09-11-24 Samaan V Zernik (SC087400) David Pasternak'a "Final Report" and Declaration W Bookmarks S

Digitally signed by
Joseph H Zernik
Dr Z DN: cn=Joseph H
Zernik, o, ou,
email=jz12345@earthl
Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD ink.net, c=US

Location: La Verne,
California
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750; fax: 801 998-0917; email: jz12345@earthlink.net Date: 2010.01.13
19:26:27 -08'00'
BOOK MARKS
Of online record November 24, 2009 Notice of Motion and Declaration by Attorney David Pasternak
1. Face page
2. Notice of Motion Jan 5, 2010
3. Declaration dividing page
4. P&A dividing page
5. Exhibit 1 -purported November 9, 2007 Order appointing Pasternak receiver -by Judge John Segal - with no
authentication.
6. Exhibit 2 - November 21, 2007 Order to sheriff by Judge John Segal - with no authentication.
7. Exhibit 3 - order striking disqualifications and answer and recusal - of John Segal - with no authentication.
8. Exhibit 4 - December 7, 2007 Minute Order by Lisa Hart Cole- recusal - unsigned, stamped "RECEIVED.", no clerk
signature, "disposed" - in the Sustain.
9. Exhibit 5 - Order including Indemnity for future criminalities, by Judge Patricia Collins, Stamped "CONFORMED" but with
no clerk signature, no authentication, invalidated in Register of Action.
10. Exhibit 6 - - December 7, 2007 Indemnity Agreement-for Mara Escrow - future criminalities, not signed by other parties,
only by Pasternak.
11. Exhibit 7- December 17, 2007 Purported Seller's Closing Statement.-by Liz Cohen - Mara Escrow - unsigned.
12. Exhibit 8 - January 11, 2008 - Receiver's disclosure regarding relationship with Sandor Samuels - with no authentication.
13. Exhibit 9 - January 11, 2008 order Striking Disqualification and Answer - no authentication.
14. Exhibit 12, 2008 July 28, 2008 Notice to Judge Terry Friedman to cease and desist racketeering - by Joseph Zernik.
with no authentication.
15. Exhibit 13 - December 5, 2008 Letter by Joseph Zernik to Bet Tzedek Directors.
16. Exhibit 14 - July 29, 2008 - Order re Payment of Parties consequential damages, etc. by Terry Friedman - Stamped
"RECEIVED" no authentication.
17. Exhibit 15 - November 12, 2008 - letter by Bryan Cave, LLP for NON PARTY Countrywide - re Violation of non-existent
Protective Order. Missing signature box of Counsel, signed with no designation at all by "Your truly Jenna Moldawsky" - at
time that Bank of America Corporation clearly stated that Bryan Cave had no authorization to represent Bank of America.
18. Exhibit 16 - November 19, 2008 Letter from Bran Cave, LLP for NON PARTY Countrywide - stamped "RECEIVED", by
"yours truly Jenna Moldawsky". - at time that Bank of America Corporation clearly stated that Bryan Cave had no
authorization to represent Bank of America. AND November 12, 2008- email notice of racketeering by Joseph Zernik
19. Exhibit 17 - January 13, 2009 Proposed Order [sic]-, Sanctions etc signed by Terry Friedman - no authentication, for
Countrywide - at Bryan Cave LLP request, at a time that Bank of America office of General Counsel stated that Bryan
Cave LLP was NOT authorized as outside counsel.,
20. Exhibit 18 - February 3, 2009 Letter by Brian Cave, LLP, on behalf of Bank of America, at a time that Bank of America
stated that Bryan Cave, LLP was NOT authorized as outside counsel. Signed by "Yours truly Jenna Moldawsky with no
designation or identification as an attorney.
21. Exhibit 19 - Feb 13, 2009 Order for payment of $19,619 to Christopher Olsen - not a party - signed by Terry Friedman,
no authentication..
22. Exhibit 20 - February 17, 2009 Judgment of Contempt, at Bryan Cave, LLP request, on behalf of Bank of America, while
Bank of America stated that Bryan Cave, LLP was NOT authorized as outside counsel. No authentication.
23. Exhibit 21 - Dismissal Order claiming default - Appeal - by Presiding Judge PJ Turner - California Court of Appeals, 2nd
District tried to coerce running of appeal from an unentered judgment.
24. Exhibit 22 - March 21, 2008 - unauthenticated order by Judge Virginia Phillips, denying any constitutional right for
unbiased judge.
25. Exhibit 23 - March 31, 2009 unauthenticated Report and Recommendation by magistrate Carla Woehrle. no NEF.
26. Exhibit 24 - April 24, 2009 - unauthenticated Order by US Judge Virginia Phillips - no NEF.
27. Exhibit 25 - April 24, 2009 Judgment by US Judge Virginia Phillips - with no NEF.
28. Exhibit 26 - July 7, accounting statement by David Pasternak - unsigned.
29. Exhibit 27 - September 20, 2009 Notice by email of Joseph Zernik of fraud and deception - in Orders lacking
authentication by David Pasternak and Judge Terry Friedman.
30. Exhibit 28 - November 17, 2009 Accounting statement by David Pasternak - unsigned.
31. Proof of service of Notice and motion for January 5, 2010 - Listing Bryan Cave, LLP as counsel for non-existent NON
PARTY Countryside Home Loans, INC.
32. Mailing envelope - post marked Nov 25, 2009
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 S~I~A,]~~~ OE' CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, '~ST DISTRICT
10
11 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual, CASE NO. SC 087 4()(}
12 Plaintiff, HOll"l. Terry B. Friedman

13 vs. RECEIVER I S FINAL I~PORT AND
ACCOUNT AND NOTICE OF MOTION
14 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual AND lUSCEIVER'S MOTION ~OR
and DOES 1 through 10, ISSU1WCE OF ORDER:
15 incl usi ve,
16 Defendants. 1. APPROVING AND SETTLING

!
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT
17 AND ACCOUNT;
18 2. APPROVING AND SETT:LING

FINAL COMPENSATION AND
19 REIMBURSEMEN'J~ OF COST~~ FOR
RECEIVER (INCLUDING
20 REQUESTED BONUS), ;!UID
AUTHORIZING RECEI~~R TO
21 PAY APPROVED UNPAID FEES
AND COSTS TO RECEIVER,:
22
3. AUTHORIZING RECEIVl~R TO
23 CONTINUE PAYING HIS Fl!~ES
AND COSTS DURING JWY
24 APP:EAL OF THESE REQUESTED
ORD:~RS;
25
4. DIRECTING RECEIVER TO PAY
26 REMAINING FUNDS IN
RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE TO
27 DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK
WHEN REQUESTED ORDERS ARE
28
W:\73235\OOOl\PleadingS\Final Report & 1
Account.doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT AND MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF RELATED ORDERS,
ETC.
1 FINAL;
2 5. EXONERATUiG ALL BONDS;
3 6. TERMINATING RECEIVERSHIP
AND DISCHARGING RECEIVER
4 FROM ANY FURTHER DUTIES OR
RESPONSIBILITIES;
5
7. APPROVING ALL OF
6
RECEIVER'S CONTRACTS AND
ACTIONS AS PROPER ;!UID
7 BEING IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF THE
8 RECEIVERSHIP ESTATJE:;
9 8. ORDERING PLAINTIFF NEVIE

SAMAAN AND DEFEND.Al~T
10 JOSEPH ZERNIK JOIN'rLY AND
SEVERALLY TO DEFEND AND
11 INDEMNIFY THE RECEIVER
AGAINST ANY CLAIMS THAT
12 MAY ARISE FROM THIS
RECEIVERSHIP ESTATE;
13
9. RETAINING JURISDIC~rION
14 OVER ANY MATTERS OR CLAIMS
WHICH MAY ARISE CONCERNING
15 THE RECEIVER;
16 10. AUTHORIZING RECEI~~R TO
DISCARD Al:'L FILES .l!UID
17 RECORDS R1~GARDING ~[,HIS
RECEIVERSHIP WI'rHOlJT
18 SHREDDING THEM; AND
19 11. :E!'OR SUCH OTHER iORD]~RS AS

THE COURT DEEMS PROPER;
20
DECLARATION OF DAVID J.
21 PASTERNAK; MEMORANDUM OF.' POINTS
ANI) AUTHORITIES
22
DA'J~E: JANUARY 5, 2010
23 TIME: 8:45 A.M.
DEPT. WE"J"
24
25
26
27
28
Account. doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT AND MOTION FOR ISSUAN(~: OF Rj~LATED ORDERS,
ETC.
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATT'ORNEYS OF RECORD HERE: IN :
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on Tuesday, ~January 5, 2010, at 8:45
3 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in
4 Department WE"J" of the Los Angeles Superior Court located 1725
5 Main Street, Santa Monica, California, a hearing will be held
6 regarding the Final Report and Account and Motion of Receiver
7 David J. Pasternak for the issuance of an Order: (1) Approving
8 and settling Receiver's Final Report and Account; (2) Approving
9 and settling final compensation and reimbursement of cost~s for
10 the Receiver (including requested bonus), and authorizing the
11 Receiver to pay the approved unpaid fees and costs to the
12 Receiver from the receivership estate; (3) Authorizing the
13 Receiver to continue paying his fees and costs during any appeal
14 of the requested Orders; (4) Directing the Receiver to pay all
15 remaining funds in receivership estate to Defendant Joseph Zernik
16 when the requested Orders are final; (5) Exonerating all bonds;
17 (6) Terminating the receivership and discharging the Receiver
18 from any further duties or responsibilities; (7) Approving all of
19 the Receiver's contracts and actions as being right and proper
20 and in the best intere~3ts of the receivership estate; (8)
21 Ordering Plaintiff Nivie Samaan and Defendant Joseph Zernik
22 jointly and severally to defend and indemnify the Receiver
23 against any claims that may arise from this receivership estate;
24 (9) Retaining jurisdiction over any matters or claims whi.ch may
25 arise concerning this receivership; (10) Authorizing the Receiver
26 to discard all files and documents regarding this receivership
27 without shredding them; and (11) For such other Orders as the
28
W:\73235\OOOl\Pleadings\Final Report & 3
Account.doc
ETC.
1 Court deems proper.
2 This motion is made on the grounds that the Receiver has
3 accomplished the purpose for which this receivership was
4 established by closing the escrow for the sale of Defendant
5 Joseph Zernik's real property to Plaintiff Nivie Samaan, and now
6 that the appeal of this action and the federal lawsuit filed by
7 Zernik against, among others, the Receiver has ended, there is no
8 further need or reason for this receivership to continue.
9 This motion is based on the attached Declaration of David J.
10 Pasternak and all exhibits attached thereto, the attached
11 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all documents and pleadings
12 in the Court's file for this matter, and such other oral and
13 documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the
14 Receiver's Final Report and Account.
15
l\ l {\/I\
16
DATED: November 24, 2009 t W\J\J Il\ _
David J. Pasternak
. \~\
----------=-----------
17
Receiver
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Account.doc
ETC.
Declaration ofDavid .l Pasternak
1 DECLAlU\.TJCON OF DAVID ~r. PASTERN~!u{
2 I, David J. Pasternak, declare as follows:
3 1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth
4 herein, and if called upon as a witness to testify thereto, I
5 could and would competently and truthfully do so.
6 2. This is an unforgettable case for all of the wrong
7 reasons, and a tragic situation in which Defendant Joseph Zernik
8 has caused much of his E?qui ty in his former home to be squandered
9 solely as the result of his repeated disobedience and questioning
10 of this Court's orders and authority. Unfortunately, Zernik
11 appears to be continuing to tread down the same path today.
12 3. On or about November 9, 2007, Los Angeles Superior
13 Court Judge John A. Segal issued an Order appointing me as
14 Receiver herein (the "Receivership Order"), a true and correct
15 copy of which is attached hereto as Zxhibit 1. The Receivership
16 Order directed me to take possession of the real property located
17 at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212 (the
18 "Receivership Property") [Paragraph 3. b. of the Receivership
19 Order], "to take all necessary steps to sell the [Receivership}
20 Property to [Plaintiff] through the reactivated Escrcw No. 1
21 3450 O-GH (the "Escrow") at Mara Escrow Co." [Paragraph 3. g. of
22 the Receivership Order], and to sign escrow documents for
23 Defendant Joseph Zernik if he fails to do so within three
24 business days after the escrow holder submits them to Zernik for
25 signature [Paragraph 3.h. of the Receivership Order] .
26 4. I was appointed Receiver in this matter after a retired
27 Los Angeles Superior Court Judge (Gregory O'Brien) had resigned
28
Account. doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT AND MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF FELATED ORDERS,
ETC.
1 from his appointment in this matter as the result of Zernik's
2 threats, and ADR Services (with whom Judge O'Brien was
3 affiliated) refused to allow any of its other neutrals to become
4 involved in this matter.
5 5. On or about November 13, 2007, I posted my bond and
6 filed my oath and began serving as the Receiver in this matter.
7 6. During the course of this receivership, I served
8 nineteen (19) Interim Reports, covering the time period from the
9 inception of this receivership through May 31, 2009. This Final
10 Report and Account summarizes and supplements those nineteen (19)
11 Interim Reports.
12 Closing Escrow
13 7. On or about November 14, 2007, I sent a letter to
14 Zernik informing him that I had qualified for my appointment as
15 Receiver and that I had taken possession, custody and control of
16 the Receivership Property. In that letter, I also asked Zernik
17 to vacate the Receivership Property by the close of business on
18 Monday, November 19, 2007 , and that if he did not do so, I would
19 appear on Wednesday, November 21, 2007 for the heari~g of my ex
20 parte application for the issuance of an order (1) Ordering
21 Defendant Joseph Zernik and all other occupants to immediately
22 vacate the Receivership Property and directing the Los Angeles
23 County Sheriff's Department to enforce that order in the same
24 manner as they enforce a writ of execution issued after an
25 unlawful detainer judgment, or alternatively (2) Authorizing me
26 to file an unlawful detainer lawsuit to evict Defendant Joseph
27 Zernik and all other occupants from the Receivership Property.
28
Account.doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND Jl.CCOUNT AND MOTION FOR ISSUA CE OF RELATED ORDERS,
ETC.
1 8. After Zernik failed to respond to my inquiries about
2 whether he had vacated the Receivership Property, and
3 communicated a last minute equivocal response, I filed the
4 referenced ex parte application and appeared for the November 21,
5 2007 hearing. At the hearing, Zernik informed me and the Court
6 that he had vacated the Receivership Property a few days earlier.
7 Nevertheless, on November 21, 2009, ,Judge Segal issued an Order
8 Ordering Zernik And All Other Occupants To Immediately Vacate The
9 Receivership Real Property, etc., a ~rue and correct copy of
10 which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
11 9. On the afternoon of November 21, 2007, I had the locks
12 changed and took possession of the Receivership Property.
13 10. On or about November 16, 2007, I received final Escrow
14 documents by email from Mara ESC1~OW Company ("Mara Escrow"). I
15 was informed and believe that those escrow documents also were
16 transmitted at the same time to Zernik and Plaintiff for their
17 signature. On November 19, 2007, I received the "hard" copies of
18 those final escrow documents from Mara Escrow. After I was
19 informed that Zernik had not submitted those signed documents to
20 Escrow, I signed them on or about November 27, 2007, and
21 submitted them to Escrow.
22 11. On November 20, 2007, Zernik and I had an email
23 exchange in which, among other things, Zernik instructed Mara
24 Escrow to cancel the Escrow and referenced "outrageous conduct"
25 by a Mara Escrow officer. I responded, among other things, that
26 Zernik did not have the authority to cancel the Escrow.
27
28
W:\7323S\OOOl\Pleadings\Final Report & 6
Account.doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT AND MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF RELATE:D ORDERS,
ETC.
1 12. On December 4, 2007, Judge Segal issued an Order
2 Striking Zernik's Statement of Disqualification, a true and
3 correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, and after
4 noting "Zernik's pattern of filing repetitive ex parte
5 applications, motions for relief, and challenges to judicial
6 officers hearing this case," Judge Segal recused himself to avoid
7 further delays resulting from his ownership of stock in
8 Countrywide Financial Corporation ("Countrywide").
9 13. On December 7, 2007, I filed my Ex Parte Application
10 for the issuance of various Orders enabling me to finally close
11 the subject escrow in this matter for hearing before Judge Lisa
12 Hart Cole, to whom this case was assigned following Judge Segal's
13 recusal. Zernik immediately filed a Code of Civil Procedure
14 §17 0.6 peremptory challenqe. The case was then reassigned to
15 Judge Terry Friedman. However, b~~cause Judge Friedman was then
16 unavailable, by Minute Order, a true and correct copy of which is
17 attached hereto as Exhibit 4, Judge Cole ordered us to appear
18 before Judge Patricia Collins fo~ the hearing of my Ex Parte
19 Application.
20 14. On December 7, 2007, Judge Collins iss:.led my requested
21 Ex Parte Order enabling me to close escrow, a true and correct
22 copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. That Order
23 approved the escrow documentation, authorized me to siqn and
24 submit tax documentation to escrow, prohibited Zernik from
25 communicating directly with escrow, the title insurer, or buyer's
26 lender, and authorized me to enter into an indemnity agreement
27 with Mara Escrow Company ("Mara") which Mara was requiring,
28
Account.doc
ETC.
1 because of Zernik I s prior communications and threats, as a
2 condition of acting as escrow holder.
3 15. On or about December 7, 2007, I entered into the
4 Indemnity Agreement with Mara, a true and correct copy of which
5 is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. Among other things, that
6 Indemnification Agreement provides that solely in my capacity as
7 Receiver, I agree to reimburse Mara Escrow for all expenses
8 incurred (including its reasonable attorney's fees) regarding the
9 negotiations leading up to and the execution of the
10 Indemnification Agreement, as well as any such expenses incurred
11 in the close of Escrow or subsequently arising out of the close
12 of Escrow. The Indemnification Agreement also provides that
13 Plaintiff and I (again only in my capacity as Receiver), will
14 defend and indemnify Mara Escrow from and against any claims,
15 demands or liabilities (including attorneys' fees), asserted by
16 Zernik, the title company or the Plaintiff's lender, o:c their
17 respective successors and assigns, arising out of or related to
18 Mara Escrow serving as Escrow agent in connection with this
19 Escrow or the close of Escrow upon the written instructions of
20 and utilizing documents executed by me and Plaintiff as
21 authorized by the Judgment and the Receivership Order in this
22 case. As previously reported in my Interim Reports and in the
23 supplemental financial report attached hereto as Exhibit 28,
24 during the course of this receivership, I paid the total amount
25 of $25,596.62 to Mara Escrow's attorneys, Buchalter Nemer,
26 pursuant to the terms of the Indemnity Agreement.
27
28
W;\73235\OOOl\Pleadings\Final Report & 8
Account.doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND ]I"CCOUNT AND MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF RELATED ORDERS,
ETC"
1 16. Escrow thereafter closed on December 17, 2007. A true
2 and correct copy of the Seller's Closing Statement is attached
3 hereto as Exhibit 7. The Receivership Order provided that the
4 net sale proceeds due to Zernik were to be paid to me from
5 Escrow. I received $710,210.07 from escrow.
6 !,ost-Escrow Receiversh~Adminis1t:~atiol~
7 17. On or about January 4, 2008, I filed a Disclosure in
8 this action, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto
9 as Exhibit 8, detailing my relationships with interested persons,
10 including Bet Tzedek Legal Services, Sandor Samuels, and Judge
11 Friedman.
12 18. On or about January 11, 2009, Judge Friedman filed an
13 Order Striking Statement of Disqualification And Verified Answer
14 in this matter, a true and correct copy of which is attached
15 hereto as Exhibit 9, noting that Zernik had presE~nted lOa nearly
16 unintelligible conspiratorial theory wholly lacking in
17 substance."
18 19. On or about March 11, 2008, this Court issued a
19 Judgment Re: Contempt, a true and correct copy of which is
20 attached hereto as Exhibit 10, in which this Court fo~nd that
21 Zernik had committed thirteen (13) separate acts of contempt by
22 willfully violating this Court's July 23, 2007 Protective Order
23 directing Zernik to communicate solely with Countrywide"s
24 designated counsel and no other officers or employees regarding
25 this action.
26 20. On or about March 13, 2008, this Court issued an Order,
27 a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
28
Account.doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND .t\CCOUNT AND l"10TlON FOR ISSUANCE OF RELATED ORDERS,
ETC.
1 11, ordering me to pay $16,170 as sanctions to Countrywide if
2 Zernik failed to pay those sanctions within a specified time
3 period. I paid that amount to Countrywide from this receivership
4 estate in April, 2008 pursuant to this Court's Order.
5 2l. On or about July 28, 2008, Zernik filed a "Notice To
6 eJudge Terry Friedman, To 'Receiver' Pasternak, A.nd Parties In
7 Samaan V Zernk (SC087400) To Cease And Desist Racketeering", a
8 true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
9 This filing is indicative of Zernik's many in court and out of
10 court written publications, many of which are readily available
11 on a website established by Zernik or elsewhere on the internet,
12 disparaging this Court, me, my law firm, and others who have had
13 the mere misfortune of being involved with this case or the
14 underlying escrow and sale. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a
15 true and correct copy of a letter sent by Zernik on or about
16 November 27, 2008, to various public officials, the media, and
17 others, which among other things, states: "Beyond the theft of
18 my property purportedly on behalf of the Court, Att Pasternak
19 fraudulently incurred me with hundreds of thousands of dollars in
20 tax liabilities" and accuses me of being a "corrupt attorney".
21 22. On or about July 29, 2008, this Court issued an Order
22 Re Payment of Parties' Consequent.ial Damages, Etc., a true and
23 correct copy of which is attached heret.o as Exhibit 14, directing
24 me to pay $145,717.40 to Plaintiff Nivie Samaan for the net
25 amount of her consequential damage claims. I paid that amount
26 from this receivership estate to Samaan shortly thereafter.
27
28
W:\73235\OOOl\Pleadings\Final Report & J.O
Account.doc
ETC.
1 23. On or about November 12, 2008, I received a copy of a
2 letter from Countrywide's attorneys to Zernik, a true and correct
3 copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 15, asserting that
4 Zernik had violated this Court's March 11, 2008 Order [Exhibit
5 10], and consequently had five (5) days in which to pay this
6 Court's $7,500 contempt sanction to Countrywide.
7 24. On or about November 20, 2008, I received a letter from
8 Countrywide's attorneys dated November 19, 2008, a true and
9 correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 16, informing
10 me that Zernik had failed to timely pay the $7,500 contempt
11 sanction to Countrywide, and requesting payment from me from the
12 receivership estate pursuant to this Court's March 11, 2008 Order
13 [Exhibit 10]. Shortly thereafter, I paid the $7,500 to
14 Countrywide from this receivership estate.
15 25. In December 2008, this Court issued its Order awarding
16 post judgment attorneys fees in ~he amount of $55,821.61 to
17 Plaintiff Nivie Samaan, which I pro~~tly paid from this
18 receivership estate.
19 26. On or about January 13, 2009, this Court issued an
20 Order, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
21 Exhibit 17, finding that Zernik had again violated this Court's
22 Orders, and sanctioning Zernik $5,564.50 for such violation. By
23 letter dated February 3, 2009, a true and correct copy of which
24 is attached hereto as Exhibit 18, I was informed that Zernik had
25 failed to timely pay those sanctions to Countrywide.
26 Consequently, pursuant to that Order of this Court, I paid those
27
28
Account.doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT AND MOT·ION FOR ISSUANCE OF RELATED ORDERS,
ETC.
1 sanctions to Countrywide from this receivership estate in
2 February, 2009.
3 27. On or about February 13, 2009, this Court issued an
4 Order, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
5 Exhibit 19, directing me to pay $19,619.62 from this receivership
6 estate to Christopher Olsen, which I promptly did.
7 28. On or about February 17, 2009, this Court issued a
8 Judgment Re: Contempt, a true and correct copy of which is
9 attached hereto as Exhibit 20, finding that Zernik had committed
10 six (6) separate acts of contempt: by willfully violating this
11 Court's July 23, 2007 Protective Order directing Zernik not to
12 communicate with Countrywide's officers or employees, and
13 ordering him to pay $6,000 to the Clerk of the Court. The
14 Judgment directed me to pay the $6,000 to the Clerk of the Court
15 from the receivership estate if Zernik failed to pay the fine
16 within 20 days. On November 16, 2009, I paid the $6,000 to the
17 Clerk of the Court after the Clerk in Department J advised me
18 that Zernik had not paid the specified sanctions.
19 29. While Zernik filed an appeal in this action, that
20 appeal was dismissed by the California Court of Appeal by an
21 Order issued on September 3, 200B, a true and correct copy of
22 which is attached hereto as Exhibit 21.
23 Zernik' s Federal Court I,awsui t
24 30. During March 2008, I was served with a federal court
25 complaint filed by Zernik against me, a number of Los Angeles
26 Superior Court Judges, and others alleging various civil rights
27 violations (United States District Court Case No. CV08-1550
28
Account.doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT AND MOT ION FOR I SSUANCE OF RE:LATED ORDERS,
ETC.
1 GAF (man) ) . Zernik sough a temporary restraining order
2 restraining me from disb rsing receivership funds in accordance
3 with this Court's orders. I filed opposition to Zernik's TRO
4 application and a motion to dismiss his federal court lawsuit.
5 31. On or about March 21, 2008, United States District
6 Judge Virginia A. Philli s issued a Minute Order, a true and
7 correct copy of which i1 attached hereto as Exhibit 22, denying
8 Zernik's TRO applicatio , adopting the authorities cited to the
9 Court by me.
10 32. On or about M rch 31, 2009, United States Magistrate
11 Judge Carla M. Woehrle . ssued a Report and Recormnendatlon p a true
12 and correct copy of whi h is attached hereto as Exhibit 23,
13 recommending the dismis al of Zernik's federal court c.ction in
14 its entirety.
15 33. On or about A ril 24, 2009, United states District
16 Judge Virginia A. Phill'ps issued an Order, a true and correct
17 copy of which is attachJd hereto as Exhibit 24, accepting Judge
18 Woerhle's Report and Recommendation.
19 34. On or about A ril 24, 2009, Judge Phillips issued a
20 Judgment, a true and co ·rect copy of which is attached hereto as
21 Exhibit 25, dismissing ~ernik's federal court action with
22 prejudice to his damageJ claims under federal law and without
23 prejudice as to his sta e law damages claims and his claims for
24 equitable relief.
25 35. Zernik has no appealed Judge Phillips' Judgment, and
26 now that her Judgment i~ final, this receivership can terminate.
27
28
W:\73235\OOOl\Pleadings\Final Repor: & 13
Account.doc
ETC.
1 Receiver 's Fees and Costs
2 36. My nineteen (19) previously served and filed Interim
3 Reports included my office's billing statements for the time
4 period from the inception of this receivership through May 31,
5 2009, detailing my offiCe's services, fees, and costs. Those
6 fees and costs, total $75,338.24, all of which has been paid from
7 this receivership estate.
8 37. My office's stipplemental billing statement for the time
9 period from June 1, 2009 through the anticipated termination of
10 this matter is attached hereto as Exhibit 26. That billing
11 statement (which includes $10,000 for my estimated fees and costs
12 for the completion, filing and service of this Final Report and
13 Account and related motion and order, travel to and attendance at
14 the hearing, closing out this estate, and dealing with
15 anticipated future comrntmications and litigation from Zernik)
16 totals $18,436.17, none of which has been paid. The email
17 attached hereto as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of en
18 email which I received from Zernik on September 20, 2009, in
19 which he states that he intends to initiate new litigation
20 against me despite my citation of authority to him prohibiting
21 such action, thereby defuonstrating that it is likely that I will
22 be forced to have future dealings with Zernik as the result of
23 this receivership.
24 38. Thus, my office's fees and costs for this receivership
25 total $93,774.41, of which $75,338.24 has been paid and
26 :?18,436.l7 has not been paid. My office's fees in this matter
27
28
W:\73235\OOOl\Pleadings\Final Repont & 14
Account. doc
ETC.
1 increased significantly as the result of Zernik's continued
2 disobedience of this Court's orders.
3 39. All of my office's fees have been billed at my office's
4 standard billing rates.
5 40. I am requesting a bonus of $25,000 for my service in
6 this matter. I believe that such additional fees are warranted
7 as the result of my services accompli_shing the purposes of this
8 receivership, namely the closing of the subject escrow, within a
9 few months following my appointment. In addition, throughout
10 this receivership, and I anticipate long into the future, solely
11 as the result of my service in this matter, I have to bear the
12 brunt of Zernik' s slanderous communications about me and my
13 professional abilities and service, which are readily available
14 for the world to see posted on the internet. During the course
15 of this receivership, I have had third parties (including actual
16 or potential clients) ask me about ZE"rnik' s cormnunications
17 maligning my professional abilities and service.
18 41. The requested $25,000 bonus would increase my office's
19 compensation by approximately 27%1' and I believe represents fair
20 compensation for my office's services in this difficult case.
21 42. Because I anticipate that it is likely that Zernik will
22 appeal these final orders, I also am requesting orders directing
23 me to pay the remaining receivership funds to Zernik only when
24 these orders become final, and also authorizing me to continue to
25 pay my office's fees and costs during any appeal.
26
27
28 ,
W:\73235\OOOl\Pleadings\Final Report & 1 .J
Account.doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT AND MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF gELATED ORDERS,
ETC.
1 Fi.nanci.al. Report
2 43. My nineteen (19) previously served and filed Interim
3 Reports included financial reports detailing the receipts and
4 disbursements of this receivership estate for the time period
5 from its inception through May 31, 2009.
6 44. A supplemental financial report detailing the receipts,
7 disbursements and funds held in this receivership for the time
8 period from June 1, 2009 t:hrough November 17, 2009 is attached
9 hereto as Exhibit 28. As detailed in that supplemental financial
10 report, I held approximately $355,197.73 in this receivership
11 estate on November 17, 2009. The amount is approximate because
12 the funds are held in an interest-bearing account.
13 45. The funds which I held in this receivership were held
14 by me until January, 2009 in a segreqated, inter,est-bearing money
15 market receivership account at The Private Bank, which is located
16 in Century City near my office. While I am a shareholder in that
17 publicly traded bank, I believe that I always held less than 0.1%
18 of its outstanding stock, and have never served as an attorney,
19 officer, employee, or director of thE~ bank.
20 46. In January 2009, the receivership funds were
21 transferred from a market money account at The Private Bank to a
22 segregated, insured money market account at 1 st Century Bank,
23 which is a bank located in the same office building as my office.
24 47. Following the payment of the unpaid costs of
25 administration ($43,436.17 - which includes the requested bonus),
26 approximately $311,761.56 will remain in this receivership
27 estate. I believe tha.t those funds should be pa.id by me to
28
Account.doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND AC:COUNT AND MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF RELATED ORDERS,
ETC.
1 Zernik when the Orders terminating this receivership become
2 final.
3 Conclusion
4 48. I have performed all of my duties and responsibilities
5 as this Court I s Receiver to the best of my ability. I am not
6 aware of any claims agai.nst this estate except the ones detailed
7 in this Final Account and Report.
8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
9 State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and
10 that this Declaration was executed on November 24, 2009, at Los
11 Angeles, California.
~~
12
13 ---
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Account.doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT AND MOTION FOR ISSUAN~E OF RELATED ORDERS,
ETC.
Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities
1 MEMORANDUM OF POI~rTS J11ND AUTHORITIES
2 California Rule of Court 3.1184(a) requires a Receiver to
3 present a Final Report and Account, request for discharge, and
4 request for exoneration of the Receiver's bond by noticed motion
5 or stipulation o£ all parties. The Receiver in this matter has
6 fully complied with those requirements.
7 The Receiver also has requested that this Court award him a
8 $25,000 bonus for his services in this matter in the face of
9 Zernik' s threats and slanderous communi.ca1:ions. This Cou:r-t has
10 the authority to determine fai.r compensation for its receivers
11 for their service. This Receiver is not aware of any authority
12 specifying any method for determinin~f an appropriate bonus for
13 i'ts Receiver's services. However, as this Court undoubted.ly
14 knows, there is extensive authority authorizing similar bonus
15 compensation for attorneys. By analogy, that authority supports
16 the requested bonus for this Receiver.
17 One method of calculating bonus compensation for attorneys is
18 the lodestar method:
19 "'In so-called fee shifting cases, ln which the
20 responsibility to pay attorney fees is statutorily or
21 otherwise transferred from the prevailing plaintiff or
22 class to the defendant, the primary method for
23 establishing the amount of 'reasonable l attorney fees is
24 the lodestar method. The lodestar (or touchstone) is
25 produced by multiplying the number of hours reasonably
26 expended by counsel by a reasonable hourly rate. Once
27 the court has fixed the lodestar, it may increase or
28
W:\732 35\OOOl\Pleadings\Final Report & 115
Accoun t.doc
HECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT AND MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF RELATED ORDERS,
ETC.
1 decrease that amount by applying a positive or negative
2 'multiplier' to take into account a variety of other
3 factors, including the quality of the representation,
4 the novelty and complexity of the issues, the results
5 obtained, and the contingent risk presented.' (Lealao,
6 supra, 82 Cal-App.4th 19, 26, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 797.) "The
7 purpose of such adjustmsnt is to fix a fee at the fair
8 market value for the particular action. In effect, the
9 court determines, retrospectively, whether the
10 litigation involved a contingent risk or required
11 extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the
12 unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the fair
13 market rate for such services." (Ketchum v. Moses
14 (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 17
15 P.3d 735.) Under certain circumstances, a lodestar
16 calculation may be enhanced on the basis of a
17 percentage-of-the-benefit analysis. (Lealao. f supra, at
18 pp. 49-50, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 797.)
19 Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 92 Cal.' App.4th 819, 833 (2001)
20 Here, while the Receiver is being paid his office's actual
21 billing rates, the Receiver submits that he should be awarded a
22 bonus for successfully accomplishing the purposes for which this
23 receivership was established after a retired Los Angeles Superior
24 Court Judge resigned in response to Zernik's threats,
25 intimidation, and slanderous communications. The Receiver
26 continues to bear the brunt of Zernik's slanderous co~nunications,
27 and anticipates that no court order will ever stop his steady
28
Account.doc
ETC.
1 stream of such communications, which are readily available for the
2 world on the internet.
3 In sum, this Receiver submits that there lS ample authority
4 by analogy substantiating the fairness of the requested bonus
5 for him.
6 The foregoing Final Report and Account is thorough and
7 complete, and the requested final orders should issue.
9 DATED:
November 24, 2009
1'\
l ~ \(\ff'V'f/\
LJ~~'U~~
/'
David J. Pasternak
10 Receiver
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Account.doc
RECEIVER'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT ANJ MOTION FOR ISSUAt:\iCE OF R;~LATED ORDERS,
ETC.
l~xhibit 1
I
.
r
~ ( (
1 SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

A Limited Liability Partnership
2 Including Professional Corporations
PHILLIP A. DAVIS, Cal. Bar No. 110430
3 MOEKESHAVARZI, Cal. BarNo. 223759
333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor
4 Los Angeles, California 90071-1448
Telephone: 213-620-1780
5 FacsImile: 213-620-1398
6
Attorneys for PlaintiffNivie Samaan
7
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - WEST DISTRICT

11 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual; Case No. SC 087400
12 Plaintiff, Honorable John A. Segal
13 v. I=PfUIJosedj Order Appointing David J.

