07-12-07 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Declaration of Joseph Zernik re: Ex Parte Proceedings by Attorney David Pasternak

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Types, Business/Law, Court Filings | Downloads: 35 | Comments: 0 | Views: 270
of 27
Download PDF   Embed   Report

10-08-22 RE: SC087400- Complaint against Judge (ret) Patricia Collins, Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Attorney David Pasternak, Old Republic International (NYSE:ORI) and others - for public corruption and racketeering by judges, financial institutions, and large law-firms in pretense proceedings at the Court. Executive Summary Los Angles, August 21 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against Judge (ret) Patricia Collins, Judge Lisa Hart-Cole, Attorney David Pasternak, Old Republic International (NYSE:ORI), Clerk of the Court John A Clarke and Attorney Richard Ormond (Buchalter Nemer, LLP) regarding their conduct in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) - for public corruption and racketeering in pretense proceedings at the Court. Others named in the complaint were Judge Jacqueline Connor, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Judge David Yaffe – Judge in charge of Writs and Receiverships, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke, Court Counsel Fredrick Bennett, who were all alleged as key figures in racketeering at the Court.In early August 2007, Attorney David Pasternak engaged in conduct that was later opined as “fraud being committed” – in real estate fraud on Beverly Hills property of Complainant on behalf of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. However, to accomplish his mission, Attorney Pasternak required collusion by Mara Escrow, a subsidiary of ORI. The lawful owner, Dr Joseph Zernik, alerted Mara Escrow Senior Escrow Officer Liz Cohen that she was about to engage in real estate fraud, and therefore, she refused to collude with Attorney Pasternak and the Court.On December 7, 2007, to overcome the problem, Attorney David Pasternak and other engaged in two pretense “ex parte proceedings” at two separate courthouses on the same morning:1) In the first pretense “ex parte proceeding”, Attorney David Pasternak appeared as pretense “Receiver” – albeit , with no valid and effectual Appointment Order – with Attorney Richard Ormond before Judge Lisa Hart-Cole to request Court approval of various documents, including, but not limited to:a. Grant Deeds, which were later opined by fraud expert as “fraud being committed”, andb. “Indemnity Agreement” for Mara Escrow – for future criminality. However, both Judge Hart-Cole and Attorney Richard Ormond refused to disclose the name of the Counsel or the party he was representing in Court. Defendant filed peremptory challenge with Judge Hart-Cole. Consequently, Judge Hart-Cole issued a recusal Minute Order. However, later she secretly “disposed” of the Minutes, effectively eliminating the record of the proceeding.2) In the second “ex parte proceeding”, Judge Patricia Collins pretended to approve the records, later opined as fraud. However, Judge Collins secretly created void registration for the proceeding in Sustain - the Court’s case management system. The complaint alleged that the mere notion of conducting such proceedings at the Court reflected the impunity of the criminal enterprise. Moreover, the complaint alleged that conduct of Samaan v Zernik was unique in documenting conditions in Los Angeles County, California, where the Court was not only permissive and conducive of criminality, but also coercive of such conduct by financial institutions.Fraud in operations of receiverships at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles was claimed as part of a larger fraud and racketeering enterprise in conduct of pretense proceedings and issuing of pretense orders and judgments. Sustain, the case management system of the Court, was alleged as the enabling tool of the racket.The case was considered of high public policy significance, since it provided additional evidence of the alleged routine racketeering by judges, large financial institutions, and large law firms at the Los Angeles Superior Court. Additionally, the case hold high public policy significance since David Past

Comments

Content


Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OlgiUl/y >lgnodbyJo",ph
I t:mlk
...-.::::.. _ J) ON; cn=JosephZrmik,
) • .
nt\ c;:;US
Date: iOo8.04.t5 12:08:20
.()7'tX1
JI:
JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL
Defendants
r
r C ) c ;)
-J


.
,.-
" ._. ")
IF - ,: ' :
i

I
I
I
DATE: APRIL 15, 2008
NOTICE OF DEC 11,2007 PLAINTIFF'S
DECLARATION RE: EX PARTE
APPEARANCES BY RECEIVER
PASTERNAK AND ANOTHER
INCOGNITO ATTORNEY IN LASC
COURTS OF JUDGES HART-COLE AND
COLLINS, TO ISSUE GAG ORDERS
AGAINST PLAINTIFF, TO PREVENT
mMFROMEXERCISING PROTECTED
SPEECH - HIS OWN DEFENSE AS
DEFENDANT INPRO PER IN LASC.
FILED IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REQUEST TO
CONTINUE, ALTERNATIVELY TO
CONSOLIDATE HEARINGS
No. CV-08-01550-VAP-CW
HON C. WOEHRLE, JUDGE
Plaintiff
JOSEPH ZERNIK
1 Joseph Zemik
2 2415 Saint George St.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
3 Tel: (310) 4359107
4 Fax: (801) 998 0917
[email protected]
5 Plaintiff
6 in proper
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:
27
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE of the following document, previously filed in LASe in
28 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) -
-1-
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATI ON IN RE: DEC 7, 2007 EX PARTES
. '
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DIg""'1y >lgnod by_ph
j Zemlk
J)
) .'

Date: 2008.04.15 12:08:20
-{)7'«1
JI:
JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL
Defendants
..
I
r--:1
I' ,
,- \
l :

, .
r n C)
:' -.l


"'"';'"'.
r- '-, )
c:
:' -.J
. •
fP,' --n
r-
;

