2008-06-24 Zernik V USDC (08-72714) at The US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit - Alleged Fraud On The Court and Undermining of Banking Regulation-S

Digitally signed
by Joseph Zernik
Human Rights Alert DN: cn=Joseph
Zernik, o, ou,
PO Box 526, La Verne, CA 91750 email=jz12345@
earthlink.net,
Fax: 323.488.9697; Email: jz12345@earthlink.net c=US
Blog: http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/ Date: 2010.10.17
13:56:09 +03'00'
Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
08-06-24 Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit – docketing,
fees, court orders – alleged Fraud on the Court.
1) In October 2005 complaint was filed in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, in a real estate litigation under the cause of action of Specific Performance or
Damages. The outcome of the litigation was the taking of Defendant Dr Zernik’s residence for private use
and also the taking of hundreds of thousands of dollars of his owner’s equity in the property, with no
judgment ever entered in the case, through the installment of a “Receiver” – albeit, without ever entering
an Appointment Order for the “Receiver” - for the execution of the unentered judgment.
2) Conduct of the Court in the matter was later opined by fraud expert James Wedick, an FBI veteran, who
had been decorated by US Congress, US Attorney General, and FBI Director, was “fraud being
committed”. Exhibit (i )
3) In March 2008 Dr Zernik filed complaint at the US District Court, Central District of California – Zernik v
Connor et all (2:08-cv-01550) under cause of action of Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law, in
an effort to stop the then still ongoing conduct of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
which by then amounted to retaliation for exposure of the fraud.
4) The conduct of the US District Court, Central District of California, in the matter of Zernik v Connor et al
(2:08-cv-01550), which was deemed by Plaintiff as dishonest and/or Denial of Due Process and Fair
Hearings rights and/or Denial of Access to the Court and/or Fraud on the Court, included, but was not
limited to the following:
a. The Clerk of the US District Court repeatedly refused to sign valid summons, which were
presented to him by Dr Zernik. Instead, the Clerk of the US District Court insisted on
generating new, false and deliberately misleading summons, out of compliance with the law,
and
b. The Clerk of the US District Court repeatedly concealed papers, which were filed by Plaintiff,
as evidence of Fraud on the Court at the Los Angeles Superior Court, and refused to docket
them honestly.
5) On June 24, 2008, Dr Zernik filed Emergency Petition with the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit - Joseph
Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) - to Compel Federal Due Process Rights, seeking mandate by the
Court of Appeals on the US District Court for the issuance of valid summons and for honest docketing of
papers filed by Plaintiff at the US District Court. Exhibit (ii )
6) The Petition was designated (08-72714) and payment of $450.00 was required and was duly paid for
filing the Petition by personal check #1760, Receipt #91528. Exhibit (ii)
7) Papers which were filed by Dr Zernik on June 24, 2008, at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, as part of
the Petition, included the petition itself, and additional papers, which included critical evidence of
docketing conduct at the US District Court, Central District of California.
8) Later, upon review of the online PACER docket of the Petition at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit,
Dr Zernik found out that the only the following papers were docketed with the Petition on June 24,
2008, Exhibit ( iii ):
z Page 2/5 October 17, 2010
a. Dkt #1: Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and

b. Dkt #2: Request to Incorporate by Reference and Request for Judicial Notice with
exhibits.
9) On June 25, 2008, an Order (Dkt #3) was issued by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, denying the
Petition, albeit, the Order was unsigned, and it was served on Dr Zernik by the Clerk of the US Court of
Appeals, 9th Circuit, by First Class US Postal Service with no form of authentication and with no
certificate of service. The copy of the June 25, 2008 Order, which was retrieved from Court file, was
likewise unsigned. Exhibit (iv )
10) The unsigned order June 25, 2008 Order of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, stated:
Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of
this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v.
United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the
emergency petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
No motions for reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order
shall be filed or entertained.
11) Later, through a legal services provider, Dr Zernik obtained copies of the face pages of papers, which
were kept at the Office of the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, under the caption of Joseph
Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714), and were stamped on their faces on June 24, 2008. Exhibit (v )
12) The papers, which were found at the office of the Clerk, US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, under the
caption of Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714), and were stamped on June 24, 2008, included:
a. Petition for Writ of Mandamus Compelling Federal Due Process Rights, Request for
Incorporation by Reference, Request for Judicial notice, and Memorandum of Point &
Authorities Included within;
b. Plaintiff’s Notice and Request for Judicial Notice of Correspondence with Offices of the Clerk
and Presiding Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court, in re: Certification of Entry, Alternatively –
Certification of Non-Entry of August 9, 2007, Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP §437c;
c. Plaintiff’s Notice of Concealed Document under Dkt #52 of PACER docket of Zernik v
Connor et all (2:08-cv-01550);
d. Plaintiff’s Notice of Concealed Document under Dkt #56 of PACER docket of Zernik v
e. Plaintiff’s Notice of Concealed Document under Dkt #58 of PACER docket of Zernik v
13) Therefore, pertaining to the papers, which were filed by Dr Zernik on June 24, 2008:
a. The Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, docketed only one (1) paper – the Petition
per se – which was filed by Dr Zernik on June 24, 2008, but docketed it as two separate
docket items, and
b. The Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, failed to docket four (4) additional papers,
which were also filed by Dr Zernik on June 24, 2008, and which provided critical evidence of
docketing conduct of the US District Court, Central District of California.
14) On June 25, 2008, Dr Zernik filed the New Petition at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Additional
papers were filed as evidence concomitantly with the New Petition. Exhibit ( vi )
15) Filing Fees in the sum of $450.00 were collected for the filing of the New Petition by personal check
#1761, Receipt #91529. Exhibit (vi)
16) Upon review of the PACER docket, it was later found that only the New Petition was in fact docketed,
but none of the additional papers, which were filed concomitantly with it. