determined. Plaintiff appeared before each and every one of Defendants that are
6 Judges of the LA Superior Court with Requests for Safeguard of Due Process, which
7 included a request for determination of Countrywide's party designation. Plaintiffs
8 requests were always denied, and to this very day, Countrywide appears in litigation
9 records as: Non Party, Defendant, Plaintiff, Cross Defendant, Intervenor, Objector.
10 Etc.., without any legal foundation, at times two , three, or even four conflicting
11 designations in one record.
12 The Feb 15, 2008 Transcript (Exh Vol III p642) records Countrywide's request
13 for a court declaration:
14 "that Countrywide has no Oblilf,ation to Respond Further to Defendant
Zemik Regarding This Action. '
15
1 their conduct will be burden the American taxpayer in years to come. The cost of the
2 sub-prime crisis to the Treasury and the burden it will generate on the U.S. economy
3 is difficult to even estimate at this time, but the impact on many thousands of families,
4 who are losing their homes all around the country is visible and real.
5 Almost without exception those losing their homes, are almost the last one
6 families or individuals who held residential mortgage loans generated by
7 Countrywide, re-financed with Countrywide, or serviced by Countrywide after being
8 originated by others.
9 In that respect this case is unique - Plaintiff never had any business dealings
10 with Countrywide whatsoever. In fact, as late as November-December 2006, when
11 he first saw the name on subpoena papers, he did not even recognize the name. That
12 is over a year after litigation in Samaan v Zernik was initiated in the Los Angeles
13 Superior Court.
14 And yet, Countrywide, a giant corporation is operating its massive machinery to
15 impact extreme violation of Plaintiff's civil rights under the hands of the Los Angeles
16 Superior Court, West District. The judges of West District, Officials of the State of
17 California have been engaging in perpetrating such abuse of Plaintiff under the color
18 ofthe law for the third year in a row, and have brought him to the brink: ofdestruction,
19 both financial and physical. Some ofthese judges are close personal friends or
20 acquaintances of Countrywide's Chief Legal Counsel, Defendant Samuels -like
21 Defendant Goodman, and Defendant Friedman. Other judges are otherwise
22 determined to obstruct justice on behalf of Countrywide, although Plaintiffmay not be
23 aware of their exact motivation.
24 For example, Defendant Connor - her court entered as on July 24, 2007 the
25 following note in "Case History" in "Sustain" - the Court's case management system,
26 in the opening screen, ensuring its permanent visibility -
27 "Countrywide Home Loans, Inc
Real Parties in Interest'
28
-30-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 31 of 50
1 See more detailed description of this issue in our Docket #46: Inexplicable
2 under assumption ofhonesty No.2 - Sustain Case History page #1.
3 Also, our Docket #39: Sustain Case History ofSamaan v Zernik, "Case History"
4 (Exh Vall Exh p 1).
5 Another example, Defendant Segal- his dishonest Dec 4, 2007 Minute Order:
6 Judge Segal's Disqualification Statement (Docket #52: Exh Vol II. pp 343-355.
7 states:
8 "[Plaintiff] contends that Countrywide Home Loans, which is
not a party, is somehow involved in these proceedings. There
9 have not been any proceeding before the undersignedjudge
involving or relating to Countrywide ... "
10
11 And next (Exh p348):
12 "In this case, Countrywide is not a party. At best, Countrywide is
a witness which has sought a protective order. "
13
14
Both of these are false and deliberately misleading statements on their face:
15
First - Judge Segal did preside in proceedings, short as they might be, on both Aug 1
16
and Aug 2,2007, in which Countrywide was involved. At the outset of the
17 proceeding on Aug 1, 2007 he even expressed his amazement, when counsel for
18
Countrywide inserted herself right before him, and remained standing between
19
Plaintiff and Defendant. He first paused in the introductions to ask her:
20
"And who are you?"
21 To which she identified herself as usual, as Counsel for Countrywide, without
22
any party designation. Defendant Segal then asked her at least twice:
23
"What are you doing here?"
24
To which she never answered, not even a word. Then Defendant Segal made a
25
comment to the effect that it was not his case, and he might not be able to figure it out
26
fast enough ...
27
28
-31-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 32 of 50
20 Plaintiff is not experience in legal matters, but Plaintiff believes that in the
21 United States, circumstances such as described above are extraordinary under the
22 protections extended by the Constitution. Plaintiff believes that conditions in Samaan
23 v Zernik are extraordinary, and therefore justify the unusual review by the United
24 States District Court.
25
For much of the litigation (from its onset - October 2005 to Aug 2,2007 - over
26 19 months, access was entirely denied - see Sept 10, 2007 Judge Connor
27 Disqualification Statement, Exh Vol IV, Exh p_), a California State Court entirely
28 denied a U.S. Citizen and his counsels acc.:j~_to his litigation records. And the same
1 Court is still continuing to deny timely access to critical records today, including, but
2 not limited to:
3 a) Paper court file documents,
4 b) Electronic court file data,
5 c) Raw/short hand transcripts of specific reporters' transcripts
6 d) Minute Orders,
7 e) Notices of orders, rulings, judgments
8 f) Assignment Orders of Presiding Judges in the case, and for months also
9 refused to even provide even a f) certified copy ofthe Aug 9. 2007 Judgment
10 by Court, is an extraordinary case, justifYing protection by the United States
11 District Court.
12 Obviously, under such situation, any further review by the California Court of
13 Appeal or the California Supreme Court is futile.
14 The primary reason that Plaintiff found himself seeking protection of the United
15 States Court, is that he lost hope to ever gain access to his litigation records through
16 the California State Justice system (see below).
17 , ..
18 for reasons that may take more discovery to uncover.
19
20 The U.S. economy may be sliding into recession that many attribute to the sub-
21 prime crisis - where mortgage and real-estate frauds were main causes. But review
22 off Samaan v Zernik reveals a group ofjudges of the LA Superior Court that simply
23 refuses to recognize Real Estate Fraud and/or Mortgage Fraud as part of reality.
24 Judge Connor ruled it to be a "red herring". One is only left to wonder what part
25 such permissive approach of the courts had in getting Los Angeles listed in FBI
26 reports as "the epicenter" of a fast growing national epidemic of real estate and
27 mortgage fraud that is a high national priority to fight.
28
-34-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 35 of 50
1 6. Defendants that are the LA Superior Court and its Judges held many or
2 most proceedings in Samaan v Zernik "offthe record", and are not part
ofproceedings for which they may claim judicial immunity.
3
4 The typical entry in Sustain allows only one "on the record" event per
5 time slot scheduled. Judge Connor, typically would schedule two or three events, but
6 only one ofthem would eventually recorded, not necessarily correctly. In general, the
7 record of litigation produced is corrupted to the point that it would be impossible for
8 an any court reviewing this case to figure out what indeed took place.
9 Example: Running Litigation Where Most Procedures are "off the record"
10 - First Hearing Presided by Defendant Connor -1130/06 (Docket #53, pp7-10)
1
2 1130/06 Event Complete
Demurrer
3 Motion Granted
4 2) OSCI RE: POS
3) INITIAL STATUS CONFERENCE
5
6
The final record for the Jan 30, 2006 hearing:
7
• The only procedure that was concluded "on the recorel' was the demurrer.
8
• The record states that Demurrer was "Granteel', in fact it was denied.
9
• There is no evidence that an OSC procedure, which probably was the reason for
10
the Affidavit of Prejudice in the first place, ever took place.
11
• Parties never saw this record: "Notice is waived"
12
13
7. Defendants That Are The LA Superior Court And Its Judges Failed To
14 Issue Assignment Orders To The Judges Named As Defendants In This
15
Case. TherefOre. These Judges Are Not Eligible (or Judicial Immunitv In
This Case.
16
18 11/01/05 Event
Affidavit of Prejudice
19 Richard Neidorf
9:00am
20 PREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO SECTION 170.6 OF
TIlE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
21
22 [full page text re: premptory challenge minute order + clerk certificate of mailing]
23
11/01/05 Event Complete
24 Affidavit of Prejudice
Transferred to Other Department
25
11/01/05 Event
26 Case Ordered Reassigned
Linda K. Lefkowitz
27 3:30pm
[full page text re: re-assignment to Judge Connor + clerk's certificate of mailing.] *
28
-37-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 38 of 50
1
11/01/05 Event Complete
2 Case Ordered Reassigned
Case reassigned per 170 CCP
3
4
Exam ple: False Docketing of Disgualification - Judge Conno r, July
12, 2007
5 (Docket #39, pp 62-70)
6 07/12/07 Event
Motio n to Compel
7
Jacqueline A. Connor
8 8:30am
PLAINTIFF (NIVIE SAMAAN) MOTION TO COMP EL DEPOSITIO
N
9
PLAINTIFF (NIVIE SAMAAN) MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST FOR
10 ADMISSIONS ADMITTED:
11
Mattters are called for hearing.
12
13
[full two pages text ofre:
Motion to Compel Deposition Motion to compel and sanctions - Denie
Motio n to deem admissions admitted - Denied d
14
15 Defendant files an affidavit pursuant to CCP section 170.3 in Open
Court. ... It will be ruled upon as an affidavit pursua nt to 170.6 of the
16 Code of Civil Procedures and is Denied as untimely.
17
[full two pages oflega l discourse - in fact an answer]
18 Good CAUS E APPEARING, THEREFORE, IT is so ordered.
19
Date: JULY 12, 2007
20 Hon. Jacqueline A. Connor
Judge ofthe Superior Court
21
Verified Answ er of Jacqu eline A. Conn or
22
I, Jacqueline A. Connor, declare:
23 1....
[formal generic answer]
24
25 Jacqueline A. Conno r
26 The original Orderr and verified Answer as stated above is signed and
filed this date.