Pasternak as ReceIver.
14 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
--_.~
EXHIBIT 1_ PAGE ~/
W02·WEST:IMMKI\400492211.1 [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
.. (/ (
1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT David 1. Pasternak ("Receiver") shall be
2 appointed as Receiver to take possession, custody and control of the real property located
3 at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212, legally described as:
4
Lot 252 of Tract 7710, in the City: of Beverly Hills,
5 County of Los Angeles, State of Califomia, as per map
recorded in book 83 PAGE (S) 94 and 95 of maps, in the
6 office of the recorder of said county (the "PROPERTY").
7
1. Before performing his duties, the Receiver shall execute a Receiver's
8
oath and file a bond in Department 0 with surety thereon approved by this Court, in the
9
3. The Receiver shall have the power and the authority (a) to exclude
15
Defendant and any agents, attorneys, employees or representatives thereof~ or anyone
16
claiming under any of them, from the Property; (b) to take possession oftlle Property; (c)
17
to use, operate, manage and control the Property; (d) to care for, manage, preserve, protect
18
and maintain the Property, and incur the expenses necessary for such care, management,
19
preservation, protection and maintenance (e) to pay appropriate expenses for the Property;
20
(f) to take such other steps as are reasonably necessary to care for, manage, preserve,
21
protect and maintain the Property, subject to the contract for sale of the Property between
22
defendant Joseph Zemik and plaintiffNivie Samaan ("Samaan") and (g) pursuant to
23
judgment for specific performance dated August 9, 2007, in favor Samaan, the Receiver
24
shall have the power to take all necessary steps to sell the Property to Samaan through the
25
reactivated Escrow No. 1-34500-GH (the "Escrow") at Mara Escrow Co. 433 North
26
Camden Driver, Beverly Hills, California 90210-4409 (the "Escrowholder), for a price of
27
$1,718,000 reduced by the setoffs hereinafter described; (h) if within tJ:rree business days
. PAGE ~
28
EXHIBIT (
=--::-:-::~-:-::-:::-;-:-:-~=-:-7--------_-=.2.::---::=-==-==::7"":::-::-=--:::-:::---=-
W02-WEST:IMMK1\40049221 i.l [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
(
1 after documents are submitted for signature by the Escrowholder, Zernik fails to sign any
2 such documents the Receiver shaH have the power to sign said documentations on behalf
3 of Zernik.
4. The Receiver shall prepare and serve monthly statements reflecting

5
the Receiver's fees and administrative expenses, including fees and costs of agents,
6
accountants and attorneys engaged by the Receiver to assist in the administration of the
7
Estate, incurred for each monthly period in the operation and administration of the
8
receivership estate. Upon service of each statement, the Receiver may disburse from
9
Estate funds, if any, the amount of each statement. Notwithstanding periodic payment of
10
fees and expenses, fees and expenses shall be submitted to the Court for its approval and
11
confirmation in the form of either a properly noticed interim request for fees, stipulation of
12
all parties, or Receiver's Final Account and Report.
13
14 5. The Receiver may employ agents, employees, clerks, accountants,
..~.
15 attorneys (including Appleton, Pasternak & Pasternak, A Law Corporation), and property
16 managers to administer the Estate, purchase materials, supplies and services, and pay for
17 them at the ordinary and usual rates out of the funds which shall come into the Receiver's
18 possession and shall do all things and incur the risks and obligations ordinarily incurred by
19 owners, property manages and operators of similar properties and enterprises as such
20 Receiver. No such risk or obligation so incUlTed shall be the personal risk or obligation of
21 the Receiver, but shall be the risk and obligation of the estate.
22
6. The Receiver is empowered to establish bank accounts for the deposit
23
of monies and funds collected and received in connection with the estate at federally
24
insured banking institutions or savings associations. Monies coming into the possession of
25
the Receiver and not expended for any purpose herein authorized shall be held by the
26
Receiver in interest bearing accounts.
27
28 EXHIBIT _,__ PAGEJ3
- - - _ ..:::h
W02-WEST:1MMK1\40049221 1.1 [pROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
( (
1 7. The Receiver shall be paid his usual hourly billable rate, not to exceed
2 $475.00. All costs incurred by the Receiver and his attorneys in the perfonnance of their
3 duties, including, but not limited to, their fees, shall be paid from the sale proceeds
4
8. Any and all expenses of the operation of the Estate are the risk of the
5
Receivership, and not the personal obligation of the Receiver.
6
7 9. The Receiver may issue Receivership Certificates in increments of
8 $10,000.00 bearing interest at eight percent (8%) per ai1llum for up to $50,000.00 to any
9 person or parties. All funds loaned to the Receiver pursuant to such Receivership
10 Certificate(s) shall be deemed to be a lien of first priority which shall be repaid prior to all
11 other encumbrances and claims, other than costs of administration.
12
10. The Receiver and the parties to this case may" at any time, apply to
13
this Court for further or other instructions or orders and for further powers necessary to
14
enable the Receiver to perfOIm the Receiver's duties properly.
15
16 11. Upon close of escrow, the Receiver shall hold the net proceeds of the
17 sale of the Property and before distributing it to Zernik, deduct from that amount (1) any
18 attorney's fees or costs granted to Samaan by this Court, (2) any damages incidental to the
1.9 decree of specific performance granted to Samaall and (3) the Receiver's fees and expenses
20 incurred as described herein.
21
12. The parties, and each of them, on receipt of this Order shall provide
22
the Receiver with the tax identification numbers utilized by the PROPERTY. The
23
Receiver shall also be entitled to utilize the tax Identification numbers during his operation
24
of the receivership estate.
25
26 13. The Receiver shall detennine upon taking possession of the estate
27 whether in the Receiver's judgment there is sufficient insurance coverage. With respect to
28 any insurance coverage, the Receiver shall be named as an additional insured on the tI
_ _,_~ EXHIBIT ~ PAGE :l 'j-
W02·WEST:1MMK1\4004922111 [PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER
( (
1 policies for the period that the Receiver shall be in possession of the estate. If sufficient
2 insurance coverage does not exist, the Receiver shall immediately notify the parties to this
3 lawsuit and shall have thirty (30) calendar days to procure sufficient all-risk and liability
4 insurance on the estate (including earthquake and flood insurance) provided, however, that
5 if the Receiver does not have sufficient funds to do so, the Receiver shall seek :instructions
6 from the Court with regard to whether insurance shall be obtained and how :tt is to be paid
:"
8 from the lack of procurement or inability to obtain insurance.
9
14. The Receiver shall be authorized to pay all legal obligations of the
10
PROPERTY outstanding and corning due.
11
12 15. Zemik and his respective agents, employees, representatives and
13 anyone acting in concert with them are ordered fj)rthwith to take all steps reasonably
14 necessary to enable the Receiver to administer the receivership estate and to exercise
15 management and control over the PROPERTY, including but not hmited to:
16
(a) Forthwith providing the Receiver with all keys, books of accounts,
17
records, operating statements, budgets, real estate tax and other bins, noti.ces and all
18
documentation relating to the PROPERTY
19
Cooperating with the Receiver to enable him to sell PROPERTY to
EX'UlQI1"
fllw,
-'5
( (
1 16. The parties and their respective agents, employees, representatives
2 and anyone acting in concert with them are hereby enjoined and restrained from engaging
3 in any action which interferes with or frus1rates the Receiver's ability to administer the
4 receivership estate and exercise management and control over the PROPERTY.
Dated:
6
8
.... ···~ll$·
. .;;..\
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 I ' PAGE - - -
EXt! BIT - - d0
W02-WEST:l MMKI\400492211.1 [:PROPOSED] ORDER APPOINTJNG RECEIVER
liXhibit 2
( (

Receiver
3 Telephone: 310.553.1500 NOV 2 1 2007
Facsimile: 310.553.1540
4 E-Mail: djp@paslaw.com JOHN A. ~~~LEI~
'--:?t-...d;- "
BY NEYA EST OA, 'OE UTY
5
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIE'ORNIA
9 COUNTY OF ]~OS ANGE]~ES, WEST DISTRICT
10
11 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual, CASE NO. SC 087 400
12 Plaintiff, Hon. John A. Segal
13 vs. [liU~ORDER ORDERI1~G

DEl~NDANT JOSE:PH ZE:RNIK AND ALL
14 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual OTHEl~ OCCUPAN~[,S TO Il~DIATELY
and DOES 1 through 10, VACA~~E THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL
15 incl usi ve, PROPERTY AND DlRECTI'NG THE LOS
ANC;E]~ES COUNTY SHERIFF I S
16 Defendants. DEl?ARTMENT TO ENFORCE THAT
ORDER IN THE Sj~ MANNER AS
17 THEY ENFORCE A WRIT OF
EXECUTION AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF
18 AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUlDGMENT
19 DA~rE : :NOVEMBElR 21, 2007

TI!o1E : 8:30 A.M.
20 DEPT. o
21
22 The Court having considered the Ex Parte Application of
23 Receiver David J. Pasternak for the issuance of an Order (1)
24 Ordering Defendant Joseph Zernik and all other occupants to
25 immediately vacate the receivership real property located at 320
26 S. Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212 (the "Eeceivership
27 Property") and directing the Los Angeles CEXoul~ltBYIT Sh,eI }r --,iffp'AsGE 1)7
1
W: \73235\Pleadings\OrderReReceiver' sExParteMf1 ~ e>L
28 otion#l.doc
PASTERNAK, [PROPOSED] ORDER ORDERING DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNICK AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS TO
PASTERNAK IMMEDIATELY VACATE THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE LOS ANGELES
&PATION COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THAT ORDER IN THE SAME 1'~ANNER AS THEY
ENFORCE A WRIT OF EXECUTION AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT
( (
1 Department to enforce that order in the same manner as they
2 enforce a writ of execution issued after an unlawful detainer
3 judgment, or alternatively (2) Authorizing the Receiver to file
4 an unlawful detainer lawsuit to evict Defendant Joseph Zernik and

5 all other occupants from the Receivership Property; the
6 supporting Declaration of David J. Pasternak; all of the
7 pleadings and others documents in the Court's file for this case;
8 and all other and further oral and documentary evidence presented
9 to the Court at or in connection with the ex parte hearing of
10 this Receiver's Application; and good cause appearing therefor;
11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Joseph Zernik and all
12 other occupants shall immediately vacate the receivership real
13 property located at 320 S. Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California
14 90212 and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is directed
15 to enforce that order forthwith in the same manner as they
16 enforce a writ of execution issued after an unlawful detainer
17 judgment) tv tJ.e eKlerit fJ,p ~~e(/ff'\ I)P~;fy.,t~i /3 phle />Ik 5p.

18
19
DATED:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
W:\73235\Pleadings\OrderReReceiver'sExParteM 2
EXHIBIT
28 otion# 1. doc
[PROPOSED] ORDER ORDERING DJ~FENDANT JOSEPH ZERNICK AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS TO
IMMEDIATELY VACATE THE RECEIVERSHIP REAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTING THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO ENFORC'~ THAT ORDER IN THE SAME HANNER AS THEY
ENFORCE A WRIT OF EXECUTION AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF AN UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT
Exhibit 3
6 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CASE NO. SC087400

9
NIVIE SAMAAN,
10
Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING STATEMENT

11
OF DISQUALIFICATION;
v. DISCLOSURE OF STOCK
12
OWNERSHIP; DETERMINATION
JOSEPH ZERNIK, et al. TO RECUSE
13
Defendants
14
JOSEPH ZERNIK,
15
Cross-complainant,
16
v.
17
COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL
18
BROKERAGE, et a1.,
19
Cross-defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT J
.-'--- PAGE 1! ~ _
Order Striking Statement of Disqualification; Disclosure of Stock Ownership; Recusal
( (
Although judgment was entered on the complaint in this action before this action was
2 assigned to the undersigned judge, a number of post-judgment matters remain to be resolved.
3 Plaintiff and Cross-Complainant Joseph Zemik has sought to attack the judgment by filing
4 dozens of post-judgment ex parte applications and motions, including several challenges for
5 cause against many of the judges who have participated in these proceedings. Most recently, Mr.
6 Zemik filed on November 26, 2007, a pleading which appears to be intended as a statement of
7 disqualification for cause. In it he sets forth his opinion and speculation that the entire court
8 system has conspired against him. Stripped of his inadmissible conclusions and speculation, Mr.
9 Zemik complains of difficulty with the clerk's office in reviewing complete copies of the entire,
10 multi-volume case file, apparently complains of discrepancies between the case file and the
11 court's computerized, electronic docket of court events and filed documents, and complains of
12 various rulings of the various trial judges who have presided in this matter, which rulings he
13 contends are incorrect, unwarranted, or unfair. As to the undersigned judge, who has only
14 briefly presided in this matter, Mr. Zemik cont'ends that disqualification is warranted because
15 certain motions have been denied, and that the court has discussed the case with the parties on
16 the record. As indicated below, such contentions do not, as a matter of law, constitute grounds
17 for disqualification for cause. The pleading demonstrates on its face no legal grounds for
18 disqualification. Accordingly, it is stricken pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 170.4,

19 subdivision (b).
20
21 Code of Civil Procedure §170.3(c)(1) requires that the disqualiification statement set forth
22 "the facts constituting the grounds" for disqualification of the judge. Mere conclusions of the
23 pleader are insufficient. In re Morelli (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 819, 843; Urias v. Harris Farms,
24 Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 415, 426. The statement of disqualification cannot be based upon
25 information and belief, hearsay, or other inadmissible evidence. See United Farm Workers of
26 America, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97, note 6 at 106 (disqualification
27 cannot be based upon hearsay or other inadmissible evidence). C!, Anastos v. Lee (2004) 118
28 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1319 (declarations in support of a Code of Civil Procedure section 473
2 EXHIBIT ~~ PAG !L_~
---
Order Striking Statement of Disqualification; Disclosure of Stock Ownership; Recusal
( (
motion must include proper foundation, i.e., personal knowledge.). A party's belief as to a
2 Judge's bias and prejudice is irrelevant and not controlling in a motion to disqualify for cause, as
3 the test applied is an objective one. United Farm Workers ofAmerica v. Superior Court (1985)
4 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 104; Stanford University v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 403,
5 408 (tithe litigants' necessarily partisan views do not provide the applicable frame of reference."
6 Rulings and findings do not constitute a valid basis for disqualification. As stated by the
'7 California Supreme Court in People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 1067, 1112, "a trial COUlt's
8 numerous rulings against a party--even when erroneous--do not establish a charge of judicial
9 bias, especially when they are subject to review."
10
11 Because the statement of disqualification on its face discloses no legal grounds for
12 disqualification, it is ordered stricken pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 17004, subdivision
13 (b). The parties are reminded that this determination of the question of the disqualification is not
14 an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal
15 sought within 10 days of notice to the parties of the decision. In the event that a timely writ is
16 sought and an appellate court determines that an answer should have been timely filed, such an
17 answer is filed herewith. See PEA, LLC v. KPOD, LTD (2003) 112 Cal.Appo4th 965,972;
18 accord, Fine v. Superior Court (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 651, fn. 3 at 658.
19
20 It also appears from Mr. Zemik's pleading that he contends that Countrywide Home
21 Loans, which is not a party, is somehow involved in these proceedings. There have not been any
22 proceedings before the undersigned judge involving or relating to Countrywide. Until now.
23 Countrywide has recently filed a motion as a third party for a protective order seeking protection
24 from harassment by Mr. Zemik. The undersigned judge discloses that he owns 430 shares of
25 Countrywide Financial Corporation stock, which had a value as of approximately 12 noon,
26 December 4,2007 of$4,407.50. Although the motion by Countrywide is not set for hearing
27 until December 28,2007, the court. has now reviewed the moving papers. Having made this
28 disclosure, the undersigned judge must now address the issue of whether his stock ownership is
disqualifying.
EXH BT__5~_ PAGE 3=---.L-/_
_3
Order Striking Statement of Disqualification
( (
The longstanding rule in California has been that stock ownership must be in a party to
2 be disqualifying. Paragraph (b) of section Code of Civil Procedure section 170.5 defines
3 "financial interest" for the purposes of disqualification and recusal, with certain exceptions, as
4 "ownership of more than a 1 percent legal or equitabl(~ interest in a Pfll./J!., or a legal or equitable
5 interest in a party of a fair market value in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars
6 ($1,500)...." [Emphasis added.] The only available California authorities are consistent
7 therewith. See Central Pacific Railway Company v. Superior Court (1931) 211 Cal.706, which
8 held that where the trial judge was a stockholder in a holding company which owned practically
9 all of the stock ~f a bank that was a defendant, the judge was deemed qualified Ito hear the
10 proceeding because the bank was not a party.
11
12 Recently, the California Supreme Court has applied that same reasoning in denying
13 disqualification for cause where members of the Court had a financial interest in an amicus
14 curiae. See Supreme Court Docket, City of HO][2f,....Y..,j]enetech, S129463, letter dated June 1,
15 2007. The Supreme Court sent the following letter to counsel re Notice Concerning Necessity to
16 Recuse:
17
18 A justice is required to recuse him or herself when he or she has specified financial or
19 other interests in a party appearing before the court.
20
21 The court has been asked whether the $ame recusal requirement applies when a justice
22 has a similar interest in an amicus curiae, but not a party.

23 No statute, Canon of Ethics, or rule requires recusal under such facts. Recusal is
24 required if a judicial officer or a specified member of the justice's household has a
25 financial interest in the matter, defined as an "ownership or more than 1 percent legal
26 or equitable interest in a party, or a legal or equitable interest in a pairty of a fair
27 market value exceeding one thousand five hundred dollars." (Code of Judicial Ethics,
28 canon 3E(5)(d), italics added.) There may, of course, be some circumstances in which
recusal based on a non-party interest would be appropriate pursuant to canon 3E(4)(c)

_ _ 4: EXHIBiT ~ =P/\C r._ ,~~_. _
(
of the Code of Judicial Ethics, requiring disqualification if lithe circumstances are such
2 that a reasonable person aware of the facts would doubt the justice's ability to be
3 impartial. 1I
5 Nevertheless, it is clear that the applicable laws and regulations do not automatically
6 require disqualification based upon a financial interest in a non-party to the action.
8 Each justice has a duty to hear the matters assigned to him or her in the absence of a
9 ground for disqualification. (Canon 3B(1).) Moreover, it is important to the
10 administration of justice to avoid potential for "justice- shopping" that might occur if
11 non-parties were to file amicus curiae bri'efs or letters in order to disqualify an
12 otherwise qualified jurist in an individual case.
13
14 In this case, Countrywide is not a party. At best, Countrywide is a witness which has
15 sought a protective order. In such circumstances, the appellate courts have traditionally held that
16 a status as a witness, even a witness that has sought a protective order, is not sufficient standing
17 to provide a basis for disqualification. See, e.g., Avelar v. Superior Court (1991) 7 Cal.App.4th
18 1270, (a non-party police agency seeking to avoid disclosure of police disciplinary files did not
19 have standing for disqualification purposes). In addition, while the Legislature has provided for
20 implied disqualification where a relative of a judge is a witness in the proceeding (see Code of
21 Civil Procedure §170.1(a)(1)(B)), the Legislature has not provided for any implied or imputed
22 disqualification where the judge has a financial interest in a non-party witness. Accordingly, the
23 court finds no basis for disqualification on the basis of its limited stock ownership pursuant to
24 Section 170.1(a)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
25
26 The final issue is whether recusal is appropriate pursuant to Section 170.1(A)(6) of the
27 Code of Civil Procedure. Section 170.1(A)(6) provides that disqualification is appropriate if for
28 any reason: (i) The judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests ofjustice, (ii)
The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his o~ her.cap~city to be impartial, or (iii) A
5 lEXh IBIl _J_.._ _ Pr.SE ,-~~=8====--_
(
• <
\
(
person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be
2 impartial. (ii) and (iii) do not apply. The undersigned judge has no doubt as to his capacity to be
3 impartial. Nor would a person aware of the facts of the judge's stock ownership reasonably
4 entertain a thought, let alone a doubt, that the judge would be able to be impartial.
5
6 The undersigned judge does believe, however, that his recusal in this case would further
7 the interests of justice. Given Mr. Zernik's pattern of filing repetitive ex parte applications,
8 motions for relief, and challenges to judicial officers hearing this case, the issue of the
9 undersigned judge's stock ownership in Country Financial Corporation is bound to create
10 additional rounds of motions and challenges from Mr. Zernik, thus causing further delays in the
II case, to the prejudice of plaintiffs and even to Mr. Zemik. The interests ofjustice would best be
12 served by recusal of the undersigned judge from this case at this time, and by reassignment of
13 this case to another judicial officer by the Supervising Judge of this district.
14
15 The undersigned judge has done his best, after the disqualification or recusal of three
16 other judges in this district, to fulfill his duty pursuant to Section 170 of the Code of Civil
17 Procedure to decide all proceedings in which his is not disqualified. For the reasons stated in
18 this order, however, the undersigned judge concludes that recusal from this case at this time is in
19 the interests of justice. Because the reasons for the undersigned judge's recusal arose and were
20 learned of within the past few days, this recusa] order has no effect on the rulings made by the
21 undersigned judge up to this point in time. See Code Civ. Proc. § 170.3(b)(4).
22
23 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, It is so ordered.

24
25 Dated: December ::L, 2007

26
27
28
----------------- 6
EXrlluT -P __ PAGE-?4 _
(
\
Verified Answer of John L. Segal
2 I, John L. Segal, declare:
4 1. I am a Judge of the Superior Court and as such have been assigned to preside over
5 this case.
7 2. I am not prejudiced or biased against or in favor of any party to this proceeding or

8 their counsel.
10 3. All rulings made by me in this action have been based upon facts and arguments
11 officially presented to me and upon my understanding ofthe law. My statements and rulings are
12 set forth in the records and the files herein, which are the best evidence hereof. To the extent the
13 moving party's statement of those rulings and statements are inconsistent therewith, they are
14 denied.
15
16 4. All statements made by me and all actions taken by me in this proceeding have
17 been done in furtherance of what I believe were my judicial duties.
18
19 5. I own 430 shares of Countrywide Finance Corporation stock. As set forth in the
20 attached order, Countrywide is not a party to these proceedings, and, based upon my
21 understanding of the law, ownership of stock must be in a party to be a disquali fying financial
22 interest.
23
24 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and of my own
25 personal knowledge, except as to those matters stated to be on my information and belief, and as
26 to those matters, I believe them to be true.
27
28
Executed this ¥ day of December, 2
________________ 7
Exhibit 4
( C t: I "~r! / 0:/
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DATE: 12/07/07 DEPT. WE X
HONORABLE Lisa Hart Cole JUDGE N. LEE DEPUTY CLERK

E. SAN .ANDRES, CiA
HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
#9
NONE Deputy Sheriff A. MAPP CSR# 7824 Reporter
8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZI (X)

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

FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER:
(1) ,APPROVING ESCROW DOCUMENTATION (INCLUDING GRANT
DEED) SIGNED AND SUBMITTED TO ESCROW BY RECEIVER;
(2) AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO SIGN .~~ SUBMIT TAX
DOCUMENTATION TO ESCROW;
(3) AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO ENTER INTO MARA ESCROW
COMPANY INDEMNITY AGREEMENT; AND
(4) PROHIBITING DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK FROM
NOl1Vd ~ WNM31SVd ')lVN~lSVd

COMMUNICATING DIRECTLY WITH ESCROW, TITLE INSURER,
OR BUYER'S LENDER;
(;J 1lI0l 9- :)30 ill
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SECTION 170.6 BY DEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK
IN PRO PER;
@~lU~~H]@
{ij)~©fHIYI~l
~
The Court is in receipt of a peremptory challenge
under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 filed by
defendant Joseph Zernik, in pro per, against Judge Inl DEC - 8 2007
Lisa Hart Cole on 12-7-07. The Court finds that
said peremptory challenge is timely filed and in the PASTERNAK, PASTERNAK &PAlTOI
proper format, and it is accepted.
Pursuant to the order of the Master Calendar for the
West District of the Los Angeles Superior Court,
Patricia L. Collins, Acting Supervising Judge
presiding, the above-entitled action is reassigned
for all purposes to Judge Terry B. Friedman in
Department West J, located at 1725 Main Street,
Page 1 of 3 DEPT. WE X
I MINUTES ENTERED
12/07/07
COUNTY CLERK
(r (
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0)= LOS ANGEl.ES
DATE: 12 / 0 7 / 0 7 DJEPT. WE X

E. SAN ANDRES, CiA
HONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
#9
NONE Deputy Sheriff A. MAPP CSR# 7824 Reporter
8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZI ~X)

NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defendant JOSEPH ZERNIK, PRO PER (X)
JOSEPH ZERNIK Coonscl RECEIVER:
RECUSAL - JUDGES ALAN GOODMAN; DAVID PASTERNAK (X)
J.BIDERMAN; J.CONNOR; & J.SEGAL R. ORMOND (X) FOR INTEH.ESTD
Santa Monica, CA 90401. Any hearings currently set
in Department West X are ordered advanced to this
date and vacated.

Any presently calendared motions sha.ll be
re-scheduled and re-noticed for hearing by the
moving party in the newly assigned Department.

