09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #11 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part6a p394-441

Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 39 of 50
15
1 YOUR HONOR. MR. ZERNIK HAS SET UP A WEB SITE IN WHICH HE
2 CHALLENGES THE COURT'S AUTHORITY OVER HIM, HE CHALLENGES THE
3 VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT AND HE MAKES ALL KINDS OF WILD AND

4 BIZARRE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME, AGAINST EVERY JUDGE THAT HAS
5 BEEN ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE AND AGAINST MY CLIENTS.
6 THE COURT: HE'S ALLOWED TO SET UP A WEB SITE.
7 MR. KESHAVARZI: I'M NOT SAYING HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO,

8 YOUR HONOR. IT GOES TO HIS INTENT. IF I DIDN'T THINK HE WAS
9 ALLOWED TO, I WOULD HAV2 BEEN HERE IN FRONT OF YOUR YOUR HONOR
10 WITH AN EX PARTE ASKING FOR A TRO AND INJUNCTION. I BELIEVE
11 HE'S ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT WEB SITE. THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM.

12 MY PROBLEM IS THAT WHAT HE SAYS IN THAT WEB
13 SITE ALONG WITH HIS ACTIONS SO FAR, SHOWS THAT HE'S UNWILLING
14 TO SEE THIS JUDGMENT CARRIED THROUGH.
15 YOUR HONOR, MY CLIENTS HAVE SPENT SIGNIFICANT
16 SUMS OF MONEY IN ATTORNEYS FEE GETTING THIS JUDGMENT
17 ENFORCED -- GETTING THIS JUDGMENT. AND NOW THAT WE'VE HAD THE
18 JUDGMENT SINCE AUGUST 9TH, MR. ZERNIK HAS NOTICED OVER 45
19 EX PARTE APPLICATIONS, YOUR HONOR, 45 EX PARTE APPLICATIONS.
20 THE COURT: IS THERE AN ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION?
21 MR. KESHAVARZI: THERE IS AN ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION.
22 JUDGE CONNOR, WHEN SHE ENTERED THE JUDGMENT SAID THAT WE WERE
23 NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS FEES, BUT WE HAD A DIALOGUE ON THE
24 RECORD WHERE SHE SAID I COULD BRING A MOTION IF I WANTED TO.
25 SHE WASN'T SURE ABOUT PREJUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES, BUT SHE SAID
26 POST JUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES, I COULD BRING A MOTION.
27 SO WITH RESPECT TO PREJUDGMENT, WHO KNOWS. IT
28 MAY BE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET PREJUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES,
EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS

PAGE 586
394 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p394/679

16
r--------..;;-------------
1 BUT POST JUDGMENT WE CERTAINLY DO INTEND TO BRING THAT MOTION.
2 YOUR HONOR, WE MADE THE ARGUMENTS IN OUR
3 PAPERS. I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE YOUR HONOR'S TIME. IF YOU
4 DON'T APPOINT A RECEIVER, THIS JUDGMENT IS NEVER GOING TO GET
5 ENFORCED, YOUR HONOR. WE'VE TRIED EVERYTHING. WE'VE TRIED
6 SENDING HIM A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT, SENDING HIM A COpy OF THE
7 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER. WE TRIED CALLING THE REFEREE.
8 IF HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE REFEREE NOT HAVING
9 THE CONTRACT, WHY WOULDN'T HE JUST SHOW UP AND GIVE THE
10 REFEREE A COPY OF THE CONTRACT? MR. ZERNIK IS ELEVATING FORM
11 OVER SUBSTANCE. HE'S TRYING TO FIND TECHNICALITIES AND TR~ TO
12 GET OUT FROM THE JUDGMENT BEING ENFORCED AGAINST HIM ON
13 TECHNICALITIES.
11 ONE POINT, YOUR HONOR, MR. ZERNIK SAID THAT MY
15 DECLARATION HAS A COPY OF THE SCMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER INSTEAD
16 OF THE JUDGMENT. THAT IS CORRECT. I'LL AGREE WITH HIM ON
17 THAT. THE REASON IS I HAD NOT SEEN ~ COpy OF THE JUDGMENT. I
18 BELIEVED -- AND JUDGE CONNOR HAD TOLD ME ON THE RECORD WHEN I
19 SAID, "WE NEED A JUDGMENT ENTERED." SHE SAID, "I'M ENTERING
20 THE JUDGMENT" AND HER CLERK GAVE ME A COpy OF THE ORDER AND
21 SAID THAT THAT WAS THE JUDGMENT, BUT YOUR HONOR HAS A COPY OF
22 THE JUDGMENT, AND IT MIRRORS THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER. THE
23 SUMMARY JUDGMENT -- ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS EXACTLY
24 THE SAME. THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT IN THE JUDGMENT IS
25 THAT IT'S A LIT~LE BIT SHORTER.
26 THE COURT: MR. ZERNIK, YOU GET THE LAST WORD.
27 MR. ZERNIK: YEAH, I'M REA~LY CONFOUNDED BY EVERYTHING
28 ATTORNEY KESHAVARZI SAYS FROM BEGINNING TO THE END BECAUSE