I
I
I
DATE: APRIL 15, 2008
FILED IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF REQUEST TO
CONTINUE, ALTERNATIVELY TO
CONSOLIDATE HEARINGS
NOTICE OF DEC 11,2007 PLAINTIFF'S
DECLARATION RE: EX PARTE
APPEARANCES BY RECEIVER
PASTERNAK AND ANOTHER
INCOGNITO ATTORNEY IN LASC
COURTS OF JUDGES HART-COLE AND
COLLINS, TO ISSUE GAG ORDERS
AGAINST PLAINTIFF, TO PREVENT
mM FROM EXERCISING PROTECTED
SPEECH - HIS OWN DEFENSE AS
DEFENDANT INPRO PER IN LASC.
No. CV-08-01550-VAP-CW
HON C. WOEHRLE, JUDGE
Plaintiff
JOSEPH ZERNIK
1 Joseph Zemik
2 2415 Saint George St.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
3 Tel: (310) 4359107
4 Fax: (801) 998 0917
[email protected]
5 Plaintiff
6 in pro per
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:
27
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE of the following document, previously filed in LASC in
28 Samaan v Zemik (SC087400) -
-1-
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN RE: DEC 7, 2007 EX PARTES
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 2 of 27
NOTICE OF NOTICE OF DEC 11,2007 PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION RE: EX
PARTEAPPEARANCES BY RECEIVER PASTERNAK AND ANOTHER
INCOGNITO ATTORNEY IN LASC COURTS OF JUDGES HART-COLE AND
COLLINS, TO ISSUE GAG ORDERS AGAINST PLAINTIFF, TO PREVENT IDM
FROMEXERCISING PROTECTED SPEECH- HIS OWN DEFENSE AS
DEFENDANT INPRO PER IN LASC.
1
2
3
4
5
6 This document is filed in United States Court, Los Angeles in support of
7 Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue hearings on Motions to Dismiss,
8 alternatively - to consolidate hearings.
9 At the time Plaintiff wrote this declaration he already raised substantial
10 concerns that none ofthe judges who served as Presiding Judges after Judge Connor
11 was duly assigned. Plaintiff asked each and every one ofthem in ex parte appearances
12 to notice him oftheir assignment order, but none did. However, more recently
JOSEPH ZERNIK
Plaintiff
in proper
21
13 Plaintiff realized that Judge Hart-Cole, beyond having no due assignment, was also a
14 judge of a limited civil department. Samaan v Zemik is a civil unlimited case. How
15 the case ended up in her hands? It is still left an ambiguous legal situation. Plaintiff
16 has been demanding from the Clerk's Office (Defendant Witts) for several months
17 certificates of the Assignment Orders (at the fee stipulated in Rules of Court $15.00
18 per document) ofthe Honorable Judges, alternatively - certificates that no such orders
19 exist on file. The LASC has so far refused to provide any certification - one way or
20 the other.
Dated: April 14
th
, 2008
22 Respectfully submitted.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN RE: DEC 7,2007 EX PARTES
NOTICE OF NOTICE OF DEC 11,2007 PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION RE: EX
PARTEAPPEARANCES BY RECEIVER PASTERNAK AND ANOmER
INCOGNITO ATTORNEY IN LASC COURTS OF JUDGES HART-COLE AND
COLLINS, TO ISSUE GAG ORDERS AGAINST PLAINTIFF, TO PREVENT IDM
FROM EXERCISING PROTECTED SPEECH - HIS OWN DEFENSE AS
DEFENDANT INPRO PER IN LASC.
1
2
3
4
5
6 This document is filed in United States Court, Los Angeles in support of
7 Plaintiffs ex parte application to continue hearings on Motions to Dismiss,
8 alternatively - to consolidate hearings.
9 At the time Plaintiff wrote this declaration he already raised substantial
10 concerns that none ofthe judges who served as Presiding Judges after Judge Connor
11 was duly assigned. Plaintiff asked each and every one ofthem in ex parte appearances
12 to notice him oftheir assignment order, but none did. However, more recently
JOSEPH ZERNIK
Plaintiff
in proper
21
13 Plaintiff realized that Judge Hart-Cole, beyond having no due assignment, was also a
14 judge of a limited civil department. Samaan v Zernik is a civil unlimited case. How
15 the case ended up in her hands? It is still left an ambiguous legal situation. Plaintiff
16 has been demanding from the Clerk's Office (Defendant Witts) for several months
17 certificates of the Assignment Orders (at the fee stipulated in Rules of Court $15.00
18 per document) ofthe Honorable Judges, alternatively - certificates that no such orders
19 exist on file. The LASC has so far refused to provide any certification - one way or
20 the other.
Dated: April 14
th
, 2008
22 Respectfully submitted.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN RE: DEC 7, 2007 EX PARTES
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 3 of 27
1
2
3
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION OF NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S DECLARTION
DEC 11,2007 RE: EX PARTE APPEARANCES ON DEC 7,2007 BEFORE JUDGES
HART-COLE AND COLLINS
) . ~
8
4
5
11
I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant & Cross Complainant in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400) matter heard in Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, I am also Appellant
6 in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior Court: (B203063), and also Plaintiff in Zernik v Connor et
7 al (CV 08-01550) matter heard in the United States District Court, Los Angeles, California.
I have read the foregoing NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION RE: EX
PARTE APPLICATIONS ON DEC 7,2007 BEFORE JUDGE HART-COLE AND
9 COLLINS and I know the content thereof to be true and correct. It is correct based on my
10 own personal knowledge as Defendant in pro per in said case. I make this declaration that
the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of California
12 and the United States.
Executed here in Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, California, on this 14
th
day in
April , 2008.
14
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Josepb Zernik
Plaintiff
in proper
-3-
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'SDECLARATION INRE: DEC7, 2007 EXPARTES
1
2
3
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION OF NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S DECLARTION
DEC 11,2007 RE: EX PARTE APPEARANCES ON DEC 7,2007 BEFORE JUDGES
HART-COLE AND COLLINS
5
8
4
11
I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant & Cross Complainant in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400) matter heard in Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, I am also Appellant
6 in Zernik v Los Angeles Superior Court: (B203063), and also Plaintiff in Zernik v Connor et
7 al (CV 08-01550) matter heard in the United States District Court, Los Angeles, California.
I have read the foregoing NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION RE: EX
PARTE APPLICATIONS ON DEC 7,2007 BEFORE JUDGE BART-COLE AND
9 COLLINS and I know the content thereof to be true and correct. It is correct based on my
10 own personal knowledge as Defendant in pro per in said case. I make this declaration that
the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of California
12 and the United States.
Executed here in Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, California, on this 14
th
day in
April, 2008.
14
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Joseph Zernik
Plaintiff
in proper
-3-
NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION IN RE: DEC 7, 2007 EX PARTES
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 4 of 27
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 5 of 27
" Digitally signedby
i JosephZernik
JosepnON:
'i ·Ze, mk.
Z
"It ernail=JzI [email protected],
ern1·1\ ., ,thlfllk.ne\: c=US
,., Date: 2007.12.12
, 08:44:03 -08'00'
DECLARATION OF PETITIONER JOSEPH ZERNIK
Regarding Court Appearances on Friday, December 7, 2007
I, JOSEPH ZERNIK, hereby declare as follows.
1.
I am Defendant & Cross-Complainant in Samaan v. Zernik, Los Angeles
County Superior Court Case No. SC087400, and Petitioner in the Los Angeles
Court of Appeal, Division 5. As such, I have personal knowledge of the facts
set forth herein, which I know to be true and correct and, if called as a witness,
I could and would competently testify with respect thereto. This declaration is
submitted in connection with a Writ Petition to the Appeal Court Second
Circuit, Division 5, planned for submission on Wednesday morning Dec 12,
2007.
2.
The notice received from Mr Pasternak was inadequate, nonspecific, and
did not explain why this hearing was in Beverly Hills, when my Court File was
in Santa Monica, but when I called the day before Department 0, I was told
that Judge Segal was recused on December 4,2007, and that the file was
transferred to Judge Hart Cole.
3.
That explanation was somewhat odd, since I called the same person every
day, anticipating Judge Segal recusal, and she did not tell me that fact on Dec 4
or Dec 5, and on Dec 4 she still told me that there was an ex parte scheduled
on Dec 5, by Mr Pasternak, in Santa Monica. When I came on Dec 5, the ex
parte was noticed on the door, but Mr Pasternak was not there, and the
courtroom assistant would not tell me whether or not that ex parte took place or
not.
4.
In Beverly Hills I submitted the filing per 170.6 that I had prepared in
advance, although I did not even know the name of the judge. Exhibit 1 is a
true and correct copy of the filing per §170.6 I served on Judge Hart Cole. And
sure enough it was fully justified, as it turned out later on. I made it clear to the
-1-
, Digitally signed by
; j Joseph Zernlk
Josept1ON:
f ernlk,
Z
",.1>£ )Z123,[email protected]
ern(l\t
'" Date: 2007.12.12
, '" 08:44:03 -00'00'
DECLARATION OF PETITIONER JOSEPH ZERNIK
Regarding Court Appearances on Friday, December 7, 2007
I, JOSEPH ZERNIK, hereby declare as follows.
1. I am Defendant & Cross-Complainant in Samaan v. Zernik, Los Angeles
County Superior Court Case No. SC087400, and Petitioner in the Los Angeles
Court of Appeal, Division 5. As such, I have personal knowledge of the facts
set forth herein, which I know to be true and correct and, if called as a witness,
I could and would competently testify with respect thereto. This declaration is
submitted in connection with a Writ Petition to the Appeal Court Second
Circuit, Division 5, planned for submission on Wednesday morning Dec 12,
2007.
2. The notice received from Mr Pasternak was inadequate, nonspecific, and
did not explain why this hearing was in Beverly Hills, when my Court File was
in Santa Monica, but when I called the day before Department 0, I was told
that Judge Segal was recused on December 4,2007, and that the file was
transferred to Judge Hart Cole.
3. That explanation was somewhat odd, since I called the same person every
day, anticipating Judge Segal recusal, and she did not tell me that fact on Dec 4
or Dec 5, and on Dec 4 she still told me that there was an ex parte scheduled
on Dec 5, by Mr Pasternak, in Santa Monica. When I came on Dec 5, the ex
parte was noticed on the door, but Mr Pasternak was not there, and the
courtroom assistant would not tell me whether or not that ex parte took place or
not.
4. In Beverly Hills I submitted the filing per 170.6 that I had prepared in
advance, although I did not even know the name of the judge. Exhibit 1 is a
true and correct copy of the filing per §170.6 I served on Judge Hart Cole. And
sure enough it was fully justified, as it turned out later on. I made it clear to the
-1-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 6 of 27
Courtroom assistant that she had to deliver it to the clerk, and that it had to be
the first item on the agenda prior to anything else. She answered that she was
not sure it would be the first time. The clerk, who entered a few minutes later,
tried to convince me of the same - that they would submit it to Judge Hart
Cole, but that she wanted to start with the ex parte first. I absolutely refused.
The clerk then went back to discuss it with Judge Hart Cole.
5. In the meanwhile I noticed that the Court File, Volume IX, which I have
never seen. It was sitting there. So I asked to review it. In it I found interesting
information:
6. December 4, 2007 MINUTE ORDER by JUDGE SEGAL:
Titled: NON APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW- JUDGE RECUSAL. I served