27
28
-38-
ZERN IK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIF IED FIRST AMENDED COMP LAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 39 of 50
26
9. Defendant Who is Judge Connor Entered at Least Twice Minute Orders
27
that were Entirely Fictitious and False. None ofthe Judges Who are
28
-40-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 41 of 50
3
a. July 9, 2007 Minute Order - Motion for Reconsideration (Docket #39. pp
4
59-61), recording conferring "telephonically" is entirely fabricated. The record - that
5
the motion for reconsideration was Granted is false. As is the case in the Demurrer, in
6
proceedings where Defendant Connor made decisions or rulings that may appear
7
unusual upon review, she simply entered false records.
8
Plaintiff would never know, since he never got notice.
9
b. Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order - Motion for Sanctions per CCP 128. 7 (!2ocket
10
#39. pp105-110), recorded a hearing that was never heard and a ruling that was never
11
ruled, as can be concluded by comparing the Minute Order to the Sept 10,2007
12
Transcript (Docket # unassigned yet. Exh Vol III. p510). As is recorded in the
13
transcript, Defendant Connor entered this false and deliberately misleading minute
14
order after her disqualification, with no authority at all. This Minute Order represents
15
Obstruction of Justice. Defendant Connor generated a false litigation record to the
16
effect that Countrywide records are not fraud at all.
17
In addition, this minute order and the respective transcript record the fact that
18
after disqualification, with no authority at all, she re-assigned the case on Sept 10,
19
2007 to Judge Goodman, who on Oct 3,2007 (Docet # 39, Exh Vol I, Case History,
20
pp 121-124), in his disqualification statement recalled his long-term close personal
21
friendship with Samuels - Chief Legal Counsel of Countrywide.
22
23
24 10.Defendant who is Retired Judge O'Brien engaged in Obstruction and has
no Grounds for a Claim o(Immunity at all.
25
26 On Sept 7, 2007 in the late afternoon Plaintiff received by email a notice for a
27 "hearing" to be conducted by Proposed Referee O'Brien on the morning of Sept 10,
28 2007. That "hearing" conflicted with a court hearing scheduled for that same time.
-41-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 42 of 50
1 Plaintiff for stalling execution of, is that he had never seen such a document (Docket
2 #unassignedyet, Exh Vol III - Transcripts, p.58!):
3 "ONE POINT, YOUR HONOR, MR. ZERNIK SAID THAT
MY DECLARATION HAS A COPY OF THEN SUMMARY
4 JUDGMENT ORDER INSTEAD OF THE JUDGMENT.
THAT IS CORRECT. I'LL AGREE WITH HIM ON THAT.
5 THE REASON IS I HAD NOT SEEN A COPY OF THE
JUDGMENT. I BELIEVE - AND JUDGE CONNOR HAD
6 TOLD ME ON THE RECORD WHEN I SAID, " WE NEED
7 A JUDGMENT ENTERED". SE SAID, "I'M ENTERING
THE JUDGMENT" AND HER CLERK GAVE ME A COPY
8 OF THE ORDER AND SAID THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT,
BUT YOUR HONOR HAS A COpy OF THE JUDGMENT,
9 AND IT MIRRORS THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER.
THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT - ORDER GRANTING
10 SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS EXACTLY THE SAME. THE
ONLY THING DIFFERENT IN THE JUDGMENT IS THAT
11 IT'S A LITTLE BIT SHORTER."
12
Plaintiff objected to such a motion as based on fraud - founded on false and
13
deliberately misleading statements and misidentification oflegal documents. Judge
14
Segal, after hearing a detailed account of Keshavarzi's deliberately misleading, false
15
declaration under penalty of perjury signed the order nevertheless.
16
Defendant Pasternak was personally informed by Plaintiff of the fraud in the
17
Moving papers relative to the omission of the Aug 9,2007 Judgment by Court and its
18
replacement by the Aug 9, 2007 Order Granting Summary Judgment Motion.
19
Defendant Pasternak never followed the Rules of Court of LA Superior Court
20
re: Execution of Judgment (see below).
21
Defendant Pasternak is also involved in fraud relative to the transfer ofthe
22
Deed on the record in the office of LA County Register/Recorder.
23
The CCP does assign liability to Receiver even ifhis appointment were
24
adequate, in cases where the receiver violated the law, as in the case at bar.
25
26
12. Execution ofJudgment by Defendant Pasternak and Defendant Segal was
27 through Procedures that are not in Compliance with Los Angeles County
28 Rules of Court
-45-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ETAL , VERIFIED FmST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 46 of 50
1 Rule 3.0
(d) Entry of Judgments, Orders and Decrees.
2 Judgments, orders and decrees rendered by the court,
which are required by law to be entered, shall be entered
3 by the clerk in judgment books kept by him/her either in
the Public Services Division, of the Central District, or the
4 clerk's office in each of the several districts. The
judgment, order or decree shall be entered in the
5 judgment books in the district wherein the same was
rendered and no other entry thereof shall be required.