PAGE 587

17
1 HE'S A LAWYER. I'M NOT. I START FROM THE END. HOW CAN YOU
2 SAY THAT ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT --
3 THE COURT: YOU CAN DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COURT,
4 NOT TO HIM.
5 MR. ZERNIK: I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW HE CAN SAY THAT
6 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THE SAME AS JUDGMENT.
7 THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO.

8 THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISCUSSES
9 THE VALIDITY OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT THE
10 JUDGMENT ITSELF DEALS WITH ISSUES OF MONEY AND PROPERTY. SO
11 THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP.
12 FOR EXAMPLE, HE GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF ATTORNEYS
13 FEES. NO WHERE IN THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS
14 THERE ANY MENTION OF THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED
15 TO ANY ATTORNEYS FEES. AND AS HE HIMSELF MENTIONED, THIS IS A
16 VERY SIGNIFICANT SUM OF MONEY. THAT IS SPELLED OUT IN THE
17 JUDGMENT BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF JUDGMENT.
18 SIMILARLY, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ATTORNEY FOR
19 PLAINTIFF MEANS BY SAYING THAT HE HAD A DIALOGUE WITH
20 JUDGE CONNOR REGARDING FILING ADDITION TO THE JUDGMENT.
21 THE COURT: NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE MOTION.
22 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. BEYOND THAT, HE'S MADE CLAIMS WHICH
23 ARE TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED ABOUT WEB SITE, ET CETERA. IF HE
24 HAD SUCH CLAIM, HE SHOULD HAVE FILED IT. HE SHOULD HAVE FILED
25 THE DOCUMENTS, BUT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO DOCUMENTS WHICH HE DID
26 NOT BRING BEFORE THE COURT, THAT'S UNREASONABLE.
27 BEYOND THAT HE SAYS FORM OVER SUBSTANCE. JUDGE
28 O'BRIAN DID NOT HAVE HIS APPOINTMENT DONE. JUDGE O'BRIAN

PAGE 588

18
1 HIMSELF SIGNED, WITH COOPERATION OF PLAINTIFF, A PROPOSED
2 ORDER FOR HIS OWN APPOINTMENT, WHICH CAME BEFORE THE COURT IN
3 SOME KIND OF UNUSUAL LODGING MECHANISM BEFORE JUDGE GOODMAN
4 AND JuDGE GOODMAN DENIED IT. I DON'T KNOW WHY. I WAS FOR IT.
5 I WAS LOOKING FOR A REFEREE THAT IS APPOINTED AS -- DULY
6 APPOINTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
7 BUT INS~EAD, HE WAS NOT APPOINTED. HE DID NOT
8 HAVE THE CORRECT DOCUMENTS. HE SHOULD HAVE -- HE RECEIVED
9 FROM THE COURT WITH THE ORDER APPOINTING HIM THE CORRECT
10 DOCUMENT. INSTEAD HE RELIED ON PLAINTIFF TO GIVE HIM THE
11 DOCUMENTS. AND HOW CAN PLAINTIFF SAY HE NEVER SAW THE
12 JUDGMENT? SO HOW DID YOU EXPECT TO EXECUTE IT? HOW COULD YOU
14 THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE REPEATING
15 YOUR ARGUMENTS AND YOU'RE DIRECTING YOUR COMMENTS TO COUNSEL,
16 NOT TO THE COURT. THE MATTER IS UNDER SUBMISSION. YOU WILL
17 BE NOTIFIED IN THE MAIL.
18 MR. KESHAVARZI: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
19 MR. ZERNIK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
20
21 (AT 9:42 A.M., THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED.)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBITS VOLUME 11I- TRANSCRIPTS

PAGE 589

VOLUME III
REQUESTS & MOTIONS
IN STURGEON V LA COUNTY
{PROPOSED] INTERESTED PARTY
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 The minute order and order of November 21, 2007,
probably present the best way the collusion between
11 corrupt judges of the LA Superior Court and the Sheriff
12 Department.
The fact that Judge Segal felt comfortable to put on
13 paper such orders is a disgrace for the U.S. Justice
14 system.
Needless to say Att David Pasternak role in this case is
15
alleged obstruction, perversion of justice, taking of
16 real estate under the threat of force, hence robbery,
and other types of criminality as may be deemed upon
17
review by prosecutors.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 4,l
28
INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE

Case No. BC351286
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DATE: 11/21/07 DEPT. WEO
HONORABLE JOHN SEGAL JUDGE II N. ESTRADA DEPUTY CLERK

AVA FRASER, CA
HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
NONE DeputySheriffil SANDY MACNEIL, CSR #9013 Reporter
8:30 amlSC087400 Plaintiff

Counsel DAVID J. PASTERNAK (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant
JOSEPH ZERNI K Counsel JOSEPH ZERNIK (X)
RECUSAL - JUDGES A.GOODMAN; J. in pro per
BIDERMAN; & J. CONNOR;
CCP 170.6 - JUDGE NEIDORF
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
1. RECEIVER'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE

OF AN ORDER (1) ORDERING DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNICK AND
ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS TO IMMEDIATELY VACATE THE
RECEIVERSHIP REAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THAT
ORDER IN THE SAME MANNER AS THEY ENFORCE A WRIT OF
EXECUTION AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER
JUDGMENT, OR ALTERNATIVELY (2) AUTHORIZING THE
RECEIVER TO FILE AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER LAWSUIT AGAINST
DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNICK AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS
OF THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL PROPERTY;
2. DEFENDANT'S (JOSEPH ZERNIK) EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR ORDER FOR TEMPORARY STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT PENDING HEARING OF MOTION TO SET BOND FOR
APPEAL;
Matters are called for hearing and argued.

Matters stand submitted.
LATER:
Court issues its ruling on submitted matters as
follows:
Defendant's Ex Parte Application for Order for
Temporary Stay of Enforcement of Judgment Pending
Hearing of Motion to Set Bond For Appeal, as
captioned above, is DENIED.
MINUTES ENTERED
Page 1 of 3 DEPT. WEO 11/21/07
COUNTY CLERK

HONORABLE JOHN SEGAL JUDGEII N. ESTRADA DEPUTY CLERK

AVA FRASER, CA
NONE Deputy Sheriffll SANDY MACNE I L, CSR # 9 013 Reporter

NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant
JOSEPH ZERNIK Coom~ JOSEPH ZERNIK (X)
Receiver's Ex Parte Application for an order ordering

defendant Joseph Zernick and all other occupants to
immediately vacate the receivership real property and
directing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
to enforce the order in the same manner as they
enforce a writ of execution after the issuance of an
unlawful detainer judgment is GRANTED.
Order ordering defendant Joseph Zernick and all other
occupants to immediately vacate the receivership
real property is signed and filed this date.
Clerk to give notice.
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of
11/21/07 upon each party or counsel named below by
depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
in Santa Monica, California, one copy of the
original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope
for each, addressed as shown below with the postage
thereon fully prepaid.
Date: November 21, 2007
MINUTES ENTERED
COUNTY CLERK

HONORABLE JOHN SEGAL JUDGEII N. ESTRADA DEPUTY CLERK

AVA FRASER, CA
NONE DeputySheriffl1 SANDY MACNEIL, CSR #9013 Reporter

NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant
JOSEPH ZERNIK Counsel JOSEPH ZERNIK (X)
NA TURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk
By:
N. Estrada, Clerk
DAVID J. PASTERNAK
RECEIVER
1875 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2200
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
JOSEPH ZERNIK
IN PRO PER
320 S. PECK AVENUE
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
MINUTES ENTERED
COUNTY CLERK

lllDavid J. Pasternak, Bar No. 72201
Receiver
2111875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 L
Los Angeles, California 90067-2523
3l1Telephone: 310.553.1500 NOV 2 1 2007
Facsimile: 310.553.1540
41IE-Mail: djp@paslaw.com
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT
10
1111NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual, CASE NO. SC 087 400
1211 Plaintiff, Hon. John A. Segal
13 II vs. [PROP09~ORDER ORDERING

DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK AND ALL
14 II JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual OTHER OCCUPANTS TO IMMEDIATELY
and DOES 1 through 10, VACATE THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL
1511 inclusive, PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
16 II Defendants. DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THAT
ORDER IN THE SAME MANNER AS
17 THEY ENFORCE A WRIT OF
EXECUTION AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF
18 AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT
19 DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2007

TIME: 8:30 A.M.
20 DEPT. o
21
22 The Court having considered the Ex Parte Application of

23 Receiver David J. Pasternak for the issuance of an Order (1)
24 Ordering Defendant Joseph Zernik and all other occupants to
25 immediately vacate the receivership real property located at 320
2611S. Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212 (the "Receivership
271IProperty") and directing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's

W:\73235\PleadlngS\CrderReRecelver'sExParteM 1
28 II otlonU.doc
PASTERNAK [PROPOSED] ORDER ORDERING DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNICK AND ALL OTHER OCC~PANTS TO
PASTERNAK IM~EDIATELY VACATE THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL PROPERTY AND DIREC~I~G THE LOS ANGELES
&PATION COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THAT ORDSR IN THE S~~E ~ANNER AS THEY
402 ATTACHMENTS
ENFORCE A WRIT & EXHIBITS
OF EXECUTION AFTER THE ISSUANCEp402/679
OF AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT
~
I II Department to enforce that order in the same manner as they

211enforce a writ of execution issued after an unlawful detainer
3 II judgment, or alternatively (2) Authorizing the Receiver to file
411an unlawful detainer lawsuit to evict Defendant Joseph Zernik and
511all other occupants from the Receivership Property; the
611supporting Declaration of David J. Pasternak; all of the
711pleadings and others documents in the Court's file for this case;
811and all other and further oral and documentary evidence presented
911to the Court at or in connection with the ex parte hearing of
101lthis Receiver's Application; and good cause appearing therefor;
1111 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Joseph Zernik and all
12110ther occupants shall immediately vacate the receivership real
1311property located at 320 S. Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California
141190212 and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is directed
1511to enforce that order forthwith in the same manner as they
1611enforce a writ of execution issued after an unlawful detainer
1711 judgment J Tv 1'¥ eKle.t fJ" c;l,er,{F', !}pa</Yo.t.r /1 ...hk 1J,,I{;d.
18
1911 DATED:
20 II
lr(zr/?1 Court Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
W:\'32JS\P:eadlngs\OrderReReceiver'sExparteM 2
28 II otlonE.doc
[PROPOSED] ORDER ORDERING DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERN=CK AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS TO
=MMEDIATELY VACATE THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SHERIFF'S JEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THAT ORDER IN THE SN1E MANNER AS ToEY
403 ENFORCE A WRITATTACHMENTS & THE
OF EXECUTION AFTER EXHIBITS
ISSUANCEp403/679
OF AN CNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 II STATE OF CALIFOR~IA. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
311 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 1 am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1875 Century Park
-4 II East. Suite 2200. Los Angeles, California 90067-2523.
5 l i O n November 28, 2007. I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF

ISSUANCE OF ORDER ORDERING DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK AND ALL
611 OTHER OCCLPANTS TO IMMEDIATELY VACATE THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL
PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE LOS ANGELES COU:\TY SHERIFF'S
711 DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THAT ORDER IN THE SAME MANNER AS THEY
ENFORCE A WRIT OF EXECUTION AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF AN UNLAWFUL
8 II DETAINER JUDGMENT on all interested parties in this action by placing true copies thereof
enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
9
SEE ATTACHED LIST
10
~ BY MAIL: I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles, California.
"
11 The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with
this tirm' s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is
12 deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business.
I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal
13 cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing
in affidavit.
14
15 "
0 BY FACSIMILE: At or before 5:00 p.m., I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by
facsimile. The telephone number of the sending facsimile machine was (310) 553-1540.
The name(s) and facsimile machine telephone number(s) of the person(s) served are set
16 forth in the service list. The document was transmitted bv facsimile transmission, and the
sending facsimile machine properly issued a transmission report continning that the
17 transmission was complete and without error.
18110 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I deposited such document(s) in a box or other facility

regularly maintained by the overnight service carrier, or delivered such document(s) to a
19 courier or driver authorized by the overnight service carrier to receive documents, in an
envelope or package designated by the overnight service carrier with delivery fees paid or
20 provided for, addressed to the person(s) being served.
21110 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope(s) by hand to the office of the
person( s) being served.
22
23
0 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally delivered such envelope(s) directly to the
person( s) being served.
2-4 II I dedare under penalty of perjury under the lavvs of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
25
Executed on November 28, 2007, at Los Angeles, California.
26
/
"
27 _/
/'
<
/""_>~./ l.···..: ,t·/ "\
\
28 L. K. Snyder '-""'"
PASTERNAK.
PASTERNAK
&PAITON

\V "3235 Pleadings Pn'l)f llf Service l KS 11-28-07 doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Note at the end of section 4,m the two minute orders of
10 the two successive ex parte applications of the morning
of December 7, 2007, in two courthouses.
11 The two judges engaging in the abuse were, Lisa Hart Cole
12 and Patricia Collins.
Judge Hart Cole appeared excited about the opportunity
13 that was provided to her finally to join some racketeering
14 activity. I never met her before, but I filed upon arrival
a peremptory challenge. She was visibly disappointed,
15
and tried to deceive me on that court action as well.
16 Judge Patricia Collins was indifferent. I served her with
Disqualification for a cause, but she just ignored it,
17
She made a couple of statement that made it clear that the
18 only thing that she cared about was to get to her lunch on
19 time. Therefore she was a bit rushed in engaging in the various
criminal orders that she signed.
20 Both judges later dishonestly voided their actions in Sustain.
21 Lisa Hart-Cole "disposed" of the minute order in Sustain, as seen
in the date on the last page of her minute order "00/00/00".
22 Patricia Collins used false registration in the Register of
23 Action to void the proceeding.
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 4,m
28

Case No. BC351286
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 27



























DATE: 12/07/07 DEPT. WE X
HONORABLE Lisa Hart Cole JUDGEII N. LEE DEPUTY CLERK

E. SAN ANDRES, CiA
#9
NONE Deputy Sheriffll A. MAPP CSR# 7824 Reporter
8:30 amlSC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZI (X)

Counsel VIA COURTCALL
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant JOSEPH ZERNIK, PRO PER (X)
JOSEPH ZERNIK Counsel RECEIVER:
RECUSAL - JUDGES ALAN GOODMAN; DAVID PASTERNAK (X)
J.BIDERMAN; J.CONNOR; & J.SEGAL R. ORMOND(X)FOR INTERESTD
170.6-JUDGE R.NEIDORF PARTY MARA ESCROW CO.
EX PARTE APPLICATION OF RECEIVER DAVID J. PASTERNAK

FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER:
(1) APPROVING ESCROW DOCUMENTATION (INCLUDING GRANT
DEED) SIGNED AND SUBMITTED TO ESCROW BY RECEIVER;
(2) AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO SIGN AND SUBMIT TAX
DOCUMENTATION TO ESCROW;
(3) AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO ENTER INTO MARA ESCROW
COMPANY INDEMNITY AGREEMENT; AND
(4) PROHIBITING DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK FROM
COMMUNICATING DIRECTLY WITH ESCROW, TITLE INSURER,
OR BUYER'S LENDER;
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SECTION 170.6 BY DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK
IN PRO PER;
The Court is in receipt of a peremptory challenge

under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 filed by
defendant Joseph Zernik, in pro per, against Judge
Lisa Hart Cole on 12-7-07. The Court finds that
said peremptory challenge is timely filed and in the
proper format, and it is accepted.
Pursuant to the order of the Master Calendar for the
West District of the Los Angeles Superior Court,
Patricia L. Collins, Acting Supervising Judge
presiding, the above-entitled action is reassigned
for all purposes to Judge Terry B. Friedman in
Department West J, located at 1725 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA 90401. Any hearings currently set
MINUTES ENTERED
Page 1 of 3 DEPT. WE X 12/07/07
COUNTY CLERK

HONORABLE Li sa Hart Cole JUDGEII N. LEE DEPUTY CLERK

E. SAN ANDRES, CiA
#9
NONE Deputy Sheriffll A. MAP P CSR# 7824 Reporter

NIVIE SAMAAN
JOSEPH ZERNIK Counsel RECEIVER:
J.BIDERMAN; J.CONNOR; & J.SEGAL R. ORMOND (X) FOR INTERESTD
in Department West X are ordered advanced to this

date and vacated.
Any presently calendared motions shall be

re-scheduled and re-noticed for hearing by the
moving party in the newly assigned Department.
Moving party is to contact the newly assigned
Department for a motion hearing date suitable to
that Department's calendar.
However, the above-referenced ex parte application
is transferred forthwith to Department West B,
located at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401,
to be heard by Judge Patricia L. Collins as
Department West J is dark today.
The Receiver David J. Pasternak, Esq. is to give
notice.
The Court gives Notice of Case Reassignment to
Department West J to the Receiver David J.
Pasternak, Esq. via the Court's minute order. The
Receiver David J. Pasternak, Esq. is directed to
give notice to all parties.
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING/
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
a party to the cause herein, and that this date I
MINUTES ENTERED
COUNTY CLERK


HONORABLE Lisa Hart Cole JUDGEII N. LEE DEPUTY CLERK
E. SAN ANDRES, CiA
#9
NONE Deputy Sheriffll A. MAPP CSR# 7824 Reporter

NIVIE SAMAAN
JOSEPH ZERNI K Counsel RECEIVER:
J.BIDERMAN; J.CONNOR; & J.SEGAL R. ORMOND(X)FOR INTERESTD
served Notice of Entry of the above minute order of

12-7-07 upon each party or counsel named below by
depositing in the United States mail at the courthouse
in Beverly Hills, California, one copy of the
original entered herein in a separate sealed envelope
for each, addressed as shown below with the postage
thereon fully prepaid.
Date: 12-7-07
John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk
By:
N. Lee
DAVID J. PASTERNAK, ESQ., RECEIVER

1875 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2200
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
MINUTES ENTERED
Page 3 of 3 DEPT. 00/00/00
COUNTY CLERK

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF lOS ANGELES
DATE: 12/07/07 DEPT. WEB
HONORABLE PATRICIA L. COLLINS JUDGEII M. MABUNGA DEPUTY CLERK

S. MIXON, CSL/CT ASST.
HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEMII ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
NONE DeputySheriffl1 LAUREN JONES, CSR#7007 Reporter
11:45 amlSC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZI,APPEARS

Counsel VIA "COURTCALL" (X)
NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant IN PRO PER (X)
JOSEPH ZERNIK Counsel
DAVID J.PASTERNAK (X)
RICHARD P.ORMOND (X)
NO LEGAL FILE!
RECEIVER'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER:

1) APPROVING ESCROW DOCUMENTATION(INCLUDING GRANT
DEED) SIGNED AND SUBMITTED TO ESCROW BY RECEIVER:
2) AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO SIGN AND SUBMIT TAX
DOCUMENTATION TOO ESCROW;
3) AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO ENTER INTO MARA ESCROW
COMPANY INDEMNITY AGREEMENT; AND
4) PROHIBITING DEFENDANT,JOSEPH ZERNAK FROM
COMMUNICATING DIRECTLY WITH ESCROW, TITLE INSURER, OR
BUYER'S LENDER, AND ORDER THEREON:
At 11:45 A.M., no appearance by defendant,JOSEPH
ZERNIK, court goes forward with the ex parte
application.
At 11:55 A.M., defendant,JOSEPH ZERNIK now appears.
Challenge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 170.3 filed by defendant,Zernik against
Judge COLLINS is ordered striken by the court.
The matter is called and argued.
After arguments, Receiver's above-captioned ex parte
application is granted as outlined in the the Order
thereon filed and incoporated herein.
Copy of said Order given to all parties.
DAVID PASTERNAK,counsel for receiver to give notice.
MINUTES ENTERED
COUNTY CLERK

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
EXHIBIT 4,n
28

Case No. BC351286
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
.
.
”
07-12-17. Wedick's Opinion Letter re: Pasternak's Grant Deeds
EVIDENCE
OF REAL ESTATE FRAUD
&
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE OF TITLE
by
DAVID PASTERNAK, PURPORTED “RECEIVER”
appointed by the
LA SUPERIOR COURT
In
ALLEGED SHAM LITIGATION OF
SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Source of Records Examined by

Mr Wedick ... … 2
2. What is Samaan v Zernik? ... … 3
3. Mr Wedick's Resume' ... … 4
4. Opinion Letter of Mr Wedick, notarized ... … 6
5. Two Fraudulent Grant Deeds ... … 10

generated by Receiver
Pasternak, “Receiver” appointed
by the LA Superior Court:
5a. 12/7/2007 Grant Deed ... … 11
5b. 12/17/2007 Grant Deed, certified ... … 14

1. SOURCE OF RECORDS EXAMINED BY MR WEDICK
a) The December 7, 2007 Grant Deed

This record was copied from L Superior Court paper court file,
where Mr Pasternak entered a copy of an order purportedly
approved by Judge Patricia Collins on December 7, 2007. No
notice was served by Pasternak of this order, and no notice was
given of its entry.
b) The December 7, 2007 Grant Deed

This record was found upon search in the Office of Registrar
Recorder of La County, and a certified copy was obtained from
that office. No notice was served by Pasternak of this record,
and no notice was given of its entry in the office of the
Registrar/Recorder.

2. WHAT IS SAMAAN V ZERNIK?
It is entirely unclear what Samaan v Zernik was, and is. In part, it

defies definition, since the offices of the Presiding Judge of the
Court, Stephen Czuleger, as well as the in-house Counsel of the
Court, Mr D. Bret Bianco, and also the external counsel retained
by the Court for this matter, all refuse to answer even the most
basic questions regarding this matter:
a) Is Samaan v Zernik a true case duly registered and indexed, as required by
law for a case heard by the Superior Court of California?
b) Is Samaan v Zernik a case listed in the Calendar of the Courts, as required by
law for a case heard by the Superior Court of California?
c) Is there a judge duly assigned to this case, as required by law for a case heard
by the Superior Court of California?
d) Is there a valid, entered judgment in this case, alternatively – is there no valid,
entered judgment in this case?
In recent letter to Mr Kenneth Melson, Director, U.S. Department of
Justice, it was referred to as an “Enterprise Track” case. In his
response Mr Melson doubted that I had sufficient evidence to
prove the existence of such track in the court.
Here, Samaan v Zernik is referred to as “sham litigation”. Some
of the characteristics are: None of the judges had an assignment
order, as required by law. Therefore, none had any authority in
this case either. I appeared before the Supervising Judge of the
Court several times during litigation, with request that he issue
due assignment orders, but he refused to do so.

09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #11 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part6a p394-441

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

09-08-13 Sturgeon V La County (BC351286) at The Los Angeles Superior Court - #11 - DR Zernik's Motions Vol II Part6a p394-441

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 58-6 Filed 05/09/2008 Page 39 of 50

1 YOUR HONOR. MR. ZERNIK HAS SET UP A WEB SITE IN WHICH HE

2 CHALLENGES THE COURT'S AUTHORITY OVER HIM, HE CHALLENGES THE

3 VALIDITY OF THE JUDGMENT AND HE MAKES ALL KINDS OF WILD AND

6 THE COURT: HE'S ALLOWED TO SET UP A WEB SITE.

7 MR. KESHAVARZI: I'M NOT SAYING HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO,

10 WITH AN EX PARTE ASKING FOR A TRO AND INJUNCTION. I BELIEVE

11 HE'S ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT WEB SITE. THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM.

16 SUMS OF MONEY IN ATTORNEYS FEE GETTING THIS JUDGMENT

18 JUDGMENT SINCE AUGUST 9TH, MR. ZERNIK HAS NOTICED OVER 45

19 EX PARTE APPLICATIONS, YOUR HONOR, 45 EX PARTE APPLICATIONS.

20 THE COURT: IS THERE AN ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION?

21 MR. KESHAVARZI: THERE IS AN ATTORNEYS FEES PROVISION.

23 NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS FEES, BUT WE HAD A DIALOGUE ON THE

24 RECORD WHERE SHE SAID I COULD BRING A MOTION IF I WANTED TO.

26 POST JUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES, I COULD BRING A MOTION.

27 SO WITH RESPECT TO PREJUDGMENT, WHO KNOWS. IT

28 MAY BE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET PREJUDGMENT ATTORNEYS FEES,

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS

394 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p394/679

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS

395 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p395/679

2 SAY THAT ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT --

3 THE COURT: YOU CAN DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COURT,

5 MR. ZERNIK: I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW HE CAN SAY THAT

6 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS THE SAME AS JUDGMENT.

7 THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO.

9 THE VALIDITY OF THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BUT THE

10 JUDGMENT ITSELF DEALS WITH ISSUES OF MONEY AND PROPERTY. SO

13 FEES. NO WHERE IN THE ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS

14 THERE ANY MENTION OF THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED

15 TO ANY ATTORNEYS FEES. AND AS HE HIMSELF MENTIONED, THIS IS A

16 VERY SIGNIFICANT SUM OF MONEY. THAT IS SPELLED OUT IN THE

17 JUDGMENT BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF JUDGMENT.

18 SIMILARLY, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ATTORNEY FOR

19 PLAINTIFF MEANS BY SAYING THAT HE HAD A DIALOGUE WITH

20 JUDGE CONNOR REGARDING FILING ADDITION TO THE JUDGMENT.

21 THE COURT: NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE MOTION.

22 MR. ZERNIK: OKAY. BEYOND THAT, HE'S MADE CLAIMS WHICH

23 ARE TOTALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED ABOUT WEB SITE, ET CETERA. IF HE

25 THE DOCUMENTS, BUT TO MAKE REFERENCE TO DOCUMENTS WHICH HE DID

26 NOT BRING BEFORE THE COURT, THAT'S UNREASONABLE.

27 BEYOND THAT HE SAYS FORM OVER SUBSTANCE. JUDGE

28 O'BRIAN DID NOT HAVE HIS APPOINTMENT DONE. JUDGE O'BRIAN

EXHIBITS VOLUME III - TRANSCRIPTS

396 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p396/679

1 HIMSELF SIGNED, WITH COOPERATION OF PLAINTIFF, A PROPOSED

5 I WAS LOOKING FOR A REFEREE THAT IS APPOINTED AS -- DULY

6 APPOINTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

7 BUT INS~EAD, HE WAS NOT APPOINTED. HE DID NOT

8 HAVE THE CORRECT DOCUMENTS. HE SHOULD HAVE -- HE RECEIVED

10 DOCUMENT. INSTEAD HE RELIED ON PLAINTIFF TO GIVE HIM THE

11 DOCUMENTS. AND HOW CAN PLAINTIFF SAY HE NEVER SAW THE

14 THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE REPEATING

15 YOUR ARGUMENTS AND YOU'RE DIRECTING YOUR COMMENTS TO COUNSEL,

16 NOT TO THE COURT. THE MATTER IS UNDER SUBMISSION. YOU WILL

17 BE NOTIFIED IN THE MAIL.

18 MR. KESHAVARZI: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

19 MR. ZERNIK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

21 (AT 9:42 A.M., THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED.)

EXHIBITS VOLUME 11I- TRANSCRIPTS

397 ATTACHMENTS & EXHIBITS p397/679

INTERESTED PARTY JOSEPH H ZERNIK’S MOTIONS FOR MISTRIAL/RECONSIDERATION/SETTING ASIDE