Digitally signed

by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@e
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net arthlink.net, c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.08.13
11:57:24 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert

10-08-13 RE: BD 518 503 - Complaint against Attorney David Pasternak and the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for public corruption and racketeering in
pretense receiverships at the Court.

Executive Summary 1
Los Angles, August 13 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and
Joseph Zernik, PhD, against Attorney David Pasternak, the Superior Court of California, and others for public corruption and
deprivation of rights and racketeering in receiverships operations at the Court in general, and in re case BD 518 503 in particular.
The complaint alleged that Attorney David Pasternak appeared in the case as receiver with no authority at all, as part of a pattern of
operating receiverships at the court with no legal foundation, and thereby looting persons coming to the Court, where they expect
honest court services.
The complaint provided evidence of void, false on their faces, and deliberately misleading court orders appointing Mr Pasternak
“Receiver” in the case:
a) An order appointing Attorney Pasternak was produced from the case, which failed to cite any section of the California code
as the legal foundation for his authority;
b) The order came with a false and deliberately misleading authentication record, and
c) There was no evidence that the order was entered in the manner in which such orders are required to be entered pursuant to
the California code to make them valid and “effectual for any purpose”.
Others named in the complaint were Commissioner James D Endman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Clerk of the Court John A
Clarke, Judge David Yaffe – in charge of Writs and Receiverships, Court Counsel Frederick Bennett, Attorney Elyse P Margolin (Levin
& Margolin), Attorney Burton M Senkfor (Law Office of Burton Mark Senkfor), Attorney John A Ellis (Trope & Trope), and Attorney
Edward Friedman (Turner Aubert & Friedman, LLP).
The complaint further claimed that conduct of receiverships of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, were a well-
established racket. Previous complaints against Mr Pasternak and others noted similar conduct by Attorney David Pasternak in
Galdjie v Darwish (SC052737) and Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), both alleged as real estate fraud by the Court through conduct of
Attorney David Pasternak. In the latter case, James Wedick, a highly decorated FBI veteran, and a renowned fraud expert, also issued
an opinion stating conduct of David Pasternak “fraud being committed”.
Fraud in operations of receiverships at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles was claimed as part of a larger fraud
scheme, where the Court published for several decades false and deliberately misleading Local Rules claiming that Judgment Books
of the Court were maintained by the Clerk at the various Districts of the Court, while in fact no such Books were maintained by the
Court for several decades. Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke also refused to correct such false
Local Rules, or disclose to true Local Rules of the Court regarding Judgment Books. Court Counsel Frederick Bennett, alleged as a
central figure in the racket, claimed with no authority at all that the Judgment Book of the Court today was the Microfilm Judgment
Archive of the Court. Review of a large volume of records in the Microfilm Archive indeed revealed routine entry of divorce decrees.
However, hardly any judgments of the civil courts were found entered in the Archive, and not a single order appointing receiver was
ever found in the Archive.
David Pasternak is former President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, former Member of the California Judicial Council, and
former President of Bet Tzedek (“The House of Justice”) – a prominent Los Angeles Jewish charity. Therefore, the complaint alleged
that his conduct reflected widespread corruption of the California courts and the legal profession.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice
systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to
the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the
United States.
_______________

1
For ease of access to the hyperlinks provided in instant complaint, an online copy was also posted at:
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2010/08/10-08-13-re-bd-518-503-complaint.html
z Page 2/7 August 13, 2010 TOC

Andre Birotte Jr., US Attorney, Central District of California.

221 N Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90012
By certified mail.
By fax: 213-894-6269

TO US ATTORNEY, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: Please accept instant Citizen’s

Complaint by Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO) against Attorney David Pasternak and the
Los Angeles Superior Court – for public corruption and deprivation of rights, and conduct of a well-
established racketeering enterprise relative to pretense receiverships at the Court. Attorney David Pasternak is
alleged as key figure the enterprise at the Court. Evidence is provided from the case of BD 518 503, as
addition to cases of the Court, which were documented in previous complaints.
COMPLAINT
A. General
1. What did the experts say about the justice system in Los Angeles County, California?
• "Innocent people remain in prison"
• "...the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice
system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to
the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of..."
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) i
• "...judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did
not commit."
Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) ii
• "This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states...
and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted."
Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2000) iii
2. Complainants
Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, resident of Los Angeles County, California
Mailing Address: PO Box 526, La Verne, California 91750
Tel: 323-515-4583
Fax: (preferred) 323-488-9697
Email: (preferred) jz12345@earthlink.net
3. Complainants are not attorneys, neither are they represented by counsel in matters, which are
subject of instant complaint.
Therefore, in most case, no sections of the code were cited. Instead, the US Attorney is requested to
apply the correct sections of the code. In case errors were made, where sections of the code were cited,
the US Attorney is requested to disregard such citations of the code, and instead - review the facts alone
and apply to them the correct sections of the code.
3. Public Policy Significance
The complaint holds unique public policy significance, since it documents the conduct at the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles, which is alleged as a well-established racketeering enterprise, which
was also documented in previous complaints filed with your good offices.
Moreover, Attorney David Pasternak is former President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, former
Member of the California Judicial Council, and former President of Bet Tzedek (“The House of Justice”) – a
prominent Los Angeles Jewish charity. Therefore, the complaint alleged that his conduct reflected
widespread corruption of the California courts and the legal profession.
4. The Accused
a) Attorney David Pasternak (Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton, LLP);
b) Commissioner James D Endman;
c) Presiding Judge Charles McCoy;
z Page 3/7 August 13, 2010 TOC