6
7 Rule 3.3
3.3 APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF, TO
8 VACATE, OR TO ENTER NUNC PRO TUNC ORDERS
Every application for the entry nunc pro tunc or the
9 vacation of an order or judgment after the hearing of the
matter, and any motion for the reconsideration of an
10 order as to a demurrer, motion or discovery shall be
presented to the judge who made the order and if he/she
11 is not available, to the Presiding Judge or the Assistant
Presiding Judge in the Central District, or, if the case is
12 filed in another district, (a) to the Site Judge for the
courthouse in which the case is filed if the case is filed in
13 a courthouse that has a Site Judge or (b) to the
Supervising Judge for the district in which the case is
14 filed if the case is filed in a courthouse that does not have
a Site Judge.
15 (Rule 3.3 [1/1/94] amended and effective 11/01/00.)
16 Rule 3.4
17 3.4 JUDGMENT DEBTOR PROCEEDINGS
(a) Application.
18
(g) Claims That Statements In The Application Are
19 Untrue. When the truth of material facts set forth in the
application filed in support of any order issued pursuant
20 to Code of Civil Procedure sections 708.110, 708.120, or
708.130 is disputed by the person, firm or corporation to
21 whom said order was directed, the Court shall first hear
and determine the dispute. If it appears that material
22 facts set forth in the application are untrue, the Court
shall immediately dismiss the proceedings without costs.
23
Rule 3.5
24 3.5 WRITS OF EXECUTION, POSSESSION AND SALE
(a) A party who makes an application for a writ of
25 execution, possession or sale shall prepare and complete
the following papers for the court:
26 (1) Application for Issuance of Writ of
Possession/Sale/Execution and Order.
27
(2) The writ of possession, sale or execution completed in
full except for the seal and signature of the deputy clerk.
28
(b) The completed applica~~~_and writ shall be presented
1
(Rule 3.6 [originally added as Rule 3.5 1/1/95,
2 renumbered as Rule 3.61/1/97, 7/1/95, 1/1/96, 1/1/97,
1/1/98] REPEALED in part, and effective 7/1/98.)
3
4
The conduct of Defendant Segal and Defendant Pasternak had no semblance to
5
the procedures described in the Rules of Court, and involved forgery and fraud in the
6
procedure for transferring title to the property.
7
First and foremost - per Avelina Richardson, Supervisor ofthe Clerk's Office
8
in West District (quoted with pennission, 5/13/08) - "There is no Book ofJudgments
9
in West District ever since the introduction ofautomation in the court' - i.e.
10
Sustain.
11
Plaintiff estimates that Sustain was introduced in West District over 20 years
12
ago. The Rules of Court above show numerous updates over these years, but the
13
Rules of Court regarding Judgment were never updated by the Court. Therefore, the
14
LA Superior Court generated conditions that allowed the abuse perpetrated by
15
Defendants Pasternak and Segal.
16
17
18 13. The facts disclosed in this complaint regarding the mode ofoperation of
the LA Superior Court and Conduct ofits Judges are extraordinary and
19 unusual and justify action bv the US District Court. where normally
20 abstention is preferred per the Younger Theory.
21 The facts that are disclosed in this complaint regarding Defendant that is the LA
22 Superior Court, its electronic Case Management System -Sustain, and the conduct of
23 Defendants who are Judges of that court, including but not limited to:
24 a. Conducting proceeding but denying litigant access to Trial Court Records:
25
Defendant that is the LA Superior Court and all Defendants that
26
are Judges of the LA Superior Court are engaging in this abuse of
27 Due Process.
28
-49-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 50 of 50
24 For example, in the November 5, 2007 Transcript (the Nov 5, 2007 Minute
25 Order is one of those that Judge Segal expunged) mxh Vol III p558), Plaintiff states:
26 "..•the pending document,fraudulent in nature, and I've noticed
27 Attorney Keshavarzi about that.
For example, it's a motionfor appointment ofthe receiver
28 where the judgment is never provided. What is the Receiver going
-54-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 4 of 25
to be working on? And it's the same thing happened before with
2 the Referee. Keshavarzi never ever noticed the judgment by court
ofAug 9th that he was ordered to notice and he never included
3 any document where he said he was including it. He only
4 substituted itfor a notice ofOrder...
1 In fact, Plaintiff spent the entire time of his oral arguments on Aug 9, 2007
2 Summary Judgment Hearing, on cataloging and detailing the various types of fraud
3 Samaan engaged in during the failed real estate transaction in 2004, and later, in the
4 litigation of Samaan v Zernik in LA Superior Court (Exh Vol III. p455). But
5 Defendant Connor was clearly not interesting in finding any fraud anywhere - not
6 with Countrywide, and not with Samaan, and likewise, she wanted to make sure that
7 Plaintiff would not even allowed to bring such arguments - by denying him the right
8 to amend his claims.
9 For convenient reference, some ofthe more blatant frauds are now listed in
10 tables in Docket #40, p16, with the relevant Code sections, elements, and references to
11 evidence satisfying the various elements.
12 And yet, at least one of the fraud types was demonstrated beyond any doubt.
13 That was the 'fraudulent inducement' - Samaan used false Prequalification
14 Letter, with forged signature ofMr Parks to substantiate her qualification as a buyer,
15 when in fact she was not qualified at all. On that issue, since the fraud was
16 undeniable, Judge Connor states:
17 " Finally, Mr Zernik's fraudulent inducement claim, based on an
allegedly fraudulent loan prequalification letter by Victor Parks dated
18 September 7, 2004, is no more than a red herring. Mr Zernik did not
cancel escrow based on any question regarding Ms Samaan's
19 prequalification in September 2004. "
20
21 Plaintiff described a buyer who provided checks that went NSF twice, that
22 asked escrow not to deposit her checks, since she had insufficient funds, who filed
23 fraudulent loan applications with Countrywide, since her true employment data would
24 never support the loans, and still she could not get her loans approved ... Yet Defenant
25 Connor finds no no relationship between the cancellation of escrow and the lack of
26 qualification of Samaan?
27
28
-58-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 7 of 25
1 16.Defendants that are the Los Angeles Superior Court and its West District
2 Judges continue to abuse ofPlaintifrs rights for due process. free speech.
and possession for the third year.
3
4 The collusion of a judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court in real estate fraud
5 with a large corporation and others is only one of several aspects of this case which
6 show it to be extraordinary, presenting a "serious question", and high level public
7 policy interest, all of which contribute to justify review by the US Court.
8
9 17. An Epidemic ofReal Estate and Mortgage Fraud. where Los Angeles is
the Epicenter...
10
11 FBI Reports indicate that Los Angeles County is the "epicenter" of a "national
12 epidemic" that is a high priority to fight. The little of Samaan v Zernik that is
13 described above may explain in part how Los Angeles grew to acquire such
14 distinction... A permissive atmosphere, where the courts are lenient or even
15 supportive of real estate fraud could definitely be a contributing factor.
16 Plaintiff gradually realized that most likely his case is not unusual for Los
17 Angeles, when he interviewed attorneys who were experienced in real estate litigation.
18 A couple oftimes Plaintiff heard the estimate that he would have been much better off
19 had his case been heard in Central District, rather than West District. But beyond that
20 - when he discussed the specifics of the case with prospective counsels, again and
21 again they advised him never to mention any fraud in court.
22 Initially, it did not make sense at all. After all, in December 2006, as one ofthe
23 first steps in his review, Plaintiff consulted with staff of the California Department of
24 Real Estate, and he was told that fraud, and in particular the claim of fraudulent
25 inducement were some ofthe strongest points in this case. They also expressed
26 surprise that Att Cummings, who by then was on the case about 1.5 years, never filed
27 cross complaint for fraud and deceit.
28
-59-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 8 of 25
9 That again is a reason why there is a need for the United States Court to review
10 this case.
11
12 la.Full Access to Litigation Records is a Basic Requirement. Absent such-
13 PlaintiffCannot Expect Anv Safeguard ofhis Due Process Rights in
Review bv the California Courts.
14
15 At present, Plaintiff finds himself in an odd situation that defies any
16 expectations he may have had of the United States justice system:
17 After Plaintiff and his counsels were denied access to almost any litigation
18 records from October 2005 to Aug 2007, Plaintiff got some limited access. However,
19 in order to pursue the case effectively in the Los Angeles Superior Court or higher
20 California Courts, Plaintiff must gain access to full and complete litigation records.
21 Particular records that are essential were listed in the Designation ofRecords on
22 Appeal (Docket # 54).
23 Access to one's own litigation records is such a basic, that Plaintiff never
24 considered that he would have to argue for such rights. But until Plaintiff filed the
25 current claims in United States Courts, Plaintiff could not even get a certified copy of
26 the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court from the Clerk's office. Counsel Bianco, as a
27 special gesture, provided Plaintiffwith that certified copy after Plaintiff filed claims in
28 United States Court.
-60-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 9 of 25
1 Plaintiff believes, based on his experience in recent year an a half, that he has
2 no chance of gaining access to his own litigation records, unless through protection of
3 his Civil Rights by the United States Court.
4
5 19.Electronic Court File Records in "Sustain", which the LA Superior Court
6
Likes to Keep nprivileged" are at the Center ofthe Problem.
1 records. Bad as the records look now, the more detailed the review, the worse LA
2 County Superior Court would appear. That is also the reason that the LA Superior
3 Court was compelled to deceive the US Court in filing the "Case Summary" as a
4 "Docket".
5 Plaintiff realized certain facts a while ago, and some more recently:
6 a. Sustain does not use an internal clock for many of the time stamps in the system,
7 as one would expect from such system. As a result - court personnel can indulge
8 in back-dating, such as seen in Page #1 of Sustain Case History (Docket #46).
9 b. The system allows certain procedures that should not have been allowed, at
10 least without notice to parties. Judges of the Los Angeles Superior Court indulge
11 in various judicial acts that should have been noticed to litigants, such as
12 invalidating Minute Orders after such were noticed to litigants. Such instances
13 were listed above, here is more detailed description of examples:
14 i. On January 30th, 2008, Plaintiff appeared before Judge Friedman for an Ex
15 Parte Application to release funds that are Plaintiff's proceeds from the sale
16 of his home against his will. The LA Superior Court is holding these funds
17 with no reason at all. Receiver Pasternak, in a display of common sense,
18 actually supported Plaintiff's request in open court. Defendant Friedman
19 denied Plaintiff application with prejudice with no explanation at all. That
20 decision may appear unusual upon review. But Judge Friedman warned
21 Plaintiff that he will impose sanctions ifhe requested again the release of his
22 funds. Yet, the minute order of January 30, 2008 was invalidated after being
23 noticed, and the decision is by now expunge or vacated. Such was done
24 though simple manipulation of Sustain, but was never noticed to Plaintiff.
25 ii. On Dec 7, 2007, Plaintiff appeared in two ex parte applications by Receiver
26 Pasternak that signaled some ofthe worst abuse in the last 3 years. These
27 proceedings were outside any standard of Due Process of the Law. In the
28 appearance before Defendant Hart-Cole, an attorney appeared who refused
-62-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 11 of 25
reasonably conclude that there are specific differences in the operation of Sustain
between sites, even within the West District. Plaintiff holds that allowing such
variations in the system is not consistent with good management practices, and
raises concerns regarding the integrity ofthe system as a whole.
d. Plaintiffwas repeatedly told that Sustain "Case History" is the true "Docket" of
the system. But Plaintiff finds it difficult to believe that when the system was put
in place no "Register ofActions" was programmed, since the Register is a basic
management instrument in any court. However, once one realizes that judges like
Defendant Connor ran most ofthe proceedings "off the record", obviously the LA
Superior Court cannot allow the true register of actions to be disclosed, because it
would be the "smoking gun" of wholesale abuse of Due Process. For the same
reason exactly, this United States Court should not abstain from action in this case.
The abuse of Due Process in the LA Superior Court is surely not reserved for
Plaintiff alone. It is the duty of this court to safeguard the rights of the citizens of
this County like the rest of the citizens ofthe United States.
3 Plaintiff believes that the introduction of Sustain in the LA Superior Court, over
4 20 years ago, was a major change in the Rules of Court. But there is no indication
5 that it was treated that way. Likewise, there is no indication that the introduction of
6 the new system, CCMS, by the California Judicial Council is treated as such (Docket
7 #5Q). As an example - it is unreasonable that there is no reference at all to Sustain in
8 the written Rules of Court of Los Angeles County, based on a word search.
9 The United States Rule Enabling Act 28 U.S.CO § 2071 says:
10 (b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the
Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be
11
prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice
12 and an opportunity for comment.
Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by
13 the prescribing court and shall have such effect on
14 pending proceedings as the prescribing court may
order.
15
No new case management system should be allowed before giving public notice
16
17 and an opportunity for comment. However, when it comes to computer systems,
18 public comment is incapacitated absent detailed information regarding system
19 specifications. Therefore, rules must be developed regarding the method of
20 presentation of such systems for public comment (similar to rules regarding
presentation of building plans for public comment). The logic of the programming
21
22 code may need to be reduced to a set of assertions in natural language. Moreover, in
23 consultation with experts from the field of mathematics and logic, standardized
24 presentations may be developed, and methods of certification, to ensure that such
25 presentations in natural language are true and correct reflection of the code. In
26 addition, it may be necessary to certifY that the logic of the system is consistent with
27 the legal code that is implemented in it. Mathematical and logical methods such as
28 "formal verification" and "simulation verification" may be utilized.
-65-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 14 of 25
1
2 b. State ofthe Art Security and Signage Measures Must be
3 Implemented.
4 Based on the little that Plaintiff has learnt about the system, it is reasonable to
5 assume that it was modified over the years, and that such modifications were not
6 uniform in all locations of the Court. Any ad hoc changes in the system are a major
7 risk to its integrity, and rules must be developed to safeguard the systems against such
8 changes in the code.
9 The system as it is operated now implements User ID's and passwords. But
10 such are hidden from public view in the Audit Files. That is in violation ofthe law
11 relative to implementation of electronic and digital signatures. Such laws as the
12 United States E-sign Act of2002 and the California regulations regarding electronic
13 signatures mandate that wherever such signatures were traditionally open to public
14 view - and they definitely were open to public view in traditional Books ofCourt -
15 they must be made accessible for public inspection also in their digital permutation.
16 Digital signatures must be introduced such that electronic filing (such has in
17 Pacer) or Minute Orders (such as in Sustain) are accompanied by the judge's and the
18 clerk's digital signature, where traditionally the "wet" hand-signature would be
19 imprinted in a traditional Book of Court.
20
21 c. Lessons must be distilled from the traditional paper-based systems
22
It appears that with the computerized revolution, the traditional systems were
23
discarded without giving them a second thought. Primary consideration should be
24
given to strengthening the ministerial arm ofthe court, as a counter balance to the
25
judicial, with highly educated and skilled clerks in key positions. The authorities of
26
the judicial and the ministerial arms should be carefully prescribed and segregated, to
27
generate appropriate checks and balances.
28
-66-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 15 of 25
1
2 d. CMS's Must be Utilized to Safeguard Due Process and to Monitor the
Quality and Integrity ofthe Courts.