Moving party is to contact the newly assigned
Department for a motion hearing date suitable to
that Department's calendar.
However, the above-referenced ex parte application
is transferred forthwith to Department West B,
located at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401,
to be heard by Judge Patrici.a L. Collins as
Department West J is dark today.
The Receiver David J. Pasternak, Esq. is to give
notice.
The Court gives Notice of Case Reassignment to

Department West J to the Receiver David J.
Pasternak, Esq. via the Court's minute order. The
Receiver David J. Pasternak, Esq. is directed to
give notice to all parties.
CLERK I S CERTIFICATE OF MlULING/
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
I, the below named Executive Officer/Clerk of the
above-entitled court, do hereby certify that I am not
UINUTES ENTERED
Page 2 of 3 DEPT. WE X 12/07/07
COUNTY C]~ERK
4
EXHIBIT - - - Pf~. ,E -31
---
I'" • r.-'"'
( (
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DATE: 12/07/07 DEPT. WE X

E. SAN ANDRES, CiA
HONORABLE J UDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR
#9
NONE Deputy Sheriff A. MAP P CSR# 7824 Reporwr
8:30 am SC087400 Plaintiff MOE KESHAVARZI (Xl

NIVIE SAMAAN
VS Defc:ndant JOSEPH ZERNIK, PRO PER (X)
J"OSEPH ZERNIK Counsel RECEIVER:
RECUSAL - JUDGES ALAN GOODMAN; DAVID PAST1:!:RN1~K (X)
J". BIDERMAN; J. CONNOR; & J. SEGAL R. ORMOND (X) FOR INTERESTD
a party to the cause herein, and that this date I

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

1875 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2200
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
Page 3 of 3 DEPT. WE X
U lNUrES ENTERED
12/07/07
COWry CLERK
Exhiblt 5
(~
• _, •• , ... .,. ... I I' • v-r • "" ·U.\I ( ..... - ""''''''",'oJ lIZ! \/\/ I/VV;j
\,
1 David J. Pasternak, Bar N::J. 72201
Receiver
2. 1875 Century tJark East, S11:Lte 2200. _ ..
'
Los Angeles, Califor~io 90067-2523

3 Telephone: 310.553.1500 CONFORJvtEH COpy
OF ORJC1"~A\ FILED
Facsimile: 310.553.1540 Los Ang~i::'3:1;~:~;:\.')r COllfl
4. E-Mail: djp@paslaw.com
5 DEC, 072001
J hn A. Clarke, EJl.ecutlve Officer/Cle k
Ei 0y _ _ ,Depu
B .- -
SUPERIOR COtm'!' OF THE S1'A'Jl'E OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST OISTRICT
1:1. NT.VIE SAMAAN, an individual, CASE NO. SC 087 400

12 Plainti ff, Ron. Li$A Bart Co1e
13 V$. ....72775' r x PARTE ORDER:
(3.) APPROVING ESC:ROW
14 J8SEPH ZERNIK, an individual DOCUMENTATION (INCLUDING
and DOES 1 through 10, GRANT lDEED) SIGNlID A:ND
15 inc:' usi ve, S~TTED TOESC1~OW :BY
RECEXWRi
lEi Defenc.ants. (~!) AUTHORIZING RECEIVER '1'0
SIGN AJND SUBMIT ~CAX
11 DOCUMENTATION TO ESC:ROK;
(~l) AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO
18 EN'l'ER INTO MARl' ]~SCROW
COMPANY XNDEMNITY
19 AGREEMENT; AND
(4) llROHIBITING DEln:lm~N"r

20 JOSEPH ~ERNIK FROM
COMNONICATING· DI]~C'!'LY
21. WITH ESCROW, TITltaE

INSURER, OR BUYER'S
22 LENDER.
23 DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2007
TIME: 8:30 A.M.
24 DEPT. X
25
The Court having (:onsideree:!. the Ex Parle App l.ication of
26
Receiver David J. !:'asternak for t:he issuance of an Order: (1)
27
App:oov:int;J the escrow dor.;umentaticm (including g.rant deed) signed
EX IBIT S _ PAGE _3-+'_

28
\? 32 3 5\ L'l1i:.It1.1."'J t. \"...ce:' \.'er· :;EX~d rl.eorderil2.

"Ii:
1
PASTERNAK,
:loe
PAS)ER/IAl<
&PAliON ;7??7 ::;1J1 EX PARTE ORDF.R :~: APPROV LNG B$CROW JOC:JMel'J'T'~l'TON d'N"CLUl;lt\C CRImi
, )3F:D) SI8NE.D A~f) SBDMITUL; '10 ESCROW BY RECK1VF.R; ETC.
·
i I I . V.., I nl\ w.v
( ItI'J OOl!/OO~
1. and submitted to escrow by the Receive~; (2) Authorizing the

- 2 RElcei "er to sign -and submit la>c documentation' to escrO\\1 so as to
:3 avoid withhold:'ng of sale proceeds; (3) Aulh6rizjng ~hE~Receiver
4 to enter into an Indemrd ty Agreeme:lt with Mara ESCrow' 'Compuny;
Sand (4) [lrohibi ':.ing :JefendanL JO$eph Zernik from cornmunicat ing'
6 directly ~ith Mara Escrc,w Compan.Yt Un:'teci Title Insurance
7 Company , United Title Company, and Washir.gton Mut ual :r.E!garc.ing

8 the sale of the receivership real property and related matters;
9 the supporti~g Dec:aration of David J. Pasternak and all atta~hed
10 exhibits; all of the ple(~dings a.nd others documents in the
11 Court's file for this case; and all other oral and documantary
12 evidence presented to the Court in connectiDn with the Rece~ver's
13 Ex Parte Application; and qood cau~e appearing therefor;
14 1'1' IS HERF:BY O~DERE[) that:
15 1. .~ll of the dOCllrnentatio:l (':'ncluding the Grant Deed)

16 identi£i~d and/Dr attached to the Beceiver's ex parte
17 application, which has been or is going to be, signed and
18 submitted to Mara Escrow Company, for its escrow file Numbe:o
19 134500-I,C (the "Escrow") by the Receiver, .is her..eby approved;
.20 2. Tte Recei ver ~s authori ?oed to siqn a:ld ComplE~te the tax
21 documentation attached tc the Receiver I s Ex:. Parte Application as
22 ~xh~bit 4 and to B~bmit that doc~mentation to Escrow;

23 3. The Receiver is authorized to enter into the requested
:24 Indemnification Agreenent with l-![ara Escrow Company and Plai:1tiff
:25 Nivie Samaani
26 4. ExcepL for returning dacumenLs t.hat he is asked to sign

27 a-nd return t Defendant Joseph Zernik i~ hereby restrainE~d and
28
It/ :\732J5 \ PJ.,r.adings \ar.-CI: ~ ~."", llEXl'a.::nO:tdcri".
2 EXH!3IT· S- PAGE Jf_'O_
cloc
liP] EX PART!:: ORDER 1fl APPROVTN<; ESCROW 6octJME:NrhrI6~ (TNI~rNGGAANT
J3ED) ~l~NeD AND SUBMITTF.r. TO ESCRO~' BY RECEIVER, E~C.
1 •• "'.,. I n/\ \) tV L~~~ otVt~LY M1LL~ ( III 00:3/00:3
r ,,,
1 prohibi :.ed ':rorn communicating with Mara E:scrow Company, Uni-ted

2 }'i tIe ~nsurance C[)~pany,. U:lited 'Ti t ..leCompany, lilashington Mutual,
3 and all of their respect:i'1e emplcyees f officers, directors, a:nd
4 represenLati ves about this laws~.it, lbe. :{ecei vership Rp.~ 1
5 Property, the Receive=, the ~laintiff, and/or th~ sale af :he
6 Receivership Property .commonly knovm as 32G South Peck Dri:ve,
7 Beverly 111115, California 90212. IfCefendant .,j-oseph Zernik
l3 wants to conununici1ite with any of thoSE: persons or enti-.:ie!; abou ..
9 any of the specified natters, hl9 shall forward such corrununicat.ion
10 in writinq to the Receiver, who shall then fO:"N8l.id 'sl.:cn

-~ -4-1 I-o.ru.. ~~ ~~ ,.
. _w~ iU.-1'U- L~.{.J .
11 cornrnunlcatl.On~to the speclf.l.ed :rE~C1.pl€~l'lt/ only. ~f the RA~CeJ.ver
12 dete=mines that it is appropriate to do so; and
1~1 5. Notice of the Rec:el, vej~' s Ex Part.e Appli~atil')i!"1 wes
20
21
22
,23
24
25
,26
:2'7
:28
EXHIBIT 0~ PAGE 4-/
W: \ 732.1~ \ p 1'~"Iil.lng-; \Recei ver' 3£y"'a:r7.~ot'<le"2. :3
doc:
rFROPOSEDJ EX PAR'~'t: ORDER{'ij APPROVTN'(;; =:SCRO~POCUMENTA'UON;(IK(::L'tffi:[NG GRANT .

DEED) SlGN,1::D AND SUOMT'T'l'ED '1'0 ESCROW BY REC;:: Vl!:R, .Ere,
Exhibit 6
( (
INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
THIS INDEMNITY AGREEMENT (this "Indemnity") made as of December -l

2007, is entered into by and between MARA ESCROW COMPANY, a California corporation
("Mara" or "Escrow Agent"), DAVID 1. PASTERNAK, solely in his capacity as Rece~iver in th~~
case identified below ("Receiver") and NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual ("Samaan").
!lli..CITALS
A. Mara is a real estate escrow company licensed by the State of California,

Department of Corporations and serves as Escrow Agent in connection with Escrow No. 134500
LC (the "Escrow") as to which Samaan is the designated buyer and Joseph H. Zernik ("Zernik")
is the designated seller with regard to the purchase by Samaan from Zernik of residential real
property located at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212 (the "Propt:rty").
B. Samaan and Zernik entered into a California Residential Purchase Agreement and
Joint Escrow Instructions dated September 4,2004, Counteroffer No.1 dated September 10,
2004 and Counteroffer No.2 dated September 11, 2007, setting forth the terms and conditions
under which the Property would be sold by Zemik to Samaan (the "Purchase Agreement"),
C. Samaan and Zernik are parties to a lawsuit for specific performance in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. SC 087400 (the
"Action"). On August 9,2007, the Court in the Action entered a Judgment for a specific
performance in favor of Samaan ("Judgment") and ordered, among other things, that fee title to
the Property be transferred by Zernik to Samaan.
D. On November 9,2007, the Court in the Action entered an Order appointing David
J. Pasternak as Receiver (the "Receivership Order") with the power and authority tojpter ali~
take possession of the Property and take such other steps as are required to sell the Property to
Samaan through the Escrow. The Receivership Order authorizes Receiver to execute and deliver
all necessary documents need to transfer title to the Property in place of and on Zemik's behalf
and close the Escrow if Zernik fails to execute such documents within three business days from
receipt, which Mara is advised Zernik has failed to do.
EXHIBIT ~_ PAGE 4JJ

1
BN 1586320v4 Q}{J
(
E. Mara and the Receiver are advised by counsel for Samaan that, Zernik sought and
was denied a stay on enforcement of the Judgment in the Action. Furthermore, Zernik's appeal
of the Judgment in the Action was dismissed on procedural grounds, the procedural deficiencies
leading to the dismissal were not timely cured and the statutory time for Zernik to p(~rfect an
appeal of the Judgment has expired. Zemik has recently filed an application with the Court of
Appe:al to reopen his appeal of the Judgment which has not yet been ruled upon.
F. Samaan, through her counsel, also has advised Mara and the Receiver that Zemik
filed a Writ of Mandate with the California Court of Appeal seeking a stay of enforcement of the
Judgment, and that on or about November 29,2007, the Court of Appeal denied the stay request
by Zernik. As of the date ofthis Indemnity, the Writ Petition is still pending.
G. The Purchase Agreement provides that title insurance will be provided to Samaan
by United Title Company, Order #80701422 ("Title Company"), and Samaan has advised the
Receiver and Mara that a purchase money loan is being obtained by Samaan from VIrashington
Mutual Bank to be secured by First Deed of Trust on the Property ("Lender").
H. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Zemik has, among other things, accused Samaan,
the Judge in the Action, the Receiver, and Mara, as well as their respective counsel ,md others, of
numerous improprieties and challenged the validity of the Judgment and the Receivership Order
and the authority of the Receiver to transfer title to the Property.
1. Samaan has represented to the Receiver and Mara that the Title Company and the
Lender have been advised of the position asserted by Zernik with regard to the transfer of title of
the Property to Samaan consistent with the Court's Judgment and the Receivership Order, as
well as the status of Zernik's appeal of the Judgment, and Samaan has agreed to indemnify the
Title Company for any liability that may arise as a r,esult of claims raised by Zemik after she
acquires title to the Property through close of Escrow by Mara.
J. Samaan has advised the Receiver and Escrow that she has a loan commitment
from the Lender which will expire by its terms if not funded within the next few days and
therefore is prepared to enter into this Indemnity in order to dose Escrow and obtain title to the
Property without further delay.
BN 1586320v4
2 EXHIBIT - - PACE~
(
K. Mara has agreed to continue to serve as Escrow notwithstanding the outstanding

claims that have been asserted by Zernik subject to the receipt of the indemnifications provided
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the Receiver, Sarnaan and Mara each hereby agrees as
follows:
AGREEMENT
1. The Recitals set forth in paragraphs A. through K. above are incorporated herein
by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
2. The Receiver and Samaan each hereby agree to indemnify, defend and hold Mara
and its parent company, affiliates, officers, employees, agents, attorneys and representatives,
harmless from and against any claims, demands or liabilities (including attorneys' fees), asserted
by Zemik, Title Company or the Lender, Olf their respective successors and assigns, aJising out of
or related to Mara serving as Escrow Agent in conne<:tion with the referenced Escrow or the
close of said Escrow upon the written instructions of and utilizing documents executed by the
Receiver and Samaan as authorized by the Judgment and the Receivership Order
3. Samaan hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Receiver and his,
employees, agents, attorneys and representatives, harmless from and against any clair.ns,
demands or liabilities (including attorneys' fees), asserted by Zernik, Title Company, or the
Lender, or their respective successors and assigns, arising out of or related to Receivl::r
transferring title ofthe Property to Samaan as authorized by the Judgment and the Re,~eivership
Order.
4. Mara and the Receiver will first seek reimbursement under this Indemnity fTOm
funds held by the Receiver as provided in the Receivership Order and if such funds are not
available to reimburse Mara and/or the Receiver, then Samaan will immediately take such steps
as may be required to meet her indemnity obligations under this Indemnity.
5. In consideration for Mara agreeing to continue to serve as Escrow Agent in the

Escrow notwithstanding the claims asserted by Zernik, the Receiver agrees to reimburse Mara
3
BN 1586320v4
(.p . PA('E
EXHIBIT _ u __ 4·41)1y'
( (
for all expenses incurred (including its reasonable attorney's fees) regarding the negotiation
leading up to and the execution of this Indemnity as well as any sueh expenses incurred in 1he
close of Escrow or subsequently arising out of the close of Escrow.
6. The purpose of this Indemnity is to allow the Receiver and Samaan to authorize
the close of Escrow by Mara without further delay consistent with the provisions of the
Judgment and the Receivership Order. Upon close of Escrow the proceeds of sale will be held
by the Receiver as provided in the Receivership Order and such funds will not be disbursed by
the Receiver until ordered by the Court in the Action.
7. In consideration for the undertaking of the Receiver and Samaan as provided

herein, Mara will agree to continue to serve as Escrow Agent in cormection with the Escrow,
notwithstanding the continuing challenges and allegations asserted by Zernik.
8. In the event it is necessary for any party to undertake any legal action in order to
enforce the provisions of this hldemnity, the prevailing party shall be entitled to attorneys' fees
(including the allocated cost of Mara's in-house counsel and legal staff), and all other costs and
expenses which may incur in connection with the enforcement of preservation of its rights
hereunder. The Receiver agrees that Mara and/or its designated outside counsel, shall be served
with notice of any application to the Court for authorization to release the sale proceeds.
9. This Indemnity shall be governed and construed according to the laws of the State
of California and any action to enforce the provisions of this Indemnity shall be brought before
the Judge currently presiding over the Action, or before any appropriate Los Angeles County
Superior Court if the Action is no longer pending.
10. Counterparts. This Indemnity my be executed in one or more counterparts, and

electronically transmitted signatures shall be binding upon the parties.
4 f)(/.1IB
\ 1 II·r (p D~l-'f-
fr, -'L
BN 1586320v4
This Indemnity is executed as of the date first written above.
MARA ESCROW COMPANY

NIVIE SAMAAN
BY:
Title:
C\Jl J. 0.J(J\_
DAVID J. PASTERNAK, Receiver
c/o Pasternak Pasternak & Patton
a Law Corporation
5 EXHIBIT l AGE J/ (P
BN 1586320v4
Exhibit 7
( (
\
433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 510.' Beverly Hills CA' 90210' (310) 550-7400 • FAX (310) 550-7531
Joseph H. Zernik
Date: December 17,2007

Escrow No.: 134500-LC
Property: 320 So. Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212-3715 Escrow Officer: Liz Cohen
Closing Date: 12/17/2007
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---=-S..:..el..:..le::..:r......:'s:-.Closing Statement
Item Debits L Credits
Sales Price 1--1.218,000.00
Loan payoff to Union Bank of California ($769,961.99L
1--
Current Principal 768000.00
Interest from 12/01/07 to 11/30/07 .._--.----- 1 877.99
Recpnveyance of Release 45,,00 I
Recording Fee 9.00
Demand Fee 30.00 I -
--
Loan payoff to USC: Credit Union ($101,422.75)
Current Principal 101 240.27
Interest 107.48
Recon Fee 75.00
Broker's Commission 5.0% 85,900~gO
.-. -
To Coldwell Banker ._. 42,950.00
To Gilleran Griffin Company ._. 42,950.00
Mise. Disbursement to David J. Pasternak, Receiver (solely
in that capacity) 710,210·91. - -
SeIler credit to B~er for closing costs 34,360J~ f--
Delinquent TaxeU4328-0024-023) 6,422':'§~f--_
1st Half 2007-2008
Penalty
Prorata R.E. Taxes, 12/17/07 to 01/01/08, 14 days @ $32.4385
5,838.93
583.89 t-
454.14
Delinquent Taxes (4328-0024-023) 199.21 f--
All 2006-2007 ._. 199.21 f--
Escrow Fees 4,250.00
Additional Charges 292.00
Messenger/Federal Express 42.00
Excess Processing 250.00
Title Charges
CLTA Homeowner's 3,43S.QQ. .--
Recording Fees 30.00
,
Court Order
.'
30.00 r-
Other Title Fees 80.50
Overnight Service Feen 18.00 f--.
Sub Escrow Fee ._. 62.50 -- f--
County Transfer Tax 1,889.80
Due To Seller 0.00
Total 1,718,454.14 1,718,454.14
--- f - - - - - - -
.-- _.. .~- f--P~nA rJP1

-
.
ExhibitS

Receiver
3 Telephone: 310.553.1500
Facsimile: 310.553.1540
4 E-Mail: djp@paslaw.com
8 SUPERIOR COUR~I~ OF THE STAT~: O:E" CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ,ANGELES WEST DISTRICT
10
11 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual; CASE NO. SC 087 400
12 Plaintiff, Honorable Terry B. Friedman
13 vs. RECEIVER'S DISCLOSURE RE

RELAT:[ONSHIP WITH INTERESTED
14 . JOSEPH ZERNIK an individual and PERSON
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive
15 DATE: January 11, 2008
Defendants. TIME: 9:00 A.M.
16 DEPT: J
17
18 TO THE COURT, THE PAR~[,IES AND TO THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD
19 HEREIN:
20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Receiver David J. Pasternak is a
21 Board member and former President of Bet Tzedek Legal Services,
22 where interested person Sandor Samuels currently serves as
23 Chairman of the Board. Mr. Pasternak has been acquainted with
24 Mr. Samuels through their service as Board Members of Bet Tzedek
25 Legal Services for approximately ten years.
26 Mr. Pasternak also is acquainted with Judge Terry B.
27 Friedman, who was Executive Director of Bet Tzedek Legal Services
28 before Mr. Pasternak joined its Board. Mr. Pasternak al:3o(~s

PASTf8NAK,
PASTERNAK
&PATION W:\7323S\Pleadings\Receivers Disclosure OI-03-Q7.doc 1
EXHIBIT _-L PAGE D _'

'f,,--,
- RECEIVER'S DISCLOSURE RE
1 acquainted with Judge Friedman through Mr. Pasternak's bar
2 acti vi ties and through their presence at the same tim~: at the
3 UCLA family camp, Bruin Woods.
4 Mr. Pasternak has not communicated with JUdge Friedman or
5 Mr. Samuels about this lawsuit or any pending matters concerning
6 this lawsuit or the receivership.
10 DATED: January 3, 2 008 Lkt~

David J. Pasternak'
Receiver
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT J 49
PAGE - - -
W:\73235\Pleadings\Receiver's Disclosure OI-03-07.doc 2 _
RECEIVER'S DISCLOSURE RE RELATIONSHIP WITH TNTRRF.~TF.n p~~qnN
Exhibit 9
(
C
ORIGINAL FILI:D
1
JAN 1-1 2008
2
3 SUPERIOR COURT
4

6 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
7
NIVIE SAMAAN, CASE NO. SC087400

9
Plaintiff, ORDER STIUKING STATEMENT
10
v. OF DISQUALIFICATION AND
11
JOSEPH ZERNIK, et al., VERIFIED ANSWER OF JUDGE
12
Defendants. TERRY B. FRIEDMAN
13
14
On January 11,2008, Defendant Joseph Zemik filed a statement of disqualification
15
contending that Judge Terry B. Friedman is biased against him. The statement is based upon
16 Defendant's opinion and dissatisfaction with the Court's rulings. Defendant presents a nearly
17 unintelligible conspiratorial theory wholly lacking in substance. On its face, and as a. matter of
18 law, it does not present lawful grounds for disqualification.
19
Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3(c)(1) requires that the disqualification statement set forth
20
"the facts constituting the grounds" for disqualification of the judge. Mere conclusions of the
21
pleader are insufficient. In re Morelli (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 819,843; Urias v. Harris Farms,
22 Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d415, 426.
23
A party's belief as to a Judge's bias and prejudice is irrelevant and not controlling in a
24 motion to disqualify for cause, as the test applied is an objective one. United Farm Workers of
25 America v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 97, 104; Stanford University v. Superior
26
Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 403, 408 ("the litigants' necessarily partisan views do not provide
27 the applicable frame of reference."
28
1
EX l/BIT _cr_-_ PAGE- -f)

( (
Rulings and findings based upon evidence and argument officially presented can almost
2 never constitute a valid basis for disqualification. McEwen v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. (1916)
3 172 Cal. 6, 11 (erroneous rulings, even when numerous and continuous, are not grounds for bias
4 or prejudice, nor are "judges' expressions of opinion uttered in what he conceives to be the
5 discharge of his judicial duty"). See also, California Procedure, 3rd Ed., Witkin, Courts, §94, pp.
6111-112.
7 A party's remedy for an erroneous rubng is not a motion to disqualify, but rather review
8 by appeal or writ. See Ryan v. Welte (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 888, 893: "[A] wrong opinion on the
9 law of a case does not disqualify a judge, nor is it evidence of bias or prejudice." Otherwise, the
10 court said, "no judge who is reversed by a higher court on any ruling or decision would ever be
11 qualified to proceed further in the particular case." The proper remedy, of course was an appeal
12 from the erroneous ruling. See 2 Witkin, California Procedure (4 th ed.), Courts, Nondisqualifying
13 Opinions, p. 157.
14 As stated in Liteky v. United States (1994) 510 U.S. 540,114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d
15 474, in discussing the extrajudicial source doctrine:
16 "First, judicial rulings alone almost never constitUte valid basis for a bias
17 or partiality motion. See United States v. Grinnel Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583
18 (1966). In and of themselves (i.e., apart from surrounding comments or
19 accompanying opinion), they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial
20 source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism
21 or antagonism required (as discussed below) when no extrajudicial source is
22 involved. Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.
23 Second, opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events
24 occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not
25 constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated
26 favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Thus,
27 judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or
28
2
EXHIBIT _CJ-I-- PAGE 6--/
(
\
(
1 even hostile to, counsel, the parties or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias
2 or partiality challenge. They may do so if they reveal an opinion that derives from
3 an extrajudicial source; and they will do so if they reveal such a high degree of
4 favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible. An example of the
5 latter (and perhaps of the fOlmer as well) is the statement that was alleged to have
6 been made by the District Judge in Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921), a
7 World War I espionage case against German-American defendants: 'One must
8 have a very judicial mind, indeed, not [to be] preJudiced against the Gennan
9 Americans' because their 'hearts are reeking with disloyalty.' Jd., at 28. Not
10 establishing bias or partiality, however, are expressions of impatience,
11 dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger, that are within the bounds of what
12 imperfect men and women, even after having been confinned as ... judges,
13 sometimes display. A judge's ordinary efforts at courtroom administration--even a
14 stem and short-tempered judge's ordinary efforts at courtroom administration.

15 remain immune."
16 Accordingly, since the statement of disqualification on its face discloses no legal grounds
17 for disqualification, it is ordered stricken pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §170.4,
18 subdivision (b). The parties are reminded that this determination of the question of the
19 disqualification is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate from
20 the Court of Appeal sought within 10 days of notice to the parties of the decision. In the event
21 that a timely writ is sought and an appellate court determines that an answer should have been
22 timely filed, such an answer is filed herewith.
23 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFORE, It is so ordered.

24
25
26 Judge of the Superior Court of Califomia
County of Los Angeles
27
28
3
EXHIBIT }l_ PAGE _b~
( (
Verified Answer of Judge Terry B. Friedman
2 I, Terry B. Friedman, do declare under penalty of perjury:
3 1. I am a Judge of the Superior Court and as such have been assigned to preside over
4 this case.
5 2. I am not prejudiced or biased against or in favor of any party to this proceeding or

6 their counsel.
7 3. All rulings made by me in this action have been based upon facts and arguments
8 officially presented to me and upon my understanding of the law. My statements and rulings are
9 set forth in the records and the files herein, which are the best evidence hereof. To the extent the
10 moving party's statement of those rulings and statements are inconsistent therewith, they are
11 denied.
12 4. All statements made by me and all actions taken by me in this proceeding have
13 been done in furtherance of what I believe were my judJicial duties.
14 5. I know of no facts Oir circumstances which would require my disqualification or
15 recusal in this case.
16 6. Defendant incorrectly refers to a December 28,2007 Notice ofInterested Person

17 filed by "Samuels". In fact, the notice was filed by attorney David Pasternak. I have no
18 disqualifying relationship with Mr. Pasternak.
19 Executed this 11 th day of January, 2008, at Santa Monica, California.
7~G,~~
20
21
~B RIEDMAN
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Order Striking Statement of ])iSqualifica~r
!EXHIBIT PAG
Exhibit 10
1
2 I~ECE]VE~D .
t •
CONFORM1~]D COJPY
MAR 1 1 ZOOB . OF ORIGINAL BLED
~l~ ~~R~l ~ 260:
3
Los Angeles Superior Court
4 SUPERIOR COURT
WEST DISTRICT MAR 11 2008
5 SANTA MONICA
John A. Clarke, Executive Officer/Clerk
6 By J. Citron, DepU1ty r~
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THJE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT
10
NIVIE SAMAAN Case No. SC087400
11
Plaintiff,
<D
12
l ~ JUDGMENT
a:l
(')
~
RE:
o~
00 13
CONTEMPT
(')"<t
Q.Q)O vs.
-J~~
~ (/) 'E 14
~ ~g
DATE: March 7, 2008
()~<ii JOSEPH ZERNIK, TIME: 9:30 a.m.
c-o()
cu cu 15 DEPT:
2:' 0 ()
~
cu" ]
(D (D 'c Defendant.
00
~~
16
.l!!
c
cu
(f)
17
On March 7, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. in Department] of the Los Angeles Superior Court,
18
West District, located at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, California, 90401, proceedings were
19
held pursuant to the Court's February 15, 2008 order that Defendant Joseph Zernik
20
("Zernik") appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. During
21
the proceedings, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") presented evidence that
22
Zernik should be held in contempt of court for disobeying the Court's Protective Order,
23
dated July 23, 2007, directing Zernik to communicate solely with Countrywide's designated
24
counsel and no other officers or employees regarding the present action. John 'Xl. Amberg
25
and Jenna Moldawsky of Bryan Cave LLP appeared on behalf of Countrywide. Moe
26
Keshavarzi of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP appeared on behalf of Plaintiff
27
Nivie Samaan. RobertJ. Shulkin appeared telephonically on behalf of Cross-Defendant
28
SMOIDOCS672017.]
(
1 Coldwell Banker. Defendant Joseph Zernik telephoned the clerk of the Court prior to the
2 proceedings and informed the Court that he would not appear.
3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, DECREED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
4 1. DefendantJoseph Zernik had actual knowledge of the contempt proceedings,
5 and was properly served with the Order to Show Cause re: Contempt, and
6 chose not to appear or present evidence in his defense;
7 2. The Protective Order entered on J111y 23, 2007 by the Honorable Jacqueline
8 Connor is valid and enforceable;
9 3. Defendant Joseph Zernik had actual notice of the Protective Order as ofJuly
10 23,2007, as Zernik was present at the July 23, 2007 hearing granting the
11 Protective Order and submitted on the record to the Tentative Ruling granting
(0
<0
(V)
12 the Protective Order. Zernik was also repeatedly reminded of the tenns and
~
0 ......
00
(V)'¢ 13 conditions of the Protective Order by Countrywide's counsel and was served
a...sg
~~.~ 14 with a Notice of Ruling and a copy of the Court's July 23, 2007 Minute Order
> >; 0
(tI(tI!!:
°3""iii
<:-00
(tI (tI 15 granting the Protective Order;
~om
... II
co co .",
00
~::ii
16 4. Defendant Joseph Zernik was able to comply with the Protective Order, which
(tI
C
(tI
(/)
17 was prohibitory, narrowly tailored, and limited in scope. This is evidenced by
18 Zernik's numerous communications that were made to Count:ryv1ide's counsel
19 of record. Zernik, however, chose to repeatedly communicate with
20 Countrywide officers and employees that were not designated counsels of
21 record;
22 5. The Court finds that Defendant Joseph Zernik committed thirteen (13) separate
23 acts of contempt by willfully violating the Court's July 23,2007 Protective
24 Order directing Zernik to communicate solely with Countrywide's designated
25 counsel and no other officers or employees regarding the present action;
26 6. The repetition of Defendant Joseph Zernik's violations of the Protective Order
27 is evidence of the willfulness of his violations; Zernik's violations of the
28 Protective Order were not accidental. Further, in several of Zernik's
SMOI DOCS672017. I 2
( (
1 communications with represented Countrywide officers and employees, Zernik

2 admitted the existence of the Protective Order;
3 7. The Court finds that Defendant Joseph Zernik is guilty of contempt pursuant
4 to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1209(a) and is to pay a fine in the amount of
5 $7,500 for thirteen (13) separate acts of contempt, pursuant to Code of Civil
6 Procedure Section 1218(a). The fine is imposed on a graduated scale - Zernik
7 is not fined for his initial violation of the Protective Order, but is fined $100 for
8 his second violation. For each subsequent violation thereafter, he is fined an
9 additional $100. Zernik is fined $1,000 for the 11th, 12th, and 13th violation,
10 for a total of $7,500;
11 8. The collection of the $7,500 fine is suspended subject to the following

to
co
C")
12 conditions. The Protective Order remains in full force and effect during the
~
o~
00
(")'V 13 pendency of this lawsuit. If Defendant Joseph Zernik further violates the
Q.2g
a: '3 'E
..J
U)
<ll
14 Protective Order, upon five (5) days' written notice from Countrywide to
~ ~g
U3 m
c::-oU
m <ll 15 Zernik, the Receiver shall pay $7,500 from the Receiver's Fund to Countrywide
2:'0m
u ~
III III 'c:
o
~:2
0 16 in care of its attorneys, Bryan Cave LLP, unless Zernik obtains a Court Order in
<ll
C
<ll
U)
17 the interim blocking payment; and
18 9. Countrywide shall pay its own attorneys' fees and costs associated with the
19 contempt proceeding.
20
21 Dated:
Hon. Terry B. Friedman
22 Judge, Superior Court of California
23 Prepared and submitted by:
BRYANCAVELLP
24 John W. Amberg (CA State Bar No. 108166)
25 Jenna Moldawky (CA State Bar No. 246109)
120 Broadway, Suite 300
26 Santa Monica, California 90401-2386
Telephone: (310) 576-2100
27 Facsunile: (310) 576-2200
28 Attorneys for Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
3
EXi-:iBIT I D_ -AGr: _:;-~_
SMOJDOCS672017,1
PROPOSED JUDGMENT
E~rhibit 11
( (-
1
RECEIVED
2
MAR 1 22008
CONFOR
OF ORIGZ:;ALE1F~ Co p'y
3
SUPERIOR COURT
WEST DISTRICT Lo '!LED
4 S Angeles Superior COUrt
SANTA MONICA
5 MAt< 1 :J ZOGB
john A. Clark
e, ExeCutive om
6 Jeer/Clerk
7 By J. Citron, Deputy
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGEJLES, WEST DISTRICT
10
11 NIVIE SAMAAN, et aI., Case No. 8C087400
Plaintiffs,
12
13 vs. ~ORDER
14
15 JOSEPH ZERNIK, et a1.
Defendants. Date: February 15, 2008
16 Time: 8:45 a.m.
Dept: WE]
17
18
19
20
21 Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.'s ("Countrywide") motion (1) to enforce the July 23,
22 2007 protective order against Defendant Joseph Zernik ("Zernik"); (2) for moneta1)' sanctions
23 against Zemik in the amount of$16,170; (3) for a declaration that Countrywide has no
24 obligation to respond further to Zernik's harassing communications; and (4) for an order to
25 show cause why Zernik should not be held in contempt and sanctioned accordingly (the
26 "Motion") came on for hearing before the Honorable Terry B. Friedman in Depar1ment WEJ
27 of the Los Angeles Superior Cow:t, West District, on February 15, 2008. John W. Amberg of
28 eXli:CIT II PAGE 57
SMOlDOCS672389.\ PROPOSED ORDER
( (
1 Bryan Cave LLP appeared on behalf on non-party and movant Countrywide. Defendant
2 Joseph Zernik appeared on his own behalf. Also in attendance were Receiver David].
3 I>asternak and Moe Keshavarzi of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, counsel for
4 Plaintiff Nivie Samaan.
5 Having read and considered the Motion and all papers submitted in support thereof
6 and in opposition thereto, and having heard and considered the argument of counsel and
7 Defendant Joseph Zernik, and good cause appearing therefor,

8 THE COURT FINDS THAT:
9 1. The Protective Order issued by the Honorable Jacqueline Connor on July 23, 2007 (the
10 ''Protective Order") is a valid order and the Court was authorized to grant the
11 Protective Order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2031.060
12 and pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128(a)(5). Both code
13 sections serve as legitimate bases for the issuance of the Protective Order;
14 2. The Protective Order is aff1!tl1ed and remains in full force and effect; and
15 3. Countrywide presented sufficient evidence that Defendant Joseph Zetnik violated the
16 Protective Order and should be sanctioned.
17 IT IS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED THAT:
18 1. Defendant Joseph Zernik is to pay Countrywide (through Countrywide's attorneys of
19 record) the amount of $16:.170 as sanctions within 20 days of the hearing. In the event
20 that Zernik fails to pay these sanctions to Countrywide, the Receiver in this matter,
21 David J. Pasternak, is authorized to pay the sanctions to Countrywide from the
22 Receiver's Fund upon notice to the Receiver and Defendant Joseph Zernik by
23 Countrywide; and
24 III
25 III
26 III
27 III
III
28
SMOJDOCS672389.1 2
EXHIB l _J._'_ PAGE ----
(J1f
PROPOSED ORDER
( .
(
1 2. Defendant]oseph Zernik is ordered to appear on Match 7, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. to show
2
cause why he should not be held in contempt of court and sanctioned for violating the
3
Protective Order.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 Dated:
Hon. Terry B. Friedman

8
] udge, Superior Court of California

9 Prepared and submitted by:
10 BRYAN CAVE LLP
11 John W. Amberg (CA State Bar No. 108166)
Jenna Moldawsky (CA State BaJ: No. 246109)
(0 12 120 Broadway, Suite 300
~
~
Santa Monica, California 90401,·2386
8;; 13 Telephone: (310) 576-2100
Q. ' ; ~ Facsimile: (310) 576-2200
.J '5 ro
-; f/) 'E 14
5 ~~
<:-00
ClI ro _
15 Attorneys for Countrywide Horne Loans, Inc.
~e~
£0 m 'c
~~ 16
ro
~
f/)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT,I_I_ PAGE S'-~,_

SMOIDOCS672389.l 3
PROPOSED ORDER
E.:rchibit 12
( (
OlgjtaJ~1 signed by
Joseph Zernik
J.. IJ ON: cn:'Joseph Zernlk,
) .Z~L. ~11",jz12345@@arthl
!Dluw;'c.,US
Date: 2008.07.28
07:19:42.-07'00'
1 Joseph Zernik
in pro per
2 2415 Saint George Street
Los Angeles, California 90027
3 Tel: 310-435-9107
Fax: 801-998-0917
4
5
6
7
9 FOR THI: COUNTY OF' LOS ANGELES
10 NlVIE SAMAAN, an individual, Case No. SC087400;
11 "Offthe record" Enterprise Track Case
Plaintiff,
No Valid Assignment On File
12 v.
13 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual, and DOES 1 NOTICE TO JUDGE TERRY
14 through 20, inclusive, FRIEDMAN, TO "RECEIVER"
PASTERNAK, AND PARTIES IN
15 Defendants" SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) TO
CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING
16 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual,
17 Cross-Complainant,
18 v. DATE: July 28, 2008
19 COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL

20 BROKERAGE; MICHAEL LIBOW, an
21
22
individual,
Cross-Defendants"
---)
!
)
23
24
25
TO THE COURT, TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
26
27 Please take notice of Defendant and Cross-Complainant's
28 NOTICE TO CEASE AND DES][ST RACKETEERING. I {b 1_

-1 EXHIBIT _ _ PAGE _Vl_-I-
-
NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING

( (
1 A. Purpose of this Notice
2
1. This Notice to Cease and Desist is served by lemail today, July 28, 2008, on palties in Samaan v
3
Zernik (SC087400), matter heard in LASC, in the hope that they finally cease racketeering.
2. This notice is also faxed to the Office of Presiding Judge Czuleger, in support of a request that he
5
finally take control of this matter, stop the vigilante hearings by Judge Friedman, and have this
6
case heard by a judge who is duly assigned, as requiredl by law.
3. This notice is also served today by email, July 28, 2008, with appropriate face page on parties in
8
Zernik v Connor et al (2:200:8cv01550) matter heard in U.S. District Court, LA, in support of
there Plaintiff Zemik's opposition to motions to dismiss complaint. This notice presents "a set
10
offacts that could be proved .consistent with the allegations" as per [fishon v. King & Spalding,
11
467 Us. 69. 73,'

12
"A complaint must be sustained, and cannot be dismissed, .ifreliefcan be

13
granted under any set offacts that could be proved consistent with the
14
allegations. Nothing more than the complaint's allegatiom, are needed to
confer standing at this stage. "
15
4. This notice is also filed and served in Zernik v Connor et al in support of Zernik's ex parte
16
request for reconsideration of the March 21,2008 Minute Order that denied Temporary
17
Restraining Order and/or Ordt~r to Show Cause against Judge Terry Friedman, there named
18
Defendant Friedman.
19
5. This notice is also faxed to members ofthe House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, to
20
keep them posted in this matter, involving allegations of well-established, wide··spread
21
corruption and racketeering in the largest Supl~rior Court in the U.S" and
22
congressmenlcongresswomtm representing Los Angeles County, in hope that they take action to
23
bring LA County back into tht~ fold of the U.S. Constitution, and act to compe:l the LA Superior
24
Court to allow access to Books of Court, as required by law - in and of itself a substantial refonn
25
in the courts of LA.
26
27 III
28
..2

( (
1 B. Request for Leniency as Pro.S(~
2
In filing this paper Defendant (in LASC)I Plaintiff {in U.S. District Court) Zemik requests spec:ial
3
leniency as a pro se litigant - for his "inartful pleading" Erickson v Pardus. 2007. In particular,
4 Zemik is not qualified in assessing the validity of legal theories. Zemik asks that the U.S. District
5 Court ignore any irrelevant or erroneous legal theOly claimed herein, and do take into consideration
6 the claims themselves, if they can support some other valid theory, as per Haddoc 198!j,.
7 III
8
C. The Enterprise at the LASe
9 By now it is evident that
10 1. West District of LASC is a renegade court - running in parallel two litigation tra(:ks - i) the
11 LASC Track per se, and ii) the Enterprise Track..
12
2. Past and present Supervising Judges, Assistant Supervising Judge, and Judges jointly (mgaged in
13
operating the Enterprise Track at the LASC West District.
14
3. The LASC has denied access lto public records that are the Books of Court, possibly as far back
15
as 25-30 years, out of compliance and in violation of the law: US Constitution, First
16
Amendment, Nixon v. Warner Comm1mications, Jnc" , 435 US 589 (197fil., California
17
constitution. Article I. §3(b)O), CalifjJrnia Publjc Record Act - California Government CmU
18
6250-6270.
19
20 4. Hiding the Books of Court is essential for the Enterprise. Review of the Index of All Cases,
21 Calendar of the Court, Registe:rs of Actions, and Book of Judgments is essential D)r estimating
22 the scope and age of the Enterprise, and the identity of the judges who are active as part of it in
23 the various courts of LASe.
24 5. The enterprise is enabled through Sustain - the fraudulent case management system introduced
25 25-30 years ago, with no public oversight, out of compliance and in violation of the law: Ru!&
26 Making Enabling Act 28 USC. §.§..l.Q71-2077.
27
6. In parallel - the LASC fraudulently established an oral rule of court: "Sustain is privileged --for
28
-3·· EXHIBIT I 'JJ AGE (o~
( (
1 the Court only". This rule was articulated to Defendant Zemik by both Supervising Judge
2 Rosenberg and the office of Presiding Judge Czuleger. Such oral rule of court is out of
3 compliance and in violation of the law: Rule .Making Enabling Act 28 Us. c. §t2071 - 2077,
4 CalifOrnia Rules o[Court, Rule .2.500 et seq.
5 7. Some of Sustain features provide evidence that the system was designed from the start as a
6 fraudulent case management system. Other features demonstrate divergence of the system in the
7 various court houses, and failure to maintain the integrity of the code over the decades, in a
8 manner that is contrary to any re:as:onable good management practices.
9
8. Judges of the LASC routinely engage in secret rulings and/or reversal oftheir open court rulings
10
in the electronic court file in Sustain, with no notice or service to parties to the litigation, out of
11
compliance and in violation of the law.
12
9. Review of Sustain data also reve:als that the LASe does not practice any docketing quality
13
assurance whatsoever, in a manner that is contrary to any n~asonable good management
14
practices.
15
16 10. The custom of entering Minute Orders in comt file without service and notice to parties, wide
17 spread at the LASe, is also essential for the Enterprise. Such practice is out of (:ompliance and in
18 violation of the law: CalifOrnia Rules ofCourt, Rule 1.20 et seq.
19 11. Ambiguation of the nature and location of the Book of Judgments ("or equivalent") and the
20 nature of Notice ofEntry ofJudgment were also critical for the Enterprise. The latter was
21 largely achieved over a couple: of decades of r;evie:w courts decisions. The fonner is practiced
22 out of compliance and in violation of the law.
23
12. Combined, the Enterprise gtmerates multiple litigation realities -- i) in open court, ii) in paper
24
court file, iii) in secret Sustain records. Such multiplicity of litigation realities is out of
25
compliance and in violation of any concept ofOue Process, as guaranteed by the .~5th. and 14th
26
Amendments to the us. Constituctiq!l..
27
13. Review of the Books of Court is likely to demonstrate the real estate fraud is the specialty of the
28
-4- [)(HIDIT j Q)_ PAGE (p?:;
NOI1CE TO CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING
( (
1 Enterprise.
2
14. The Enterprise reflects wide-spread public corruption that is well established in the largest
3 Superior Court in the U.S.
4
15. Judges of the Superior Court vary largely in their understanding of the machination of the
5
Enterprise. Judge Connor's conduclt demonstrates detailed and deep understanding of the
6
Enterprise, while conduct of Judges Segal and mor,e so Friedman indicates more superficial
7
understanding.
8
III
9
D. Samaan v Zernik (SC08740(J~lJ1San Enterprise Track case
10
11 By now it is evident that
12 1. The case represents a unique ,collaboration of the Enterprise with the racket at Countrywide.
13
2. The case was designated for the: Enterprise Track since before the complaint was submitted on
14
Oct 25,2005. Additional discovery is likely to confinn that it was never indexed. The courts are
15
obfuscating in allowing Zemik access to the Index of All Cases, as required by law.
16
3. The Honorable Judge Jacquellne Connor named Defendant Connor in U.S. District Court
17
action, was never issued a valid Re-assignment Order. The purported Nov 1, 2005 Minute Order
18
by the then Supervising Judge, the Honorable Linda Lefkowitz is a case of fraud. In fact it is
19
dated Jan 30, 2006, a date when Judge Lefkowitz no longer served as Supervising Judge, and had
20
no authority to assign the case. Therefore, Judge Connor presided with no authority and no
21
immunity at all.
22
23 4. Judge Connor and other judges listed as Defendants in U.S. Court action, are with no immunity
24 at all, as per §1983, based on the following principles:
25 a. The Supreme Court has hddl that federal law controls the immunity analysis under §1983
26 even if the matter in question is pending in state court - Howlett v Rose, 496 U.S. .356,
27 369 (1990):
28 'A state court may not den.y a federal right, when the parties and controversy are I /
-5- EXHIB!T LaJ_ PAGE_LPlf'_

(
1 properly befor it, in the absence of "valid excuse'"
2 b. The Supreme Court has held that individuals sued in their official capacity are not
3 entitled to assert individual immunity defenses in that regard. The distinction being that
personal-capacity suits se(~k to impose personal liability upon government official for
4
5 actions taken under cc'?lor of state law. Official-capacity suits, in contrast, "genert:<rlly
6 represent only anoth~r way ofpleading an action against the entity of which the
official is agent" Ke!1~ucky v Graham 473 Us. 159 0985).

7
8 c. The "Functional Approach" to immunity analysis puts the burden of proving immunity
9 on the officials sued:
10 "Officials who seek exemption for personal liability ave the burden ofshowing that
such an exemption ls,iustified by overriding considerations ofpublic policy•.• "
11 Forrester v White, 48~( Us. 219. 22ffi98Ql.
12 d. Immunity ofjudges was limited by the Supreme Court in Stump v SparA-:man. 435 Us.
13 349. 356-362 (] 978,land also in Mireles v Waco. 112 S. Ct. 28,6. 288 09.911 such that acts
14 in the clear absence of a court's jurisdiction are not entitled to immunity, and only
15 judicial acts are prote:cted.
16
e. Even judges who are ~lbsolutely immune for damages may be subject to suit for
17
declaratory and injunctive relief - Consumers Union 446 Us. at 731-3:'. 73li
18
f. "Qualified Immunity" exists for public officials only for their "goodft:<!ith" actions,
19
where "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
20
rights ofwhich a reasonable person would have known" Harlow v Fitzgerald, 4.57 Us.
21
800.818(982); Mitchelly Forsvth. 472 Us. 511. 526 (1985).
22
23 5. Defendant Judge Connor engaged in obstruction and racketeering since before her the first
24 proceedings in which she presided - Jan 30. 200(i - when she recorded Defendant's Demurrer
pursuant to the Statute of Frauds as i) Overruled, ii) Granted, and iii) Invalidab~d Minute Order
25
26 all at once.
27 6. Records and declarations produced by Countrywide wl~re essential to the fraud, and Att
28 Mohammad Keshavarzi (Sheppard, Mullin et al), Maria ~cL~urin ~opntrywide JE¥'anc-!L
-6 [XHIBiT PAGE ~ __..._..
J_fJ-/_
/
"
1 Manager), and Jae Arre Lloyd (Samaan's husband and a Countrywide business associate)
2 conspired to design such fraudulent claims as detailed in their email correspondence of Nov 3-6,
3 2006. Neither of these three were named Defendant in U.S. Court action so far.
4 7. Critical to these fraudulent cllaims were the following:

5
a. Countrywide fraudulent rec:ord -- Real Estate Contral;t purportedly faxed from Parks
6
(Washington State) to Countryv/ide (Northern California) on Oct 25.,2004, 5:03pm. In fact
7
it was faxed on that date and that time from Samaan to Jae Arre Lloyd.
8
b. Countrywide fraudulent record·- Oct 26,2004 Invalid Underwriting Letter, which was
9
falsely represented as dated from mid-October 2004.
10
11 c. Fraudulent declarations by Maria McLaurin, including one in which she established the
12 Underwriting Letter listed above as a case of "recreated letter" similar to the Countrywide
13 case in Pennsylvania, widely publicized on or around Jan 8, 2008.
14 8. This real estate fraud and rac:keteering was perpetrated with full knowledge and cooperation of
15 Defendants in U.S. Court aC1tion - Sandor Samuels Chief Legal Counsel, and Angelo Mozillo
16 President, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Inc.
17
9. On July 6, 2007 Judge Connor ran proceedings unique in their abuse of Defendant's civil rights
18
off the record hearing on a gag order to benefit Countrywide, under the guise of Protective
19
Order. Such proceedings wen: falsely documented, and continued on July 23,_~007, still offthe
20
record. From that date on, Countrywide has been appearing routinely in Samaan v Zernik,
21
fraudulently designating itself "Non-Party", out of compliance and in violation of the law
22
California Rules o{Courf, Rule 1.6 DefinitionLand Use'-f!iTerms. (15) "Person~6) "Party".
23
1O. Attorneys John Amberg and Jenna Moldawsky (Bryan Cave, LLP) representing Countywide,
24
knowingly colluded in racketeering in such pro(:eedings. Not named so far in U.S. Court action.
25
26 11. Between July 12, 2007 and ,Ju1L~J, 2007, in her conflicting acts in statements in open court, in
27 papers secretly entered in paper court file, and in records secretly entered in the electronic court
28 file in Sustain, Judge Connor, named Defendant in U.S. Court action, engaged in fraud and
-7 EXlUEIT j i-J PAGE 200

(
1 deceit relative to her disqualification on July 12~'l-2007 by Defendant Zemik.
2 12. On August 9, 2007 Judge Connor simultaneously ran multiple frauds:

3
a. Presiding in a fraudulent Summary Judgment hearing, where her findings as Trier of Facts
4
were deliberately upside down from start to finish,
5
b. Initiating the fraud and dt~c(~it relative to entry ofjudgment, when in fact, judgment was
6
7
never entered, out of compliance and in violation of the law - California CQ.~fe 2i.Civil
Procedure, §664
8
"Ifthe trial has been had by the court, judgment must be entered by the
9
clerk, in conformity to the decision ofthe court, immediately upon the
10 filing ofsuch decision. In no case is a judgment effectualfor any
purpose until entered", and
11
c. Denying Defendant the right to amend claims and enter compulsory claims of fraud and
12
deceit against Countrywide, against Samaan, and against Mara Escrow. In the aftermath, on
13
Aug 14,2007, Judge Connor entered in court file the fraudulent, back-dated Aug 9,2007
14
Minute Order, with no certificate of service or notict: of entry of order as required by law
15
Calitornia Rules o(Court, Rule 1.20 et seq. In such minute order she fraudulently claims
16
that Judgment by Court was served on the parties in open court on Aug 9,2007. In fad,
17
only two out of four partRes were present in court on that day, therefore service in open court
18
could not be completed, and of the two, om~ later stated in open court on Nov 9,2007 that he
19
had never seen the Aug 9, 2007 judgment by court and was never served the Aug 9, 2007
20
judgment by court. Furthermore, there is no certificate of service upon the parties and no
21
notice of entry signed by the Clerk on this record. Therefore, such minute order amounts to
22
hearsay and an invalid court record.
23
13. On Sept 10, 2007 and Sept U,-~OOl, Judge CarillOI' again engaged in multiple frauds, i) in
24
transferring the case to Judge Goodman after her 2nd disqualification by Defendant Zemik, with
25
no authority at all, ii) by secretly entering on Sept 11, 2007, after disqualification, with no notice
26
to parties, a back-dated Sept 10, 2007 Minute Order, re<:ording a fictitious hearing where she
27
ruled that there was no fraud in Countrywide re<;ords.
28
-8 cAn 8/1 ~ PAGE l..fJ ' /

--
=======-
( (
1 14. The Honorable Judge John Segal, named Defendant in U.S. Court action, never had an
2 assignment order, and all ofhis acts as Presiding Judge in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) were of
3 the nature of fraud and deceit, with no authority and no immunity at all.
4 15. Judge Segal was fully aware oJfthe fact that no judgment was entered, and so were AU David
5 Pasternak, named Defendant in U.s. Court action, and Art Mohammad Keshavarzi.
6
16. Regardless, they engaged in fraud and deceit under the guise of legal proceedings, in a fraudulent
7
motion to appoint Pasternak as "Receiver" - purportedly to enforce the execution of a judgment
8
that was never executable at all.
9
17. Judge Segal and Art Pasternak engaged in intimidation, retaliation, and harassment of Defendant
10
Zernik, a victimlwitness/infonner of racketeering in several hearings in November 2007.
11
12 18. Judge Segal and Art Pasternak engineered forced entry into Defendant's property, and taking of
13 property for private use with no l~ompensation to Defendant at all.
14 19. Art Pasternak proceeded to engage in further conspiracy with Mara ~Escrow, named Defendant in
15 U.S. Court action, and Att Richard' Ormond (Buchalter Nemer) - not named Defendant in U.S.
16 Court action so far, for fraudulent conveyance oftitle of the property.
17
20. Art Pasternak proceeded to engage in fraud and deceit relative to an invalid grand deed that he
18
purportedly presented for Court approval on D~~7, 2001, before the Honorable Judge Lisa
19
Hart-Cole and the then Assist.rmt Supervising Judge, the Honorable Patricia Collins. Both
20
Judge Hart-Cole and Judge Collins knowingly colluded with the Enterprise, and both are named
21
Defendants in U.S. Court action. Art Pasternak produc.ed yet another invalid fi~audu!ent grant
22
deed that he recorded in the Office of Record{lr/Registrar on Dec 17.. . . 2007. It is likely that upon
23
further discovery Notary Public L.isa Khalaytljian be found in collusion with such fraud.
24
21. The Honorable Judge Terry Friedman named Defendant in U.S. Court action, never had an
25
assignment order, and all of his acts as Presiding Judge in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) were of
26
the nature of fraud and deceit, with no authority and no immunity at all.
27
28 22. Judge Friedman on Jan 11, 2007, at Countrywide's request fraudulently ruled that the ,
-9- ,- I ltd P;\GE j.oP_.

1 "Protective Order ...", whil;h Judge Connor deliberateJiy avoided signing and entering, was " ..in
2 full force and effect'. He then proceeded on feb 15,2007 and March 7, 2008, to fraudulently
3 set sanctions exceeding $22,000 on Defendant Zemik and find him in contempt, relative to
4 purported violations in 2001 of such ex postfacto orde:r.
5 23. Judge Friedman was also disqualified three times, and in none of the cases complied with the
6 law- California Code ofCivil Procedure €170.3~
7
24. Judge Friedman intends to continue presiding in proceedings on July 29, 200_~ in Samaan v
8
Zemik, in which he is likely to order distribution of funds, purportedly received by the court for
9
the sale of Zemik' s home, back to Samaan.
10
25. Request filed with Presiding Judge Czuleger to enforc,e the law ofthe land, to put an end to
11
Judge Terry Friedman's vigilante conduct in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), and to allow a
12
hearing before the Presiding Judge in this matter, or any other judge, duly assigned, is still to be
13
answered.
14
g. Additional Support E!idence for Allegation:s Detailed Above
15
16 Zernik - Defendant, Appellant, and Plaintiff, filed in the various respective courts records
17 documenting various parts of the: overall narrative re:lated above. In addition, Zernik filed records
18 documenting hundreds of false and deliberately misleading litigation records produced by the judges
19 of the Los Angeles Superior court, in support of his allegations of racketeering.
h. Additional Discov,er~eeded
20
21 Definitive evidence will be found upon review of the LASC Book of Judgments, Index of All Cases,
22 Calendars of the Courts, and Registers of Actions. And precisely for that reason, all three courts are
23 obfuscating on allowing Zemik access to inspect and review the Book of Judgments, as required by
24 law. Regardless, whether or not such access is allowed, sufficient evidence is being produced to the
25 point that such evidence would not be essential. Howeve:r, Zemik will continue to demand access to
26 the Book of Judgment in all three courts - since continued obfuscation of the thre~: courts to allow
27 access to the Book of Judgments, a basic First Amendment right, is likely to serve: as prime evidence
28 for the incapacity of the Judiciary to regulate itself in matters involving corruption of the cOlllrtS.
··10 '-'··.·jll)! I Jf)J PAGE Cfl q

~---
----
(
1 i. Preliminary Estimate I()1fDamages Claimled and Awards to be Requ~ted in U.S'~
District Court Actiol!!
2
Damages Claimed
3
1. Equity in the Property -$900,000
4 Zernik assume he will never see a penny from the equity of the purported sale.
5 2. Tax Liability ~$300,000
Zernik is likely to be saddled with tax: liability for the purported sale even if he does not see a penny
6
of the proceeds. Receiver Pasternak deliberately avoided paying tax at the closing of the fraudulent
7 escrow, so that he would be left with maximum cash.
3. Notes Liability $?
8
In one of the hallmarks of the abusive/retaliatory appointment of the receiver, Judge Segal
9 authorized Receiver Pasternak, appointed outside of any legal framework, to issue unlimited notes in
10 Zernik's name at hefty interest.
4. Legal Services -$400,000
11
Some of the legal expenses are still in disputed charges on American Express Card (~$60,000) and
12 Visa Card ($6,000) for fraudulent se:rvices of Att Zachary Schorr, Defendant in U.S. Court action.
13 5. Other Legal Expenses ... ••. ... ~~$50,000
6.. Lost Income (Nov 2006 to July 2008) •........ -$350,000
14
7. Automobile and Related Expe:nses ~$100,OOO
15
TOTAL -$2,100,000
16 Additional Potential Awards ilil Ji'tlated Actiom~~
17 1. Pain and Suffering .. to be dletemlined

18 2. Punitive Damages to be determined
19 3. Qui Tam Award to be determined
20 4. Civil Rico Award ... triple regular awards
21
22
Dated: July 28, 2008
23
24 Respectfully submitted by:
25
26 --------------
27 Joseph Zemik
Defendant and Cross-Complainant
28 in pro per
----,-
··11·· 1:./\ I dll J 9.J PAGE P ="--
NOTI(;E TO CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING
1
3
SOl'ATJEMENT OF VERU'ICATION
4
I, Joseph Zernik, am Def(md.ant & Cross-Complainant in Samaan v Zerni'k (SC08740Q)
5 matter heard in Los Angeles Supetior Court, West District, I am also Appellant in Zernik v Los
6
Angeles Superior Court (B20306i3 - noticed 10/5/07 and B204544 - notice 12/1 0/07), matters
7 currently in preparation of records on appeal for California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, and also
8 Pliaintiff in Zernik v Connor at al (2:2008cvOI550), matter heard in U.S. District COlllrt, Los Angeles.
I
9 I have read the foregoing Notice to Cease and Desist and I know the content thereof to be
true and correct. It is true and com~ct based on my own personal knowledge as Defendant & Cross
10
11 Complainant, as Appellant, and as Plaintiff in pro per, except as to those matters the:rein stated as
12 based upon information and belid', and as to to those matters, I believe them to be true and corTect
13 as well.
14 I make this declaration that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury
15 pursuant to the laws of California and the United States.
16 Executed here in Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, on this 28 th day in July, 2008.
17
18
Joseph Zernik
19
Defendant and Cross-Complainant
20 in pro per
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~12··

1
PROOF OF SERVICE HY EMAIL TO BE SUBlVUTTED WITH FILING AT LASC

4
~E~MAI~~L~IN~G~L~IS~T:..:.: ......
6
1. NIVIE SAMAAN 2.COJLDWELL BANKER + L,JBOW
Moe Keshavarzi, Esq

JRobelrt J. Shulkin, Esq.
7 SHEPPARD MULLIN, LLP

COLDWELL BANKER
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET

THE LAW DEPARTMENT
8 48 TH pLOOR
11611 SAN VICENTE BLVD 9TH
9 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071

LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
PAX: (213) 620-1398

JFAX: 310447 1902
10 Email: MKeshavarzi@sheppardtnullin.com
Email: robert.shulkin@camoves.com
11
3. DAVID PASTERNAK
4. BRYAN CAVE - COUNTRYWIDE
12 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2~OO

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
13 Email: djp@Pas1aw.com
Email: jwamberg@BryanCave.com
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-13
-----"'------+-_.
NOl]ICE TO CEASE AND DESIST RACKETEERING
li;xhibit .13
Joseph Zemik DMD PhD

Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jZ12345@earthlink.nel
"Judge shalll>e faithful tD the Jaw... "

cal CodE, Jud EtiJics 3B(2)
"The rule of law must never be confused with tyranny oj' the courts"
Anonymous·
Alejallldro Mayorkas - O'Melveny & Myers,
Former U.S. Attorney, and Board MelIlbl~r of Bet Tzedek.
Att Mitchell Kamin, President
For Bet Tzedek - House ofJustice
John Fishel
For Board ofDirectors, Jewish Federation ofLos Angeles
Bryan Cave, LLP
For Sandor Samuels, Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide Home Loans, Countrywide Financial Corporation
Buchalter Nemer
For Mara Escrow, a subsidiary ofOld Republic Title
Cummings, McClorey, Davis, Acho and .Associates·, D. BrE:t Bianco
For Los Angeles Superior Court, Presiding Judge Stephen Czuleger, Clerk John Clarke, Judges: Jacqueline
Connor, John Segal, Terry Friedman, Gerald Rosenberg, & ADR
Dan Loritz, Okum-Loritz, LLP
For USC Credit Union, Gary Perez, President/CEO
Pasternak, Pasternak, Patton
For David Pasternak
Bury Brucker, Mayor, and City Council of Beverly Hills
For the City ofBeverly Hills
Kenneth D. Lewis, Chairman, CEO, lallld !)f1esident,
Teresa Brenner, Associate General Counsel
For Bank ofAmerica Corporation
Martin Berg, Editor
For The Daily Journal
The Honorable Ronald George, Chief .Justice
California Supreme Court
Kenneth Kaiser, Assistant Director
For the FBI
Kenneth Melson, Director
Michae Mukasey, Attorney General
For the us. Department ofJustice
I .l;.\1lE IS OF THE ]~...!:"SENCE;!
RESPONSE REQUES'J'ED BY 5:00PM FJRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2008!
ro:: 1) Fraudulent conveyance of title lllJld rea.l estate fraud 011 reallllroperty commonly known as 320
South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, Callifornia, 90212, 2) Samaan 1V Zernik (SC089400) fraudulent
litigation at the Los Angeles SupeJri!O'r Court of the State of California, 3) Racketeering illl the Los
E HIBIT / ~ PAGE 13_
( (
• Page217 November 28, 2008
Angeles Superior Court, 4) Thou~mds ofinnocent people falsely imprisoned in Los Angeles County,
California.
Counsel and unrepresented parties:

I am an unrepresented individual, citizen ofthe United States, resident ofthe County ofLos Angeles, California.
During the period relevant to events desclibed below I was also a resident ofthe city of Beverly Hills.
A. )Jrief chronology of organized crill1l~Llli~ti9ns under tine guise of LA Superior Court actions.
Since October 2005 I have been severely abused and harassed under the guise of litigation in the California
Superior Court in Samaan v Zemik (SC087400) in Santa Monica, California. I have been repeatedly called to
appear in court; my nomlallife routines were entirely undennined; I have been forced to spend large sums of
money on legal expenses; and I have been forced to spend most ofmy days studying the law and various other
fields for my own defense.
In November 2007 I was driven out ofmy home, the property listed above, in Beverly Hills, under the threat of
violence by John Segal, pretending to act as a judge ofthe Superior Court, and Att David Pasternak (former
president - House ofJustice- Bet Tzedek) pretending to act ,as a court officer, while both knew all along that they
were acting with no authority at all, out of compliance and in violation ofthe law.
Sometime in late November 2007 Att Pm;temak committed forced entry into the property and "took possession"
of it, with no legal foundation at all.
In December 2007 Att Pasternak subjec:te~:t my property to fraudulent conveyance oftitle1, and proceeded to
collect some monies in exchange for the property from Nivi,e Samaan, and keeping the funds to himself; with no
legal foundation at all.
When I tried to stand for my rights, I was purportedly found in contempt ofthe court; I purportedly had sanctions
in the tens ofthousands of dollars set upon me; I had gag orders purportedly imposed upon me - for the benefit of
large corporations - Countrywide, Old Republic Title, and United Title, through ex parte proceedings.
On July 6. 2007, I was subjected to the first of such procedures -- initiated by Countrywide, and hdd in a dark
courtroom in the Los Angeles Superior Court by Judge Jacqueline Connor (Best known for derailing the First
Rampart Trial in 2000), offthe calendar wud ofifthe record.
In November 2007, I had a fraudulent Receiver - Att David Pasternak appointed upon me by Judlge John
Sega~ through another sham legal proceeding, with 4-day notice... Att Pasternak was purportedly vested by John
Segal with unlimited powers to abuse and harass, deriving his authority from neither a judgment nor any section
ofthe California code. Beyond the theJ! ofmy property purportedly on behalf ofthe Court, Art Pasternak
fi'audulently incurred me with hundreds ~)fthousands of dollars in tax liabilities, since he collected the full
proceeds ofthe sale, and deferred the payment oftaxes.
On December 7, 2007 I was subjected to IIDoth,er ex parte procedure for gag orders, this time initiated by Att
Pasternak, for the benefit ofMara ESCliOW and United Title..
In February 2008, I was fraudulently thre~ltened with jail time by Judge Terry Friedman, trying to prevent me
from exposing the fraud in Countrywide involvement in this case.
I received death threats a couple oftime, the first -in March 2007 - when I located a fOffiler senior lmderwriter of
Countrywide in March 2007, which COlit1ltrywiide did not want me to ever locate...
Why.?
By November-December 2006 I figured out the nature ofthe conduct of Sheppard Mullin, representing Nivie
Samaan, sufficiently well, to understand that they were fabricating fraudulent claims against me, In collusion with
Judge Jacqueline ConDor and Countlrywide they were tirelessly toiling to defraud me out of my home under
the guise oflega! action in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
EXHIBIT /5 PAGE 04
c- (
• Page 3/7 November 28, 2008
I had no background and no fonnal training in the law, economics, banking or mortgage lending, ancl yet by
January 2007, I figured out the business modd ofCountrywide and the nature ofAngelo Mozilo and Sandor
Samuels' fraudulent conduct sufficiently wen that I filed complaints with the FBI, and then also with Banking
Regulators such as Office ofThrift Supervision and Office ofFederal Trade Commission. I claimed that
Countrywide was involved in massive fraud against the U.S. Government and the American tax-payer.
By March 2007 I was able to come up with initial rough estimates, which indicated potential liability to the U.S.
Government in the hundreds of billions ofdollars (in retrospect - a conservative estimate). I also wrote a series of
open letters to the Board ofDirectors ofthe House of Justice - Bet Tzedek. I warned them that an organization
that purports to be the "House ofJustice" must ne:ver allow Sandor Samuels to be the President of its Board of
Directors. I warned them that he was personally involved in fraud against mt~, and that tens ofthousands of
families would loose their homes as a result of hi:; business activities (in retrospect - a conservative estimate). Bet
Tzedek Board ofDirectors never responded to my alarming messages. But Countrywide, Sandor Samuels, and
Angelo Mozilo did. They retained Bryalll C~lve, LLP, to harass me, to retaliate against me, to intimidate me, and
to supervise the perversion ofjustice und(;r the guise of litigation in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
On July 6, 2007 such campaign was initiated with an ex parte appearance, for a gag order against me in the dark
courtroom ofJudge Jacqueline Connor, who remained in chambers - nowhere to be seen - with no recognizable
clerk ofthe court in attendance.
By mid- 2007 and more so by the beginning 0:['2.008 I figured out the business model ofthe Los Angleles
SUJ~erior Court sufficiently well that I understood that Samaan v Zemik (SC087400), in fact never was a true
case ofthe Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia, but instead, a case ofthe "Enterprise Track" ofthe Los
Angeles County judiciary, designated as such by Judge Jacqueline Cormor even before the complaint wa'i filed.
I gradually learned more about Sustain, the Los Angeles Superior Court's computer system, realizing that such
system was quintessential for the operations ofthe Enterprise in the fonn it is manifested today. This system was
procured and installed around 1985, out ofcompliance and in violation ofthe law, by a company by the same or
similar name (Sustain or Sustained), which is solely controlled by the Daily Journal, the largest legal newspaper
in Los Angles, a fact that is apparently unrecognized in the legal community. Around the same time, the
Honorable Ronald George, today ChiefJi.lstice ofthe Califomia Supreme Court, held various leaclership
positions in the Los Angeles Superior Court
B. Beyond Real Estate Frauds - the R.a!J!!J2:!!rlt Scandal
In recent months, I tried to better understand the scope ofoperations ofthe Enterprise beyond real estate and
other litigation frauds, and the unique position ofJudge Jacqueline COllilOr rdative to organized crime in Los
Angeles. I studied the history ofthe Ramllart sc:andal (1998-2000), euphemistically named the Rampart-Ar1ea
Corruption Incident The Blue Ribbolil Review Panel report (July 2006), makes it abundantly clear that the
activities characteristic ofthat scandal were never limited to the Rampart area, and were and probably still are
endemic, not an isolated incident at alL
Furthennore, I soon realized what the main goal was ofthe authors ofthat report: First - to document what they
called the "subcult ofcriminality tolerated in the ranks" ofthe LA County justice system - and second, to
document how such justice system is preventing the release :fi:om long tenn false imprisonment ofthe thousands
ofpeople, who were repeatedly conftrmed by several success:ive investigation committees as innocent but framed.
Even today, ten years after the scandal was exposed, nobody knows the exact scope of it.
Erwin Chemerinsky, today Founding Dean, Irvine Law School, described it already in 2000 as follows:
"Any analysis of the Rampart scandal must begin with an appreciation of the heinous nature
of what the officers did_ Tl1is is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and
police states. "
And David Burcham, Dean of the Loyola Law School, with Cathedne Fisk wrote in 2000:
"...judges tried and sentenced a stagg€!ring number of people for crimes they did not commit.
How could so many partidpants in the criminal justice system have failed either to recognize
EXHIBIT '-2J P GE r; S
(
• Page417 November 28, 2008
or to instigate any meaningful scrutiny of such appalling and repeated perversions of

justice?"
C. The court's case management sy:stf!D1 as the enabli]~)01 of the Enterprise.

My reading of the Blue Ribbon Review Panel is that the panel, like all investigation committees before it,
and like the public at large in LA COUll~Y, were denied access to public records that are the Books of Courts
of LA County Superior Court. Such public Records, are critical for the safeguard of the integrity of the
courts. However, such Book of Court are since 1985 implemented in Sustain, and off limits to the pubic -- a
mass-scale routine and continuous abuse of civil rights of all who live in LA County, by the LA County
Court itself. Such abuse is tolerated by the U.S. Department of Justice, who fails to perform its duties.
I also believe that the lack ofaccess to such public records is a main handicap in the operations ofthe office ofthe
Overseer of civil rights in LA, U.S. Judge G"lly Feess, appointed purswmt to the Consent Decree of2001. My
reading ofthe reports was that by 2004 he was trying, unsucl:essfully to establish access to such da.ta bases, and
his demands ignored by the LA County justice system. Needless to say, I believe that the Overseer, in his seven
ye,ars in office, never freed even one single; person ofthe thousands who are falsely imprisoned.
Therefore, the failure ofthe U.S. Departm{mt ofJustice to enforce the basic civil right for Books of Court that are
Public Records, free for the public to inspect and to copy, also paints u.s. law enforcement agencies as impot{mt
in LA County - since they cannot enforce the Consent Decr{'..e that was the outcome ofthe yielding ofthe City of
LA to the U.S. Government in 2001.
The proposed action - take-over ofcontrol fj)f the LA County Superior Court's computers by Federal Agencks, is a
relatively simple task. It was practiced repeatedly in recent months 1U1ytime the U.S. Government took over any major
failing financial institution. Surely there aJre units fully prepared in Department ofthe Treaswy. It is an operation that
can be accomplished overnight. .. at minimal risk and cost, and with major JPositive impact on the life ofindividual and
the rule oflaw in LA County.
D. Unanswered Questions
1) LA Superior Court
I have been denied access to my own litigation records in Sustain throughout this purported litigation, and I hold
that had I been allowed access to Sustain, none ofit could ever have happened.
Since June 2008, the office ofPresiding Judge ofthe Los Angeles Superior Court, Stephen Czuleger has been
refusing to answer the simplest questions:
• Is Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) a true case ofthe California Superior Comt?

The simplest answer would have been to allow me access through Sustain to the Books of
Court, the Index ofAll Cases, Calendar ofthe Courts, etc. That is still denied.
• Is there or isn't there an entenxl, etTedual Aug 9, 2007 Judl~ent in Samaao v ZerniJ<?
I was robbed ofmy home purportedly pursuant to such judgment. But it is obvious that no
such valid effectualjudgment exists.
• Is there or isn't there a judge duly assigned to Satnaan v Zfmik ?
Judge Terry Friedman still holds the file, and continues his racketeeringfrom the bench.
2) Martin Berg - Daily Journal, and Ronald George - ChiefJustice ofthe California Suprem? Court
NIr Martin Berg, Editor ofthe Daily Jourlllal, and the Honorable ROlliald George, ChiefJustice, California
Supreme Court, have failed to respond as well. The questions addressed to them was and is:
• What was/is your role in the desngn, illlstallation, maintenalllce of Sustain in LA Superior Court?
• Do you hold the operation of Sust;:tin, as seen today, illl com]pliance with the law?
• Do you consider that a public ditsclosure on your part in this matter is required?
EXHIBIT __ f2__ PAGE '7 ~
( (
• Page517 Novernber28,2008
3) Countrywide and Bank ofAmerica

After the change of control in Countryw~de:, I expected that Bank of America Corporation would put an end to
this shameful story, of which I have infonl.led th,e board of Bank ofAmerica Corporation months in advance.
However, even after the change ofcontrol, Bry31n Cave, LLP has continued the harassment, just as usual. And
yet, in recent days it has refused to answl~r a very simple question:
• What is the identity of the party ,-epresent by me in court in recent months?
Countrywide's party designation has all along been one ofthe cardinal signs that this
litigation was fraud: Countrywide chose to be called "Non-Party", while the court used
party designations du jour - Plaintiff, Defendant, Intervenor, Objector, etc.
Regardless: Bryan Cave must know who signed the engagement, and who is paying the
bills.
I therefore also ask the following from Bank ofAmerica Corporation:
• Would Bank of America Corpm':iltion ensure that no further abuse is perpetrated in the name of
Countrywide?
• Would Bank of America COrpl[)l":iltion review the records and provide compensation for damage:~ I
suffered through Countrywide's actions?
4) USC Credit Union
The final steps in the theft of my home in n~~ember 2007, could never have happened without help from within
USC Credit Union, for no reason at all, zmcl in vilolation of the USC CU fiduciary duties to their depositor/
member.
• What was the justification if any. for the conduct of USC ClJ, in colluding in the theft off my home
by the Enterprise?
• Why is the USC CU refusing to implement basic standard procedure consistent with "sound
banking principles"?
5) City ofBeverly Hills and its Police jr)1~pll1tment
DUrirlg the harassment that preceded the theft ofmy house, I approached the Beverly Hills Police Department for
protection, on several occasions. At all tim~s:, the Beverly Hills Police Department absolutely refused to provide
protection, or to investigate, no matter how strong the evidence produced in support of my complaint was. This
month I provided the Mayor and City Council a short overview ofthe situation. The following questions are
addressed to the Mayor and the City COLmeil of Beverly Hills:
• Regardless of the conduct of the ll>istriict Attorney, was there/is there any justification for the refusal
of the Beverly Hills Police Depa11ment to protect :me in this case?
• Would the Mayor and City COU;llcU talke immediate al~tion to compel the police to perform its duties
and provide report of its inves1ti~~ation as soon as POssilble?
6) Bet Tzedek - the House ofJustice
Three ofthe individuals who played central roles in this story ofreal estate fraud, held the highest positions in Bet
Tz.edek: Sandor Samuels - former president, David PasterJllak - former president, Terry Friedman - former
executive director. Together they can be s(~en a" a representation ofthe type of wide-spread corruption that
undermines the justice system in Los Angeles County - collusion of corrupt corporate legal counsels, corrupt
attorneys in private practice, and corrupt judges.
• Would Bet Tzedek respond and inform me regardiJllg any internal procedlJlre for dispute
resolution?
r-.
( i
• Page6/7 November 28, 2008
E. The scope and cost of the problem=.2!W!.nized crime in 21 st cenma

Abuse of civil rights in Los Angeles County is on a scale that is beyond comprehension. The only way to
rationalize the situation, is that Los Angdes County was abandoned by the U.S. Government. Federal
agencies lost control to the Enterprise.
Such conditions must not be allowed to persist. The cost of this Enterprise to society in Southern California
and the economy of the United States is prohibitive. The emergence of Countrywide as a corrupt
organization and the sub-prime crisis that followed, could not have ltaken place had it not been for the
generalized, fraud-friendly, crime-permissive conditions established in LA County by the Ent,~rprise. And
the cost to the U.S. economy of the sub-prime crisis alone is in the trillions of dollars.
This case shows Judge Jacqueline Connor, representing corrupt government, as the controlHng party in a
joint effort of Sandor Samuels and Countrywide - a corrupt mega I~orporation, small time practitioners of
white collar crime such as Nivie Samaall, ~lfae Arre Lloyd, and Victor :Parks, facilitated by large law firms
such as Sheppard Mullin and Bryan CHve, LLP. And in the face of such onslaught of a fraud machinery,
aU others yield and join the winners in a frenzy offrauds: lawyers, escrow, registrar/recorder, realtors, and
consumer banks.
This is the true face of organized criffil~ in the 21 5t century in LA County, California. The collaboration of
Victor Parks, Jae Arre Lloyd and Cou.ntrywide in their fraud against the U.S. Government in submission
ofloan applications, was coordinated through the comput,er nl~tworks of Pacific Mortgage Consultants,
and the mega fraud of Countrywide itself·- in underwriting of unworthy loan applications, was
masterminded by Edge - Countrywide's und(lrwriting monitoring system, which in this case was seen
operating as the camouflage system for violation of banking regulations. And the overall coordination of
this consortium of crime was exerted through minute orders produced in Sustain the Superior Court's case
management system, provided by the free press ...the Daily Journal.
And facing such massive power, United Title, Mara Escrow, Coldwell Banker and Michael Libow, and
USC Union, and the office of Registrar/Recorder, Att Charles Cummings, Att Zachary Schorr, and Att
Thomas Brown, all gave in, hoping to g~:t some of the crumbs.
Jacqueline Connor derailed the First Rampart Trial in 2000, in public defiance ofthe rule of]aw and the
power of the U.S. Government. Response of the U.S. Government was inadequate and simply non-existent.
The Consent Decree formulated under the watch of Alejandro Mayorkas, then U.S. Attorney for Central
District of California, falsely put the blame entirely on the LAPD, and left the LA Superior Court free to
continue the wrongs. Therefore, ineffec:tual office of the Overseer was made certain. As a result, local
branched of U.S. agencies are powerlt:ss in LA today against the Enterprise.
F. proposed Solutions:
Solution must come by way of the U.S. Government.
With help from the courageous Honorable Diane Feinstein, Senator, and the Honorable DiaDle Watson,
Congresswoman, I pressed the FBI and US Dlepartment of Justice to take action. I argued that the
minimal, most effective way to approach this situation is to enforce Common LawlFirst Amendment rights
in Los Angeles County, pursuant to NrXJon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 US. 589 (1978) where the
U.S. Supreme Court affirmed "the comrnon-Iaw right to inspect and copy judicial records". Los Angeles
County is unique, I hope, in the United States. in concealing the Books of Court - the Index of All Cases, the
Calendar of the Courts, the Registers of Actions, and the Book of Judgments. I believe that such a simple
step as seizing the computer system of the court and opening it for public access, as required by law, for the
first time in over a quarter of century, would be sufficient to effect a major change in the administration of
justice in LA County, first and foremost - to the freeing of those falsely imprisoned.
I also filed a proposal with the Judiciary Corrlll1ittees of the House and Senate, and with the U.S.
Department of Justice pertaining to computers of the courts in the United States, meant to ensure that such
problems are not seen in any court in this country again. ( IL n ()
EXH BIT ~ PAGE ----
J (5
• Page7n November 28, 2008
G. Response by U.S. Officers to Proposed Solutions:

Mr Kenneth Melson, Director, U.S. Di~partment of Justice:, finally responded and refused to take action,
claiming concern about interference with ongoing investigation by the FBI. Mr Kenneth Kaiser, Assistant
Director, Criminal Investigation, FBI, finally responded and refused to institute an investigation, claiming
that I have never demonstrated "federal investigational jurisdiction"
H. Request for your immediate resP(J!~~
Please let me know how you would help mitigate damages, totaling over $2.0 millions today. The property is still
lawfully listed in my name, but wrongfully occ;upied by Nivie Samaan and Jae Arre Lloyd.
Publk policy considerations, underlying the personal matter discussed here, must ensure that the issues are placed
at the highest priority with the incoming administration.
Beyond the property ofan individual, this matter represents the abuse of9.5 millions who live in LA County and
have been abandoned by the U.S. government in the past decad.e, allowing the LA Superior Court and its judges
to engage in abuse ofLA County citizens, tmder color oflaw. It is exactly this type ofabuse iliat is the duty ofthe
U.S. Government and its officers to prote:ct U.S. citizens against.
We who live in LA County are deprived o~f due process, deprived ofaccess to the courts, and deprived offair trial
for over a quarter ofa century.
The continued false imprisonment ofthose who were shown to have been framed must not be allowed to
continue. It is a disgrace to all U.S. citizens" and all people ofgood faith.
I
Signed on Thanksgiving Day, the 27th ofNovember, 2008, in Los Angeles County.
Digitally signed by Joseph Zernik
, ~~ ON: cn=Joseph Zemik,
• ~'t~ail=jZ1234S@leal~hllnk.net,
_) ,c=US"
Date: '2008.11.28 H:S4:30 -08'00'
Joseph Zemik
:rIME
IS OF THE ES~ENCl~!
RESPONSE REQU][RED E~Y 5:00PM, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2008
1Copies of the grant deeds produced by Att David Pasternak, fom1er presideni of House of Justice - Bet TZEldek,
purportedly approved by the LA Supel;or Comt, clnd then filed in the office of Registrar/Recorder, can be viewed at
htt~!wINw.inproperinla,com/07-12-17-opiniol1-,II~er-fraud-in-grant-(~§eds-s.pdf
The fraud in such actions was confirmed by an opinion letter of Veteran FBI agent, James Wedick, commended by the U,s,
Congress, the U.S. Attomey General, and the Director of the FBI, for his contribution to stemming public corruption in
California government.
cc:
James Wedick
Judiciary Committee ofthe U.S. House of epre,sentatives
Judiciary Committee ofthe U.S. Senate
Office of President Elect
Ofiice ofVice President Elect
EXlH, !T )~)_PAGE 0}_
E~~hibit 14
( /~
Receiver
2 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 CONFORl\'l[ED COpy

Los Angeles, California 90067-25~flsc" OFORlO£N'ALPILED
3 Tel e I? h (;m e : 3 1 0 • 5 5 3 • ~-;? 0 0 EIVEO !"g" AftS;I"8 'SUlllilrluf CtlYft
Facslmlle. 310.553. __ ,)4·()
4
E-Mail: djp@paslaw. com JUN? 4lao JUL 29 ~UU~
.s S//.t-€R10f/ C ~ohn A, Clnrko, B.o.u~ ,. Ofli.o,'lClo,k
l:sr D/<.. .,.. DUFfr
6 ,,) I 'AICi By 1. Citron, Deputy
'7
a SUPERIOR COURT OF ~rHE: STl\TE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUN'!'~t' ()P' LOS ANGEJ:'ES, WEST DISTRICT
10
11 NIVIE SAMAAN, an incH vidual, CASl!!: NO. SC 087 40Cl
12 Plaintiff I Hon. Terry Friedman
13 vs. [~~D] ORDER R,!: PAYMENT OF

PAR~L'IES I
CONSEQUEN'l~IAL DAMAGES,
14 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual ETC.
and DOES 1 through la,
15 inclusive, DATl~ : SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
TIME: 8:45 A.M.
16 Defendants. DEP~~ • J
17
18
19 The Court having considered the Application of Receiver
20 David J. Pasternak for the issuance of an Order regarding the
21 payment of consequential damages to the parties from the funds
22 held by the Receiver, etc.; the supporting Declaration of David
23 J. Pasternak; the supporting Memorandum of Points and
24 Authorities; all of the pleadings and others documents in the
25 Court's file for this case; and all other oral and documentary
26 evidence presented to the Court at or in connection with the
27 hearing of the Receiver's application; and good cause apP~1ring
28 therefor;
W:\7323S\OOOl\Pleadings\OrderReConsequential
EXHI IT IcJ.f PAGE
'ASTERNAK.
'ASTERNAK
1
&PAITON
Damages.doc
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE E>AYMENT OF PARTIES' CONSEQUENTIAL DAM..~;ES, ETC.

(/
1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2 1. Plaintiff Nivie Samaan is entitled to an award of
3 $232,459.94 against Defendant Joseph Zernik for the lost rental
4 value of the Receivership Property from November 1, 2C04 through
5 November 14, 2007;
6 2. Plaintiff Nivie Samaan is entitled to an award of
7 $128,850 against Defendant Joseph Zernik as the result of the
8 increased interest rate that Plaintiff had to incur for her
9 purchase financing as the result of the prolonged delay in
10 closing this escrow;
11 3. Defendant Joseph Zernik is entitled to an offsetting
12 award of $215,592.07 for interest on the net sale proceeds for
13 the same time period;
14 4. The Receiver shall pay the net amount of $145,717.40 to
15 Plaintiff Nivie Samaan from the receivership estate forthwith to
16 compensate her for the net amount of her consequential damage
17 claims;
18 5. The Receiver shall not release any funds from the
19 receivership estate to Defendant Joseph Zernik at the present
20 time;
21 6. Notice of the Receiver's motion was proper.
r:"~ J
22
23 DATED: ,-71/)/1, / (J 6 Y!!!2 6. 'J'~-

:/- (1
Terry Friedman
24
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
25
26
27
28 EXHIBIT -l {PAGE ._-

't I
W:\73235\OOOl\Pleadings\OrderReConsequential 2
Darnages.doc I
[PROPOSED] ORDER REf'A'r'MENT OF PARTIES I CONSEQUENTIAL DAM,l\GES, ETC
Exhibit 15
.Ienna M()Jdaw~kl'
A ~I r J \ IJ Direct: (J10) 576-2J77
8RY"If LI\V L ienna.m()lda\V~ky@bryanca\·e.c()m
Bryan Cave llP
120 Broadway
Suite 300
November 12, 2008
Tel (3'10) 576-2100
Fax (3101576-2200
VIA CERTIFIED US MAIL AND E·MAJ[L
www.bryancave.com
Dr. Joseph Zernik

Chicago
2415 Saint George Street
Hamburg
Los Feliz, California 90027
Hong Kong
Re: Samaan v. Zernik, L.A.S.C. Calse No. SC087400 Irvine

VIOLATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER Jefferson Ci'y
Kansas City
Dear Dr. Zernik: I(uwait
London
As you know, on March 7, 2008, in Department J of the Los Angeles Superior Court,
Los Angeles
West District, the Honorable Terry B. Friedman held contempt proceedings in the
Milan
above-referenced matter. At the hear:tng, Judge Friedman specifically found that the
I~ew York
Protective Order entered on July 23, 2007 by the Honorable Jacqueline Connor
Phoenix
directing you to communicate solely w 'th Countrywide's designated counsel and no
Shanghai
officers or other employees regarding the present action was valid and enforceable.
St. louis
The Court also found that you had committed thirteen separate acts of contempt by
Washington, DC
willfully violating the Protective Order, and that you were to pay a fine to
Countrywide in the amount of $7,500 for the thirteen acts of contempt, pursuant to
Bryan Cave International Trade
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1218(a.). A TRADf CONSUlTING SUBSIVIARY
OF NON-LAWYER PROFfSSIONALS
As you are also aware, the collection of the $7,500 fine was suspended subject to www.bryancavetrade.com
certain conditions, as stated in the Cow:t's Judgment dated March 11, 2008: Bangkok
Jakarta
The Protective Order remains in full force and effect during the
Kuala lumpur
pendency of this lawsuit. If Defendant Joseph Zernik further violates the
Manila
Protective Order, upon five (5) days' written no11ce from Countrywide to
Zernik, the Receiver shall pay $7,500 from the Receiver's Fund to Shanghai
Countrywide in care of its attomeys, Bryan Cave UP. Singapore
Tokyo
A copy of the Court's Judgment, served on you on March 11,2008, is attached.

Bryan Cave Strategies
A GOVfRNMENT RfLATIONS AND
On November 12, 2008, you violated the Protective Order by communicating with POLITICAL AFFAIRS SUBSIDIARY
www.bryancavestrategies.com
Countrywide officers and employees. :tegarding the present action. A copy of this
Washington, DC
email isalsoattached.Therefore.pl{~as.e be advised that, after the five (5) day notice
St.lOU:S- g~
SMOl DOCS70R920.2 EXHIBIT -,-_ PAGE -_
... -
Bryan Cave UP
Dr. Joseph Zernik
November 12, 2008
Page 2
period has elapsed, Countrywide will infmffi the Receiver of your violation and request that the $7,500
contempt sanction be immediately paid from the Receiver's Fund to Countrywide via its counsel,
Bryan Cave LLP.
Very truly yours,
~~~
Jenna Moldawsky ~
JM:ak
cc: John W. Amberg, Esq.

David J. Pasternak, Esq.
EXH BIT _I_S_--;AGE _~_
Ji:xhibit 16
Jenna Moldawsky
Direct: (310) 576-2377
jenna.moldawsky@bryancave.com
Bryan Cave I.LP
120 Broadway
Suite 300
November 19, 2008
Santa Monica, CA 90401·2386
Tel 13101 576-2100
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Fax (310) 576·2200
www.bryancave.com
David J. Pasternak
Chicago
PASTERNAK, PASTERNAK & PATTON LLP

Hamburg
1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200

Hong Kong
Los Angeles. California 90067

Irvine
Re: Samaan v. Zernik, L.A.S.C. Case No. SC087400 Jefferson City
Kansas City
Dear Mr. Pasternak: Kuwait
London
As you know, we represent Coun~lil e Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide"), a non

Los Angeles
party in the above-referenced matter. As reflected in the Court's Judgment dated

Milan
March ii, 2008 (a copy of which Countrywide provided to you on March 11, 2008),
New York
Judge Friedman found that the Protecfive Order entered on July 23, 2007 directing
Phoenix
Dr. Zemik to communicate solely with Countrywide's designated counsel and no

Shanghai
other officers or employees regarding the present action was valid and enforceable.
St. Louis
The Court also found that Dr. Ze:mik had committed thirteen separate acts of
Washington, DC
contempt by willfully violating the Protective Order, and that he was to pay a flne to
Countrywide in the amount of $7,500 for the thirteen separate acts of contempt.
A TRADE CONSULTING SUBSIDIARY
The collection of the $7,500 fine was suspended subject to certain conditions. The Of NON-LAWYER PROFESSIONALS
Comt's Judgment states that "if Defendant Joseph Zernik further violates the www.bryancavetrade.com
Protective Order, upon five (5) days' written notice from Countrywide to Zernik, the Bangkok
Receiver shall pay $7,500 from the R,eceiver's Fund to Countrywide in care of its Jakarta
attorneys, Bryan Cave LLP." Kuala Lumpur
Manila
On November 12,2008, Dr. Zernik violated the Protective Order by communicating

Shanghai
with Countrywide offlcers and employees regarding the present action. A copy of
Singapore
this email is attached for your reference. That same day, Countrywide sent a letter to
Tokyo
Dr. Zemik, informing him that he ha violated the Protective Order. A copy of that
letter was sent to you on November 12, 2008. Brvan Cave Strategies
A GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND
POLITICAL AFFAIRS SUBSIDIARY
Pursuant to the Court's Judgment, in dle ev,ent that Dr. Zernik violated the Protective www.bryancavestrategies.com
Order, you, as the Receiver in this matter, are authorized to pay the total amount of Washington, DC
the contempt sanctions to Countrywide in the care of its counsel of record, Bryan 5<.'0"" 1{
SMOlDOCS708953,l EXHIBIT
----- ~
{(.p PAGE "'"-----
,r-..
Bryan Cave LLP

David J. Pasternak
November 19, 2008
Page 2
Cave LLP, from the Receiver's Fund. Countrywide's letter to Dr. Zernik providing notice of his
violation is also attached for your reference.
Accordingly, at your earliest convenience, please provide me with a check in the amount of $7,500
made out to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. reflecting payment from the Receiver's Fund. Please feel
free to contact me with any comments or questions.
Very truly yours,
~r-.fA-'YvL6·fdt-v6J"'/~
Jenna Moldawsky
--'
JM:ak
cc: John W. Amberg, Esq.
Joseph Zernik, DDS, DMD
EXHIBIT _L~ PAGE JS _
(\
----- Original Message ----

From: joseph zernik <jz1234S@earthlink.net>
To: Moe Keshavarzi <MKeshavarzi@sheppardtnullin.com>;D. Brett Bianco <BBianco@LASuperiorCourt.org>;
sarah overton <soverton@cmda-law.com>; kdicarlo@cmda-law.c:oJn <kdkarlo@cmda-law.com>;
martin_berg@dailyjournal.com <martin_berg@d~lyjournal.com>;Paul Malingagio
<PMalingagio@sheppardmullin.com>;Amberg,]ohn W.; amayorkas@omm.com <amayorkas@omm.com>; Van
Cleve, Peter D.; David J. Pasternak <jwp@pa:5bw.com>; trnax@shl~ppardmu11in.com
<trnax@sheppardmu1lin.com>; angelo_mozilo@countrywide.com <angeloJ!lozilo@countrywide.com>;
sandocsamuels@countrywide.com <sandor_samuels@countrywide.com>
Sent: Wed Nov 12 02:59:142008
Subject: RE: Notice of Ex Parte Appearance, and racketeering under guise of litigation in LA Superior Court
To whom it may concern:
RE: Notice of Ex Parte Appearance, and racketeering under guise of litigation in LA Superior Court
Please take notice of communications below, fotwarded by email, by fax, or by certified overnight mail to the
following:
A. Art Mohammad Keshavarzi & Att Milingagio

Counsel for Samaan
Sheppard Mullin, LA
AttTedMax
Managing Partner, Sheppard Mullin, NY
- engaging in conduct that must be deemed rackdeering in litigation of Samaan v Zernik (Se087400)
in LA Superior Court
B. The Honorable Stephen Czuleger, Presi.ding Judge & John Clarke, Clerk, LA Superior COillt
Art D B Bianco, Counsel to the court
Art S Overton, Counsel to the court
1
EXHIBIT ~~_ PAGE ~ (p
,
- leadership of the LA(~Jperior

\ /"\Jf fur th erance 0 f"Justice, ~m d
Court, which abdicated any notio,_
refuses to answer basic questions:
- would they fmally allow :me a,ccess to my own litigation records?
- who is the judge assigned to lhe case?
- was judgment entered ill this case, or wasn't it?
C. Mt Martin Berg, Editor, Daily Journal,

Controlling Party in Sustain- LA Superio:r Court's fraudulent case management system
.. do the readers know of the duplicitous role of this newspaper?

.. would he confIrm or deny somE: of the fraudulent features of Sustain listed in the attached
document?
D. Att David Pasternak

Former President, "House ofJustice" - Bet T'zedek
- perpetrator of frauds under pretence of Receiver
E. Att Sandor Samuels, Mr Angelo Mozilo - Officers of Countrywide

Mr Samuels - also as former President,"House ofJustice" - Bet Tzedek
- perpetrators of frauds in the milEons of dollars against individuals, in trillions of dollars against the
U.S. government...
F. Att Alejandro Mayorkas and Att Mark I<.amins
Officers of "House ofJustice" - Bet Tzedek
Att Mayorkas - also as co-signer of the Consent Decree re: Civil Rights in LA (2:2000cvl1769)
- would they finally answer?
- are there any dispute resolution bylaws in the "House ofJustice"?
G. The Honorable Ronald George, ChiefJustice, California Supreme Court
As member of the leadership of LA Superior Court -1985" at t.he time Sustain was installed.
- was he or wasn't he involved in instalbtion of Sustain?
- and what does he know about it?
- would he act pursuant to the code of judicial ethics?
H. The Honorable Gary Feess, Judge, U.S. District Court, LA
Also Overseer of Civil Rights in LA per (2:2000cvl1769)
Also - as former Judge of LA Superior Court
- as former user of Sustain, what does he know?
- as Overseer of Civil Rights, and a judg(~, would he act upon his duties per Code of Ethics?
Copies were emailed to various others in the legal community and otherwise relevant to the case.
Attached is a record titled: Unpublished RuleH of Court - LA County, describing some of the frauds related to the
operation of Sustain as the case management system in the court. The core of the evidence is a table at the end of
the document, comparing the "Date Minutes Entered" in the paper court file version of the Minutes and the
electronic court file version of the minute (which is off limits to the public).
The document is incomplete, but I attached it for expediency sake. It can also be found at:
http://inp:roperinla.com/.OHeading-076-1a-:mp--ct-civil-unpublished-rules-of-court-sopdf
<http://inproperinla.com/.OHeading-076-1a-sup-ct-civil-unpublished-rules-of-court-s.pdf> The online version
would be completed in the next few days. TIle date of the version appears in the digital signature: at upper ~ht of
2 EXHIBIT _.-ilL- PAGE r;

".--."
I
face page.
A. Counsel for Samaan, Au Keshavarzi, Sheppard Mullin
November 11, 2008
Att Mohammad Keshavarzi

Att Paul Malingagio, Managing Partner, LA Att Ted Max, Managm.g :Partner, New York
Mr Keshavarzi, Att Malingagio:
As noted before, there is no response in your email notice to my demands:

a. For refund of sanctions in the sum of $2,570 fieaudulently extracted from me by a joint fraud of I<:'eshavarzi and
Connor, and enabled through frauds in Sustain~, d denial of access to records.
b. For pay for unlawful occupancy of my prop,erty at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, 90212, c. That Samaan
immediately vacate that property.
Regarding your notice, copied below, dated 11/11/08:
1) There is no evidence that Samaan v Zernik is a legitimate Court Track action. The preponderance of the
evidence indicates that this is an Enterprise Track case, and that it was designated that w~y since before the
complaint was flied.
2) You are referring to a Post-judgment order, where there is no judgment. There is no evidence that there is a
valid judgment entered in this case. On the contrary, the evidence is all clear that the court starting with Judge
Connor was engaged in a judgment fraud in this, case. In fact, you yourself stated in open court on Nov 9, 2007
(Transcripts, Exhibit page 571 et seq), that you have never been served with the judgment, and that you do not
recognize any judgement in this case. You refuse:d l:epeated requests that you notice the judgment or notice ilie
entry of judgment, as purportedly you were ordlered to do.
http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-la-sup-ct-transcripts-samaan-v..zernik-doc-58-s.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-la-sup-ct·ttanscripts-samaan-v-zernik-doc-58-s.pdf> 3) Even had there been

an entered judgment in this case, it would hav,e been void, not voidable, based on various authol:ities communicated
to you in the past, primarily based on frauds by you, by Samaan, by Countrywide, and by several judges, that: were
the foundation for such purported judgment. Some of these frauds were by now certified by fraud experts, and
other are clear on their face:
http://inpropetinla.com/ 04-09-07-samaan-s-prequalification-letter.pdf
<http://inp1'Operinla.com/04-09-07-samaan-s-prequalification-letter.pdf> http://inproperinla.com/04-09-07
opinion-letter-fraud-in-prequalificaion-letter%5Bs%5D.pdf
<http://inp1'Operinla.com/04-09-07-opinion-letter-firaud-in-prequalificaion-letter%5Bs%5D.pdf>
http://inp1'Operinla.com/04-1 0-25-doc-45-coulluywide-fraud-contract-record.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/04-1 0-25-doc-45-counttywide-fraud-contract-.record.pdf>
http://inproperinla.com/04-09-27-doc-40-sam:lan-fi:audulent-loan-applications-s.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/04-09-27-doc-40-samaan··fraudulent·Joan-applications-sopdf>
http://inproperinla.com/04-09-27-opinion-letter·.fraud-in-loan-applications-signature%5Bs%5D.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/04-09-27-opinion-Ietter-ftaud-in-loan-applications-signature%5Bs%5D .pdf>
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-doc-44-countrywide-fraud-underwriting-letter.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/04-1 0-26-doc-44-c:ountrywide-fraud-·underwriting-letter. pdf>
http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-opi.nion-letter-countrywide-underwriting-letter-oct-26%5Bs%SD.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-opinion-letter-counttywide-underwriting-letter-oct-·26%5Bs%5D.pdf>
http://inproperinla.com/04-1 0-25-counttywide-adullterated-branch-input-exception-request-sopdf
3
EXHIBIT f ~ PAGE - - -
(\, ,~
< http://inproperinla.com/04-10-25-cv..ultrywide-adulterated-branch-input-excep....vn-request-s.pdf>
http://inproperinla.com/06-11-09-doc-38-1-countrywide-mdamin-false-declarations.pdf
< http://inproperinla.com/06-11-09-doc-38-1-countrywide-mclaurin-false-declarations.pdf>
http://inproperinla.com/06-11-09-doc-38-2-countrywide-mdaw:in-false-declarations.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/06-11-09-doc-38-2..countrywide-mclaurin-false-declarations.pdf> 2) There is no
evidence and no notice that Terry Friedman has ever been assigned to such purported court action. He was
requested on a number of times to notice his As.signment Order. He refused to do so*. Therefore he has no
authority at all relative to either matter or persons.
3) Even had he been assigned, and had this been a legitimate COllit action, Judge Frieclman was disqualified a
number of times. In the most recent case, disgualifi.cation/notice to cease and desist, filed March 12,2008, Judge
Friedman, in his response on March 19,2008, engaged in fraudulent conduct, where he entered in paper court file a
response (invalid on its face, as a Strike and Answer - an un-allowed combination per the California Bench Guide of
the Judicial Council), and then he proceeded to secretly void/dispose his own response in Sustain (Exhibit page
194, date minutes entered -00/00/00) .
http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-la-sup-ct-minute-orders-electronic-court-file-s.pdf
< http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-la-sup-ct-minute-orders-electronic-court-file-s.pdf> Judge Friedman did the

same regarding his ruling on Jan 30, 2008 - not to release any funds to Defendant - he fraudulently voided/disposed
of his own minute order with no notice or service to parties - (Exhibit page 183, date minutes entered - 00/00/00).
Att Keshavarzi, for all the reasons above, you are continuing to engage in conduct that upon review is likely to be
deemed of criminal nature.
Withdrawal is demanded of any further action in Samaan v Zernik, as well as response to previous demands for
mitigating damages by payment for unlawful occupancy and immediate vacating of the property by 5:00pm on Wed,
Nov 12, 2008.
Joseph Zernik
B. Presiding Judge Stephen Czuleger & CI.erkJohn A Clarke, LA Superior Court
Nov 11, 2008
Presiding Judge CZuleger, and Clerk Clarke, Att Bianco, Att Overton, Att DiCarlo:
Please take notice of communications with Att Keshavarzi and others in this email message.
The Presiding Judge and the Clerk of the Court are negligent in allowing Judge Friedman to proceed with his
wrongful conduct as a presiding judge in Sam.aan v Zernik.
The Court, Presiding Judge Czuleger and Clerk Clarke also abdicate any notion of furtherance of justice in their
continued refusal to respond to very basic questions underlying the frauds in Samaan v Zernik, and also in their
ongoing denial of access to my own litigation records, per Nixon v Warner Communications, California Rules of
Court, Rule 2.400 et seq, etc, where the full and direct evidence of the frauds resides.
Presiding Judge Czuleger and Assistant Presiding Judge McCoy also fail to abide by the California Code ofJudicial
Ethics Canon 3D(1) (- exhibit page 14) after being reliably informed of conduct of judges and attorneys that violates
the Code of Ethics, they fail to take any corrective action so far:.
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-ca_code_judicial_ethics-08-.09-08-s.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-law-ca_wde__judicial_ethics-08-09-08-s.pdf>
4 EXHIBIT !CR PAGE_~9_

~
I
Notice is again demanded by the offices of the Presiding Judge and die Clerk to all involved by 5:00pm on Wed
Nov 12, 2008:
1) Either that there is, alternatively, that there isn't any valid due Assignment Order in this case for Judge Friedman.
2) Either that there is, alternatively, that there isn't any valid, effectual, entered Judgment of Aug 9,2007 in this case.
http://inproperinla. coml 08-08-14-cal-ct-app-2-motion-to-suspend-appeal-w-exh-sopdf
<http://inproperinla.com/08-08-14-cal-ct-app-2-motion-to-suspend-appeal-w-exh-s.pdf>
http://inproperinla.com/.OHeading-152-conclllsions-us-constitution-non-compliance.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/.OHeading-152-conclusions-us-constitution-non-compliance.pdf> 3) Either that the

Grant Deed issued by David Pasternak is, alternatively - isn't valid a grant deed stemming from dUs case.
http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-opinion-let!ter-fraud-in-grant-deeds-s.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-opinion-letter··fraud-in-grant-deeds-s.pdf> 4) Either that the case as a whole is
a valid State of California litigation, alternatively .. that it isn't.
http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-la-sup-et-la-frauds-medieval-s.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-la-sup-ct-la-frauds-medieval-s.pdf> Notice is also demanded by 5:00pm on
Wed, Nov 12, 2008, that access is allowed to electronic court records in Sustain.
It is also expected that the Presiding Judge immediately initiate corrective actions pursuant to the California Code of
Judicial Edu.cs and notice parties of actions he is taking.
Joseph Zernik
C. Martin Berg, Editor, Daily Journal
Controlling Party in Sustain
Nov 11, 2008
Martin Berg, Editor

Daily J ourna.l
MrBerg:
Please take notice of other communications in dus email message, and references to records that are posted online.
Pursuant to your role as Editor of the Daily Journal, which in tum. has control of Sustain, I again demand your
action to mitigate damages: Confirmation or d.enial of the various features of Sustain, t.he LA Superior Court
fraudulent case management system, which is an insttu1nent of fraud on the 9.5 million people that this court claims
to serve.
http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-computers-sustain-subsidiary-of-daily-journal-s.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-computers..sustain-subsidiary-of-daily-journal-s.pdf> Some, but not all

Sustain's fraudulent features are described in the attached record - unpublished rules of court and advanced
applications of Sustain. Please confirm or deny the features of Sustain listed there.
It is only reasonable to expect some notice to your readers as well.
Response demanded by Wed, Nov 12, 2008, 5:00pm.
Joseph Zernik
D. Att David Pasternak
Former President, "House ofJustice" - Bet Tzedek
Nov 11,2008
Att David Pasternak

Pastemak, Pastemak, Patton
A tt Pastemak:
This is a repeat demand that you immediately withdraw the fraudulent Grant Deed that you ftled wit.h the office of
Registrar/Recorder, http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-opinion..letter-fraud-in-grant-deeds-s.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/07-12-17-opinion-l.etter-fraud-in-grant-deeds-s.pdf> that you notice the parties once
you have done so, and that you facilitate vacating the property that you forcibly entered and fraudulently transferred
to Samaan.
Response demanded by Wed, Nov 12, 2008, S:OOpm.
Joseph Zernik
-------------------_._-------------------------------- ... -----------_... _---_._----------------_.~-----------------_._-_._-------_._----------
----------~._---,
E. Att Sandor Samuels, Mr Angelo Mozilo - Officers of Countrywide
Mr Samuels - also as former President,"House ofJustice II - Bet Tzedek
Nov 11,2008
Att Samuels and Mr Mozilo:
Please filially answer the questions asked numerous times in the past:
1)Underwriting Letter:
http://inproperinla.com/04-1 0-26-doc-44-countrywide-fraud-unde.rwriting-letter.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-doc-44-countrywide-fraud-unclerwriting-letter.pdf>
http://inproperinla.com/04-1 0-26-opinion-letter-countrywide-underwriting-letter-oct-26%5Bs%:5D.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/04-10-26-opinion-le:tter-countrywide-underwriting-letter-oct-26%5Bs%5D.pdf> a) Was
the underwriting letter that is posted online as indicated above, dated Oct 14, 2004 or Oct 26, 2004?
b) Was it a valid Countrywide underwriting letter as part of Samaan"s loan application file in 2004?
2) Real Property Contract:
http://inproperinla.com/04-1 0-25-doc-45-countrywide-fraud-contract-record.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/04-1 0-25-doc-45-countrywide-fraud-contract-record.pdf> a) Was it ever received by
Countrywide San Rafael at 5:03pm on Oct 25, 2004, as claimed?
b) If so, who was it sent to Countrywide by al[ lhat date and t.hat time?
3) Was Countrywide engaged in fraud in Samaan v Zernik?
Your response is demanded by 5:00pm on Wednesday, Nov 12,2008.
Joseph Zernik
F. Au Alejandro Mayorkas and Att Mark Kamins

Officers of "House ofJustice" - Bet Tzede:k
Att Mayorkas - also as co-signer of the Consent Decree re: Civil Rights in LA (2:2000cv11769) Of
6 EXHIBIT L(a_-. -J GE __l_
Nov 11,2008
Att Kamins and Att Mayorkas:
- are there any dispute resolution bylaws in the "'House ofJustice"?
Your response is demanded by 5:00pm on Wednesday, Nov 12,2008.
Joseph Zernik
--------------- ---------------------------------------------- _.~-----------------_.. _--_ .. _------------------------ -----------_._----------- -------
G. The Honorable Ronald George, ChiefJustice, California Supreme Court
As member of the leadership of LA Supelior Court -1985, at the time Sustain was installed.
The Honorable Ronald George

ChiefJustice
California Supreme Court
Honorable Justice George:
Review of your official biography shows you were in leadership positions in the civil courts of LA Superior Court
during or around the time when Sustain was installed as the case management system, and the public records that
are the Books of Court were eliminated.
http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO..,OO-judges-bio-misc-info-s.pdf <http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-judges-bio-misc
info-s.pdf> - Exhibit page 23
1) Would you please respond with a statement on the record regarding your role, if any, in this matter?
2) Would you please respond with a statement on the record regarding the notion that Sustain is a fraudulent
computer system?
3) If so, would you please respond with a statement on the record regarding corrective action that you may initiate,
if any?
Response requested by Friday, Nov 14, 2008, 5:00pm.
Joseph Zernik
----------------_._---------------------- ...-------------_. __._._--_._-----------_._ ... _._-------------------------------------_ .. ----_._----------------

H. The Honorable Gary Feess, Judge, U.S. District Court, LA
Also - as Overseer of Civil Rights in LA per Consent Decree (2:2000cvl1769)
Also - as former Judge of LA Superior Court
The Honorable Gary Feess
Judge, U.S. District Court, LA
Honorable Justice Fees:
Review of your official biography shows you were in judge in the LA Superior Court during yea.rs that Sustain was
in use as the case management system.
http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-judges-bio-misc-info-s.pdf <http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO..OO-judges-bio-misc
info-s.pdf> - Exhibit page 19
1) Would you please respond with a statement on the record regarding your use and knowledge, prior to this notice
. 7 EXHIBIT J.JL_ PAGE qV

r
-." /~,
..
of the frauds in Sustain, during your S, Ice as judge in the LA Superior Court?
. 2) Would you please respond with a statement on the record regarding the notion that Sustain is a fraudulent
computet system?
3) If so, would you please respond with a statement on the record regarding corrective action that you may initiate,
if any?
4) Would you please review the following recol:ds related to the conduct of your colleagues, Judge Virginia A
Phillips and Carla Woehrle IN RE Zernik v Connor et al. (2:2008cv01550):
a) Litigation with no summons, where summons were fraudulendy issued by the clerk of U.S. District Court, LA,
who refused to sign valid summons presented y Plaintiff, in violation of the rules of court:
http://inpropetinla.com/.0Heading-lOO-us-dist··ct-la-void-litigation-w-no-summons-s.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/.OHeading-1OO-us-di-;t-ct-la-void-litigation-w-no-summons-s.pdf> b) Annotated docket
of purported litigation in Zernik v Connor et al.
http://inproperinla.com/.OHeading-1 02-us-dist··ct-Ia-docket-annotated-s.pdf
<http://inproperinla.com/.OHeading-102-us-dist-ct-la-docket-annotated-s.pdf> c) List of records barred by
Magistrate W'oehrle from filing through deceitful use of Discrepancy Notices.
http://inproperinla.com/.OHeading-1 03-us-dist-ct-la..petverted-use-of-discrapancy-notices-incomplele.pdf
<http://inproperinla,com/.OHeading-1 03-us-dist-ct-la-perverted-use-of-discrapancy-notices-incomplele.pdf>
The discrepancy noted in all such records is: May 15,2008 Minu.te Order by Judge Woehrle.
Upon review of such records, please initiate corrective action, such as:
a) A declaration on the record of to effect such as:
"Litigation where no valid summons was issued by the clerk, nei1her was any valid summons served on defendants,
nor entered in court, and where plaintiff was ba.tred from filing papers in court, is null and void, it never was
litigation to begin with. No need to dismiss such litigation, since there was no litigation to be dismissed."
b) Notice to the authorities, as you feel necessary.
c) Notice to parties regarding your actions in this regard.
Response requested by Friday, Nov 14, 2008, 5:00pm.
Joseph Zernik
At 09:47 AM 11/11/2008, you wrote:
Dear Mr. Zernik:
Please take notice that tomorrow, November 12,2008, at 8:30 a.m. in Department J of the Los Angeles
Superior Court in Santa Monica, plaintiff Nivie Samaan's counsel will appear ex pa.rte to request an order shortening
time for the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for award of post judgment attorney's fees. Tills application is based on
the fact that the earliest date available through. the clerk for the hearing is in December and due to her financial
condition, the plaintiff needs the Court's ruling on this application as soon as possible. Please let me know if you
intend to oppose our application.
Thank you for your attention.
Moe Keshavarzi, Esq. :
I~PAGE 93
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP
EXI-';DlT
8
r·,
333 South Hope Street, 48th 1 _Jor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
Direct Line: 213-617-5544
Fax: 213-620-1398
Email: mkeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com
Sheppard Mullin <http://www.sheppatdmullin.comlimages/ srnrhlogo-mini.jpg>

333 South Hope Street
48th Floor
213.620.1780 office
213.620.1398 fax
www.sheppardmullin.com <http://www.sheppardmullin.com/>
Moe Keshavarzi
213.617.5544 direct I 213.443.2910 direct fax
MKeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com I Hio <http://WW\w.sheppardmullin.com/attomeys-270.html>
Circular 230 Notice: In accordance with Treasury Regulations we notify you that any tax advice given herein
(or in any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose
of (i) avoiding tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or
!Datter addressed herein (or in any attachments).
Attention: This message is sent by a law fum and may contain information that is privileged or confidential.
If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any
attachments.
9
' II '"1"11"
EX ItID ILQ PAGE qif
Exhibit 17
.--J 1
«
::z: 2
-
(!)
3
-0::: 4
0 5
6
7

10
11 NIVIE SAMAAN, et al., Case No. SC087400
Plaintiffs,
12
[PROPOSED] ORDER
13 vs.
14
Date: January 13, 2009
15 JOSEPH ZERNIK, et al. Time: 8:45 a.m.
Dept: WE]
Defendants.
16
17 Counttywide Home Loans, Inc.'s ("Counttywide") motion (1) for monetary sanctions
18 against DefendantJoseph Zernik ("Zernik") for his repeated violations of the July 23,2007
19 Protective Order directing Zernik to communicate solely with Countrywide's designated
20 counsel, Bryan Cave LLP, regall:d.ing the present action and no other Countrywide officers or
21 employees ("Court Order"); (2) for an order to show cause why Defendant Joseph Zernik
22 should not be held in contempt and sanctioned accordingly for his continued violations of the
23 Court Order; and (3) for a modification of the Court Order to include officers and employees
2'1 of lrit-Countrywide affiliateA-l,Qf~~ Bank Of America Corporation, so that Zernik is
25 directed to communicate solely with Countrywide's designated counsel, Bryan Cave LLP, and
26' no other officers and employees of Countrywide affiliates regarding the present action (the
27 . "Motion"), came on for hearing before the Honorable Terry B. Frit:dman in Departmenlt WE]
28
SMO IDOCS712792,1 PROPOSED ORDER
EXHIBIT {1'1 . PAGE~.~-

( (
of the Los Angeles Superior Court, West Distrkct, on January 13,2009.
2 Having read and considered the Motion and all papers submitted in support thereof
3 and in opposition thereto, and having heard and considered the argument of counsel and
4 Defendant Joseph Zernik, and good cause appearing therefor,
5 THE COURT FINDS THAT:
6 1. Countrywide presented sufficient evidence that Defendant Joseph Zernik violated the
") Court Order and should be sanctioned.
8 IT IS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED THi\T:
9 1. DefendantJoseph Zernlk is to pay Countrywide (through Countrywide'S attorneys of
10 record) the amount of ~LS:5Lc.4.s1J as sanctions within 20 days of the hearing. In the
II event that Zernik fails; to pay these sanctions to Countrywide, the Receiver in this
CD
1Il
1'I
~ 12 matter, David J. Pasternak, is authorized to pay the sanctions .to

t
Counttywide from the
00
o q
I'lo
II ld CIl
13 Receiver's Fund upon notice to the Receiver and Defendant Joseph Zernik by
...J !::
...J ::J
OJ UI
z
'"
0: 14 Countrywide;
'" .
> •
~
u ~ ::i
0
Z 0 '" 15 2. The Court Order is modified to include officers and employees of all Countrywide
< 0'" U•
~
0: 0: '"
mlll~
oZ 16 affiliates so that Defendant Joseph Zernik is directed to communicate solely with
NO
-,;;
..'"
Z
<
17 Countrywide's counsel, Bryan Cave LLP, regarding the present action and no other
III
18 officers or employees of Countrywide affiliates; and
19 3. DefendantJoseph Zernik is ordered to appear on '21) 1,2009 at 9:30 a.m. to

20 show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court and sanctioned for
21 violating the Court Order. '
22 IT IS SO ORDERED.
23 Dated: ~ \~ lIJJ4I
Hon. Te B. Friedman
24 Judge, Superior Court 0 f California
25· Prepared and submitted by:
26 BRYAN CAVELLP
John W. Ambe.rg (CA State lhr No. 108166)
27 Jenna Moldawsky (CA State Bar No. 246109)
2& Attorneys for COUNTRY\VIDE HOME LOANS, INC.
SMOIDOCS712792.1 2
PROPOSED ORDER
EXHlulT ~
{rL PAGE
. .
q(p_
l?;xhibit 18
Jenna Moldawsky
8ny,A ~I U1\
0 r A \VI rL --
I IV
Direct: (310) 576-2377
jenna.moldaw:<ky@bryancave.com
Bryan Cave LLP
120 Broadway
Suite 300
February 3, 2009
Tel 13101576-2100
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Fax 1310) 576-2200
www.bryancave.com
David J. Pasternak
Chicago
PASTERNAl<, PASTERNAK & PArfON LLP
Hamburg
1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200
Hong Kong
Los Angeles, California 90067
Irvine
Jette rs on City
Re: Samaan v. Zernik, L.A.S.C. Case No. SC087400 Kansas City
Kuwait
London
Dear Mr. Pasternak:
Los Angeles
Milan
As you know, we represent Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide"), a non
New York
party ttl the above-referenced matter. As reflected in the Notice of Ruling (a copy of
PhoeQix
which Countrywide provided to you onJanuary 13, 2009), on January 13, 2009, Judge
Shanghai
Friedman granted Countrywide's motion for sanctions against Defendant Joseph
SI. Louis
Zernik, and ordered Dr. Zernik to pay Countrywide sanctions in the amount of
Washington, DC
$5,564.50 within twenty (20) days of the January 13, 2009 hearing. As such, Dr.
Zernik was ordered to remit payment to Countrywide by February 2, 2009.
A TRADE CONSULTING SUBS/OIARY
As of today, February 3, 2009, Countrywide has not received any payment from Dr. OF NON-lAWYEIl PROFESSIONALS
Zernik. Pursuant to the Court's Order, in the event that Dr. Zernik failed to pay the www.bryancavetrade.com
sanctions to Countrywide, you, as the Receiver in this matter, are authorized to pay Bangkok
the total amount of these sanctions to Countrywide in the care of its counsel of Jakarta
record, Bryan Cave LLP, from the Receiver's Fund upon notice of Dr. Zernik's Kuala Lumpur
failure to pay. Manila
Shanghai
Accordingly, at your earliest convenience, please provide me with a check in the
Sin(lapOre
amount of $5,564.50 made out to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. reflecting payment
Tokyo
from the Receiver's Fund.
Bryan Cave Strategies
A GOVERNMENT RElATIONS ANO
POliTICAL AFFAIRS SUBSIOIARY
www.bryancavestrategies.com
Washington. DC
SI. l.ouis
SMOlDOCS717741.1
t-.AlilU
V1 !'C'IT I ~ Pfl(~E g, '1,
.1'\-1- . _
David J. Pasternak IBryan Cave LLP
February 3, 2009
Page 2
Please feel free to contact me with any comments or questions.
Very truly yours,
~11W~
U
J enna Moldawsky
JM:ak
cc: John W. Amberg

Joseph Zernik
L~_ PI;CE,21.. _
.Exhibit .19'
(
1 CHRISTOPHER J. oLsEN, SBN: 109124
3075 East Thousand Oaks Bouli:~vard
2 Suite 100
Westlake Village, California 91362
3 (805)557-0660
4
Judgment Creditor and Lien Claimant in Pro Se
5
6
7
8
9
10 NIVIE SAMAAN, ) Case No.: SC 087400
)
11 Plaintiff, ) [PR:OfJ~mJ ORDER ON EX PARTE
) APPLICATION FOR ORDER DIRECTING
12 vs. ) RECEIVER TO PAY JUDGMENT FROM
) MONIES BELONGING TO DEFENDANT
13 )
AND JUDGMENT DEBTOR
14 JOSEPH ZERNIK, ET AL, )

)
15 Defendants. ) Action Filed: 10/25/2005
) Assngnedl to Hon, Terry Friedman
16 ) Dept. WE-,J
)
17 )
) DATE: 2/13/2009
18 ) TIME: 8:30A.M.
) DEPT.: WE-J
19 ) Discovery Cut-off: None Set
)
Motion Cut-off: None Set
20 ---~) Trial Date: None Set

21 The Ex Parte Applic:a.tion of Applicant, Judgment Creditor and Lien Claimant
22 CHRISTOPHER J. OLSEN in pro se, plaintiff and judgment creditor in the action entitled
23 Christopher J. Olsen v. Joseph tL.l&rnik, et al., Ventura County Superior Court Case No.: 56-2008
24 00325290-CL-BC-SIM (the "Ol§~n v. Zernik action") for an order directing David J. Pastemak, of
25 Pasternak, Pasternak & Patton, LLl', the receiver appointed in the above-entitled action, to pay to
26 Applicant CHRISTOPHER J, OLSEN from monies held by said receiver pursuant to the order of
27 the Court in the above-entitled aetion belonging to JOSEPH ZERNIK (ZERNIK"), Defendant in the
28 above-entitled action and Defendant and judgment debtor in the Olsen v. Zernik action the amount
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON EX P~\RTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DIRECTING RECEIVER TO PAY
JUDGMENT FROM MONIES BELONGING TO DEFENDANT AND JUDGMENT DEBTOR {}
EXHI IT .JJL PAGE ~q--,7,---

( (
1 due on the judgment issued in favor of Applicant CHRISTOPHER. J. OLSEN and against ZE RNIK
2 in said action, came on for hearing before this Court 0111 February 13,2009, at 8:30 A.M., in
3 Department WE-J of the above-entitled Court, Hon. Terry Friedman presiding. Th~: followin g
4 appearances were made connectiol1l with said application:
5 The Applicant, CHIUSTOPH~ER1. OLSEN, appeared in pro se.
. . ~~k
6 Defendant JOSEPH ZERNI appearo4-tt~
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 [OR]
14 No appearances were: made by any other party or counsel.
15 After considering said ex parte applkation and the declaration and other mater ials
16 submitted in support thereof, and the oral arguments presented at said hearing, the COUlt rnade the
17 following ruling:
18 1. The ex parte application is GRANTED. David J. Pasternak, of Pasternak,

19 Pasternak & Patton, LLP, the rece~ver appointed in the above-entitled action, upon service 0 f this
20 Order, shall pay to Applicant CHRISTOPHER J. OLSEN the sum 01'$19,619.62 ftJrthwith.
21 [AND/OR]
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON EX P)~Rl'E APPLICATION FOR ORDER DIRECTING RECEIVER TO PAY
JUDGMENT FROM MONIES BELONGING TO DEFENDANT AND JUDG}1ENT DEBTOR
EXHIBIT (I PAGE /0 0 ----'"=""~~

( (
1
2
8
9
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
,.
11 DATED: 1-- 11.3 /0 .':!J-- I
l:f:~~~
12
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COl..JRT
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER ON EX F~&.RTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER DIRECTING RECEIVER TO PAY

JUDGMENT FROM MONIES BELONGING TO DEFENDANT AND JU~GMENT DEB,T~R/
EXHIBIT _L1 PftGE/-OJ__.
Exhibit 20
(
(
2
...
-'

10
N1VIE SAI\L-\AN Case No. SC087400
11
\l)
(l)
Pl Plaintiff,
')l 12
o ~ [l)&QP~~Qo) JUDGMENT RE:
0
0
M ~ 13 CONTEMPT
Cl. "'
J t <
(l) vs.
.J J Z
...
> 1Il. '"
14
0
< ,. ... DATE: February 17, 2009
U <
~ ..J
Z 0 <
15 JOSEPH ZERNIK, TIME: 9:30 a.m.
< < U•
,. 0 DEP'£': J
'" '" <
CJlm!:! 16 H-- ---'-_~D=ef,:..::c:.:..:n:.=d=ant.
o Z
N 0
~~
...<
Z
17
<
Ul
On February 17, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. in Department J of the Los Angeles Superior Court,
18
West District, located at 1725 i\-1ain Street, Santa Monica, California, 90401, proceedings were
19
held pursuan t to the Court's January 13, 2009 order that Defendant Joseph Zernik ("Zernik")
20
llppear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court During the
21
proceedings, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") presented evidence that Zernik
22
should be held in contempt of court for disobeying the Court's Protective Order, dated July
23
23, 2007, directing Zemik to communicate solely with Countrywide's designated counsel and
24
no other officers or employees regarding the present action. John W. j\mberg and Jenna
25
26 l\1oldawsky of Bl)'an Cave LLP appeared on behalf of Countl)Twide. No other appearances
were made.
27
28
SMOlllOCS718W>S.1 PROPOSED JUDGMENT
EXHIBIT _cbD PAGE/O~
(
(
1'1' IS HEREBY ORDERED, DECREED AND ,\DJUDGED THi\T:

2 1. Defendant Joseph I.emik had actual knowledge of the contempt proceedings,
",
.J
and was properly ~erved with the Order to Show Cau~e re: Contempt;
4 2. 'l'he Protective Order entered on .I uly 23, 2007 by the Honorable J acgueline
5 Connor is valid and enforceable;
6
.1. Defendant Joseph Zetnik had actual notice of the Protective Order as of July
7 23,2007, as Zernik was present at the July 23, 2007 hearing granting the
8 Protective Order and submitted on the record to the Tentative Ruling granting
9 the Protective Order. Zernik was also repeatedly reminded of the terms and
10 conditions of tlw Protective Order by Countrywide's counsel and was served
II with a Notice of Ruling and a copy of the Court's July 23, 2007 Minute Order
lD
0)
l'l
~ 12 granting the Protective Order. Zernik was abo served with the Court's March
00
o .;t
n.
l'l 0
hi en
J3 n, 200g Order affirming the Protective Order and the Court's March 11,2008
.J !:: «
~ ~ ~ 14 Contempt Judgment;
> • 0
< > ...
U ~ J
Z 0 « 15
<
> 0
< U 4. DefendantJoseph Zernik was able to comply with the Protective Order, which
0: a: .(
III CO ':!
o z 16 was prohibitory, narrowly tailored, and limited in scope. This is evidenced by
N 0
~ ~
«
I-
z
17 /.ernik's numerous communications that were made to Countrywide's counsel
<
VI
J8 of record. /.ernik, however, cbose to repeatedly communicate with

19 Countrywide officers and employees that were not designated coumcls of
20 record;
21 5. The Court finds that Dcfendant.Joseph Zernik committed six (6) separate acts
22 of contempt by willfully \'iolating the Court's July 23, 2007 Protective Order
_.,
").,
directing Zcrnik to communicate solely with Countrywide's designated counsel
24 anJ no other officers or employees regarding the present action;
25 G. The repetition of Defendant Joseph Zernik's violations of the Protective Order
26 is evidence of the willfulness of his violations; Zernik's violations of the
27 Protective Order were not accidental. l'urther, in several of Zernik's
28 communications with represented Countrywide officers and employees, Zernik
Sfv)O!I)()CS7IlN65.1 2 EXl-; BIT -rllJ PAGE / ().3

PROPOSED JUDGMENT
(
(
admitted the existence of-the Protective Order;
2 7. The Court finds that Defendant Joseph Zernik is guilty of contempt pursuant
..,
J to Code of Ci"il Pmccdure Section 1209(a) anu is to pay a fine in the amount of
4 $6J)()() for six (6) :cparatc acts of contempt, pursuant to Code of Civil
5 Procedure Section 121 R(a). J'.cmik is fined $1,000 for each violation, for a total
6 of % ,()()(), payable to the Clerk of the Court;
7 R. Defendant Joseph I.crnik is to pay the Clerk of the Court the amo nt of $6,000
8 within 20 days 0 f the hcarinK 1n the event that I':ernik fails to pay this fine to
9 the Clerk of the Coun, tht~ Receiver in this matter, David J. Pasternak, is
10 authori7.cd to pay the fine to the Clerk of the Court from the Receiver's hlOd
11 upon notice to the Receiver and Defendant Joseph Zernik;
III
ell
M
l)I 12 <). Counu)'wiJe shall pay its own attorneys' fees and costs associated with the
o 0oq
M 0 13 contempt proceeding..
Il. '" 01
-l ~ 0(
~ ~ ~ 14
~ ,; ~
U ~ :i
Z 0 «
« « U
> 0 .
15 Dated:
'-8""-'
J~,~
.. .. «
lD lD ~ /-Ion. Terry . Fncdman
o Z 16
N
- ~« 0
Judge, Superior Court of Calitornia
I 17
Z
« Prcp:1r(~J and submitted by:
til
18 BRY,\N C\VI': LLP
.Iohn W. Amberg (CA State Bar No. 10816())
, 9 J:nna Moldawky (C \ State BarNo. 24(109)
120 Broadwav, Suite 3()()
20 Santa '\lonicl, California <)()401-23H6
Tdcphom:: (.110) 576-2100
21 Facsimile: (310) 57()-2200
.\tt01"l1eys for Countrywide Horne Loans, Inc.

22
..,..,
....J
24
25
26
27
28 EXHIBIT c2J) PAGE/
O
r/
SMOII )()l'S7IX9IlS.1 3
PROPOSED JUDGMENT
.l?xhibit 21
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION 5
NIVIE SAMAAN,
Plaintiff and Respondent
v.
JOSEPH ZERNIK, COURT OF APPEAl~SECOND DIS1.
Defendant and Appellant
)J n n-=, ~ ill)
8203063
Los Angeles County No. SC087400
SEP 3 Z008
Los Angeles County No. SC087400 JOSEPH A. LANE (~
Los Angeles County No. SC087400 Deput:rl:lerk
THE COURT:
It appearing that the appellant is in default pursuant to Rule 8.220 (a) (1), California
Rules of Court, the appeals filed October 05,2007, and December 10,2007, are dismissed..
--
TURNER, P~J~
Presiding Justice
NOTICE: This order becomes final in 30, d.ays and thereafter is not subject to rehearing or
modification. This time cannot be extended [Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(b)(1)]. Any party
desiring reinstatement must file a motion within 15 days of the date of this order.
lixhibit 22
(r (
\
'Case 2:08-cv-0155lJ-VAP-CW Document '14 Filed 03/21 /2008 PagE~ '1 of 3
PRIORITY SE:ND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL_MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.CV 08-1550-VAP (MAN) Date: March 21, ~~008
Title: JOSEPH ZERNIK -v- ,JACQUELINE CONNOR, et al.

=========================:::======================================
PRESENT: HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard None Present
Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR

PLAINTIFFS: DEFENDANTS:
None None
PROCEEDINGS: MINUTE ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR

TEMPORJ.,HY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE (IN CHAMBERS)
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed an Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to
Show Ccwse on March 6, 2007 ("j~,pplication"). Defendant Pasternak filed an
Opposition ("Opp'n") March 17, 2008. The othe~r Defendants did not respond to the
Application. Plaintiff seeks an order(1) restraining Defendant Friedman from
proceeding with a March 7, 2008 hearing on a Motion to Show Cause against
Plainti1f in California Superior Cowt; (2) restraining Defendant Friedman 'from
ordering Plaintiff to pay sanctions; (3) restraining Defendants Friedman and
Pasternak from further expenditun:!s of proceeds of the sale of Plaintiff's house held
MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk _.md_ _

CIVIL •.- GEN Page 1
(/ (,
'Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 14 Filed 03[21/2008 Page 2 JOt :~
CV 08-1550··VAP (MAN)
JOSEPH ZERNIK v JACQUELINE CONNOR, eli al.
MINUTE ORDER of March 21,2008
by Pasternak as a receiver; (4) ordering Defendants Friedman and Pasternak to

releasH to Plaintiff all proceeds of ithe sale of Plaintiffs house held by Pasternak as a
receivE~r; (5) ordering Defendant Friedman to show cause why he should not
immediately release a statement d1l~tailing his n~lationship with Defendant Samuels;
(6) ordering Defendants Friedman and Samuels to show cause why all Defendant
Connor's actions in Samaan v. Zelcnils should not be vacated; and (7) orderin!~
Defendants Friedman and Rosenberg to show cause why Samaan v. Zernik should
not be ruled a mistrial and transferred to U.S. District Court.
Samaan v. Zernik involves a property dispute wherein plaintiff Samaan

C'5amaan lt) , the buyer, sought to emforce a purchase agreement with defendant
Zernik for Zernik to sell certain real property to Samaan. On August 9, 200l, the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles awarded summary
l
judgment in favor of Samaan and \3lgainst Zernik, granting specific performance, Le.,
the sale of the real property in dispute, to Samaan. (See Opp'n at 2.) On November
9,2007, the Superior Court appointed Defendant Pasternak as Receiver alnd
ordered him to take possession, custody and control of the real property in dispute
and to sell the property to Samaan pursuant to the award of summary judgment
{See id... at 2-3.)
On February 15, 2008, the Superior Court sanctioned Plaintiff in the amount of
$16,170 for violations of a protective order and ordering Defendant Pasternak to pay
the sanctions from the receiver's fljnds if Plainfff failed to pay. (See id. at 3 n.2.) On
March 7, 2008, the Superior Court 'found Plaintiff in contempt of court and ordered
him to pay a fine of $7,500.
1111. DISCUSSION
In seeking a preliminary injunction, a. plaintiff meets its burden by
demonstrating either: (1) a combinc~tion of probable success on the merits and th~~
possibility of irreparable injury; or (:~) that seriolJs questions are raised and the
balance ()f hardships tips sharply in its favor. Save Our Scmoran... lnc. v. Flowers, 408
F.3d 11113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2005); SE~~e also Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. Having reviewed
MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk __md_ _

CIVIL _.. GEN Page 2
(- (
Case 2:08-cv-0155'0-VAP-CW Document 14 Filed 03/21/2008 Page 3 of 3
CV 08-1550-VAP (MAN)
JOSEPH ZERNIK v JACQUELINE CONNOR, !S!t al.
MINUTE ORDER of March 21, 2008
Plaintiff's submissions, it does noit appear to the Court that a temporary restraining
order or an order to show cause iiEi appropriate:.
Absent extraordinary circumstances, federal courts may not enjoin or

otherwise interfere with pending s:11ate court proceedings on -constitutional grounds.
Younw v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 4jt~-53 (1971). Here, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin state
court proceedings on First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. (See
Application at 5.) If Plaintiff is diss.atisfied with tlhe outcome of proceedin!gs in thel
Superior Court, his proper remedy is to pursue his r.emedies through the California
Appellate Courts. As he has not exhausted his remedies in the state court, Plaintiff
has not shown extraordinary circumstances justifying federal intervention.
Additionally, Plaintiff has not shown that Iht9 is likely to succeed on the meri1ts.
Plaintiff's request regarding the Miclrch 7, 2008 hearing is moot. His entirE~ ar~}umt:mt
for overturning Defendant Friedm~m's orders rE}sts on his assertion that Friedman
should be disqualified, yet Plaintiff provides no reason or authority for why
Friedman's failure to disqualify hirlilself affec~ecl his Constitutional rights. (Se~
Application, passim.) He does not provide any evidence that Freidman's rulings were
incorrect or his judgment biased. Indeed, Plaintiff cites no authority for a civil rights
claim based on a failure to follow state procedural rules for self-recusal.
m. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES PJaintiff's Application for a
Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause.
IT 15 SO ORDERED.
cc: Magistrate Judge Nagle
MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk ._Imd_ _

CIVIL _.- GEN Page 3
Exhibit
j~xhibit 23
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 104 Filed 03/31/2009 Page 1 of 12
3
4
5
8 UNIT:e:D STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTR~~ DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12 JOSEPH ZERNIK, No. CV 08-1550-VAP(CW)
13 Plaintiff, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14 v.
15 JACQUELINE CONNOR, et al."

16 Defendants.
17
18 This Report and RecoInmendation is submitted to the Honorable

19 Virginia A. Phillips, UniLed States District Judge, pursuant to 28
20 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 194 of the United States District Court
21 for the Central District of California. As discussed below, this
22 action should be dismissed in its entirety.
23 BACKGROUND
24 The pro se plaintiff, Joseph Zernik, filed his initial complaint

25 in this action on March 5, 2008, with payment of the filing fee.
26 [Docket no. 1.] His first amended complaint ("FAC") was filed on May
27 27,2008. [Docket no. 62.] As noted in a minute order filed June 6,
28 2008, the FAC superseded the original complaint. [Docket no. 63.]
1 EXHI IT ,t(l.3 PAGEL 9

1 Plaintiff Zernik's claims arise out of a civil action in
2 California Superior Court,_ Los Angeles County, Samaan v. Zernik, Case
3 No. SC087400, in which he is a defendant. [FAC passim.] ;3amaan .:L:,.
4 Zernik is a case concerning real property, and there appear to be
5 ongoing proceedings in the case. l All present defendants are
6 allegedly connected in some way to Samaan v. Zernik. [FAC passim.]
7 The FAC lists nineteen defendants, sixteen of whom have appeared
8 in this action, in five groups: (1) ten "Superior Court Defendants,"
9 all named in both individual and official capacities, including seven
10 Superior Court Judges, Ja.cqueline Connor, Allan Goodman, ,:;ohn Segal,
11 Linda Hart-Cole, Patricia Collins, Terry Friedman, and Gerald
12 Rosenberg, and three other Superior Court officials, Court Manager

13 Debbie Witts, Courtroom Clerk, Viviane Jaime, and Retired Judge and
14 court-appointed discovery referee Gregory O'Brien; (2) "Defendant
15 ADR," namely ADR Services, Inc.; (3) the three "Countrywide
16 Defendants," Countywide H~me Loans, Inc., and Countrywide Officers

17 Angelo Mozilo, and Sandor Samuels; (4) "Defendant Pasternak," the
18 court-appointed received, David Pasternak; and (5) "Defendant Mara
19 Escrow," the Mara Escrow 20mpany.2 [FAC at 4-6.]
20
21 The magistrate judge has searched the website for online

22 services for the Los Angeles Superior Court (www.lasuperiorcourt.orgl
under Case No. SC087400, and found, for example a hearing scheduled
23 for April 3, 2009. The magistrate ~Iudge also searched the website for
the California Appellate Courts (appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov), and
24 found nine cases in the Court of Appeal, Second District, related to
Superior Court Case No. SC087400, but no related cases in the
25
California Supreme Court. [.See also FAP at 72-73.]
26
2 The FAC also list:) three other defendants: t.wo attorneys who
27 previously represented Plaint.iff Zernik in Samaan v. Zern.iJs., Thomas
Brown and Zachary Schorr, and Lilit Vardanian, an employee of Mr.
28
(continued ... )
2
EXI'BIT rJ·!L PAGEl!J)
1 In the FAC, Plaintiff asserts claims, primarily under 42 U.S.C.

2 § 1983, that the Defendants, in relation to Samaan v. Zernik and the
3 underlying dispute concerning real property, have committed numerous
4 violations of Plaintiff's federal constitutional rights, and have

5 subjected him to numerous instances of fraud and abuse. [FAC passim.]
6 Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
7 relief. [FAC at 75-76.] Specifically, Plaintiff seeks e~litable
8 relief in the form of orders vacating all judicial acts in Samaan-Y......
9 Zernik starting from July 12, 2007; enjoining any further judicial
10 acts in Samaan v. Zernik; staying any further expenditure of funds
11 held by Defendant Pasternak as Receiver in Samaan v. Zernik; and in
12 some unspecified manner taking over and reforming the Case Management
13 Systems of the Los Angeles Superior Court. [Id. ]
14 The Superior Court Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC in a
15 motion filed June 19, 2008 [docket ~o. 68]; Defendant ADR also moved
16 to dismiss in a motion filed June 19, 2008 [docket no. 69]; the
17 Countrywide Defendants moved to dismiss in a motion filed June 30,
18 2008 [docket no. 73]; and Defendant Pasternak moved to dismiss in a
19 motion filed July 7, 2008 [docket no. 78].3 Plaintiff filed a
20 memorandum opposing the TIlotions to dismiss on July 14, 2008. [Docket
21
22 2
( ... continued)
23 Schorr. [FAC at 6.] Plaintiff did not name these defendants in the
original complaint [docket no. 1], and they have not appeared in this
24 action. [See docket, Case No. CV 08--1550-VAP (CW) .]
25
3 Defendant Mara Escrow does not appear to have filed a response
26 to the FAC. However, Mara Escrow did file a joinder in Defendant
Pasternak's prior motion to dismiss the original complaint, in which
27 Mara stated that its only role in regard to the underlying state
action was to serve as an agent of the receiver, Defendant Pasternak.
28
[Docket no. 16, filed March 27, 2008.]
3
/) I)
EXHIBIT d--~-) PAGE
/./! _
1 no. 83.] The Countrywide Defendants filed a reply on July 31, 2008.
2 [Docket no. 95.]
3 Plaintiff sought to disqualify the assigned magistrate judge in a

4 statement filed July 22, 2008. [Docket no. 89.] Plaintiff's request
5 was denied by the assigned district judge in an order filed March 17,
6 2009. [Docket no. 102.] Accordingly, the motions to dismiss have now
4
7 been taken under submission and are ready for decision.
8 STANDARDS FOR_REVIEWING THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS
9 Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for lack of
10 subject-matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim on which
11 relief may be granted, for lack of Article III standing, as barred
12 under the Eleventh Amendment and judicial and quasi--judicial immunity,
13 and on abstention grounds. [Docket nos. 68, 69, 73, and 713.]
14 A challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction can be
15 raised at any time, including sua .;monte by the court. EmridL...Y....,..
16 Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1988). A
17 complaint may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
18 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (1). Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
19 327 n.6, 109 S. Ct. 1827 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989) (patently
20 insubstantial complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12 (b) (1) for lack
21 of subject matter jurisdiction). "Whenever it appears by suggestion
22 of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the
23 subject matter, the court ~hall dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P.
24 12 (h) (3) (emphasis added).
25
26
For present purposes it is not necessary to refer to all of
27 the 102 documents now docketed as filed in this action. In reviewing
the motions to dismiss, the magistrate judge has reviewed the record
28
as appropriate and necessary for deciding the pending motions.
EXHIBIT .(13 PA'1E I /rJ. .

1 A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, under Fed. R.

2 Civ. P. Rule 12(b} (6), tests the legal sufficiency of a claim for
3 relief. Navarro v. Bloc~~, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Such a
4 motion must be considered in light of the liberal pleading standard of
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a} (2), which requires only "a short and plain
6 statement of the claim s~owing that the pleader is entitled to
7 relief." Erickson v Par~ju2' U.S. , 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167
8 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007). "Specific facts are not necessary; the
9 statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the
10 claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." rd. (quotation marks
11 and citations omitted). Moreover, in considering the sufficiency of a
12 pleading, the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, which
13 "however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
14 than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." rd. (quoting Estelle v.
15 Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106/ 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976}).
16 On the other hand, dismissal should be ordered if a plaintiff
17 fails to make allegations which "are enough to raise a right to relief
18 above the speculative level" and are sufficient to show "a plausible
19 entitlement" to recovery under a viable legal theory. Bell Atlantic
20 y. Twombly, 550 U.S. , 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965, 1967, 167 L. Ed. 2d
21 929 (2007). While the court "must accept as true all of the factual
22 allegations contained in the complaint," Erickson, 127 S. Ct. at 2200
23 (citing Bell Atlantic, 127 S. Ct. at 1965), it need not credit mere
24 labels/ conclusions, or "formulaic recitation of the elements of a
25 cause of action." Bell ~tlantic, 127 S. Ct. at 1965 (citing Papas an
26 v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932/ 92 L. Ed. 2d 209
27 (1986}). See also Cholla_ Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973
28 (9th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he court is not required to accept legal
EHBIr J-3 _PAGdJ8_
1 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those
2 conclusions cannot reasona.bly be drawn from the facts alleq-ed. Nor is
3 the court required to accept as true alleq-ations that are merely

4 conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
5 inferences. II (quotation mark~3 and ci tations omitted)) .
6 Dismissal for failure to state a claim can be warran~ed based on

7 either the lack of a cognizable leq-al theory or the absence of factual
8 support for a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
9 D~~, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). A
10 complaint may also be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
11 discloses some fact or complete defense that will necessarily defeat
12 the claim. Franklin v. )yt.HQ...Qy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 1984)
13 (~iting 2A Moore's Feder~l Practice ~ 12.08).
14 If the court finds that a complaint should be dismissed for
15 failure to state a claim, the court may dismiss with or without leave
16 to amend. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-30. Leave to amend should be
17 granted if it appears possible that defects in the complaint could be

18 corrected, especially if the plaintiff is QI.Q se. .Id. at 1130-31; see
19 also Cato v. United StatE~§., 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
20 However, if, after careful consideration, it is clear that a complaint
21 cannot be cured by amendment, the court may dismiss without leave to
22 amend. Cato, 70 F.3d at 1107-11. 5
23 EQUIT,~rnLE RELIEF ~ ABST:ENTIOll!
24 All of Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief

25 in which he seeks to vacate prior jUdicial actions or prevent future
26
27 5 The standards for reviewinq- Rule 12 (b) (1) and 12 (b) (6) motions
are here applied, as app)~opriate, to reviewing the other grounds for
28
dismissal raised by Defendants.
6
.cJj
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 104 Filed 03/31/2009 Pa~le 7 of 12
1 judicial actions in Samc!.£D v. Zernik, No. SC087400 and related cases

2 in the state courts should be dismissed on abstention grounds under
3 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669
4 (1971). Under the principle of comity, a federal court generally may
5 not interfere with an ongoing state judicial proceeding. Se~ Younger,
6 401 U.S. at 45-46 (absent extraordinary circumstances federal court

7 should not interfere with pending state criminal proceeding); se£ also
8 ~nkenbarndt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 705, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 119 L.
9 Ed. 2d 468 (1992) (\\Younq~.r. abstention" also applied to pending state
10 civil proceedings when important state interests involved); j'JIiddlesex
11 .County Ethics Comm. v. C~ar:den State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102
12 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed. ~~d 116 (1982) (same).
13 Younger abstention is required if state proceedings (1) are
14 ongoing, (2) implicatei:. portant state interests, and (3) provide an
15 adequate opportunity to litigate the federal claims. Middlesex County
16 ,Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 432; Columbia Basin Apartment Ass'n v. City
17 pf Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799-801 (9th Cir. 2001). If these three
18 Jounger requirements are satisfied, federal court abstention is
19 required, absent extraordinary circumstances such as bad faith,
20 harassment, or a patently unconstitutional state statute. Middlesex

21 County Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 435, 437; Younger, 401 U.S. at 53-54.
22 All three Younger factors are satisfied in Plaintiff's case. It
23 is undisputed that Sama.§JLY. ZerniK; is, and was when the present
24 action was filed, an ongoing state judicial proceeding. .See Green v.
25 ~ity of Tucson, 217 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2000) (state proceedings
26 "ongoing" if pending when federal action filed) . It is beyond dispute
27 that the present action implicates important interests of the State of
28 California in enforcing the judgments of its superior courts. -S.ee
7
-XI
t ,nlq-l\"j"
'I J~ Pl).(~E 1/1
nU __. _
1 Pennzoi1 Co. v. Texaco, IJlc~, 481 U.S. 1, 13-14, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 95
2 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987) (Younge~( abstention proper based on important state

3 interest in enforcing staLe court orders and judgments including
4 orders forcing persons to transfer property). Finally, Plaintiff has

5 had ample opportunity to raise his federal claims to the superior
6 court in Samaan v. Zernik, and in the state appellate courts. See
7 Hirsch v. Justices of Su~reme Court of Calif., 67 F.3d 708, 713 (1995)
8 (judicial review inadequa·~e under YOJJnger only when state procedural
9 law bars presentation of federal claims).6
10 If the Younger factors are met, federal court abstention is

11 required, absent extraordinary circumstances such as bad faith,
12 harassment, or a patently unconstitutional state statute. Middlesex
13 County Ethics Corom., 457 U.S. at 435, 437. Such exceptions are
14 available "[o]nly in the most unusual circumstances "
15 Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972); see also Perez v. Ledesma,
16 401 U.S. 82, 85, 91 S. Ct. 674, 27 L. Ed. 2d 701 (1971); Baffert 3G...
17 Calif. Horse Racing Boar~, 332 F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir. 2003); ~arden
18 v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, there is no

19 question of a patently unconstitutional state statute. F\ rthermore,
20 although Plaintiff alleges bad faith and harassment against himself in
21 Samaan v. Zernik, as the basis for these allegations he relies on the
22 very court orders he seeks to vacate, and Plaintiff's disagreement
23 with judicial decisions does not reasonably support an inference that
24 those decisions were taken in bad faith, even if they were in error.
25 The main purpose of the present action is precisely to interfere
26 with an ongoing state judicial proceeding, and this court should
27
6 Petitioner's failure to prevail on a claim does not mean that
28
he has not had ample opportunity to litigate it.
;lJ I /~
8
FYI:.CIT PAGE
1 abstain from so doing, acd dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims for
2 equitable relief under 1~~dnger.7
3 DAMAGES CLA~_~rHE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT, AND IMMUNITY
4 Plaintiff names all the Superior Court Defendants in both

5 official and individual capacities. California Superior Courts are
6 state agencies, and a suit against the Superior Court is a suit
7 against the state and is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Greater

8 Los Angeles Council on D~~fness v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th
9 Cir. 1987). The Superior Court Defendants and Defendant Pasternak are
10 all officers of the Superior Court. State officers named in their
11 official capacities are not "persons u subject to suit under 42 U.S.C.

12 § 1983, and are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suits for
13 damages in federal court. See,~, Hafer, 502 U.S. at 25; ~ill v.
14 Michigan Dep't of State ~~lice, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 105
15 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989); Pen~purst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465
16 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S. Ct. 900, 79 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1984).

17 Furthermore, all of the judges named as defendants in their
18 individual capacities are being sued for acts allegedly performed in
19 their judicial capacities, but judges are absolutely immune, under the
20 doctrine of judicial immunity, from suits for money damages for acts
21 performed in their judicial capacities. Antoine v. Byers & Anderson,

22 Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 435 & n.10, 113 S. Ct. 2167, 124 L. Ed. 2d 391
23 (1993); Mireles v. WacQ, 502 U.S. 9, 9, 112 S. Ct. 286, 116 L. Ed. 2d
24 9 (1991) (per curiam); Stulnp v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357-60, 98 S.
25
26
In so abstaining this court would not take any position on the
27 merits of Plaintiff's particular claims, but would only decide that
those claims should first be litigated by completing the ongoing
28
proceedings in the superior court and the state appellate courts.
9
Ei:!ilBiT _cL5_PPGE I! 1_
1 Ct. 1099, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978); As~elman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072,
2 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en bane) .8 Absolute j udieial immunity also bars
3 suit against the court-appointed receiver, Defendant Pasternak, in his
4 individual capacity. SeE~ ,New Alas ka Qevelopment Corp. v. Gu~tscho.N,

5 869 F. 2d 1298, 1302-03 (9th Cir. 1989). Similarly, the court clerk
6 and court administrator, Defendants aaime and Witts, are absolutely
7 immune from suit in their individual capacities under the doctrine of
8 quasi -j udicial immunity. ,~.§£ Curry v.,_ Castro, 297 F. 3d 940, 952 (9th
9 Cir. 2002); Moore v. Brew2U~.§r, 96 F.3d 1240, 1244 (9th CiL 1996).9
10 FAILURE TO S!',A:~~~. A CLAIM 'm~ER 42 u. S . C. § 1983
11 To state a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff

12 must plead that a defendant, acting under color of state law, deprived
13 the plaintiff of a right secured by the federal constitution or laws.
14 See,~, Ortez v. Washirlgton County', 88 F.3d 804, 810 (9th Cir.
15 1996). The plaintiff must set forth factual allegations with
16 sufficient particularity to give a defendant "fair notice of the type
17 of claim being pursued." ,19'-"-. Plaintiff has not stated a claim, under
18 § 1983, against Defendant ADR, the three Countrywide Defendants, the
19 Mara Escrow Defendants, or the three proposed defendants Brown,
20 Schorr, and Vardanian, who are all either private individuals or
21 private companies. Generally, private parties are not acting under
22
23
Judicial immunity bars suit even if a judge is accw3ed of
24 acting in bad faith, maliciously, corruptly, erroneously, or in excess
of jurisdiction. Mirele2L, 502 u.S. at 11-13. Judicial immunity is
25
not overcome by allegations of conspiracy. Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d
26 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1997); Ashelman, 793 F.2d at 1078.
27 9 Thus, the Eleventh Amendment and immunity doctrines would bar

all damages claims against the Superior Court Defendants, and
28
Defendant Pasternak.
10
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 104 Filed 03/31/2009 Pago '11 of 12
1 color of state law. See .price v. Haw?ii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th
2 Cir. 1991). Plaintiff has not shown how these Defendants were acting
3 under color of state law in this case. 10
4 Accordingly, all of Plaintiff's claims in the FAC appear to be
5 subject to dismissal under Jounger abstention, the Eleventh Amendment,
6 judicial and quasi-judicial immunity, and failure to state a
7 cognizable claim. l l There does not appear to be any way in which
8 Plaintiff could further amend his complaint, consistently with his
9 present allegations, to state a cognizable claim not subject to the
10 defects discussed above. 12 Accordingly, the FAC should be dismissed
11 without further leave to amend.
12 RECOMMENI~bTIONS
13 For the reasons stated above, the magistrate judge recommends

14 that the court issue an order: (1) accepting this Report and
15 Recommendation; (2) granting Defendants' four pending motions to
16 dismiss (docket no. 68, filed June 19, 2008; docket no. 69, filed Jule
17
18 10 This disposes of damages claims under § 1983 against the
19 remaining defendants. This court should also dismiss as to any state
law claims Plaintiff may seek to bring against the Countrywide
20 Defendants. See United Mj.ne Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86
S. Ct. 1130, 16 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1966) (normally state law claims over
21 which court has supplemental jurisdiction should be dismissed if all
22 federal claims dismissed before trial); Acri v. Varian Associates,_
Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1367,:c) (3).
23 There is no evident reason not to dismiss Plaintiff's sta~e law claims
in this case.
24
11 Because these grounds for dismissal are dispositive as to all
25
Defendants, the court need not reach Defendants' further contentions
26 that claims against specific Defendants are subject to dismissal for
lack of standing and for further failures to state a claim.
27
12 If Plaintiff can, somehow, show that amendment would not De
28
futile, he may do so in objections to this Report and Recommendation.
11
':;J:IBIT O(j PAGE 1/9
1 19, 2008; docket no. 73, filed June 30, 2008; and docket no. 78, filed
2 July 7, 2008); (3) dismissing the First Amended Complaint (docket no.
3 62) without further leave to amend; and (4) dismissing this action in
4 its entirety, with prejudice as to Plaintiff's damages claims under
5 federal law and without prejudice as to Plaintiff's damages claims

6 under state law and his claims for equitable relief.
7
8 DATED: March 31, 2009
10 -h...L..! _
CARLA M. WOEHRLE
11 United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
j~~xhibit 24
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 10El Filed 04/24/2009 PagB 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITE:]::> STATES DI:STRICT COURT
9 CENTR1U. DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12 JOSEPH ZERNIK, ) No. CV 08-1550-VAP(CW)

)
13 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
) RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES
14 v. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE
)
15 JACQUELINE CONNOR, et al., )
)
16 Defendants. )
----------------)
17
18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (C), the court has reviewed the
19 entire record in this action, as well as the Report and Recommendation
20 of the United States Magistrate Judge. No objections to the Report

21 and Recommendation have be'2n received..
22 IT IS ORDERED: (1) that the Report and Recommendation of the
23 United States Magistrate ~Jdge be accepted; (2) that Defendants' four
24 pending motions to dismiss (docket no. 68, filed June 19, 2008; docket
25 no. 69, filed Jule 19, 2003; docket no. 73, filed June 30, 2008; and
26 docket no. 78, filed July 7, 2008) be granted; (3) that the Firs t
27 Amended Complaint (docket. no. 62, filed May 27, 2008) be dismissed
28 wit.hout further leave to a~end; and (4) that judgment be entered
1
EXHIBIT _Ji PAGE-'--I-_
1 dismissing this action in its entirety, with prejudice as to
2 Plaintiff's damages claims under federal law and without prejudice as
3 to Plaintiff's damages claims under state law and his claims for
4 equitable relief.
S IT IS FURTHER ORDERED t:hat this order and the judgment herein be
6 served on the parties.

7
8 DATED: April 24, 2009
10
VIRGINIA A. PHILLI
11 United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~ {PAGE / t:-.._
2
EXHIBIT
l~xhibit 25
5
6
7
8 UNIT:~:D STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTR~~ DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12 JOSEPH ZERNIK, ) No. CV 08-1550-VAP(CW)
)
13 Plaintiff, ) JUDGMENT
)
14 v. )
)
15 JACQUELINE CONNOR, et al., )
)
16 Defendants. )
----------------)
17
18 IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed wi th pre~1 udice as to

19 Plaintiff's damages claims under federal law and without prejudice as
20 to his state law damages =laims and his claims for equitable relief.
21
22 DATED: April 24, 2009
23
24 ~.
25 Unite
26
27
28
1
EXHIBIT ~!J Pl,G: L
.l~:xhibit 26
PASTERNAK, PASTEI~!'lAK& PATTON
A LAW CORPORATION
CYNTHIA F. PASTERNAK 1875 CENTUFtY PARK EAST, SUITE 2200 TELEPHONE

DAVID J. PASTERNAK 310.553.1500
JOHN W. PATTON, JR.
LOS ANGEL:B;S, CALIFORNIA 90067-2523
FACSIMILE
Emilil PASFIRM@PASLAWCOM
~~ 10.553.1540
July 07, 2009
Court AppointE~d Receivership
Invoice 1\10. 14844
Re: Nivie Samaan v. Joseph Zernik, et al.

L.os Angeles County Superior Court CElse No. SC087 400
Our File: 73235/0001
Professional Services Rendered Through: June :30, 2009
Professional Services
HOllE~
6/2/2009 Prepare\File\Serve Receiver's EightElE~nth Interim Report. 0.60

Carolyn German
6/8/2009 Review/analysis of Zernik email 010

David J. Pasternak
6/17/2009 Prepare monthly financial report. 040

Lisa Kalaydjian
Review/analysis of May, 2009 financial report; preparation of Receiver's 0.50

May, 2009 interim report
David J. Pasternak
6/18/2009 Prepare file/serve Receiver's NinetElenth Interim Report 0.50

Carolyn German
6/22/2009 Travel to and attend Los Angeles Superior Court status conference in 2.20
Santa Monica; preparation of notice re further status conference
David J. Pasternak
6mount
Total Legal Services 4.30 $1,640.00
Timekeeper Summary
Name Hours B:ate bmount
David J. Pasternak 2.80 495.00 $1,386.00
Carolyn German 1.10 160.00 $176.00
Lisa Kalaydjian 0.40 195.00 $78.00
'XHIBIT l!::l£ PAGE / ~ cJ

PASTERNAK, PASTERNAK & PATT'ON
A LAW CORPORATION
Court Appointed Receivership July 07, 2009 Page 2
Our File: 73235/0001 Professional Services Rendered Through: June 30, 2009 Invoice No.: 14844
Costs Advanced:
~mount
Mileage 8.80
Photocopies 79.00
Postage 12.44
------
Total Costs Advanced $100.24
Total Amount of this Bill $1,740.24
Previous Balance $428.50
6/23/2009 Payment - Thank You. Check No.43,21 (6/18/09) ($428.50)

Receivership Estate for 320 So. PEK:k Drive
Balance due $1,740.24

PASTERNAK, PASTE.RNAK & PATTON
1\ l.AW CORPORATION
CYNTHIA F. PASTERNAK 1875 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2200 TEI_EPHONE

DAVID J. PASTERNAK 2;10.553.1500
LOS ANGELJH:S, CALIFOR~IA 90067-2523
JOHN W. PAlTON, JR. FACSIMILE
Email: I.ASFIRM@PASLAIN.COM 310.55:3.1540
August 04, 2009
Court Appointed Receivership
Invoice No. 14296

Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. SC087 400
Our File: 73235/0001
Professional Services Rendered Through: July ~~ 1, 2009
6mount
Previous Balance $1,740.24

PASTERNAK, PASTERNAK & PATTON
A I.AW CORPORATION
CYNTHIA F. PASTERNAK 1875 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2200 TELEPHONE

DAVID J. PASTERNAK 310553.1500
LOS ANGELES, OALIFORl'J"IA 90067-2523
JOHN W. PATTON, .IR. FACSIMILE
Emc.il: PASFIRM@PASLAWCOM
310.553.1540
September 05, 2009
Invoice No. 15007

Our File: 73235/0001
Professional Services Rendered Through: August 31,2009
8/3/2009 Review/analysis of Order granting Plaintiff's motion to expunge lis pendens

and email re payment of attorneys fees
David J. Pasternak
Return telephone call to ,IR Lloyd. 0.10

Lisa Kalaydjian
8/4/2009 Receipt and review of JR Lloyd e-mclil; prepare wire transfer. 0.40
Lisa Kalaydjian
8/5/2009 Prepare monthly report. OAO

Lisa Kalaydjian
Amount
Total Legal Services 1.00 $225.00
Timekeeper Summary
Name .t!Q\Jrs Rate Amount
David J. Pasternak 0.10 495.00 $49.50
Costs Advanced:
Attorney Service 69.70

Photocopies 48.25
---'
PASTERNAK, PASTERNAK & PAT'TON
A LAW CORPORATION
Court Appointed Receivership SElptember 05, 2009 Page 2
Our File: 73235/0001 Professional Services Rendered Through: August 31, 2009 Invoice No.: 15007
Amount
Total Amount of this Bill $342.95

A l.AW CORPORATION
CYNTHIA F. PASTERNAK 1875 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2200 TEI._EPHONE

LOS ANGELJ[i:S, CALIFORNIA 90067-2523
JOHN W. PAlTON, JR. FACSIMILE
Email: PASFIRM@PASLAW.COM
310.553.1540
October 02, 2009
Invoice No. 15096
Re: Nivie Samaan v. Joseph Zernil<, et al.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Calse No. SC087 400
Our File: 73235/0001
Professional Services Rendered Through: Septomber 30, 2009
-------------
Hours
9/16/2009 Review/analysis of Zernik email 0.10
David J. Pasternak
9/20/2009 Review/analysis of Zernik fax; exchange email with Zernik re threatened 0.30
legal actioin
David J. Pasternak
9/23/2009 Travel to and attendance at Los An!~eles Superior Court status conference; 2.30
preparation of notice of continued status conference
David J. Pasternak
Amount
Total Legal Services 2.70 $1,336.50
Timekeeper Summary
Name Jjours Rate Amount
Costs Advanced :
Facsimile 2.00
Parking/Toll Charges 6.40
Photocopies 10.00
Postage 2.64
-----
tYl!: 3lT J;·b

PASTERNAK, PASTERNAK & PAT,]~ON
A LAW CORPORATION
Court Appointed Receivership October 02, 2009 Page 2
Our File: 732:,5/0001 Professional Services Rendered Through: September ~W, 2009 Invoice No.: 15096
-----_._----
Amount
Total Amount of this Bill $1,357.54
EiJllBIT ,2J& .PAGE ~! 96

A LAW CORPORATION
CYNTHIA F. PASTERNAK 1875 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2200 TELEPHONE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-2523
JOHN W. PATTON, JR. FACSIMILE
310.553.1540
I\lovember 04, 2009
Invoice No. 15188

Los Angeles County Superior Court Celse No. SC08? 400
Our File: 73235/0001
Professional Services Rendered Through: October 31,2009
Hours
10/1/2009 Prepare and mail bond payment. 0.20
Lisa Kalaydjian

David J. Pasternak
t~mount
Total Legal Services 0.30 $88.50
Timekeeper Summary
Name Hours gate t~mount
David J. Pasternak 0.10 495.00 $49.50
Costs Advanced :
Postage 0.44
Total Amount of this Bill $88.94
FX HBIT •.t2~) /3/ ...

_--- PAGE ---_
PASTERNAK, PASrrERNAK & PATTON
A LAW CORPORATION
CYNTHIA F PASTERNAK 1875 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2200 TELEPHONE

JOHN W. PATTON, JR
LOS ANGELlDS, CALIli'ORNIA 90067-2523
FACSIMILE
310.553.1540
November 23, 2009
Invoice No. 15223

Our File: 73235/0001
Professional Services Rendered Through: November 23, 2009
Hour~
David J. Pasternak

David J. Pasternak
11/14/2009 Preparation of Receiver's final repol1: and account and file review re same 2.50
David J. Pasternak
11/15/2009 Preparation of Receiver's Final Report and Account 4.50

David J. Pasternak
11/16/2009 Telephone conferences with court clerk re sanctions due from Zernik to 0.70
clerk of the court, final report hearin~l. and status conference; draft letter to
Clerk of Court re payment of Zernik's Court-ordered sanctions; preparation
of notice re cancellation of status co ference
David J. Pasternak
11/17/2009 Prepare financial re Receiver's Final Report motion. 0.60

Lisa Kalaydjian
11/22/2009 Preparation of Receiver's final report and account and proposed orders 1.50
David J. Pasternak
11/23/2009 Review file to confirm payment info ation; revise Superior Court form re 0.70
judgment payment; revise check payable to the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Lisa Kalaydjian
Amount
Total Legal Services 10."70 $4,906.50
FYH!3IT _Qip PAGE J3~

PASTERNAK, PASTERNAK & PAT'I'ON
A LAW CORPORATION
Court Appointed Receivership November 23, 2009 Pa~~e 2
Our File: 73235/0001 Professional Services Ren ered Through: November 23, 2009 Invoice No.: 15223
Timekeeper Summary
Name Hours Rate 6mount
6mount
11/23/2009 Estimated fees and costs for completion, filing and $10,000.00
service of Final Report and Account clnd related motion
and order, travel to and attendance at hearing, closing
out estate, and dealing with anticipated future
communications and litigation from Zernik.
EXHiBIT .rZ!f_ PAGE L~?l_
.l~xhlbit 27
I.A'· .111.11 !
~ Page 1 of3
I f\
David J. Pasternak
._--_._~-_._--_ -_._---._-_..._--------- . _ - -
..
From: joseph zernik UZ12345@earthlink.net]

Sent: Sunday, September 20,200910:06 PM
To: David J. Pasternak
Subject: RE: In re: Samaan v Zemik (SC087400) - Preliminary Notice of Intent
Mr Pasternak:
I consider your email below additional evid.ence of your conduct replete with repetitive instances
of attempts to deceive:
1) Terry Friedman has neither matter nor Ipersons jurisdiction.

The evidence indicates that the caption as a whole was and is fraud and deceit, as are all orders
and judgment - to start out, John A Clarke, Clerk of the Court, refuses to certify any of them as
valid and effectual orders of the court..
Terry Friedman surely never had an Assignment Order issu<;:d to him by the Master of Calendar,
My ex parte application to Supervising Judge Rosenberg, in December 2007, to issue such Order
was Denied. Moreover, even had Terry Friedman ever had any authority prior to March 2008,
he then secretly "disposed" of his own response to Disqualification for a Cause, leaving him
absent any authority, or even pretense of arlthority, as evidenced by his own conduct.
2) Prime examples of what must be deellOlf:rll fraud on tbe face of the paper - in COlllrt orders
associated with David Pasternak are:
a) November 9, 2007 Order Appointing Pa:;temak Receiver. and
b) November 21,2007 Order by Pasternak "like" Unlawful Retainer".
c) December 7, 2007 Assorted alleged fraudulent Orders, including Grant Deeds opined as Fraud
by Decorated Fraud Expert James Wedick..
3) You cannot terminate within the realm of the law th:at which has never been initiated
within the realm of the law.
Your purported Receivership was founded in alleged fraud. The noticed action is explicitly
aimed to prevent you from attempting such additional alleged fraud.
Joseph Zernik
At 09:10 AM 9/20/2009, you wrote:
Mr. Zemik:
Please note that you may NOT file any action against me without fIrst obtaining approval to do so
from Judge Friedman. See McCarthy v. Poulson (1985) 173 Cal App 3d 1212, 1219; Ostrowski v.
Miller (1964) 226 Cal App 2d 79,84.
I expect to file my fInal report and account to end the receivership by the end of October.
From: joseph zernik [ mailto:jz12345@!~t:thlink.net]

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 11.:24 PM
To: David J. Pasternak; 13105531540@efaxsend.com
Subject: In re: Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) - Preliminary Notice of Intent
TO ATT PASTERNAK, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND IN HIS ALLEGED GUISE .
EXHIBIT ;2/} PAGE • I

/slf
'~_
9/21/2009
Page 2 of3
AS OFFICER OF THE LA SUPERIOR. COURT:
Please take notice that I am making efforts to explore the options for initiating a new action
against you, including, but not limited to injunctive action to prohibit you from appearing
again under the guise of purported pmceeding under purported caption of Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400).
The preponderance of the evidence indicated that it was never a case of the Superior Court
of California, and the Clerk of the Court refused to certifY it as such. Instead, it wa" alleged
to be part of the conduct of an Entell~lrise that was foreign to the true and correct Superior
Court of California.
Given that I am no attorney, not even by a long shot, I am not sure whether and when][
would be able to complete such filing. Further notice would be therefore provided :If and
when the filing is ready.
DATED: September 19,2009 Joseph H Zernik
By:. lsI Joseph H Zemik

JOSEPH H ZERNIK
In Pro Se
I ~ Em~1
L_ CALLING UPON PRESIDENT OBAMA - FREE THE 10,000 RAMPART-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), FREE
ATTORNEY RICHARD I FINE http://www.thepetitiol~;itecomJ]/restore-iustice-in-l-a
References
1)Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe: (1998-2000. 200 investigators). on how the Rampart-FIPs where falsely convicted and
falsely sentenced - by renowned constitutional scholar. Founding Dean ofUniv of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - paper from
Guild Practitioner
!illP.JLiIloroperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reports-00-09-Q.l-chemerinsky-57 guild prac 121 2000.odf
2) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned· by an official panel of experts, commissioned by the LAPD itself, led by civil
rights activist, Att Connie Rice - LAPD Blue Ribbon Rep<Ji't (2006) http://inproperinla.com/OO-OO-OO-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-palJ!ll-2006:
Wl.2r1.P.M
3) One reference for our low. conservative estima.te of 10.000, compared to an estima.te of 8,000 by the LA District Attorney office, 15,000 by
criminal defense attorneys, and 30,000 by others - PBS Frontline (2001. updated 2005)!illP :llinproperinla.comlOO-00-00-rampart-first-trial-01-
05-Ql.:1>bs frontline rampart-false-imorjsonments-s.odf
4) Ful! Disclosure Network video of a phone call request for assistance by Att Richard I Fine from jail http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD <jzI2345@earthlink.net>, Fax: (801) 998-0917;
- - - - Information from ESET Smart Securitlj, version of virus signature database

4441 (20090919) _
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security,
http://www.eset.com
L -_ _-----.J CALLING UPON PRESIDENT OBAMA - FRI:E THE 10,000 RAMPART-FlPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons), FREE ATTORNEY
RICHARD I FINE http://wwwthepetitionsite.com/llrestore-Justil~d!!:"l-a
References
I) Best short review of the Rampart scandal massive probe (1998-2000,200 investigators), on how the Rampart-FlPs where falsely convicted and falsely sentenced-
by renowned constitutional scholar, Founding Dean ofUniv of Cal Irvine Law School, Prof Erwin Chemerinsky - paper from Guild Practitioner
http://inproperinla.com/00-00-00-rampart-reoorts-00-09-01-chemeonroky-S7 guild prac 121 2000pdf
2) Best reference on why the Rampart-FIPs are still imprisoned - by an official panel of experts, commissioned by the LAPD itself, led by civil rights activist, Att
Connie Rice· LAPD Blue Ribbon Report (2006) http'//inproperinl~lcom/OO-OO-OO-rampart-blue-ribbon-review-panel-2006-reportJ<Qf
3) One reference for our low, conservative estimate of 10.000, compared to an estimate of 8.000 by the LA District Attorney office, 15.000 by criminal defense
"om"" wd 30,000 by o.~ , PBS F",",'" ROOI, .pdmoo 2005) bl!i! ilillwop,d"".~,oo.oo~O,mm"rt,fi,",'""-o I~5-oI'~OO "m"'rt,r"i gJ---
EXFIBIT ~ )__ PAGE ~___.
.~
9/21/2009
r-. Page 3 of3
I
imprisonment§:2Jldf
4) Full Disclosure Network video of a phone call request for as~istallce by Att Richard I Fine from jail http://inproperinla.blogsoot.com/
Joseph Zernik, DMD PhD <jzI2345@earthlink.net>, Fax: (8~1) 998-0917;
Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4444
(20090921) ____
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
EXHIBIT
;z!7 .PAGE ._/3te
._-_..
9/21/2009
Exhibit 28
DAVID J. PASTERNAK, RECEIVER
RECEIVERSHIP IE:STATE FOR 320 S. PECK DRIVE
BUSINESS MONEY MARKET ACCOUNT
June 1, 20Cl91:hrough November 17, 2009
Date Num Name

11111
Memo
BUSINESS MONEYMARKI ET ACCOUNT -1ST CENTURY BMii< alC#110'·00"0-96"7 7·' , . - - - - - - - , --- Debit
---_.Credit Balance
365,311.77
06/01/09 4319 Pasternak, Pasternak & Patton April 2009 Receivership Fees/Costs 901.49 364,410.28
06/01/09 4320 Buchalter Nemer April 2009 Billin!l 295.00 364,115.28
06/18/09 4321 Pasternak, Pasternak & Patlan May 2009 Receivership Fees/Costs 428.50 363,686.78
06/30/09 007 1st Century Bank Interest Income 14.96 363,701.74
07/01/09 008 1st Century Bank Interest Income 15.44 363,717.18
08/04/09 009 Wire Transfer 7/24/09 Court Order Nivie Samaan-L1oyd 2,365 361,352.18
08/31/09 0'10 1st Century Bank Interest Income 15.36 361,367.54
09/30/09 0'11 1st Century Bank Interest Income 14.85 200.00 361,382.39
10/06/09 4322 Bond Services of California Renewal 361,18239
10/31/09 0'12 1st Century Bank Interest Income 15.34 6,000.00 361,197.73
11/16/09 4323 Clerk of the LA Superior Court Paragraph 8 2/19/09 Judgment 355,197.73
Total MONEY MARKET ACCOUNT -1st Century Bank a/c#'1100( 1100009677 at November 17,2009 75.95--:;0;1"89.99- 355,197.73
LSK,11/17/2009
EXHIBIT ~ PAGE (87
47600/0001
1 PROOF OIl? 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 November 25,2009, I served the foregoing document described as

RECEIVER I S FINAL REPOR~r ANI) ACCOUNT AND NOTICE OF MOTION ANI)
6 RECEIVER I S MOTION FOR. ISSU1WCE O~' ORDER:
1 l. APPROVING AND SE~~~rLIN(; REC!'~IVER' S E'INAL R]i:PORT AND ,ACCOUNT;
8 2. APPROVING AND SE~~~rLING FINAl. COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT

OF COSTS FOR RECli:lVER (INCLUDING REQUESTED BONUS) f AND
9 AUTHORIZING RECE:CVER TO PAY APPROVED UNPAID FEES .AND COSTS
TO RECEIVER;
10
3. AUTHORIZING RECEIVER TO CON,]~INUE PAYING HIS FEES 1WD COSTS
11 DURING ANY APPEAJ:' OF THESE REQUESTED ORDERS;
12 4. DIRECTING Rl~CEIVli:R Iro PAY l~~INING FUNDS IN RECEIVERSHIP

ESTATE TO ])]~FEND~WT JOSEPH ~~ERNIK WHEN REQUESTED ()ROER~; ARE
13 FINAL;
14 5. EXONERATING ALL BONDS;
15 6. TERMINATING RECE,IVERSHIP AND DISCHARGING RECEIVER FROM ANY

FURTHER DUTIES OR RESPONSIBILITIES;
16
7. APPROVING AJc..L OF' RECEIVER'S CONTRACTS AND ACTIONS AS PROPER
17 AND BEING IN THE, BEST INTEl~STS OF THE RECEIVERSHIP ES~~ATE;
18 8. ORDERING PLAINTIlrE' NEVIE S1U!IAAN AND DEl!"ENDANT JOSlt:PH Zl~RNIK

JOINTLY AND SEVE,RAL:LY TO DI~l!'END AND INDEMNIFY THE RECEIVER
19 AGAINST ANY CLAI]~ THAT MAY ARISE FROM THIS RECEIVERSHJCP
ESTATE;
20
9. RETAINING J1JRISDI:[CTION OVER ANY MATTERS OR CLAI:M:S WHICU MAY
21 ARISE CONCElRNING~ 'l'HE RECEIV!'~R;
22 10. AUTHORIZING RECE::[VER ~ro DISCARD ALL FILES AND RECORDS

REGARDING THIS :ElJ~CEIVl~RSHIP WITHOUT SHREDDING 'I'HEl~; ANI)
23
1l. FOR SUCH OTHER mWERS AS THE COURT DEEMS PROPER;
24
DECLARATION OF DAVID ,J. PASTERNAK; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
25 AUTHORITIES on all interes1ted parties in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in
' sealed envelopes addressed as j~)l1ows:
26 See Attached List
27 ~ 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
28 this finn's practice of collection and processing conespondence for mailing.
PASTERNAK,
PASTERNAK
& PATION
W:\73235\Pleadings\Proof of Service LKS I 1-28-07 doc
1 It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of
business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if
2 postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than 1 day after date of deposit for
mailing in affidavit.
3
0 BY FACSIMILE: At or before 5:00 p.m., I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by
4 facsimile. The telephone number of the sending facsimile machine was (310) 553-1540.
The name(s) and facsimile machine telephone number(s) of the person(s) served are set
,.
~ forth in the service list. The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission, and the
sending facsimile machine properly issued a transmission report confirming that the
6 transmission was compl<ete: and without error.
., 0 BY OVERNIGHT DEll.,IVERY: I deposited such document(s) in a box or other facility
regularly maintained by the overnight service carrier, or delivered such document(s) to a
8 courier or driver authorized by the overnight service carrier to receive documents, in an
envelope or package designated by the overnight service carrier with delivery fees paid or
9 provided for, addressed to the person(s) being served.
10 ~~ BY ELECTRONIC MAIL TO: jz12345@earthlink.net
11 0 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: [personally delivered such envelope(s) directly to the

person(s) being served.
12
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that th(;:
13 foregoing is true and correct.
14 Executed on November 25, 2009, at Los Angeles, California.
(/1/
15
16
l_ r / :JL1
C.Ge~an
I/( «-, 1,-
~----
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASTERNAK,
PASTERNAK
& PATTON W 173235lPleadingslProofofService LKS 11-21\··07.doc 2
1 Nh,ie Samaan v. Joseph Zernik. etc.• et a/.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. SC 087400
2
Service List
3
4 Moe Keshavarzi, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff, Nivie Samaan
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
5 333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor
6 Telephone: 213.620.1780
Facsimile: 213.620.1398
7
8 John W. Amberg, Esq. Counsel for Non-Party,

Jelma Moldawsky, Esq. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
9 Bryan Cave LLP
10 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Telephone: 310.576.2100
11
Facsimile: 310.576.2200
12
Joseph Zernik Defendant in Pro Per
13 In Pro Per
P.O. Box 526
14 LaVerne, CA 91750
15 Telephone: 310.435.9107
Facsimile: 801.998.0917
16 E-Mail: izI2345@earthlink.m~;
17 Michael Wachtell, Esq. Counsel for Mara Escrow
Buchalter Nemer
18 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, California 90017,·2457
19 Telephone: (213) 891-0700
Facsimile: 213.630.5760
20 E-Mail: mwachtell@buchalter,:coQ!
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASTERNAK
PASTERNAK
& PATTON W-\73235\Pleadings\Proof of Service LKS 11-2tl-iH.doc 3
mak&Palton
East. Suite 2200
l~rt"V 1~!'It
IDs Angeh", CA. 90067
Joseph Zemik
In Pro Per
P.O. Box 526
LaVerne, CA 91150

09-11-24 Samaan V Zernik (SC087400) David Pasternak'a "Final Report" and Declaration W Bookmarks S

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

09-11-24 Samaan V Zernik (SC087400) David Pasternak'a "Final Report" and Declaration W Bookmarks S

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Digitally signed by

Joseph Zernik, DMD, PhD ink.net, c=US

2 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200

Los Angeles, California 90067-2523

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE S~I~A,]~~~ OE' CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, '~ST DISTRICT

11 NIVIE SAMAAN, an individual, CASE NO. SC 087 4()(}

12 Plaintiff, HOll"l. Terry B. Friedman

16 Defendants. 1. APPROVING AND SETTLING

18 2. APPROVING AND SETT:LING

9 8. ORDERING PLAINTIFF NEVIE

19 11. :E!'OR SUCH OTHER iORD]~RS AS

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on Tuesday, ~January 5, 2010, at 8:45

3 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in

4 Department WE"J" of the Los Angeles Superior Court located 1725

5 Main Street, Santa Monica, California, a hearing will be held

6 regarding the Final Report and Account and Motion of Receiver

7 David J. Pasternak for the issuance of an Order: (1) Approving

8 and settling Receiver's Final Report and Account; (2) Approving

9 and settling final compensation and reimbursement of cost~s for

10 the Receiver (including requested bonus), and authorizing the

11 Receiver to pay the approved unpaid fees and costs to the

12 Receiver from the receivership estate; (3) Authorizing the

14 of the requested Orders; (4) Directing the Receiver to pay all

15 remaining funds in receivership estate to Defendant Joseph Zernik

17 (6) Terminating the receivership and discharging the Receiver

18 from any further duties or responsibilities; (7) Approving all of

19 the Receiver's contracts and actions as being right and proper

20 and in the best intere~3ts of the receivership estate; (8)

21 Ordering Plaintiff Nivie Samaan and Defendant Joseph Zernik

22 jointly and severally to defend and indemnify the Receiver

24 (9) Retaining jurisdiction over any matters or claims whi.ch may

25 arise concerning this receivership; (10) Authorizing the Receiver

26 to discard all files and documents regarding this receivership

2 This motion is made on the grounds that the Receiver has

3 accomplished the purpose for which this receivership was

4 established by closing the escrow for the sale of Defendant

5 Joseph Zernik's real property to Plaintiff Nivie Samaan, and now

7 Zernik against, among others, the Receiver has ended, there is no

8 further need or reason for this receivership to continue.

9 This motion is based on the attached Declaration of David J.

10 Pasternak and all exhibits attached thereto, the attached

11 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all documents and pleadings

13 documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the

14 Receiver's Final Report and Account.

Declaration ofDavid .l Pasternak

1 DECLAlU\.TJCON OF DAVID ~r. PASTERN~!u{

2 I, David J. Pasternak, declare as follows:

3 1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth

4 herein, and if called upon as a witness to testify thereto, I

5 could and would competently and truthfully do so.

6 2. This is an unforgettable case for all of the wrong

7 reasons, and a tragic situation in which Defendant Joseph Zernik

8 has caused much of his E?qui ty in his former home to be squandered

9 solely as the result of his repeated disobedience and questioning

10 of this Court's orders and authority. Unfortunately, Zernik

11 appears to be continuing to tread down the same path today.

12 3. On or about November 9, 2007, Los Angeles Superior

13 Court Judge John A. Segal issued an Order appointing me as

14 Receiver herein (the "Receivership Order"), a true and correct

15 copy of which is attached hereto as Zxhibit 1. The Receivership

16 Order directed me to take possession of the real property located

17 at 320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90212 (the

20 Property to [Plaintiff] through the reactivated Escrcw No. 1