d) Judge David Yaffe – Judge in charge of Writs and Receiverships

e) Clerk of the Court John A Clarke;
f) Court Counsel Fredrick Bennett;
g) Attorney Elyse P Margolin (Levin & Margolin);
h) Attorney Burton M Senkfor (Law Office of Burton Mark Senkfor);
i) Attorney John A Ellis (Trope & Trope), and
j) Attorney Edward Friedman (Turner Aubert & Friedman, LLP).
5. General Claims
Conduct of the accused at the Civil Division of the Court in the caption, referenced above, is alleged as
including, but not limited to:
a) Public Corruption;
b) Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law;
c) Honest Services Fraud;
d) Fraud;
e) Mail Fraud;
f) Falsification of Court Records;
g) Conspiracy,
h) Denial of due process of law, and
i) Racketeering.
It should be emphasized that conduct in the civil courts, which is detailed in instant complaint, is not unique at
all. Other pretense actions at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, were detailed in
previous complaints pertaining to Galdjie v Darwish – a prototype of real estate fraud by the Court, iv Marina
v Los Angeles County – a prime example of false imprisonment by the Court, v and Sturgeon v Los Angeles
County – which undermines any prospect of future honest services at the Court. vi Conduct of pretense
receivership by Attorney David Pasternak in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) vii was opined as “fraud being
committed” by a fraud expert James Wedick – a fraud expert second to none.
6. Records pertaining to pretense appearances of Attorney David Pasternak as Receiver in
Exhibits a), b), and c) are records, which upon information and belief, are records that were generated and
served by Attorney David Pasternak in BD 518 503 at the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles as the purported legal foundation for his pretense appearances as Receiver in the case:
a) February 18, 2010 ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER;
b) February 18, 2010 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF STIPULATED ORDER APPOINTING
RECEIVER, and
c) February 18, 2010 OATH OF RECEIVER DAVID J. PASTERNAK
Of particular significance is the purported Order appointing David Pasternak Receiver. The Order in Exhibit
a) is void, not voidable, false on its face, and deliberately misleading order of the Court, and key to the
pretense appearances of Attorney David Pasternak as “Receiver” in the case:
a) The California Code provides specific sections, where a Court is permitted to establish Receivers.
The purported Order appointing Attorney Pasternak in the case, referenced above, failed to cite any
section of the California code as the legal foundation for his authority. Therefore, it must be
concluded that the Order and the purported appointment of Attorney David Pasternak in the case
lacked any foundation in the law.
b) The order came with a false and deliberately misleading authentication record, belonging to another
record: Notice of Issuance of Stipulated Order Appointing Receiver. A naïve reader could possibly
consider such false authentication record as an inadvertent error. However, review of numerous
records generated and served by Attorney David Pasternak and others at the Court, found the practice
so widespread, that it was dubbed “The Fingerprints of the Racket”.
c) There was no evidence that the order was entered in the manner in which such orders were required to
be entered pursuant to the California code to make them valid and “effectual for any purpose”.
z Page 4/7 August 13, 2010 TOC

7. Additional evidence and records are provided in records linked below, in respective court files,
and in complaints previously filed with the office of US Attorney, Los Angeles.
For the sake of brevity, only a small part of the evidence was described and linked below. Please do not
hesitate to contact Dr Zernik for additional evidence in this matter.
Please consider the records (linked below), as integral part of instant complaint.
Additional evidence pertaining to instant complaint, which further supports the allegations is held in
Court file of BD 518 503.
8. Conduct, documented in instant complaint, is the culmination of efforts by the Courts, lasting
several decades, to ambiguate procedures related to Judgment Books and Entry of Judgments and
Orders Appointing Receivers – fundamentals of Due Process of Law.
Fraud in operations of receiverships at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles is claimed as
part of a larger fraud scheme, relative to failure of the Court to maintain a Judgment Book and enter
judgments and Orders Appointing Receivers of the Court as required by California Government Code §
69844.7 and California Civil Code §664 et seq.
The Court published for several decades false and deliberately misleading Local Rules claiming that Judgment
Books of the Court were maintained by the Clerk at the various Districts of the Court, while in fact no such
Books were maintained by the Court for several decades. Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the
Court John A Clarke also refused to correct such false Local Rules, or to disclose the true Local Rules of the
Court regarding maintenance of Judgment Books and entry of judgments and orders appointing receivers.
Court Counsel Frederick Bennett, alleged as a central figure in the racket, claimed with no authority at all that
the Judgment Book of the Court today was the Microfilm Judgment Archive of the Court.
Review of a large volume of records in the Microfilm Archive indeed revealed routine entry of divorce
decrees. However, hardly any judgments of the civil courts were found entered in the Archive, and not a
single order appointing a receiver was ever found in the Archive.
Therefore, Judge David Yaffe – Judge in charge of Writs and Receiverships, must also be deemed central
figure in the racket.
Additional details of the alleged fraud in entry of judgments and appealable orders were provided in
complaints, previously filed with your office against judges and the Los Angeles Superior Court, linked
below.
9. Alleged widespread corruption of the justice system in Los Angeles is drawing both national and
international awareness.
As part of the first ever review by the United Nations (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States, report was
filed by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Dr Joseph Zernik, viii alleging widespread corruption of the justice
system in Los Angeles County, California. The report further documented the refusal of senior officers of the
US government to abide by its duties and responsibilities pursuant to ratified international law – in failure to
accord equal protection to the 10 million residents of Los Angeles County.
As part of the UPR process, US, UK, Germany, and France based blogs were created,ix where over 17,000
readers from some 85 nations were recorded so far.
A Scribd site was created for Human Rights Alert in January 2010, which has recorded over 100,000 reads,
with over 500 reads a day in recent months.x
Additional news sites, where Dr Zernik and Human Rights Alert routinely issue press releases, attracted tens
of thousands of additional readers. xi
z Page 5/7 August 13, 2010 TOC

Furthermore, an online archive was established, xii documenting the alleged abuses of rights. The archive, not
a user’s friendly site by any stretch of imagination, has attracted thousands of visits per month from nations
worldwide, totaling of close to 90,000 visits in 2010 alone. xiii
5. Remedies are requested by the US Attorney, Central District of California, including, but not
limited to equal protection of all 10 millions who reside in Los Angeles County.
US Attorney, Central District of California, is herein requested to provide the following remedies:
a) Equal protection of the Constitutional, Civil, and Human Rights of all 10 millions who reside in Los
Angeles County under US and ratified international law, by putting an end to pretend litigations at the Los
Angeles Superior Court by compelling the Courts to comply with California, US, and ratified international
law.
b) Enforcement of First Amendment rights and US Supreme Court decision in Nixon v Warner
Communications, Inc (1978) in Los Angeles County, California, by compelling the Los Angeles Superior
Court to permit public access – to inspect and to copy court records - including, but not limited to the
Register of Actions, Audit Data in the Registers, and paper court files.
c) Enforcement of Fair Hearings and Due Process rights in Los Angeles County, California, by compelling
the Los Angeles Superior Court to publish honest, valid, and effectual Local Rules of Court, including, but
not limited to rules pertaining to entry of judgment and maintenance of Books of Judgments, as required
by California Civil Code.
d) Investigation and, if necessary, prosecution of the accused, in particular Attorney David Pasternak, in re:
allegations of public corruption and deprivation of rights under the color of law. It should be noted that the
request in instant complaint for US investigation of the justice system in Los Angeles County, California,
is a repeat of the recommendations of the official report of the Blue Ribbon Review Panel (2006). xiv

6. Request for due process in acceptance, acknowledgement, and review of complaints at the US
Attorney Office, Central District of California.
As previously noted, the web pages of the US Attorney Office and information received from staff of the
Office, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that at best a vague and ambiguous procedures were
established at the US Attorney’s Office for acceptance, acknowledgment, and review of complaints at the
newly re-established Public Corruption and Civil Rights unit. It is therefore explicitly requested that the US
Attorney Office, Central District of California, accord due process to instant complaint:
a) That the complaint be accepted as such;
b) That the US Attorney Office acknowledge receipt of the complaint and issue a reference number for the
complaint;
c) That the complaint be duly reviewed, and
d) That following review, a response be provided, verified by an authorized person.

Respectfully,
Dated: August 13, 2010
Joseph Zernik, PhD

By: ______________
JOSEPH H ZERNIK
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750
Phone: 323.515.4583
Fax: 323.488.9697
Email <jz12345@earthlink.net>
z Page 6/7 August 13, 2010 TOC

CC:
1) Prof David Burcham – former Dean, Loyola Law School
<david.burcham@lmu.edu>
2) Prof Erwin Chemerinsky – Dean, Irvine Law School
<EChemerinsky@law.uci.edu>
3) Attorney Connie Rice – Los Angeles Advancement Project
<dmcmorris@advanceproj.org>
4) UPR Office of the United Nations
<UPRsubmissions@ohchr.org>
5) UPR Office of the US State Department:
<upr_info@state.gov>
6) The Honorable Dianne Feinstein – Senator from California
7) US Senate and House of Representatives – Judiciary Committees

LINKS
i
LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24902306/
ii
Paper by Prof David Burcham, Dean, Loyola Law School, LA (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043589/
iii
Paper by Prof Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Irvine Law School (2001)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27433920/
iv
Complaints filed with US Attorneys Office pertaining to Galdjie v Darwish:
10-07-19-Complaint-filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-against-Judge-John-Segal-Clerk-John-Clarke-Attorney-David-
Pasternak-Los-Angeles-Superior-Court-in Galdjie v Darwish
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34504304/
10-07-22-Complaint-filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-against-the-California-Court-of-Appeal-2nd-District-in-Re-Public-
Corruption-racketeering-in-Galdjie-v-Darwish
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34725529/
v
Complaint filed with US Attorneys Office pertaining to Marina v Los Angeles County:
10-07-08-Complaint-Filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-Los-Angeles-against-Judge-David-Yaffe-and-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-for-Public-
Corruption-and-Deprivation of Rights
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34057033/
vi
Complaint filed with US Attorneys Office pertaining to Sturgeon v Los Angeles County:
10-07-15-Complaint-filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-Central-District-of-California-against-Justice-James-A-Richman-Presiding-
Judge-Charles-McCoy-Clerk John Clarke:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34408770/
vii
10-06-21Complaint against Mr-David-Pasternak-for-Public-Corruption-Deprivation-of-Civil-Rights, racketeering in Samaan v
Zernik (SC087400)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33354641/
viii
April 2010 Human Rights Alert (NGO) report to the UN for the 2010 UPR:
1) Press Release:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30200004/
2) Submission:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30147583/
3) Appendix:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30163613/
ix
Blog associated with Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
http://josephzernik.blog.co.uk/
http://menchenrechte-los-angeles.blogspot.com/
x
Scribd site of Human Rights Alert (NGO)
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
xi
News sites where Human Rights Alert posts routine releases:
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
z Page 7/7 August 13, 2010 TOC