3
14
The California Court of Appeal surely offered helpful advice when it stated that
15
"true remedy is in filing an appealfrom order for appointment of
16 receiver".
17
18 But in fact one must deem the Justices of the California Court ofAppeal, like the
19 Judges of the LA Superior Court, in violation of the CalifOrnia Code ofEthics Canon
20 3D(l).
21 They all knew ofthe unethical conduct and the abuse perpetrated on Plaintiff by
22 Judges of LA Superior Court, but none followed the Code, which is clear cut in its
23 directive.
24 Canon 3D(l) says:
25 D. Disciplinary Responsibilities
(1) Whenever a judge has reliable information that another judge
26 has violated any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics, the judge
shall take or initiate appropriate corrective action, which may
27
include reporting the violation to tbe appropriate authority. it
28
-67-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 16 of 25
2 Plaintiff prays that this Court ofthe United States take action in Zernik v Connor
3 et al. as part of an ongoing, much necessary reform in the government of the County
4 of Los Angeles.
5
6
III.
7 STATEMENT OF CASE
8 Plaintiff J osep Zernik is a natural person residing at 2415 Saint George Street,
Los Angeles County, California. III.
9
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
10 STATEMENT OF CASE
11 Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 reads as follows:
12 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory,
13
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
14 States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
15 by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
16 injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper
proceeding for redress.
17
18 The events related to this complaint, outlined below, are related to actions of
19 Judges and others at the Los Angeles Superior Court, that involved severe abuse of
20 PlaintiffZernik's rights for Free Speech, for Due Process, and for Possession. All of
21 that took place as part of litigation, still under way, in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400),
22 where Plaintiff Zernik is Defendant and Cross-complainant. Most of the abuses that
23 are the subject of instant Complaint were aimed to benefit large corporations at the
24 expense of robbing an individual of his rights and of his possessions. Such
25 corporations include:
26 a. Countrywide (herein after Countrywide designates Countrywide Financial
27 Corporation (C1577628, jurisdiction - Delaware and any and all of its subsidiaries
28 and subdivisions, jointly and/or severally, including but not limited to Countrywide
-69-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 17 of 25
1 Home Loans, Inc., C0568549, jurisdiction - New York), and two of its top officers,
2 namely - Angelo Mozilo, President and CEO and Sandor Samuels, Chief Legal
3 Counsel,
4 b. Mara Escrow Company (C1309311, jurisdiction - California) (a subdivision
5 of Old Republic Title Company, C0564951, jurisdiction - California, and/or Old
6 Republic Title Holding Company, Inc C0965299, jurisdiction - California).
7 Zernik had no business with Countrywide whatsoever. He had never applied
8 for any loan from Countrywide, he had never had any loan serviced by Countrywide,
9 and he had never been employed by Countrywide. In fact, in December 2006, when
10 Zernik for the first time started reviewing the court documents in Samaan v Zernik
11 (over a year into the litigation), and for the first time realized that he was the victim of
12 courtroom fraud by Samaan in collusion with Countrywide, he did not even recognize
13 the name "Countrywide".
14 And yet by that time it is obvious from facts outlined below that some
15 individuals in Countrywide Legal Department had decided already prior to August
16 2006 to support the fraudulent claims brought by Samaan in Samaan v Zernik, and
17 cover up the true facts related to the fraudulent loan applications of Samaan submitted
18 to Countrywide in October 2004, and their wrongful underwriting at Countrywide
19 Home Loans, Inc San Rafael Wholesale Branch.
20 Countrywide engaged in such willful wrongdoing regardless of the harm they
21 were going to cause to Zernik.
22 And on July 6, 2007 Countrywide appeared in court for an ex parte application
23 for a Protective (gag) Order against Zernik, in a procedure that defied any notion of
24 Due Process and Free Speech rights. Such abuses of Zernik rights went on through a
25 hearing on July 23, 2007 outlined below, and continued in a hearing on Feb 15,2008,
26 outlined below, and are expected to continue, unless prevented by this court, on March
27 8, 2008, with a sentence jail on Zernik.
28
-70-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 18 of 25
1 for cause - according to the California Bench Guide, published by the Judicial
2 Council. Indeed, it is logically flawed: If there was no legal basis to the litigant's
3 filing, on its face - condition that would justifY the Strike, then there is no room for
4 the Answer. If there is any argument that is necessary and written in the Answer -
5 then the Strike is dishonest - since there were legal grounds for the filing.
6 In short - this un-allowed response filing by Judges ofthe LA Superior
7 Court is deemed by them sufficient for continuing to preside, without having their
8 answer adjudicated by a peer, when in fact - until such an Answer is adjudicated
9 by a peer and is found prevailing, the Judge has no authority at all!
10 a) California Court of Appeal-
11 Zernik noticed two appeals related to the matter of Samaan v Zernik:
12 i. B203063 - noticed 10/5/07, from Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court, and
13 ii. B204544 - noticed 12/10/07, from Nov 9, 2007 Order Appointing
14 Receiver.
15 The latter appeal was noticed as the recommendation of the Court of
16 Appeal itself, which in one of its order stated that true remedy may be in such an
17 appeal.