Judge Segal per 170.3 on November 26, 2007. To avert that recusal,
Judge Segal recused himself on 170.3(c)(l), since he discovered that he owned
some Countrywide stock. In it he wrote that "Countrywide is not a party ....
Countrywide is just a witness " Yet he was going to recuse himself to
"further the interest ofJustice " "by re-assignment ofthis case to another
judicial officer by the supervisingjudge ofthis district' .. . and that he had
done his best so far, but" the reasons .... Arose and were learned ofwithin
the pastfew days".
7. This 12-4-07 minute order would be deemed dishonest by a reasonable person
reviewing the case. In recent days Judge Segal recalled his stock holding in
Countrywide... Judge Goodman before him recalled several weeks after taking
the case that he had a long term close friendship with Countrywide's Chief
Legal Counsel. And while Judge Segal claimed that Countrywide was merely
a witness in this case, Countrywide was listed in the mailing list of the very
same minute order coming from his Courtroom as "Intervenor". And on
Courtnet - the web-based, public access system, Countrywide's designation
-2-
Courtroom assistant that she had to deliver it to the clerk, and that it had to be
the first item on the agenda prior to anything else. She answered that she was
not sure it would be the first time. The clerk, who entered a few minutes later,
tried to convince me of the same - that they would submit it to Judge Hart
Cole, but that she wanted to start with the ex parte first. I absolutely refused.
The clerk then went back to discuss it with Judge Hart Cole.
5. In the meanwhile I noticed that the Court File, Volume IX, which I have
never seen. It was sitting there. So I asked to review it. In it I found interesting
information:
6. December 4, 2007 MINUTE ORDER by JUDGE SEGAL:
Titled: NON APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW - JUDGE RECUSAL. I served
Judge Segal per 170.3 on November 26, 2007. To avert that recusal,
Judge Segal recused himself on 170.3(c)(l), since he discovered that he owned
some Countrywide stock. In it he wrote that "Countrywide is not aparty....
Countrywide is just a witness " Yet he was going to recuse himself to
''further the interest ofJustice " "by re-assignment ofthis case to another
judicial offICer by the supervisingjudge ofthis district' ... and that he had
done his best so far, but" the reasons .... Arose and were learned of within
the pastfew days".
7. This 12-4-07 minute order would be deemed dishonest by a reasonable person
reviewing the case. In recent days Judge Segal recalled his stock holding in
Countrywide... Judge Goodman before him recalled several weeks after taking
the case that he had a long term close friendship with Countrywide's Chief
Legal Counsel. And while Judge Segal claimed that Countrywide was merely
a witness in this case, Countrywide was listed in the mailing list of the very
same minute order coming from his Courtroom as "Intervenor". And on
Courtnet - the web-based, public access system, Countrywide's designation
-2-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 7 of 27
was changed under Judge Segal from Intervenor to "Defendant', for no reason
at all. As I was told a while ago by the Clerk in Judge Goodman's Court - no
clerk would do anything like that (change designations, add or remove parties)
on his or her own.
8. Court Reporter Angela Map (Dept phone -310 288 1210) took notes of the
hearing in Dept X.
9. Judge Linda Hart assumed the bench, and started by declaring that my
filing per CCP §170.6 was dismissed, since I had already filed per CCP §170.6
against Judge Connor on July 12,2007.
10. I explained to Judge Hart Cole that I had never filed CCP §170.6 with
Judge Connor. What I filed with Judge Connor on July 12, 2007 was per CCP
§170.3. However, Judge Connor, dishonestly, in open-court declared that it
was a filing per CCP §170.6, and that it was untimely, therefore dismissed.
The section number §170.6 was never even mentioned in the whole paper.
What happened in the Courtroom was fully documented in an honest transcript.
11. As usual, Judge Connor created a vastly different record in the July 12,
2007 Minute Order, which was hidden from me until much later. In the minute
order, she first of all hid the disqualification under an unrelated title, in a very
lengthy minute order - same maneuvers she used for the Sept 10, 2007
disqualification minute order. But on July 12,2007, she also started from
claiming it was CCP §170.6, and then shifted to CCP §170.3 - to fit the paper
record on my filing.
12. Regardless of the maneuvers - a reasonable person would deem that it was
a case of a judge who refused to be recused. My reading of the law was that
the Supervising Judge was supposed to remove her from the case. But none of
that ever happened. I also hold that there was good cause apparent to vacate all
of Judge Connor's rulings, orders, and judgments following that day, but no
-3-
was changed under Judge Segal from Intervenor to "Defendant', for no reason
at all. As I was told a while ago by the Clerk in Judge Goodman's Court - no
clerk would do anything like that (change designations, add or remove parties)
on his or her own.
8. Court Reporter Angela Map (Dept phone -310 288 1210) took notes of the
hearing in Dept X.
9. Judge Linda Hart assumed the bench, and started by declaring that my
filing per CCP §170.6 was dismissed, since I had already filed per CCP §170.6
against Judge Connor on July 12,2007.
10. I explained to Judge Hart Cole that I had never filed CCP §170.6 with
Judge Connor. What I filed with Judge Connor on July 12,2007 was per CCP
§170.3. However, Judge Connor, dishonestly, in open-court declared that it
was a filing per CCP §170.6, and that it was untimely, therefore dismissed.
The section number §170.6 was never even mentioned in the whole paper.
What happened in the Courtroom was fully documented in an honest transcript.
11. As usual, Judge Connor created a vastly different record in the July 12,
2007 Minute Order, which was hidden from me until much later. In the minute
order, she first of all hid the disqualification under an unrelated title, in a very
lengthy minute order - same maneuvers she used for the Sept 10, 2007
disqualification minute order. But on July 12,2007, she also started from
claiming it was CCP §170.6, and then shifted to CCP §170.3 - to fit the paper
record on my filing.
12. Regardless of the maneuvers - a reasonable person would deem that it was
a case of a judge who refused to be recused. My reading of the law was that
the Supervising Judge was supposed to remove her from the case. But none of
that ever happened. I also hold that there was good cause apparent to vacate all
of Judge Connor's rulings, orders, and judgments following that day, but no
-3-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 8 of 27
Judge in West District would overrule another. I tried to explain all of that to
Judge Hart Cole in way of explaining why I was entitled to her recusal per
§170.6.
13. A few minutes after the start of the hearing with Judge Hart-Cole, I noticed
a new Counsel standing right at my side in front of the judge. I was well-
versed at such shenanigans from Judge Connor's Court, where corporate
counsels for Countrywide were doing that routinely - so as not to be identified
in the transcript as being there. While they submitted briefs and attended any
hearing from July 6 to August 9,2007, one cannot find Countrywide's name in
any minute order.
14. I stopped right away, and addressed Judge Hart-Cole and asked if she
would please introduce the gentleman who had just joined us. The Judge was
visibly upset that I did that, and said angrily: "We will do introductions
later ... ". I said: "I thought introductions come before the arguments". Judge
Hart Cole refused to introduce this new party at the hearing.
15. Judge Linda Hart Cole then said she needed to take time off to look into my
claims regarding not filing §170.6 with Judge Connor. During the recess I
asked the gentleman on my side for his name and he refused to give me that
information. But he did explain that he was representing Mara Escrow! I then
asked him howhe entered the Court like that. He answered that he was a bit
late. I asked him if it was acceptable in that Courtroom for a party (and he was
not a party) to enter the well like that in the middle of a hearing, since I was not
familiar with this Courtroom. The gentleman would not answer . I then asked
him ifperhaps by chance he had discussed the case ex parte with Judge Hart-
Cole in advance of the hearing, and they had an "understanding" that he would
join the hearing like that, unintroduced. Again, he would not answer.
-4-
Judge in West District would overrule another. I tried to explain all of that to
Judge Hart Cole in way of explaining why I was entitled to her recusal per
§170.6.
13. A few minutes after the start of the hearing with Judge Hart-Cole, I noticed
a new Counsel standing right at my side in front of the judge. I was well-
versed at such shenanigans from Judge Connor's Court, where corporate
counsels for Countrywide were doing that routinely - so as not to be identified
in the transcript as being there. While they submitted briefs and attended any
hearing from July 6 to August 9,2007, one cannot fmd Countrywide's name in
any minute order.
14. I stopped right away, and addressed Judge Hart-Cole and asked if she
would please introduce the gentleman who had just joined us. The Judge was
visibly upset that I did that, and said angrily: "We will do introductions
later... ". I said: "I thought introductions come before the arguments". Judge
Hart Cole refused to introduce this new party at the hearing.
15. Judge Linda Hart Cole then said she needed to take time off to look into my
claims regarding not filing §170.6 with Judge Connor. During the recess I
asked the gentleman on my side for his name and he refused to give me that
infonnation. But he did explain that he was representing Mara Escrow! I then
asked him how he entered the Court like that. He answered that he was a bit
late. I asked him if it was acceptable in that Courtroom for a party (and he was
not a party) to enter the well like that in the middle of a hearing, since I was not
familiar with this Courtroom. The gentleman would not answer. I then asked
him ifperhaps by chance he had discussed the case ex parte with Judge Hart-
Cole in advance of the hearing, and they had an "understanding" that he would
join the hearing like that, unintroduced. Again, he would not answer.
-4-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 9 of 27
16. I mentioned to him that I communicated with Liz Cohen the Escrow
Officer. He said that he would prefer if! communicated with him instead. I
then suggested that he provide me with his business card, so that I could do
that. He refused again.
17. A reasonable person reviewing the case as a whole would conclude that this
was again a case of dishonest judge, who offered preferential treatment to a
corporation against an individual , allowing them to remain hidden, not even
identified as a party, but participate in a hearing. Moreover, it was probable
that the whole urgent hearing was staged for the benefit of this gentleman.
18. One may notice that this ex parte was called to give the Court's approval to
the escrow agreement, and to an agreement to indemnify Mara Escrow in
relationship to this transaction, and to gag my free speech. As reviewed below,
the reason provided for my gag, was that as long as I communicated with the
Escrow officer it was likely that the deal would not go through . In short, the
Escrow officer noticed the same defects that I did in the Appointment of this
Receiver. There was no claim that I ever said anything false or defamatory.
What I said was primarily that there is great concern for dishonesty and abuse
of the office of the receiver in this particular case, and I demanded that the
Escrow Officer and others take additional care in their actions.
19. I therefore hold and believe that the ex parte court appearance was aimed to
show the Counsel for Mara Escrow that the deal was sanctioned by the Court.
Not that anybody who witnessed that Court appearance would be persuaded
that the deal was compliant with the law, but surely it was clear that a group of
judges in West District were determined to make this happen, within the realm
of the law or outside of it.
20. In the time left of the recess, I wrote by hand a motion for disqualification
ofjudge Hart Cole per CCP §170.3, based on her dishonesty in relationship to
-5-
16. I mentioned to him that I communicated with Liz Cohen the Escrow
Officer. He said that he would prefer if! communicated with him instead. I
then suggested that he provide me with his business card, so that I could do
that. He refused again.
17. A reasonable person reviewing the case as a whole would conclude that this
was again a case of dishonest judge, who offered preferential treatment to a
corporation against an individual, allowing them to remain hidden, not even
identified as a party, but participate in a hearing. Moreover, it was probable
that the whole urgent hearing was staged for the benefit of this gentleman.
18. One may notice that this ex parte was called to give the Court's approval to
the escrow agreement, and to an agreement to indemnify Mara Escrow in
relationship to this transaction, and to gag my free speech. As reviewed below,
the reason provided for my gag, was that as long as I communicated with the
Escrow officer it was likely that the deal would not go through. In short, the
Escrow officer noticed the same defects that I did in the Appointment of this
Receiver. There was no claim that I ever said anything false or defamatory.
What I said was primarily that there is great concern for dishonesty and abuse
of the office of the receiver in this particular case, and I demanded that the
Escrow Officer and others take additional care in their actions.
19. I therefore hold and believe that the ex parte court appearance was aimed to
show the Counsel for Mara Escrow that the deal was sanctioned by the Court.
Not that anybody who witnessed that Court appearance would be persuaded
that the deal was compliant with the law, but surely it was clear that a group of
judges in West District were determined to make this happen, within the realm
of the law or outside of it.
20. In the time left of the recess, I wrote by hand a motion for disqualification
ofjudge Hart Cole per CCP §170.3, based on her dishonesty in relationship to
-5-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 10 of 27
the participation of Counsel for Mara Escrow. I served it upon the Courtroom
assistant. That way now the judge had the option of recusing per 170.3 or
170.6.
21. Judge Hart Cole finally came back, and announced that she decided that I
was right, and she was recused per §170.6.
22. Around 10:30am Judge Linda Hart-Cole ordered us to immediately go to
Santa Monica to continue the hearing there. Initially she ordered us to see
Judge Friedman, but than it turned out he was busy, and she ordered us to go to
Judge Collins. She said we had to be there within 30 minutes.
23. I protested and said that there was a procedure that must be followed for
noticing ex parte appearances, and that they must notice me of the appearance
before Judge Collins in Santa Monica.
24. In response, Judge Hart-Cole ordered Mr Pasternak to notice me. He did
not do so, obviously he had no means to do so in such a rush. On the way to
the elevators, I again informed him that this was all out of compliance with the
law. He said he was not going to argue with me, and that I better be there
within 30 minutes.
25. The unnamed gentleman representing Mara Escrow was watching all of
this, and I thought that I saw on his face an appearance of amazement.
26. I asked him ifhe was going to follow us to Santa Monica, and he looked
shy, but eventually said that we would meet in Santa Monica.
27. It took me a good 45 min before I was in the Courtroom in Santa Monica.
When I approached the building door, the sheriffs, who all know me (as part of
ongoing harassment, anywhere I go, a sheriff must escort me), started calling
me, to let me know that Judge Collins had already started the hearing without
me, it was that rushed.
-6-
the participation of Counsel for Mara Escrow. I served it upon the Courtroom
assistant. That way now the judge had the option of recusing per 170.3 or
170.6.
21. Judge Hart Cole finally came back, and announced that she decided that I
was right, and she was recused per §170.6.
22. Around }0:30am Judge Linda Hart-Cole ordered us to immediately go to
Santa Monica to continue the hearing there. Initially she ordered us to see
Judge Friedman, but than it turned out he was busy, and she ordered us to go to
Judge Collins. She said we had to be there within 30 minutes.
23. I protested and said that there was a procedure that must be followed for
noticing ex parte appearances, and that they must notice me of the appearance
before Judge Collins in Santa Monica.
24. In response, Judge Hart-Cole ordered Mr Pasternak to notice me. He did
not do so, obviously he had no means to do so in such a rush. On the way to
the elevators, I again informed him that this was all out of compliance with the
law. He said he was not going to argue with me, and that I better be there
within 30 minutes.
25. The unnamed gentleman representing Mara Escrow was watching all of
this, and I thought that I saw on his face an appearance of amazement.
26. I asked him ifhe was going to follow us to Santa Monica, and he looked
shy, but eventually said that we would meet in Santa Monica.
27. It took me a good 45 min before I was in the Courtroom in Santa Monica.
When I approached the building door, the sheriffs, who all know me (as part of
ongoing harassment, anywhere I go, a sheriff must escort me), started calling
me, to let me know that Judge Collins had already started the hearing without
me, it was that rushed.
-6-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 11 of 27
28. When I walked in, Mr Pasternak was reading an email that I had sent to the
Escrow Officer about the Receiver. There was nothing there in particular that
justified the ex parte. There was nothing there that was untrue or unreasonable.
Judge Collins looked bored by the whole procedure.
29. The mystery gentleman was also there, standing and watching.
30. As soon as I walked in, I served Judge Collins with a filing per CCP §170.3
that I wrote by hand on the way. Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of this
filing. Judge Collins just ignored it.
31. Once Mr Pasternak finished reading that email, Judge Collins asked me if I
wanted to say anything. I responded by saying that I needed time to organize
my response, since I saw that package for the first time that morning. Judge
Collins had no use for any delay, and she stated that I had since 8:30am to
review that package. I corrected her, and stated that since 8:30-10:30 I was in
a court appearance, and at 10:30 I was ordered to drive immediately to Santa
Monica, so that I had no time at all to review the package. She repeated her
statement that I had since 8:30am to review the package.
32. I then started by claiming that the appearance was out of compliance with
the law, since I never got notice for such an appearance, and handling first
amendment restrictions like that is unheard of. She did not respond. I added
that Judge Hart-Cole ordered Mr Pasternak to notice me of this appearance, but
that he had disobeyed the Court order.
33. Mr Pasternak argued that what Judge Hart -Cole wanted him to notice was
the minutes of the appearance in Beverly Hills , not the upcoming meeting in
Santa Monica. I repeated my claim that this was an ex parte with no notice. I
added that even if! were an attorney, I doubt that any attorney in town would
agree to review that package in less than a day or two, while I had hardly any
time at all. I further mentioned that Judge Collins had no Court File, and had
-7-
28. When I walked in, Mr Pasternak was reading an email that I had sent to the
Escrow Officer about the Receiver. There was nothing there in particular that
justified the ex parte. There was nothing there that was untrue or unreasonable.
Judge Collins looked bored by the whole procedure.
29. The mystery gentleman was also there, standing and watching.
30. As soon as I walked in, I served Judge Collins with a filing per CCP §170.3
that I wrote by hand on the way. Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of this
filing. Judge Collins just ignored it.
31. Once Mr Pasternak finished reading that email, Judge Collins asked me if I
wanted to say anything. I responded by saying that I needed time to organize
my response, since I saw that package for the first time that morning. Judge
Collins had no use for any delay, and she stated that I had since 8:30am to
review that package. I corrected her, and stated that since 8:30-10:30 I was in
a court appearance, and at 10:30 I was ordered to drive immediately to Santa
Monica, so that I had no time at all to review the package. She repeated her
statement that I had since 8:30am to review the package.
32. I then started by claiming that the appearance was out of compliance with
the law, since I never got notice for such an appearance, and handling first
amendment restrictions like that is unheard of. She did not respond. I added
that Judge Hart-Cole ordered Mr Pasternak to notice me of this appearance, but
that he had disobeyed the Court order.
33. Mr Pasternak argued that what Judge Hart -Cole wanted him to notice was
the minutes of the appearance in Beverly Hills, not the upcoming meeting in
Santa Monica. I repeated my claim that this was an ex parte with no notice. I
added that even if! were an attorney, I doubt that any attorney in town would
agree to review that package in less than a day or two, while I had hardly any
time at all. I further mentioned that Judge Collins had no Court File, and had
-7-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 12 of 27
no chance to review either the Court File or the material submitted with the ex
parte.
34. Judge Collins was getting upset with me, and she said that there was no
need for the Court File, she is just ruling on the ex parte. She then went on to
say that it is beginning to go over her lunch break, and that it was my fault, that
I did not drive faster from Beverly Hills, and she needed to conclude this. She
asked that I make some statements on the issue itself.
35. I then stated that it was not at all clear what is the justification for this ex
parte procedure, what is the rush that required violation of my rights.
36. Judge Collins referred that question to Mr Pasternak. To my surprise his
response was basically that he needed the money, that he was Iowan funds. I
I protested that none of this was a reason for compromising my civil rights.
37. I then again asked what was the need to restrict my free speech, and then
Mr Pasternak said that he was concerned that if! talked with Escrow or the
Title Company, or the Lender, they would not agree to do business with him!
He never said that anything I said was untrue, or defamatory ,etc.
38. I had a list of other issues to review, but the judge was rushed for lunch,
and she just signed the copies of the order.
39. For example - the agreement to indemnify Mara Escrow in this deal
appears inherently illogical. If Mara Escrow, or the Escrow Officer feel that
the agreement was generated by a court operating outside the law, then adding
another assurance by the same court would not make any difference.
40. Otherwise, the request to defer paying taxes was particularly disturbing. It
confirmed most of my concerns about the actions of Mr Pasternak, Mr
Keshavarzi, and Judge Segal. At the end of this sale, the Receiver would be
left with close to $1 million dollars in cash, out of which several hundred
thousands are owed in taxes. The request to defer the taxes means that the
-8-
no chance to review either the Court File or the material submitted with the ex
parte.
34. Judge Collins was getting upset with me, and she said that there was no
need for the Court File, she is just ruling on the ex parte. She then went on to
say that it is beginning to go over her lunch break, and that it was my fault, that
I did not drive faster from Beverly Hills, and she needed to conclude this. She
asked that I make some statements on the issue itself.
35. I then stated that it was not at all clear what is the justification for this ex
parte procedure, what is the rush that required violation of my rights.
36. Judge Collins referred that question to Mr Pasternak. To my surprise his
response was basically that he needed the money, that he was low on funds. I
I protested that none of this was a reason for compromising my civil rights.
37. I then again asked what was the need to restrict my free speech, and then
Mr Pasternak said that he was concerned that ifI talked with Escrow or the
Title Company, or the Lender, they would not agree to do business with him!
He never said that anything I said was untrue, or defamatory ,etc.
38. I had a list of other issues to review, but the judge was rushed for lunch,
and she just signed the copies of the order.
39. For example - the agreement to indemnify Mara Escrow in this deal
appears inherently illogical. If Mara Escrow, or the Escrow Officer feel that
the agreement was generated by a court operating outside the law, then adding
another assurance by the same court would not make any difference.
40. Otherwise, the request to defer paying taxes was particularly disturbing. It
confirmed most of my concerns about the actions of Mr Pasternak, Mr
Keshavarzi, and Judge Segal. At the end of this sale, the Receiver would be
left with close to $1 million dollars in cash, out of which several hundred
thousands are owed in taxes. The request to defer the taxes means that the
-8-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 13 of 27
receiver and the judges conspiring with him and Mr Keshavarzi, already now
have in mind an outlandish spending plan, up to $1 million, and therefore feel
that the Receiver has to take a loan in my name from the Government at great
expense to me.
41. A reasonable person, upon reviewing the whole case, would conclude that
Friday, December 7, 2007, was a day when my constitutional rights for Free
Speech, for Due Process of the Law, and for Possession, were abused like no
other day in this litigation, and again - for a corporate client - Mara Escrow-
who is not even a party in this litigation.
I make this declaration under penalty ofperjury according to the laws of the
State of California. Signed here, in Los Feliz, California, December 11, 2007.
) . ~
JOSEPH ZERNIK
PETITIONER
in pro per
-9-
receiver and the judges conspiring with him and Mr Keshavarzi, already now
have in mind an outlandish spending plan, up to $1 million, and therefore feel
that the Receiver has to take a loan in my name from the Government at great
expense to me.
41. A reasonable person, upon reviewing the whole case, would conclude that
Friday, December 7, 2007, was a day when my constitutional rights for Free
Speech, for Due Process of the Law, and for Possession, were abused like no
other day in this litigation, and again - for a corporate client - Mara Escrow -
who is not even a party in this litigation.
I make this declaration under penalty ofperjury according to the laws of the
State of California. Signed here, in Los Feliz, California, December 11, 2007.
) . ~
JOSEPH ZERNIK
PETITIONER
in pro per
-9-
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 14 of 27
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 1
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 15 of 27
1 Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD
Defendant in Pro Per
2 2415 Saint George Street
Los Feliz CA 90027
Digitallysigned by
Joseph Zernik
ON:cn=Joseph
. 1J t:ernik,
).
hlirlk:net;e=US
Date: 2007:12.07
07:29:11-08'00'
3
4
5
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual ,
10
11
v.
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
15 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual,
12 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive,
13
18 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL
BROKERAGE; MICHAEL LIBOW, an
19 individual,
FRIDAY DECEMBER 7,07
8:00 AM
DEPARTMENT WE-X
BEVERLY HILLS
AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
FILING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMMEDIATE PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE OF JUDGE IN
DEPARTMENT X, BEVERLY IDLLS
COURT HOUSE, FOR ANY HEARING,
WHETHER BASED ON A TEMPORARY,
PERMANENT, OR LACKING IN
ASSIGNMENT TO THIS CASE,
Cross-Defendants.
Cross-Complainant,
v.
16
17
20
21
22
23 11---------------
24
25
26
27
28
FILING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMMEDIATE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
FOR AJUDGE IN DEPARTMENT X,
BEVERLY IIILLS COURTHOUSE.
1 Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD
Defendant in Pro Per
2 2415 Saint George Street
Los Feliz CA 90027
Digitally signed by
Joseph Zernik
DN: cn=Joseph
"'::L. /} .lernik,
).
...,hlil'ik:nef;:t-=U5
Date: 2007:12.07
07:29:11 -08'00'
3
4
5
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual,
10
11
v.
Plaintiff,
15 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual,
12 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, and DOES I
through 20, inclusive,
13
18 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL
BROKERAGE; MICHAEL LTBOW, an
19 individual,
FRIDAY DECEMBER 7,07
8:00AM
DEPARTMENT WE-X
BEVERLY HILLS
AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
OF JOSEPH ZERNIK IN SUPPORT
THEREOF
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
FILING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMMEDIATE PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE OF JUDGE IN
DEPARTMENT X, BEVERLY IDLLS
COURT HOUSE, FOR ANY HEARING,
WHETHER BASED ON A TEMPORARY,
PERMANENT, OR LACKING IN
ASSIGNMENT TO THIS CASE,
Cross-Defendants.
Cross-Complainant,
v.
16
17
20
21
22
23 11---------------
24
25
26
27
28
FILING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
IMMEDIATE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
FOR AJUDGE IN DEPARTMENT X,
BEVERLY HILLS COURTHOUSE.
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 16 of 27
1 TO ALL PARTIES ANDTHEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD: Please take
2 notice:
3 Defendant and Cross -complainant Joseph Zernik hereby moves that this case be
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK
management system, in conspiracy with her clerk, Ms Jaime.
1) I object to any hearing or any trial before any Judge of LA Superior Court.
Supervising Judge, all requests for such were denied without any justification.
provided good cause obvious for overruling or vacating. Yet, as explained in advance by
court review a motion to vacate is out of compliance and in violation of the law.
relative to Samaan v Zernik, in part through wrong doing in Sustain - the Court's case
I, DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT JOSEPH ZERNIK, DECLARE
AS FOLLOWS:
2) THIS MOTION IS MADE PURSUANT or CCP §170.6 on the ground that the
5) In addition, I hold and believe that Judge Connor engaged in adulteration of court records
6) I hold that Sustain data is part of my court file, and a public record.
7) All my requests for Sustain data in Samaan v Zernik were denied.
8) I was told by Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg: Sustain data is privileged - for the
Court only.
4 REASSIGNED FROMANYJUDGE IN LA SUPERIOR COURT, WHO MAY
5 CLAIMTHE RIGHT TO ACT AS PRESIDING JUDGE IN THIS CASE,
6 TEMPORARILY, OR ON A PERMANENT BASIS, ANDTHAT TIDS CASE BE
7 SUBMITTED FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE OUT OF THE LA SUPERIOR COURT.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Supervising Judge, Gerald Rosenberg explained to me that no judge in LA Superior
Court would overrule another.
16 3) Several judges in this case made rulings, issued orders, and judgment(s) that were
17
18
19
4) I hold that such conduct, where the law provide and demanded that ajudge from the same
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FlUNG FOR THE PURPOSE OF
-2- IMMEDIATE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE
HONORABLE R IDGESEGAL (CCP §t70.3)
Case No. SC087400
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD: Please take
2 notice:
3 Defendant and Cross -complainant Joseph Zernik hereby moves that this case be
4 REASSIGNED FROM ANY JUDGE IN LA SUPERIOR COURT, WHO MAY
5 CLAIM THE RIGHT TO ACT AS PRESIDING JUDGE IN THIS CASE,
6 TEMPORARILY, OR ON A PERMANENT BASIS, AND THAT TillS CASE BE
7 SUBMITTED FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE OUT OF THE LA SUPERIOR COURT.
8
Supervising Judge, Gerald Rosenberg explained to me that no judge in LA Superior
provided good cause obvious for overruling or vacating. Yet, as explained in advance by
Supervising Judge, all requests for such were denied without any justification.
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ZERNIK
I, DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT JOSEPH ZERNIK, DECLARE
AS FOLLOWS:
1) I object to any hearing or any trial before any Judge of LA Superior Court.
2) THIS MOTION IS MADE PURSUANT OT CCP §170.6 on the ground that the
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Court would overrule another.
16 3) Several judges in this case made rulings, issued orders, andjudgment(s) that were
17
18
19
4) I hold that such conduct, where the law provide and demanded that ajudge from the same
court review a motion to vacate is out of compliance and in violation of the law.
relative to Samaan v Zemik, in part through wrong doing in Sustain - the Court's case
management system, in conspiracy with her clerk, Ms Jaime.
5) In addition, I hold and believe that Judge Connor engaged in adulteration of court records
6) I hold that Sustain data is part of my court file, and a public record.
20
21
22
23
24
25
7) All my requests for Sustain data in Samaan v Zernik were denied.
26
8) I was told by Supervising Judge Gerald Rosenberg: Sustain data is privileged - for the
27
Court only.
28
FlUNG FOR THE PURPOSE OF
-2- IMMEDIATE DlSQUAUFICATION OF THE
HONORABLE JUDGE SEGAL (CCP §170.3)
Case No. SC087400
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 17 of 27
1 9) 1was told the same by senior staff in the office of Presiding Judge Zulleker (spelling?).
2 10)1 hold that such rules- regarding Sustain and regarding overruling each other are
3 unwritten rules of court in LA Superior Court.
4 11)1 hold and believe that such unwritten Rilles of Court, which were never subject to public
5 challenge are on their face out of compliance and in violation of the law (Federal Code).
6
7 Dated: December 7, 2007
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOSEPH ZERNIK, DEFENDANT AND CROSS
COMPLAINANT
in pro per
By:
_
JOSEPH ZERNIK
DEFENDANT AND CROSS COMPLAINANT
in pro per
FlUNG FOR THE PURPOSE OF
-3- IMMEDIATE DISQUALIFICATION OFTHE
HONORABLE JUDGE SEGAL (CCP §170.3)
CaseNo. SC087400
1 9) I was told the same by senior staff in the office of Presiding Judge Zulleker (spelling?).
2 10)1 hold that such rules- regarding Sustain and regarding overruling each other are
3 unwritten rules of court in LA Superior Court.
4 11)1 hold and believe that such unwritten Rules of Court, which were never subject to public
5 challenge are on their face out of compliance and in violation of the law (Federal Code).
6
7 Dated: December 7, 2007
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOSEPH ZERN1K, DEFENDANT AND CROSS
COMPLAINANT
in pro per
By: _
JOSEPH ZERN1K
DEFENDANT AND CROSS COMPLAINANT
in pro per
FlUNG FOR THE PURPOSE OF
-3- IMMEDIATE DlSQUAUFICATION OF THE
HONORABLE JUDGE SEGAL (CCP §170.3)
Case No. SC087400
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 18 of 27
.) J {v'I 'L
1- trl \ sf C, (,'OltAh
LP erA u,()D2,l
.J
Digitally signedby
Joseph Zernlk
ON: cn=JosephZernlk,
) •

. 'D'ate: 2007.12.29
10:06:04-08'00'
<r: O:ii-L; J)f)
rvo
01'1/' r n.·/;:-
f I L. ) /1 PLI2. <:>L,. j4-n1"

'IV cc r I Toi> 3
r-o VI--- Di SQ.,lvllll;h{/J1tv
6-t:- )" {){,J; (oi c
V.b(,Lft It-A II Z7rv h7
) -p il ?::01'l1J1lz.
oert 6
Sl!JvVJf' IV'()/I}!{ n
oft--1J f) (;c" r 1
IYl't;-: V IV It. I'",()Vf/JI't./
/VV M 11 t r; (J)1ovIJI!fj

Pfrl1-7/
1
-/ ,
!/:J..
-'> J {v'I 'L
1-lrl\ ( .sT: c, (,'(jltAh-
LP erA u,()D2,l
t ,Digitany signed by
VJoseph Zernlk
ON: cn=Joseph Zemi'"
) • .••. [email protected]
i!il¢net.<"US
.
10:06:04 -CS'OO'
"
SC uri-L; Zlf)
rvo ,Mf;--yvr-
o1-v/ r///&
flt)/1 &J PtI2<>L--}4-n1

'Tv c c r <i3 I Jo; 3
Po VI.-' 0 I tv
) z, {){,J; (oi f; 111-'\
V.bcLft It-All tJrv h7
il r:01'l1J11t.
o£pT 6
SY/!YVfft JV'O/I)!{
oIt-Tft f) (;c,- T'
IYl't;-.' v f\/ ILI',,{)vt/JI't/
/VrJ M 11 {r;, (J IJIJo

Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 19 of 27
· s

O
l i i 5 '
, . " . q t J - L
1
t I ' 7
( I )

I \ f I J .
/ ' J \ 1
· d

; t I f / ! . I ! V l
,
< ; - 5 1 ( j 1 ( l ( )
/ ' J 1 W
/ \
Q
f \ 4 1 H
l
- - U J / ) . . - O

) I f \ l -




< t l
( ) { ) , \

G
. /
1 ) : " 1 v V ' !
1 1 / \
' v v l ) !
o J ] ; ( j f
( ) J M
V v !
t 1 ) ' 0 - { ; \
i f J
J
C
f I >
, 1
7 : : J 1 A
- : : f 1 0 J
. 1 . . - u i J / H
7 1 / 1 U
1 C
( L - ,
V
i w
7 , 1 t ; ' : : M
1 - y
: i ; l . . \ . ' V I
1 - \
J . " , \ \ 1 L
' : [ J V 1 f I l , J i , \ , N ' ) 1


1 . ! J ? 1 f l
r V I

} ' 1
l - - } U
1 / / 0 )
1
i
l l
\ l { I l l J
, ! ' - t o
' 1 J , ' 7 1 7
; ( } f \ C
( ' i
q ¥ - A
D
.
C l W
f l Q . )



V t J
f (
f . . O
j
l q . C
l v t ( )
y v C , U V
A l 7 \ ' 7 s v \
( I / \ !
J 1 ( t
l ' U 1
( , j . - i W 1 - 1
y
1
1 1 t l
k

; ' V
I C
t
1 t 7 }
i ; 1 A 0 i 1 1
f # 7 V
1 1
J . l 7 u
1 \ (
( ' 1 -
> * i I

' 1 1 A i 1 f t t
t l ( ! f . a . (
' \
'
J
I w .
/ V \ q . j

; t I f i t · I ! V 1
I
, - ; - 5 ( )
/ ' J 1 U V / \
o N - Y H
l
. . . , U } ( : : : _ _ 0 v V \
< - i I f \ . l

a . . L
( ) { ) , \
- - \ l
. /
j , 5 : ' 1 V I t l 1 ' V I O l i i ' 7 / ' l ' ! I { l l . - 9
7
( 1 )
I ) ' J ; ( j { ( j J M V v f t 7 ) ' 0 - \ ; \ 1 f J J
C ( ! l , > , ' j 7 1 J : J ? i J J y u t ; I H 7 1 / 7 U 1 C ( [ "
C r Z w 7 / r ; S I 1 f < t 1 1 : t ; l A 1 / 1 . 1 ) J . . J t
l
L - w J 1 \ e ,
5 "
l
t
l
1 J . j J 1 J 1
N 1
t ,
Q
I L t \ l l j q
l r } i f 1 , 1 ; ) 1 t l / \ t l l t v ( ' 4 f J ' k } , ' 7 J 7 f \ C (
1
! J v 0 4 l l U W I t a ) Y J v 1 1
V i J f ( - r . f J j l . t ! c n . \ ( 1 y v C } / ' J t J 7 \ ' 7 ' P \ ' l \ N \ '
7 1 { - } } U 1 ( i f - i ! 4 ( - I < ; ' 1 1 , t l k j l " J ' t 1
I V { c / l r J 1 J v W ) t 1 ! f j J 7 ' i \ / j 1 \ ( ( ' 1 -
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 20 of 27
, 'IV
M

11'1"

PJil'Vc
&
V
D
1"
j
(i 0It'';
fn-
1f;r)
(II"f,yJ
I tv




yV /()A.,
C
D
P.






P- !()
) VYX/{f:
f11-ffJJ
rr- 1/'11'./
\L;,
Ifk5/ ?n1::0
{-;9.......


(!(vfJL,)}I&f':l1. .
fl
/
Y-flt v
yff.h
yV1J
iJ
/4
}2!/Ji
4
t
J.
e
v

\fi e
rr
/
(1/\ fV\'b0
f!A17),-:11
rIV
O
lJ<
1
#y,
'-A
tl \)'\
.f;;-V

\111'fr11
'tv
if; IJ-:·Al.17))A
Il .tV-'
V
- V"
I"' ,<-
V
r-,:lu
wv
1
1L

I f
I
)frl""
h, o
fll,
11>


{V\
@
I
iP
-ID
1
\./b:>''r
!SVl
'I
01
L
V
'
1Y
H
LlC
3
D
-
b
D
fV' IrV
D
S/7b-
tAtO
rJZ{:l!)
A
-T
I
flt5
ilY
U
Y
ff!-
'1)
U
I
(filL
-b.
, N Mf;:lJ '/':r1 PJil'VC &V
0
1"
J(i Ditt; fn- 1f;r) (II"f,yJ ,tv yV IC'/fr,
CD ? ff;W L---}'+'1
Y
t7/- [-
p.1(J )Vrx:1i;:- fYL-tfJJ fY' IIt
y
'/ \ L;, jfk51 ?n1::0
{-O"- (!(l--fJv(JC-f:lt. f l r
l
(JIi Sl",;) /
Y-flt '\ )tfh yV'b }2!()j4tJ.
ev \0tn'
I (1/\ f'I\ 'b0 f!A'fli,Vi
rIV OlJ<1 #y,
'-A tl \)'J .{;;-v \111 tM1 'tv bLJ.::' -11.17; JA Il .tV-'
V - V" 1"-''- Vr-,:lu
wV
1
Il
I 'f I Vtll\l\ f.c, Uf l1>
"7 M .?h
tV

® I !;'P-I0
1
\.fb:>''r tSVl \I 1ft I LV'
1Y\-lLlc 3D- bD fV' IrV
() '7 116- VI{, Or)Zt() A-If f Jt:; ilYUYtf!- '1)
u' '1';' (filL-£;; .
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 21 of 27
r\1))
Jr
r:
viI)
"36
o
\17

J--




f tv
3
!/
rt' IN
t
(g
)
1ft,;
)1
;./\ t{-
VII V45
III
Trtf!;1/.
e
>
s-
m
Jl n
'f.I-f'I{)
YJ/:I-I (v(
')//;41
-\-lbAYt' M-)
F.'ry'/
£y;
{JA-mJ(,
1JJ.C>.0-
'7Ii (.,14
C In., l;I/1A

S

1
)
)'l- () 4},:-
&11 i·t,j 1\!)
)<
f) f 1jt"Y!
,
l.s f..
(J3J
fJ IV
lft1;,


L
(P
.U
i
l
)
'2, lj

)Vlf11f
{tJi
L
L. (;.(L(L/
®
fh


rJ
JI)
rvrJ'1
H
rW
:/
11th
rll/b
,

L
Jt-SI
/-lU1-t"v
Ilit?
bf\:
(J ftt
l
//
1
b
,
r\1)) Jr r viI) "36
o \17 J--
f tv 3!/ rt' IN t
(g) 1ft,; 'Tw· t{ WV45 \ [) ',ZiZ. Tr/{ju
b .i rt-vL n f:II'I() rJ/:::l/i (vi ')/114
1
-\-1 bf*t \W'V) Pry( £'f:: ()1ru1)(, IJJ.1f,Y/L
7
11
i.,1
4
c In. 'S JI.- n4J;.
(/fJ 1\1) ) f) f 1j-z,Y!,7.s f.
C!3J [)\'V L CPu i
l
) '2.l;
)Vlf11f (tJi tl
lV
<) L L. r;.(LILi
®fh rJ Jl) rvfJ'1
Hr¥/l1th rll/b, I- Jt-SI
/-10'1-t"v 11i0 bf\: (J (ttl//ff;,
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 22 of 27
(0i
@
P-<jL/;() I F Hilt,(
(A ytJ;/ ,lv1trV)
fen, . ) vi)u? ilv/t [lvt'l'+fV
® 11' ql) 1MAj-'C ) () !J[ri' fllIlL J / Z(!J;
IT
(5).l 4b lr) 1ff14' T V\ 11<> I IV(t /1 fL/ t: I)
I1-Nt? ) vf)l({ 1 [,t?L{ II/!;;fil
l
Jl
l
fT
t') It !1/l1..'J!L, r;
@
P- ILpvi{vtil'i-<, THIS
cPs-G- vVIi: L, yl- tJj50Wt"/el {/ (i'to- c: (tJ1;,
,»1A-l fz::m ) t/O C/O l{·IYL!) '1D
0r 1f}vi7t;. THI\
@i
aD I F Hilt,(
(A vtJ;" ()1(f)(I/l...
fcnr .) £/i)tt? Ilv/t (lV{Pt·jV (oL-·U/1/)
® 11' ql) ,HJj1- ) UI){rl flAIL T/ «-II;
((
@.l -t
b
l() 1ft14' T V\ 11 S I IV(t /1 fL/ r: I)
I1-Nt? ) (j!)l{{ 1¥tfi-1 GtJt{ /I/!yJ!il
1AlITI') It tvhl wr;../)/j- H/1'1. YL- r;
@ P- ILpvi£VlifL<, 'If! IS
cPst; vVIvL,- yL (rJeJ { / (/'"-rl- ({ (!J1{,
) t/O t)f;, UJ lLJrt6
Th
tA(l 0 r- ff}vl1t;. TH1\
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 23 of 27
&
[
ereL-
i/ f)lT}--v
) cf)G/c
(Pelln/)
1b
I
»I C0v if;

1l? )=t-o.;,
,,;> t /ft:J cit- J"TTfD
!.If'"<
":>
:
[
ft;ft, r:
}fllK
/D
Tft;r; L

l1tG. STf'frE; (jf' t
fJECf;/v'>':Jh.
1--, W
i,
Lus


)


U
1:
_
(i;5/ r [f'c& L- v f)lr}-v ) elk;l".
t[;;L-t- I IV) 10 I (1/ ft/I G lit)
}] I C0v (7
1l? )W.;,
,,;> t/fI:J C'/- I JTfD l/f' [, P
rtt }fllK /D Tft;r; L
'6'P lfrG' ST!'frE; 6f' (;
ftEctflt-
hJ1.,rv ill}
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 24 of 27
--------------
. - - - - - - - - - - ~
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 25 of 27
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 3
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 26 of 27
NAME. ADDRESS ANDTELEPHONE NUMBER OFATTORNEY(S)
JOSEPHZERNIK
4215Saint George Street
Los Angeles, CA90027
T: 310 435-9107 F: 801 998-0917E: [email protected]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OFCALIFORNIA
JOSEPHZERNIK
v.
JACQUELINE CONNORET AL
PLAINTIFF(S) .
DEFENDANT(S).
CASE NUMBER
08-CV-01550-VAP-CW
PROOF OFSERVICE - ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OF SERVICE
I. the undersigned. certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 years. employed in the County of
Los Angeles,
• State of California, and not a
party to the above-entitled cause . On April 15th
• 20 08 . I served a true copy of
PlaintitTZernik's DeclarationRE: EXPARTE APPLICATIONS ONDEC7,2007 FORGAGORDERS
by personally delivering it to the person (s) indicated below in the manner as provided in FRCivP 5(b); by
depositing it in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with the postage thereon fully prepaid to the following:
(list names and addresses for person (s) served. Attach additional pages if necessary.)
Place of Mailing: Los Angeles. California
Executed on (f..t, .20 08 at.
• California
Please check one of these boxes if service is made by mail:
o I hereby certify that I am a member of the Bar of the United States District Court. Central District of
California.
o I hereby certify that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the
service was made.
iii I hereby certify under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and co
Signature 0 Person MakingService
7leCJVT Hit- I A.J
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE
I.
. received a true copy of the within document on
_
Signature
CV-40(01/00)
PartyServed
PROOF OFSERVICE· ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE
NAME. ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF ATTORNEY(S)
JOSEPH ZERNIK
4215 Saint George Street
Los Angeles, CA 90027
T: 310 435-9107 F: 801 998-0917 E: [email protected]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOSEPH ZERNIK
v.
JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL
PLAINTIFF(S),
DEFENDANT(S).
CASE NUMBER
08-CV-01550-VAP-CW
PROOF OF SERVICE - ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 years, employed in the County of
Los Angeles, , State of California, and not a
party to the above-entitled cause. On April 15th , 20 08 , I served a true copy of
PlaintiffZemik's Declaration RE: EX PARTE APPLICATIONS ON DEC 7,2007 FOR GAG ORDERS
by personally delivering it to the person (s) indicated below in the manner as provided in FRCivP 5(b); by
depositing it in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with the postage thereon fully prepaid to the following:
(list names and addresses for person(s) served. Attach additional pages if necessary.)
Place of Mailing: Los A n g e l e s ~ California
Executed on A ~ (1..t2 ' 20 08 at.....: L::.,:o;,;;.s.:..;A;;;,;;ng01,.;e;.;,;le;.;:.s , California
Please check one of these boxes if service is made by mail:
o I hereby certify that I am a member of the Bar of the United States District Court, Central District of
California.
o I hereby certify that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the
service was made.
iii I hereby certify under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and co
Signature 0 Person Making Service
77eePr J?It- I A.J
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE
I, , received a true copy of the within document on _
Signature
CV-40 (01/00)
Party Served
PROOF OF SERVICE - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 41 Filed 04/17/2008 Page 27 of 27
SERVICE LIST FOR ZERNIK V CONNOR ET AL (revised 4/6/08)
Sarah L Overton
Cummings McClorey Davis Acho and Associates
3801 University Avenue
Suite 700
Riverside, CA 92501
951-276-4420
Email : [email protected]
John W Patton, Jr
Pasternak Pasternak & Patton
1875 Century Park E
Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2523
310-553-1500
Email : [email protected]
Michael L Wachtell
Buchalter Nemer PC
1000 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2457
213-891-5761
Email : [email protected]
John Amberg
Bryan Cave, LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Tel (3101 576-2100
Fax (3101 576-2200
Email : [email protected]
SERVICE LIST FOR ZERNIK V CONNOR ET AL (revised 4/6/08)
Sarah L Overton
Cummings McClorey Davis Acho and Associates
3801 University Avenue
Suite 700
Riverside, CA 92501
951-276-4420
Email: [email protected]
John W Patton, Jr
Pasternak Pasternak & Patton
1875 Century Park E
Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2523
310-553-1500
Email: [email protected]
Michael L Wachtell
Buchalter Nemer PC
1000 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2457
213-891-5761
Email: [email protected]
John Amberg
Bryan Cave, LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Tel (3101 576-2100
Fax (3101 576-2200
Email: [email protected]

Sponsor Documents

Recommended


View All
Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close