http://pressroom.prlog.org/Human_Rights_Alert/
xii
Online archive documenting corruption of the courts in Los Angeles County and beyond:
http://inproperinla.com/
xiii
Intense interest by the Russian Republic in corruption of US courts and banking regulation:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33910548/
xiv
Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) – see (i), above.
Exhibit a)
 1 David J. Pasternak, Bar No. 72201
(Proposed) Receiver
2 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, California 90067-2523
3 Telephone: 310.553.1500
Facsimile: 310.553.1540
4 E-Mail: djp@pas1aw.com rEB 18 l616
5 O~lGINAL FILED
6

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

10

11 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CASE NO. BD 518 503

12 SALIM KARIMI, Bon. James D. Endman

13 Petitioner, • I ORDER APPOINTING

RECEIVER
14 and
DEPT. 84
15 JANNKI MITHAIWALA,

16 Respondent.

17

18 Good cause appearing therefor:

19 IT IS BEREBY ORDJ!;RED that David J. Pasternak (the "Receiver")

20 is appointed as Receiver to take immediate and sole possession,

21 custody, and control of all of the parties' shares of stock in

22 Advanced Developments and Investments, Inc. ("ADI") and Pacific

23 Housing Diversified, Inc. (PHD") (the "Property"), and to maintain

24 and conserve the Property pending further order of this Court. The

25 powers of the Receiver shall be all the usual and customary powers

26 of a receiver to take control of, maintain, preserve, and exercise

27 all powers of the shareholders of such stock, including the duties

28 and powers enumerated below.

PASTERNAK.
PASTERNAK W:IAS4S0\ooollPleadingslProposecl Order AppoinlinS R«e;vetOZ.14·IO.doc: 1
& PATTON
(PROPOSED) ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
> ••• j.'
 j'.

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

2 1. Receiver's Oath and Bond. Before performing his duties,
3 the Receiver shall execute a receiver's oath and file a bond in
4 Department 84 with surety thereon, approved by this Court in the sum
5 of $100, 000, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the
6 Receiver's duties.

7 2. Receiver's Disclosures. Within seven (7) days of his

8 appointment, the Receiver shall disclose to all parties any
9 financial relationship between the Receiver and any company he hires
10 to assist in the management of the Collateral.
11 3. Receiver's Duties and Powers. After so qualifying, the
12 Receiver shall:

13 (a) Take sole possession, custody and control of the

14 Property, including without limitation, all related documents,
15 books, records, papers, and accounts;

16 (b) Collect all profits, proceeds, and income resulting

17 from the operation and possession of the Property;

18 (c) Care for, preserve, operate and maintain the

19 Property;

20 (d) Enter into contracts as the Receiver reasonably

21 believes necessary .for the maintenance and operation of the
22 Property;
23 (e) Institute and prosecute all suits as the Receiver,
24 upon obtaining permission of the Court, may reasonably believe to be
25 necessary in connection with the maintenance and operation of the
26 Property, and defend and/or intervene in all such suits and actions
27 as may be instituted concerning the Property or the Receiver;
28

W;\4S4S01OOO11PIcadingalPmposed Order Appointing Rcc:civcr02·14-10.doc 2

(PROPOSEDI ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
 1 (f) Issue subpoenas, conduct and participate in
2 discovery, take depositions, pursue contempt actions, and otherwise
3 pursue all remedies available by law to ensure compliance with the
4 Receiver's authority granted herein; and
5 (g) Incur the expenses necessary for the care,
6 preservation and maintenance of the property.
7 4. The Receiver shall have the sole authority and right to
8 exercise all powers and rights possessed by holders of the
9 Property.
10 5. Receivership Fees and Costs. The Receiver may charge as
11 interim fees his standard hourly billing rate, which is currently
12 $495 per hour, plus reimbursement of costs for the Receiver's
13 services. The Receiver is authorized to employ the services of
14 accountants, attorneys, computer consultants, property managers, and
15 other professionals in connection with his duties administering the
16 receivership estate (including Pasternak, Pasternak & Patton, A Law
17 Corporation, in which the Receiver and his wife are shareholders)
18 and pay for those services in the amount of the normal fees charged
19 by those professionals. Within five business days following the
20 issuance of this Order, each of the parties shall pay the sum of
21 $25,000 to the Receiver, which funds shall be held by the Receiver
22 in a segregated interest-bearing account for the payment of the
23 Receiver's fees and costs and other receivership costs of
24 administration. If the funds held by the Receiver are reduced to
25 less than $10,000, the Receiver shall notify the parties to
26 replenish his receivership account with an additional $25,000 each,
27 which shall be done within five business days following receipt of
28 such notice by the parties and/or their counsel of record herein.