18 However, both appeals are still only in early stages of preparation of
19 records on appeal, and months away from any hearings.
20 Zemik filed several writ petitions with California Court of Appeal:
21 1. B199661- from April 22, 2007 Order Denying Continuance of Discovery
22 Cutoff Date - denied
23 ii. B204029 - from Denial of Stay and Set Bond re: Aug 9,2007 Judgment by
24 Court - denied
25 lll. B204164 - from Denial of Stay and Set Bond re: Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by
26 Court - denied
27 iv. B205195 - from Judge Friedman striking disqualification filings Jan 11 &
28 14,.2008 - denied
-72-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 20 of 25
1 objections. At the time of the hearing, the commission never received yet the full
2 documentation of Judge Friedman's conduct, and such was still under way.
3 Zernik was excluded from any specific and detailed knowledge of the
4 filing ofjudges for the hearing by the Commission, or steps taken by the
5 Commission to investigate the situation. Zernik was informed that his comlaint
6 was found without merit. Moreover, when he submitted follow-up information
7 regarding current events in Judge Friedman Court, he received a letter from the
8 Commission refusing to accept such documents, since the complaint regarding
9 Judge Friedman was already heard and closed (Exh xx is a xx/xx/08 letter from the
10 Commission).
11 c. California Attorney General -
12 Safeguard of the civil rights of California citizens are within the charges
13 of the California Attorney General. Zernik had numerous communications with the
14 staff of the office of the Attorney General, including senior staff members such as
15 Att. Tom Green, Special Assistant, reporting directly to Att General Brown, and
16 Att Albert Sheldon, Head of the Section on Consumer Protection, and Head of the
17 section on False Claims. These officials appeared sincerely interested in Zernik's
18 claims against Countrywide, in the context of the Office of California Attorney
19 General own investigation against Countrywide. and Zernik was instructed to add
20 the Office of California Attorney General as a Party ofInterest on the Court filings.
21 Regarding Zernik's concerns in the areas of Civil Rights abuse and
22 Integrity of the Judiciary, the office of California Attorney General refused to
23 intervene, as stated in the letter ofxx/03/08 (Exh xx is a XX/03/08 letter from Tom
24 Green, Special Assistant to California Attorney General Brown).
25
26 PLAINTIFF ZERNIK IS HEREBY ENTERING HIS
27 COMPLAINT:
28
-74-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 22 of 25
1 1. This is a Civil Rights complaint for declaratory, injunctive and other appropriate
2 relief brought by Plaintiff, Joseph Zernik, a United States citizen, appearing in pro
3 per. Mr. Zernik brings this complaint for violations of his individual rights under
4 First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
5 in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985 and 1986.
6 2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and also pursuant to U.S.
7 Constitution, Art. III, § 2 and Title 28 U.S. Code § 1332 due to diversity of
8 jurisdictions among defendants in the various States of California, Delaware, and
9 New York.
10
11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joseph Zernik respectfully asks this Court to
12 grant him such declaratory, injunctive and other relief as it deems just and proper.
13 Plaintiff demands a Jury Trial in this case.
14
15 Respectfully submitted on May 15, 2008 by:
16 PLAINTIFF
17
18
19
20 JOSEPH ZERNIK
21 in pro per
22
23 IV.
24 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
25 WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS this Court issue equitable relief
26 as follows:
27 1. Injunctive relief against Defendants Judge Terry Friedman and the LA
28 Superior Court regarding any ~er judicial acts in Samaan v Zernik, and
28
-76-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FffiST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 24 of 25
1 By: _
2 Joseph Zenrik
Plaintiff
3
in pro per
4
5
IV.
6
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT
7
I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant & Cross Complainant in Samaan v Zernik
8
(SC087400) matter heard in Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, I am also
9
Appellant in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior Court: B203063 - noticed 10/5/07, and
10
B204544 - notice 12/10/07, matters currently in preparation of records on appeal for
11
California Court of Appeal. I am also Petitioner in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior
12
Court: B205686 - to release funds held by LASC and secure Zernik's rights for Due
13
Process and Possession, filed 2/13/08, and B205737- to safeguard Zernik's rights for
14
Due Process re: Denial of Access to Court File and related public records, filed
15 2/14/08.
16
I have read the foregoing Complaint ofAbuse of u.s. Constitutional Rights
17
and I know the content thereof to be true it is correct based on my own personal
18
knowledge as Defendant & Cross Complainant, as Appellant, and as Petitioner in pro
19
per, except as to those matters therein stated as based upon information and belief,
20
and as to to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct as well.
21
I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of
22
perjury pursuant to the laws of California and the United States.
th
23 Executed here in Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, on this 15 day in
24
May, 2008.
25
).~
26
27 Joseph Zernik
28 Plaintiff
-77-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 62-2 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 25 of 25
1 in pro per
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-78-
ZERNIK v CONNOR ET AL , VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT