Digitally signed by Joseph H Zernik

DN: cn=Joseph H Zernik, o, ou,

email=jz12345@earthlink.net, c=US
Location: La Verne, California
Date: 2010.01.24 05:02:53 -08'00'

Joseph Zernik DMD PhD

Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net

. .
.
.
.
.

Att Jenna Moldawsky Pinocchio Att. Sandor Samuels Judge Learned Hand (not Terry Friedman)

09-01-13. Att Jenna Moldawsky – Winner of the 2008 Pinocchio Award*

As the year comes to a close, there is no doubt that Att Moldawsky deserves more than anybody else the
2008 Pinocchio Award! Att Moldawsky won the award for her landmark paper:

“Non-Party Countrywide Home Loans, Inc’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Monetary
Sanctions…”.**

“In this artful pleading, Att Moldawsky masterly crafted all possible Pinocchio effects:
– Att Moldawsky purportedly represents a corporate client, but she would not answer direct questions about its
identity, neither has she filed any corporate disclosure in the past six months since BOA took over
Countrywide, and since Sandor Samuels and Angelo Mozilo presumably ceased to be Countrywide
employees. Att. Moldawsky also filed no paper showing she was authorized by BOA, and BOA denied she
was authorized.
– Att Moldawsky purportedly represents a client whom she designates “Non-Party”. By what authority and on
what legal foundation she came by this party designation? Obviously it is handy in failing to report the
violations of the law per Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 §307, but why did the Clerk of the Court accept such
filing?
– Att. Moldawsky’s paper claims to be part of a case captioned Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), of the LA
Superior Court. But the offices of Presiding Judge and Clerk of the Court refuse to certify such facts.
– Att Moldawsky adequately listed no judge as being assigned the to the case on the face page. And yet, in the
first sentence she noticed it to “Department J”. What legal theory led Att Moldawsky in determination of
venue and jurisdiction? Maybe the fact that Mr Terry Friedman is a friend of Mr Sandor Samuels..,
– Att Moldawsky’s arguments are based on a purported July 23, 2007 Order by Judge Connor, but a valid
order that was issued, served, noticed, and entered in a timely manner is yet to be produced…
– Att Moldawsky included in her motion a table of authorities. How did she determine that such case is
adjudged by the Law of the State of California ?
– Att Moldawsky, again, produced evidence with no authentication, and insufficient pleadings – by counsel.
The Pinocchio Award committee congratulates you, Att Moldawsky, for such unique achievement so early in your
career – as graduate of UCLA Law School, Class of 2006. Congratulations also to your mentors at Bryan Cave,
LLP, Bank of America, and Countrywide. Mr Samuels’ inspiration surely shines between your lines - his
precocious student of the art of streamlining, of which he is a master – second to none…
All the best!”

* Ms Moldawsky’s unprecedented achievement was also submitted to Boing Boing – a directory of wonderful things, http://boingboing.net/.
** http://inproperinla.com/09-01-13-moldawsky-notice-of-motion-sanctions-contempt.pdf
 >
'.,
BRYAN CAVE LLP ORIGINAL IftLt:DI
John W. Amberg (Cl\ State Bar No, 108166) LOS ANG~L§~ ~1JpimQR CQURl .

~
2 nJenna Moldawsk)' (CA St;ttc Bar No. 24(109) JOHN A. Cjl1l"Wtf. d18f;\K
120 Broadway, Suite 300
3 USanta Monica, California 90401-2386 UtUI B~UOij
Telephone: 310-576-2100
uJ ....~?u,+V t
o 4 I FacsuniIc: 310-576-2200 By: ''1\-.1

u 6

7
Attorneys for Non-Party COUNTRYW[DE HOME LOANS, INC.

g
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT
]0

III
11 II NIVIE SAt\'1AAN, Ct al., I Case No. SC087400
'"f'lN 12 Plaintiffs, NON-PARTY COUNTRYWIDE I-lOME
0­
0°(J
M
t3
LOANS, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION
Q. OJ 01 AND MOTION (1) FOR MONETARY
..J ~ .(
vs. SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT
~~~ 14 JOSEPH ZERNIK IN THE AMOUNT OF
>
< ,.- 0..
u ~ J $5,564.50 FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
%
«00'" i5 JOSEPH ZERNIK, et al. JULY 23, 2007 PROTECTIVE ORDER; ~)
>- 0 -
t< '"
m (ll
-<
!! FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE W IY
o Z 16 Defendants. DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK

I'l0
_:1:
..
<
]7
SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN

CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONED FOR

"<
III VlOLATlONS OF THE PROTECfIVE
18 ORDER; AND (3) FOR A
19 II
I MODIFICATION OF THE PROTECTIVE
ORDER TO INCLUDE OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEESOFALLCOUNTR~DE
20 II I AFFILIATES, INCLUDING BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION;
21 11
I MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
I AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF
22 ~
JOHN W, AMBERG AND TODD A.

?]
24 ;
i BOOCK

Date: Janumy 13,2009

Time: 8:45 a.m.
: Place: WE)
25 II
I .
26 It------------~ __ ~ _____

27

28

SMO tDOCS71 1347. I COUNTRYWIDE'S MOTION fOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER

RELIEF

-1-
 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 II PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 13,2009, or on such other date ordered by

3 H the Coun, at 8:45 a.m. in Department J of the Superior Court of Los Angeles c.ounty, West

4 I! District, located at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401, non-party Countrywide

5 U Home Loans, Inc. (,Countrywide") will and hereby does move this Court: (1) for monetary

6 Usanctions in the amount of $5,564.50 against Ddi~ndantJoseph Zernik ("Zcrnik"), pursuant

7 II to the Coun's inherent authority and Califotma Code of Civil Proceollre §§ 2023.010 and

8 II 20ZH130, On the grounds that Zemik has knowingly and intentionally violated the terms of
9 II the July 23, 2007 protective order ("Court Order") which directed him to communicate solelr

10 ~ with Countrywide's designated counsel and no other Countrywide officers or employees

to

"'l'l':'l
11 !
regarding the present acrjon, by persisting in harassing and making baseless accusations to
!'
12 I Counttywide's officers and employees; (2) for an order to show cause why Zernik should not
o 0
0
<t
l'lo l3 II be held in contempt :Jnd sanctioned accordingly for his viobtions of the Court Order; and (3)
IL"'"
..Jt;<
~~~
:> · 0
il4 n for a moclific3tioll of the Coun Order to include officers and employees of aU Countrywide
<: >- "­
U ~ ::;
2: 0 '" 15 II af6liates, including Bank of i\merica CotpoCltion, so that Zemik is directed to communicate
>- D
'" ' " U•
IC II: '"
III III u
o i
NO
16 I soldy with Countrywide legal counsel, Bryan Cave LLP, regarding the present action and no
-~
'Z>-" 17 I other officers and employees of Countrywide affiliates.
'"
11l
18 II This Motion is based on the NOlice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum

19 II of Points and Authorities, the Declarations of John \XI. Amberg and Todd A. Boock and

20 II exhibits filed herewith, the files and records herein, and sucn evidence as may be presented at

21 II the heanng.

22 r Datcd: December 18, 2008 BRYA.N CAVE LLP

Jann \'fl. Amberg, Esq.

23 Jenna Moldawsky, Esq.

24

J2',Avrt.a~
25 By
na Moldawsky
26 Attorneys for Non-Patty
COUNTRYWlDE HOME LOANS, INC.
27
28
~MO 1DOCS 712347.1 2
COUNTRYWIDE'S MOTION r-oR SANCTIONS AND OmlOR
RELlEf

-2-
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 I. INTRODUCTION 3
3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4
4 A. Zemik Is Sanctioned and Found in Contempt for His Repeated Violations of
the Court Order 4
5
B. Zcmik Continues to Violate the Court Order and Harass Countrywide 5
6
C. Zernik Expands His Harassment to Include Bank of America Employees 6
7
II III. ZERNIK SHOULD BE SANCTIONED FOR HIS REPEATED WILLFUL
8 VIOLATIONS OF THE COURT ORDER 7

9 ~ IV. ZERNIK'S CONTINUED WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE COURT ORDER

WARRANT AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ZERNIK SHOULD NOT BE
10 HELD IN CONTEMPT 8
J) A. The Court Order Is Enforceable 9
.,'".,
1'2

':I B. Zernik Ha<; Actual Knowledge of the Court Order. l0

0;;

o "
"0
fie .. '"
13
C. The Court Order Was Always in Full Force and Effect 10
...J ':: «
....J7:>i
... III '"
> • 0
14 O. Zernik Was and Is Capable of Complying with the Court Order 10
< >- ..
u ~ :;
z "u<
« 15 E. Zernik Willfully Violated the Court Order 11
>- 0 •
C( C( <
m Gl !:!
o z 16 «V. C(YNCLUSION 11
'"
~~ 0

<
z
l­ 17
<
en
18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SMOI [)OCS712J47.1 COUNTRYWIDE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER

Rfl..lH

-3-
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 UCASES

3 i City of Vernon v. Superior Court, 38 Ca1.2d 509 (1952) 11

4 D~:·8°c:l~2~· ~~f({~;2r~.~.~.' uo 9
:iK9tst~i<',\~;''fd~3; {lo9~~ u........u uu.u uuu9
7 II M~W C~f~~~:.i~~1~;~~'(2004) 7
8

I: iN::<~:lc::: :::c~:~~o~~,·uuuu.uu uum.uuuuuu .. ·uuuuuu10

llicr~ v. Superior Court,

59 Cal.App.3d 611 (1976) 9

<0
11 !
III Ni~Jasv. Nikl~,
<'l
~ 12 211 Cal.!\pp.3d 28 (1989) __ 7
00
0 "
.., 0
II. IJ III
13 011 Workers Int'l Union v. Superior Court,
..J t ~
J ~ z 103 Cal.App.2d 512 (1951) __ 11
... VI ..
> • 0
14
< ,. ..
u ~< -J R--S. CrG.3!ive. Inc. v . Crtative CottoD, Ltd.,
Z 0 <
«U 15 75 Cal. App. 4th 486 (1999) 7
,. 0 •
tt 0: <
III III ~
o z 16 Ra..'il,.in "\'. Superior Court,
-<
NO
~ 138 CaL/\rr. 668,
....
Z
17 3.3 P.2d 35 (1934) __ .. _ 8
'"
(/l

IS Reliable Enterprises Inc. v. Sup.coor Court,

1')8 CaLApp.3d 604,

19 204 Cal.Rpu. 786 (19984) 8

20 Ros~n v. Supct'io!:'.Cf>Urt,
244 Cal. App. 2d 586 (1966) 8
21
Vil£lJfooscar v. RaiJroad Comm'n., 189 Cal. 228 (1922).................................................... 10

22
Wel~lS:iy End,

23
2~:2 Cal..r\pp.2d 982 (1967) 7

24 II STATUTES

2S Cal. Ci\'. Proc. Code § 1218(a) : 9

26 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1209(a)(4) and (5) 9

27 Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a) 8

28
SMOID<XS712J47.1 11

COUNTRYWIDE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER

RELlEF

-4-
 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
211. INTRODUCTION
3 I Non-party Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. CCountrywide") moves the Court: (1) for

4 B monetary sanctions against DefendantJoseph Zcrnik ("Zernik"). pursuant to the Court's

5 ~ inherent authority and California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030, on the

6 1\ grounds that Zernik has knowingly and intentionally violated the tenTIS of the July 23, 2007

7 ~ protective order ("Court Order") which directed him to communicate solely with

8 I Countrywide's designated counsel and no other Countrywide officers or employees regarding

9 I the present action, by persisting in harassing and making baseless accusations to

10 II Countrywide's officers and employees; (2) for an order to show cause why Zernik should not

11 11 be held in contempt and sanctioned, based on his bad faith denial of the existence of the
III

"'~ 12 ('..ourt Order and his continued violations thereof, and (3) for a modification the Court Order
00
lL : ~ 13 ro include officers and employees of all Countrywide affiliates, including Bank of America
..J ~ (

~~~ 14 Corporation, so that Zernik is directed to communicate solely \vith Countrywide's designated
-< >- ...
U < ~
~~
>- 0
5 •
15 legal counsel, Bryan Cave LLP, regarding the prescnt ac.tion and no other officers and
II: II: <
m~ ¥ 16 employees of Countrywide affiliates.
- .­
roI 0
~
<
J7 As the COlItt is aware, Countrywide is not and has never been a party to this actioo.
z
<
Ol
18 I Coulltrywide was simply a third-party document subpoena recipient which has been subjected

19 II to a campaign of harassment by Zcrnik because Countrywide's production of documents did

20 II not support Zernik's skewed view of his casc. On July 23, 2007, Countrywide moved for a

2 I Illimi ted and narrowly-tailored protective order due to Zernik's unrelenting harassment and

22 Uabuse of Countrywide's officers and employees. The Court granted the motion, finding that

23 II "Countrywidc has a right to be protected from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment or

24 \I oppression," and granted the order. (SeJ~ ~1aan v. Zcmik: Minute Order dated July 23,

25 ~ 2007, attached as Exhibit A to f\mberg DecL). The Court ruled that Zernik was prohibited

26 ~ from "directly phoning, emailing.orotherwisecont1l.cring [Countrywide'S] represented officers

27 II or employees." (Id.)

28 \I For the next year, despite Countrywide's repeated demands that Zemik abide by the
SMOIOOCS71234i.1 3
COUNTR YWIDE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS A1\iD OTHER
RELIEF

-5-
 I

terms of the Court Order, Zernik continued to willfully and flagrantly violate the Court Order !
2 by directly contacting CountryWide officers and employees seeking to obtain discovery I
!

3 regardIng this action. On rebruary 15, 2008, the Court sanctioned Zemik in the amount of

4 Sl(i,170 for his repeated violations of the Court Order. On March 11,2008, the Court I
5 entered a judgment finding Zernik guilty of thirteen separate acts of contempt for his willful
6 violations of the Court Order. I I
7 Despite direct orders from the Court to cease his oppressive behavior, Zernik I
I
8 contioues his campaign of harassment to this day. In fact, Zcrnik has recently escalated and
9 expanded his efforts: on December 9,2008, Zcrnik sent three emails to Countrywide officers

10 and employees regarding the present action, demanding responses to his communications,

11 clalmlog ignorance of the Court Order, and, in one email, asking "How long do you think you
'"
OJ
<'l
N 12 can go on with tllis fraud?" (Se~ Exhibits G-I to ;\mberg Decl.) Further, following Bank of
°0
0",
"'0 13 l'\merica's merger with Countrywide, Zernik has also made attempts to communicate with
0.. " "•
..Jt <
...J :> i
lot l/\ 0: ]4 Bank of America officers and employees regarding the "fraud at Countrywide" relating to the
;> - 0
< ~ ~
u ~ J
z a -<
-< -< U 15 present action. He claims that he is writing to "inform" Bank of America of "[his1 abuse at
>- 0 •
0: It "­
1Il1ll!!
o z 16 the hands of Countrywidc," and that Countrywidc has "assumed a status above the law in the
- ~-<
'" 0

'2-<" 17 Los /\ngdes Superior Court with permission to engage in criminal conduct with the blessing
Ul

18 11 of the Court itse[ f" ad., Ex. L.)

19 !l Zcrnik has shown no indication of ccasing his harassing behavior. His conduct IS

20 !l gctljng worse. Zemik's oppressive tactics must stop. Zernik has shown no respect for

21 M Countrywide, or for the Court or its rulings. Thus, Countrywide respectfully requests that the

22 nCOlin grant its Motion

23 ~ II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

24 A. Zernik Is Sanctioned and Found in Contempt for His Repeated

25 n Yiglations of the CQurt Order

26 !I Since Countrywide'S first appearance in this matter as a non-party secking protection

27 \I on July 6,2007, Countrywide has been represented by attorneys at Bryan Cave LLP ("Bryan

28 ~ Cave''). Since the issuance of the Court Order on July 23, 2007, directing Zemik to
SMOIDOCS717J.47.1 4

COUNTRYWIDE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER

REUEf

-6-
 communicate: sok ith designated counsel, however, Ze has repeatedly \riolated the

2 terms of the Court Order by contacting, among others, Angelo Mozilo, the former Chairman

3 of Countrywide's parent company, Countrywide Financial Corp., and Sandor Samuels,

4 Countrywide's Chief Legal Officer, on several occasions. (Amberg DecL at ~ 3.)
5 As a result, on February 15, 2008, Countrywide moved for sanctions and other relief

6 against Zcrnik for his numerous violations of the Court Order. ad. at ~ 4.) At the hearing,

7 the Court found that the Protective Order issued by the Honorable JaC<1ueline Connor on July

8 23, 2007 "is a valid order and the Court was authOlized to grant the Protecove Order

9 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2031.060 and pursuaI1l to Californi<l

10 Code of Civil Procedure Section 128(a)(5)." ad. at '\4, Ex. B.) The: Court affinncd the Order

II and founJ that it "remains in full force and cffeeL" ad,)

<0

'"
(')
C\l 12 The Court granted Countrywide's motion and ordered that Zemik was to pay
00
0",
"'0 13 Countrywide «the amount of S16,170 as sanctions" In the event that Zernik failed to pay
1l"01
...J ~ ~
-J z
these sanctions to Countrywide, the Receiver in this matter, David J. Pastcrnak, was
::I
"
> . a:
III
0
14
'"
U
)-
~ ~
...
'" 0 '" 15 "authori7-ed to pay the sanctions to Countrywide fmm the Receiver's Fund upon nouce to the
'"
>- '"
0 u•
c: '"
a:
(!I m "
o z
<'I 0
16 Receiver and Defendant Joseph Zernik by Countrywide." ad. at ~ 5, Ex. B.) The Court
-~
...'z" 17 further ordered Zernik (0 appear on Match 7, 2008 to show cause why he should not be held
«
III
18 in contempt of court and sanctlOned for violating the Court Order. (1d.)

19 At the hearing on March 7, 2008, the Court found Zernik guilty of thirteen separate

20 acts, of contempt for his repeated violations of the Court Ordcr. (ld--. at ~ 6.) The Court's

21 Judgment dated March 11,2008 states that «DeFendant Joseph Zernik had actual notice of the

22 Protective Order as of July 23, 2007," that Zernik '\vas able to comply with the Protective

23 Order, which was prohibitory, narrowly tailored, and limited in scope," and that Zernik

24 "committed thirteen (13) sCl)arate acts of contempt: by \lrillfuUy violating the Court's July 23,
25 200 7 Prott:ctive Order directing Zernik to communicate solely with Countrywide's designated

26 counsel and no other officers or employrees regarding the present action." ad. at ~ 0, Ex. C.)
27 The Court further found that "the repetition of Defendant Joseph Zcrnik's violations

28 of the Protective Order is evidence of the willfulness of his violations," and Zernik was
SMOIDOCS711.147.1 5

COUNTRYWIDE'S MOTION fOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER

RELIEF

-7-
-8-
 1 I ordered "to pay a finc in the amount of $7,500 for thirteen (13) separate acts of contempt,
2 I pmsuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1218(a)." Gd.)

3 B. Zemik Continues to Violate the Court Order and Harass Countrywide

4 ft Despite the Court's award of sanctions against Zernik and its issuance of a contempt

5 "judgment against Zcrnik, he continues to violate the Court Order. On November 12, 2008,

6 II Zemik scnt an email to Mr. Samuels in direct violation of d1e Coun Order, referring to him as
7 ~ a "perpetrato! of fraud." (Id. at '\8, Ex. D.) On November 24,2008, Zernik copied Mr.

8 "Samuels on an email to Bryan Cave attorneys, oudining the alleged "fraudulent claims" made

9 ~ by Countrywide employees with respect to the underlying action, and claiming Countrywide

10 I produced "fraudulent records" as part of its "collusion" with Plaintiff Nivlc Samaan's

11 ~ attorneys. ado at ~ 9, Ex. E.)

'"
III

'"~ 12 ; On December 8,2008, counsel for Countrywide emailed Zernik and informed him
0

0"

0
M O
o.. .. QI
13 that the sratus 0 f Bryan Cave as outside legal counsel for Countl)T\\~de remained unchanged,
.J ~ ~
J j z
01 II: 14 and that, pursuant to the Court Order, Zernik was to communicate exclusively wid1 counsel
'"
> >-• ..
u ~
0
.., .., ­-'
Z 0 ..
«U 15 for Countrywide and not with any of its employees. ad. at ~ 10, Ex. F.)
.. 0 •
II: '" ..,
llIm~
o z 16 Despite receiving notification from Countrywide's counsel that he remained bound by
NO
-~
..,
t-
17 the tcons of the Court Order, 00 December 9, 2008, Zernik scot three emails to Mr. Samuels
..,Z

til
18 and another Countrywide employee, Maria McLaurin. ad. at ~ 10, Ex. G-l.) In these emails,

19 7.ernik feigns ignorance of the COUll Order, demands withdrawal of "fraudulent records," and

20 1, acCilscs Count.rywide of "collusion with [The Honorable] Terry Friedman." (ld.) In

I
21 response, counsel for Countrywide emailed Zernik and reiterated that he \\!as to refrain from
!
22 I communicating with employees of Countl)'\vide pursuant to the Court Order and that his
23 I refusal to comply with the terms of the (ourt Order was contemptuous and sanctionable.

24 II OJJ, at '1 12, Ex. J.)

25 II Further, on December 16, 2008, Zernik again cmailed Maria McLaurin, a Countrywide

26 II employee, regarding the present action. ad. at ~ 16, Ex. N.) In his message, entided

27 II "Countrywide and racketeering under the guise of litigation in Los Angeles Superior Court,"
28 ~ c1allus that the present action is "a convoluted tale of frauds" and that Countrywide is
SMOIDOCS7l1J47.1 6
COUNTRYWIDE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND OrnER
RELIEF

-9-
 engaged in "obstruction of justice." (Id.) He further alleges that "all judges" of record in this

2 matter engaged in the production of false deceitful trial litigation records." eldJ
3 Despite the Court Order prohibiting him from contacting CountI)'\vide officers and

4 employees, and despite Countrywide's repeated demands that 7ernik cease and desist from

5 contacting Countrywide officers, Zernik has persisted in barraging the company's officers and

6 employees with unsupported accusations and ridiculous demands. Zernik should not be
7 allowed to persist unabated and without repercussions for his willful actions.

8 C. Zet:nik Expands His tIarassmcnt to Include Bank of America Employees

9 [0 addition to Zernik's repeated violations of the Court Order, he has begun harassing

'10 employees and officers of Bank of America, which merged with Countrywide in JIlly 2008
'.11 On December 3, 2008, Zcrnik sent a letter to Kel1Lneth D. Lewis, Chairman, Chief Executive
.,
ell
n
':' 12 Officer and President of Bank of America Corporation, and Teresa tvL Brenner, Associate
°0
0.,

Q.W"
MO D General Counsel for Bank of j\meric:l, enclosing a "press release" a!legedl)' outlining
.J I-
_ <_

. "'",
J

~~g
::I Z
14 "Countrywide's involvement in a dubious Los Angeles Superior Court case" and demanding
u ~ J
Z 0 <
« u• 15 "immediate action to mitigate (his] damages." ad. at ~113 Ex. K.)
,. 0
'" II: <
111m'!
o Z 16 On December 8, 2008, Zcrnik called Phillip Wertz of Bank of America's Legal
... 0
_:f
<
t-
z
17 Department, claiming that he had "uncovered fraud" at Countl1'\vidc in connection with the
<
l/I
18 present action. (Declaration of Todd A. Boock ("Boock Oed") at ~ 2) On December 9,

19 2008, Zcmik faxed a letter to Timothy Mayopoulos, Executive Vice President and General

20 Counsel of Bank of America, requesting that Countl)'wide withdraw "fraudulent records

21 produced by Countrywide Home Loans as part of subpoena productions that were replete

22 \\11th fraudulent records, ilnd which tried to entirely- fabricate Samaan's fraudulent loan

23 applications." (Id~: at ,r 1S, Ex. L.) Zernik also demands a response fom1 Mr Mayopoulos by

24 I Wednesday, December 10, 2008. (Id.)

25 ~ The same clay, Zernik sent a letter to severa:! Bank of America employees requesting
26 ~ "immectiate intervention and curbing of Sandor Samuels." (Id. at ~116, Ex. M.) He claims

27 E that he is writing to "inform" Bank of America of "my abuse at the hands of Countrywide."

28 I ad.) Ze.rnik claims that he "discovered fraud in Countrywide'S subpoena production" and
SMOIDOCS712347.1 7
COUNTR YWIDE'S MOllON FOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER
RELIEF

- 10 -
 that, since that time, Countrywide "assumed a status above the law in the Los Angeles

2 ~ Superior Court wlth permission to engage in criminal conduct with the blessing of the Court

3 nitself." (!rl.,)

4 U Further, on December 17, 2008, Zernik c~llled Randy Sparks of Bank of America

5 I Corporation's Legal Department, complaining about "fraud and conspiracy" involving Mr.

6 ~ Samuels and Bryan Cave. (Boock Decl. at ~ 3.) Zernik has also made numerous attempts to

7 ~ contact various other individuals in Bank of America Corporauon's Legal Department, <IS well

8 ~ as executives \\~thin the company regarding the present action. ad. at ~ 3.)

9 I III. ZEENIK SHOULD BE SANCTIONED FOR HIS REPEATED WILLFUL

10 I VIQLATIONS OF THE COURT ORl1ER

II I The courls have broad discretionary powers with regard to the imposition of sanctions,

10
..,
en
<;I 12 and such deCIsions arc subject to reversal only fOt arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical action.
00
0 "
., 0 13 R.~:~.._ Creative) Inc. v. Creative CottoIh.Ltd., 75 Catl. App. 4th 486,4% (1999); See California
0.."''''
.J ~ <
J "::l i
.. en• '"
> 0
l4 Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030. rmposing sanctions for violations of a
~ >- ..
U -<~ ­ -'
z~ "-< U-< ]5 court order arc within the clear discretion of the court. Maggi v Superior Court, 119
.. 0 ­
'" III
II " ~ <
o z 16 . Cal.App.4th 1218, 1226 (2004) (trial court may impose monetary sanctions far viobtian of
.... 0 I
_;E
-<
t-
z
17 I protcctJVC order); Welgoss y. End, 252 Cal.App.2d 982,992 (t 967) (trial court's broad
<
en
18 discretionary powers include power to impose sanctions to ''s<;cure compliance \vith orders of

119 the coun''); t:Jiklas v. Niklas, 211 Cal.App.3d 28, 38 (1989)(sanctiol1s upheld where party
20 repeatedly violated court orders instead of seeking direct review of court orders).

21 "If a monetary sanct.ion is authorized by any provision of this article, the court shall

n impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanclion acted wid1 substantial

23 juslJIfication or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." Code

24 eiv. Proc. § 2023030(a)(cmphasis added). In imposing a monetary sanction under Section

25 202.3.030, the court: may order that the party subject to the sanction "pay the reasonable

26 expenses, including: attorneys' fees, incurred by another as a result of that conduct." Id. The
27 natnre of the monetary sanction is to compensate for expenses incurred; thus) the Court may

28 award a reasonable amount to compensate a party for its expenses incurred and is not limited
SM01DOCS7l2)47.1 8
COUNTRYWIDE'S MOTtON FOR SANCT[ONS AND OTHER
RELIEF

- 11 -
 to rhe costs that might be properly taxed against the losing party after the trial of we action.

2 I SC('c B9sen v. Superior Court, 244 Cal. App. 2d 586, 596 (1966).

3 n The Court should issue monetary sanctions requiring Zernik to reimburse

4 R Couotl:ywidc for its legal fees and costs incurred in connection with responding to Zernik's

5 I nurllcrous emails and in preparing and filing this motion with the Court. As detailed in the

6 n Declaration of John W. Amberg attached hereto, Zernik's barrage of email communications

7 U to Countrywide's officers and employees in violation of the Court Or-der have caused

8 II Countrywide to incur legal fees and costs in the arnoul1l ofSS,S64.50. Countrywide

9 Hreasonably anticipates incurring additional legal fees responding to Zemik's Opposition of the

10 KMotion, and asks that the Court award sanctions against Zernik to compensate Countrywide

II II fOt all of its fees and costs. But for Zemik's willful disobedience of the Court Order,
.,'"
~12 Countrywide would not have been forced m incur dlcse expenses.
0 0
g~
Q..lLltb
13 IV.. ZERNIK'S
--
CONTINUED WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE COURT -~~-

...J ~ <
~> ~- 0~ '14 PRDER WARRANT AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ZERNIK
0( ,. ..
v < ­
~~~ 15 S.HOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT
,. 0 •
0: 0: 0(

m ~ i '16 Contempt is a disobedience of the Court by acting in opposition to irs authority, justice
_:I:0
'"

~ 17 or dignil)'. Raskil) v. Si,Jperior COUlt, 138 CaLApp. 668, 670,33 P2c.1 3S (1934). Contempr
0(
t~

ilS ~ proceedings atC criminal in nature, so guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

19 II &Jjab1c Enterprises Inc. v. Superior Court, 158 Cal.App.3d 604, 612, 204 Cal.Rptr. 786, 789
20 II (19()84) "The power to weigh evidence, however, rests exclusively with the mal court" Id.

21 II "Direct" contempt is that committed in the immediate view and presence of the Court or of

22 II the judge in chambers. j\\1 other contempts, such as this one, which occur outside the

23 I presence of the Court, are "indirect." See Nierenberg v. Superior Court, 59 CaLApp.3d 611,

24 ~ 61 () (1976) A finding of indirect contempt requires the record to contain subs{2ntial evidence

25 II that fhe contemnor wi.llfully and contemptuously refused to obey ao order of the Court. rd.

26 ~ TIw Court may infer the r-cquisite intent to violate an order from the circumstances. Id.

27 I Certain acts constjtute contempt as a matr$:r of law, including (a) abusing the court

28 II process; or (b) disobeying a court order or process. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 1209(a)(4) and (5).
SMOI DOCS 712347.1 9
COUNTRYWIDG·S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER
RELIEF

- 12 -
 Every separate act of disobedience of a court order is a separate contempt. Donovan v.

2 HSuperior Court, 39 Ca1.2d 848, 855 (1952). Each act of contempt is punishable by a fine not

3 B exceeding $1000 or by imprisonment not exceeding five days, or both. CaL Civ. Proc. Code §
4 I 1218(a). The Court may order the contemptuous party "to pay to the party initiating the

5 Bcontempt proceeding the reasonable attorney's fe(~s and costs incurred by this party in

6 I connccrjon with the contempt proceeding." 14­

7 In order to find Zernik guilty of contempt, this Court need only find that:

8 (a) the July 23, 2007 Order was sufficiently definite and certAin to be

9 enforceable;

JlO (b) Zernik was served with or had actual knowledge of that Order;

1:1 (c) the Order was in full force and effect at the time in question;
en
Cl)
l'l
~ 12 (d) Zernik was able to comply with thc Order; and
o ~

0°
"'6 13 (c) Zermk Willfully disobeyed the Court's Order.

~ Lt The record before this Court establishes the foregoing beyond a reasonable doubt.
II. .. '"
-.J !: <­

~~~ 14
> • 0
~ >- ..
C) ~ ::i
x ()
-< -<
<
\) 15 A. The .court Order Is Enforceable
~ 0 •
0: a: <
1Il111~
oN "0 16 An order is enforceable in an indirect contempt proceeding if the order i.e; in writing or
-I
..
<
:z
17 II ent~:!edi!:L!he Court's minurCB. and if the order is definitive and cenatn. Ketscher v. Superior
-<
<il
18 II COIJl..!:L 9 CaL App. 3d 601, 604-605 (1970). The tcrms of the Court Order are clear and

19 I unequivocal. Zerruk was directed to communicate "solely with Countrywide's designated

20 Il counsel and no other CounuJ'vidc officers or employees regarding the present action."

21 ~ 1;mthcr, the Court's March 11, 2008 Judgment provides that "the Protective Order entered on

22 H Ju)y 23, 2007 by the Honorable Jacqucline Connor is valid and enforceable." (See Ex. C to

23 ~ Amberg Oed).

24 B. Zeq1ik Has Actual Knowledge-..Q[the Court Otde..r:

25 II Zernik had actual knowledge of the Court Order. As specifically detailed in the

26 II Couxt's March 11,2008 Judgment, "defendant Joseph Zcmik had actual notice of the

27 I Protective Order as ofJuly 23, 2007, as Zcrnik was present at the July 23, 2007 hearing

28 I granting the Protective Order and submitted on th(~ record to the Tentative Ruling granting
SMO WOCS7 12347. [ to
COtMffiYWIDf:'S MOnON FOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER
RELIEF

- 13 -
 the Protective Order. Zernik was also repeatedly reminded of the terms and conditions of the

2 I Protective Order by Countrywide's counsel and \Vas served with a Notice of Ruling and a

3 ~ copy of the Court's July 23, 2007 Minute Order grancing the. Protective Order." (See Ex. C to

4 D Amberg Dec!.).

5 c. The Court Order Was Always in Full Force and Effect

6 II The Court issued the Order onJuly 23, 2007, and has never vacated or modified it. As

7 \I declared by the Court on February 15, 2008, the Order "is affamed and remains in full force

8 \I and cffecr." (~Ex. 11 to Amberg Decl.). Zernik has never sought any relief or exception

9 n from the Order. Countrywide has never waived any of the Order's requirements.

10 D. Ze!t1ik Was and Is Capable of Complying with the Court Order

] 1 II 'D1C de feme of "inability to comply" is inapplicable here as a matter of law. Zcrnik is

III

<0

~ 12 perfectly capable of complying with the Court Order. Courts which have upheld that defense
0­
o
4. ~ g 13 found that the alleged contemnor actually lacked the physical ability [0 perfonn the required
..1 t ~

~~~ 14 act. Sec M'jTIS v_ Superior COllrt, 46 Cal.App. 206,209 (1920) (bank, not the alleged
...
~,.
u .. ­
~~~ 15 contemnor, had possession and control over bonds ordered produced); Van HQQsear v.
,. 0 •
0: It ~

In ~ ~ 16 lUilLmad Cornm'n., 189 Cal. 228, 233 (1922) (former corporate secretary lacked authority or
~:l:

~ 17 control over company records ordered produced).

~
VI
18 ~ Zcrnik is clearly able to direct his communication to Countrywide's counsel. Ths is an
19 II action within hIS exclusive control, and sometlung he has dearl}' shown to be capable of in the

20 past. The Court Order Joe~ not restrict Zernik's ability to communicate with Countrywide, it
21 only mandates that Z.ernik was to communicate soLdy with counsel. The Court specifically

22 found that Zcmik is "able to comply with the Protective Ordcr," which" is evidenced by
2 _I" Zcrnik's numerous communications that were made to Countrywide's counsel of record.

24 n Zernik, howcver, chose to repeatedly communicate with Countrywide officers and employc.cs

25 II that were not designated counsels of record." (Sec Ex C to Amberg Decl.). Instead of

26 \I complying with the Court Order, which he is perfcctly capable of doing, Zcmik continues to

27 U disobey it.

28
SMO[C~XS712'>47.1 11
COUNTRYWIDE'S MonON FOR SANCTIONS ANDOTliER
RELIEF

- 14 -
 E. Zernik Willfully Violated the Court Order

2 I Zcrnik willfully violated the Court Order. "Disobedience of any lawful judgment,

3 fl order, or process of the court" is by statute defined as contempt of the authority of the court.

4 I OiL Worker~ 10t'l Union v. SuperiQr Court, 103 Cal.App.2d 512, 534 (1951). When it appears

5 I by substantial evidence that a person committed an act proscribed by a lawful order of a court

6 n and did so with knowledge of that order and its pertinent provisions, there is subSC2ntial

7 II evidence that will support a finding of an intentional violation of the order. ld. Where a

8 II pany, \\ith knowledge of the tenns of an order and ability to comply thercwith, did not do so,

9 II it can be reasonably infcrred that their inaction was intentional, despite express disclaimers of

110 ~ contemptuous intent. City of Vernon v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 509,518 (1952).

111 I ·111C circumstances here are clear: Zcm.ik has shown complete contempt for the Court
III

III

~ 12 On:lcr and continucs to willfully violate it. In the Court's own words) Zernik "willfully
0 0

g~
0. . . . .
13 violatfed] the Court's July 23, 2007 Protective Order" and "the repetition of Defendant

..J ~ <

~:> ~• 0~ 14 Joseph Zemik's violations of the Protective Order is evidence of the willfulncss of his
~
u
,.-< .­
~~
,. 0
5 •
15 violations; Zernik's violations of the Protective Order were not accidentaL" (Sec Ex. C to
.. IX -<
m ~
<II 0
i 16 Amberg Decl.). The same circumstances are present today. Counsel for Countrywide
-::£
~ 17 repeatedly confIrmed to Zernik that Countrywide was represented by counsel yet Zeroik
-<
til
18 \I chose to willfully :lnd repeatedly viulate the Court Order.

19 II V. CONc:LUSION
20 For the reasons set forth above, Countrywide respectfully requests that the Court grant

21 II COul1trjT\t.;ide's Motion and award sancrions againslt defendant Joseph Zernik in the amount of

22 Ii $5,564.50, order Zemik to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for: his
23 [ rcpeated violations of the Court Order, and modi~{ the Court Order to include officers and
24 I employees of Countrywide affiliates, including Bank of America Corporation, so that Zernik is

25 II directed to communicate solely with Countrywide'S designated counsel, Bryan Cave LLP, and
26 I no other officers or employees of Countrywide affiliates regarding the present action.

27

28
SMOI DOCS 711317.1 12
COUNTRYWIDE'S MOTION fOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER
RELIEF

- 15 -
 Dal:cd: December 18, 2008 BRYAN CAVE LLP

John W. Amberg, Esq.

~I
]enna Moldawsh.l', Esq.

By:

4I Jc~a-~ofda\vsky
Attorn~s
for COUNTRYWIDE H()ME
5~
LOAN, INC.

]0

11

4D

'I'l
" 12
':'
0­
d°
.... ~ I3
n. ... '"
--I !: -<
~> ~• 0~ 14
< > ..
u ~ :::;
z 0 ... 15
< .. U
>- 0 •
l[ ....

llIm'"
o Z 16
NO
-~
~
.. 17
"...

'"
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 "

SMOI [)OCS7 12J47.l 13

-COUNTR YWIDFS MOTION fOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER
RELIEf

- 16 -
 DECLARATION OF fOHN W. AMBERG
~

2 n r, John W. Amberg, declare:

3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all the courts of the State of

4 I California. I am a partner in the Jaw finn of Bryan Cave LLP, counsel of record for

5 n Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set

6 i forth in this declaration.

')
7 l .. On July 23, 2007, I attended the hearing in Judge Jacgueline Connor's

8 ~ courtroom to present Countrywide's motion for a protective ordcr directing Zernik to

9 II communicate solely with Countrywide'S designated counsel and no other officers or

J0 I employees regarding the present action. The Court granted Countrywide's motion for 3

II n prorective order. The minute order from the hearing on July 23, 2007 states that
CD
(I)

~ 112 Countrywide's motion was granted in its entirety. A true and correct copy of the minute

00

l1.
g... g0\ 13 ord er is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

-.J !: -<
~~~ L4 J. Since Countrywide's first appearance in this matter on July 6, 2007,
.. ...
u .. ­
..
~~~ 115 Countrywide has been represented by attorneys at Bryan Cave LLP ("Bryan Cave"). Since the
>- 0 •
II!: 0: ..

III ~ ¥ 116 issuance of the Court Order onJuly 23, 2007, directing Zernik to communicate soldy with

l'l0
~~

~ J 7 . designated counsel, however, Zcrnik has repeatedly violated (he tcrms of the Court Order by
..
Ol
118 II contacting, among others, Angelo Mozilo, the fonner Chairman of Countrywide's parent

19 I company, C..ountrywide Financial Corp., and Sandor Samuels, Countrywide's Chief Legal
20 II Officer, on several occasions.

21 4- On February 15,2008, Countrywide moved for sanctions and other relief

22 I agamst Zernik for his numerous violations of the Court Order. At the hearing, the Court

2J 1\ found that the Protective Order issued by the Honorable Jacgueline Connor on July 23, 2007

24 II "is a vaUd order and the Court was authorized to grant the Protective Order pursuant to

25 UCalifornia Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2031.060 and pursuant to California Code of

26 I Civil Procedure Section 128(a)(5)." The Court affirmed the Order and found that it "remains

27 " in full f()rce and effect." A true and correct copy of the Order granting the Motion is

28 II attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.

SMOIOOCS71234i.1 14
COUN1l1. YWIDE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER
RELlEf

- 17 -
 5. The Court granted Counnywide's motion and ordered that Zernik was to pay

2 II Countrywide "the amount of$16,170 as sanctions." Tn the event that Zcrnik failed to pay

3 W these sanctions to Countrywide, the Receiver in this matter, David J. Pasternak, was

4 D"authorized to pay the sanctions to Countrywide from the Receiver's Fund upon notice to the

5 I Receiver and DcfendantJoseph Zcrnik by Countrywide." The Court further ordered Zernik

6 /I to appear on Match 7, 2008 to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court

7 Uand sanctioned for violaling the Court Order.

8 6. At u1e hearing 00 March 7, 2008, which I attended, the COUrl found Zern.ik

9 guilty of thirteen separate acts of cOntempt for his repeated violations of the Court Order.

10 The Court's Judgment dated March 11,2008 states that "Defendant Joseph Zcrnik had actual

11 notice of the Protective Order as of July 23, 2007," that Zernik '\vas able to comply with the
"
co
1'1
N 12 Protective Order, which was prohibitory, narrowly tailored, and limited in scope," and that
0;;

0"
1'10
II .. ..
13 Zcrnik "committed thirteen (13) separate acts of contempt by willfully violating the Court's

...Jt: «
J :l z
.. III
> - '"
0
14 July n, 2007 l)rotective Order directing Zernik to communicate solely with Counttyvvide's
0= ~~ J~
Z Q <
< < U
IS designated counsel and no other officers or employees regarding the present action." A true
~ 0 ­
a: 0: <
mm~
o ~ 16 ancl correct copy of the Judgment is attached herem as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by
_
N :t
0
I
I

<
>-
z:

17 I reference.

<

(J)

18 7. The Court further found that "the repetition of DdcndantJoscph 7,crnik's

19 vlolatJollS of the Protective Order is evidence of the willfulness of his violations," and Zcrnik

20 was ordered "to pay a fine in the amount of $7,500 for thirteen (13) separate acts of
21 conl.em[)t, pursuant to Code ofCi\rij Procedure Section 1218(a)."

22 8. Despite the Court's award of sanctions against Zemik and its issuance of a

23 contempt judgment against Zernik, he continues to violate the Court Order. On November

24 12, 2008, Zernik scot an email to Mr. Samuels in direct violation of the Court Order, referring
25 to hIm as a "perpetrator of fraud." l\. true and correct copy of the email is atUlchcd hereto as

26 9 Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference.

27 9. On November 24, 2008, Zcrnilc copied Mr. Samuels on an email to Bryan Cave

28 ~ attorneys, outlining the alleged "fraudulent claims" lllilde by Countrywide employees with

SM011DOCS712.347.1 15

COUJIITRYW1DE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER

RELIEF

- 18 -
 1 ~ respect to the underlying action, and claiming Countrywide produced "fraudulent records" as

2 ~ pan of its "collusion" with Plaintiff Nivie Samaan's attorneys. A true and correct copy of the

3 I email is attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by reference.

4 10. On December 8, 2008, I emailed Zernik and informed him that the status of

5 ~ Bryan Cave as outside legal counsel for Countrywide remained unchanged, and that, pursuant

6 II to the Court Order, Zernik W:lS to communicate e:-:clusively with counsel for Countrywide and

7 II nOI with any of its employees. A true and correct copy of the email is attached hereto as

8 II Ex ltibit r and incorporated herein by reference.

9 11 . On December 9, 2008, Zernik scnt three emails (0 Mr. Samuels and another

10 Counu)'\\~de employee, Maria McLaurin. In these emails, Zernik feigns ignorance of the

11 Court Order, demands withdrawal of "fraudulent records," and accuses Countrywide of

...
..,
<0
12 "collusion with [fhe Honorable] Terry Friedman." True and correct copies of the cmails :ue
N

00

0'1
I'lo
!lidO>
13 att£iched hereto as Exhibits G, H & I and incorporated herein by reference.

J t <
.J ;> i:
.. <no: 14 12. In response, I again emailcd Zcrnik and reiterated that he was to refrain from
~ >=" ~
U ~ :i
z a <
< < U
15 communicating with employees of Countrywide pursuant to the Court Order and that his
,. 0 •
0: '"
mln~
<
o z 16 refusal to comply with the terms of the Court Order was contemptuous and sanctionablc.
N 0
_:E
<
...z 17 Tme and correct copies of the cmails r sent to Zernik in response to his December 9 emails
<
<Il

18 are :11 tached hereto as Exhibit J and incorporated herein by reference.

19 13. Zernik has also begun harassing employees and officers of Bank of }\merica,

20 which merged with Countrywide in July 2008. On December 3, 2008, Zernik scnt a letter to
21 Kenneth D. Lewis, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bank of America

22 Corporation, and Teresa M. Brenner, Associate General Counsel for Bank of America,
23 endosing a "press release" allegedly outlining "Countrywide's involvement in a dubious Los

24 Angeles Superior Court case" and demanding "immediate action to mitigate [his} damages." A
25 true and correct copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit K.

26 14. On December 9,2008, Zernik faxed a letter to Timothy Mayopoulos, Executive

27 Vice President and General Counsel of Bank of America, requesting that Countrywide

28 withdra"v "fraudulent records produced by Countrywide Home Loans as part of subpoena

SMOIDOCS7I2347.1 16
COUNTRY\VIDE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND OrnER
RELIEF

- 19 -
 productions that were replete with fraudulent records, and which tried to entirely fabricate

2 I Sam3an's fraudulent: loan applications." Zernik also demands a response form Mr.

3 i Ma)'opoulos by Wednesday, December 10, 2008. A true and correct copy of the letter is

4 ~ attached hereto as Exhibit L and incorporated herein by reference.

I

5 15. The same day, Zernik scnt a letter to several Bank of America employees

6 fi requesting "immediate intervention and curbing of Sandor Samuels." He claims that he is

7 ~ wril:ing to "inform" Bank of America of "my abuse at the hands of Countrywide." Zernik

8 II claims that he "discovered fraud in Country\vide's subpoena production" and that, since that

9 II time, Countrywide "assumed a status abm'e the law in the Los Angeles Superior Court with
10 II pennission to engage in criminal conduct: with the blessing of the Court icsel[" A true and

11 I concct copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit M and incorporated hereio by
.,
III

~ 12 I reference.

00

0"1
"'0 13 16, On December 16, 2008, Zernik again emailed Maria McLaurin, a Countty\vide
Q.
J ~ <
'" '"

~> ~• ~0 14 I employee, regarding the present action. In his message, entitled "Country\vide and
U~ ~ -'
~
~
«U
0 < 15 I racketeering under the guise of litigation in Los Angeles Superior Court," claims that the
>- 0 .
'" 0: <
ICm~
o x 16 I present action is "a convoluted tale of frauds" and that Countrywide is engaged in
NO
_:E
~ 17 I "obstruction of Justlce." He further alleges that "all judges" of record in this matter engaged
<
<Il

18 I in the production of false deceitful trial litigation records." A true and correct copy of the

19 I email and its attachments is attached hereto as Exhibit N and incorporated herein by

20 ~ reference.

21 17. Coun~vide was forced to incur legal fees and costs IfI responding to Zernik's

22 Uounlcrous emails regarding the Court Order and in violation of such order.

23 (a) I have spent approximately 3,9 hours reviewing and discussing Zernik's

24 II communications regarding Bryan Cave's representation of Countrywide in yiolation of the

2.5 II Court Order, and preparing responses to those communications.

26 (0) As a result of Zernik's violations of the Court Order, Countrywide was also

27 ~ forced to file this Motion. A total of at least 6.3 hour$ has been spent by the lawyers

28 11 preparing this Motion and the supporting papers, of which I spent 1 hour. Furthermore, I
SMOI DOCS712347, I 17
COUNTRYWiDE'S MOTION fOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER
RELIEF

- 20 -
 1 U reasonably anticipate spending 0.5 hours reviewing Zernik's Opposition brief, and 0.5 hours

2 Udra fting and'revising Countrywide's Reply brief.

3 (c) I have been assisted in this Motion by Jcrma Moldawsk.-y. Ms. Moldawsky has
4 spent 5.3 hours drafting and preparing this Morion, which includes drafting and revising the

5 Nodce of Morion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the Proposed

6 Ordr..{. I anticipate that Ms. Mo[dawsky will reasonably spend 1 hour reviewing and analyzing
7 Zemik's Opposition, and conducting legal research. I further anticipate that Ms. Moldawsky

8 will spcnd 2 hours drafting and revising Countrywide'S Reply brief. I also anticipate Ms,

9 Mo:ldawsky will spend another 1 hour preparing for and attending the hearing on this Motion.

10 My billing rate for this matter is $495 per hour and Ms. Moldawsky's billing rate for this

to
11 maner is $280 per hour: My hourly rate of$495 x 5.9 hours =$2,920.50, combined with Ms.
m
M
~ 12 Molldawsky's hourly rate of $280 x 9.3 hours = $2,604.00. Additionally, the filing fcc for this
°0
0 ...
"lo
Il- ....
13 Modon is $40.00. Thus, Countrywide will incur at least $5,564.50 in bringing this Motion and
J ~ ~
oJ "
.. U1
> -
*'0z 14 in responding to Zernik's communications regarding Bryan Cave's representation of
-< ~ ~
u ~.J
X 0 ...
«u 15 Countrywide and to those communications in violation of the Court Order.
>- 0 .
*' " ~
1I1lI_
o z 16 Countrywide reserves the right to seek reimbursement of additional legal fees and costs
<II 0
_:I'
<
I­
Z

17 inwrred responding to Zcrnik once this Motion is ftlcd.

...
III
18 I declare undcr penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

19 " foregoing is true and correct.

20 II Executed this 18th day of December, 2008, aLba

21

22
~Ohn W. Ambecg~< /
23

24

2.5

26

27

28

SMOlDOCS7 12341. I 18
COIMrn.YWIDE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND ornER
RELIEf

- 21 -
 DECLARATION OFTQDD A. BOOCK

2 H I, Todd A. Boock, dech:re;

3 1. r am ao attorney licensed to prncticelaw before the courts of the State of

4 II Calik)tnia. I mn employed ~ in-ho.use coun~el for Countrywide. Home Loans, Inc;
5 \I ("Countrywide"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this dedarationand

6 Dcould competendy testify to the following facts.

7 2. On December 8, 2008, r was made aware that defendant Joseph Ze:rnik called

8 ~ Phillip Wertz of Bank of A!Il.erica Corporation's Legal Department, claiming that he had

9 H"uncovered fraud" at CQuntrywid~in c<?nnectionwith the present action, and that he was

J 0 II ''being harassed b)T Countrywide in tct~liation." lvfr. Zemik also indicated tbat he had been

11 II trying; to contact Bank of /\merica General Counsel Timothy Mayopoulos regarding the same

~ 12 II Issues.
<'l
":l
o~
0
M.;g
0
13 3. On December 17) 2008) 1 was made aware that defendant Joseph Zcrnik called
~~O>
~·.tn ~§' ]4 IIIGndySparks'of Bank of America Corporation's LegaJ Dep?rtmcn~ compJa.iningabout fraud
> -0
'.~'1S
J<:"0.0
... to _ 15 ~ and C(jos!)iracy involving Sandor Samuels, Countrywide's Chief Legal Officer, and Bryan C:ave
Ce~
CO m ''';'
00
~::E
16 II LLP,
...
'c
'"
<f) 1711 4. In addition to the above, I am aware that defendantJo~eph Zemik has made

18 Inumc1:OUS Clttcmpts to c~ntact various other individuals in Bank of America Corporation's

19 ; Legal Dcparancnr, as well as executives within the company tegMding the present action.

20 II I declare under penalty of perjury under the Jaws of the State bf Californiathit the

2] \1 forcgomg is ttucand correct.

22 Ii Executed on December 18, 200ft at f.AJ~ fh~, California.

~h~~_
~I'"
L. .J

24

25

26

27

28

SMOIDOCS711347.1 18
COUNTRYWIDE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER
REllEF

- 22 -
- 23 -
V ~IHIHX~

 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

0;\1'E: 07/23 f ()'1 DEPT_ Vt'""SI

"CI~:OR>.nle JACQlJ~LINe A. CONNOR lUOGEIi V _ JAUm UEl'UTY CLERK

IIONORJ\Bl.E IUDGE PRO TEM Et.£CTRO/\1C RECORDING MONITOR

iH3
_ B.• VARGAS
...... _----.::­

~J:30 amlSC081400
CA [)qN<r Sbaiff~ J. HARR IS
Flaln<i!(
CSR!t-2097 Rcro<tcT

<mnsd MOE KESHAVARZI (X)

NIV I E SAHAAN
v::; Ddad.>nI
JOSE~H ZERNIK Cwnstl JBNNA t>lOWA\iSKY (x)

JOHN W. AMBERG (X)

CCP 170.6 ~ JUOOR NE:IDORF

N,\ nJRE OF PROCEEDINGS:

DE:FENDANT (JOSEPH ZERNIK) MOTION TO EXI'lJNGE LIS

PENDENS;

MOVING PARTY (COUNTRYWIDE) M0TION FOR PRoTEcTIVE

ORDER;

Matter is called tor hearing_

AJL1 parties acknowledge receipt of the Court:' S
tentative ruling ,and submit on the tentative ruling.
The motion of defendant Joseph Zemik to expunge lis
pe!\d(~ns is DENIED_ Defendant has failed to
establish that the Court's previous ruling on
November 9, 2006 was based on fraudulent or false
evid(!oce presented by plaintiff. Defendant h3S also
failE~d to show that the lis pendens was DOt. properly
aerved. Counsel Eor plaintiff is ordered to give
notice of this ruling. .
Tb,e l1o~~on of non~paZ:~y':.~9untrywi~eHOOle LCtaris for a
pr·::>tect'l.ve. order is _G~.· Det"enrl~t _Jo:;;eph
Zemik is directed t:o ~aClfllll\Unic<i.te solely with
Count ry.tide • s des-i9l!ated counsel-,' TOdd A., Boock, and
nco other officers oi-~~ioyees regardi~~ -the presen~
action. The proposed order is signed and effective
a3 of this date.' 'Counsel for Co'tintrywide is ordered
to give notice of this ruling_

MlNU'l'ES ENTERED
Page 1 of 4 D1~PT. WEI 07/23/07
COUNTY CLERK

- 24 -
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA. COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

\OATE.: r
07/2.3 0 7 DEPl. h'EI

IIIONORABLC JACQUELINE A. CONNOR v. JAIME DD'VTl CURK

IrlOl\OlWlU ELECTROMIC R.ECQRDING ~!ONITOR

ltD
A. VARGAS CA D<;puQ. J. HARRIS CSRlt2097 R.qx>n<1
=, :

8:30 amISCOS?400 PWn<iIl

Coolltd /"'08 KESHAV1L~ZI (X)

IHVI8 SAMAAN
11S Def<::>lUl\

,JOSEPH ZERNIK CounlCl JENNA MOLDAWSKY (X)

JOHN ItJ. AMBERG (X)

CCP i 70 .6 - JUDGP. NElDORF

NATITRE OF PROCEEDINGS:

i[n this case, defendant moves to expunge the lis

pendens arguing that plaintiff carmot establish the
probable validity of her claims. ZERNIK asserts
that plaintiff failed to timely relOOve t.he appraisal
coot ingency "'Jhich gave him the right to cancel the
escro"-'. He further argues that plaintiff's
opposition to the prior motion to expunge was based
on fraudule!'lt arguments and documents. However. t.he
declarations and evidence provided by plaintiff
continue to raise a question as LO whether ZERNIK
bad submit~ed a fully executed copy of the Purchase
Agreement; to Mara Escrow as of OctobelC 22, 2001.
The documents submitted by defendant simply do not
,[!stablish that plaintiff has engaged in any fraud or
tailed to properly serve the lis pendlms on hint­
l~gain, t.here are too many factual issues that cannot
be decided here, including whether SAJlIfAAN was
Gready, willing and ableo to proceed ~dth the
purchase of t.he property. Therefore, the moticn to
':'xpunge lis penden6 is DENIED.

COUNTRYWIDE seeks a narrowly tailored protective

order requiring that ZERNIK direct all future
communications to COUNTRYWIDE's designated counsel
and precluding him from directly phoning, e-mailing
or' otherwise contacting its represented officers and
employees. First, the motion is properly supported
by the declarations ot in-house coun6cl Todd A.
Hoock and attorney of record JOlU1 W. Jl.roberg, which
set forth first-hand eJlperiences with and actions
taken in response to ZeRNIK's conduct towards

MINUTES ENTJmED
Page 2 of '1 DEPT. \'lEI 01/23/01
COUNTY CLERK

- 25 -
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES

I()A.T£: 07/23/0",/ OEP'L ~';E:;:

IFf:>NORAllLE JACQUELINE A. CONNOR JUDGER V. JA:IME DEPVTY CLERK

HmolOR.AJl\..E. l'1JDGE fRO n:M E1LC1'1\ONtC Iffi:'()RDING MOXrrOlt

fin
B. VARGAS CA Dcrvty Slocriflll J. HA.~RIS CSRI#2097 R.r"o<t<r
--­
._-­
8:30 amlSC067400 Pbbajrr
~~m MOE KESHAVARZI (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS OefCJll4",

JOSEPH ZERNIK ~ J~~ MOLDAWSKY (X)

JOHN "'. AMBERG (X)

CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIOORF
'==='==4:1

NATURE OF PROCF.£DING5:

COUNTRYWIDE. second, the Court finds that

C.'OUNTRYWIDE nas shown good cause" EoI' the
H

protective order sought. ZERNIK hag failed to

est.ablish the validity of his cormnunications with
COUNTRYWIDE's officers and employees. If
COUNTRYWIDE has failed to comply with a discovery
obligation, ZBRNIK's recourse is to tile a discovery
motion with the Court. Any assertion that
COUtITRYHIDE is somehow involved in wrongdoing is not
.supported by anything other than hearsay and
conjecture. Moreover, since ZBRNaK is representing
himself in this action. his assertion that
\~UNTRYWIOE is improperly applying attorney
standards to him is not well taken_ A litigant
appearing in propria persona is generally held to
~he same restrictive rules and procedures as an
attorney. the rules of civil procedure must apply
equally to parties represented by counsel and those
,~ho forgo attorney representation; such a party is
1::0 be treated like any ot:hez:- party and is entitled
La the s3me, but no greater consideration than other
litigants and attorneys. (Rappleyea v. campbell
i[l994) B Cal.4th 975, 984-985; see Barton v. New
Unit:ed Motor Mfg_ (1996) 43 cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.)
(U~rrRYWIDE has a right to be protect~l from
unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment 0]( oppression.
Since the protective order sought simply directs
ZERNIK to communicate with COUNTRYWIDE's designated
counsel. there' is nothing to show any infringement
on ZERNIK's free speech or other rights_

MINUTES ENTERED
Page 3 of 4 DEPT. WEI 07/23/07
COUNTY CLERK

- 26 -
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CAUFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES
'!>ATE: 07/23 I orl DEPT. I-lEI

HONOllWl£ JACQUELINE A. CONNOR IOOGEIi V. JAIME DEPUTY Q..£RJC

nO:«>I!ABl.E. JUDGE PROTI)( EtB:IRONtC RE<X>RDlt'C MONrrOR

:lfl)
B. VARGAS CA [)q)oly SbciIl1I J. HAHR IS CSRft2097 R<"pMCr

8:30 amlSC081400 PWttiIf

CooIt$CI MOS KESHAVARZI (x)
NIVIE SAMAAN
V5 o.r....,.ot
,JOSEPH ZERNIK O-~ JENNA MOLOAWSKY (X)
JOHN W. AMBERG (XI
CCP 170. 6 - JUDGE NElDORF
N..lTliRE OF PROCEEtHNC,.s:

Defendant requests for ruling on EvidentLY

Objections.

'rhe.Court declines to rule on the Evidentry

Obj ections. The Court finds t.he Evide'ntry
obj ecl:ions are not properly riled pun~uan to Rules
of Coure 3.1].54.

Counsel for Plaint.iff is ordered to give notice.

MINUTES ENTE'RRD
Page 4 of 4 DEPT. l'lEI 07/23/07
COUNTY CLERK

- 27 -
- 28 -
H~IHIHX~

 RECEIVED
2
MAR 1 22008
3 CONFORMED COpy
SUPERIOR COURT OF ORI<;lNAL fILEo
4
WEST DISTRICT l.O$ Angeks SU~Qr CcUlt
SANTA MoNICA
5 MAl< 132000
JOhu A. C'arke, E.:eculi"e OIfi~rlClcrl;
6
7 By J. Ollon, Deputy

8 SUPERIOR COURT OFTHE STATE OF CAUFORNlA

9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT
to
II i NIVIE SAMAAN, ct :aL, Case No. SC087400

U, Plaintiffs,
G'
~,
12
'"
a ..:.~
oC>
13
a ~;:~ vs. ~OSEnORDER
_1"3 ."

~: en i~ 14

ii i~~~
(J
c:
ClI"'I
.i
<..)
_

15 IJOSEPH ZERN [K, ct aL

Ji J5 ~~ Defendants. Date: February 15, 2008
~ 1~ 16
Time: 8:45:Lrn.
~~
.,
c:
G' 17 ocp!: WEJ
't>

~-~-~~
18

19

20
21
u>uottywidc Home Loans, fnc.'s rCounttyvl'ide"} mOtlOll (1) to enforce the July 23,

22 2007 protective order against DcfcndantJoscph Zernik ("Zemik''); (2) for monetary sanctions

23 against Zernik in the amOUnt of $16,170; (3) for a dedaration wt Countrywide ius no
24 obligation to respond further to Zcmik's hanssing communications; and (4) for an order to

25 show cause why Zernik should (lot be held in contempt and sanctioned accordingly (the

26 "Motioo") came on foc he.a.ring before the Hono1:4b[.~ Terry B. Friedman in Department WE]

27 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, On Febnury 15,2008. John W. Amberg of
28

SMOIOOCS6n3t9.1 PRorosED ORDER

- 29 -
 Bryan Cave LLP appeared on behalf on non-patty and movant Countrywide. Defendant

2 I Joseph Zcmik appeared on his own behalf. Also in attendance were Receiver David J.
3 I Pasternak and Moe Kcshavar.li of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton UP, counsel for

4 I Plaintiff Nivic Samaan.

5I Having tC2d :and considered the Molion and aU papers submitted in support thereof

6 I and in opposition thereto, :lfld h3.ving heard :lOd considered the argument of counsel and

7 Y Defend:UltJoscph Zcrnik, and good Cluse :appearing therefor,

t~ I THE COURT FINDS THAT:

9 I 1. The Protective Order issued by the Honorable Jacqueline Connor on July 23, 2007 (the

10 I "Protective Order'') is a valid order and the Coun was authorized to grant the

III I Protective Ordet pursu:ant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sc.ctions 2031.060

'"en 12 and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128(a)(5). Both code
~
80 I .l" sections serve as legitimate bases for the issuance of the Protective Order;
<'l~
11.. .. '"
3~~
41 CI) ~ 14 2. "1be Pwtective Order is affinncd and remains in full force and effect; and
:> ~ 0
o~~
....
<::,<>U
i::'2;'l
cnm­
- 15 3. Countrywide presented sufficient evidence tJut Defendant Joseph Zcrnik violated the
<:
00
"';:;: 16 Protective Ordcr and should be sanctioned.
~~
.
'"
11 I IT IS SPEcrFlCALLY ORDERED THAT:

U~ I L DefendantJoscph Zcrnik is to pay Countrywide (duough Countrywide's atto(Oeys of

19 U record) the amount of $16,170 as sanctions within 20 days of the hearing. In the event

20 I that Zcrnik fails to pay these sanctions to C..ountrywide, the Receiver in this matter,

21 D David J. Pasterruk, is authorized to pay the sanctions to Countrywide from the

22 I Receiver's Fund upon notice to me Receivel' and DefendantJoseph Zemik by

23 I Countrywide; and

24 1///
25ft///
261///
27 1///
2;SI/I/
SMO1DOCS6W&9. I 2

PROPOSED ORDER

- 30 -
 2, Defendant Joseph Zcrnik is ordered to appe:u on Match 7,2008 at 9;30 a.m. to show

2 I c:tuse why he should not be held in contempt of court and sanctioned for violating the

3I Protective Order.

4
51 IT [$ SO ORDERED.

7 I Dated: 3/ 1"J/O'g Vb(;,i~

I-[O!1. Terry R Friedman
8
Judge, Superior Court of Califorcm
9 i Prepared and submitted by:

10 BRYAN CAVE LLP

II I John W. Amberg (CA SUle Bar No. 1081(6)
JCfllU Moldawsky (CA Statc Bar No. 246 109)
~ 12 1 120 Broadway, Suite 300
""~ Santa Monica, California 904Dl·2J86
80
..., .... 13 ! Telephone.: (310) 576-2100
,,,- ., £ Fa_.similc: (310) 576-2200
j'~ ~
CJ U) E 14
~~~
o;~
coU 15 tAttorneys for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
~'e ~
mUl"C:
00
~::<
.
<::
16

17
~

i8
19

20

21

22

23

24
25

26
27

28
SMOI DOCS6IDB9.1 3

PROPOSEO ORDER

- 31 -
 Page I of I
- 32 -
Chiri, Judith C.
filE GOPY

IF.rom: Amberg, John W.

Sent: Thursday. March 13.20084: 18 PM
T·a: Chin, Judith C.
SUbjE~ct: FW: Zemilc:: SignedfConformed Order re: molion for sanctions
jl\ttachments: 021179 Order.PDF
Please print
Fr.l)m: 1''101dawsky, Jenna L
Sent: Thursday, March 13,2008 4:06 PM
To,; 'Tod<U30ocl<:@Countlywide.Com'
Q:: Amberg. John W.

Subject: Zemik: Signed/Conformed Order re: motion for sanctions

Todd:
Attlche:<! is:l signed ;lnd conformed copy of the Judge Friedman's order ~otiog our motion for sanctions. We will S~(vC:l
copy on aU parties.
lemu
Jen::u L. Moldawsky, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LLP
120 BW2dway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, California 90401
Ph(ln~ (310) 576·2377
F:lx: (310) 576.2200
k!:!.!la.mold:lwsk~rp.nc;\\'c-com
3/11 J!2008

- 33 -
:l LIHIHX:f[

 - l 1- n ,. ---"

F_. L .:.-G
'-,r-' : . : 4

..
-t
RECEIVED CONFORMED COpy
-,
lo~ Nlgelc.s SUperior Cocut
J' OF ORIGINAL AUID
M"R 1 1 20\)8
4 SUPERIOR COIJRT
WEST 01SlR1Cl MA'" I 12000
5 SANTA MOt\ICA
John A. Clarke, El:ccllri_c Omccr/CIe.l.

6 By J. Cilron, Deputy 7'

7

8 SUPERIOR COURT OFTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRlcr

UJ
q,
"I
10

12
NIVIE $,\MAAN
Pbintiff.
I C~sc "10. SC087400

::: ' . ~ JUDGMENT RE:

Sii 13 I CONTEMPT

M~, V5.
n. Itj 0""
::;:'3.f5
1
Ci(l)E
~ ~..2

....
U ~~
c o u,

14
IS ,JOSEPH ZERNIK,
I DATE:
TfME:
March 7, 2008
9:30a.m.
~'E! ~ DEPT: J
IW.ID·;:
00 16 I--~----_.
Defendant.
~~

~
tn 17
On March 7, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. in Dcparunwr J of ule Los Angeles Superior Court.
18

19
1West DisuiCl, located :it 1725 Main Street., Santa Monica, C:iliforrua, 90401, proceedings wcrc
held pUf'.)uant to the Court's Fcbrv:uy 15,2008 orocr that Defendant Joscph Zerruk
20
I CZcrnik") appear and show cause why he should nOt be held In Contempt of courL lJuring
21
22 (he proceedings, Counlrywlde Home Loans, Inc. ('Countrywide") prcscfired evidence that

Zernik should be held in contempt of court for disobc'(ing (he Court's Pwtcctive Order,
23 '
dated July 23, 20m, dirccting Zcmik to communicate sofely with CounrC)"'lidc's designated
24
25 ('()lIn~rl 'lod no other of!\ccn; or cmployc~ regarding (he prescnt action. John W. Amberg

26 and Jeona Moldawsky of Bryan ewe LLP appeared on hehalf of Coulltf)'wlde. Moe
27 Keshavarzi of SoC'.ppud Mullin Ri~hter & Hampton LLP 3ppeared On behalf of Plaintiff

28 Nivje Samaan. Robert J. ShuJkin appeared telephonic:lI!y on behalf of Cross-Defendant

SMOI [)()(;S(jllD 17.1 PROPOSEO JUDGMENT

- 34 -
 Coldwell Banker. Dcfen<lant Joseph Zernik telephoned thc clerk of the Court prior to the

2 I proceedings and infonncd rhe Court thH he would nol appear.

] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, DECREED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
4 I. Defendant Joseph Zernik Iud actual knowledge of the contempt proceedings,

5 and W:lS properly served with the Order to Show Cause rc; Contempt, :lOci

6 chose nOt to appe:u or present cvid~nce in his defense;

7 2. The Protective Order entered on July 23, 2001 by the Honorable Jacqueline
8 Connor is valid lind enforce:>.ble;

9 3. Defendant Joseph Zernik had actual notice of the Protective Order as of July

10 23.2007, as Zcmik was prcscnc at the July n, 2007 hearing gf3nting the
II Protective Order and submitted 00 tbe record to the Tentnivc Ruling granting
:g
,..., 12 me Protective Order. Zernik vns also repeatedly reminded of the leffi1S and
<::) '"
.:.
00 I) conditions of the Pcotectiv~ Order by Countrywide's counsel and was served
(L ~: ~
~·1i ~
~ <I>. ~ l4 wlth:l Notice of Ruling :lnd a copy of the Coun's July 23, 2007 Minute Order
('II ""... f!.

~~t5-
.... ~
15 granting the Protective Order;
~~:.l,'l
Cl§
~!
.
<:
16
17
4. Defendant Joseph Zcrnik was :able to comply wilh the Protective OrcIn, which

'"
III was prohibitory. narrowly tailorcd. and limited in scorx:. TIlls is evidenced by
18 Zenuk's numerous communications that were made to CountrywIde's counsel

19 of record. Zernik, however, chOse to repeatedly communicate with

20 CountryWide officers and l'mployeC$ that were not desrgnated counsels of

21 record;

22 ). The CoUf( finds that Defendant Joseph Zcmik committed thirteen (13) separate

21 acts of contempt by willfully violating the: Court's]uly 23, 2007 Protective

24 Order directing Zcmik to communicate solely with Countrywide's designated

25 counsel :lnd no Other officers or employees regarding me prescnt acuon;

26 <i. The repetition of Defendant Joseph Zernik's violations of the Protective Order

27 is evidence of the willfulness of his violations; Zcmik's viobltions of the

n I Protective Order were not accidental Further, in sevcr-a.l of Zcrnik's

SMQI0QCS(,720t1.1 2

l'ROl'OSED JUDGMENT

- 35 -
 communications with represented Countrywide officers and employees, Zernik

2 Jdmincd the existence of the Protectivc Order;

3 7. The Coun finds (hat Defendant Joseph Zcrnik is guilty of contcrnpt purswot
4 to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1209{a) and is to pay a flOC in the amount of

5 ~7,SOO for thirteen (13) separate acts of contempt, pursuant to Code of Civil

6 Procedure Section 1218(a). The fine is imposed on:l graduated selle·- Zernik
"7 IS not fined for his initial violation of the Protecove Order, but is fined $100 for

8 his second VIolation. For each subsequent violarion thereaftcr, hc is fined an

9 addition:al ilOO. Zernik is lined $1,000 for the 11th, 12th, and 13th violation,

10 fOr:l tot:ll 007,500;

11 R The collection of the P ,500 fine is suspended subject [0 the following

:g 1"2 conditions. The Protective Order remains in full force and effect during the
fi

o~ '"
00
.... ..., Ll pendency of this lawsuit. If Defendant Joseph Zctnik further violates the
o.. .. :\:
~.~

~J)~ 14 Protective Order, upon five (5) days' written notice from Countrywide to
> >. Q
o~;.;
.....
c;~o

c -
mm~
o
1:5 Zernik, the Receiver shall pay $7.500 from toe Receivcc's Fund to Countrywide
o~

..
~::E
16 in care of its attorneys, Bryan Cavc LLP, unless Zemik obtains a Coun Order in
-;:,
17 the interim blocking payment; and
'"
III 9. Countrywide shall pay its own :urorocy's' fees :lOd costS associated with tOe

19 contempt proceeding.

20

21 I Dated' =~JrI/~Z
~6,;j~
Hon. Tcrry B. Friednun
2 ",l
Judge, Superior Court of Cali fomi a
2]. g Prepared :lnd submitted by:
24 I BRYAN CAVE LLP
John W. /I,mberg (CA State Bar No. 1081(6)
25 I Jcnru Moldawky (CA State: Bu No. 246109)
120 Broadwa.y, SUite 300
26 I Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
Telephone (310) 57(,-2100
1
27 Facsunile: (310) 576-2200
28 Attorneys for Countrywide: Home Loans, Inc.

SMOIOOCS6nOI1.1 )

r Jl.OI'OSED JUDGMENr

- 36 -
 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I :un employed in the County of Los Angcles, Stlt<: of Californ;a. 120m over the: age of 18 :lnd
not 2 party to the within action. My busin~s 1ddr~s is 120 Bro2odw:ay. Suite 300, Sant:a Monic:!.
3 C';llifOm1a 90401-2305.
4
On March 11 2008, [ sc£vcd thc foregoing documcnt{s), described as JUDGMENT RE:
5 CONTEMPT, on me i.llkrested puty(s) in lhis 2.ctton, 2.S follows:
6 Moe Kesh3varz~ Esq. Joseph Zemik
Sheppard Mullin Richtcr & Hampton. LLl' 2415 Saint George Street
7 33.3 South Hope Street, 48rh Floor Los F'cliz. California 90027
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1443 Telephone: (310) 435-9107
g
F:lcsimi1e: 213-620.1398 Facsimile: (80 I) 998-0917
9 rnk!:sh:JI';m;i@Shs;ppardmu\lin,cOlli ~ 1234S@e2 rlhliokne l

10 Robcrt J. Shulkin, Esq.

David J. Paslerll2k lc~1 Depaetm~nt
11 Pasternak, Pastctn.:lk & Patlon, LU' Coldulell Banker Resident:i2I Bmkerage Company
1875 Century PaIk East, Suite 2200 1 \(,11 S2n Vicentc Boulcvard, 9"' floor
:~ 12
Los Angeles, GJjfomU 90067.2523
'" Los Angeles, CA 90049
8;;
n .• 13 Telephone: 310-553-1500 racsimile: J 10-447-1902
~~ ~:~ F:lcsimile: 310-553-1540 ~Qbcrt.sbulkin@c"mQ~~
.J ::l.ll!
~~ ~ 14 ilir@p~shw .COI,,!

...
fa >...­
(J ~~:
e-oO 15
­
~e~
CD a:I-E
16 [8] (BY OVERNITE EXPRESS) (deposited in a box or other facility rn:tint:ained by
~H
',", Ovcrnice Express. 2n express cat(i~r servic<; Or dcliven:d to " courier or driver authorized by s:lid
,; 17 express caniu service to rec.eivco documents, a lroC copy (or origimI) of the fOtegoing document, in
(~

an envelope designated by said exprcss se{Vic~ urOcr. with delivery fees paid or providcd for.
IS

Executed on Much11. 2008. at Sant:l Moruo, CaliforoU.

19
I d(:clale under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
20
and the State of Cali fomi a thaI the foregoing is true and correct.
21

22
------­
23

24

25
26

27

28

$M()ID0CS6721lIJ,1 PllOPOSED lUDG~ENT

- 37 -
- 38 -
([ LIHIHX:tl

--.. Ori~~n:ll Mcssogc --_..

From: joseph zcmik <,zI2345@arlhlink.net>

To: Moe Kcsh;av;il2i <MKesh;lV:Hzi@Sheppudmullin.com>; D.oBrctt Bi:loco <BBi:,;,nco@LASupcnorCoutt.org>;

S:lnft ov(:rton <sovclCon@cmd;a-h.w.coO\>; kdicado@cmd;t·bw.com <kdi6ulo@cmdll-h.w.com>;

mutin_betg@~ilYloum:ll.com<nuuID_berg@thilyjoucrul.com>; P:lld M:ilingllglo

<PMalingagio@,shcpp:l£dmullio.com>;Amhug. fohn W.; Hru1yorkas@omm.com <:tmayoros(n)ommc0m>; V~n

Cie"e, Peter 11 .• I)~vid J PAmrmk <jwP@p:l6b.w.com:->; tn111x®hcppQrdmullin.com

< tllJ:.u:@,hcppardmullin.com>; mgelo_mozilo@counuywide.com <:mgda_mozilo@countrywtdc.com » ;

:,'lnC'ocs:JffiU("ls@cou(\tt:ywidc.com <S<lndot _s:unucls@counuywide.com:>

Sent: Wed Nov 1202:59:14 1008

Subjett RE: Notice of Ex Pane Appear:>nce. 2nd r:lcketcering under guise orling-tioo in LA Superior Court

To whom it may corKern:

1
RE: Notice of Ex Parte App~occ, aod tlCkeleering under guise of litigation in LA Superior Court 1
I
J

Pl~.c cle IiOtler. of communiCJtions below, {o[W:ltdcd by cmm,

j
by bx, oc by ecrtiGc:d overnight mail tu the I

loUowing:

A. Au Mohammad K~ha.var?! & Art M:l!ingAgio

Counsel fm Sama.lll
Shcppud Mullin, LA
AttTed Max
Man:'ging Partner, Shepp:>td Mullin, NY

. - cng:Iglng in conduct rh2t must hi: deemed eackclCCtin:~ in litigation ofS1IlliIan v Zemik (SC087400)
tit LII Sup-::rio~ Couet

B. The Hononh[c Str:pncn CzulcgC4 PrcsidingJudge & John Cbrke, Oerk, LA Superior Court
At! D 8 Bhnco, COUllScl to the court
Att S Overton, Counsel [0 the court

- 39 -
 - leadership of the LA Superior COUlt. which :lbdiC:l\ed ;IOY notion of furthcr:lficc of iusticc, ;lfld
refuses to answer b~sic questions:

- \lIould they finaUy allow me access to my own Iitig-..tion records)

. who is lhc judge assigned ro the casc?
. was judgmcnt cnlccl:d in this ose, or wasn't it?

C. Mr Martin Bl:rg, Edilor, Daily Journal,

Conrrolling Patty in Susnm' LA Superior Coun's fraudulent CtSe management system

- do lhe readcrs knOIll of thc duplicitous rotc of this ncwsp:lpcr?

- would he confirm or deny some of the [r2Udu(<:nl f,~lillCS ofSUSI:Un listed in the :lltached
document)

D. An D:J.vid Pasternak
Former PrcsidcflC. "House of JtL~rirr." . n~1 Tunf'Jc
- rerpcrralor of {cauds under prctence of Rcu:ivcr

E- Att Sandor Samuels, Me Angelo Mozilo - Officers of Countrywide

Mr Samuels - also as formcr Prcsident,"House of Ju.~licr." - Br.1 Tudek

- perpctl':ttors of (nuds in the millions of dolhrs :agai.nsr individu:ds, in trillions of dollars against thc
U.S. g01fcmment...

r. Alt Alejandro tl.hyorbs and Au M:lck r~mins

Offi= of "!-louse ofJusrice" - Bet Tzcdck
An MayoekAs - ilio 3$ co-signer of the (OUSCH[ Decrce re; Civil Riehcs in LA (2:2000cvl17G9)
- "10 u.kl they finally "nswer?

- 3.re there any dispute resolutiou bylaws in the "House ofJustice"?

G. The Honot:\b te Ronald George. Chief Justice. Califomi.. Supreme Coun

As member of the le.aden;hip of LA Superior Court -1985, at lhe timc Susuio w;lS installed.
- was he Or wasn't he involved in inSCllbuOfl of$usClin)
- ~iIld what does he know :lboUI it?
- .....ould he act pursuant to thc code of judlc;,,! ethics?

H. The Honorable Gary FCC5S. Judge, U.S. District Couct, LA

Also OVCl5cer of Civil Rights in LA pce (2:2000evl17G9)
Aho . as former Judgc of LA Superior Court
-:.IS former user of Sus [:lln, wh:lt does he know)
- as Overseer of Civil Rights, aod a judge, would he :let upon hi, dutics pcr Code of Ethics?

Copic:s wete <'-mailed to various others in the l~l community and otllcrwise rdevant to the ose.

Atuchcd is a record titled: Uapublbhed Rules of Coun . LA Coumy. describing some of the frauds rdatcd to the
opeation of Sustain a'S the = m:tlUgcment SystCffi in the COUrt. TIle COtC of the evidence is a table at the cnd of
the document, comparing the "Date Minutes Emcecd" in the paper court file version of the l\{inutcs and the
decuonlC court file version of the minute (which is offlimits to the pubhc).
Th.: document is incomplete, but I attached it for expediency s.ake. It em also be found at I
http:// inproperinb..comf.OHC2ding-076-12 .sup-ct-civil-unpublished -rules -of-<:ourt-s.pdf I"

<http:! linpropeOnh..com!.Of-leading-076-b-sup-ct-civiI-unpublishtxl-cules-of-eourt-s.pdf> 1be oali.oe version

would b<~ completed in the next few <Uys. The <Ute of the version appears in the digibl sign~ at upfJ« right of

- 40 -
face pag<:.

,- ~ ••• --. M •••• ••• _ _ • • _ . .... _ •••• _ _ • • _. • _ _ _ _. •• _ ••••• _ •• _,0-. p" • • • _ ••••• _

A. Counsel for S:lmaan. Au Kcshavarzi. Shcpp3Cd Mullin

Novernb~r 11, 2008

Au Mohammad Kcsh:lV:trzi
Au P~ul M:ilingagio, Managing rutner, LA Ate Ted Mu, Managing llartncr, New York

Me Kesh.vani. Att Maliogagio:

.r\s r,otcd befoee, there is no response in your em2.iJ notice to my dermnds:

:t. For refund of s:wetions in the sum of $2,570 fraudulently extracted from me by a joint Caud of Kesluvuzi and

Connor, "nd ct1ablcd through frAUds in SUSUln and denial of accC5S to eccoeds.

b. For pay for unlawful occupancy of my property at 320 Soulh Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, 90212, c. That Sal1\ll.n
immcdi2Id). V:l,c:uc thaI: properlY.

Rcg.'ec!Jng youe notice, copied below, d:lted II I t 1/08:

11) 11\crc is no cvidcnc.~ that Sarnaan v Zcmik is a legitimatc Coun Tr::lck action. The prepondc:r2occ of !he
cvid,~occ indicacs that this is :10 Enterprise Track Clse, 3nd tlut it w~; designated that way since beforc the
<:ompbinll was fUcd.

2) Y'JU Ace rcferring 1o ·a Post-judgment ocder, where thcre is no judgmcnt. Thcrc is no evidence that there is a
"':Iud judgment entCIed in this ClSC. On the conuary, the evidence:: is .J! clC1t( thal the court st:l.rting with Judge
Connor was cng:tged in a judgment fraud in this casco In bel, you yourself SC2tcd in open court on Nov 9,2007
(Tr.Il1S<:cipts. Exhibit pa.ge 57\ et seq), that you have never been served wiu.the judgment, =d that you do not
recognize :Uly judgement in this caSe. You refused rcpe::ltcd ccq~t:s th.t you notice the judgment or notice the
~:ntL)' of judgmcm, as pUJ.pmtcdly you were oedcred to do_
Ilttp:llinpcopcrinla.com/OO-OO-OO·!a·sup-<:t-transcripLS-samun-v-zemik-<loc-58-s.pdf

<htt:>:/ /U1propecin.la.c()m/OO-OO-OO.la-sup-<:t-tr2nscriprs-s:Utu:l..(\.v-zecnil<.-<ioc-58~.pdf>
J) Evcn had there been
:m emered judgmcflt in this Clse. it would have bccn void, not void.ble. b1SCd on v:u:ious 2Uthoriries comrnunialcd
to you in :the past, pcim:uily based on frauds by you, by San\:l3o. by CounUywid<; and by sevenl judges, thaI wcre
tnc [.JUndaUoCl for such putpOrted judgment. Some of these frauds were by now certified by fraud ex~tts, and
othcr :He dCAr on their ra=;
hrtp:/ linpropcrinla.coml 04 -09"{)7-sarna3Cl-s-prcquzlifiacion-Iener.pd f
<http://inproperinl:J.com/04 -D<)-07 -sarnaan-s.pcc:qwilificauoCl-)cttcr.pdf> http://inpropccinh.com/04'()9-07­
opinion-Ie ttcr-ft'Autl-in-prcqualifiClion-leuer%S Bs%SD.pdf
<: http://inproperi.nb.com/04-09-0 7-opinion-Icncr-fnud -in .prClllulifi<:2ion-lettc:r%5 Bs% 5D. pdf>
b tlpJ linpropccinla.com/04-10 -25--doc4 )-i:ollCltrywide-fuud-contocl-reeord.pdf
< hI tp:/ /U1 properinb.com!04 - to-25 -doc-45 -counuywide-fnud-<:onracr-record.pd f>
http://inpropcrinh .com/04 .{)9 -27 -doc-40·s~n-fnudulent.loa.n-appliC3tions -s.pdf
<http://i.c:propcrinh.com/04--09-27-<!oc40-samun.fnudu]ent-lrr.l.n- aiPpliC2ttons-s.pdf>
http://inproperinl.a.com/04 -09-27 -opinioll-lettec-fraud-in-Joan-llpplia lions -sigrururc%5Bs%5D .pdf
< ht Ip:11 in pwpcrinla_com 104--09-27 -opinion-Iettcr-li::>ud-in-lout -applicationNignatute%5 Bs%5D .pdf> i.
http:// inproperin~com/04.10-26 --doc-44-<:ountrywide- ftaud -undCCWlitillg-lettc.r.pdf I
< bUf':! /inproperinla.com/04-1 0-26-doc-44-i:ounttywidc-fraud-undcrwriting-lettec.pdf>
hittp: / linprop<:ri.nla..com I 04-1 0 -26-0Pinion -letter-counttywide-underw rlritlg-lette.r-oct-26%5 Bs%S 0 .pd f
< htt{l ;//i..clpropecinU.com/04- t 0-26-opinion -[ettcr-countrywide-undccwriting-Jctter-oct-26%SBs%5D.pdf>
hl:1p:/linpropecinb..com/04-10-25-<:oWltrywidc-adultcratcd-bunch-input-a;ccption-rcquest-s.pdf

3
1:
!.

- 41 -
<http:/,(ilIproperinla.c:om/04-IO-2S-counlrywide-:adultcr2tcd -bnndl-inpUl.exception -request -s .pdf:>
hlrJ://il1propennluom/06-ll.Q9.doc-38-1 -<:ounuywidc-mcburitt-hlsc-dcdanrionspdf
<hltp://inpfopecinb.oCOm/OG-11-()<)-doc-38-1-councrywide-mcburin-~lsc-<!ccb[;\rions.pd(>
http://inptOpcrinI2.com/M-1 1.09.doc-38-2.counuywide-mdaucin -blsc-dedm.tions.pdf

<http://illpropcnnla.com/0G-11-09-doe-38-Z-counuywide-mcbwin-false-<lecl:lr.tbons.rcJf> 2) There is no
cvidcnc<~ and no notice: that Tcrry fncdnun has evc< Leen assigned (0 such purported COUll :acnon. He w:as
requested on a numba o( times (Q notice his Assignment Order. H,~ refused to do SQ~. Thcrcfoce he h:as no
authority at 2.U rdative to either malter oc persons.

3) E"en had he been assigned. and had this been a legitimate couU :Iction, Judge Friedman W:JS disqualifled:l
number of times_ Lo rhe most recent case. disqualification/notice to <:ea:;e and desist, filed Macch IZ, 2008. Judge
Fn<:dm.1n. in his respoose on Much 19, 2008, co~gcd in f['auduJent <conduct. where he elllcred in papcr couct file:l
respoose: (invalid on iel hee, as a Suikc and Answec - .. n Uf\·~llo"'cd combination per the Califocnia Bench Guide of
the Judicial Council), and then he proecedcd to secretly void/dispose his own response in Sustain (Exhibit page
194, J'lIC nunule, <:Oteud -00/00/00) _
http://inpropcrioll.com/OO-OO.OO-b-sup-Cl··minule-orders-eleclcorUc<ourt-file-s.pdf

<http://inptopecinLu:om/OO-DO-OO-la.sup-<:t-minutc-ordca·c!ecuofuc-cow:t-61c-s.pdf> Judge Friednllln did the

SAIT.C tcgarding hi, ruling on J2n 30, 200& - not (0 release any funds to Defend.mt - he ff2.udulently voided/dispo~d

of !-~s own r"mulc order wilh 00 notice or service to parcies - (Exhibit page un, <bte minutes entered - 00/00/00).

Alt Kcsh..vaczi, for aU u,c relsons above, you arc continuing ro cng:t~~c in conduct that upon review is Iikdy to be
dcoTled of criminal nalLure.

Wil:>dr'-l.wal is del11and.~d of any further action in Samun v Zcrnik. as weU:as rcsponse to prcvious demands for

mirig;o.ting dam'R~ by payment for unhwful occupancy and immediate vacating of the property by 5:00pm on Wed,

No" 12, :W08.

Joseph Zcrnik
• __ • __ • •• _ • L •• • •• _ •• • ... • __ • -:---- -- •• ­
~
~
.
~
~
~
~
.
_
~
~
B Pre·sidlngJudgc Stephen Cwlcger & Cicek John A Clarke. LA Superior Court
!.

Nov 11,2008

).'t~idmg Judge C:wleg.~r, <l11d C1~rk Clarke, Au Bianco, Au Overlon. Att DiCarlo:

Pb;e take notice of cornmurllcnions with Att Kcshal':l.rzi ~d odlecs ill dtis email mess~gc-

-nle Presiding Judge and (he Cbk of the COuct ace negligenr ill illowillg Judge Friedman to proceed with hIS
wrongful conduct 25 a presiding judge in Samv.n v kcnik.

The Cour~ Presiding Judge Cwlcger and Clcrk Cluke also :l.bdicate any notiO<1 of fULtherance of justice in rheu:
cononued refusal to respond to very b:asic questions undcdying tltc fLauds in Stl1'WUl. v Zcwik, :l.nd also in rheu:
oogeing denial of access 10 my own Iitigttion records, pet Nixon v Warocr Communications, California Rules of
Court, Ruk 2.400 er scg, crc, where the full :lnd ditocl cvKlence of the frauds rcsides.

I'rcsidingJudgc CzulegcT aod Assistant PccsidingJudge McCoy also EUl to abide by the C:I.1.ifomu Code of Judicial

Ethi<s Canoll 30(1) (- cxhibi( p:agc 14) :after being cefubly io.focmcd of conduct ofjudgc:> and attorneys that viob.tes

th~ Code of Ethics, they fail to t2kc any coneaiv"e acrion so far.

http://inproperinla..com/OO-OO..QO-\aw-<::l_codejudici2Cethlcs .(l8--Q9 J Oa-s.pd(

<http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-law-c:a_roclcjudicUl_cthics-OS-09-08--s.pdf>

- 42 -
Notice is ~~in dem:ll1.ded by the offices of the Presiding Judge ~nd the Cl':tk to aH involved by 5:00pm on Wed
No\' 12, 1008:

1) Either that thcre IS, 3ltetnativcly, that thcre isn't any valid due Assi.~cnt Order in this usc for Judge Friedman.

2} I~ither that thCfC is, ..Itcmuivc!y, [hal there isn't any valid, effcctual cmceed Judgment of Aug 9, 2007 in r.lUs casc.

h lip: / Iin~!OE'<:rinl...cc'm/08-08-14 -c:lkt-app.2.motion .to-suspend -appdl-w -cxh-s.p<! f

<hr.tp:/ / inproperinh .com!08-08· \4 -a\·ct-app-2.moOOn-to ·suspend-appc:al-w~xh·s.pd{>

bttp: II inpcopcrinh.co~/.OHCJlding-l S2-<:onclusions-us-eonstiturion.non-eompliancc.pdf

<http:/" inptopcrinh.com/.OHC'.d!ng-152-conclusions.us-constilUuon-non-compliancc.pdf> 3) Eimer that tbe

Gr.nt Deed LSsued by David Pasternak is. a[tcnutivcly - isn't v..lid a g-r:U1{ dew stemming from this CtSe.

http://i(\pcopcdnu.com/07-12-1? -opirOOn.lettcr-f<.lud.in-gnnH.lecds-s.pdf

<http://inplOpcrinb.<:om!07.12-I'I-opinion.lener.fraud-in-gnnt-<!e,~ds-s.pdf> 4) Eimer tlut the use as:l whole i~

:l vllid Scate of C.. \ifomia litigation, alternativdy - that it isn'l.
http://irlproperinla.com/OO-OO.OO.(a.sup-ct-b-ftauds.mcdicv:l!-s.pdf

<http://iopropennb.mm/OQ.OO-OO.u.sup-<:t-!:I.-frauds-mcdieva!-s.pdf> Notice is also dem:lnded by 5:00pm on

Wed, Nov 12, 2008, that access is allow~d to elecuonie court records in Su.:Itain.

It is :1.150 expected that the PrcsidingJudgc immcdi~dy initiate corcceuve actions pursualll (0 the CalifomU Code of

Judicial Etnjc~ "nd notice pHcies of actions he is uking.

Joseph Zcmik

C. Moctio Bcrg, Editor. Daily Journal

CmHroUing rury in SusWn

No~ 1\,2008

.t-Cw:in Bc:rg. E.diwr

Daily Journal

M{ Berg:

PI(.3!;e take notice of other u)l[unun.ication~in rllis enuil mcss..gc, and refetences to records tlt.. t ;).cc posted online.

I'U[S'Jan[ W yom role ~, Editor of the Daily Journal which in tum has control of Susum. I again dcrrund your
~ction to mitigate <hma,gcs: Confirmation or denUl of the various f~tl.l[cs of SusWn. the LA Superior Court
iraudulcni case nunage,mcnt system, which is an instrument of fraud on the 9.S million people th:lt this comt claims
to sc [Ve.
I, up: { Imp roperinb_corn/OO-OO -DO ·co mpule(S-s lJ.S tWJ -subsidUry··of-.hily-;oun1al-s. pdf

< http://llIptoperink.com/OO..()O.OO-£ompulcrs.sust:lln.subsidiary-of-<l:Uly.!out1l:l!.s.pdf.> Some:, but not ill

Susuin's fr:ludulcm features :lre desctibed in the attzchcd record. unpublished rules of court and advancc.d

:l[>plio:.acions of Susr.. i.n. Pl=sc confirm or deny the fC:ll\L[cs orSusuin listed therc-

It is (Inly (c-:l)orublc to expect somc notice to yOU! rC:ldcrs as well.

Response dwundcd by Wed, Nov 12,2008, 5;OOpm.

Joseph Zccoik

----------_._-­
s

- 43 -
D. All Da"id P.sccrn.k
former President. ~Housc ofJU$fjce" . Bet Tzedek

Nov \ 1, 2008

Au David Pasrcr.",k
Pastemak, Pasrcm.k. Patton

Au P.sr~rnak:

This is a rCI"'''t dcm.nd In.t rou immediately withdnw the fraudulent Grant Deed rh:at you ft.lcd with the offiee of
Rcgistrar/Recorder, http://inpropNinh.com/07 -12-17 .opinion.letter.fraud-in-gnot-dccds-s.pdf
<http://I.nplopcnnla.com/07 -12-17 -opinion-letter-fr:wd-iIt-gr.nt-dccrls.s.pdf> that you notice me panics once
l'oU have done so, and ~h,\t you facilitate "aClung the plOpet()' thaI yov. forcibly entercd and fr;luduleotly transferred
to Sama:w.

Response demanded by' Wed, Nov 12,2008, 5:00pm.

Joseph Znnik
~ ~ • _ .... _ •• _ . • •• ~ • _ _ _ •• ~. ~ •• ~ ._. ••• _ ••• • • _~ • ~ _~ .. _ h __ ~ •• • ---~ • __ • - -- - ~ ... _ - - _ . - .

Eo. All S3ndor S,ffiucls, Mr Angelo M07.iJo - Offlcers ofCounuywidc

Me Samuel, - also as formcr Prcsidenr,"HollsC ofJmtiC-"" . Bet Tacdck

Nov 11, ;'008

All Satnud~ wd Mr MoziJo:

PI"":>,, finally answer th,o questions ask<:.d numecous times Ul the p:>St:

1)Undcrwcicing Leller:

Imp:!!inpcopcri.oluom!01-1 0-2G -doc-44-<ounttywide-fnud.undc<wdcing-lcttcc. pdf

':http://inpropcriItb.com/04-10.26-doc-44-countrywide.fr:lUd·undclWoting·\etter,pdf>

http://inp roperinb~oml04-1 0.2~-opi[lion -letccc-<ountcywidc-lIlldcN,'riritlg-letta-<>et-26%5Bs%5D.pdf

':http://mptOpccinb.com/04 -1 O.26-opinion o.lcttCl:-countcywide-undclwriring-lettec-<><:t-26%SBs%SD.pdf> Il) W"-5

the t; nderwriting letter tltat is posled onlinc as i.ndicated above, dated Oct 14, 2004 or Oct 26, 2004?

b) W<lS ita valid Commywide underwriting !cl(cr as part of $aoU-2n's loan appliClrion file in 2004?

2'.) Re.u Property Conlnct:

http://inpcoperinb..com/04-10-25 -doc-45·countxywide-fcaud <oOlr:lct-cccocd.pdf

<http://mpropennla.com/04...10.25-doc-45-<:ountrywidc-fraud-contncl-c<:cold.pdf> :I) Was it ever received by

Coumrywidc San Rafael. at 5:03pm on Oct 25, 2004, as cWmcd?

b) If so, who was it sent to Countrywide by:lt that date and {hat time?

3) Was C,(lunuywidc cnl~gcd in fraud in Sam:un v ZeaUk?

Your response is demanded by 5:00pm on Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008.

Jose.ph Zcmik
_.,~---- ---- ------------_ ... ....---_---------------~~----------.----------------_..---..-~-------
F. At! Alcj:lIldco Mafork2s ·.mcJ Au M:uk IUcnins

Officers of "House ofJustice" - Bet Tzedek

Art Mayockas - also lIS co-signee of the Consent Decree rc: Civil Rights in LA (2;2000cv11769)

- 44 -
Nov II, 200B

Au K.'lmins and At( :-yhyorkas:

. are ulcre 3UY disputc resolution byhws in the nJ-{ouse of Justice"?

Your response is dcm..nded b)' 5:00pm on Wcdnesd~y, Nov 12, 2003.

Joseph Z~mjk

.. -- - ~.
-- _ -. - . --- --. ---- ..--.. --- -.. ----_.- .. -"'. ------- ---- -.. ---. --_ .. --. ----.- . _.. _. -- ------- ----.- --.-_. ----- ----_.--- ---­
~. ~- ", '" '"

C. 'rhe Honor..ble Ronald George, Chief Justice, C:l.liforni.. Supreme Coun

As member of the leadership of LA Superior Court -1985, at the time SUSull was illSl;;tUed.

The Honorabk: RO[l~ld George

Chic f Justice
(~tifornj:1 Supreme Court

I-Ionotabl!c Justice George;

Review of YOll~ offic~l biog~phy shows you were in leadership positions in the civil courts of LA Superior Court

during or around the t1me when SU5l~in was instilled as lhe case malUlgemem system, and (he public records uut

:lte tne Books of COutt werc eliminated.

hltp:/ /inpropcrinb.eom/OO-OO-OO-judgcs-bio.misc-illfo.s.pdf <http://inpcopecinla.com/OO-oO.OO.judges-bio-misc­

info·s.pd(> - Exhibit p:ige:n

11) Would you plC3sc respond with:a SlaCemClll 0[\ the recocd regardinlt your wle, if any, in chis rruUcr?

2) Would you p[ease r"~;pond with 3 st:l.tcmcnt on the record regardinl: the notion dut Sust:lin is :a fraudulent

<:ompuccr- system?

:\) If so, would you pl'='lsC rcspond with .. statement on the r<X:orJ rcg:lcding corrcuivc acuon thac you nuy initiate,

if :allY>

Respo~ rC<lucstoo by Fcidty, Nov 14,2008, 5:00pm.

Joseph Zcntik

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

H. The Honorable Gary Fccss, Judge, U.S. Di.mict Coun, LA

Also - as O\'ersc~ of Civil Rights in LA per Consent Dccr~ (Z:2000cvl17G9)

Also - :is former Judge of LA Surmar C-ourt

The Honor-.. blc Crtcy F,~s

Jud?;:, U.S. DistrlC( Court, LA

Honorable Justice Fees:

Revi,:w of yOU! offici:zlll>iogcaphy shows you were in judge in the Lt\ Superior Court during ye;t[S mat SusWn was

in usc as the case m:llugemcnt system..

http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-judges-bio.mise-info-s-pdf <http://inprope.rinh.coln/oo.oo-OO·~-bio--rni5c­

info-s.pdf> .. Exhibit page. 19

1) W.ould you please respond with a st:l.lemeot 00 the record regarding. yow: use md knowledge, prioe to this notice

- 45 -
·of the ft'luds i.n Sustlin, dllcin~ your service as judge in the LA Superior Coun?

2) Would l'oU please (c~[X)nd with :l statement on the record regarding the notloo that Sustain is 1 fraudulent

computer s~'$tcm?

3) If so, IlJould you plclse respond with a SUtement on the record reg-mling corrective action that you mlY initUtc,

~f anI?
4) Would you pt~sc review Inc: foUowing records (dared to the conduct of youc coUeagues, Judge Virginia A
JPhillips and Cub. Woehrle IN RE. Zernik v Connor et al (2:200&v01SS0):
:1) Litigation with no summons, where summortS were fr:mdulendy issued by thc c1crk of U.S. District Court. LA,
'",ho refused 10 sign valid summons presented by I'Wntiff, in violation of dIe rules of coUIt:
http://inpcoperinb..com/(}[·kading-l00-us-dist-£t.I1.void· titi~ tion -\Ill ·no·summons-s.pd f
<htlp:! {;lllpcopcrtnl:l..oom/.OHeuiing.l00-us-dist.ct-b.void.litigation.w-no-swnmons·s.pdf> b) AOJlot~ted docket
of purponcd litig1.uon U\ urnik v Connor el al.
http / lin propeMh.com! .OHcading~102-us--dist~ct·la -dodee t -annoutcd-s.pdf
<htlp:/ /impropcrinla.com/ .OE-lc>ding.l02-us-dlst-cr.la·docker·annolated-,.pdf> c) List of le:cords barred by
l'vbgisuate Woehrle from filing through decdtful us.. of Discrepancy Notic.es.
Imp: / /inproperinb.com/ .OHeading.\ 03 ·us-dist-<:t-b-pcnrertcd-use-<lf-disct:lpaoq .noric~-incompldepdf
<: http://i.npropcrinb.com/.OHeading· I03-us-dist-ct -b.-perverted-use~i)f- discnpancy,"ociocs-incomplclc.pd f>

The: discrepancy noted in all such records is: May 15.2008 Mltlute Older by Judge: Woehrle.

Upon review of such rccords, please iniWtc corrective action, :mch as:

:;,) i\ dccb,raUo[\ on the rccord of to effecl such as:

"Litlg"-tion where no valid sununon" \Vas issu('d by the clerk, neilher \lias any valid swnmons served on defendants,

not entered in court, and where plaintiff W:lS b:lued from filing paper> in oaurt, is null and void, it nevcr W~

liug,nion to begin with. No need to dismiss such liti~tion. since there was no litigation to be dismissed."

b) Notice to the authorities, as you feci necessary.

<:) Notice to porues rcg;lrding your acuons in thi~ rc~rd.

Response [equeslcd by Friday, Nov \ 4.2008, 5:00pm.

Joseph Z"rruk

~-_ ••••• - - - - - - . - ' . - - - - _. --~ _ ._._--~ • • __ .~ ~. __ ~ ~ ~ __ • r ~ ~ --------~--- -~~-

At 09:'17 I\M. 11 ! 11/2008, you wrote:

De~f Mr. Zerruk

Ple~se ukc notice th:ll tomorrow. NOI'ember 12,2008, at 8:30 :a.m. in DepartmcJ\1 of the Los Angeles J
SUPCi:1o[ Court in San~ Moniel, phinriff Nivie S:l=n's counsel ",ill ap~r: ex P:l£tc to request an ordu shortening
time for the hearing On Pbinrifrs motion for aW;ltd of paS! judgment momey's fees. Thi~ application is based on
the f~:ct that me earliest date available through the derk for the hcacing is in. December and due to hu firu.ncial
condl cion, the phintiff needs the Coon's ruling on this appliC'-tion as soon ~ possible. Please let me knOVl if you
'intend 10 oppose our appliCltlOn.

'Illw you for your 3ncntiofi_

Moe Kesluv:u:zi, E.s<].

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP

- 46 -
 J33 South Hope Street, 48th Flooe

LQS Angeles, CA 90071-1448

Duect Line: 213-617-5$44

Fax: 20-620-1398

Em:lil: mkesh:lvarzi@Sheppardmullin.com

Sheppard MuOin <http://www.sh~pp:l(dmullin.com/images/ smrhlogo.min.i.jpg>

3D Soulh Hope Street
48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1148
213.620.1780 office
213.620.1398 fill:
",'W\v.shepp:u-dmulliJl.com <http://www.shepp;wlmuUin.com/>
Moe Kcshavauj
213.617.5544 direct I 2 !3.443.291 0 direct (~)(
MKeshavan:i@sheppardmuHin.c.om I ilia <http://\lJww.sheppardmullin.com/attomcys-270.html:>

CiH;:ubr 230 Notice- In accordance with Treasury Rcgublions we notify you that any 1:lX advice given herein
(or tn any aluchments) is not intended or wotten to be used, and cannol be used by my tJxp:lyer. for the purpose
of (i} avoiding rax pCfUltics or (u) pmmotirtg, mukering or recommending to :molher patty any transaction or
m:Htcr addressed herein (or in any attachments).

"'W
Attention: This mcss:lgc is sent by a fum and may contain infonnatiOIl tJut is privileged or confidenli2l
1f yo 11 received lhi~ lr.wsmission in error, pk:lse notify mc sender by I:':ply e-mail :lnd deletc me message and :lny
~ltt:lehmcn(s.

- 47 -
- 48 -
11 LIHIHXlI

 O."I.IIl."9""'db.
Io...".l._
~ IJ O,t;(A.Jro\~phlC'(fttk..
) . ~L ~l'!'UjI=;lllH~4t\h1
n~(&U~
O"t~;ms,\.J"
0(,..(6' JI 05'J<T
Joseph Zemik OMO PhD
r~%: ~a-:}I; ~;;t 0~'':~ ::';j~)'1 :l:2}.~-j~;t:ilt:~T.(lW' ~,~t

~ Judga shall bo faithful to the law.. , •

c..JCo<1<J '-f",;o)(lf'11
"The rule of law must never be wn(used witJr (yr;Jnny of the couTts"
Anon)'1'I)l)U(

Nov 24, 200B

AU John Ambcl/!,

AU klloa Moldawsh.)'

Bryan C.-aIlC, LLP

Bycmail

Time is of the essence, please respond by Monday, Nov 24, 2008, 5:oopl1l,

RE: Leltel'lo !l:lnk of AmeriC:l Corporation in IU:: Jacqueline Connor and tile corrupt justice systcRI of
LA f'.oUl1ty.
A. R~lIest fOr c:onfl"malion of Bank of AmcriCll Corporation knOWledge and approval o( your con tin u(,'(!
fraudulent conduct and the fr:lUdulent condllcl of Countrywide Legal Divi.~ion in 5am330 v Zcmik
(SC087400}

n. Request (or Bank of American assis~"ce ifl freeing those who \Vere confimled innoecnt lJut framed in
I~he RJimpart scandal

.I\tt Molda\\lsky. All Amberg:

I am writing to inform you ofmy leiter to Bank of America corpoc<ltiol1 with the (Wo following requests:
A.. Requcst for confirmation of Banko( Amcric1 Corporation knoWledge and approval oHhe
continued fr:tudulent conduct of Attomeys John Amberg :lnd Jellll:! Moldawsky (Bryan Cave,
LLP) a:. well as the conlinued fraudulent ((Induct of c.)untll'Widc Ugal Division 3fld Sandor
SlImue!s in purlXlrtcd Sl2te of California litigation Sam:33n v Zcmik (SC087400)

Bank of America C0fJXll'ltiOf\ is asked to indicate its knowledge and approval of your conduct. I need to be reo
assured exactly which entj(ies you represent, and !hat sucn entities are fully awarC and approvc of yOUf continued
fraudulent condl~ct.
I) Pleas" no/ice me of/he exncI dale ofcJrange 0/conlrol. ifany, 10 Bank ofAmNico Corporo/ion, in wlra/ is
nomitla/(v known as SartlaLIn v lernilc (SC087400),
2) Does COWlSe] oJthe Bank. 0/America Corporation hlOw aJ',d approve o[}'Our panicipalion, for a year
and a holf. in abusive proceedings IIraI are no/ pari 0/any remgniwbfe Sla/(! a/California litiga/iOll or
any other legitimate legal process?
J) Does CowlScl ofille Bank ofAmerica CorporatiolllcnolV and approve ofyour fraudulent conduct in /he
r(!cenJ laking o[monir!S in rela/ionsltip (0 my email note?

Such monies were purportedty held by Pasternak as my funds. which (hey never were. Pasternak never
had a valid appointment order. and he never executed any jl./dgment, since there never was any cntere.d,
effectual judgment to execute in the first place. Ncvenheless. he Cllgaged in cooductlhaJ. must be deemed
of criminal nature - commilting first fon:iblc entry into my propetty. and then fraudulent C()lwcyance of
title by filing blatantly ffilUdu{ent grnnt deed. as certified by decorated FBI agent James Wcdickl .
4) Does Counsel ofIhe Bank ofAmerica Corporation brow and approve ofy.JlJr fraudulent conduct in }U1U'
recent ac/ions. again amide any norm 0/due process?

- 49 -
• Page2J9 November 24. 2008

None of your reweds were ever authenticated. During this whole har.JSSment campaign. you havc nevel
produced a single declaration by either Mozilo or Samuel.!; to the effect that thcy have ever received any
communication from me. TIlcreforc:, your actions, all \>as(~ on false anomey statements, lack any legal
foundation, including the most recent ones.
Docs Cwnscl of (he Bank of America Corporation know and approve ofsuclliitigation practices as
perfoflned On its behalf?
r-or the record - I again listed Angelo Mo~10 and Sandor Samuels in the CC lisl of instant message, twice
cachl P'I= provide verified statement from each that (hey received instant email note, or for that matter
any email nole from rnc- ever...
5) Does CowlScl oflhe Bank ofAmerica Corporatioll blOW af/d approve ofYOIIF con/if/uedfraudulelll
sllJIldardfj re/alive 10 evidtllce rauJinelyflIed ill courl wid. 110 aUJhetllicatioll, and accepted as valid
evidence by the colluding judges ofthe LA SupUior COllrt?
TIlis cal.egory of coUl~e includes mosl if not all the rccord~, in Countrywide's subpoena productions in
what is nominally Sanlaan v Zemik (SCOS7400}. where tile representations as to who n:ccivc:d which
record [rom whom, and when. <Ire almost universally fraudulent, in violation ofany ~sOW1d banking
prin<:ipte" - massive fraud on the U.S. govemrllCfll. on this court, and on Ole, oollle people of Californi<l
and the u.s.
OIJViously, such were tlle standards oflcgal praclic.c of Sandor Samuels and Countrywide, and Ihey were
coordinaled Wilh and welcomed by Judge Connor. as part ofcolTUj)\ion ohhe LA courts by Countrywide.
Elsewhere around the country lhey were more critically roceived. as in Pennsylvania, January 2008, and
Dallas Tc>alS, March 2008 - U.S. Judge Jcrn30hm opinion, previously served upon you.
Again, please confirm thaI Bank of Americllll Corpolalioo and its counscl know and approve of your
conlinu,::s actions in Samaan v Zemik (SC087400) based entirely on fraudulent subpoena productions,
produced by S<kldor 5.1muels and the Legal Division he headed, five (5) limes in a row between SUIOIIlCl'
2006 and spring 2007, and including whal musl be deemed hundreds of predicated acts per RICO 18 USC
[96I-I~~. if each oflhcsc fraudulent records is to be wunled separately.

6) Does COIUlse/ oflhe Balik ofAmerica Corporation maw and appmve ofyour continued appearance in
court as "Non-farty" in die "noll-liligation" ofSamarIn v ?.emik. while couri records give you Olll! ofa
dozen dlanging designalions (p/ail/tiff. Deferufanl. \VIUlte~'er is dcsignalioll dll jour)?
I generously suggested in the pas! thaI you be dcsigruucd "Judge" in this farce, please let me know whal
designation Bank of America Corporation and ilS Counsel consider to be your truthful designation he<e.
7) Does ulWlSet ofthe Balik ofAmericn Co,-poraIiOfl brow and approve ofQCliollS conducted in COllrl on
their beJlfl1fas a wlrole. or in parI, in re: fjQllCtions (JJ1d OSC re: COIl/emp' and SGllctiOflS exceeding
Sl2.OO0. slani'g January 2008 1
Terry fl1edrnan, without any assignment order. and wilh no authority as a judge, aacr disquali ricalion,
dropped offhis sleeve. at your request. a ruling that Connor's non-i:XiSle<lt oroer was in full force and
effect. ex pasl.facIO. Friedman also failed 10 register Ihal ruling, yet he used itlaler in February and March,
200& in absuld rulings. for further abllSC­
8) Does CowlSelofthe BcmJc ofAmerica Corporation know and approve ofyour aclioll.S inlhir nO/l­
litigation on July 6, 2007 - (Ire d:vk courl gag arder prOCCt~ditlgs. recorded as "proceeding tlot
recorded"?
9) Does Counsel ofthe Bank ofAmerica CorporatiOll brow and approve ofyour continuedapprorance
be/ore .J.:tdge ConI/or after size fraudulently r.efused (a accepl dirqualijicalion for a cause Ort July 12,
200T?

- 50 -
t, Page319 November 24, 2008

10) Docs CoullSel a/lite Bonk o[America Corporation knOWOllD apprQlII!ofYOrv Jldy 23.2007 afflhe
recordr proceeding, where you providr:dmoving papers aper opposi/ioll deadline. and where Judge
COlUlOr ,recorded yoUT proposed orders ,. Denied", yel you claimed 'aler on thaI such arder IWZS" iswell?
1\ ) Docs CQwzsel o/Ihe Balik o[ America CorporatiOlr know and approve ofIlIe II'ronf!fu[ appeara/lce of
Jenna Moldawsky in Summary Judgmelll hearing Aug 9, 1007. a proceedingfully based 011 fraudulenl
Cowllrywide records./raud on Iile COUTI alld OllC me by JI.1ge COil/lOr, All Keshavarzi. CoulIlrywide.
SamucLr. Motila. and Bryon Cave. LLP?
12) Docs Coullie/ oflile Balik ofAmerica Corporariall know arid approl'C Judge Call nor's fraudulenl Sept/I.
2007 m;nule order, laler t/ran i1i!r secorld disqualijic(J/iOfI jor a cause, bacJ:..aored /0 Sepl 10, 2007.
recording a fictirious Irearing rlml had never been heard in reali/yo and a f.c/i/ious ruling that had /lever
ruled in reality - Iho/ there wm- no fraud in Cowllrywidc's subpoena records?

13) Does Counsel ofrhe (JOllie ofAmerica Corporation Imow {)J'ld approve ofthe fact Ihol Sheppard Mullin
Gild KcsilQWlni go all submillillg again alld again IfIe /WQ key fraudulellt records from Countrywide'S
fraudulelll subpoena productions, which were the only purporled/aundafioll ofthis fabricated litigalion?
a Jhc invalid Fraudulent Underwriting (etter of Oct 26, 2004 1 - Altomeys fOI Countcywidc, Shatz
and Booke., ill Meet and Confer in March 2007, in response (0 my questions, Slated that sudl
(CUer ""'as never part of tile I03.ll1ile in 2004. 11le first and only lime i( was produced by
Countrywide was in April 2007. aner that Meet and Confet', in response to my demand for
c:xplanation. And in that subpoena too. itncver appeared as an undclVo'nting letter from 2004. per
se. (I only appeared as part oflhe Nov 3·6, 2006 Kesl\avarzilLloydIMcLaurin correspond=.
which I deem procuremeolofperjury.
Yet Keshavarzi repeatedly riled it in court,. dclibcrately misrcprcscnting it as an authentic Ocl 14.
2004 undenYlilillg letter, without any authentication (like all other records), even after the change
of control ofCountrywidc to Bank ofAmerica Corporation. Nalionally acclaimed fraud expert
Robert Meister confirmed the fraud in lh3t misrepresenlalionJ _
b. lnc fraudulOiI real proP!'.Ity COntract document· [n open COllrt Keshavarzi admilted by now a
couple oftimes that this record, was not what he had previously ddiberaldy misrepresenled it 10
be. Countrywide deliberately misrepresenled it in Mclaurin's fraudulent declarations as well.
11131 nxord was never faxed from Parks 10 Counlt)'widc on Oct 25. 2004, at 5:03pm· a central
claim in the fraudulent fabrication Ihat was the whole basis for the 5ummary judgmcnl Inslead,
on October 15. 5:03pm, il was faxed from Samaan, in Los Angeles, 10 Lloyd, in Los Angeles, as
part of the massive Counlrywide fax/wire fraud scheme. This fuludulenr reaJrd wa~ filed again
fill' a "hearing" on November 2 1,2008, and )'ou were noliced of it too.

14) Does Counsel ofthe Bank ofAn/erica CorporatlOlI blOW and approve oftfzcfax/wire[raud and agree 1o
YOllr continued participation in this purparled legal action based on such fraud?
PracticaJl.y all records in the Samaan's Countrywide loan tile thaI appear as fax transmissions from Parks
are part of this fax/wire fraud. In and ofthemsc(ves federal OffcrlScs,3nd predicated acts per RICO as
well.
15} Does COlInsel of Ihe 8a,1k ofAmerica Corpura!io/l Imow alld approve oflhe fra/(oUleJll SamaaJlloan
app/ica!ions and wlderwriling records and underwriting history as produced by Countrywide Legal
Division. led by Sandor Samuels. and as fraudulenJly misrepresented by Marin McLaurin in her
declarations?
Specifically:

- 51 -
•• Page 419 Novembct 24.2008

a. POl/btl: "date recciVf?!l"s/amm: Samaan's Loan Applications bear double "Dale Rcecived"
s,tamps~, and fl4udulen\ claims were made by Kesha\larzi aod Countrywide that tne loan
~pplications we«: fi~t received Ollly
on Oct 12,2004, while failing to provide any explanation whatsoever for the second, carlie/",
defaced Date Rceeivcd stamps, The daJ.a shows Ihal by Oct 6. 2004 Diane FraLier already
delected and recorde<! the fr.lud in Samaan's loan applications employment data That of course
would be impossible, unl= she used somC ofSamilal'l'S psychic devises in the practice of
underwriting.
Diane Frazier also ronfinned lbat fact 10 me in a phone C<1l1 in March 2007 - Iha/the 103[\
applications were received (irsl in the first week orOclober, and only after she recorded the fraud
(and failure 10 listclo.ing costs, and failure to file a copy oftheconlracl), and demanded new loan
applications, McLaurin. to spite Frazier. defaced tr.~ old Dale RtXeived stamps. and ran the old
applications a scco[\d lime through Coulllf)'wide's imaging system, as iflhey were new 103ll
applications. McLaurin then had the sCCQnd, later stamps "received October 12.2004". added to
Ihese fr...udulent rCCQrds.
b. fax/wirc.froltd: Samaan's loan application file. as produced by Countrywide's Legal Division,
included mUltiple records that bear anooymous fa.\( headcr imprints. with false date notalions.
misrcpt'cscnted as iflhey wcre lhe dates such rccoro:s were received ill Countrywide from Parks.
In fact lhey are all fax. transmissions betwcen Samaan and Lloyd. as part of the fax/wire fraud.
In fact, Ihere i~ no data in lhe loan application files thai allows dating the arrival of such records at
Countrywide at all. and for lhal malter - lhe roule ofarrivaJ, which most likely was as PDF
altachments to emails correspondence from Lloyd to Mclaurin.
c. Qmis~!JI1 o[email corr~{JOIuience[romsub{XJenaproduc.iQf.lS.: Countrywide fraudulO1tly refuse<!
to produce Inc emai! correspondence pertaining (0 these loon applications, and inserted inslead.:l
blank paper forms (itlCld "Correspondence Log. San Rafael Oranch". Maria McLalUin in a phone
call in Dcrember 2006 cxplainOO 10 me thaI it was done since the Legal Division. head<X1 by
Sandor S:unuels, dctem\incd thal email corrcspolldence was nol suhject to sul>pocna productions.
Dianl.: Fr.rrier slalM that such fonns "Correspondence Log. San Rafael BI<lOCh" had never bccfl
u:1ed in San Rafael atlcast as far back as 1989, her first year ofcmploymcn( in Countrywide, or 17
y,~rs pri()(to the date of tile subpoenas. Therefore, (he productioo of such records was a
ddibcrate false and misleading production of legallbatlking reconds.
The reasorl the Legal Department exempted such emails from the production. was of coUr!.e that
thl.: feC()rds represenled as arriving by fax. in fact arrived by email from Lloyd to Mclaurin at a
milch laler dale (han shown in dlC file. for example" the real property contract necam, falsely
rcpnescnted as coming rrom ['arks to Countrywide by fa.l( on Oct 25. 2004, was never part oflhe
kJan file at lC,J,St as late as Nov J. 2004, as can be c1e<t.rly determined from the official underwriting
leltCfS in the same loan file.
16) Does Counsel o/the 8ank 0/ America Corpora1iol/ know and approve o/thefraudulent Samoan (oQn
applications underwriting history Il$ fabricated by COW1trywide Legal Division. Salldor Sal/Wetl. Maria
McLaurin, Mohammad Kesltavarzi. 1o(m A.mberg. alld Jenna Moldawsky?

While the fraudlllw( contraetrerond was ncvcrpart of the loan file as laIc as Nov J, 2004, Countrywide,
Ihrough Mclaurin's fraudulent dedaratiolls. supponed Samoan's fraudul~nt claims, fabricated in the 3­
way correspondCflCC of November Hi, 2006 belWeet1 Keshavaai, Mclaurin, and Uoycf. Such
fabrications were the foundation ofthis whole farce oflitigatiOll in the State ofCalifomia justice system.
Here arc some oflhe facts and fraudulent claims­

- 52 -
• PageS19 November 24. 2008

3. The rcal property conlract was fully executed by Joseph Zemik 01\ Sept t 5.2004, and its full
cxecution wa.~ acknowledged by Nivic Samaan on Sepl 16,2004 - true claim.
b. Samaan's loan applicatioos arrived for the flrst lime in Countrywide San Rafael between October
I and (ktobcr 6, 2004 .- truc claim.
c. Samaan's 10M applicatiom arrived for the first lime in Countrywide Sail Rafael only on Oct [2,
2004 • rr.lUdulcnt claim.
d. Such loan applicalioos included a ropy ortlle real propcl1Y contra"t- fraudulent daim.
c. The reason Samaan refused Ul submit a copy ofth~ contract for Frazier's review was lhal SamaaIl
included in the contraCt provision for coullting the commission as part of thc downpayl11cnt. Such
provision would have caused denial ofSamaan's loan applications in and of itself - true claim.
f. S amaan's loan applications were suspended on Ckt l4, 2001 - true claim.
g. SaOlaarl'S loan applications were suspended merely two days alter their first arrival in
CouOIrywidc - fraudulent claim.
II- 111C rcasoo foc sudl summary suspension was thaI the underwriter, Diane Fl·azicr deemed the real
property contract not "fully exccuted" - fC'lludultllt claim.
i. The real property contract was deemed no("fully (:xeculcd", as:l result of missing verification by
Joseph Zcmik all the initial offc(- rraudulcflt c12illl.
j. The meaning of the condition sel by Diane fl4Zier in the October 14,2004 Uodawriting Letlcr
demanding fully executed real property contract, and refusiog to aa:cpl escrow letter as a
substitute was Ihal she asked for additionalvcciliC<ltion by Zcmik of the rea! property contracl ­
fraudulent claim.
k.nlC meaning ofthc <:Qlldition SCI by Diane Frazier in Ihe October 14, 2004 Underwriting Lellcr
demanding fully execuled real property contract. arxl refusing to accept escrow IcUef as a
substitule was lhal Smnaan refused to submit a CO(::y of tile contract. and submilted instead invalid
'~cro\Y !cllef'i ·-true claim.

I. 'That condition, demanding fully exccuted real properlY contract, lvas satisfied on Monday,
October 25, 2004, when the "fully executed" contract arrived by fax al 5:03 pm from Parks to
Counlrywidc San Rafacl- fraudulent cl2im.
nl. Immediately upon arriva! oflhal fax from P<J.l1(s on October 25, 2004, Samaan's 10311 applications
'''ere approved by Countrywide underwnter- fraudulcnt claim.
H. 011 October 25. 20001, Maria Mclaurin displaced the duly assigned undcrwritCf, Diane Fr.l7icr,
and look over undClWriting ofSamaan's loan applicatiol1s, out of compliance lll1d in violation of
the law~ true cl:lim.
o. On Oclobcr 25, 2004, Maria Mclaurin had appraisal review ordered -true claim.
p. On October 25. 2004, Maria Mclaurin completed Branch Input, Exception requcst and fOfWardcd
Ii[ 10 Demetrio Gadi. Corporate Underwriting Support -true d3im.
q. In her Brunch Input, Maria Mclaurin fraUdulently lisled Samaan's income at $4,000,000 per year
-' true claim.
r. In her Bcanch Input. Maria Mclaurin failed (0 include C[ucs analysis report-true claim.
s. Maria Mclaurin was not authorized 10 file such a B raneh Inpul, il should have been filed by an
authori7.cd underwriter - true daim.

- 53 -
• Page 619 November 24, 2008

I. [)ccoClfio Galli' response arrived only 011 October 29,2004 - true claim.
u. In hi.s response Gad; explicitly Slated it did not constitute 3Jlproval- (rue claim.
v. In his response Gadi deman<kd thai Samaan's lmm application be approved only after a valid
Clues analysis report was generated - true claim.
w. In his response Gadi demanded thai Samaan's loan 3Jlplicalions be approved only after
underwriting review by an i1l1thorizcrl Branch Underwriter, not by McLuarin - true claim.
x. Closing in the real property contract was slipula{(:d for November I, 2004 -true claim.
y. Appraisal review results arrived only on November 3,2004 - true claim.
£. In lInderwriting !cuer issued by Mclaudn on November J, 2004, the real estate contract, as well
as other conditions, were still listed as unsatisfied - true claim.
;];1. In the underwriting leiter issued by Mclaurin on November 3,2004, I3roker Certification of
Records wa.~ still listed as uns:ltisficd - true claim.
Lb. 11\c Nov 3, 2001 Undep.vriting Leiter was issued by McLaurin, not by a Br.lIlCh Underwriter, in
defiance ofGadi's insllu<:tiolls - (ruc claim.
ee. l1\cre is no illdic.alian in the loan file !hat Broke.- Certification orRecords was everoblaincd­
lru~ claim

dd. True Broker ('~i[jca[ion orRccords could never be obtained, since Parks. fisted 35 the Broker ()(l
these loan appli<:alians. had nothing to do wilh this loan, as admitted by SamaaJl in her July 2006
deposilion. He had never signed Ihc loan applications, and never approved the records forw3rdcd
by Samaan ta Cotmtrywide via the wirclf:uc fraud scheme in his name - true cbim.
ce. In January 2006 McLmrio forwanled S:un33Il'S Loan Application for funding by Countrywide
Bank. -lrue claim.
IT. In January 2006 Coun[rywidc Oank summarily denied funding ofSamaan's loan applications­
true claim.
17) Does Coullsel a/the Bank ofAmcriC<J Corporation kllOw and approve ofthe fraudulenl claims by
COIUllrywide ill ZOO6f7 - that tflere were no imagillg. security. internal audil, ex/emal audit. regulatory.
or any olher reports rdarive 10 Samaan'sfraudulcn/I<X111 appliea/ialls?
(8) Does CowLSe{ ofthe Bank afAmerica Corpora/ion blow and approve ofllle death threal againsr me in
Mardi lOO7. by a persall who represented himselfas doing it OTl CouJlrrywidc's behalf. to intimidate me
ft-om IW'/her corrtmWlicatiolls wilh Diane Frazier?
19) lJ<Jes Cowm?! o/tlze Bank ofAmerica Corpora/ian k/loW wuJ approve afColintrywide's handling ofDione
Frazicr:s disappearance in March 200 7, to avoid being served subpoena[or depos ition?
By phone Diane FfaYit( was willfully cooperative and helpful, albeit jnllmid.:ued, repeatedly waming me
that I had no clue who [ was dealing with. A few days latcr, aper$On reprcsentioghimsclfas Mr Levine
answered the door, and he claimed that she /tad moved. Bu! when I called her las< week, she was a! tro:
same number and il was regislered to the very same address.
Counlrywide's actions relative to Diane Frazier, a key witness, cannot be deemed anything but a series of
predicated acts per RICO.
20) Does Counsel ofille Bank ofAmerica Carporation know aruJ approve ofCowurywidc 's handling of
Zemib complaints to banking regulators. and are /hey familiar \Villi the handling ofsudl complaints.
wlticlt is likely to be seen as disltonesr?

- 54 -
II Page 719 NO'/ember 24. 2006

a. In January, and later in March 2007 Zemik filed complaints against Countrywide Bank with
Oflicc ofThna Supervision. case 1I0S{)7J 12007.
b. By April 16. 20071hc investigation of Countrywide £lank was complete.
c. Countrywide BilIlk was cleared of wrongdoing since it claimed lhat it would ncvcr have funded
Samaan's loan applicalions.
d. Findings ofOlTicc of nlI'i ft Supervision promplcd Lltat office 10 submit its own complaint againsl
Countrywide Home Loans relative to Samaan's loan applications to Office ofTrade Commission.
e. The inlliallclter senllo l.emik by llll'ift. Supervision on 4/Hi/07 reflcclcd the true outcome oflhc
investigalion -·Ihal Countrywide Bank was cleared of wrongdoing by claiming Lltat il would never
have funded the Samaan 's loans. Due to either lrue or deliberate error Zemik was listed instead of
Sarnaal1 as Ihe loan applic.ant.
f. When Zemik rcquCSlcd that the leiter be correctcd, a fraudulcnt leller was issued by Office of
-ll1rift Supervision. purporting 10 report thc result:; of'"rurther inquiry".
g. lllc true fact ofthe maller is that Countrywide consolidated regulation under Office of Federal
TI<Ide Commission by March 2007. therefore (hen: was no further inquiry in Office of Thrift
Supervision. .
h. In June/July 2007 the Office of Fcderal Trade Commission provided Zemik with false and
mislC<!dinl', responses In requesl~ for infonnation regarding the outcome of tile investigation orhis
complaint against Countrywide Home Loans.
i. Belinda Carter, Office of feder.al Trade Commission [irs! provided l.emik misleading information
- that !lIe complaint was fon"ardcd to lhc Federal Reserve for the investigation ofCountrywide
I·lome Loar15, Inc.
j. FcdCfaI Reserve never had any supervisocy/rcgul;ltOI)' authority relative 10 Countrywide Home
Loans. SUcil authority was with Office of federal Trade Commission.
k. In ~ponse to FIOA, Officc ofTrade Commission generated records Ulal were especially edited
(nol rcdacled) 3I1d wen: not true wpies oflhe rccmds.
I. Office of the Inspector Gl:l'lcr.al of tile OffICe of F,:dcral Trade Commission was supposedly
running an investigation into the adultetated records provided as fIOA response. But a year later,
no results of the investigation into the adu[tef3tcd records provided as response to FIOA was
received.
Samaan v Zemik and Judge JggjlJi!li/le ConnQE.
NOflC of what took place in this purported State ofCalifomia Superior Court litigation could have transpired, had
it non been for Judge Jacquelrne ('..onnor's corrupl conduct in this case. The fraudulent claims fubricatcd by
McLaurin, KesnavaI7i. and Lloyd. could never fly by any reasonable person. They simply delied logic, Lltey
contradicted LIte records in this casc. The fraudulent claims had 110 support in any records tTom 2004 and WC{e
CfItirely based on the frnudulenl declarnliolls by Mclaurin, Parl<s, Keshavarzi, and Samaan. and misrepresentation
{If fraudulent Countrywide records. But the misrepresented Countrywide records were never authenticated. A
judge did not need to be a rocket scientisllo avoid the fraud in the court room seen in lhis case. A judge simply
had to reasonably follow the evidence code.
That Judge Connor was deliberately engaged in mud against Zcmik. ill this case, in collusion with Keshavarz.i and
Counrtywidc, is evident in numerous ways. The easiest way to demonstrate the coUusion in fraud wilh
Keshavarzi is to review the fraud in extracting sanctions monies from Zemik in April·July 2007. when Connor

- 55 -
• Page 819 November 24. 2008

claimed in opt:n wun thai she would sign an order for sanctions. which she never did. The case relative to
Counllywide's ga.g order on July 23, 2007 was simply a repetilicin of the same fraud routine.
Judge ConnDr's ulterior motive in perpetrating the flLllld in Countrywide's rcwrds is best cvidem;oo in her
fictitious. frau.:lulent minute order ofScpt 10,2007.
IJ. Requ~{ {(If" :JssiscaQCC in ff"eeing th~e who uc falsely imllrisoRoo in Los Angeles County, after being
confirmed as innocent but fr3med in tbe Ramp:!n SQnd;l1 invcstigalions, and in r-cstof"ing public recordso(
the LA Superior Coun in compliance with lhe law.
Judge Connor"s cornspt conduct as d~ribed above should not oomc as surprise 10 anybody. Similar conduct has
ocen described in the criminal WUlts. relative 10 the conviction and IOflg prison lenns ofinnoccnt people in
collusion with wrrupl police who fram<: such people.
Judge Jacqueline Connor is one of the judgcs notorious for panicipaling in !he framing of estimat~l thousands of
people in what came 10 be known as the R3mpart scandal. It is now 10 years after the scaodal was first exposed.
and somc four or fivc commissions investigated the malter. And ycl nobody has a good estimale of !he number of
people that were senlcn~ by Such judges 10 long prison tenus based on false lcslimonies b}' corrupt police.
Judge Connor is probably best known for derailing Ihe Rampart Trial of2000, by reversing Jury conviction of)
out of 4 wrrupt police. Her conduct was lhc elC3f sign thatlhe judiciary would not allow true investigation and
resolution of Ihe causes of the Rampart scandal.
Even Ihe prisoners lhal w~ conlinned as innocent bm framed in these investigation have nClicr been freed,
except for a small group. oflcss than 200. Toc latest report·- Blue RibOOfl Review Panel 2006 report cslimates
that thou.sands of innocent people are stiU falsely imprisonoo. and it provides evidencc thai police, pro=ulors,
and judges. pcevcnt!hcir release from prison.
MOfC()VCf. c.ucful analysis of Samaan v Zemik. ofthc failure 1'1 fl1X those who wcre innou:llt but f.dIlled, and Ihe
dysfunctional office ofOvClSCa per the Consent Decree (2:2000cvI1769) has once central key feature -!he
denial ofaccess to public records that are Ihe books ofcourt by the LA Superior Court. That denial ofaccess is
h:y feature ofille oorruplion ofthc justice system in LA County, and il has been going on for over a quarter
GeI1IUfY·

[n the past year I have made requests regarding Ihe opcoiflg oflile public r=:JrU:> of LA County Superior Court,
which arc likel)' to lead (0 the immediate release of those falsely imprisOClcd. With assiSlaflce from U.S.
Congress, I received responses, which I deem inadequale ITom Mr' Kenneth Melson. Oi{\:clor, U.S. Department of
Justice, and Mr Kenneth Kaiser, Assisl<lnt Dircctor, fBI.
Any U,S. citi7£n should assume it his/her duty to stop the abuse orille Bill ofRights of9.5 milliofl people who
live in LA County. lhe moSl p<Jpulous in Ihe U S. by Ihe LA Supelior Court.
I in\end 10 renew my dcmat\ds that Mr Kaiser and Mr Melson take action to stop such abuse before lhe end of the
current administration I request 1l1al as part of review oflhe positIon of Bank of America Corporalion in Samaan
V' Zemik, lhe bank will also 5tlpfXOlt Ihe demands 10 open !he publi,c records oflhe LA Superior Court, before tile
inauguralion ofr:he new administration. The impacl ofsucil ~impk act on the quality oftlle justice system in LA
County. on rrecin~ lhose falsely impnson<:d, and the feeling oflrust in governmenl in this WU£\!y cannot be
overestimated, '

).~
Joseph Zrmik

cc: By email .
"Van Cleve, PeLer D: <pdvanclevc@BryooCave.oom>,sandor_samucls@coontrywide.com.
allgelo_moli lo@icountrywide.com. samuels_sandor@Countrywidc.com, mozilo_angelo@COUlltJ)'wide.oom

- 56 -
• Page9J9 November 2<l, 2008

CC: By certified mail with receipt

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION

100 North Tryon Sl
Bank. of America Corporate Cent\:(
Charlotte, Nort.h Catolina 28255

Kcnneth LJ. Lewis

Chainnan. Chi·~f Executive Officer and President. Bank of America Corpor<ltion

Keith Banks
Prcsidl.:nl, Global Wealth & Investment Managcment. Bank of America C..orporalion
Risk & Capital Committee and Management Operating Comrnit\<:<:

Amy Woods Brinkley

Global Risk Executive. Bank of America Corporation

Risk & Capital Commit(Ce and Management Operating Committee

Joe L. Price

Chief Financial Officer, Bank ofAmerica Corporotion

Risk.& Capital3.lld Management Operating Committees

On SEC report. R'Cent

TERESA M. BRENNER

As..'iOCiaIC General L..ollosel

On 3.llf1ual share hol~ meeting announcements

William J. Mostyn III

Deputy General Counscl

and Corporale Secretary

On IO-k 11/07

Neil A. Cot1y

Chief Accounting Officer

SEC Headqu.art~:rs

lOO f Street, Nl:

WashingtOll, IX 20549

(202) 942-8088
h,~Ip@=.gov

Dlvisiort of Banking Supervision and Regulation

Fe-dcraJ Reserve Bank of SaIl Francisco

10 I Markel Streel

S~Ul francisco, California 94\05

Mailstop 920

T<11l free: (866) 838-9247

FAX: (4 \5) 393·(%2

- 57 -
.. Page 1019 November 24, 2008

And by email

Office of TIlri It Supervision

San Francisco Regional Oflicc
I'aci fie Plaza
200 I Junipcro Serra 8ollkvaro. Suile 650
Daly CilY, California 94014-1976
Tel: (650) 746·7000 x7098
Of1ice Foocrn\ Trade Corrunission
Consumer Rcp.)rts Ccnter,CRC-240
600 I'cnsylvania Ave
NW Washington DC 20580
Tel: I 877 382 4357
And by email

1 James WOOcl(s opinioo let1cr in re: Paslemax's lr.3udulent gran! deeds

~ Fraudulent O>uil!1)Mide Oct 26, 2()()4 Underwriting Letter. misrepr=ted as a valid Oct 14, 2004 U<1de<v-litiog Leiter
J Robert MeiS\el"s. opinion IeUer in re: QxfiJyMde's fraudulent OCt. 76.2004 Undenwiting Letter misrepre:sen!ed as being
f,)Xed Oct 14.2004.
• Fraudulert re<ll property Wllr3ct from CoonllywidG subpoena productioos, misrepresented as a fax 1ransmission from
PM<s to Counl1yWide onOd 25,1OO'l. 5:03pm.
, Samaan's loan Appidions (1003) \'lith double date rereilled stamps. ltom Couroywide's sutJpoena prOOJdioo
.. Nov 3-6. 2000 3-way <:orrespondef\<:2 betwceo Keshavaai, Mc.laurin. and Uoyd. wl1cre ltle fraudulent un<le1'Nliling history
of Samaan's Loan AwflC3tiorls of 2004 was fabricated

- 58 -
 ,

,i
i

~LIHIHX~
I
,

;
I
I

j
,;
1
l

- 59 -
 Page I of I

MClldawsky, Jenna L.
-------------------~--_._-_._---------

From: Amberg, John W.

Sent: Monday, December 08,20083:22 PM
To: 'Joseph zernik'
Subjed: Representation of Countrywide

Dr. Zernik,

Please be advised that the status of our law firm as outside legal counsel for Countrywide
Horne Loans, Inc. remains unchanged by the merger with Bank of America, and that
1II.,e continue to represent Countrywide in connection with your litigation.

"{ou are reminded that under the court's order, you are to communicate exclusively with
desi,gnated counsel for Countrywide and not with any of its employees,

,J ohn W. Amberg

John W Amberg
Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 576-2280

ll2/l 1112008

- 60 -
- 61 -
~ LIHIHX~

 O1<)ilolly ,iqo<od by
lO~phl~it.

--:+- f) Ofl:<no~le<~ik.
) . ~L .n.. il;j(IIJ4~1iC~Ill\M
k. .... <=05
Doto: 2DO&.ll.Q~
Joseph 2:emik DMO PhD IO:X21 4Il'OO'
~';.:~ .;;.)~. :::l·..:·':;",";, :.';'j, .~:~:~-~·"';~1.;~;L'"·~·t·tl·';;i~i

.. JUdge sf/all be faithful to the (JVL .•

c;.J C«k _ Elhio lV(/l
"The role of law mu!;t never Ile confused wiCl' tyran(ly of the courts"
~""'>"""O'd

Decombor9,2008

All John Ambel11

Oryan Cave. llP
By Emil
"Amberg. John w."
iw3mberg@B!y'lllCiNe.com
jema.moIdawsky@bIyancave (J)nl
sandor salllU&@rounbyw!Qe rom
;;amuels sando!@CounItyv,,1M a>m,
<lQQ\!!o mozi!o@coul'llty'Mde.com,
!l1Pilo angelo@rol.lnlrywide.oom
maria 1111;<IDrin@lalunb~J;'::lI".
mdauM mitria@.CXXlnlrywide !;Om

RE: Rcpresenution of COtICllfyWide1 Counliywido Home loallS, Inc.? Bank of Amcric~?

Timely crime l1otificaUon PCf"SECnON 307 OF SARBANES.QXlEY.

?K:ase respond by 5:00pm on Sept 9. 2007

MrAmberg·

H~rding your emaa oole, dclted Oerember 8.2008, copied below. please t>e eJcPlid. am provi<le the IoIlowing deIa~s-
1) Ale yoo and Bryan Cave registered as outside counsel t:1t \he Legal OL>partmeot d Banll. 01 America al pcesent?
~se 1,;1 me Mow vWlal your legal Malter Number ("LMN" is, which was p.-0IIided to you by ltlc BOA legal
Dcpal1mcrC Absent such identitica!ioo number. or any olrlCial recoed by the eotily you dain1 to represenll must
<lssumc you' note. ropied below. Co; fraud. as surclywould any couosel reading sud> a deliberalely ambiguous note.
f"Y1
v, JIll. CAS>:S. OVTSIOE oour.sa. "'.1ST (XlT_ PR>Olt ,,~ rnou A OO'AAnAElfl I\TT~Y aEfOllt: w:llUlING
~ ~ TI'E£S OR OPEJ<S£SONA ......ITER. 'NJTlJ\TlrIG ACTION S£E)Qr;G Eo< I"T<I'Dl'Il<NAAY 'If:MUlC£S 00 RflJEF SOUGHT
ON 1W1<0i' AlolO1lQO."S OCIW.F. lJ!'«RrmNG RfPR£S<N(I',(IOf' uNOl.VlNGAlNPOSSIIllE CONfUCI Of rm:Rfsr· OR
mOCHD'HG ..An I""'" ""'TffR £tllAUflG "S1GW 'DINT IfG"'. Rg;UATOIlY. P1<fcroourw. 00 R{ <'I}f Af)()NAl IllSX fO
rw«~~
2) [s the Lcqal Depanment of Bank of America at aB iffldre at the fraudulent itigalion you are coOOuetJng here under
their name?
:I) II fIOt by wIlOsc auUlOrty i){e yoo at present engaged as -outs/de legal counsel of Countrywide ffome Loans,
IncI
4) Whalts U1C legal loondatiOil for your clarns belovl?
5) Whal is ".!he COurt's ord~ pl~s~ be e~plicil..
6) Could you please notice me of !he purported "QxIrl's order' you arc relcmng 10? Absent such notice. your em;lil
below is rlUll but. yel aflOOle{ fraud in lhts dlain...
7) W1Q issued sucha>Ultorder. when. aM underwtlal::Mhority?
8l How come the purported cwrl order refers to "f;{Juns~ (or COUntrywfM? W1a1 ertity IS that SlJPpQseG 10 be')
9) V\Iho ac rhe employees of that undefned eotity?
10l Could YQU please proviOO a ICst, l;() that I know....oo I purportedly am prOOibiled from rnmlTllriccting with?
a. Is sandor samuel an ErnpIQyee of BarV< of America at present?
b. Is Angelo MOlilO cmplOfcc of 8<lnI< of IWefica at present?
c. Is Diane Franef ~ of Bank of AmeOca at present?
d. h; Maria Mclaurirl employee of Bank of America at present?

11} '1m3! is • )'OUf litigalion"?

- 62 -
ePage2I2 Oecembef 9, 2008

In case you refer 10 S3maan v Zemilc. please be explicit. the l<t Superior Court would not oonliml"Samaan v Zemil(
as Cali/.omia Supe."iol' Court case .. and all indica~s are lhat IIhis is ill '"Enl.eI"Jlfise TIcld<' case, engineered by
Ja<:quelioe Connor and Sando!' Samuels for fun and pwfil In sud1 case your note bebN is anott>ef predic:aled
case of intimida\ionlharassmenl 0( a vidimJinfoonerllMUslle-biower.
12) How long do yoo think you could go on ~ this fraud?
13) Do you tep!esent Sandor &lmucls?
1<1) Please 000 beIlalf of Sandor samuels. autt1enticale or repudiate as fraud UlC I,JtldefW!ilinq letter dale<! October 26
7004. .....ndl has been repeatedly filed in ooust fraudulenUy mlsfep<esented by Maria Md..aurin. Samaan.
KeshavalZi. a1d Parl\s. as an Ulidef'Miling letler of Odober 1<1, 2004. ()( mid-Odooer 2004?
15) Please ,on bel\alt of Sandor Samuels aulhen1i<:ale or repudiate the Real Property Purdlasc Contrad. v.tlidll\as
been repeatedly filed in COI.Ct hluclulenUy misreplesented t1{ Maria Md...::1uM. SClmaan. Keshal/af2i. and Parks, as
{axed OIl Odober 25. 2004. 5:03pm from Par1<s to ~,?
16) This is almost the end of the quarter, and for many <::orp<xalions also the end of the 6sca1 year. in case you arc
mOOed as outside oounseI to any olhef all]Xlfille eotity, pl~ ronftnn your rompliance \Oitll 17 CFR 205
{Olhel'Wlse kno'M'l as 8ec:tion 307 01 Sarbanes-Dxtey}. reIalive 1,0 the frauds pefpelraled by you. Jcma MoklawSl\y.
Sandor S<Jmuels. Angeb Mozilo a'lCl Olhers. IJt'lde(lhe guise o[ litigation. and collusion \Oilh Terry Friedman. John
Segal Jacqueline Connor an<:l oIhefs in ahusc of civil rights oodel" CXlklc of 'aw 18 ~~C~242. as 001 as various
predicated acts per Rico 18l)SC §1961-1968.
('(J'fnJ·\'''4.':):WU1( :,U'7OC),\ N:()f's.\K.t1"~~O\l":\

FOVtsaoe CllUHSEL~YIIEIJEVE"1A1" IMlfAIN. 'oAOlAnot< Of tAWMAYl{A.~oo:uR>'lEO.IS~«;OR IS

J\IlOIJf TOOCCl,RAS SET fOR"""Sl:criON 307 Of 1l£ ~s.<)XlEY..crOf ~ N<U 1l£ SEC RUlE ~GAIEO
~llE Ut6:lEA In 0'11 NSI. OUfSlOE COlHiH. UUSI NOTIfY ll<E GaoEIW. CJOUNSU AIll) TlE N'I'llOPflJ.'.T( LC-G/ol.
OEJ"/lRTIolENT ...".~. lHS NOna: !MY OC IN NN fO<W.1lUT SItOU..O CONSI'1CUOUSlY ST....T( TWIT illS BONG MI'lJl,
ONOER SC-CTlOO:D7 Of IllE SI\Il8foHES-OXlEY /oCr.
17) In ca~ this rommUl1ication is received by cma~ by arry of the purported employees, 0JUld you please avltlenticale
,;udl communic3tioo. iodudinglhe ema~ address <31 which sud' rommunication(s) were received. so thall may ~op
making !hem up?

Joseph Zemik

bOIanco@lasupefi()(C()uflorg. I ed Max"<tI1lax@~in.com>"'Van Cleve. Peler D."

~pdvandeve@8IyanCave.cum>. SOVCi1oo@cmda-laW.COOl. kdicaflo@cmda-law,com.tfrie(/man@lasuperioreouflOlY.
,sczucJeger@lasuperioraxJrt org. jadarke@Ia~COUf1.org. p;.r1<e@lasuperio«;ourtOlg.
scweleger@lasupcriorcourl<xg. J<X>Ilfl<lI@lasuperiorrourtOlY. isegal@lla~rcourt.org

AI 03 l' PM 'llllnOOO. """,\<I(e

Or. lem<",

P\e.a«l ba ad.fts<d I\.l1 the stllus of 0<Jt law 6nn as oo..tIid<, leqal ~ to< Counlryv.ilc Ho<re Loan:so. 1-.;. rcmJffi
~ by ~ """""'willi B.:n<ol AmOO:::>. Jro ",-" ""'~,,~ Counlrywi:Ie In ~ _ ""'"
'tog;llioo.

You arc <errircJcd_ ~ llle<x>J1'SO<IlC'. roo arelo(Mllll<.IlCa!<>.~~~ 0JU'lS"l1or ('.ouo.byvo'dc

and not ~anyo/. a.~

>:>MW.1\l'<'be".J
.10M W. A:,tlC'9

llryan Cd...:> liP

12O~. s...ce:lOO

S<>nta Mo<>ca, CA !»<O I

(J IO) 57fl·2280

Th<s cloctro<'Oc ~ IS from a law 6mI. tt may CXlllIa"

':oc1'i:lenba! Q( prMIcge:l WQrm3Ooo. uroo IeCltiY<'d lhi>
1tat\Stns.""" nl!lJO(. please roply " 1ha SMdcr 10 a<Mse,~ "" em:>' and <klcII: lI-G ~ """ ~ all3<:tvra\Is
IRS CA'o.A3c 2lQ Oodo><n: To ~ CXlI'RfUnoo ""'" ~ fll>os<d bt "'" IRS. W<l i1Iorm rou!hal any U,S.
I0O=I1.:>< _ ~ in !hi> ~ (o::U:fng iJIti alIadm:r\t<);'; to( <mroed «wr1lknlolletJSO<l. an6
<;;lMO( be VS61, to< Ilc ~ d(i)~ pcnolties '""" Ilc ~ RcY<nc Co:Jc or Col ~. mar1<eIil<} U'
~ to anolho< p;wff:Ml'f r.ns3dio<I OC malic< ~ """"'.

- 63 -
- 64 -
.. . . .. ""
. . .
. .' .. . ' .. : "'" '. . .•. . ;... ."" . .', "
H~IHIHX3

 Page I of I

From: joseph zl?rnil< UZ12345@earthlink.neti

Senll: Tuesday. December 09. 2008 11:36 AM
To: David J. Paslernak: Moldawsky. Jenna L.
Ce: sandor_samuels@counlrywi<le.com; samuels_sandOf@Countrywide.com;

al1gelo_rnozilo@countrywide.com; mozilo_angelo@coiJnt/)'wide.<XJm;

maria_McLaurin@countrywide.com; McLaurin mana@countrywide.<XJm;

bbianco@18supenorcourt.()(g; Ted Max; Van Cleve. Peter D.; soverton@cmda-Iaw.com;

kdK:ar1o@cmda-law.rom; Ifliedman@lasuperklrcourt.org: jsczuleger@lasuperiorcourt.org:

jclarl<.e@lasuperiorcourt.org; jdar1<e@lasuperiorcourlorg; sczuleger@lasuperiorcourt.org;

Jconnor@IasuperiorcourLorg; jsegal@lasuperklrcourt.org
Suhlcct: Transaction for - S7.000 lransferred by Pasternak to Moldawsky, Response requested by 5:00pm
December 9. 2008

Dcc 9,2008

[Iavid 1. Pasternak
J.~nn3 Moldawsky

FE: Transaction for - S7,OOO transferred by Pastcmak to Moldawsky,

r.:espon~c requested by 5:00pm December 9,2008

Mr Pastemak, Ms Moldawsky:

I recently received a letter describing lransaction where some: $7,000 were transferred by Mr I)astcrnak

to Ms Moldawsky. For clarification for me and for others:

I) What was the exact identity of the entity who was providing the funds?

2) What was the exact identity oflhc entity receiving the funds?

3) What was the exact rcason for the transfcr of funds?

4) Why was I copied on this transaction? was it related (0 me in any way?

5) Was it related in any way to Mr Sandor Samuels?

6) Was it related in any way to Judge Terry Fricdman?

7) Was it related in any way to Judge John Segal?

8) Was it related in any way to Judge Jacqueline Connor'?

Joseph Zernik

12110/2008

- 65 -
- 66 -
ILIHIHX~

 Page I of3

From: joseptlzernik UZ1234S@earthhnk.nell

Sent: Tuesday, December 09.20083:27 PM
To:: Mohammad Keshavarzi; Palll Mahngagio; Ted Max:
Cc: sanc1o(_.~rnuels@coUlltrywide,com:
sarnuels_S;Jn<kJr@Counlcywide.com;

angelo_m()z~o@countrywide.com; mozilo_angelo@C{:luntrywide,com;

maria_Mclaurin@counlIyWide.com; bbianco@lasupel;orcouftorg; Ted Max; Van Cleve. Peter 0.;

soverton@cmoR-hw.com; kdicar1o@olloa·law.com; tfriCl(Jrllal1@lB9Upericrwurt.Ofg;

ISCluleger@lasuperiorcourt.org; jdarl<.e@fasuperiorcolurt.org; jclarke@lasuperiorcotlrt.org:

Jconnor@lasuperiorcourt.org: jsegal@lasuperior=urt.org; David J. Pasterna.k; John Patton:

Amberg John W: Moldawsky, Jenna L.; todd_Boock@Countrywide.Coma: attention Mayo:

attentioll May!), ~Uenlion Mayo: amayorkas@olllll1.\;OHl

Subject: REPEAT FILING OF OFFENDING FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN COURT. YOUR RESPONSE

REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10.2008. 5:00PM. Notice of start of Safe harbor period per CCP

1287

December 9, 200/(

Mohammad Kcshavarzi
Sheppard Mullin, LLP

RE: REPEAT FILING 01" OFFENDING FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN COURT.

E£SPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEC LO, 2008, 5:00PM.

Notic,~ of start of Safe Harbor period per CCP §128.7.

Mr Keshavarzt:

You recently sem me copy of papers you filed in court under the name of Sheppard Mullin, LLP. for
motion (0 establish recovery, scheduled for Nov 21, 2008.

II No signalures were visible on my copy. (requeslthat yOll forward to me copy bearing your visible
Cd:)(; Ihe copy you filed in court docs not bear your signatures, and you choose to
o.:lgil1:l1 signatures. In
kt~p that paper fded, I request ilial you correct thaI situation expediently, otherwise please withdraw
sHch papers, and notice me accordingly.

2> Yuur must recent papers again included records produced 1:0 subpoenil by CountrywiJ\,;, which wen;
the core of this ligation. I complained in the past that such papers constituted fraud on numerOus
accounts. Such records were repeatedly fraudulently misrepn~sen1cd by you as the product offax
lransmission from Victor Parks, loan broker, to Countrywide San Rafael, on Monday. October 25,2004,
5:03 pm.

J) In filet, as made dear by Ms Samaan in her dcposilion, Mr Perks had nothing 10 do with any of it
A 'Tlong olher umpteen frauds, throughout the transaction in 2004, Ms Sarnaan impersonated Mr Parks in
fax communications. This record was no exception.

4) This: record also was never received by Countrywide on th(~ date and time indicated above, as you
misrepresented in court. In fact the transmission that gcneratt".d that fax header imprint was from
SamaaJ!l in Los Angeles to her husband in Los Angeles. I went through that issue in depth among oilier
orportuoities, on august 9,2007, in open court. .

12/1012008

- 67 -
 Page 2of3

5) You have never provided adequate authentication of that record \vhen you introduced it as evidence.
and [ lil(ed for sanctions against you per CCP § 128.7 for liling of fraudulent records in court.

6) To avoid that hearing, you scheduled in eonnict another "hearing" as you fraudulenlly called iI, with
retired Judge O'Brien, who had no authority at all to hold any "hearing" of any kind.

7) This court refuses to even confirm that Samaan v Zcmik \013S ever a case ofLhe Superior Court of
Ollifornia. Regardless, you were fully aware thaI such records were, are, and always will be fraud, and
therefore any purported order. decree, judgment, or any other outcome of such litigation was is, and
always will be null and void.

S: In lhe most rcceal papers you omitted the fraudulentlransrnittal cover sheet. Regardless, this record
is the product of fraud, and it was in!roduced by you as part of fraudulent evidence.

9) Therefore, [ request that you immediately remove this record from your most recent pending papers.

10) Therefore, I also request that you submit a request foc a !Junc P19 tunl< order:

a> to mark all. instances where such paper appears in the COUI1 file as instances of fraud.

b 110 vacate all orders, decrees, judgments that were based on such fraudulent real estate contract record.

1J) Please consider this nOlice per CCP § 128.7 for start of Safe Harbor period.

l-1.IScJ:J:SHA VARZi /5f MRJ~.tALI!'J.QAGIO: RESPONSF. REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10, 2008,

5:00PM.

II) This message is copied. to_AU Johnj\JIl-l,>crg and All Jcnn;l. Moldawsky, who claims to be authorize

to represent Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, a subsidiary of Bank of America. COUlltrywidc Home

Loans, Inc too is requested to lile request in court for the withdrawal of such fraudulent records

produced by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc as part of subpoena productions that were replete with

f-audulcnt r~ords, and which tcied to entirely fabricate Samaan's fraudulent loan applications

underwriting history.

MR ~fMBERG MolD MSMD-LDA WSK)': RESrONSE REQUESTED BY WEO. DI!:C lO.2008,

5;OOF'M.

12) This notice is also forwarded to Alt Todd Boock, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, who was part of
.,c t(~am under M[' Samuels, who devised the subpoena fraud in 2006. and repeatedly provided
Craudulent responses to questions in Meet and Confer in 2007, then claimed religious observance to void
:J ppc.a.rance in motion to compeL Mr Boock is requested to authenticate the rcal estate contract record,
otherwise, to withdraw il from the record, and wiLh it the entire countrywide fraudulent subpoena, and to
notice the parties and the court accordingly. Mr Book is according to Bank of America Office of
General Counsel tnt only one aulhorized to represent Bank of America Corporation. That office had no
record of Bryan Cave LLP as authorized to represerlt Bank of America in this matter.
MRJ'!.O_OK: RESPONSE REQUESTED 8Y WED, DEC 10,2008, 5:00PM.
13) This notice is also forwarded to:
M".r"':I!...f!!W.Y..-LMayoP.Qu[os, Executive Vice President and General Counsel

Bank of America Corporation (Bank of America)

LOO N Tryon St

NCI·OO7-56-11

Charliotte, NC 28255

Phone: (704) 386..7484

Fax:: (704) 370-3515

1211012008

- 68 -
 Page] of3

With the demands:

a) that Bank of America corporation put an end (0 this fraudulent litigation and farce of a court,
pre gressing in its name in the past six mOllth~,
b) i.hat it withdraw the fraudulent subpoenas produced by Sandor Samuels, Todd Hoock and their
colleagues in the COITupt Legal Division of Countrywide ,
c) Lhat they take action to mitigate damages,
d) thatlhey report in the quarterly report fOf Q-IV 0[2008 such material deficiency - the compromise of
the 1cgaltcam of Bank of America Corporation resulting from incorporation of the Legal Division of
Countrywide Financial Corporation to its ranks pursuant to

Section 307 ofSarb:lllCS-Oxlcy

Since material violation of law has occurred, is occurring and is about to

occur again, as sct forth in ~fum.JOL(lJ.1I.Lc S:ubanes-Oxley Act of 2001:
and the SEC. Rule promulgated th(:re under (17 CFR 29~), the general
counsel must inform his superiors and the authorities. This notice may be
in any form, but should conspicuol.lsly state that it is being made under
~1!.N1..!l.fthe Sarbanes-Q~ky.&:J,.

MR M_A.-..Y9e.OUrJ'2S-: RESPONS[~ REQUESTEll BY WED, DEC 10,2008, 5:00PM.

Joseph Zernik

Fax: &01998 0917

Tel: 31.04359\07

Additional documentation, including fraud exp€rts opinion letters [.e: fraud in this litigation can
be viewed at:
bJ;tQJ.Onproper;nla.com/04-1O-26-doc-44-countrywide-fraud-underwriting-Ietter.pdf
b!;ffi1,linproperinla.com/04 -10- 26-opinion -Ietter-couoowide-vnd erwriting-letter-oct-26 -s.pdf
b11rrdJinproperinla.com/04-09-07-sqmaan-s-pr~ualification-fetter.pdf
bltP_:J/mPLO~rjnla.comI04-09-07-0pinion-letter-fraud-iTl-pregualific(iiQn-letter-s.pdf
t.KtR.:1linPwerinla.,comI04-09-27-doc-1!J-samaan-fraud!)lent-loan-apDli<&tions-s.pdf
b!!p..1LLnproperinla. com/04-09 -27-samaan-counlIwMe· fraudulent-Ioan-application.pd f
b!;tp-ll!DQrQOOinla.com/04-09-27-opinion-letter-fraud-in-loan-aQQlications-siqnat!!le.2,QQf
b:i1P..1/lDPSQRerinla.comI04-10-18-wire-fraud-pl.pdf
!J:ttP-1/lru:1roperinla.com/04-10-18-9-emails-in-re-wire-fi;1x-fra-ill:!.pdf
bttp:jJirlPCoW[ll}l~U::QmL04- to-25-countrywide-adulterated-branch-input-exception-request~
Sew
bltp://inproRerinla.cQ.m/04-lQ·25-doc -45-eountrywide-fraud-eontract-record.pdf
bttQ.:l/inproperinla.com/04-10-26·countrywide-fraudulent-ul)~erwritinq-Ietter-s.pdf
btmJLinproperin@mm/06-07-10-samaan-dffiQsition.p!jf
!JtlP-.J:JlD.PJ~la.com/07 -02-OS-countrywide-fraudulent-SJJbpoena -productiQn-c-s.p_Qf
!Jl!p~lfulpJ:QP-erin@mI]J106-11-09-cIoc- 38-1-countrywide-mdaurin-false-declarations.pdf
btm;.lLiQQmperinla.comI06-11-09-doc-38-2-countrvwide.-mdaurin-false-declarations.pdf
bt1P..~llllJQroperinla.comI07-o5-20-bet-tzedek-web-{@ge-with-samueI5-before-letter.pdf ­
Samuels· the fraudster as "fraud buster"

j.

1211Of2008

- 69 -
- 70 -
r IIHIHX~

From: Amberg, John W.

Sent: Tuesday, December 09,2008 11:45 AM

To: 'joseph zernik'

SubjElct: RE: Representation of Countrywide? Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.? Bank of America?

Timely crime notification per SECTION 3Dj' OF SARBANES-OXLEY. Please respond by

5 OOpm on Sept 9. 2007

Dr. Zernik,

As you \\leU know. the superior court's protective order dated July 23, 2007 ordered you to communicate exclusively

with ,designacd legal counsel for Countrywide. and not with any of Countrywide's employees. Following a hearing

in M~lrch 2008, the court held you in contempt of court for multipl,e viol:uions of the protective order, and affirmed

that the ord,~r remains in eHeer. As a result of your continuing violation of the protective order, and foUowing

notioe to yOll, sanctions of $7,500 were paid to Countrywide in November 2008. If you persist in violating the

order, we w:JI exercise all available remedies, including but not limited to a new fmding of contempt and additional

sanctlons.

Coullltrywid~ is ~Iffiliated with Bank of America. You :lrc directed not to communicate with employees of

Cout:ltty'.vid ~ or it.<; corporate affiliates. YOllr communicatioos should be exclusively with counsel of record, Bryan

Cave LLP.

John W. Amberg

Bryan C;IVC LLP

-----Origini Message----­
From: joseph zernik (mailto.:jz1234S@e:lrthlink.net]

Sent Tuesday, December 09,200810:28 AM

To: Amber~:, John W.; Mold:l\vsky,Jcnna L.; s;mdor_samuels@counuywide.com;

samuels__sartdor(~Countrywide.com; angelo_ffiozilo@countrywide.com; mozilo_angelo@countrywidc.com;

nuria_McL:lurin@countrywidc.com; McLaurin_maria@count.ry\vide.com

Cc: bbianco@Ia:;uperiorcourt.org; Tcd Max; Van Cleve, Peter D.; soverton@cmda-Iaw.com; kdicarlo@cmda­

law.com;: tfriedman@Lasupcriorcourl-org; jsczudeger@lasuperiorcouttorg; jaclarke@)asuperiorcourtorg;

jdarkc@.lasllpcnorcourt-org; sczuc lege r@lasuperiorcourt.org; Jconno r@lasupcl;orcourtorg;

jsegal@bsu!JcriQrcQurtorg

Subject: Reprcsentatioo of Countrywide? Counttywide Home Loans, Inc.? Bank of America;> Timely crime

notification per SECTION 307 OF SARBANES-OXLEY, Please respond by 5:00pm on Sept 9, 2007

FOI your information, please sec attached.

- 71 -
 Page 1 of 4

----_._--------­
From: Amberg, John W.
SEmt: Tuesday, December 09, 20086:36 PM
To: 'jioseph zernik'
Subj(~ct: f~E: REPEAT
FlUNG OF OFFENDING FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN COURT. YOUR RESPONSE
HEQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10. 20GB, 5:00PM. Notice of start of Safe harbor period per CCP
1128.7.

Dr. Zernik,

Your email is improperly addressed to employees of Countrywide and its corporate affiliate
Bank (If Anerica. As I plainly advised you earlier today, not four hours before you sent this
email, you are to communicate with me or other counsE!1 of record from Bryan Cave LlP, and
not Wit1 employees of the company. Your continued refusal to comply with the terms of the
court's protective order is contemptuous and sanctionable.

~lohnW. Amberg
Bryan::;ave LLP

From: joseph zernik [mailto:jzl2345@earthlink.net)

Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 200B 3:27 PM

To: Mohi)mmad Keshavarzi; Paul Malingagio; Ted Max

Cc: sandor_samlJels@counl:Iywide.com; samuels_sandor@Countrywide.com;

a:lgelo_mozilo@Countrywide.com; mozilo_angelo@countrywide.com; maria_Mclaurin@counlrywide.com;

b tlianco@lasuperiorcourt.org; Ted Max; Van Oeve, Peter D.; soverton@anda-Iaw.com; kdicarlo@cmda­

law.com; tfriedman@lasuperiorcourt..org; jsauleger@lasuPt;'riorcourt.org; jclarke@lasuperiorcourt.org;

jclarke@!asuperiorcourt.org; Jconnor@lasuperiormurt.org; jsegal@lasuperiorcourt.org; David J. Pasternak;

John Patton; Amberg, John W.; Moldawsky, leona l.; todd_.Boock@Countrywide.Coma; attention Mayo;

al1entlion Mayo; attention Mayo; amayorkas@omm.com

Subject: REPEAT FlUNG OF OFFENDING FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN COURT. YOUR RESPONSE

R=QUESTED BY WED, DEC 10, 20G8, 5:00PM. Notice of start of safe harbor period per CCP 128.7.

December 9,2008

Mohammad Keshavarzi
S:leppard Mullin" LLP

RE: REPEAT FlLlNG OF OFFENDING FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN COURT.

RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10,2008, 5:00PM.

NOtiC'i~ of start of Safe Harbor period per CCP §I28.7.

Mr Keshavarzi:

Y:>u recently sent me copy of papers you filed in court under the name of Sheppard Mullin, LLP,
for motion to establish recovery, scheduled for Nov 21,2008.

1) No signatureswere visible on my copy. I request that you forward to me copy bearing your
visible original signatures. In case the copy you filed in court does not bear your signatures, and
you choose to keep that paper filed, I request that you c.:>ITect that situation expediently, otherwise

12/l lf2008

- 72 -
 r-age 2 of 4

please withdraw such papers, and notice me accordingly.

2) Your most recent papers again included records produced in subpoena by Countrywide, which
were the core of this ligation. I complained in the pasllhat such papers constituted fraud on
llumerous accounts. Such records were repeatedly fraudulently misrepresented by you as the
product of fax transmission from Victor Parks, loan broker, to Countrywide San Rafael, on
\1onday, October 25, 2004, 5:03 pm.

J) In fact, as made clear by Ms Samaan in her deposition, Mr Perks had nothing to do with any of
it. Among other umpteen frauds, throughout the transaction in 2004, Ms Samaan impersonated
lV1r Parks in fax communications. This record was no exception.

i~)This record also was never received by Countrywide on the date and lime indicated above. as
you misrepresented in court. rn fact the transmission that generated that fax header imprint was
from Samaan in Los Angeles to her husband in Los Angeles. I wentlhrough III at issue in depth
<mong other opportunities, on august 9, 2007, in open courl.

:) You have never provided adequate authentication of that record when you introduced it as
evidence. and I filed for sanctions against you per CCP § 128.7 for filing of fraudulent records in
court.

6) To avoid that hearing, you scheduled in conflict another "hearing" as you fraudulently called it,
with retired Judge O'Brien, who had no authority at all 10 hold any "hearing" of any kind.

7) This court refuses to even confinn that Samaan v Zl~mik was ever a case of the Superior Court
of California. Regardless, you were fully aware that sueh records were, arc, and always will be
fraud" and therefore any purported order, decree, judgment, or any other outcome of such
litigation was is, and always will be null and void.

8) In the most recent papers you omitted the fraudulent transmittal cover sheet Regardkss, this
re cord is the product of fraud, and it was introduced by you as part of fraudulent evidence.

9: Therefore, I request that you immediately remove this record from your most recent pending
papers.

10) Therefore, I also request that you submit a request for a nunc pro tunc order:
a) to mark all instances where such paper appears in th(~ court file as instances of fraud.
b) to vacate all orders, decrees, judgments that were based on such fraudulent real estate contract
rel~ord.

10) Please consid(~r this notice per CCP § 128.7 for start of Safe Harbor period.
~R_KESHAVARli & MR MALJNGAGIO: RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10,
2008,5:00PM.

11) Tnis message is copied to Art John Amberg and Att Jenna MQ.l.dawsky, who claims to be
aU1hori7~ to represent Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, a subsidiary of Bank of America.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc too is requested to file request in court for the withdrawal of such
fralldulent records produced by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc as part of subpoena productions
that were replete ",rith fraudulent records, and which tried to entirely fabricate Samaan's fraudulent
Joan applications underwriting history.
M£~ AMBERG AND MS MOLOAWSKY: RESPONS.E: REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10,

12f 11l20i)8

- 73 -
 Page 3 of4

21)08, 5:00PM.

U) This notice is also forwarded to Au Todd Boock, Countrywide Home Loans, (ne, who was
part of the tcam under Mr Samuels, who devised the subpoena fraud in 2006, and repeatedly
plOvided fraudulent responses to questions in Meet and Confer in 2007. then claimed religious
observance to void appearance in motion to compel. Mr Boock is requested to authenticate the
real estate contra(;t record, otherwise, to withdraw it from the record, and with it the entire
countrywide fraudulent subpoena, and to notice the parties and the court accordingly. Mr Book is
~ccording to Bank of America Office of General Counsel the only one authorized to represent
B 1nk of America Corporation. That office had no record of Bryan Cave LLP as authorized to
represent Bank of America in this matter.
~R~QOK: RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10,2008, 5:00PM.

1.:;) This notice is also forwarded to:

MrJjmothy J. Mayopoulos-, Executive Vice President and General Counsel
B;mk of America Corporation (Bank of America)
100 N Tryon Sf
NCI-007-56-11
Charlotte, NC 28255
PlIon(l: (704) 386-·7484
F~,x: (704) 370-3515
With the demands:
a) that Bank of America corporation put an end to this fJraudulent litigation and farce of a court,
pwgressing in its name in the past six months,
b) that it withdraw the fraudulent subpoenas produced by Sandor Samuels, Todd Boock and their
colleagues in the corrupt Legal Division ofCountrywidl~,
c) that they take action to mitigate damages,
d) that they report in the quarterly report for Q-IV of2oo8 such material deficiency - the
compromise of the legal team of Bank of America Corporation resulting from incorporation oflhe
Legal Division of Countrywide Financial Corporation to its ranks pursuant to

Section 307 of Sarbanes-Oxley

Since material violation of law has occurred, is occurring and is

about to occur again, as set forth in Section 307 of the Sarb~J'c£=
Oxley Act of 20Q2 and the SEC Rule promulgated there under (17
CFR 205), the general counsel must inform his superiors and the
authorities. This notice may be in any form, but should
conspicuously state that it is being made under £~tion 307 9~
$arbanes-Oxley Act.

MR.Mr\ YOPOULOS: RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10,2008, 5:00PM.

Jm:eph Zernik

Fax:: 801 998 091 7

Tel: 3 l{l 435 9107

Additional documentation, including fraud experts opinion letters re: fraud in this
Iitiqqtion can be viewed at:
. httg;LLinproperinla.com{04-10-26-doc-44-countrywide-fraud-underwriting-Ietter.pdf

1211112008

- 74 -
 Page 4 of4

Jlttp..:JjlnprQPJ:~rinJa.c,QmJl)4MJO-26:QQink:>D:I~tter-cpuntrywjpe-ul'Q~JwritingJ~tt~r-oct-26­
~~dJ
IlJJQ;jjinproRerinla .com/04-09-07 -samaan-s-Qr~ualification-Ietter.pdf
!ltlp:jjinproperinla.com/04-09-Q7-opinion-letter-fraud-in-prequalificaion-Ietter-s.pdf
t ittQ.;ILinQro~inla .com/04-09-27-doc-40-samaa n-fraudulent-Ioan-apj)Jications-SJ2df
tLttR.:!/inproRerinla.com/04-09-27:-samaal1-eountrywide-fraudulent-loan-gp..Qlication.RQf
lljjQ;/Iinproperinla .com/04-09- 27-opinion-letter-fraud-in-loan -applications-signa ture-s. pdf
tlttQ: I/inRroperinla.com/04 lO-18 wire-fraud-pl.{ldf
M M

t[ffi;ljinpuwerinla,com/04-10-18-9-emails-in-re-wire-fax-fraud.pdf
tl!:tQ;11J.!JJ:2roperJnla:~QffiL04-10-25-country~ide.:..qQ.ulteratgp-brangHnput-eX~~-Rtion­
rl~illL~t-s,p.df
tl!1Q:JlinRroperLf"J1a.cofflL04-10-25-dq<.:-45.:--coulltMtYide-fraud-contract-record.pc!(
t ettQJIi nproper~IlLa_.com 104-1 0-26-countrywide-fraudulent~ underwriting-Ietter.:.s. Rdt
b1tQ.J/inproperinla.com/06-07-10-samaan-depositlQn.pdf
bttQ..:jJlo.PJ:.QQerinla.comL07-02-08-count~ide-fraudulent-subpoena-production-c-s.pdf
bttQ.:Jlinp.IQRerinla.comI06-11-09-doc 38-1-count!fflide-mclaurin-false-de~laratiQns·Rdf
M

.bt!l1~lLln-R[Qp~erioJ~comL06-11-09-dQc- 38-2-cQuntrywide-mcl Quri n-false-_declarations. R.91

bttR:'llilJPl1merinla.com/07-06:-20-bet.:tzedek-web:p-9ge-with-samuels.:.befQ.r::e:-l§.ttec,ROf ­
Samuels - the fraudster as "fraud buster"

12/1112008

- 75 -
- 76 -
. . . .
.
• .;;.... •...... .. .
)I: ~I ' U'·: IHX~

 U<j<tA",?",r by Io'-,,~,
.lCfl1lok
• IJ ON.(n'i(.... {'Vhl~nik.
) . ~L .......cl'l?"~"',...dobn>..

nn. ( ..fJS
O.t~ 2'OOtt 1.:';)1 1.(n,)I
Joseph Zemik DMOPW> -<)'fC1)

FJ>:: (80t J '¥Jlj.(l9\ 1 Emai i' 12."l45@<:""I~i"\ ""J

~ judge sltall be {olith!ul to the 1_.•• ~

e.-e- _0>'<0 ~

•nu. """ Q(I,1W ffiIJ.C no"", bo contUGcd wiCI. (t"nt,,'v nf fll. <"-'1,,/1,•

.,.,."'"'~

T1:>U: IS (WHU·; rSS£l\:CE

l>~c"ml1l... . 3,2001\

~f~NNEnl D. LEWIS
Chainl1:1n. Chi~fEI;a:utiw O!lJccr, and I'resident
Rank of Am;;nca Corpor.rtioll

TERES/\ M. UIU,NNElt

A:>sOcialc General ('.(){JI,-",I

Bank of /\lllC(i~ Cllr]lUl"Jlion

100 North TI)'(\1\ SI

thnl: {,f A.m",ic" CO'J'0m(~ Cenlcr

CharlotlC. North Camli", 28255

RE: DEMAN\) TO MITICATE OA~IA(;r.$ ANn FOR COI{nF.CTlVE <\CTlONS

Mr I...:\\'is. !\is U'ClUl<:r;

M~' ra,;oros show that \[l cMly Fe.hru;\1)·1OOS. soon an~( Y{ltJr initial d~'Cision to takeover eo..... ttywidc. I s""d )'OU
WCIlien l1olic<s d.:scribiog Ih~ conduct ofCounlt)'wi.k in court It<:lCln Los Angeles, relative Wlitiga!ion in
Satlllll1/l \' l'cmilt. SCOSUOO. '''hid\ slarted in Oaol:cr 2005, and i~ still going OIl today.
Endosed i, ~ I'n~-.; rdease dilled Deaotb.:r J, 2008, tilled:

Who's in Control? Counll)Wide's Involvement in a DiJbious los Ang~es SuperiorCoUlt Case Coot>-\ues even

aller T3keove.- by Bank of Ametica; U.S. Department 0( Justice has tolerated \tie. rufl<NI~ LA court in the past 8

years, aod lho<.Jsaods (7) are falsely impcisoned by !he Same coort f()( 0'Ie( a dec.:a!ic ..

AM cnclos<~ is;j leltcr to varioU5 partits, please aD::Cp1 it as i1dd,,~ personally \0 you willi the dem:lnd for
imllllxlialc ad ion to mitigal~ damages, to Sllf.:guard my civil nght:;., 10 mWll my home l£l nI)' ~iofl, 10 Slop
111)' nar.l<;Sln':fIt by Countrywide, and for compcnsalion for harm 10 me: by Coutitl)'wict.:·.

Plm;~ illlmertinlcly. but 1\0 I<>!cr than frill"y, De<:trllutr 12,2008, 5;oopm inforl1lll1~ of your ckdsion in lilt>
regard

.> 7rJL
Ios.:l'h lemii-;

• CowIU)wide h= ~O\C$ OJuml)wioe Fin<m<;ial Corpvr"tlOlI (efe) Md zll its subsidiaries;U1d affilialcs.

joimly and/or $c\'erdll)'.

"

- 77 -
 Ot9uat~"(ltlv
k:~~lCh\fl
/J ~.<"'h~···rI')f:tfI'l;.
) _~L ",",.-l':lrl);4'i~.:&tddot'l
Ivttf. C.. LJ)
04'101~.'2f)1
o7JI,~;-<»mc1
PRESS RELEASE

!!~
Who's in Conlrol? Countrywide's tnvol'lemenl in a Dubious Los Angeles
Superior Court Cas~ Continues even after Takeo....er by BanI( of America;
U.S. Department of Justice has lolcratM the runaway LA court in the
past B years, and thousands (?) are falsely imprisoned by the same
C(lurt for over a decade ...

fu~~
Defendant calls (or the IJighest priority action by the Obama administralion
~ardiog the co{fapsed justice system of Los Angeles county..,
!!l:'2Y.
$'''''8<111 v Zemtk stems 110m a dispule over a real estate transoc\iOll, cntered bi' lhe
parties in 2004 for purchase ollemio.'s Beverly HiUs residence by Samaan. 'She waSil
straw buyer, 03lld everything :;/arting willlllOr Prc-qualifiC<)lion Lllller and I/Or Loan
Applications arid conlirluing ;nlhe lawsuit I/lstwas r~(ld a year IDler-was pan of /If!
etaborate scnf)s of frauds. • stales lemilc lnd~ed, an op,rlion k.·Uer by nal.iondlty
acdaimed fraud expect Robert MeistershllYls !hal the signatures on both the
p.-equalilication 1etIe< and tho loan app~eations we\"e forged. Claims 01 such fraud and
other instances of fraud by Saffi<Jan. by Countrywide. and by the LA Superior Coort,
w€:re made by Zemik in court papers Ihroughout the litigation. Regardless. on .....ugust 9,
2007 Judge Jacqueline Connor - beslknown for derailing the Rampart trial in 2000 ­
held a summal)'judgmenl hearing, and rendered summary jUdgment in f:NO( of
Samaan Zernil< was requited to sell lhe property 10 Samaan lor ()\Ier S1.8 million.
HowcV1!r. 10 this date, that judgment has oover been entered. ·Judge Connor and
Samaarl's couflSd (Sheppard Mullin) engaged in a convoluled fraud regarding the eOlt)'
of the judgment Thererote, lhere was l\evet' a valid efledual judgment In Ihis case" A
case wilh no jUdgment leaves Zemil< ~sed to lIlending litigation.
"Hlld rt'.Ore beGn J valid entBred itJdgmenr dalms lemil< ·11 would have been the

foundation of Pasternak's appointment." Instead. coUltlransClipts shQwthal while

claimin9lo appoil1l Pasternak Rece(verfor l)l(OC(J\ion 01 \he judgment, neilher Judge

Se!Jal nor counsel for Samaan recognized !he Judgmenl as varld. Accordingly, the

jud,;)ment was never refncenced as !he legal basis for lhe appointment neMer was any

section of the code. "Judge Saga! AAd Sams311's fXJUllscl, in colkJsion willi Posfema/{.'

Issued, oor never (!Ilfored, a fraudulent appointment order. says lemik'·fiad (f,ere been

a \I,~lid jUdgment and a vatid 8ppoitlfrnenf. Pasternak ",ould havalssue<! a Writ of

Exoculi/Jll, and with UJaf. hQ oould have (trad D ganuine '.Jf</f1f de<1d. And !lad this boon a

fogltimate ffan:;rer oJ Mia by I/Ii) court, Pasfemak tvOUIf! haV!J given me lIle mona y no

la/or than 30 days IromUre dafe of the sale. as roquirc<1 by law'.

Zemill. had moved oUl In Novembt!r 2007, as was his plan ever since 2Q~, bul also

under Ihreat 01 use of force by Judge Segal and David Pastemali;. Samaan beg<m

ocC!.lpying tho ZCtnik's residence in'Oecernbef 2001. l.ater, Zemik. found out that

Pasternak f~ed a fraudulent grant d~ transferring the QWnecship of propecty 10

Samaan. James Wedick, a vetOCln F81 agent and acciaimed fraud e~et1 (beSt known

for his role in the probe where six memt>e(s of Congress were found guilty or laking

brlb<~ in 19811. CQoflrmed the fraud in the execution of tile grant deed by David

Paslemak. polpOf1edly on behalf of the lA Superior Court.

In Iale Janu,lIy 2008, since he had not received any prOCeEds rrom the pocported

eSCfO'/l, Zemilt bro<i9ht a motion lor the court 10 distribute 10 him h1s equity which

purportedly was hekJ by Pasternak to1l~ the sale of the property to Samaan. Judge

- 78 -
Friedman denied the motion and instructed Zernik Ile~er to bnng such molion again or
faea sanctions.
In court papers Zen14k daims that Ihe elaborate COIJIt frilud in this case was based on
frdUduJenl re<:olds pro<1uCe<f by Coun!lyWide. where Sarnaan's husband was a 'loan
originator. Indeed Coonltywide has feguJ3rty appea~, in this case - represented by Blyan
C~ve. LLP. In papers r~c<I in court Counlr,wjde routinely re!elred to ilsellas 'NOfI·Pa!f1/. bul
lhe court ioleochangeably designated Coonllywide as 'Ptainl.ifr, 'OefetrdDllr, 'In/elVanot',
·Cross·Defendallr. and nl{)(e. 'Fmud in COUll by Coollllywide is IlOl unusual at oJf daims
Zern;x 'It was IMir roofinc all over Ille U.S. D16 only u(;'KpJo (calum hem was Ule oollusion
by Iho COUIf. Judgo Fri(J(Jman Ihle<JIrmcf110 J3d me if I ask his friend Sandy {Sandor SlJmllo!~
- formerly Chief l£f}<ll OffICer 01 Counlrywide and ProsirJenf 01 Bet Tzedok} ilnyl/iing ;)1)0/11
lI~s (raud'. Indeed. a 72 page MalCh 2008 opinion by U.S. Dis1rict Court in Texas Judge
80hme retJu1<ed Countrywioo's legal praaices in his court. and ill courts around the U.S.
Since July 2008. Countrywide 00 longer exists as 3fl i(l<~noontentity. Control of
CQUntlywide is now by Bank 01 ArroeOCa, following a Janu~ 2008 slodl mar1(e! crash of the
as
Coontrywide share, prompted by exposure of legal pcac{ices in a PCMSytvania court
"lMlal look pI~ in 1J>e Pennsytvania COUft is a etlicJ's 1>l<Y1 il/ <XJtl1P3fison' says Zemik, "And
it is nol clear at alf II1Ilt BanI< ofAmerica even la,ow3 w/lat CounIIy.\<kJC! is doing in Los
Angeles, even loday". Al proscnl6ryan Cave. LLP refuses to disclose whom they represent
".Judga Terry Friedman is..~led a (raudlJlen( nolice (0£ a November 21, 2008 procccdiog.
I'ItJcro ho OOflccate<J Countrywide's parlicipalion. This is rIO oxe;ep600,' says Zemil<' Jvdgc
(~rnor 81)(/ Jtxfgo Segal did juslflle same T/1efE is no W<ly 10 e)(ptain Ulis as a In./O COUtt
coso"says2efflk -Does TetryFrie<1msn, Iwvoan assIgnmcnlOtdef? Does he haVBany
(tU(/looly in the C3S{;' ar all? And for thaI malter, did Judge S6gaI ha va an assignmenl orda(?
Did Judge Connor hilve ana? Was Ille NOVf]mbcl' 21, :1008 nOOre. iSSUlJd in IIIe name of
CJerk C/8I/(e 8II8ul!lcnfic SUpetior Court notice? (s (flf~ case as a whole, B tIlIo case 0/ the
Galifomia Suporior Court system? How Is the COOT{ allowed to deny me (or Iho fourtJl year in
<t row OOCf)SS to my own ldigalion mrxxds? How =uld Samaan file papers for Ille
November 21 hearipg, be designated 'posr-judgfTI(J/ll Malian", .....lIen neil/ter she nor Ihe
(~d have .ever acJ(J1Ow1edge<J (hq Augusr 9, 2007jlJdgmenC7 100 Presiding Jvdge of
tlleCpun, (/16 Clerll or Ille LA Sup8riOl Coorl, '(IIeir in-house /J[lomeysand rtle oufSldc
counsel/h6y retained ale refusing 10 a~r any queslions regatding lliis caso (or hall.a
lrear /lOW. The CQurt is/airing Ihe Fifth ... • 1Il<Ieed, both the Regls(ei of Actions, and also
the OfIIine Case Sunvnary indicate lt1al judgment in this case is still p€nding.
'In (ac~ if is an EnterprisMmck case' says Zemik "II rel/ef;/s rorruPOOll oflhe civIl divlsiorl 01
I.A Supenor Court CIlal is the mirror image of OOITU(ltiofl of 100 ctimilla/ ditision docwnonlad in
moot dolail/n tho Rampart scandal invesli]aooos. How cooIl1 anyOOdy eqxx;l8flyffJir!g c1$e?
·Il is Ih6 same judges aflerBII .. "'odeed. the protagonist - Jacquerll1e COOIlOf -is one and
the same i1 both cases. The Blue Rjbbon Report or the Ramp.arl scandal (July 2006),
:;howed thatlhose whO were coofermed inflocEnt in the inilial Rampart SC<l11dal investii/ation
by the Board of Inquiry (1998-2000), but had been f~ convicted a.1d ir(Jlisoiled by the
LA Superior Court. WCfe slill falsely imprisoned in 2006. MoslltJ(ely they number in the
thousands, and some of them also had confessjome:dracled through toI1lIro. Sudl cm-oes
'.v-.'Ve C3!fed '/lcinous', and 'charoderisfx;01 IIIe most rei>mssive dictators and police
siat8S~". But the 2006 repoltdesoibed in gfeal detailS that U\PO, OA pmseoJ.Ol:i, and LA
Superior ('"AlUrt Judges were bloclQng the release of fh(: vidims of such crimes (or almost a

·00cade.

,The LA County Suporior Court is sfilll10Jding !/lQus:ands or people (alsely impri$Oflt'ICf'

oondudes Zemik 'Most of lhem are likely /0 be bl<lcJ( and minofi1jes. II undermines any
Claim of legitimacy by government in this coonlJy. The new administration must nolle!
IfJiss(andf

- 79 -
FOCI TNO fES:
~!>ere dcoo\(>S C<l\Jnllyl""'~ Financial Coi]x>nll;on..lnc, and ony aM >II it< Sub<lClt3O(" nnd
aft'lliales. i""'"Y aodl", SllVeQIlV.
AI tel....,nood lniJleri.1ls. indlJ<li<'g 1X'UI1 reco<ds and <:tlmlSpa1d<>nc:e willl HII and US DOJ can be
found al: ~ ~ . l.i>t"d Below ~''! <Om<! 01 Vie SlI<!dlic I:eyro~Cl"lOe$.
E,,,'o C""",,,rInsl<y. lVd.ly Oca".I1\'in~ law S<;hoot in, 51 C.ik1 Pr.>d 121. 2000
r.£FER(NC£S:
\) ~1;l<;9<!\/Qe·l1.J(l~~~~~ No""m~3lUOOO
le1let I>y d~le"d.nll",,'1< 10 Prcsidflg Judge CzuI<:g<:, Md C1e11< Cbrlul of LA Sup""or COIIf1
21 hllD·~.wrnAJ7 ·12-17 ~ploi<m-!eUe<~·in9';tn!-dOS¥!s-fllSl! WciliCl(S apo""
II: ~c, .-c
PaSlMlah Gtanl 0eeIl.
3) hl1p;J!MJ>I9Irc<Wj! Q!!l!ilI4-m-91~-!mI<1.jo1ll~6liciliQO.loh9f.$.P2f Ment",·. opillion
\ene,in ro: S;:Imo""·6.~letle<-
4) hllp;!M~:c:omIOH)9.27~r-'wd-I!Hoi!f!:!Plllial~I~-S Pill Mt«le(.
oplnlon leUe, in reo signalUf08 <i<l Sa<twKi's ICJlIn opPkallon,Wi!h·~.
5) 1l!ltr/llnpalpglrl!• .comIl!+09=2l'jIos?-40·llj!IJIlIiID.frfIM;::IrMrH!t,*"IfQi!B.p<!r 0e~e<1 {eyiew
orr{lbl~ln S"mlIlIn'sIo3l\a~MhCooJttltYwlclernrecOOfs~nU.S. OGtsid Collft.
Gl 1\lJp~ cOro/li4-1o~~~1etmr.2q16·.p;tr
Mel*I's opiolon Iillletio'l (1!: traoo .,.~~ ~ k!ltCr.·
7) hnp·IOOD!'QO<lI!nia aJ!!l/IM·,Io-25-doc... 5:sO<I'!iyW;k... ;>¢"5!O!'l!id....,..,ni "'" U.S 0islI1ct Coyc,
'ling <leSoC:riJlI'!Ilhc rra\Jd In Counftywdo'. teal a.sUI.. CORlract ltlCord.
lI} I\1lp;JJWr9pe<lrH s;omJll.\·1!).2jHjOC-:«:<X1U!YY'Md'''!al,lll~ir)g~e!ler.p<,tf U.S. Dis/riO
Court rq de~ the Ir.lll'l ioC4~o'< ~1'916Mr.
9) h\Il>·'~,<?Ol!!I07~S.!!/l!er:Q!i!t!lh~1"""N!VMA""'''l:$ pdl Augu<19.
2007 .Judgmc'nl bY Judgfl Cotv\o(. ~ d lklt ll<:Yef entered. 8M 0 ~"'9 Ih>l 0_'
~ as .llt/! bash fuc Iflo hud by the covet.
10/ ~>tYjOla·,wm!l!lH!ll.()S:P2"9""-,,;q'PI-issisl;!l\~ COrrcSDOOd= witll F61.nd
U.S. 0q>I..,1 Jt.c0r0.
11) hl1P'ffl~~IW!H!3:1lefllill-Qr~21-lud9m!,nUt-<!lCtQ't:!911tfS:s pdf
Presiding J~$ ~fusPW answer fe\l~ cxi~eoo: of/udgmontln lSomwl v Z"'tliltl.
12) hM:JMQrOpe<lm~9O#-m-stffl!lsIer:9r-f9!9!.><'9vs!.1iMI6-11·11-<:e!1i!it<l-;f·oot
N<M:lT1bel14. ~RO<)i<lCt 01 AdioM InSama..n ... Z"~(SCOtrU~1
13) tqIp·~rHibQ,mJoe.'11.;w«"'-f.lJ'!!!W'H p<!l l~o~r3Q.2QOa (;;I.., Solncrotyn
S;J{ll,fllll .. a~ (SCIlIl74(0)
1~1 h!Jp;J6e!ll'?l>!'!inl!'QOmioo:oo=OO:<;!mo'art-blue~'!j),&-M(M!I'~l!Ol Blue Ribbon
R"pon 0(2000. descnong 1he (;oil,,", to ,da..., h)~ fah-dy imptiw/ll!<l n LA CQI.II1ty as ,'''I 01
It'o<> Rompact SGiSn<J.\1.

CONfACT:
0·, Jo ",ph lntniI<
T<:I: 310 43~9107
Em",l: /ll~~<!M1hIinl<.""t

- 80 -
Joseph 2ernik DMD PhD
fa.: (aolI99a~~17 Em.1.: ~12J4~(!arl/lfd\l<""I

U Judge shaU be falthfulro tho law... ..

CoI~J<J~"'f'1
• The rule O(l;lW mul:r nevN' b<! confusoo with lyr.lnny of the courts"
~..,.,.,.

Alej;U\\Iro Mayorl;u5 - O'MclVl:u)' & Myers.

Former U.S. Attorney, :\lld Uoard Member or Ikt T"lc(]c!;.

Alt Milchdl Kam in, President

For lid Tud-:;- - "'"Hi!

of.luslic<!
Jobn .-ashd

{-"cor Board of fJir':CIOr.<, .1<',,-i5" Fcdcr{}fio" if L(lS Augde,1 -

Brylln Owe, I.U'

Fur .wud(II' Sl11111lcL,', rlugc/o Mu:i!o, COU1Jl,),,-ide [{nme LtXJIls. Caw'If),ri,k Fillflllciul C01'{JOI"OlibJ I

Huclmllcr Nemer
Fur Mara £Scmtl·." 5I1bsidiuT)'O(Old R!!(luNic 7]11!!
Cumming.~, McClorey, Ihvc>; Ach<l :lnd A.o;socialcS, O. Brn Bianco
For Los All,1;de,f SllJlcriUT COlirt. /'rc.,iding Judge Stql!tf:t! C::ulegcr. Clerk folm Clorke. .Il1dg,-s. .Iacquc:lil/e:

Cfl/1Ilor. Jolm Segal, Terry Fri<!dmaJ~ GcrJid Rounk~ {(; AD/(

Dan LoritL, Okum-Lorin, lLr

For USC erenil Uni'Jf~ Gar)' I'crcc, l'res;ff.:,,,tlCill
1';1S1emllli, Pll'l(cmali. Pattoll
For David fusfcmal
Bany Brocker, Ma)'Or. :Ind City COllncil orUcverly Hills

For IJ~ Cilr q{ Rl.,ycr{y UillJ

KenDClb I). lewis, Chairman, CEO, llad r~jden1.

Ter6:1l3renl1Cf, Assodllte CeDens I Counsel

For lkmJ: ofAmeric<J Corpor(l(iOlI

Mal1in Berg, Editor

For 11,e DallyJ0lP1lO1

The lIollomblc Ronald Grorge. CbiefJustice

C.al!fomw'supreme COllri
Kenacth K:!iser. Assistant Oir«to(
For Ihe F{Jf
Kenneth Melson, Oinx:to(

Mick:le MU~5C}', Attorney ~nenll

tor Ihe u.s.

D.:partl1l<'I1I of.lusl1c,:

TIME IS OF' THE ESSENCE!

RESPONSE REQUFSfEDBY 5:00PM FRroA\', DECEMBER 5, 200g~

.fill: 1) F"lUdulenlconvcyonceoftiUoand real e$ta(c fraud on resl pro~I:iYcomIUDn!yl;noWuas310

Solilli Peck Dm'e, BeverlY'Rills, CaIlf()rClIJ. 9o~U. 2)Sama!'rt .Zml/1(S0I89~on):f~!J.dalctit.

titigatiGO lit the Los ADgeitis Su~r Courloftlle Slate ofCalifQmia, 3) Ra~etccri!1g ill. (be Los

- 81 -
• PJge'lfl NovemtlCr 28. 2008

'\ll.gdcs SUl'lcricJr Court, 4) Tho\lS3nd~ ofinn~cnt reCl(\lc f."\lscly 11l1prisoned in Los Angeles County.
California.

Coullscl "fld llllrcprCSCtllctl pueti.,;:

I am an un,cepr=ll(cd indi\'idual, ('ilil'= of ti,e United Sl"lc~. rc,;idcllt oflhc Coullty UnA'.' AI1b~k$. CJlilOmi<t.
During Ihe JlCriod relevant ttl C\"tlllS dcscrib.:d herow I \"'l\ al~o a residcnt orllN: city orllc~ly Hills.
A. (Jrltf dtrrmo'ogy III organized cI"ime actillns und... tlte l!lJIise of LA SUllCnor COlin lIcllan._.
Since ~~ I lI,we!x:csl sc"erely abus.:d and haras>cd uoder the guise oflitigatioll in ~ Cali lomi"
Superioc Coun in SamoaJl \' Zemi}: (SCOS'4(}(J) ill Santa M()ni<"i~ C4lifomia I hne bcCli rcpc.;1lcdly calkd (0
appear in court; roy l1oon~llirc routines \\IX\: entirely ulldcnniocd; 11\"\>,;c b¢:n forced to ~lld Iargc sums of
money on legal expenses; and I h.we hcell forl:\.'{! 10 spend 100>1 ,~f my days sludying the law and various {1ther
fields lOr my own defense.
In November 20071 was drivell oul of my home. the property 1e;.1.t:dabow, in llc"crly llills, under the lhrcat of
violCllcc by John Segal, prch:nding to act <15:1 judge Ol'UIC Superior Court. 3Ild All O;wid Pa-,lcrnak (fonner
pn:sidc.nt-· lioU5C ofJU5tia. Bct Tzcdck) prctCfl<ling lu acl as a··court olliccc. "'hik both knew all along lhallli~'
w\:fcacting wilh 110 authority ala1l. out ofcompliance alld in vicllalioll ofth~ law.
Sometime in I~{c &vcmbcr 2007 Alt 1',~~tClT1ak C(>lluninro li.\I'C<x1 emey into lite (lro~rt}' and "took pO$=iOl1,.
ofit.. with no legal foundation 01 aU.
In ~w 2.007. Alt rasrcrnak subjccwd 111)' propcoy 10 liaudul':'1{ COll\'<:)'3II~ ofliUe'. and proro:dN (0
collect SOl1le nl(lnic:s in l'Xch:H1h'C for the ptopcn)' frolll Nivic Sallaall, and ~\.'eping th~ funds 10 himself, wilh no
legal fOUll<L11iol\ al all.
\Vht"O I tried 10 Sland for my rights. I was pU'1'Ortcdly found in (,;onlanp! ofthe court; I ptrrportcdly had s:U1Cliort;;
in the tcos oflho\1S:lllds of dollars $Ct upon me; I had g<1£ oo:JC'f'5 purpor1ctlly i",JlOSL'd upon Ole - for the benefit of
Iaq:c corporations - CoootTywid<:, Old Republic Title, and Unitc:d Title, through c.O( parte pr~i~~
On Iul{' 6,1.QQl, I was subjected to !he first of such procedur~ _. initiated by Coutlltywidc:. and held inad:lrk
courtroom in !he Los Angcl\:S S\lperior Court by Judg~ JIIC«uclirle Connor(8est known for d<:Qiling Ille Fil'>i
RBmpart Trial in :WoO). offlhe calendar and o{fthe nx:l.ml,
Tn No\'.f,ffiI~ 2007. I had II fraudulent Rcccivcr - Atl David Fastcm:lk appointed up<ln me by Judgo John
Segal, through lInolhCl sham kg;J1 prou:cding. with 4-day notice ... AU Pasternak wns pluportedl~' vested by John
Segal with unlimited POWC1'S to abt\SC nnd har.lSS, deriving his authorit)" from neither a judgment nor noy s-::ction
of the California mdc Ik)'ood tho theft of my property ptnTlort,:dty 00 behalf olthe Cour1. Au Pastcma.l.:
frJudulcl1lly incum..'d me willI Illwlredsofrnousands of dollars inl:l.x liab;lil''''\, since he collected Ihe full
proa:ro,',ofthc sale, ilfId dcfcm:d tile payrllcnl oflaXC5.
On Dc=nher 7. 20071 was subj.:ctcd (0 aoothcr ex p..'Il1e prOQ"(!uf\: tor gag urdas, this lime initiated by Au
rast~fl\.lll;, for the bcflefJl oft.·lara Escrow and UnitL-d Titk..

In fcbruary1.Q9!.1 \'.~s fr.lUdulcntly threatened with jail lime by .Judge Terry Fricdmnn, hying to pn:\'toC1l l'>\-:'
from exposing th~ fraud in Counlry\vid.:: involvement in tills C:a$~.
I receiv.:d death \.hrells" aluplcoftimc, rh~ flC'Sl ~n M(lfCn ~OO7· when f Illcalcd a lonner senior l1I1dC<\\ritel' of
OlUlltlywid~ ill March ~OO7. which COllnfrywidcdid not WlIl111nc 10 evel' locate.
Why?
By NO\'OT1bcr·D=lJer 2001> I figured oUf the fllIIUfC of lh; comlud.ofSbt(lpard Mulli" , n:pctscoting Nivic
Samaan, sufficicrtdy \\'cll, CO understa1'ld Ihal the}' W<:II: f3bricalillg fraudUl<:flt clai.ms again...t me. In collusion with
Judge Jat:quclilw Cooaor and CouRtl}'Wide the] YiCfC lirele.s!y (oiling to ddfaud meOlJ[ of my nomc·lIlld.:r
the guise ofl<:gal action in the Los Angeles Superior cOurt.

- 82 -
• P"Je 311 N :lvemlJer 2&, ?008

Iliad no roctgrOlilld M<l no lom):!1 trAining in the la\\', C(e>nomics. b:mking or mongag.: fellding, all<! yel by
l:lJlIl:l!Y 2001, I fj~-d oullh~ bU5i~~ madel orCOlllllrywilk and the nallKe of Angelo MOIlIn afK1 Sandor
Samuro;' (r.llJdu!l:n1 conduct su(fici~nt(}' well thaI I likd tomptaillls wilh the HII. alld then abo wilh nanking
R~\llalors &UW as Olllce uf'lnrifi Sup<.msion and OfflCc(I(Frtlcr<l1 Tr;uk Cummission. 1 d~imcd Ihal
CO\lllli}\\'idc ,-as iovolved ill 0\;<."-';"<: lr..lI,J againsl the U.S. Gm:cl11mel\l nod ll~ !\lIlcril'an lax-rayer.
By M~ I \'-0/$ abl<: 10 come lip ";lh initial roogh l"'1jlrull~, which iodic;llCd [}OtL'llial fi..~bilily toJ Ihc I).S.
Go\'crmlClll ill the hundreili of hilliun> ofdollar,; (io r~rospcct . a C(lnscMti"c estinlal.:). I also \\rol¢ a series of
openl<.lllClS 10 lhe Uoard of Oin;c(Ol> of the Huuse of J usut(: - Oct Txcdek. I wamcd them 11\.'1 an organil'2tion
tkt [lI.Hlxxts 1<1 bt: the "House of JUSlice" lIIll'it flCver allow S2ndor Samucl5 10 be Ihe I'r¢sidcrll ofilS nmrd of
l)irect01"_ I warned them that hc WllS jlClrollally in\u(W(! in fraud :lgaillst me. and thallclls of U\OU5an(\s of
families would loose lheir homes as a ll'Sult of his business 'lctivitic:s (in rdrospccl .- ;J conscmllivc: cstimalc). fkl
Tzcdcl; {loaJd ol'Dire:tors \lever rcspood((j 10 my alarming messages. But: Countrywi!lc, Sandor Samuels,;mll
AlIgdo Mozilo did. TIleY retained B<}·B.II Cllve, LLP. 10 Ikuass mc, to rclllliate agaiml n~. 10 intimidate mG, an<.l
10 supt:Ni:;c the PCrl'ClSion ofjllsliee under the guise of IitigaliQn in the Los Anf:eles Superior COlllt.
On lui,,; 6. 2001 soch campaib'Tl was initialed wif1uln ex parlc llpp<:<lr.lno: , lor a gab order ~'ail\5t Ill'; in (he dar\:
cOltrlmorn of Judge Jocquclin<: CorU\Of, who l1:mained in c1nml>ct, - no,,1lcrc 10 ~ sc~n - with no rocognizablc
elm of the court in lIUenaance
Dy m;lj. 2001 and more so by the b.:gmning o[200~ I Itgllft·1I out the lJu.sillCSS moocl of the LlIs Angeles
Superior Court suf\icielllly ""II Ihnl I understood lhal Sam(Ja" v unllk (SC087.JOO), in fact never W·.IS a lrw
-c:l.<;e oflh~ SUpcriO£Court oflhe ~l:lteofCaliIQmia.,bot inslead. a c:= ofltte "Ente("prise Tr.. cl," of dlC los
Angeles Counly judiciory, desi[;11atcd as such by Judge JaCljuclinc Conno< even befOIl: Iii.: complain!: \Y:\S filcd_
I gf3.1lully learned nloce about Sustain, the los Angcles Superior Court's COlnputCf systclIl. reaJi7jng that such
system \\"ilS quintCSStnlial for llie <>pc:filtions oftllc Enteqris::: ;0 the foon it is manifesled lOda~. This sysrcm was
p~ an<! inslalled.lIfOLm<! 1985, out ofcompliance and in vkJlation of the law. by a company by lflC $3Itle or
simillll' name (SuswUt or Snst.,inoo), which is solely conlrolled by the 02ily Journal, the 13fgcst IcgnJ 11I."W:spapel"
in Las Angles, H fad·tMt is appall:ntly unrccogniZt'd ill the I,~ conunuailY. Around the $:arne timc,tl\c
Honorallle Ron.:lld GCQrge, today alief Juslloc of die C,lifonJia Supreme Court, held variou.~ leadership
posilioflS iOlhc LoS Angeles Supclior Court
U. lJeyolld Re:l1 Esblto.fraods - Ihe R:Jm[!O!rt SOludnl
In =m mOolhs,l tried 10 bcUcr underStand the scope of~dlions ofLhe Enlcrprisc beyond real estate lIflll
Dtner htig~tion frauds, llIld the unique position ofJudge Jaoqueline Connor relative 10 organiz.cd <'ritne in Los
Angeles. 1studiaf the history oflile Rtlml'urt scanlhl (Im-2000).euphcmistically ll:U11OO thc Ibllnpart·Arca
.COfTUptiM Incident TIle Blue Ribbon Re\lie'~' Panel report (JUly 200<i), makes it abundal\tly"t:1car that the
activities ch<lrac!t.-rislic oftlr.lt SClJIldaJ wen: I1CVCE limited to th<~ RampM are<t lUllll.\"CO: and probably still arc
oo:1cmic, oot an isolated illcidCl\l at all.
rul1llClmOf~ ! soon rcaJil,W ' ' 'oU the main gQ3/ was oftlle authors oflh.11 rqXln.:: first· to cJOCIunrol ",nattllcy
callerl U1C "subcu(t 0/ crimi"afiry rO{MIUd in rite rimh- of tile LA Counly justice syslcm - and second. In
document hoI.\" such justi~ syStcm ;s pl1:vroling the release from longlcm1lal~ imprlsonntC/\1 orllle Ihousands
ofpeople, 1.\110 were tq:ealcdly confi~l by Sl!ver.1l ~~.ive invcstigation rommillees as innocent hut (r.t.maI.
F.v-:n \oday. teo y<:ars aficr th<: scancJalwils C>(postd, noOOdy knows !he Q'3et scope ofiL
Erwin Chclllcrinsl,:y,IOOa}' founding DcJ.n, rrvine l..aw SdlOO~'<kscribcd ilalrcadyin 1000 as followli:
•Any analysis Of tl\e Rampart scandai rnllSlbegin With an apprecialion of the heinous n<lllJre
of wt1at the offi= diif. This ~ OJlldLK~ ilssodated wall the mosl (eprossNo.didatofs and
police slates.•

And David Burcham, Dean of me Loyola ~..... SchOQ~ with Ciltllerille FISk wrote in 2000:
' ••.judgC:; tIi«l::.oo sesiteoeoo a Glagg'lling llUlllbel" of people for ~lhE!Ydid not q;mnil..
How COuld so many palticipanU in the aiminal justice system have ~ either to recogrriz"e

- 83 -
• P3ge~ ~mOOr 26. 200S

or 10 i"shg3te any meaningful sautiny of such appaning 311<l repeated pctV"rsions of

JUStice!::
C. 'nle court's eRse management ~V:<I~01 as Ihe e,,;shli"l! tool oflhe EnlUIlrisc.
My reading ofthc Uloe Ribbon Rcvi~w Panel ;, 'h:llllle pando like all inllc.'itigalilJn .:~\mlllitrces b<:forc iI,
lind like the pUblic ~t large in LA County. were denied access 10 pulllic r~C-1)rds th<il al'\: lh~ Book.5 of Courts
ufLA COUIlIY Superior Court. Such public RCCOfds. arc ailical f(lr lhc ""fcguard of the integrily 01'11..:
courts. However, such Book o[Court arc since 1985 implemented in SU~lain, and 00' limitS to lhe pubic - a
mass-SCGIIl rouline and cunlinuous abuse ofcivil rights of nil who live in LA County, by the L,\ County
Court itsel r. Such abuse is lateral«! by the U.S. Oepartment 0 f Justice. who fails 10 perform its duties
[also bcli¢vc thatlllc lack ofa= to such [J\Iblic f<.:Wnh is a l1I~in ll<lll<licap illlll<; opcrdliollS Drll", office of Ih"
Ovtrseer of civil rights ill LA. U.S. Judge Gal)' fC($s. appoinloo 1)u~'Ul\Ilt to Ihe Con.'iCot Occr<'C of2oo I. My
re<1ding of tile reports \~'lS lila! by 2QO.1I", was trying. unsucccssfiJlly \0 establish ucc.c:;s to such dlIla P:l'iCS, and
his dcmunds igoored by the LA Cn'nf.)' justice system. Needless 10 say. I believe ll~'t tile O,,~~r, in his seven
y=~ ill office, nevCl" freed e,'en one singk pel'SOI1 nflhe Iho\lsa{\(l~ \\'ho lite r~lsdy imprisoned,

l1lCl~(OfC. Ihe lailurc oftltc U.S. Dcpanmellt of Justice IO'-'ll(~ the b.'\5ic civil ri:;hl for !looks ofCourt Ihal Uf\;
Public Rt'l.:ords. fr~ for Ihe public to inspocl3nd to copy, also pninlS U.S. law enforC¢ll1Cnt agellCics:l.S impolcot
in LA Coullty - sina: they cannol enfOrce lhe Co=t O=lhJ,1 W'IS the (lU(COlllC of the yielding orlhe Cily of
LA IV Ille U.S. Govcmmcftl in 200 I.
'nIC ~ ilCli(1o-lakc-<J\'C£ofconlrol ofthe l.A CO\lf\ty Superior Cour1's co.-nput= by fcda-JI Agencies; l~a
relati'-d)' silnrlc!aSk. II was pt:lClk:o:l repea~ly in =tlROllths M)'lime the U~. GovcOImmllOOk o.Vi:r My nl~jur
failing fi NlOCial instiluUoo. Sumy lhere ore OOilS fully prql3n:d in Oc{x1ttlllCot of \lie T=suey. IlL.. an o(lCr.llioo tfl.,t
can be aa:nmplisllOd overnight. .. <It minimal risk and cost. iUld willi tnajor posilive- illlpaa Oil !he lile ofindi"idlolJ and
the ruleorlnv in LA 01unty.

D. Un:lnsl~~rM Qusstions
l) LA SI/[Jaillr Collrt
I have been denicrl access 10 my ownlitigatiol1 n:oonIs in Sus13in tjlloughollt this purported liligation.lllld l hol<l
that had i bl:enallowcd ac= 10 SuSlain, nQlle of-it oou[d everh3.ve happened.
Sincdunc200S. Ule Off'KX of Preidlnf: Jiidgeof thc Los Angck;~; Superior Court, StcptJcn Czul~'<:r has been
rcfl1Sing (0 :lnSW~f the simplest qt~ioll,S:
Is S:lmllllll \' Zcrnik (Sdl8'1400) a' true CllscoCtficOlliromia Sup<:riU<' Court?
771<; simplest QlU'Ij'U would !law bun rc)."flow me acecn through SIll/oillia the Boo!.:> of
C~url. Ihc {lido: oj.·f/I Cases. Cok,ldar o/tl,e COerlS. t!1c. ThaI is slul denied.
Is then: Of isn't there 2n entcn:d, dl'cdu:lI Aug 9, ZOO7 judgment in Sam~n \' Zernik?
I..-ar r-obbedofm~' "0I1l~ purportedly pllrwanl ((l.w,.:IljudgmOlI. OIlT;1 is obvio/ls IJIlIi IW
slIdl ,,,,lideffcaltd judgmenJ exir/,.
[5 Iheft.' or isn't tbcr-e:\ judge duly assigned 10 Sama:su v Zcmik ?
Judge Terry! Friedman SlillllclrJs the fik and rollfinu~)'llil racJ:etCi!ritrgfrom I/:': I~nc;h

2) Mllrtl" Berg - Oa;/y J{}umal. and Rorrald Georgt: - Chief )un;Q: qftire Cdifomia SUPIWlIC QJurt
Mr Martin Ikrg, Edilor of the DaUy.JournRl, lllId !he Honornbk Ronald Geurg,c, Chief JUSlicc, C.,li(omia
Supreme OJlrft, have failed to respond as well. The questions i1ddrcsscrl (0 them was and' is:
Wbat WasflS your role in thcd<:Sigo; instaUlItioo, malriwanceoCSust:tinill LA Superior Court?
Do )'QU hold tbe operation OfSElSWa.1lS S«I\ today, in compliancc with tb~ law?
Do you coosiderfltal K IJIl.blicdlsdosurc on your Pllrt in tfils maticds required?

- 84 -
• P~&Sf7 NwelTbe( 28. 2008

3) C(/lltlt'Ywid~and [Jllnl.- (IfAmuica

i\ficr th.: challge ofC()nlml in Country\\ide. I cxpcoctl dial 8;mk of ."mmGl Cor-poralioll would put 30 end to
this shan~rul story. of\\hich I tw.'1; info(ll\~ 11M: board oFBank ofAmcrka COf'\Xll<\Iioo mOllll\S in advance.
r-1O\W\'Cf. even ~rlCl dlC eh<ll1gc·uf \'IlIltrol. Dryan Devc. LU' h.l.S .:<nllinllcd tlk: harassment. just as USl.~11. And
yel, in (~("l{ d~~'S itll;l,~ ~fll~ 10 :tns""r:l vcry ~imp1c qocstio'l:
Whal is tile idcntit}· ofttlc party re(lr~cnt by me In c,ourt ill rlX'Cflt monlt.s?
Corm'')'''i(/e:~ ,l(o'iy dcrigllQriOl/ /ulr aU alung beell une olrlll! cardillo!s igIL' r/I{/f l!lis
Ht;i:uri,jI/ 'n'S fi'(lltd: CfllJIII'Y't'irJ~ ch(lSc ff1 be c,t/h'd ..Nm/-!·orl)..·• ,,·',ilL·In.: Cllur( IIsal
parryd~igl/arilJl/sdl/Jaw - /'{Oint!{/. D4cIJdt1n1, "lferv/mor, Objecf(ft'. Ni;,
Kcgardlcss: lJryan ('ave musf hUla' wltn siK'U!d (Ir;; engagemcnt, (//Id Irho i.r I'uyitlg the
bills.
I therefore also a.~k Ute following rrom llank of :\Ol~(icaCorporilliotl:
Would 8:,"1;: of Amerka Corpunllion ~5"re Ih~1 flO further :tbu~c is (lcrpctnllcd in the n:JOle of
Countrywide!
• Would Bank or (\mcricl Corpor:llion revie\\' tI.c records and rm\'idc cofll[Jcns,'lliun for dlllllagcs I
5uITeroo th.-ou~h Counlrywidc's "etions?
") USC Credit V,rioll
The final SlepS lnthc!heft. of my home in o...'CCm~~n. ..:ould never have happcn<:d wilhout hd[J Irom within
U~C Credit Union. for no n:asoo a( all. and in \'ioo.tiol\ oflh.: USC Cllliduciary duties 10 thdr dCflOSilor:
member.

What \'r'1lS Ille justHklltion if atly. for tile conduct of USC CU, ill colluding in Ihe Iheft of my l,oll1e
by the Enlerprise?
Wby is Ihe.USC CU refusing tu implemenl bQ',ic SlaUdKnil,rocedurc COllSi5tcnt ,,'jlb "solmd
b:ln king priAciplcs"1
5) City ofllcl'crly HilJ.5 (Itld ie, Pqlicl: /)epartmCl/(
During 11-.: harassment that precedro the theft ofmy house, I approached the Be'ierly Hills Police 0<."{kIl1JIlCO( lOr
proto;tion. on scvctal occa.riolL~, Al all times, lhe Ilevt:rly Hills f'olire Oc(WtlllOlt absolutely rdU:;Cd 10 provide
prot(C1ion, or 10 inwstigale.no mauer how s«oog the evidO'lCC prodllc61 in support ofmy complaint was. This
month I ~vidcd tile Mayor:lnd Cily Council a shutt Gw(viewoflhe siluatlOO. TIte following questions are
3<ldre,-w lo'the Ma}'OS3nd Ihe City Council oflkwrly Hills:

l~ardr<:$S of Ihe rondlld of thc Histrict A{(amey. \~~1lS thcn:flS I"crc ;l"y jusliliCllion for the rcfuS:l1
of the Ek-<erly Hills Polire Ocpllrtmcnl 10 Jlrol~l me in Ibi~ msc!
Would lhe Mayor'lOd City Couacil talic immediale ;~ction to COl1l£lC1 the police 10 penorm its dillies
,ts
Ilnd '(Il'Qvicle re(lort (if invC'Sl~alion as soon as possible'!
6) &r T!i~k -lite /lOllse 01Justice
llm~ or the individu:ili \,'!to pla)'l'd central roles illlhis slolyofreal estale lial11. held tlle highest positions ill Ilct
Twlek: S3odorS3muds - fOffin pn:sidellt. Dayjd Pasternak - former pre.sidcnt. Terry Fri~m311- fQlT1ler
e.-.:eooli\"e director. Togel.her t hey can be seen lIS a representation of!he type ofwide-spread cocruption that
unQr:rmines th~ jUSlice system in Los Angdes County - coll\Lsjoo ofcorrupt corpor.tte legal counsels, CA3ffi1pt
;tUomcys in pri\'8ie practice, and cumJ(ltjLJdgc:;.

WOllld 6ct lUdek ~ond Ind ioforlll me reganling uy infernal prO<nlurc fur dispute
rc;olutioll? '

- 85 -
• P<IJ'J 6fT N~bef 28. 2008

£. Tnt ~>C0lle und cast of lIlI: nrohlem -orgl1oill:d c:rinte in 11" c~ntul"\'

Ahu~c uf .:iI·i1 righls in Los Angcks Coonl)' is on a scale tholt is beyond ,:olllprehl.:nsion. '111c only "-dy 10

r.\tiollali7.e the silUation. is lhatl.os Angeles Couoly wa.~ abandoned b}' 'llle U.S. GovcrnmCJll. f'edcra!

agencies los< contrallo the tlllCrpriSC.

!lud\ conditiolll must nolo,: allowed 10 pasisL l1lC co,. oflhis (n(crpri,c 10 SOCiCl~' in $oulllcrn California
and (he econOllly of (he United S""lc~ i, prohil>iliv,. The et1JCfgCllcC of Counlry\\'idc as i\ .:<lrrU!'1
o~anj7Alion al\(\ lhe sub· prime crisis In.t folll'wed. cu\lld fl'>! h.-m: taken "tace had it nIH been for (\~
gCllcrali~:cd. lr.llU!·fricuJly. t:ril11c~rlllissi\'c condi(ioo,; e~tlbli5hcd in Li\ County by the Enl::rprisc.."nd
Ihe custlo Ihe U.S. economy of the sut>-pri"u: crisis aJOll<: is in Ihe triHioas ofdollars.
'111is Cit,1" shows Judge Jacqueline Connor. rcpll:senting C(llTupl govcO\menl, as the controlling pany in it
joinT dToll of SUndltf S:lmu~ls :1,,<1 Countrywide - a comlplmcga cOlpor.uiol1. small lime paetitioncr'.i of
whilc <;oll;v crime such as Nj,'ic S~II\"3n. Jac Arn: L.loyd. :lIld Victor I':lrks, faciliblcd by 1311;<: law fiml~
such as ShCllp:lrd Mullin and I3r~':ln Ca"c, L.Lr. And in thc face of sllth ons'a\l~ht of a rruud machinery.
all ot!lcr> yield and join the winners in a frenzy vf fauds: ta\\'}·ers. C$(:I'Q"'. r~gi>;trar/r~C'rdcr.fc:J.lIors. and
COIlSUme! banks.

11tis i~ llie (ftI~ f.,cc oforganiud crimc in the 21" century ill 1.,\ Counly. C~lirornia. 'n~ colJ.,oo"'lion of
Victor ('.rks•. Iac An~ Lloyd and Counlr)'widc in lheir fraud abrainsl th~ U.S. Go\'crnlllCf1\ in submission
of lo;m applic:llions. \V"s coordinatctllloruugit th~ coillputer I~WI)rk.s of Pacific MQrtgage Cunsultanls.
and the mcgOl fmud of Countrywide ilself - in IItHlcr\\7ilillg of unwonh}' 10M applications. was
mllslcnnindcd by Edge - CoulltrywiM's undcrwrilillg moniroring ~')'sICln. which inlhis case was seen
oremling as the CJlInoul1agc system for violalion of banking rcsulotions. And Ihe ovcr<JlI coontinalion of
this consortiutn orc.rimc \\'''-5 exerted thH)ugh nlioulc orders produced ill Suslnin the Superior Court's case
mana~cm~llt systcm, provided by the froe f1fcss...thc Dally,Journnl.
And racitl~ such massive powcf. United Title, "'bra Escrow. Uildwell Banker:lOO Mich,'l.cll.ibow. and
USC Union, and the offiec or Re:gistrarlReeordcr. An Chane.s Cummings, At\ Zachar)' Schorr.l\f\d Au
Thomas Brown. all gave in. ho(}ing 10 gCl some oflhc crumbs.
laCQueline Connor d~rJilcd lhe First R3lnpar1 Trial in :ZOOO. ill public defiance of the rule: of law and llie

powcr or tile U.S. Government. Rcspoll:iC of~ U.S. OovcHlIlICIlt was illlldcqU8{C I!nd simpl}' non·exis(ent.

The Con.<.cn( Dccr~ fomlUl;ncd under lhe walch of Alcjnndro Mayorkas, then U.s, Attomey for Ccntr.ll

Oisteil-1 ofC::llifomia. fals<:l)' pul the lJl:lmc cnlirdy on tlte LA-PD. nm! left Ihe LA Supcr"iorCourt fr~c to

e<>ntinue thc wrongs. Therefore, ineffectual offICe nrlllC O",cr:;cer ""as made ccnain. As a (cst III, local

branched 1)1' U.S. agencies ;u-e powerless in LA loday againSllhc Lll\erPrlSC

fl. l'r~)s~ $oIUliDDS:

SOlllliolllTIlISt eontc by way of the U.S. GovclllO\cnt.

With help Irom the ~cous Honorable Diane Feinstein. Scn:llor, ~nd th~ Honorable Oillne Watson,

Congrc.~W(lIl\lln. I pressed the FBI and US 1)C(l3rt/llenlllf Justice to lake aClion. 'argu<:d lhatloc

minimal. 010s1 effeclive way 10 approllclt this situalion is 10 enforce CommOfl LawlFirsl Amelldmefll rights

in Los Aageks OWIl()'. IlUrsuant to ,vi.mll ". Warner Comfllu,,;ca//lIIlS, III,;.. ~J5 US. 589 (/978) where tlie

U.S. Suprcnlc Court affimlCd "the comfllOIl-Jow righllo in..<p<-x-r andropyjuwcial rf!Cords". los Al1gclc.,
Cow It) i~ unique. I hope, in the United St.ales in ool\~liog lite BO<lks of Court -lhe Index of A{l Cases, the
Calcmbr of the CQUll5. Ihe RcgislCfS of Actions••tnd lhe Book Qf JU1lgments_ I believe that sueh a ~mplc
step as sci/Jug the compuler syslem of Ihc court Ilfld opcnio!; it for public access.. as required by law, for the
first time in over a quarter of century" would be sufficient to dfuct. a major change in tile ildrninistration of
juSlice in LA County. firsl and foremost -to the f,-eeillS oflhasc falsely imprisoool.
[also ft.led a propp~1 witll the !udiciaJ:y Commi!lecs oflhe l1o~ and Senale, and with1h.e.U.S.
D¢p:trtmCOl of Justice JlCl1aining to computers oft.lt~ couns in the United StalCS. meant to ensure thaL such
problctllsuc 001 seen in any court iil this'co\Inlly again.

- 86 -
• Page 7(,' November 28, :2008

G. R~(I'.Ir'Sc b\' U.S. Officers 10 I'ro(IOSCd Sululiulls:

Mr K~nndll Melson, Director. U.S. Department of Justict;, finally responded :lnll refu~d 10 talcc action.
claiming <:Ol~ a\xJu1 interference willi ongoing iRvc;ligalion by Ihc fOr. /vir I<cnnctb Kaiser. Assistant
Dir..'Clor. Climinal [nvcslig:uion. FlU, finally responded and rdi.scd l<l in;lillllc an inv.:stigalioll, claiming
Ihal I have ncv~r dcmoll,lral.:.:l "fcdcral ;1II'csli:.:aliorlill/uri,dicli.",·'
II, RC/lucst for )'Our jmmt:dialc rcsSl2nsc:
I'[~ lelmc koow how you would help mitij;i!.Ic damages,lulaling o~r $1.0 luitlions today. 'lllc properly is s1ill
lawfully lisled ill Illy name, but wrongfully occupied by Ni~ie S;!lIlI:llln 3,\d Jac M~ Lloyd.
Public pol;'cy considcralKlIIS. und~yinS"the p¢rSonall\~'Ilterdiso::usscd here, must C(lStII"C 1J..~t the issucs are placed
at the high.:sl priority with the iocoming IIdmin~ratioll.
Beyond th,~ ProJlffly of all individual. this Inaller rerrCS<.'l\t~ the .\bu...: of9.5 million!; who live in LA Counlyand
have been abandoned by the U.S, sovcmn~nl in the pas!. dc=k~ allowing the LA, Superior CO\I(1 and its judges
10 engage in abu.'C of LA County (;i[i7.~llS. under color ona\\'. It isc.'\:Iclly Ihis l}'~ lIf abuse lhal is the duty of (he
U.S. Go,,~rTlmcn1 and its officer.; It. prutlXi U.S. Cil'll.·llS (Ib'!In."I.
We \\110 Ii ve in LA Coont}' arc dcpri\'L-o ofdue pm:./ss. de(lrived ofaccc."''' to llw: court" and deprived of fair Iri~1
for over a quarter of aCClmny.
111\l continued false inlllr;S<.lOm~llt ofUI\)s¢ who wc~ shown to 113\'c bCCll lrarllcd 1Illr>1 not bC,3110wcrl to
mOlioltl'. \l is a disgrJeC to all U.S. cili7.el15. and all people ofgo-~ faitl',
Si~;ncd on Thaoks~i"ing Day. the: 27'" of November. 200:l. in Los Aogel;>:; COlI'i1ty.

) .~ IJ ::r~~"''''-''
~L ::+.,Iu.r-d.L.4._.....

thoto'.SJMIU'''';:A' ...

Joseph Zcmik

TfllofE .SOFT/lf: ESS£NCEl

nR~rONSI': REQutRED8V 5:00PM, FRrDA Y. DECEMBER 5,2008

• Copies 01 the gcanldeed. produc::ed by Al10<M:1 P~ak.Io/Tll6fP~sid<:olotHousoO( Justire,...8et Tzedek.

p~ a;>PfOoiCd by ttlllLA SUper.or Court. 8l1d theo filed in 1h(>otlia) of Re¢lradRea:<def. can b6 vIev.-ed at
~.1l\1fq?e1jnla<XJ0V97-12-11~-'e1fer.fr.tud-horai1!~
The fraud in svctl odOOs waS conflll'nOO by ao qKrVon leIler of Velelan FBI il9€'l~ J<lf1l\!$ Wcdick. COOImeOOed" by tile U,S
Co~. ~ U.S. AlJ,rxroy General. aod !he Di'eclof or ll>e FBI. for his CO/ltnbulion to ~Ing PUblic CCXT\fPlion in
C<l1il'(l('(ja gO\'efTllTlenl

ce.
James Wcdict;
Judiciar)' Cornmiuu; oflhc U.s. /lousc of RcprcscrUtiw,;
Judiciary Committee ofLhc U.S, SCl\3t~
Office ofPrcsidenl Elcel
Office or Vic-<: f'resid~nt EICct

- 87 -
- 88 -
..
I
1
!I
. ~~ . .'. .' ~
,,
.. . . . x····:···
• <'",. " I
!
!
'1 LI····H,-\~~··~,I······R-..... 3·
To: M/IYOf'O\JI.OS ao. 1'~9" 1 016 2!Xla,'1-l000 lN5(0'1Tl 18011jc)!09tJ F~orn- .Jo~P"" Lem«

I
F
To: MAYOPOULOS
0,,",_
Company:

Fax: 17043703515

From: Joseph Zernik Total l"agcs; 6

C'ompaIl)': DrZ 03 tc-Tunc: 121091084:15 PM

Fax Nwnber: 801 9980917

_\lESS,-\G£ . ,
PLEASE SEE An'CHEO

WWW.EfAX.COf\l

r:e:- r;n 2008 19: 20 1~1998B9t7 P~~~£.~l

- 89 -
To·IIA',OI'O'JI.OS eo~ 1'0ge 2 olt. 1C06·~2·ICOO.1145 (GMIt '~l!l!lllO917 FfOll\'W-"llI>l",,,,,,

i Dl9'UIf1"~ I>Y
. I01.pllZ.....k
~ Ii' ~tn.,."plIl...lX
). ~ L ·4:~.....JlUU5<'tt'.wtN.....
>..i-a,<-US
OoIL iOOa.1 a<
Joseph Z~tnik DMDPW .... 16<\l;j'~

1=11': f60 I ~ 9St--~1; eml •. It 1:?~~~.u!nlil\\ "'flo'

Judg<! ~ ba taitJrM to 1m16N.•. "

-
M

UfCMoMl!IIIO<rlll(l7
K T1Jl? Ilk 1)( t.-Nv must nCVl!f' be aNIfu$Cd with ~ y 01 the ClOIm"

-Tl-lE JUDGMENT WAS SET AND TilE BOOKS. WERE OPENEO~ OanieI1:{O

M rTlffiOl.hy J. M3j'OpoWO$, Ex6.:Uti\'e Vi~ ~i<..I<:nland General Coure;cl

flank of Amen.;;\ CurJX>r<ttion ((\an k orAmerica)

100 NTtym SI

NCl-oor-s6- \I

Charlotte, NC 28255
Phone; (704) 386'7-184
Fax: (701\) 370-3515

Date: Tue, 09[)re~wu815:27;28 -o8uu

To: "Mohammad Kcsha\<Irlj" <MKeshavani@shepparornullin.oom>,·Paul Malingagio·
<PMaI ingagio@Shcppardmullin..com>. ~red Max"<tmax@SheppaJdmullin.com>
From:jOS>:!ph r..cmik <j~I~4s@earthlink.ncl;>
SubjOO:: REPEAT F1 LING OFOFFENDING FRAUDULErIT RECDRDS IN CDURT. YOUR
RESroNSE REQUESTEU BY WED, DEC 10, ·,WOS.5:QoPM. Noticx:ofstartofS;J.k harbor period per
CCP128·7·
Q:; sandor_Stmucls@countryv.ide.com,S3DtuclsJandor@C<JlIntrywide.com,
angelo_moziIo@oountrywid<!.£Offi, mol.ilo_angelo@cououywide.com,
maria_McLaurin@a>unl()'\"i<.le.rom,.bbianoo@lasuperiorrourt.o~ 'led
Max"<tmax@Sheppattlmullm.oorn>. "Van a~ Pel.erD.· <pdvancleve@BtyanCave..com>,
~verlon@cmda -Iaw.oom, kiliClno@cmda-law.rom. tfriedman@l8superiorCoutt.o~
jscZll Ieger@I3.!."Uperiorrourtorg,jclarke@lasupeOo[W\.lrt.org.jdarlce@lasuperlorroutt-org,
J connor@lasupcrioroourt.org,j;cg·.iI@lasuperioreourtorg. "DavidJ. Pasternak" <jwp@~aw.oom >,
"John Patton" <jwp@paslaw.oom>, "Amberg, John W." <jwamberg@Bryaricave.com>.
jenna.molda\v.sky@bryancl\'e.com, t.cxkl_Boock@C))untl)'\vidc"Ooma, "atmntion
Mayo·< pat.-ick.c..ryan@bankofamcrica.rom>. "altcotion M3~·<ocratcs@bankkofamcrica.com> ,
"attention Mayo· <jo}ttschilling@bankofamcrica.coffi>. <ama~rkas@Omm.com>

December 9. 2008

Mohammad Kcsha\'ar/i

Shepp:l(u Mull in, U.P

.RE: REPEAT FILING OF OFFENDING 1-RAUDUl'&'\il' RECORDS IN COURT.

RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEClO, 2008, 5:00PM.

Noticeofsrnrt ofSare Harbor pe.riodperCCP 128.7­

Mr Kcsrovdr.a:

You (l:CCnUysent meoopyo( p<Jpcrsyou filed inoourt under the nameofSh.eppard MuUin, I..LP, for
motion to cstabl ish recovery, scheduled. for Nov 21, 2OOS.

1) Nosignaturcs were \-isiblc on mycopy. I requestthat)'ou forward to me copybcaring~r vistblc

OCC 8? 20eO 19:<1 tOO199130917 ~_02

- 90 -
to' ,....lI,"O?CUlOS 60.. P.~t! J 0. =.'] lOCO 'NS(GM" 1&01:1a80951 Ftorn·..,.Ic<'~ Z~

.. Paye 215 December 9, 2006

original Signatures. In case Ilhecopyyou filed in oou It does nol bear your signatu~ and you choose to
keep that papcr f~cd, 1 request lh."lt,}OO correct that situation e.'<pedicntly, otherwise ple.15C withdraw
~"1.lch pape~.
OJnd IlOlicf! me :lccordingly.

2) Your most reoo\t papers again indutled records produced in subpoena byCounaywtde, which were
the oorc orth~; litigation. [U'Jmplaincd in lhc past that such papers constitutro rrdud on numerous
aa:x:>unls. Such rea:>rUs \\l!re repeatedly fraudulently misrepresented. byyou as the product of fax
lrdl\Smission from Victor Fa des,loan broker, to Countrywide San Rafad. on Monday, Oc1.ober 25­
2004.5:03 pm.

3) [n fact, as made clear by l.".s Samaan in her-deposition, Mr P.~rl:s had nothiug to do Wlth3l1yoCit.
Amongotnerump~n fraud:.,throughoutthctransaction in?O04, Ms Samaan impersonated Mr Parks
in fax communications. This =rd \\-as nQexa:ption.

<:)This rcoordalso wasn~r rcoeived.by CounlJ)'wideon the date and time indicatroabove, LG)'QU
mi.'m:prcsentoo in court tn fact the lTdnsmission that generated that fax header imprint was {rom
Sam;);)n in Ws Angeles to hCl' husband in Los l\nSclcs. 1,,",'ClIl thtoUgh that issue in depth among other
opportunities, on august9, 2001. in openooult.

5) You have n~.\-e( provideda:lcqll.'lte authentication of that reo:nd when}Uu introduced it as evidence.
,and [ filed forsao:tlons against}Qu per<rr 1'28.7 for filingoffraudu[cnt C\-'COrds in court.

6) To avoid that heating, you scl1ool1led in coOfilct3nothec n hcaring" a'i)OU fraudulentlyC3l1ed it. with
retired Jud~ O'Brien, who had no authority at all to hold .my "hearing" ohny kin<.l

7) This court refuses to even cOI1firm lhatSamaan vZernik was ever a C2SeoCthe SuperiorCourt of
Califomia. Rq;ardless,}Qll were fully awOl re that such records wen; are, andalw3ys will be fraud, and
therefore any putpOrted order, dttl'CC,judgme.nt, or anyothcrouta>mc ofsuch litigation ...-as is, and
always \\iJl be null iUld void.

8) [n the most reamtpapcrs }ouomitt<Xi the fraudulent transmitM covcrsheet. RcgardlC5S. this
l'lXOro is the pwductoffroud, and it was in!rOdoco:l bY}uu as p.~rtor fraudu)cnte'\-idcnre

9) Therefore,l requestthatYQU immediately rcmoVl'-trus record from }uur most reo:'nt pending
paper.;

10) ThereforP, I:tISQ request that you submita.requcstfora llilJl!:pro tuncotdcr:

<1) to rnark:tll instances whcn:Sl.lch papcrappea.rs in the court. file as instances of fraud.
b) to vacate all (}nie~, decrees. jUdgments that \\~re based. on such fuiudulent real estate contract
record.

10) Pleascconsidel- this notice perOCP 128.7 for start ofSafe llarbor period.
;ARKESlfAVA,i\Zi &MRMlJl.JNGAGIQ: RESPONSE REQUESnID BY WED, DEC 10,2008,
5: 0 0PM.

n) Th is message iscopioo tnAlt John Amberg andAttJenna Moldav.slty. whoclajms tn be authorize to

\[(!present Counl:Iyv.-idc. Home loans, Inc. a subsidi,ary of BankofAme.rica. CQuntrywide Home lo<iiIs,
J[nc too is lU{UC!.1P.d tD tile mtucst in oourtfor the withdtawal Of stch fraudulent records ptodoorl by
Cou ntrywid~ Home Loans, Incas part. ofsubpoena prod.ucOOns tbat~re rcpl&with fraudul~~
.m::ords, and which tried tocntirclyfubricatcSamaan's 6:audulentloanapplications unde1Writing

[~:c B7 20i38 19: 22 1001,»,»,317 Pro':.e3

- 91 -
,.:) ~An)?o\.A.OS B~.:J ?.'I9t:" oil. :1oOa '2· 'llll: U'5 (GUT) '60199309'] f,_ Jo-..eph Zo<nac

• Pajje 315 ~ber9.2008

hi>tory.

.MRAMHF.RG AND MS MOLDAWSKY: RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10,2008,

5:00PM.

12) This notire is also forW3t'dcd to b.UTodd 13oocl<. Oluntrywide Home Loans., Inc, who VIas part of
the IJ,;jm unUer Mr Samuels, who devised thesubpoena fr.lud il1l 2006, and repeatedly provided
rr.. udulent n:>sponse:; to qUCS1ions in Meet and O.mrcr in 2007, then claimed. religiousobscrvaore to
void a ppear.mcc in motion to compeL Mr Boock is requested kJ authenticate the re<ll es~t.e contract
ro.:ord.oLhcrwise, to withdraNit from the rcaJrd,:md "iLh it thl' entire ClJuntIywidefraudulent
~'l.l bpocna,. and Lo ootitt the parties and the court i\a.x>rdingly. M r Book is a<mcding to Bank of
America Office ofGen~ Co l1ose1 the ornyone authorized to represent Ba nk of Mlerica Corporation.
That office had no rccordoflJryanCavc r.LPas authori7.cd to reprcsent Bank of America in this matter.
MR.fi<X>l{.: IU~PONSE RF:QUFSTF.J) BY WED, DEC 10, 2008, 5:00PM.

13) This notice is also fOlwaKled to:

MrIimoLbv,l MaWP-Qulos, :t\xCcuti~-e Vice President and Gen~ral Counsel

.Bank ofAmetica corporation (BankoI' America)

tOONT~nSt
NCl-oO']-!;6-H
Charlotte, NC :~~55
Phone: (704)J86-74B4
[lax: (704) 3]0-3515
'With the demands:
a) that Bank of Arnerb rorporation put an end to thi<; fraUdulent litigation and fa~ of<l coo rt,
progressing in its nnme in tiu; past six months,
b) that it v.ithdJdw the rraoou lent subpoenas prodllred by Sandor Samuels. Tcrld Boock and their
eol1eagues in the OOfT\1pt Lcg<~ Division ofO>untrywidc •
c) that thcymkcadion tQ.mitigatedamagcs,
.d} tbatthey £eIXlrtrn thequa.rterlyrepottforQ-fV 0[2008 such materialdcliciency - the compromise
of the ICr;J1 tc;Jm of Bank ofAmctica Corporntionresulting from incorporation ofthe ~I DiviSion of
Countrywide FInancial Oxp:>r<ltion ill its ranks pursuantlD

S<:dioo. 307 olS..rbanct-O:xky

Sin(:l;: malerial violation oflaw has occurred, is occurring and is aboulla occur again, as
set forth in section 3070ftbe Saroaoes-QJdcy Actof2Q02andth~SOCRule
promulgated there undcr:(lzCF!t 2Q5), the l,'enernl COlUlSe! must inform his superiors
~md lhe authorities. lltis no~cc may be in any form, blltshouJd conspicUQuslystatc that
it is bdng made. Wldcr:~~on 307 Qfthe Sarbanes-o~I!4'Act.

MRMAYQ.f'Q!.D..QS: RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10,2008, 5:00PM.

J'oscpb Zcrnik
Pax: 801<)98 0<}17

Tel: 310435 <;IlO?

rr.r: WI ~ 1<]:23 18'(l1~17 ffiE:04

- 92 -
 To ;I,IAYO.O;)LOS 110, P.~e ~ orb 2CiJ8<2·\IlOC 11 ~5(GMTI lftOI996D'Hl f"""·Jo=hlr.fn~

• ?age /J5 C8:embef 9. 2~ ..

·:f4r.MaYOIioula,·: . ' . . ,". " " .." ,

" :n~lieY:ethafyou rc n honest man.Your·hclpis \·ctYmuc;hnccdlld.insetting~ejfistiCe¥rriiri LA ...
, ,strq~t:Jjustcame back from WaShU1gtmi DC, ",nere I iOO:senior legal Stalfto SenatorS aOO '.' . , ..
·:~p1_en;·requestingth3ttheyinitiatiih'eiuin~~ntl\ecor:iui)lj~ce~mof:LA:tOu"n,tY .. ,~r,.
Samuels'andCoUnliyyiicle ha<lino,~ than bitlodo with iL YOll't1~ in allniquc positi<ln.,v!~er\; you could
"inpri;n'elhe.SJ,fl.-guam ofthcdvil nghlsofthe9,5 millions who l'~ h~.%' ...heI\'Mnan OwJi;eer, U.s:
Jl!dge, appOinlOO in 2001 as partoflhcCoosenl Docrec(2;:2OQOcvlI769-GAF-Rq could not make any
illflere nee. ' . ." '.'

!'RA~!t . .'.... ' . . . . . . ... ".: .'

:'rhc.::m<,stoulra8eous par-tof the prQblcm is thatrepo.rts:Ui~ic3tethatthE?~8r~>," '.
:(:>&mA~ed. thousands ofp'~ople; m,~t1Y.()I~~b~Y hla~ andmj.norili~,,:wbowerc.' .
:confirmediqnocctlta~~}·.iO.~'earS llgQ;but had,~f~...i01~ .. l?Y ~o.'':':P~~!~~ :Sucb ,
··,fin<;lin.gs,wcrc.~.!!~rmc4·llgtlin:~m~.a~in.bY3()~:4:i.n~,gl1~~c~~ui¥o:~~~~a~_::
.. T~~la.~oftl!cm IS.the E:lucRjbbonl'Cportof 2006; T'Cf~ri(;'cdbclQ\'(.:~~·P90P.lc·
.. ,
:l'\t'C stillJaL..el.y imprisollod in.LA ColJJltyn-lndcr.thc BillofRightS;'and Onc:N:ati&n Under.
God:, . . " . .' <,.0: :" . :-, C', ., ,:' ...
MrMayopolltos, let Inc as:surcyou;if}'Ou'affectthc relcaSc,ofthesc peop'(e;:wlii~ti I
beticveis ~vithin your powers, YQuwoul<Lb~yyour, place in US. :ru5tor};." ' ... ,'" .
!'lcasC,.1 pray, let tl} is be your ~~~alprO'60Jloproj~:t,pl~~ove~is. bligl>. t from" .
then~le..orthcUt1itcdSta~esoft\rncri~;· . ' .. : ' ..• ::'.<:", " .' ,

" J:oseppzeroi ~

·. .,,:I7.XCERPT(P48l: )"~ -.... , .. -.

.. - .. .'.

..:" WhiI.1bo ,:rioai=! jmti<>< sya-<O<IId .usUlu ""-""00: ..,, ,:. . -- :; ~' ',', .
. .. of crimi... 1pnmcutiolU b1at<d ~ lU.....rt C1USR e6CnJpli ·: " , ..
'lhounn4J 004114 h .......u'aat 1!l«lOll.psc oflhetlllUT l.A C.<ullY:'>..
,criaWul j..t1<e owan-tw...vcae. fo...." .. (edcnl p""'«llcoq~bo.
a.
· ,....ned (be ""'o'it...k of..... .. tbn>ot \let 1U"'l'~ _ .
. ......
· -{."hI""to""'-pohall"Uy too bie;C<>< tb< ""Ib" (r-.(,niDC CO th,
'SOOQdaboftb< los~... ~<r,,",n). su..ibc-cvid<.«or ..
, coutoi"",,,,. ~ ,~d~"","'lcni<-'n '"p~~ 1lo?nI. of,
llI'l"iry lo\~MtllIbtrs ol!ll, Bo>cd ollllqlllry">.....-t.;· . -.
.: . ,prodllct W<:..-l<ip:UOOprcpo<iedibl ...I>Ul Uoor p".....,ed Lb<" , " .
· r-c--.h of :R»,...,t ous:a: "laaml ..110 ..... grodq-o( <iO It!to M~. :o. .. ',
lhey (""ad 'ac""cts' 1"1:' III~ Wl..... Cl<ey -.kod I" bw>c.h. " .
· broa<l~ i"'tuilJ' iato M.tro. tll<Y'll'c!I .lclld.il ~""d c(,( ~p"o " .
. '. boa....., M,1l'o 'KlU QQloocbablc.'· . . . . , '. 0 . ' •
." .'
_.
/' ".- :".:
...
.... F"c:iDl:" d""o< ~ caAbiom•• t or caWtropbldail....... !Il<l: ,.~ .' ~~

'op<nlon"""1S)'/zll)' b'UlIfot'CUlrul pron-«d~ a.a,d -,

,J"":n"""on.blyd.oo,. coodaiom<nl..(tiJ DOl Thai iu·oli>·id~ .
0('t'alitiMc:omp\nd1o('()Vtr"P~Cioo;it is Ibn wb~!1' .
..ind... 00 lU lnI< .n... ,01""~ Ul<y.imply~.~ it.
. - " ..~' ~-

'., ,.~FJ3RENC£-::

' ...:. bltp:.l(inp[Qpe1jnla:comfoo-<;~Q:@[JjPj!rt·~e:rL~~~n~.2Q9Q-JXPQrt~f

.'

O€c r;n 2008 19:24 1001~17 f'f'GO.e5

- 93 -
 To.I,tAYIDPO~OS 80. p~ G<J/6 2':lO&-!7·10 00/1 <5 cGMT! 111£1/99&091' From Jo<.cphl"'M'

• r3Ge~ ~~9.20?8.
·lWDITIONAl;R.EFE~~.:·, '. , . : : . . . . '.' ..... . _:.
.' J\d~a(doCUri:ien~[J;'indud¥ng r~ud ~ opini0J11et~el~n;: ftiud. in this litigation.in .: .
. Samaan v Zernik.ca,n·be:viewl:daC . .' '; '. . " '. '. '. .

L h!!P.:/LinproperinJa.comIOiJ-IO-26:dQ£-41 -O)ll ngywide..fr3u c1-underwriting-\elter.Nf

2. h!!:P.1Li.nwperinla.(X)lt1./Qo1-10·';!6-opjoion·leUe1"<Q\ml.n'\!ide·u!!lerwriting-I~·26-~W1·
3. btm:/Iinproperinlsuum/o1-QQ-oz-samaan=s-pregualifjcation"\ettet,pdf<':' . . .
<I: hUl>~nerin!1l,roml94::Q9:<rJ:-9mrtion-letter ..~~i[icajon-Jdter-$.Jlill ..

',5·.. hUp:/fi.npro~4-QQ-27:OOc:.4Q::;amaao·frnudu)e(Jt-l\NJI-awljca~-s,~

6: : hltp:/linproperinla.c:orojo4 =Q9-;tl1lilma;m:<;QuntIv",jde=fr'mdu!cnl-loan·appiitaOOn.pg[ .'

7· ..··http;lJinP£Q~rin1ac:omIo4:;09=27.HIO-letrer-fu"d:iD-~p=~lijl1iccl.Wm~gqat;\!~tx!f
!~ .hUp:llinpi'operinla.et)m/o.~-lO-18-wire-fraud-pJ_pdf·· ". " . ":": -.:C<:-::". . ....
· 9·:h~;lJinpropctin1a.c:om/OH()-I6-9-eimil.'j-iM'e-wiIC':fux·fr~ ." .'
I,p: htto:/IiIll:llOpcrinlaoom /04"10-25::0011 n~ad\\ltcrato:i-biancb-;nput-e>:reption-rcquc<>t~·
'.: :1l:http://inproperi n1awm/(M-IQ-2y<!oc-4'i=coontJ''N:ideefiaud:rontraet-rwrd.jxlf ., .' ..
: 'j 2. h\tj)J.LinProperinlamm/Q.i-] Q-261:iJu otl}'Widc=fraudu\cnt·ui1d.eiWtiuc-1eJ.ter-s.mf· .
· ·1~~http://irlProperinla.oom/o6''07-1<H3m3:m-deposi!ion.pd( . . '.: .' . '.
·~.J4·:bttP;/ljnproperinJa,oomlo·l:.Q2=Qfrw\ln!rywidiC=f@udl1lenk'Ubpoena'productjon~.pdf .
· '15: http;lfinpmperinh.com/,QI):) l-09-d0c-:38-t-sx>/Jotn'Yi<k:mclautin-filJ:;!Micelillmions..Pd!· .',
1.6 .!JUp: UinwpeMla.oom lotH t-U<Hloo-38-2-OO\ln!JJ:wid,e-m<:laurin-fal~mti2Ds.pQ( __ . :,:...
... I?,~~Ii.lJla,WID/.Q:r·Q2-20-bct·tzedck·\'Idr~~m\lels-hcfQre-lettc(pdf.~&imuels ..
. ... thetliludStir as·:frai)dbu~f.': . : " . . :..::.'.. >'< >.... .< ... ".:. '. : .... : :::
". . "., .. ~-' '. . ,'-,': ":- ,,"

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

-'-,.

..\­
.' .

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

. .....
: .

<­

- ... ~.

.. '.:,

.....' . .
. . .• . • . •.• •~.·•.~C:<> .

.•... .
.':~. :.<'~
.; '; ,/.' .. ~.- :: ~., . ... '

.......

...... '.

to. .~:-' -.- :.

-'.r .,.,.' ...... ,. - .•';.
-.. : . . :::::-.XL ,'.
. ..... -..
: .:. .....
. .'~' ~ . . ',' ..... -~ - :-'
-,'

ocr: e7 ~ 19~25 1801998B'317 Ra2.·eG

- 94 -
- 95 -
. ;." . . . . ,
... .....:~~;.. :.' " ~.:' .. ": .'.
. . ." .. . ", .
J\I LIH·IHX~

DEC 09 2008 22:51 F OF Al1EP. I CA 7043864579 J18042642082 p.et

""'. .-:,- ""'",:"''"'-f&

~ ~il
. 0IglI#t~
" by Jo1qlll Z".1o:
.Ilfl:m-~

&ii

. z.......

1!i.t~ ) . ~ qMl.,..m45~
~
8¥ec.1M\~
Irk(: ....CC\,l>
. ~

~ lOO«.11 0<
11"JS.Sg o(llj'QO"
Joseph Zemik DM>AlI)
F""'l60t)99~17 'Emaa: j>:t2345@eatlNinl<.rlcl
V\o.-~ 804·1AP4 '-z08~
" Judge 1IhJ(J bo ktldrl1JJ to tho lilW....
~Codo.oJ_J.!lIll

"ThQ rofe oflowmustne.VflI'b, coniUsOO'wttn t:Tnnnyo'thec~

~
KENNETH 0, LEWiS
Chainnan, OlitfElleculive Officer artd Prcsidelll, Bank of Menu Corporation

KEITH BANKS

Pn:sidenl, Global Wealth &. IllYeStmeOt M~I;I\I, Bank of America Cocpolation

Risk &. Capital Commiuet and Management Opet1l.lill(l Conunittee

AMY WOODS I3RINI<.LRY

Clobal RUk Exeeutivc, Bd of America Corpomtion
Rj"sk &. CapitB.I Committe<: and Managcmr:rrt Operating Committee

JO£L. PRICE

OUcfFlnancial Officer. Bank of America Corpomtion

Ri3lc &, Cspi~1 and Man.ag<:ment Operating Commiltecs

TERESA M. BRENNER

Associate Gencral CoUl1SC1

WillIAM J. MOS"fYl\!.lII

Dcputy General Counsel

and CofPOralc Secrelary

NEILA.conY
Chief Accounting Officer

BANK. OF AMERICA CORPORAnON

100 North Tryon St

Dank ofAmerica Cctporate CrolCf

Charlotte, NOtth ClLrolina282SS

M: R«ruest for immediate intervention and curlliog of Salldor Samucls. Ttmc is oftlle ~Otl

Sir,Madam:
My recoo1s show that in any february 2008, I sent ddl of you a certified letter, infocming you ofmy abuse at
l~ hand:> ofCAool)Wjde. prior to YOlQ'takeover. J c;>(pcx:tcd \hal. followillg tho take O'fe(" my abuse wooId be
51Opp<xi This isthefoorth yeMthat 1m the subjoctofabuse by Coontrywide. ftswtedoo Stptonber2004
w~ Nivic Smwn prcscnIt<l me with A muOOlenl prequaIifleation letter, then filed fnwOuJent loan appUc.3tions
v.ith CountryWide, while ~ throughout ll1e ttmsaetion in witti,lia fraud agairnt me an agaiJ\St
CounO'ywi« (but ill wUu.sil)l'\ wilh Br1llIch M~ MAria Mclaurin) by impet$OOllling a loan brolcer - Vicroc
Paro in fax cooununications:
h!!I!:lr!!!pl'<>p.ginlll~{j7~m?4'H-proguMfigltiQn-I¢t2r·pdf
t1IT.p:lr~a.oo~.o1-opinion-letter.futJd·i!l:pro.lualilkaiQO~dta-s.JXIf
http:lrl!lJ'f92Crinlll.oouvtl4-9H7~SlIJlL18I1.fiaudulent.lo8n-appli~

- 96 -
DEC 89 zaee 22:51 F, OF AMERICA 70<13864579 J180426421382 P.02

• Page 2h) OllCOl'Tlbor 4,200II

httpilinmlpcrin(a.c0m/04.09-27-<lplnf9n-ldler-~~in-iQllP-'appf\c;~tions:§ignaturc.s.pdr
h!lpJ/!nj)f~~n[a.wmI044)-27-samaan-<:owltJyWidc-&audu.lent-19an-8PPlication.pdf

hl1p:l1.i npr9perinJa,c~l!nI04-1 0- '4 -<XlUl1crywi tle-mderwriting-l@!-s.rill

h!!I1.Jrmpropgi nla-camfG4- IO-18-9-gnails -in-re-wi@-f8Jl.!iau4,p<lJ
The trans;u:tion never matcciaJi=:l :IS a result or such fraU<!s, But S<im<Wl, Mclaurin, and otht:rs had a bade-up
plan - 10 obtain the property through a CQ1lrt fraud.•
A totally new histol}' was invented for the 1()lIJ1 applications., in II process that Involved Maria McLaurin - Branch
Manager, Nivie Samaan· Borrower, Viet()( Parl<s - Loan Broker. Mohl:Immad Keshavarzi (Sheppard MlIUin) ­
counsel, and he Arre Lloyd - the brains behind the scheme. Maria McLaurin provided fiaudulent declarations,
cnd the Legal Divinoo p(ovided filIudulOlt 'ubpoenas ofdocuments:
!!!rot~n1a~nV.OHeading-IJ2.ooc.38-a:>lll!trYWitlq-mclatxin-fube'9gj6ratioos.pgf

~~ 25~ Nivie S~ a maw btIYtl, wIJo tailed to get her fraOOulCSlt IOllfl applications approved.
sued me tor Spcx;ific Perfu~ or damages. The fiaudulcot claims in the complaint were Cl'lliRIy made up.
But nobody in his oc her rigltt mind would have filed such complain', unl= she knew fully wel~ how to coMCd
with the right ju~ and that that Countrywide, at all levels would support sucl\ an endeavor. In short, reYicw of
the c;rsc is likely (() lead to the ronclusion that samaan!l3ll coeuullerli willi l(1jge Coooor even befOC\: filing the
complainl
Similarly, lhe eoo<Jua ofBrym C<1'JC, LlP• lind S\qlpard Mullin indicate:! that lhcy too ~w clCadly Y<t1at they
wac ooing, and were fully coocdinalod wrth ~ judges. In short - a (~vil cowt system, wftidl j~ 11I<e m mtu the
crimilllJl COllrt system in Los Angt:lcs. is ~otircly COCTUpl MOfCOva-. [hold that such a system was part ofthc
in~!hat allowed Cwnttywid<; and 1M sul>-prime aisis to fully deve\op in SoUlhem California

1) In D~Ot!mbtr2006-I disQ7Ve/ the frllJld ill OuntrrnldesuhpMna pro4pction, and S()(}fl a{tu that -thal
it Ml.\' a corrupt oa:rmirptwn monlinak tlet'iJIiIr, MlIrrc:/JIOl!alI'f9fI: 9(an lrrt/htJdual
I was not supposed 10 know any ofit 10 fuct, I never had any busirH=ss with Countrywide, 3nd did not. even
rocogniz.e [he name. But in November 2006 I got suspicious that my COIlllSel for &. year and a balt; Qunics
Cwnrni~. was dishonest, and in IJ<x:embef2006 I went to his ofJio; BOd asked to review the disrov!'1}' files
(~I bad nO lcl~wIcdge ofthc la.w. ( did not tin<! My usc [or readi08 the lcgaI pleading:l). Within 15-30
mimJ1eS I reali7.M Ihat Courrtrywide. a mol1gage lender ~ colluding.with Sartwm in producing fillUifuJent
/'CCOfds, and that my counsel did not l¢1I me any ofil Eventually neoffi%ed me a $15,000 fees wa!vce (() leave hi~
office.
A runpJe OfCOWltrywidc subpocna (OllC ofS. almost idwtil:al, all m.~l.Iding ~ fi-IluduIent rooor<ls), C3It be
S«:l1 at
hl1p:l(U1pr()~nlll..c.omI07 ~--o8-i:ounlIywjds·fraudulent -subpoaJaj)roduetion-e-s.pd(

£n Q¢Qg)Iber 2006 J starte<.I by calling the Legal Division, the Olsmdian of Reoords, the Attorneys - Todd Boock
and larer- Saa!onl Shatz, BJld the San Rafael Branch Manager· Maria MclAurin. Pretty fast it \x;camc obvious
that it was not a ClISC ofone p¢fSOIl, e.g, the BC3lIch M8IIllgCf, who mislead the sttomeys. Instead, I&e p~ that
ernaged w.tS UJat !ulIfa year OCII year earlia, bcfuce I even knew tha lll1II1e Coucrtlywide, 1 \"lIS ~ fix real
~c liaOO, and the-I all worked as a v.cll rd1earse<l team in PluduciI1g the ftauduleotsubpoo1a n:coob to wpport
SWUllI11'S fralJduJent claims. The 00fUlcd1011 was that /let hwband. Ja~ Arre Uoyd, appateI1Uy a ~ white
collar crime expert, was ll"loan originsW" for San Rafael Branch.

- 97 -
DEC 09 2008 22:51 I. '\< OF AI1ER I CA 704:J86ilS7~ 91S042S42B82 P.13J

• PiI\f.l3."J 0e03m00c4,2008

2) &utr UJ(J7 - co",p!ninJs 10 FBI are rebuffed.

I Iud no ba<:kground in law, in banking in mlJftgBgCS or in real ¢Sla\c,. but I had to (earn itsll. By J!W1llIy 2007,1
filed the first compWot wilh !he FBI. against CoulIlJyWide lII1d SamIl8Il. Amoog oIher claims I made WM the
claim tlUl1 the wholesale lnaoch was involved in massive fi'llud against the U.s. Government. The scope of it I was
not sure of.
By March 2007. r made fil'Sl estimates !hal the liability to the U.s. g.:IYemlIlel11 was in the hundreds of billioos,
and that was when the FBI told me to stop 6Iillg papers at all I also ligurod out some specific lillud roetbods used
in such wholesale IxancllCS rtlalivc to the opantioo of Edge, an relative Ii) the opetatiOll oflhe fax s([vt'l'i.
By J~ and ugain by March 2007 I mod romplaints with Office ofThrift Supc:rvisioo an Fe:xfaaI Trade
ColllIIlksion. Both ag~ handkd the complaintsdishooe:stly, tlying tGCO\oW up Countrywide's unlawful
rond(lC\, but the Office offede::al Trndc Commi:lSioo was unabdlcd in this conduct.
By M;ych 20QL I aISQ manaeed to locale the originatlJndetv,ritec ofSamwl's loans. Diane Frazier, wOO was
laid offin early WOS. r figurodout fiom the undcnYriting ~ lhcstrugg1c bctwccn MBriIl. McLaurin, Branch
Manager, and the Br.ItlCh Sen1<lr Underwriter - Diane FraziCf and Oll'pOl'llte Undcrwriting Officer - Dcmrnio
Qadi, ill a situatioo where McL.1urin was blalantly pushing !.hem around in her delamination to ~ fraud
OIl the u.s. Govanment an 0/1 Colll1trywide share holdooJ as \Yell (SMlasn \lnL~ otkred no foes on a loan tJut
required 0.75 %
foos).

J) Mardz 2QO 7 - [.m I but fIIJ{ l4st dea1Jr Ihroz/

Diallc F..,.zi~, in a lenglhy phone call ()Il MllOCh II, 1lX[1 in the aftI~oon, cooficmed what I have figured oot
from the underwriting rerocds, and added much ~ b:> my Utlder.rtaoding oflhe rorrup( operations in san RafucI
and the Legal DivWo1\ headed by Sandor Samu~l!l. BIIt Ihm: was no way !hat the Intcmal Audit OJrnmittee,
headed by Angelo MQziJo WllS functional, ifSarruw1's k>an applications ~ pn:s<:ll1xXl in Jantwy 200S foe
funding to Countrywide Bank (end immodiat.e1y dMied).
1M WhM I called again, on Mllf'Ch 14,7JX)1. a lTUln 8flSWCl'ed Ihe phone (of Fl1l2ier, 90d claimed that she YI1IS 1IO
longer there. Moreover. he explained to me that Fooet was nc:vcr 3<lppooed 10 talk with me about Countrywide.
She was probibitOO from talking about lhe subject. He then told m~ rnaUrro(fuc( - "/ you mll "er(~again-l
will at~ ~wrr to LA (U/4 gun you ef4ll'r1. .. When I tried to ~ subpoena for dl:position, my savice pooplc
SUlkforl the hou'>e for days, Frazier, wI10 was very happy to coopet8t~ with me by phone disappeiUed, end they
W~ told thatshc no Icmgu lived there. I recently called the numbcr again, 8IJd Frazier ~cd the pOollC again.
Obviously somebody was hiding II material witness in this case of Cl:ll'pOtlIle 6uud 011 a gnmd scale.
frazier's COntact information was lll1d still is:
4329 Gloria a

R.ohnetl Park, CA 9491.8

(701) 586-1479

4) AftL~ W MIu:d (or Mtni/5l ~ tutJl S/utrIJds, Ju1p in J1i)(Jplng flu! fraud ~ i¢ unan.swq¢. 4JIJ1
C.«JnirywUh's fraud recortk ~ tltt (oundtdion o{SaJrtagn's ~lf!ieatitm.
Some of~ recoo1s that were obviously liaudulel11, and served as the fOlllldation for the fraudulent claims by
Samaan~e;

a) Ulldeewrittng Lettef' d. tOO October 26, 2004, Ylhich Countrywide aod Samaan frau<:Ivknlly rqJreSentc.d
ill ootltas a valid underwriting Ic:tterdatedOctober 14,2004. In fatt, it was neYet'partofthelrue loan
application file.. That record with some exp!an31ocY rnataial can be viewed at::

- 98 -
DEC eg 2008 22:52 F~ OF AI-lERICA 7043:364579 ,I ae4 264 2082 P.34

• Pngo 410 Doolmber 4, 2006

http://~ril'l11l..coml04-1()''U-doo-44-rolllltrywide-Cl'llud.ulldtnYrit~.pdr
By now, my MSCltion offraud rdative 10 the dstil18 of !his t'e<Xlf'(! is also suppocYrl by the opinion leiter of
natiOlUllly lIl:Claimed fTaud specialist:
II «P:/IJI!ID"Opcrillla. co11l/04.1 0-26-opin.iCln~tter-eouDtrywidl>U ndenmling-te«eJ<-Od-26-s.pdf
b) Copy or a real ~tIl.tc cootnltt thaI was tbe product or flU lnll1smLsslon marked ItS of Oe:t 25 2004,
5:0Jpm.
NOllC of the rewnh was ever authenlkaled, illld in this <;asc, the record was fiaudulauly ropl'CSClll.td as
faxed from Loan Broker Pm to COootJywkIe JL the time indkalcd. above. In tiltt, at lhaI time il WllS
faxed from Samaan lo her husband Lloyd, a5 part of a o:lllVOllltO:l fix/win; fraud SGhc:rne against a.
financial instittrtioo, but in c:olll&OI1 with the BnmclJ Manager - Maria McLaurin. £n &a. most of the
rccocds in Samaan's (oan file that bear an unidet11ified fax header imprint belong 10 thatsclleme..They are
mllC!e to appear as if they amvllCl 81 COOQtryWick at tlwllime from Parks. But hI fact, SlIlIUIlIIl was
im~ Parks in filx commlJl\iCl!fions dtaing that whole period, am the timt that these !"«lOrds
arrived in Countrywide (by email, flO( by fax) was much Iar.er (weclcs laIer aI times). All oflhis WllS or
OOU!Se in violation of "sound banking principles" IlIld Ikgulatioa B of the Federal Reserve. FQr
clC3mple., judging by the UndefWTiting ~ the: ll'COrd in 2) above; was not PJrt uf the LoWl
Appli<:ation file evoo by ~vr.mbcr~
~ real estate contrllCt r~ QII be viewed at:
hltp:lflllProtKrinIJl.CQmIQ4.IO-2S-d0c--4s-rotlDl:r)'wW(\-!ntud~ntrnct~n1.pdr

By MBrdt 2007 (also sml the fiI3t lenm, dlttctly to SlUldor Samuels and Angelo Moz.ilo, as the two individuals
In whom lbe integrity o(the opaatiorn was moot clearly vested, Iltld,~ tbsI they Quthalti~ or JqJUdiatc
some ofthe moot clearly fraoouloot rc:cords. They neva responded, 8nd Ihe I..q:al Divi~iQn Wc1:i ~ in
rnanipuJ ation to avoid lIJ\ honest atl compld.e productiOll. Por example - the l...egal Division dccidod lbat email
Yr'ele exempt.•• and Judge Jacqucline Connoc (best known forderailil'lg the Rampart trial in 2000, which led to the
appoiollnenl of a civil ngllls Ov~ (oc Uls Angeles), cut ltlY disc.c,vay time 'hort-
By Juno< 7JXJ7. I found oul that Me SlIlJIuels was the President ofa charity that goes by the numc "House of
Jwtice", ;md thaI he WlIS advertising on the weh a campaign IIgai11St fi'allds.
TI!at arlvati~emct1t can be viel'o't:d lit
.!!t..4!:ffillproperinla..com/07~lQ-;b#.tzcdel<·,,~w~ml1~~
Thuefure. by t8.1e JlV\I'\ 2007 [followed up on !he suggestioo in the ;ldv~ (left a.soaJ brown evefopo in
the offioes of Ikt Tzedek eddfcssod 10:
SanOOr Samucls

Prelident ofthc Board

Bet Tzcdcl<

Personal and ConfcdeotillL

In the envelope (left a Idler. with copie3 ofa couple ofthe na1.d \'CICOl'ds lis1ed above, and ll9kod Ibat he help stem
the fraud against me by eitbel' ~licatiJlg or repudWing the reoot(ls as filieIy rqx-esentl:d in coort-
The response was swill The: wd> sil<: of Bet Tzcdokdisappc:ared within 4& huuls, 8J\da weekoc so later, wbc:n it
~ thae was flO ll'at:e of Samuels and his CIlJIlpaign against fi'aud in it anymore. The wOO site was
actually en older \'l:rSion from 2005:
hltp:frmpr<lJl¢nb.romI07..{l6.W-OOuntryl!ide-bet-tuddc-&-ab1l~

- 99 -
DEC 09 2008 22:52 Fk : OF ANER ICA ;'13113864579 • J18oa42642138Z P.(3S

• P<lgC 5/} Oecembet 4, 2003

At the same time., Angelo Mozilo also had a web site in which he anno!IDOed his oommitment to Iiaud preventioo,
o.nd that he o~ a 1tfn fraud Hot Line. I Iried to call thallim llUmaOUS times,lo fRX ~ Mozilo, etc. BIlt the
£leVer- got any r6SpIlnsc. and wbc:n r tried 10 follow up, it rumcrl oul that Illy IctlctS, 18xl".'.! always disappeared.
I then dccidw 10 email directlytobolhMoziloandS..muels.ldid Mt know their emailllddtess.but[COl\.lttUCl.Cd
it in aaordance with the SYJ\CL~ ofolhcr email addres= in CounlIy\",dc

5) July 2M] -staIt o(rdnllrI11on, harassmntJ, and sevu~ abust!O(my c:Ml rights flv counsel 1M CoUIl/ryIY/4~
- 8!')IQ" Q:rn; UP
The response was swi 11:
On July J, 2OQ1 I received the first leuer of many, from Je(jna Mlltda'I'Jsky and JObO Amberg, (Bry2ft Cave,
LLP) IIIId [ was lold to appl:llT on h!ly 6, 2007 for an ex parle application by Counlrywide for 8 Prolcctive Or&:f.
which was n) Not 31 lowed lit that time, since disoovcry had already been temlioaJ.¢;l, and b) Was a not so vdlOO
cava- for a gae ordel" against ~
BUI ortly much later, I reali7.ed that the procedure W1lS conducted wt\l~Q the Court ofJudge Connor was "dark",
both flgUnltively and lilcrally. thM-: Wil'I no cleric pr=rt, an tllcrc; WlIS no ()(her person thuc for rotJrt business but
us. In short - it was It proetdure off the r=xd and olfthC calendar.
Judge Coollor did ll<Jt award the requ~ gag orda- Olllhat. day, or :lO I was told. Judge Coonor was nevef to be
seen. 1\ pet'SC,f\ I have IlCVet'seen befOl'e or after came out lO tell us Ithe 0U1C0lne. No miruJte onIer was isru<xI
for that pro<;¢jwe b the plIp(fCQUIt file, lltld in the sect'Clivc LA Superior Court oompulCfSsystcms it k written
with the rollUJl1:l\t "Procedure nol ncorded':
Months 1alC(, wllOll demanded thal Bryan Cave, LLP, c.xpllill how sud\ proccdwe was scheduled, Dill of
compliance an in violation ofthc law, and in 5eVoe3lmc ormy civil rights, the only response (go( wa11haL
llolhing improper was OOIle.

6) Countrtwi4e asswnd a status ~ ~ Ia... ill t& u,:s Ary:d('s SJy!eriM Court K'itJI pumisribn (0 mgagi!
til criminal CtJruhId with 1M ble:s$irrg o{tM OJurl i!sel{

Judge Connor ofb« own V(Jlitioo scheduled anolh.:( hcas1n& for J uJ@....2OO7 to continued that requesl, IIIld she
allowed Countrywide CD re·tile It new ~uest, since the first one WIIS so 0Ull'agaJu$ly abusivoc thal ~ pl'Ob8bly
felt wtcomfortlblc with it at alL But she never get a deadline roc CoIlllitlyWide to file the new moving paper>,
while she did s& a deadUne ()ll 1m: lOr Tuly 12, 2007. AI the end r n:lIliz.e,d that (/lc ~llJQving papcz$ ~ S(t]l
by ernai~ on ltl¢evtning of July 11, 2007. I ooti<:eda ~OI\ltlyt.maiJth3L8latgepacbgcc:ould ootbe
ddivrn.rl
[0 court Judge Connor stated that she would sign a protWlvc order £.OC Countrywide, Ixa in IiId, ITIOrd\3later,
whe11 for the tlrst time I was allowed to llJ:C('SS the Cowt file, Ireali21:d tbal site newr issued such en orner, on the
coolral)', she deliberetely n::wrded denial oCtile Proposed On1<:l"Sof<:ountIywi6e.
III Los Aoge1e:; Superior Coott - neither I nO( my coU03d wm: allowed any aocess or any notice of lilly COlIlt file
paper.! for aJrnost 2 years. [ was aHowed I.O~ some ofthe court file for the first time ooIy in-August2001, ahnOS't
two years since !he start oflitigation, and day prior to summary judgmmr hearing, based on fraudulent
Count1)'Wide n:cords. To this V<:fY day [ am lIOt allowed CO inspect the computer court file in !his case. in
viotatiOll of the California CooJ1 RHIes, and IIIe law of Cafrf0rrU4lU1d the United States.
The basic idea v.as that I was not allowtd to i2Sk: CoUlUywide vtyUUDg about the fraI.Id they w:::re papetratiIlg
against me. (was also denied the right to tile compu~ fund claims against Countrywide in Coonor's oourt. In
fact 10 thi, very dale, it is not c1Q- v.1'lat Countrywide statu> was in 1haI court.

- 100 -
DEC as 2ees 22:52 F. OF RMEP.JCA 70<13864579 19042642082 P.(J6

• P3ge~ 0amm00r 4, 2006

CountJywide claimed to be "Non-PlIl1y", buLlhe court intelUlarigMbly dc:signac.ed it Plaintiff, Dcfundant,

Jntefveoor, ObjeelQr, Cross-<lcfen</.wlt, with no reason or I~ fO\llldilJi01l at all. Court records wm written in a
rnaMer lhat \Ya.S clearly mcanllo hide the presence ofCoonlIywidc in the COtKt room.

7) In a:rates of[1UUJ!s by th~ Sgt1/l1!UI. U1Unlryw!di; and the 0H.lrt, I war d£s1J<!SgW!i ofmv how-
a) SttJ1uk ofFrauds Fraud
Sa.tnlllm fil~ het complaint in OcIobcr 2005 with no COIIlnct in il On January 30, 2OQ7. J~ Connor ovaruJoo
my demurrer on SIlltutC of frauds.
In lata July 1001, over a year and;l halflal<'%" she 3.llowed SamllafllO 'mt~ as evidcna; for the lim limc.lho
CQl\lrntt 4e5cribcd above, which was ooIy produoc;.d by Countrywide. and flO ~ party, as 100 QQIltTllct th31 was
!he .wbjcct oflhe litiglltion. in Reply bOcflo SUIIlI'mI)' judgment motioo by SlIrwaIl
b) FraM"fmt Summtl/Y JudgtnenJ Ht4flng
On Aug\l519. 2007 Judge Connor purpoMlly h::atrl a motion (orsurnmary judgment. The standard of
adjOOication in such motion i.91hat the finding is required of "no dlsput4bk IfIfJkriDlfadS". At the time ofthc
he<Uing. I iuId 00 Ill!: coort calemlar for Sept 10, 2007. a hearing OIl ~.anctionsagWist Sheppard Mullin QQunscl,
for knowingly filing in court !he fraudulent tecords from Countrywlde, such lIS th: ~(lg Idtl:r of Oct 26,
'*
2004, mi5repcesentcd as of OCt 14, 2004, and the contract misrepresented as arriving Countrywide on Oct 25,
2004. Obviously the VC{'j core liIcts in this case lNtte olSputable.
c) &tty OfJUQgmml FTrw.d
On M!gust 9, 2007 judge Connor rCll<lered a Judgmea.t for specific pcrformonoo to cJnpel me 10 sell the property
to S3maan, for a pri~ \hut Cl\ceeded market value. am with 00 attorney fees to bo poi~. The Judgment can be
Viewed 31:

httpJfinproperin'Il.GOfIIIU1-o8-09-iudr.mea~~(t\t-5.

But il was clear 10 me for /TlOIIths by tnaltimc, that the litigation ~ entirely ~ ftim A to Z. rt was also clear
to me, ba3cd 00 ~ing , tim the target WllS my equity money. and lhat the method ~ ~c pafOlTIJ3llce for
a couple ofreasoos:
i. Derived from equity courts, it dQeS no{ require a jury trial. makil'g frw.d
ii. GM::n its unique 1Ulure, the uecution exposes the escrow proc=<i to ~by the court.
III the m<mth ti18tfoUowoo.1udgc CoonQr ~ in fraud relMivc b) theeooy.ofdle .u4gmcDt. She never
entered the judgment, but tried to nuke ~ recoro M coovoluw:l as p~ble OIl that Why she never enlcrod
the judgmCflt? f have some good ideas. Ho ..... oould she do it? fl is easy wlnltili are r= allowed. 10 see
the ooort records, as is the= in the LA Superior COOft.
d) Appofn1moll offrtlJU1JJknt "Escrow R~aa" - Judg~ O'SrluI
On August lU. 1JX)1, in open 0)tJ(t, judge Connor SllII.ed !hat she ~ gotog 10 issue order appointing an
escrow referee. lrt opon court, by !hell knowing he( fuurlrootines, I s.s/o:ed Judgc to be "'4i1igent' lIlld
issue ll:ll order that was in COOIplian<:e with the law. On the transcript she stRtoi that had no inleftioo to do so.
ThaelOre, when the m= contadcd me, [ demandl:d lfIlIl the rUtroo prcsr:nt hls
Shepp<ud Mullin and &1mun were OOOe<:4 by the court, but I was ~ aIlowro to
mace, a rdin:djudge pr=ted for the found4lion ofhis aulhority Qln be soen at:
http1/joproperinla.mmIOW-07-oooeM-p!lpe!S-s.pdf

- 101 -
DEC 09 20138 22;32 F v. OF AI1ERICA 704~1864579 )1813426421382 P.07

• p0ICl6 7f<j

I was amazed at the cooperRtioo of retired Judge O'Brien in sud! a bud.. But he ""as ~ot de(crrcd, and coolinue
his obstruC{ioo <XJIlduet \UJtiL early Qc.:toOO--, when he ~igned.
t} Appolntmott oj afrauduJrnJ "Reunoer' -SaMor SanrJuJs'ftkJrd - D
By now. til: file moved to Judge Sq:aI, with 00 assignment Ofder, aJlu lOOse Allan <JPodman, almost a month
ana laking the case with no assignment ()(der, recalled his ~lo"g 1ei'1H clost: peTS"nalpiou1rhip wiJh tltl'. dti4
legal offu;u/01CoalllTywiIkr aM J'eCUSQj.
AU Kc.shavani (Shcppa1d Mullin) and tlIe court !hell coutindy b[lUI\~ IDe for my obj
rclatieve to the ~ execution of the judgment UlIIl was not ackllOwledged as a
e.g. - Judge O'O.un W<l3 never presealod VJilh \he judgment foe excrotioo.
Ju<lgo ~ MIl AU Kesha.varzi thai gave II four day notice for Ii ltcllring OIl ap' t of reaivCl 00
November 9, 2007. When 1saw the l'IlOving papetS I SCllt alll\Olice tlUI11 considered I yet soother fnud. The
order appointing roo:iver never rcfacnwl My section ofthc rode as the basis for his KXity, he was not
Icquired to execute \he judgment, which was not referenced either. l\nd Keshnvani 'n ti1Iudulcody repla=!
the Judgment with the Order Granting StIll\lI18.IY Judgment in is mo~ing papa-:;.
The moving papers aM lhe order C3I\ be seen <It: .

bl!l!~a.wmlO~2+Wibits-vol-v-rco:ivaship-~lction~",p~7'Ju·r'
f) [<'urtfru ~ILft:: by PasfQ1Ulk, thrut (lJ use oflMCt! to di.rpossm mt; lUI

tltlL.

The order appointing n:ceiVCl ocver included lhe jUdgment Had the execution beel judgment, lhe COUIt 1Nli5
obligalC4 by law to distribute to me my equity within 30 days. Si11JX there was no rd .cc 00 the judgmart. the
court could no( imJea Wrilof £x=rtion, ndthadid it isSUe an Abstract of ludgmQ\1 Instead, lhc oourt rcliM on
straisht forward fi'aUtl
On Novemfxor 2 t. 2007 - David Pastarek and Jlldgc John Segal thn:alened me with off=if I did not
~ lfle property. But Ihey could oat issue an Unla:wful DeGiner, since they wuuJ not rely on the Judgmenl
I W1lS e:xhausta:I, and l bOO a plao: tIw WIl.3 It:llOVtlCd fQ( me for several molllhs firldl ready. 1 finally did what I
WW'..oo to do sirn 2004 -Uld tlWVl':d closet to my office.
In late Nov<:mber2Q07 David PlISlemak furcibly cntetOO the propert)'.
On ~ 7,1J)()7, I was subjected to two additional abusive ex part pcoc.cdurcs giIg ordets. This lime by
Escrow lIIld Trtl BCQlDjl3Jlics. The COUlt W1IS in the proc=i of pcrpetnlting real estate ud against mc, and r
explained \tI81 well eoo\IEb to escrow, that the escrow officer refused to ~ \I . th= COlIlt The solution,
<kviscd by Att Os vid Pastemak, also a dO'JC friend of Mr SlIffiuels Was several-fold:
a) Gag onter.> on nw, la prevent protected speoch I defense ofself. b) an indemnity~[ to c(JInpe11-~
cscruw, at my r:xpcnre, of any liability from collusioo ill crime wirh the court. 0) van u, rdBliatofy measures
against me..
In the first ofIt= procedures AtlOll16"1 from BocfWla Nemer, Richlld Oonond. inoognito. Neither he,
nor the judge (Lisa Hl!rt-a>le) wouJd ~ 10 disclose his namcorthe"lIIlIe oflis d t· Mara Escrow
Ana- D;:cember 7. 7001. the CQurt lile WBS moved (l) Judge frie<!rnan, a pmotmJ fii,

cefused to produco a staLcmeat on the l«Ord rtgI!(ding !tis relationmill with CoutlnYWide, Of financial ~fits to

him and/or £molly members living with him, as roqulrnd by Califoml<lllIw. and ~ rHuscd to recuse.

Ugal records 8l1d fut1hec ~oo ofwbaL took plaoe 00 December 7,2007. csn
ht1p:lrll1Jl!OPefinIH.co~~24-eJchibi/5.-vol.v~:tiQfl%5!}so/aS

- 102 -
DEC 09 2008 22:52 FK . 0F ~MERICA 70~3tl6457S 180426421382 p.es

• Pagellf.J

By Psg;mba 17, 2OQ7. Auomcy PBcmak filed fraudulent glOllt deed on my pro in the offiro of the
RegismuiRecordcrofLA CoUllty. To this VetYday I havcnotrecei,,\?d a palny thep~ofthe
purpocted sale of my home. The fraud by Pastemalc 011 behalfofthe (Xlutt was ,cd by vd01ltl FBI agent,
Jilm(S Wedick, decorated by the u.s. ~ by Ifle US. Attorney Ga1cnI,llIld the FBI Director. His
opinion le«er ofthe transaction by Pasternak for the court CMI be: viewed 81:
hltp:ffmpropcrinla.c0mt07-12, 17~pinion,lettg.-l@!Jd.in·granl-deeds .~

8) JUdf!~ 1-'ril!dman - a c!n~ {rimd ofSando, SamkJs (/)~ the abu.U to this
Ou~~ Judge Friednum, irian unrecoo:IedadjudieatiOll, with oojudid
(he never had any e3Signment Older, • like all olha' j udgcs in !his cas<:). issllCd an a
Connor', gag Older (which she had never issued) fium Jut}' ~B. 2007, was "infiiU/0t, QtId cf!m".
He lhen proceOO'OO in February~. 2008, at the 1Il'gir1& OfCoUllllywide, to saooi 11 mefor $22,500, for
violaliQl\S in 2007. ofan ordcr lhat he fabricated in January 2008. He 11150 purportt.dl foood me in contempt of
the court, an lhrealcnc:d me wilh jail.
Abuse continues to \!Iis V(Tj day.

9) Who is B'lY" Olve Ut' rtpresortine todllll7 Is if &nk ofAmuka Corpl>ra(fqn

The latest was a motion by KI:Shavarzi foc S4m33I\ to establish a KRa'~·. III fact, bte abuse could continue for
ever, sinu: thcre is no judgment in Ihis case.
Ofnote, in mcent months, 11lllv>: scuL Bryan Cave, lLP, notes demanding to know idmtity of their cli~l
They refused to lll\SWef. Given my experiellCe with lilly possible frwd on me in this 'uri. I assume that !hey
ncv~ di.sd~ 10 Bant of America Corporation of what lhey were doing in the Los es Court, Md probably
bciIlg funded by Sando!- Samuels, who -I MV( no indication i3 authoriz.cd by Bank f America to do so.
Not swpming - the Court of Judge friedman is in collusion in this fulil/d. On ()c:nbt'.r 1,2008, he. ~ a notice
fora hearing on Nov21. 2005. To hide Coontrywidc's parti<;ipldion, he i!lStl:d R b' and invalid nolice, and I
refused to adnowltdge iles II valid coort I\Otice.
I fllld it h3td to believe that Bank of Amc:rica CorpoMion wool.d plII1icipafe in :rocll
believe that IWlk of America Corpcntioo ,,"wId like til dis!an(.C itscl:f frQID !he colt\!
.CountIywid¢.
I request rhat you inform me as $000 as pOS3ible, but no later than F • a December 12
2008, 5:OOI!In who is aUoww to represent Bank of Am~riC9 Corpo 'on in negotiatron for
resolution of tbe current tfllvesty.

J0 What is Sam4nn v Zurti.k?

In nxoot months [ have bcal writing to (he l'!t=>iding Judge ofLA Sup<lfior Court $(,
explain to me:

a) wmt is &I11Za(Dt v ZerrJk?

The evidence as a whole indicates ItUI1 it is ooc.ll casc oftheCaJifomia S
b) Why is no judge appointed as ~ by law through an assil~ ordct?

- 103 -
DEC BS 2008 22:53 I OF AI1ERICA "e4~186a579 318(342642382 P.09

• PaJ01lI9 Dealntx!II4. 2006

c) Absem such lISSigwnent oro=. ViNt is the authority of Judge Friedman in

d) J5 thw: OC ~ 'I there ajudgment Iiw is enlm'rl. valid, and etroctual in this
The offi<:e of tile P~ding J~e is refusing lo~!
The answer Ihat 1have taJCbed is simple: Si1mt:xPt \I ZmUk is an EnJ.aprise 1hu:k oflhe Los Angeles Coort.
I believe thallhere are many cases like this one; but nobody managed to dOOllllenl it c.arcfully 113 r did..
I know it Is soun(h lU an absurd, bat I bavc tried almG!lt anything els by now, this is
lllmo~t lut resort:
I am pleading with the Board of Directors of II corporation to pro my civil rights
pUmJaDt to the Amwdment to the Unite Ststcs CoOSlitutiOD, for S~forl)ue
PI'OCeS3, and for P0S3eS3ioD, and for the Common Law right to at· judicial ~rds, to
inspccl Bnd to copy, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme COtlrt in N"OO)ft v. -'anur
Communications.

).,.~
12-4-08

Date Joseph U:mik

.~.

** TOTAl PAGF.~g **

- 104 -
- 105 -
N~IHIHX:l

 Page 1 of I

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

From: joseph zernrk [iz12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Tuesday. December 16.20082:31 PM
To: Moldaw5ky, Jenna L; Amberg. John W.; Van Cle!ve, Peter D.;
todd_Boock@Countrywide.Com; maria_McLaurio@countrywide.com;
mkeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com; bbianco@la:superiorcourt.org; sQverton@cmda.law.com;
kdlcarlo@CmdfJ-law com: lfTiedman@lasuperiorcourt.org: jsczuleger@lasllperiorcourtorg;
Jclar1<e@lasuperiorcourlorg: jconnor@tasuperiorcourt.org; jsegal@lasuperiorcourtorg;
patrick.c. ryan@bankofamerica.com; joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com;
arnayorkas@omm.com; PMalingagio@sheppardmullin.com; tmax@sheppardmullin.com:
robertshulkin@camoves.com; djp@paslaw.com: jwp@paslaw.com
Subject: RE: Countrywide & racketeering under the guise of litigation tn Los Angeles,Superior Court
Attachme'nts: 08-12-12-moldawsky-authenticalion-s.pdf, OB-12··11-moldawsky-ex-parte-noticRltr.pdf; 08-12­
10-counlrywide-atl-book-refuses-lo-prevenl-fraucI.pdf

1211 8/2008

- 106 -
 OKjilally signed by
Joseph Zetoik
JJ
).
~. .ON:OI:Josep"Zernlk"
~L ·emal\=.jZ1234S@eanhlin
k.nel.<'""-US
D't"; 2006.12.12
Joseph Zemik DMD PhD 17:37:42 -<l8'00'
Fax: (801) S98·09H Email: jz12345@earttllin'r(.nel

" Judge shall be faithful to the laW.....

C.I Coclo Jud ErJJIcs JBaJ
"The rule of law must never be confused with tyranny of the courts"
Anonymous

PLEASE RESPOND BY 5:00PM, MONDAY, DECEMBER 15,2008, OR AS SOON AS POSSffiLE.

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.

D':ccillber 12,2008

Jenna Moldawsky, E.<>q

John Amberg, Esq
Purported Counsel for purported "Real Parties in Illtcres('
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
Peter Van Cleve
BRYAN CAVE. LLI'
jcnnan}oldawskv@brvancavc.con.!
lliambc.rg,I@BlyanCavc.colll
rs!.yanclcvc{iVBrvanCave.com

Todd Book, Esq

Counsd for purported "Real Parties jll lilteresf'

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

LEGAL DIVISION

COUNTRYWIDE FrNANCIAL CORPORATION

todd Bi>ock«i)Countrvwidc.Com

Sandor Samuels. Former Chief[,ega} Officer

Angelo Mozilo, Former President/CEO

c/o Todd Book

COlJ]\,'TRYWIDE fINANCIAL CORPORAnON

tod.9~9ocld~C_Ol!ntr\'wide.Com

Maria Mclaurin, Branch Manager, San Rafael

COUNTRYWIDE HO/lof(o LOANS, INC

maria 1'v1cLaunn(iilcountrvwide.com

Mohammad Keshavarzi, Esq.

Counsel for purported "Plaintiff'

Nivie Samaan

Paul Malingagio

Ted Max

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, lLP

333 South £-lope Street, 48th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071- 1448

Facsimile: 213-620-1398

mkeshavarzi@Sheppardmullin.com

PMalingagio(a)sheppardmullin.com

- 107 -
• Page2J14 December 12. 2008

tmax@5heppardmullin.com

Robert J. Shulkin, Esq.

Counsel for purported "Cross Defendants"
Miehad Ubow
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Legal Department
COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE COMPANY
11611 San Vicente Boulevard, 9th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Facsimile: 310-447-1902
roberl.~hlllkin(l/)camovcs.com

David ,I. Pasternak

Purported "Receiver"
PASTERNAK, PASTERNAK & PATION. LLI'
J875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, Califomia 90067-2523
Facsimile: 310-553-1540
ili{1@n.~slaw.com
~.~l!t~.com

Terry Friedman
Purported "Judge/or all purposes" in Samoan v Zemik
John Segal
Jacqueline Connor
Purported former "Judge for all purposes" in Samaan v Zemik
LA Superior Court, West District
D. Bret Bianco
In-House Counsel
Sarah Overtun,
Kathryn DiCarlo,
Outside Counsel
J Stephen Czuleger, Presiding Judge
John Clarke, Clerk/Executive Officer
l.A SUPERIOR COURT

bbianco{@,lasuperiorcoul1.on!

sovcrtQD(i)cmda-law.com

tdi<:llrloJ@cmda-law.com

tfriedm;~eriorcourt.org
~u[eKe!@(asuperjorcourt.org
.kt!rke<!lilasupenorc{)ul1.org
.i£Q!looruvlasupcriorcourlorg
ma1@lasuperiorcourt_org

Teresa M. Brenner
Associafe Gel/eral CowlSel- signer afSEC filings
Kenneth D. Lewis
Presidel7(, CEO, Chairman
Timothy Mayopoulos

- 108 -
• Page 3114 December 12, 2008

BOA General CoufISel

William J Mostyn III
Deputy GenefOl Counsel- signer of statements to share ho/delS
Fax: (704) 370-3515
m![rick.c.rvan@bankofamcrica.cooJ
ocrates(tV,bankkofamel;ca.com
joYCC.sflli II ing@bankofamericacom

Alejandro Mayorkas. Esq

Member, Board of Directors, Bet Tzcdck
Former U.S. Attorney. Central District of Cali fomia
!!!!layo~ka~@olT1nl.com

RE: Count'1"vide & racketeering under the guise of litigation in Los Angeles
Superior Court

All Amberg, At! Book, Att Arenner. Att Moldawsky, Att Mostyn, Att Mayopoulos, Att Samuels, and others:
I am compcHed to write to you again and demaod urgent action, since the letter by Att Moldawsky - Notice of Ex
Parte for Monday, December 15,2008. is a thinly disguise attempllO obstnJctjustice, and prohibit protected
speech., while Atl. Book, who was authorized by Boa refuses to speak., and for a good reason - he was directly
involved in institutinl~ the frauds. For that purpose he wants communications 1o be direcled to outside counsel
who pretends she is not aware of the lTauds, while for a year and a halfall she is busy doing is obstruct justice. so
that such frauds proceed full speed ahead.
Samaan v Zem ik. a never ending convoluted tale of fiauds on the roll, has by now entered its 5th year!

A. A ~ricr history offrauds

1. lIte over-Arching fraud - SaT/ulan v Zemik was designated from the slart as an "enterprise /rack" case­
Detailed review of the case shows that it was an off the recon:1 case from day one. All judges acted as
prcsidingjudges with no valid Re-assignment Orders, none of the key litigation landmarks was registered -Initial
Case Conference, Demurrer. Trial Setting Conference, Pre-trial Conference, Post-trial Conference. Judge Connor
consist(~ntJy and deliberately avoided leaving any valid executable order on paper: she stated she would issue an
order for sanctions, but never issued one, she said she would issue the gag order for Countrywide, but marked it in
the records as "Denied". She stated that she would issue an order appointing Judge O'Brien as escrow referee,
but whal he was provided would not have been considered valid by any layman of the jury, let alone an
experienced judge.
Accordingly, judge Connor also failed to register the summary judgment as such, and it was never entered
and never made into an effectual final judgment in this case.
Accordingly, Judge Segal and Att Keshavarzi were careful never 10 rely on it in any subsequent action.
Verbiage was routinely that of execution ofjudgment, and enforcement of such execution against Defendant who
was purportedly disobeying the court. BUI the written motions and rulings and orders always, without exception
avoided reference [0 the judgment at all.

- 109 -
• Page4/14 December 12, 2008

Accordingly. Judge Segal never entered the order appointing Pasternak receiver, as required by law, and
avoided any reference to the judgment, or even to the Real Property Purchase Contract in such order, or to any
seclion of the code as the legal foundation for his action.
Accordingly, all judges felt that the case does not deserve any protections afforded to U.S. citizens in the Bill
of Rights, Judge Connor routinely engaged in fraud and deceit in court. And outside court., she issued orders that
required sheriffs to escort me anywhere in the court., an order the sheriffs themselves asserted was unheard of, and
wilhoui any reason.
Judge Connor connived routinely with Att Keshavarzi, as was apparenl in the motion for sanctions, in the
!notion for appointment of receiver, and in Ihe noo-entry of the judgment.
Judge Connor established Countrywide's privilege ofappearing routinely in litigation as an absurd "Non­
Party" with shifting designations by the COllrt.
Judge Connor established Countrywide's and Salnaan's privilege to be immune to compulsory amended
answers On fraud and deceit
David Pasternak considered it a~eptat>le with no valid appoin'lment or order to break into the property and to
file fraudulent granl deed on it.
Judge John Segal considered il agreeable to engage in fraud and deceit relative to the order appinting
Pasternak receiver.
Judge Friedman considered it agreeable not to distribute the proceeds ofthc sale to me within 30 days, as
required by law, and to threaten sanctions if! asked for it again.
Judge Friedman wnsidered it agreeable to issue an ex post facto order in January 2008, effective back to July
2007, aIld based on such to make ruling of contempt and serious sanctions exceeding $22,000.
Judge Rosenberg felt it was agreeable not to issue any Reassignment Order 10 ajudge, even after being
repeatedly requested to do so.
All judges considereq it agreeable not 1o provide any notice and service of their orders, or to secretly

void/dispose oflheir orders in chambers.

All judges engil~p:l in production offalse and deceitful trial court litigation records.

1. ~~?!:lY. Fraud~

0) Firsl early landmark fraud - prequalijicQtion leller - It started when Samaan. who was an entirely
unqualified buyer, fraudUlently induced me to enter a purchase contract in September 2004, by using a fraudulent
pre-qualification letter l . That fraud is by now confirmed by a fraud expert.2
b) Second early fraud -loan applications - Next came Sam,aan's fraudulent loan applications, fi led with
Countrywide San Rafael.J 4 Th31 fraud by now is also confinned by a fraud expert. s
Such fraudulCnlloan applications failed to get approved within the time framed stipulated in the contract. Both
the fraud in employment data, and also the failure to correctly list loan fees in projecting closing costs, were
almost immediately detected by Underwriter Frazier. Strangely she did not detect the fact that none of the
sjgllaturt~'i on file purportedly by loan broker Parks, purportedly a "business partner", was truly his. Moreover,
they could be easily divided into to distinct forgeries - the one originating in LA, and the other originating in
-------------
1 hllp1f1nproperinla.oomA)4..OO.(}7.samaan-;;-pregualification-1eller.pdf

2 M1!:llinp!OOOrin1a.~7-q:linion-leller-fraud-injlregua~l1er-s.pd(

~ hIlp:llinproperinla.CO!DI01.{)9.27-samaan-rounl1ywide-fraudulent-laan-arorcdion.~

• hllp1Iinproperin lammll)4-Q9.27-d0c-40-s.;unaan-frjlooll!enHoil!l-aPP!i¢aliOOS=Sl?df
5 !!'!!p-'lllt1properinla.oomt04-OO-27-QPiniQn-le!ler19ud-4M03n=3PQlicalions-signa!u~

- 110 -
• Pagf.: 5/14 December 12,2008

northem California. Alternatively - it is possible, or even likely that in Ihe loose whofesale branch atmosphere
such mixing and matching of signature was acceptable business practice.
c) Third early/i'Qud - wireJfaxfralid - Yet another fraud was detected on October 18.2004 by my reallor
Michael Libow. He reported that Samaan was engaged in wire/fax fraud. where she was impersol1ating her Joan
broker in fax communications with us.6 As became clear later, upon receipt of tile subpoena production from
Countrywide, Samaan engaged in wire/fax fraud impersonating Parks also in records found in Ihe loan ftJe. In
general, just as Samaan was a straw buyer, Parks was a straw loan broker.
On October 21,2004. I issued instructions to cancel escrow.

3 !~I(erlllediale Frauds
a) Firs( - comp/aim - specific perfOmlailCe ar damages - A year later. Sarnaan unbelievably filed a
complaint in the LA Superior Court for specific perfonnance per equjty rights. or for damages for breach of
contract by statutory law. Such complaint was custom tailored for a courtroom fraud. In fact. I hold that
investigation is likely to find a disproportionally high number of Specific Performance litigations in LA Superior
Court West District. Any of those should be further looked inl0 for frauds. The one I had an opportunity to study
at some detail - Gladjie v Darwish -surely fits the bill. And the similarity does not end therc. In both cases a
convicted felon involved on plaintiffs side. And some names are shared by the two cases: Judge John Segal,
Receiver David Pasternak, An Richard Green ...
Sped fie perfonnaoce was lhe early frameworkfraud in this case - it is uniquely suilable for frauds, since
it allows bypassing ofthe jury trial, it exposes the homeowner's equity to abuse by the court through escrow, and
it allows adjudication by rules that widely diverge from standard statutory law adjudication. For exactly such
rcasons, in British law - equity rights were allOWed only on the person, but not on real property.
b) Second - sla/We offraudsfraud. Samaan also failed tOlinclude any contrnct in her real-property rights
complainl. a classic Statute of Frauds fraud, and that too was fully compatible with Judge Connor, on her very
first proceedings in this case, January 30,2006, for a demurrer.

c) Third - :iwnmary judgmenl - A midpoint landmark was the fraudulent Summary Judgment hearing,
held by Judge COMor on August 9, 2007. It signaled the conclusion of the statute of frauds fraud - the contract, a
fraudul(~nt record produccd by Countrywide alone, was filed ac; evidence in Reply brief for summary judgment. It
also signa!w the launching of the ~cond framework fraud in this case - the judgment entry fraud. Nonnally a
judgment is associated with finality of a court case. But that was not the intention here at aIL By failing to cnter
judgment, Judge Connor conspired to con me into consenting 10 execution of her rulings, but still provide her an
open door for further abuse - with depletion of homeowner's equity as the ultimate goal.
4. L-9(e Frauds
,~) Emry aIJudgmen/ fraud - 'he fale framework fraud - Starting with two e)( parte he<uings for "entry of
}udgmenf' and proceeding in a case conference on August 30, 2007, Judge Connor engaged in deception. as part
of deliberate attempt to ambiguate the entry ofjudgmenl As a matter of facl, no such thing as Entry ofJudgment
·exists in the LA SuperiDr Court, in the context of cntty of judgment defined in both the California Code of Civil
Pro<:edure and Government Code as well as in the Local Rules of Court. The Court does not follow its own
written nJles, instead, for over a quarter century. it developed a system all its own, of unpublished rules, never
disclosed to the public, obviously severe violation of the Rule Making Enabling Act 28 USC ss 2071-77.
f~} EscrolY referee fraud -The late post-judgment landmarks lin this case were ofno lesser criminality: First
-- fraud by Att Keshavarzi, and Judge Connor, in collusion with Retired Judge O'Brien, for fiaudulent

__ _------­
_. ..
e, !!!ill.!LrnJ:9oeril1la .romI04-10-18-9-emails-in-re-wire-fax-fr<l1J(! .pQf

- 111 -
• Page 6/14 December 12, 2008

appointment for 0' Brien as an escrow referee, where in fact, if we were to believe Kehsavarzi on his word in
open court on October 11,2007, the plan was to engage in execution of an "ell/ered ora/judgment".

c) Receiverfraud - Second was a fraud through collusion ~)f Alt Keshavarzi, Judge Segal, and David
Pastcmak, for appointment of a w<lUdulent "Receiver" -through a fraudulent motion!. If we were to believe
KeshavarLi on his word in open court on November 9, 2007, the plan was to engage in execution of"an
9
mrderstalrdillg" that grew out ora "dialogue" between him and Judge Connor , but neither Segal, nor
Ke.shavarzi, nor Pasternak, considered the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment a valid effectual one.
d) The third posl-judgmentlandmark was fraudulent conveyance oftitle by Pasternak. The grant deed he
flied 0:1 December 17,2007 was confimled as fraud, albeit committed on behalfofa court, by veteran FBI agent
James Wedick, decorated by the U.S. Congress, U.S. attorney General, and FBt Director 1o .
A reasonable person, llJXln review of the case as a whole, would surely COllciude, that even b~fore filing the
complaint, Samaan had secured full cooperation in this combined real-estatel mortgagei courtroom fraud by both
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc, and by Judge Jacqueline Connor.
llie missing contract, which eventually was filed over a year and half later, was a fraudulent record produced by
Countrywide. It failed to appear in subpoena productions ofSamaan. her loan broker, my broker, my own, or
escrow's. That fraudulent contract document was and is the central instrument of fi-aud in this case, and also the
subject of the instant letter.

B. Ins.!~nt fraud: Post-judgment motion by Kcshavarzi, pending

At present on the agenda is a pending fraud, noticed as a "post-judgment mo/ioll" by Att Keshavarzi (Sheppard
Mullin) for "PlaintiffSamaan". Again, the critical evidence in this motion is the fraudulent Countrywide
comracl,ll Such record is an obvious fraud. It was never authenticated, and should have never been admitted by
Judge Connor as evidence in the first place. Given that the fraud in it was rather obvious, it was oot introduced
unlilthe la<;l minute _. Reply brief for summary judgment.
But all ofthat does not exempt Countrywide, and now Bank of America from perfonning their duties by law.
1l1crefore this leiter is primarily addressed to at10rneys representing Countrywide and now also Bank of America.

U}lC R?!E,es[
rl1l1~ request is simple _. addressed to each oflhe following attorneys individually, with a request that each and every one
of them: Att Amberg, AU ~ Att Brenner, AU Moidawsky, Aft Mostyn, Att Mayopou!os, AU samuels,
respond in writing and let me know after review ofthe record and additional evidence filed with it in court in my notice
ofliaud in this rerord. 12 ;
Please authenticate or repudiate the document misrepresented a'i the product fax communication from Parks
in lhe State of Washington to Countrywide in Northern California, on October 25,2004, 5:03pm. [n fact

--_..._-------­
7KeshaV'¥lls planned with Retired Judge O'Brien, a fraudulen1 referee, 10 l!XeaJle "entered oral judgment"

~ Motion and Older appoinlll1g receiver.

g Keshava,Qi on the invaftdity of the jodgmef1t in Nov 9,2007 hearing.

n Grart d,~ fraud confirmed by Wedick

t1 Instant l1lo60n.
12 Contract

- 112 -
• Page7/14 December 12. 2008

that transmission was from Samaan to Lloyd, both in LA. It was part of wire/fax fraud across state lines,
against a financial institution - predicated acts per RICO!',

a. Do you consider INs record as ... 8UthentIc record1'

If so, I request that you ensure that it is imm~authenticated, as required by the evidence
code. Such record must neve.- have entered the loan application file with no authentication. It Is
In violation of UETA and "sound banking principles" p4!r Regulations B of the Federal Reset'Ve~

b.Doe you consider that thIa record Is fr8udt

Given the central place of this record In this; litigation, crimes were committed, are being
committed, and are going to be commItted again. Immeclate action must be taken pursuant to
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act §307 regardIng reporting by corporate counsel to the BOA GenemI
Counsel and on from him to the authorities..
It is exactly situations like the one enfolding in the past 3 years that the S3rabnes-0xley Act was
meant to prevent - a corporation like CHL that bei;ame a conupt organization, under the
watchful eyes of a Legal Division that instead of ensuring compliance with the law, engaged In
perpetrating the frauds by fabricating the subpoena produdion.

For those who choose to inform the General Counsel, and for the benefit oCthe General Counsel in his reporting r
pmvided an Appendix.
Obviously, the ex parte application brought by Countrywide's old guard, through an attorney that Bank of
America did not recognize at all, is meant to prevent such communication, which is essential for ensuring jntegrity
in the takeover of Countrywide by BOA.

).~
Joseph Zemik

PLEASE RESPOND BY 5:00PM, MONDAY, DECEMBER IS, 2008, OR AS SOON AS POSSffiLE.

TIME IS OF THE FSSENCR

- - -.. _---_._--­
13 Contract documen~ product of wire1lax fraud can be viewed at
!:!!!I.jlin~[operinla.r om/04- 1G-25-d0c-45<oo!1tJywide-fraud-mnlracl-recorQ2;t!

- 113 -
• Pagr; 8/14 December 12, 2008

.8PPE~DIX A

COMPLIANCE WITH SARBANES-OXLEY

Wording ofthc notice required, provided to you as a reminder, in re: Section 307 ofSarbanes-Oxley:
Sil1~ material violation oflaw has OCCUlTed, is occUlTing and is about
to occur again, as set forth in Section 307 ortlle Sal-banes-Oxley Act of
2002 and the SEC Rule promulgated there wlder h7 eFR 205), the
general counsel must infonn his superiors and the authoritie.'" This
notice may be in any form, but ShOldd conspicuously state that it is
being made under Section 307 of the Sarhanes-oxJey Act.
Following is a list of crimes, all of which were, are, and will be associated with the fraudulent Contract
!:!~d, based on fax/wire frq.ud by Samaan'4:
1l1C main fraudulent claim relative to Ihis record was, is, and will be, that it was faxed by Loan Broker Parks from
Washillgton State to Countrywide, San Rafael on Monday, October 25. 2004, at 5:03pm. In fact, lhe whole
fraudulent litigation depended on this tic. But that transmission was never authenticated. 1l1e reason is simple: as
seen ill Samaan's own fax tog, (his transmission was from Samaanlo Lloyd, both in Los Angeles area The record
was not received as part of the loan application in Countrywide as late as November J, 2004, the last
Underwriting Leiter provided in the loan file. This record, like many of the records in the subpoena production
was received from an anonymous fax machine, bearing no ID in irs fax header imprint. Accepting such records a'i
part of the loan file is in violation of Regulation B of the Federal Reserv~ demanding operations based on "sound
baking principlcs". I is also in violation of VETA. Beyond that - such records fonned the basis for real estate
fraud alld racketeering under the guise oflitigation in the LA SuperiorCour1.

a) Starling on October 25, 2004, and ending sometime later than November 3, 2004, Nivie Samaan, LQan
Applicant committed fax/wire fraud across state lines and against a financial institution in relalionship to
production of this record. Upon investigalion it would surely be found that Maria McLaurin, San Rafael
Bnmch Manager was her inside partner in crime.
b) StaJting July 2006, and ending April 2007, Att Todd Book and the Legal Division ofCounlrywidc, guided
by Att Sandor Samuels, produced this record a total of 6 times, even after they were requested to stop
producing fraudulent records in response to legal subpoenas.
e) On October 25, 2005, Samaan engaged in initiating Statute of Frauds fraud when she filed a complaint for
real property rights, but deliberately filed it with no contract rewrd, while she obviously considered this
rec(lrd the valid contract in this case.
d) On January 30,2006, Judge Jacqueline Connor ran a fraudulent hearing on Demurrer per Statute of Frauds.
In opcn court she "Overruled" the Demurrer, but immediately after\'rords, she secretly voided/disposed of
the minute order in eleclTonic court file, while alfowing false and deliberately misleading rCCQrds to remain in
the paper court file. In the Register of Actions she recorded the Demurrer as "Gramed'. With that, she
launched the fraud in litigation of Samaan v Zemik in the Superior Court, and massive production of
fraudulent trial court litigation records.
e) On August 9,2007, Art Mohammad Keshavarzi (Sheppard Mullin) and Samaan, in collusion wilh Judge
COl1lnor concluded the Statute offrauds fraud at the hearing, Pllfl>OJ1ed to be Swnmary Judgment hearing, but
- - - .. _----.
1C The Fr8udulent Conlfad Record can be viewed at
btm:flirml:operinla.comll)4."1(}..25-d0c4 X:ounbywide-fraud-eontrael-recorQJ:!Qf

- 114 -
• Page 9/14 December 12. 2008

never adequately registered as such. During the whole period of litigation, Samaan never identified the
contract record she wnsidered valid, among the six variants ofthe contract found in subpoena productions.
Samaan hersel f fai led to include this record in her own subpoena production, and also Parks failed to include
it in his. Finally Samaan entered this record as evidence in ~2!Y briefof the summary judgment, out of
compliance with the law, and with no authentication at all. I objected to such evidence, and had it listed for
motion for sanctions per CCP 128.7 for filing fiaudulent records as evidence. Regardless, Judge Connor
deceitfuUy accepted it as valid evidence. 1l1crefore it served ~5 the foundation for the ITaudulent rulings in
thaI hearin~
f) Between August 9, 2007 and the present, AU Kcsbavarzi for Samaan filed this record repeatedly as
evidence, always with no authentication, and in disregard of the evidence for fraud in this record. This record
was recently filed again as evidence, as part of a motion originally scheduled for hearing on November 2) ,
20f!.8, continued, and now pending. Therefore, soon erime is going to be committed again soon based
Q.I.!;;uch record.
g) Between March 2007 and the present., I filed numerOUS limes v.illl Angelo Monlo, Sandor Samuels, and
Count'1",,.ide requests to either authenticate or repudiate this lrecord as mud. They never responded either
way to such requests. instead they chose to allow the fraud 10 continue, in fact colluding in real estate fraud
and in obstruction ofjustice, in filing fraudulenl records in court as evidence.
h) In particular, in late June 2007, I flied such request with Sandor Samuels al Bet Tzedek, at a time that he
served as President of this organization operating under the biblical verse of , tirelessly pursuing justice..'.
Moreover, at that time he also advertised on the web that he was leading a campaign against fraud in Southern
Cal ifomia, particularly against real estate fraud. Afler I tIled the request with him, the web site of Bet Tzedek
first disappeared. When it appeared again, about a week later, Samuels and his campaign against fraud were
no longer mentioned at all
i) A (("w days later, on or around July 3,2007, I received a letter from Bryan Berg, LLP, and Att Jenna
Mold:lwsky and John Amberg started on behalfof Mr Samuels and Mr Monlo a campaign of
rctaliationlintimidationlharassment against a victim/witnesslinformer. Their first motion was remarkably
similar to the one they now nolice for Monday, December 15,2008 - attempt to prevent me from exen::ising
protected speech in defense of self. Their goal was, is, and willI be -to prevent the exposure of the extensive
fraud engineered and executed by the Attorneys of Countrywide's Legal Division in subpoena productions
in Samoon v Zemik, aU to support the fraudulent litigation initiated by Samaan. Therefore, Att MoldawsJ...)'
and Amberg have engaged in obstruction ofjuslice for the past 1.5 years, repeatedly inserting themselves with
no Ilt:gal stal1ding at all in any hearing, to ensure that the fraud be successfully committed.
j) At Ihe same time, Judge Connor denied me the right to file compulsory claims for fraud and deceit against
Samaan and against Countrywide.
k) It is the desire to avoid this request - to authenticate or repudiate this record as fraud, that was, is, and will be
the true motivation for Jenn:! Moldawsky's fraudulent ex parle applicalion. In January An Moldawsky and
Amberg filed a motion that unbelievably requested "declaratory relief' by Judge Friedman - a statement that
Mr Samuels and Mr Monlo do nOl have \0 anSWeT this request relative to the fraudulent records that these
banking officers filed in wurt.
I) Bf)'an Cave, LLP, Janna Moldawsky, and John Amberg, engaged in collusion in this fraud in the past year
and a half, making any possible effort to avoid answering such questions, and allowing the fraud in this
litigations to proCCC{j - facilitating obstruction and perversion ofjustice.

- 115 -
• Page 10114 December 12, 2008

m) Total damage to me from frauds listed aoove exceeds by now $2.0 millions. But regardle&S of the sum, the
involvement of tile most serlior people in Countl)'wide, who were charged with the safeguard of integrity of
the operations, surely makes such crimes material deficiencies. that should have been reported also outside of
SaJ-banes-Oxley.

).~
Joseph Zernik

PLEASE RF.-SPOND BY 5:00PM, MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2008, OR AS SOON AS POSSffiLE.

TIME IS OF THE ESSJ1:NCE.

- 116 -
• Page 12/14 December 12. 2008

&.ff!'!~

DEMAND FOR CLARlFICAnON FROM ATTORNEYS FOR CHL AND BOA

REL.t\TIVE TO AIT MOLDAWSKY'S "NOTICE" DATED DECEMBER 11,2008.

15
I demand that CHL establish the basic facts regarding this litigation. The letter, dated December 11,2008 , is
lacking in foulldalion from the subject line down, on each and eVfTY significant detail:

I) It refers in the subject line 10: "Nil'ie Samaan Ii. Joseph Zernik. Case No. SC8087400, Los Angeles
County Superior Court":
Please provide certi fled copies from LA Superior Court's Index ojAll Cases and Master Calendar of West
Districl, showing registration of the case referenced in your leller: Sanwall Ii ZeTllik (8C087400), As
required by law; alternatively - verified slatement from an official of the Superior Court of Cali fomi a that
Samoan v Zernik is an authentic court case, duly indexed and calendared as required by law - as A civil
unlimited liligation in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, case named Nivie Samaan v Joseph
Zemik, ca~e No SC087400; alternatively - verified statement that such duly registered court case docs nol
exist at all.

2} Further down it notices the hearing in Dept "J" - which is Judge Friedman's court.
a) Please provide verified statement from an official of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to
Ille effect that Mr Terry Friedman is Judge Terry Friedman, dul}' authorized and hoJingjurisdiclioD
as Judge for afl purposes over case known as Samaan v Zernik (SC087400J pursuant to A valid Re-
assigllment Order by the Supervising Judge of West District, as required by law; alternatively - that
Mr Terry Friedman does 1101 hold such re-assignment order, has never been duly Authorized and
holds no jurisdiction At A If in matter named Samaan v Zernik (SC087400J_
b) Please provide verified statement from an official of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to
the effect that Mr John Segal was Judge John Segal, duly authorized and held jurisdiction as Judge
for all purposes over case known as Samoan v Zernik (SC087400) pursuant to a valid Re-assignment
Order by the Supervising Judge of West Dislrict, a'> required by law from October 5,2007 to
December 4, 2007; alternatively - that Ms Jacqueline Connor did not hold such Rc-assignment
Order, had never been duly authorized and has never held any jurisdiction At Allover matter named
,Samaall v Zemik (SC087400).
a) Please provide verified statement from an official of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to
Ithe effeci that Ms Jacqueline Connor was Judge Jacquelitle COllnor, duly authorized and held
jurisdiction as Judge for all purposes over case known as Samaan v Zemik (SC087400) pursuant to a
valid Re-assignmellt Order by the Supervising Judge of West District, as required by law from
i~'-lovember 1,2005 till September 10,2007; alternativel)' - Ihal Ms Jacqueline Connor did not hold
such Re.assignment Order, had never been duly authorized and has never held any jurisdiction At
i\ 11 over matter named Samaan v Zernik (SC087400).

3) II opens with a statement referring to ". __ NOll-Parl)' Countrywide Home Loami, Illc
("Countrywide") ..."
a) Please provide the legal foundation for such party desigo21tion ofCHL.
b) Please demonstrate court records designating CHL Non-Party.

,5 MOl:la-M5ky'S Dec 11•. 2008letler can be lJiewed at:

.~~rir.liJcpm!08-12.11-mo!Qawslcy-e)(=P3rte--nolia!"r #

- 117 -
• Pa9E~ 13114 December 12, 2008

c) Please explain the umpleen court records bearing any designation other than "Non-Party",

4) It then refer to "repealed \'io/aliolIS oflhe July 21,2007 Protec/ive Order.•. "
a) Please notice the non-existent July 23. 2007 Protective Order.
b) Please explain the appearance of notes such as "Proceedilngs not recorded" and missing adjudicalion in
hearings on this motion itlthe Register of Actions.
c) Please explain the notes "Denied" on your proposed ord(~r, and the failure to sign any order at all.

5) It described such purported order as ".. directing Zerllik ro commsmicaf(! solf!/y with Countrywide's
designated counsel..." implying that Moldawsky is such duly designated counsel.
a) Please provide evidenc(~ of your engagement by BOA. I\.s recently as December 5, 2008. they did not
know of her involvement in this case.

6) II proceeds wilh ".. alUl 110 oilier Coulltrywide officers or employees..... but fails to specify who such
employees or olTiccrs are, particularly after the change ofcontrol.
a) Please provide a full and complete list of all those I am prohibited from talking with. Such infringement
of First Amendment rights. particularly - infringement of protected speech in defense of selfis unheard
of, particularly when it is vague and ambiguous.
b) To the best of my knowledge Mr Samuels and Mr Mozilo are no longer Countrywide employees. Please
provide evidence of their status of employment. and full ,and complete list of present Countrywide
employees.
,e) How about terminated employees like Diane Frazier, key witness, continuously intimidated by
Countrywide. who was tenninated in early 2005? When I tried to communicate with her I got a death
threat thaI was directly rdated to Countrywide.
d} Is Diane Frazier allowed to exercise frec speech?

7) You continue "i"dud/ng BalIk Of America Corporatjoll, whicll acquired Countrywide ill July 2001!"
a} Please provide the legal foundation for your inclusion of BOA in this order.
b) (happetl to hold an account with BOA, and I also plan on purchasing some shart$. Do you intend to slale
that under such circumslances r am still prohibited from speech with any BOA employee? Please provide
some reasonable explanation.

8) You refer to OSC for "... coniil/lud \'iolatiollS ofllIe Court Order......
a) Please provide evidence of any such violations that you may claim.
b) Ple<lsc make sure (hat you authenticate your evidence and file only admissible evidence in court.

9) You refer (0 CHL .... continue to endure Zcmik's harassment.. "

a) Your conduct. including this harassing motion. upon review is likely to be deemed predicated
acts per RICO.
b)
Had thi~;,
court allowed access 10 trial court litigation records, as required by Jaw - including many
ref<~rences, from Nixon \' Warner Communications lG to California Rules of Court, Rule 2.400 et seq 11,
establishing such facl<; would have never been an issue. Absent public records in this court, I must insist on
protecting my rights pursuant to the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by full authentication of the hasic

--_ _-------- ..
the U.S. Supreme court afitmed 'common law rights' 01 'access to judicial record" also know as the right 10 insped and to copy
1& lJ\otlere
such records. In oonlr3sl. !he LA Superior Court holds its computer system. ·Sustain"... a fraudulent esse management system
"privileged- for the court only". Such Me is an unpublished Rule of Court. and with Ihal- also in violation of the Rule-Makil\g Enabli'lg
¢f!.
Requiril19 public acress to the cour1's electronic records ill general, and prohibiting denial of acoess 10 party in litigation to e1edronic court
file mcotds.

- 118 -
• Page 14114 December 12. 2008

facts rel<Jtive 10 this litigation, as a minimal precaution in a cas<: built on fraud from Judge Connor's first
court proceeding on.'K

Au Moldawsky -You can fool some ofthe people aU tile time, all o/tlle people some ofille time, but you
camwt/ool all the people all tlte time_. Please provide full and complete admissible evidence for cacll and
every one of the facts list~ above. Please forward such evidence to me and to others with sufficient time to
examine such evidence.

) ..~

Joseph Zernih:

PLEASE RESPOND BY 5:00PM, MONDAY, DECEMBER 15,2008, OR AS SOON AS POSSrnLE.

TIME IS OF TIlE ESSENCE.

. _ - - .. _----_.
I~ on !he day of Judge Comors firs! proceediog, Jan 30. 2006 - i. Initial Case Conference W3S held off the record, assignment order was
issued and badc.<Jaled 3 months, and demurrer 00 s1atule of fr.ruds was OYelTUled, but that ruling WiJS Immediately seaetti
rlisposedlvljjjed with no nake or seMce to parties.

- 119 -
1/4
08-12-09 ATT TODD BOOK, COUNTRYWiDE LEGAL DIVISION, WHO WAS ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN
THE FRAUD ALL ALONG, SINCE 2006, REFUSES TO ANSWER REQUEST TO AUTHENTICATE OR
REPUDIATE COUNTRYWIDE'S FRAUDULENT RECORDS, ALBEIT, BANK OF AMERICA DESIGNATED
HIM AS THE COUNSEL OF RECORD IN MY MAnER.

EMAfL BY TODD BOOK, RESPONSE TO REQUEST, DATED WED, DEC 9, 2008:

An' BOOK REFUSES TO ANSWER ON THE MATTER. AND WITH THAT IN FACT
CONTINUES TO FACILITATE THE FRAUD.

X-McAfee-Timeout·Proteclion: 1
X-WSS-IO: OKBND81-0C-1A6.Q1
Subject Re: Fwd: REPEAT FlUNG OF OFFENDING FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN COURT YOUR
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
WED. DEC 10,2008. 5:00PM. Notice of start of Safe hamor period per CCP 128.7.
From: "Todd Booc\<" <Todd_Booek@Countrywide.Com>
Date: Tue. 9 Dec 2008 22:12: 11 ·0800
To: "joseph zemik" <jz12345@earthlink.nep
cc: jw:amberg@bryancave.com,
jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com
X-Form: Reply
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on PLADOMSMTPZ02JServer~,fCWExtemal(Release7_0.3ISeptember 26.
2007) at 12f10f200B 12:12:15 AM, Seriaize complete at 1211012008 12:12:15 AM
X-EUIK-Received-lnfo: spv=O;
X-ElNK-AV: 0
X-EU"K-Info: sbv=O; sbrc"'.O; sbf::OO: sbW"OOO:

Dr. Zemik,

The rt,ferral to me regarding this matter was in error_ Please contact Bryan Cave LLP, specifically John Amberg
(310-576-2280) or Jenna Moldawsky (310-576-2377), both copied on this e--ma~. should you have any inquiries,
issues Of olher reason to communicate with Countrywide or ils corporate affiliate Ba~ of America, regarding
this matter. As an employee of CounlIywide, I am covered by the protective order prohibiting you from
contacting employees of Countrywide.

Thanh you fOf your anticipated cooperation.

Todd Boock

EMA.IL BY JOSEPH ZERNIK, FRAUD VICTIM, DATED WED, DEC 9, 2008:

ASKING TODD BOOK TO STOP YET ANOTHER FRAUD BASED ON FRAUDULENT
RECORDS PRODUCED BY TODD BOOK AND COUNTRYWIDE LEGAL DIVISION.

From:: joseph zemik Ol12345@earthlink_n~tl

Sent 121091200805:41 PM PST
To: Todd BoocI<
SUbjEiCt: F'Nd: REPEAT FILING OF OFFENDING FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN COURT. YOUR
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10, 2008, 5:00PM. Notice of start of Safe harbor period per CCP
12.8T

- 120 -
214
FYI

Date: Tue, 09 Dec 200815:27:2:3 -0800

4
To: "Mohammad Keshavarzi" <MKeshavarzi@sheppardmultin.com>, "Paul Ma!ingagio
<PMafingagio@sheppardmullin.(:om>. 'Ted Max"<lmax@sheppardmuUin.com>
Frorl\: joseph zemik <jz12345@oarthlink.net>
SUbject: REPEAT FILING OF OFfENDING FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN COURT. YOUR RESPONSE
REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10, 2008, 5:00PM. Notice of start of Safe halbor period per CCP 128.7.
Cc: sandor_samuelS@countrywide.com, samuels_sandor@CountJy.vide.com,
angelo_ moZiIo@~untryw;de.~m, mozilo_angelo@counllywide.com. maria_Mclaurin@countlywide.com.
bbianco@lasuperiorcourtorg, "Ted Ma:<'<tmax@sheppardmultin.com>,"VanCleve, Peter D.~

<pdvaocleve@8ryanCave.com>. SQverton@cmda..Jaw.com, kdicar1o@cmda--law.com.

tfriedman@lasuperiorcourt.org, j5.czuleger@lasuperiorcourt.org. jdarke@lasuperiorcourt.org,
jclarke@lasupenorcourt..org, Jcofl(l()(@Iasuperiorcourt.org, jsegal@lasuperiorcourt.org. "David J. Pasternak"
<jwp@paslaw.com>, "John Patton" <jwp@paslaw.com>, "Amberg, John W: <jwamberg@BryanCave.com>,
jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com, todd_Boock@COunttywide.Comp. "attention
Mayo'·<palrick.c.ryan@bankofamerica.com>. "attention Mayow<ocrales@bankkofamenca.com>, "attention
Mayo" <joyce.schilling@bankofamerica.com>. <amayori<as@omm_com>

December 9. 2008

Mohammad Keshav'Jrzi
Sheppard Mullin. LLP

RE: REPEAT FlUNG OF OFFENDING FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN COURT.

RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10. 2008, 5:00PM.
NOtiCl~ of start of Safe Harbor Jl{lriod p~r CCP §128.7.

Mr Keshavarzi:

You recently sent me copy of papers you filed in court under the naTle of Sheppard MuiUn. UP, for motion to
establish recovery. scheduled far Nov 21, 2008.

1) No signatures were visible on my copy. I request that you forward to me copy bearing your visible original
signatures. In case the copy you filed in court does not bear your signatures, and you choose to keep that
paper tiled. I request that you correct that Situation expediently. otherwise please withdraw such papers, and
notice me accordingly.

2) Your mast recent papers again included records produced in subpoena by Countrywide, 'vVhich were the core
of this ligation. I complained in the past that such papers constituted fraud on numerous accounts. Such
records were repeatedly fraudulently misrepresented by you as the product of fax transmission from Victor
Parks, loan broker, to Countrywide San Rafael, on Monday, October 25,2004, 5:03 pm.

3) In fact. as made clear by Ms Samaan in her deposition, Mr Perks had nothing to do with any of it. Among
other umpteen frauds. throughout the transaction in 2004, Ms Samaan impersonated Mr Parks in fax:
communications. This record was no exception.

4) This record also was never received by Countrywide 00 the date and time indicated above. as you
misrepresented in collIt In fact the transmission that gener.3ted that fax header imprint was from Samaan in
Los An~leles to her husband in Los Angeles. I went through that issue in depth among other opportunities, on
august 9. 2007, in open court.

5) You have never provided adequate authentiCation of that record When you introduced it as evidence. and I
filed for sanctions against you per CCP § 128.7 for fir.ng of fraudulent records in court..

6) To avoid that hearing, you scheduled in conniet another "hearing" as YOl.J fraudu[ently called it, with reUred
Judge O'Brien. who had no autl10rity at all to hold any "hearing" of any kind.

- 121 -
:3/4
7) This court refuses to even confirm that Samaan v Zemik was ever a case of \he Superior Court of California.
Regardless, you were fully aware that such records were, are, and always will be fraud, and ttlerefore any
purported order, decree, judgment, or any other outcome of such litigation was is, and always will be null and
void.

8) In the most recent papers you ,:rnitted the fraudulent transmittal cover sheet. Regardless, this record is the
product of fraud, and it was introduced by you as part of fraudulent evidence.

9) Th.~refore, I request that you immediately remove this record m:xn your most recent pending papers.
10) Therefore, I also request that you submit a request ror a nunc oro tunc order:
a) to mark aU instances where such paper appears In tt1e court filE! as Instances of fraud.
b) to vacate all orders, decrees, judgments that were based on such fraudulent real estate contract record.

'10) Please consider this notice per CCP §128.7 for start of Safe Harbor period,
MR!<ESHAVARZi & MR MALlNIGAGIO: RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10, 2008, 5:00PM.

'11) This message is oopied to At! John Amberg and At! Jerula Moldawskv, who claims to be authorize to
represent Countryv..r;de Home Loans, Inc, a SUbsidiary of Bank of America_ Countrywide Home Loans, Inc too is
requF.:sted to file request in court for the withdrawal of such fraUdulent records produced by Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc as part of SUbpoena productions that were replete with fraudulent records, and which tried to entirely
fabricate Samaao's fraudulent loan applications underwriting history.
!'JIR jl,MBERG AND MS MOLDAWSKY: RESPONSE REQUESTE:D BY WED, DEC 10, 2008, 5:00PM.

12) This notice is also fOlwarded to At! Todd Boock, Countrywide Home loans, Inc, who was part of the learn
under Mr Samuels, Wf)o devised the sUbpoena fraud In 2006, and repeatedly provided fraudulent responses to
quesbons in Meet and Confer in 2007, then claimed religious observance to void appearance in motion to
compel. Mr Boock is requested tl) authenticate the real estate contract record, olhelWise, to withdraw it from the
record, and with it the entire countJywide fraudulent subpoena, and to notice the parties and the court
accordingly. Mr Book is accordin9 to Bank of America Office of Gener<ll Counsel the only one authorized to
represent Bank of America COrpOf<ltion_ That office had no re<XJrd of Bryan Cave LLP as authorized to
represent Bank of America in this matter-
tJ1R (;1901<: RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10,2008, 5:00PM.

13) This notice is also forwaroed 1:0:

Mr l:lmothy J. Mayoooulos Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Bank of America Corporation (Bank of America)
'100 N Tryon St
NCH}07-56-11
Charlotte, NC 28255
Phone: (704) 386-7484
Fax: (704) 370-3515
With !the demands
a) that Bank of America corporati<)(l put an end to this fraudulent li1igation and farce of a court, progressing in its
name: in the past six mooths,
b) thalt it withdraw the fraUdulent SUbpoenas produced by Sandor Samuels, Todd Boock and their col!eagues in
the corrupt Legal Division of Countrywide,
c) thaI they take action to mitigate damages,
d) that they report in the quarterty report for Q·IV of 2008 such material deficiency - the CDmpromise of the legal
team of Bank of America Corporation resulting from incorporation :Jf the legal Division of CounlJywide Financial
Corporation to its ranks pursuanllo

- 122 -
4/4
Section 307 ofSarb:mes-Oxley
Since material 'l-iolatioll of law has occurred, is occurring and is about to occur again, as set forth in
Section 307 of the Sar-bancs-O~jey Act of 2002 and the SEC Rule promulgated there under (17 ern
~OS), l:hc general counsel must iinform his superiors and the ;:lUthorities.. This notice may be in any
form, but should conspicuous~' state th3t it is being made ul1Ider Section 307 ofllie Sarbanes-O.rlev
Act.

MR ~WOPOULOS: RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WED, DEC 10, 2008, 5:00PM.

Joseph Zemik
Fax: 8('1 998 0917
Tel 3104359107

Additional documentation, induding fraud experts opinion letters re~ fraud in this litigation can be viewed at
.!J!;!IVll~nla.com/04-10-26
..doc-44-<Qunbywide-fraud-undelWrltinq-letter.odf
blm.1Linomperinla.(Qm/04-10-26"winion-letter-<pUlitrvwlde-undenNTiting..tetter-od- 26-s.pdf
hl;!Q;11lnDroperinla,com/04-{)9.. 07-~i(!maao-s-Qreaualf(jca!ioo-letter.pdf
h!!Q:L1..lnproperinla.com/04-09-Q7-<lQinion-letter"fraud-in-prequalificaion-letter-s.pdf
!ll!ItiLlnorooeriola.comlO4-09-27-doc-40-samaan-fraLJ:1ulent-1oan-ilDPlications-s.pdf
ht:ID.;LLinoroooinla,com/04-09-27-sarnaan-eovntrywide-fraLrlu)eot-t;lan-;;Joolication.pdf
hl!I!1f.inoropel1n1a.com/04-09-27-<.pinion-letter-fraud-in-loan-apP!ications-signatur~~~
htmJi..inprooerinla.com/04-1 O-l8-wire-fraud-pl.pdf
b1:mJLi[l-oco~rinla.mmlO4-1Q-18-<)-emails-in-re-wire-fax-fraud.pdf
.bJ!I2;LLI~nla.com/04-10-i5-<~ide-adulterated-brar.cn-iOP\lt-exception-reguest-s.Ddf
htm;lbnproperinla,com/04-10-2S-<IOC-45-<:ounIDwide-fratJd-rontract-recnrd.pdf
ht!Q;lli[lproperinla.com/04-1Q-26-muntrywide-fraudulent-unde!wriling-letter-s.lX!f
hl;!l2;Lf!inproperinla.com/06-07-1o-samaan-deposil,ion.pdf
h!!I!;ltlnproperinla.com/07-02-0I3-<ountlyWide-frauduient-subpoeo2 -oroduction-<;-s.pdf
1

h!!Q;lJJ.nproperinJa.com/06-11-Q9·doc-38-1-eouotrywide-mdaurin-false-deda@l,ions,pdf
ht!I!;L[jnproperinl~.rom/06-11-D~loc-38-2-eountrwJide-mdautin-false-i1edarations,lXff
b!!Q;LL]nproperinla,com/07-06-20-bet-tzedek-web-page-with-samuels-before-leltc~,QQf - samuels - the
fri~udster as "fraud buster"

=:::=::::::~:=====::;;:;;:====-===;:;====---=.;=~====;:.=,;;:::;::================;;=====::;

Confidentiality Notice: The Information contlined in and transmitted with this communication is strictly
confidential, is intended only for the use of the intended recipient, and is the property of Country\'Ade Financial
Corporation or its affiliates and suhsidiaries. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any use of the information contained in or 1ransmitted <Mth the communication or dissemination, distribution, or
copyin~l of this communication is 5~rietly prohibf1ed by law. If you have received this communication in error,
please 11m mediately return this commUnication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it
in your possession.
==~=:::::::::::::=============.;:==:::===~-=~===-===========-=:::===;;:=:::;::;::======

- 123 -
 jcnttl Mold.wsl.:y
Dl1tte llO.S76-nn
j(nm.o,oll1.wo!;)'@b,pr.c,\·<-com

Dl~cembcr 11, 2008

Cry.,,, c~vc UP

~;.u UfO;\CSway

vr_~_'EA~SlMJLE AND EMAIL $1I4tl:' .:!li{l

SJld.:t MQt\ICfl, C:, ~4()1·2JtS

Joseph Zernik DMD PhD ::. IJ1015n,~IOO

2415 Saint George Street fe' iJWI Sla·l1[;O

Los Feliz, C:l.lifomia 90027 'A"..N ..·.::ry.l 11 e,; \'IIl.C 0 1i1

jz.lZl'!5i@;!l-rthlink.nct
C:lica~v

Moe Keshavarz~ Esq. ll,\11lt;l'r~

I\rlnl~ ~.. o.'{]

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton,llP
It'Jm~
3:13 South Hope Street, 48th Fllom
H~ff"'rJ:an til','
Los Angeles, CA 90071-\448
~.':,\!::l:; Cir'!
Facsirnile: 213-620-1398
rrll<csba,'ar.l.i@~hcppardmullin.com
!\LlW"I{

LU11dan

RobcJ:t J- Shulkin, Esq. los f.. n':lcl~~

Mil,;o,ll
LegAl Depa.rtment
N1:\"Yar~
Cold'.'"ell Banker R~idential Broker:J.ge Company
11611 San Vicente Boulevard, 9'1. floor Phllf:t;II;:

Shn.nghai
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Si. llJUi:.;
Facsirnilc: 310-447-1902
1!i~~hi"{]IO(,. fie
!';:>b.~n_;;hulkill@&'lInOV~

David J. Pasternak £f~'ac C;'IVO IDttlna1io.~C T(Atl~

JI IttJ(I[ cOIf~mlJ-; $UCl}!;tMrr

I'asteroak, Pasternak & Patton, liP ';I ""0." ·L'Lt,iTf1 rr.!J{(,lSrO"N),lS

1875 (:cnrnry Park East, Suite 2200 '/J\YVI.OryiH!CJ'YCtl ado.com

Los Angeles, California 900G7 -2523 :L,nlJ\:oi

Facsimile: 310-553-1540 J.,k,liIG
?jp.@ipaslln.v.com
~tl ..... 16 ! Uel"l:':lf

·\~~~llij,;.,

:. 't C~'OrJ~1
Rc: Nivic Sarna:lO v. Ioseph Zemi...k $-III)~por{'
Los Angeles County Superior Coun, Case No. SC8087400
Notice of Ex Pal1dij'!P-Jication lokyo

!lr'Y\1n Clive SlraloglC:$

Gentlemen: ) C(l'l(IlJ.V(Hl MWIllR~ I.JfJ

"~mr..J.. A~rJ}n ftl,lU"IDM..cI"

WWw.LCYBllcOve1tnt~~ies.c O~
Please be advised that Noo-Party COWltrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide'')
W"hi,'I{J'M.OC
willappiy exparte for an order shortening time for the Comt to hear Countrywide's
Sll(lui~
motion (1) for monet.ary sanctions against Defendant Joseph Zernik ("Zernik") for

SMO] DOCS6li57IS.1

- 124 -
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Moe Keshavar2i, Esq.
Bryon Clive llP
R(lbert J. Shulkin, Esq.
David J Pasternak, Esq.
December 11, 2008
Page 2

his repeated violations of the] oly 23,2007 Protcctive Order directing Zernik to communicate solely
with Countrywide's designated ·counsel regarding the present action and no other Countrywide
officers or employees ("COUl"t Order''); (2) for an order ro show cause why Defendant Joseph Zeroik
should flat be held in contempt and sanctioned accordingly for his continued violations of the Court
Order; :~nd (3) for a lJ1odiuc.ation of the Court Order to inc1L:lde officees 2nd employees of all
Counul'wide affiliates, including Bank Of America Corporation, which acquired Countqwide in July
2008 (1I11c <eMotion"). Coumrywide requests that the Court s,et the earliest possible hearing date on
this Motion. In the alternative, Counrrywide asks the Court 110 set :l hearing date ofJanuary 8, 2009,
which would provide t.he parries with sixtcen coun-days' notice.

Countcywides (X parle appliC:ltion seeks rclief on the grounds th:lt Defend:lnt Joseph Zemik continues
to viohtc the terms of the July 23,2007 protectivc ordcr by contacting Countrywide's senior officers
:Uld em.ployees, and Counuywidc will suffet irreparable hllrm if it is forced to continue to endure
Zeruik's harassment without timely court intervention to resolve t!lis matter.

Countrywidc's exporte application will be beard at 8:30 a.m.....Qn Mooday, December 15, 2008, in
Depal:tment WEJ of the Los Angeles Superior Court, located at 1725 MaiO. Strcet, Santa Monic:!,
California, 90401.

Please advise as to whcthcr rOlll intend to appear and/or oppose Countrywide's expark application.

Very truly yours,

(TJ/l.V~ZO-ryyf~d~y
Jcnna Moldawsky .~

s..\101DOCS6G5il5.1

- 125 -
 PROOF OF SERVICE

2
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of Califomia. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is Bryan Cave LLP, 120 Broadway,
I I
3 Suite 300, Santa Monica, California 90401-2305.
I
4 On December 18,2008, I served the foregoing document(s), described as NON-PARTY I'

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (I) FOR

MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK IN THE I
5
AMOUNT O}<~ $5,564.50 FOR VIOLATIONS OF' THE JULY 23,2007 PROTECTIVF. I
6 ORDER; (2) FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK !
SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONED FOR VIOLATIONS OF ;
7 TH E PROTECTIVE ORDER; AND (3) FOR A MODIFICATION OF THE PROTECTIVE I
ORDER TO INCLUDE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF ALL COUNTRYWIDE I

8 AFFILIATES, INCLUDING DANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; MEMORANDUM I

OF' POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF JOHN W. AMBERG AND
9 TODD A. BOOCK, on each interested party in this action, as follows:
[2J (BY HANI) DELIVERY) I caused a true copy (or original) of the foregoing
10 doc.ument(s) to be delivered by hand to each interested party set forth below:
11
III Robert J. Shulkin, Esq. Joseph Zernik
..,
<0
12 Legal Department 2415 Saint George Street
<;J
00 Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company Los Feliz, California 90027
0"
lL"~
"'0 13 11611 San Vicente Boulevard, 9th floor
....J !:-<.
-':J
.. nil:
z 14
Los Angeles, CA 90049
>
-< ..· 0
L

u~:J [8J (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) 1 enclosed the document(s) in an envelope or

"
< Q.. U.. 1:5
,.. 0
'" 1I/ <
•
package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to each interested party set forth
lllJl~
0" 16 below with delivery fees pJOvided for. I placed the envelope or package for collection and
III 0
~~
overnight delivery, following our ordinary business practices. In the ordinary course of business at
..
<
z
17 Bryan Cave said envelope or package would be deposited in a box or other facility regularly
<
111
18 maintained by an overnight delivery carrier or delivered to an authori7.ed couricr or driver of an
overnight delivery carrier for next day delivery.
19 David J. Pasternak.
It Moe KeshavarL:i, Esq.
Pasternak, Pasternak & Patton, LLP Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton,
20
1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 LLP
21 Los Angeles, California 90067-2523 333 South Hope Street, 48th floor
Telephone: 310··553-] 500 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
22 Facsimile: 310-553-1540 Facsimile: 213-620-1398
(iiJ2.(Q:l pas 1a w. co JI1 mkeshavarzi@sheppardmuIlin.com
23

24 Executed on December 18, 2008, at Santa Monica, California.

25 I declare under penalty of pCQury under the lav,s of the United States of America and the
State of California that the foregoing is true and ~
26
27 Alexa Kim
28
SMOIDOCS712347.1 1 COUNTRy\VIDE'S MonON FOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER
RELIEF

- 126 -
 PROOF OF SERVICE BY HAND DELIVERY

2 I I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is 1511 W. Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles,
3 I CA 90026.

4 e On December I g, 2008, I served the following documents, enclosed in a sealed envelope,

described as: NON~PARTY COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.'S NOTICE OF
5 I MOTION AND MOTION (1) FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT
6 UJOSEPH ZERNIK IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,564.50 FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE JULy
23, 2007 PROTECTIVJJ; ORDER; (2) FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
7 BDEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT AND
SANCTIONED FOR V][OLATIONS OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER; AND (3) FOR A
8 ~ MODIFICATION OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER TO INCLUDE OFFICERS AND
ElVIPLOYEES OF ALL COUNTRYWIDE AFFILIATES, INCLUDING BANK OF
9 HAl\1ERICA CORPORATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
]0 ~ DECLARATIONS OF JOHN W. AMBERG AND TODD A. BOOCK, on the person(s) set
forth below:
1I
III Robert J. Shulkin, Esq. Joseph Zernik
0-
.,
III
"1
12 Legal Department 2415 Saint George Street
0°
1'1"1
13
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company LDs Feliz, California 90027
0.. ..
..J ~
& "I(
11611 San Vicente Boulevard, 9 m floor Telephone: (310) 435-9107
~~~ 14 Los Angeles, CA 9n049 Facsimile: (801) 998-0917
;> • 0
<>- ...
u~:;
Facsimile: 310-447··1902 jz12345(a),earthlink.net
Z
<
0 <
-< U 15 robert.shulkin@camoves.com
>- 0 •
lr " -<
mill v
o i 16
1)Q;~
.... 0
~L
-<
>- 17 By personally delivering a copy of the documents to the address listed above.
z
-<
I"l
18 II Executed on December 1g, 2008, at Los Angeles, California. 1 declare under penalty of
pe~iury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and conect.
1'9 II

20
21 Signature
22
23

24 Please Print Name

First Legal Attorney Service
25

26
27
28
SMO I[)OCS7I234 7.1 2

COUNTRYWlDE-'S MOTION-FOR SANCTIONS AND OTHER

REUEF

- 127 -