W,\4S4S0\OOOI1l'leadinll'1l'roposcd Onl.. Appalntina R.wvcr02·14-10.doc 3

IPROPOSEDI ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
 •
1 6. Inventory. Within thirty (30) days after qualification
2 hereunder, the Receiver shall file an inventory of all of the
3 property of which he has taken possession pursuant to this Order.
4 7. Monthly Statements. The Receiver shall prepare and serve
5 monthly statements reflecting the Receiver's fees and administrative
6 expenses, including fees and costs of accountants and attorneys and
7 other professionals authorized by the Court, incurred for each
8 monthly period in the operation and administration of the

9 receivership estate. Upon service of each statement, the Receiver

10 may disburse from estate funds, if any, the amount of each
11 statement. Notwithstanding periodic payment of fees and expenses,
12 all fees and expenses shall be submitted to the Court for its
13 approval and confirmation, in the form of either a properly noticed
14 interim request for fees, a stipulation of all parties, or in the
15 Receiver's Final Account and Report.

16 8. Operation of Receivership Property. The Receiver shall

17 operate and manage ~he Property and may employ agents, employees,
18 clerks, accountants, ... and property managers to administer the
19 receivership estate, purchase materials, supplies and services, and

20 pay for them at the ordinary and usual rates out of the funds which

21 shall come into the Receiver's possession and shall do all things

22 and incur the risks and obligations ordinarily incurred by owners,

23 managers and operators of similar businesses and enterprises as such

24 Receiver. No such risk, obligation or expense so incurred shall be

25 the personal risk or obligation of the Receiver, but shall be the
26 risk, obligation and expense of the receivership estate.

27 9. Bank Accounts. The Receiver is empowered to establish

28 bank accounts for the deposit of monies and funds collected and

W:\4S4S01000llPleadin8'lProposed Order Appoln6ns Reedv.. 02·14·IO.doc 4

IPROPOSED) ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
 1 received in connection with the receivership estate, at federally
2 insured banking institutions or savings associations which are not
3 parties to this case. Monies coming into the possession of the
4 Receiver and not expended for any purposes herein authorized shall
5 be held by the Receiver in interest-bearing accounts.
6
6 10. Further Instructions. The Receiver and the parties to
7 this case may at any time apply to this Court for further or other
8 instructions or orders and for further powers necessary to enable
9 the Receiver to perform the Receiver's duties properly.
10 11. Use of Funds. All monies coming into the Receiver's
11 possession shall only be expended for the purposes herein
12 authorized, and the balance of funds shall be held by the Receiver
13 pending further order of this Court.

14 12. Discharge. Discharge of the Receiver shall require a

15 court order after a properly noticed motion approving the Receiver's
16 Final Report and Account.
17 13. Tax Identification. The parties shall forthwith provide
18 the Receiver with their social security numbers, which the Receiver
19 may utilize during his operation of the receivership estate.
20 14. Mail. Th.e. Receiver is authorized to have all mail
21 concerning the Property sent to an address to be designated by him.
22 15. Delivery of Revenues. AD! and PHD, on receipt of a copy
23 of this Order, shall deliver to the Receiver immediate possession of
24 all revenues and income generated and due to the holders of the
25 Property.
26 16. Petitioner's Notice to Receiver. Petitioner shall
27 promptly notify the Receiver in writing of the names, addresses, and
28 telephone numbers of all parties who appear in the action and their

W:\4S4S0\OOO1\PI..dia~oro•• Appoinling Receiver 02·14<IO.doc 5

IPROPOSEDI ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
 •
1 counsel. The parties to this action shall give notice to the
2 Receiver of all events that affect the receivership, including all
3 court proceedings in this action.
4 17. Access to Receiver's Documents. The parties and their
5 counsel shall have access to any documents in the Receiver's

6 custody, possession or control which are not protected by the

7 attorney/client or work product privileges. The parties and their
8 counsel may copy any such documents at their own expense, and the
9 parties and their counsel shall maintain the confidentiality of any
10 such documents that contain confidential information.

11 18. Bankruptcy - Parties' Duty to Give Notice. If a party

12 files a bankruptcy case during the receivership, any party becoming
13 aware of such bankruptcy shall give notice of the bankruptcy case to
14 the Court, to all parties, and to the Receiver by the close of the
15 next business day after the day on which that party receives notice
16 of the bankruptcy filing.
17 19. Bankruptcy - Receiver's Duties. If the Receiver receives
18 notice that a bankruptcy has been filed and part of the bankruptcy
19 estate may include property that is the subject of this order, the
20 Receiver shall have the following duties:

21 a. The Receiver shall immediately contact the parties

22 and determine whether any party intends to move in the bankruptcy

23 court for an order for (1) relief from the automatic stay, and
24 (2) relief from the ~eGeiver's obligation to turn over the property
25 (11 U.S.C. § 543). If the party has no intention to make such a

26 motion, the Receiver shall' immediately turn over the Property to the
27 appropriate entity either to the trustee in bankruptcy if one has

28

W:\4S4S0\OOOIIPlclIdins>\l'roposed On/cr Appointing Rccelver Ol-14.10.cloc 6

(PROPOSED) ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
 1 been appointed or, if not, to the debtor in possession - and

2 otherwise comply with 11 United States Code section 543.

3 b. If any party intends to seek relief immediately from

4 both the automatic stay and the Receiver's obligation to turn over

5 the Property, the Receiver may remain in possession and preserve the

6 property pending the ruling on those motions (11 U.S.C. § 543(a)).

7 The Receiver's authority to preserve the property shall be limited

8 as follows:

9 (1) The Receiver may continue to collect any

10 income;
11 (2) The Receiver may make only those
12 disbursements necessary to preserve and protect the
13 Property;
14 (3) The Receiver shall not execute any new long-
15 term contracts; and
16 (4) The Receiver shall do nothing that would
17 effect a material change in the ~rcumstances of the
18 property.
19 c. If no party files a motion within 10 court days after

20 receipt of notice of the bankruptcy filing I the Receiver shall

21 immediately turn over the Property to the appropriate entity either

22 to the trustee in bankruptcy if one has been appointed or, if not,

23 to the debtor in possession and otherwise comply with 11 United

24 States Code section 543.

25 d. The Receiver may retain legal counsel to assist the

26 Receiver with issues arising out of the bankruptcy proceedings that

27 affect the receivership.

28

W:\4S4S01OOO IlPleadinll'lProposed Order Appelnling Receiver OZ-14·IO.doc 7

(PROPOSEDI ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
 1 20. Turn Over and Cooperation. The parties and their
2 respective agents, partners, employees, assignees, successors,
3 attorneys, representatives, and all persons acting under, in concert
4 with, or for them:

5 a. Shall relinquish and turn over possession of the

6 Property to the Receiver forthwith upon his appointment becoming
7 effective;
8 b. Shall cooperate with and reasonably assist the
9 Receiver with respect to his maintenance and exercise of rights of
10 holders of the Property, including but not limited to promptly
11 responding to any inquiry by the Receiver for information.
12 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
14 1. Pending further Order of this Court, the parties and their
15 respective agents, partners, employees, assignees, successors,
16 attorneys, representatives, and all persons acting under, in concert
17 with, or for them, who have actual or constructive knowledge of this
18 Order, and their agents and employees shall not in any manner,
19 directly or indirectly:

20 a. Commit or permit any waste of the Property or any

21 part thereof, or suffer or commit or permit any act on the Property
22 or any part thereof in violation of law, or remove, transfer,
23 encumber or otherwise dispose of the Property or any part thereof;

24 b. Directly or indirectly interfere in any manner with

25 the discharge of the Receiver's duties under this Order or' the
26 Receiver's possession of and operation of the Property;

27 c. Expend, disburse, transfer, assign, sell, convey,

28 devise, pledge, mortgage, create a security interest in, encumber,

W:\4S450\000llPleadinJj$lProposed Order App<>inling Receiver 02·14·IO.doc 8

(PROPOSEDI ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
 •
1 conceal or in any manner whatsoever deal in or dispose of the whole

2 or any part of the Property without prior specific Court Order;

3 d. Exercise or attempt to exercise any right of any
4 holder of the Property i and

5 2. Do any act which will, or which will tend to impair,

6 defeat, divert, prevent or prejudice the preservation of the

7 Property.

8 FEB 18· 2010 JAMDO. ENDMAN. COMMISSIONER

9 DATED:
James D. Endman
10 Los Angeles Superior Court
Judge Pro Tern
11

12 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

13

14 c::-

15 DATED: February U, 2010

16

17

18
LAW OFFICE OF BURTON MARK SENKFOR
19

20
DATED: February I 2010
21 Burton Mark Senkfor
Attorneys for Petitioner
22 Salim Karimi
23

24
/ / /
25
/ / /
26
/ / /
27
/ / /
28

W:\4S,jSO\OOOl\Plcading..s\J"rcposcd Ordcr Appoinling l~(t:(..h'<:r 02> 14-IO.dc,.c 9

IPHOPOSEDI ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
RECEIVED: 2/17/10 2:54PM; ->ENRIGHT&OCHE~TREE,~LP; #355; PAGE 10

02/17/2010 14:57 FAX 323 653 1225 LEVIN,MARGOLIN&ITZKOWITZ I4l 010/011

1 :;onceal or in any manner whatsoever deal in or dispose of the whole

2 :)r any part of the Property without prior specific Court Order;

3 d. Exercise or attempt to exercise any right of any

4 :10lder of the Property; and

5 2. Do any act which will, or which will tend to impair,

6 ::lefeat, divert, prevent or prejudice the preservation of the

7 Property.

9 DATED:
James D. Endman
10 Los Angeles Superior court
Judge Pro Tern
11

12 lU>PROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

13 LEVIN, MARGOLIN & ITZKOWITZ

14

15 JATED: February , 2010

Elyse R. Margolin
16 Attorneys for Petitioner
Salim Karimi
17

18
LAW OFFICE OF BURTON MARK SENKFOR
19
20

21
~)ATED: February {1 , 2010

Attorneys for Petitioner

22 Salim Karimi
23

24 ,J I I
25
.. / /
J

26 ,
I I
27 ,
I I
28

\. :\4S4S0100011P1..ding,ll'ropoud Order AppoinCtll/l Reeeiver02·I4-lG.doo 9

(PROPOSEDI ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
 1 TROPE AND TROPE
2

3 DATED: FebrUary~, 2010

4 Joh
At neys for Responden~
5 Ja nki Mithaiwala

6
7 DATgO: Febt'~ 2010 ~LP

B
9

~
war riedman
Attorneys or Advanced Developments
10 and Investm~s, Inc. and Pacific
Housing DiverStf~~~nc.
11

12
13

14 DATED: I:'ebruary
- - ' 2010 David J. Pastern~k
15 Proposed Receiver
16
17

is
19
2.0 .

21
22
23
24

25
26
27
28

IPROPOSED} O(U)ER APPOINTING R£C£IVER

tt/tt 3:J~d
~~tt8~80t8'OI 3dO~~~3dO~~'WO~d 8E'Sl 0t-~t-8ad
 1 TROPE AND TROPE

2
3
DATED: February I 2010
4 John A. Ellis
Attorneys for Respondent
5 Jannki Mithaiwala

6
7
DATED: ~~uary I 2010 TURNER /~ LLP

8
------'" "...
,/

9 "---------- Edward Friedman

Attorne for Advanced Developments
10 and Invest I Inc. and Pacific
Housing Diversi 1~~C.
11

12
13

14 DATED: February \1 I 2010

David J. Pasternak
15 Proposed Receiver
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

W:\4S4S0\006llPleading.<lProposcd Order Appointing Reeciver02·14·IO.doe 10

IPROPOSEDI ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1875 Century Park
4 East, Suite 2200, Los Angeles, California 90067-2523.

5 On February 18, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF

ISSUANCE OF STIPULATED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER on all interested parties
6 in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

7 See Attached List

8 IBl BY MAIL: I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles, California.
The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with
9 this firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is
deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business.
10 I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal
cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing
11 in affidavit.

12 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.
13 The name(s) and facsimile machine telephone number(s) of the person(s) served are set
forth in the service list. The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission, and the
14 sending facsimile machine properly issued a transmission report confirming that the
transmission was complete and without error.
15
o BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I deposited such document(s) in a box or other facility
16 regularly maintained by the overnight service carrier, or delivered such document(s) to a
courier or driver authorized by the overnight service carrier to receive documents, in an
17 envelope or package designated by the overnight service carrier with delivery fees paid or
provided for, addressed to the person(s) being served.
18
o BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope(s) by hand to the office of the
19 person(s) being served.

20 IBl BY EMAIL: I personally emailed directly to the person(s) being served.

21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
22
Executed on February 18,2010, at Los Angeles, CaliforniD
23

24

25

26
27

28
PASTERNAK,
PASTERNAK
& PATTON
Proof of Service znI2.18.l0.doc
 1 In Re the Marriage ofSalim Karimi and Jannki Mithaiwala
Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BD 518 503
2
Service List
3
Elyse P. Margolin, Esq. Counsel for Petitioner
4 Levin & Margolin
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 660
5 Beverly Hills, CA 90211
6 Telephone: 323.653.1850
Facsimile: 323.653.1225
7 E-Mail: elyse@levinmargolin.com

8 Burton M. Senkfor, Esq. Co-Counsel for Petitioner Salim Karimi

Law Office of Burton Mark Senkfor
9 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 715E
10 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-3415
Telephone: 310.274.4100
11 Facsimile: 310.273.7635
E-Mail: burt@senkforIaw.com
12
John A. Ellis, Esq. Counsel for Respondent Jannki Mithaiwala
13
Trope & Trope
14 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 801
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0071
15 Telephone: 310.207.8228
Facsimile: 310.826.1122
16 E-Mail: ellis@tropeandtrope.com
17 Edward Friedman, Esq.
Counsel for Advanced Developments and Investments,
18 Turner Aubert & Friedman, LLP Inc. and Pacific Housing Diversified, Inc.
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 510
19 Beverly Hills, California 90211
Telephone: (213) 653-3900
20 Facsimile: (213) 653-3021
E-Mail: efriedman@taflaw.net
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PASTERNAK,
PASTERNAK
& PATTON Proof of Service znl2J8JO.doc 2
Exhibit b)
 1 David J. Pasternak, Bar No. 72201
Receiver
2 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, California 90067-2523
3 Telephone: 310.553.1500
Facsimile: 310.553.1540
4 E-Mail: djp@paslaw.com

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENT~ DISTRICT

10

11 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CASE NO. BD 518 503

12 SALIM KARIMI, Hon. James D. Endman

13 Petitioner, NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF

STIPULATED ORDER APPOINTING
14 and RECEIVER

15 JANNKI MITHAIWALA, DEPT. 84

16 Respondent.

17

18 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

19 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on February 18, 2010, Los Angeles

20 Superior Court Judge James D. Endman issued the attached

21 Stipulated Order appointing Receiver.

22

23

24
February 18, 2010
25 David J. Pasternak
Receiver
26

27

28
PASTERNAK,
PASTERNAK
&PATION notice of issuance of stipulated order appointing receiver.doc 1
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF STIPULATED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
 1 David J. Pasternak, Bar No. 72201
Receiver
2 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, California 90067-2523
3 Telephone: 310.553.1500
Facsimile: 310.553.1540
4 E-Mail: djp@paslaw.com

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

10

11 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CASE NO. BD 518 503

12 SALIM KARIMI, Hon. James D. Endman

13 Petitioner, NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF

STIPULATED ORDER APPOINTING
14 and RECEIVER

15 JANNKI MITHAIWALA, DEPT. 84

16 Respondent.

17

18 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

19 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on February 18, 2010, Los Angeles

20 Superior Court Judge James D. Endman issued the attached

21 Stipulated Order appointing Receiver.

22

23

24
February 18, 2010
25 David J. Pasternak
Receiver
26

27

28
PASTERNAK,
PASTERNAK
& PATTON
notice of issuance of stipulated order appointing receiver.doc 1
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF STIPULATED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
Exhibit c)
 1 David J. Pasternak, Bar No. 72201
(Proposed) Receiver
2 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, California 90067-2523
3 Telephone: 310.553.1500
Facsimile: 310.553.1540
4 E-Mail: djp@paslaw.com

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

10

11 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CASE NO. BD 518 503

12 SALIM KARIMI, Hon. James D. Endman

13 Petitioner, OATH OF RECEIVER DAVID J.

PASTERNAK
14 and
DEPT. 84
15 JANNKI MITHAIWALA,

16 Respondent.

17

18 I, DAVID J. PASTERNAK, having been appointed Receiver in the

19 above-referenced action, do hereby solemnly swear that I will

20 support the Constitutions of the United States of America and of

21 the State of California, and that I will perform the duties of

22 Receiver faithfully and in accordance with the law and to the

23 best of my ability.

24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
PASTERNAK,
PASTERNAK
&PATION W:\45450\000 I\Pleadings\Oath of Receiver 02.18.1 O.doc 1
OATH OF RECEIVER DAVIn J. PASTERNAK
 ( J

1 I, DAVID J. PASTERNAK, hereby declare that I do not have any

2 oral or written contract, agreement, arrangement or understanding

3 between myself and any of the parties with respect to my roles

4 during and after my appointment as receiver; during my

5 administration as receiver including but not limited to my fees

6 or who may be hired to provide services to the estate; or what

7 capital expenditures, if any, will be made to the subject

8 property.

10

11
February 18, 2010
12 David J. Pasternak
Receiver
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

W:\45450\OOOl\Pleadings\Oath of Receiver 02.18.10.doc 2

OATH OF RECEIVER DAVID J. PASTERNAK
 (

1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of
eighteen years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1875 Century Park
4 East, Suite 2200, Los Angeles, California 90067-2523.

5 On February 19,2010, I served the foregoing document described as OATH OF

RECEIVER DAVID J. PASTERNAK on all interested parties in this action by placing true
6 copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

7 See Attached List

8 ~ BY MAIL: I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Los Angeles, California.
The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am "readily familiar" with
9 this finn's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is
deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business.
10 I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal
cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for mailing
11 in affidavit.

12 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.
13 The name(s) and facsimile machine telephone number(s) of the person(s) served are set
forth in the service list. The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission, and the
14 sending facsimile machine properly issued a transmission report confinning that the
transmission was complete and without error.
15
0 BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I deposited such document(s) in a box or other facility
16 regularly maintained by the overnight service carrier, or delivered such document(s) to a
courier or driver authorized by the overnight service carrier to receive documents, in an
17 envelope or package designated by the overnight service carrier with delivery fees paid or
provided for, addressed to the person(s) being served.
18
0 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope(s) by hand to the office of the
19 person(s) being served.

20 0 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I personally delivered such envelope(s) directly to the

person(s) being served.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
22 foregoing is true and correct.
23 Executed on February 19,2010, at Los Angeles, California.

dt~
24
25
. . Snyd r
26
27
28
PASTERNAK,
PASTERNAK
&PATION
W:\45450\OOO 1\Pleadings\Proof of Service LKS 02.18.1O.doc
 (,

1 In Re the Marriage o{Salim Karimi and Jannki Mithaiwala

Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BD 518 503
2
Service List
3
Elyse P. Margolin, Esq. Counsel jor Petitioner
4 Levin & Margolin
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 660
5 Beverly Hills, CA 90211
6 Telephone: 323.653.1850
Facsimile: 323.653.1225
7 E-Mail: elyse@levinmargolin.com

8 Burton M. Senkfor, Esq. Co-Counsel for Petitioner Salim Karimi

Law Office of Burton Mark Senkfor
9 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 715E
10 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-3415
Telephone: 310.274.4100
11 Facsimile: 310.273.7635
E-Mail: burt@senkforlaw.com
12
13 John A. Ellis, Esq. Counsel for Respondent Jannki Mithaiwala
Trope & Trope
14 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 801
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0071
15 Telephone: 310.207.8228
Facsimile: 310.826.1122
16 E-Mail: ellis@tropeandtrope.com

17 Edward Friedman, Esq. Counsel for Advanced Developments and Investments,

18 Turner Aubert & Friedman, LLP Inc. and Pacific Housing Diversified, Inc.
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 510
19 Beverly Hills, California 90211
Telephone: (213) 653-3900
20 Facsimile: (213) 653-3021
21 E-Mail: efriedman@taflaw.net

22
23
24

25
26
27
28

PASTERNAK,
PASTERNAK
&PATION W:\45450\000 I\Pleadings\Proof of Service LKS 02.18.1 O.doc 2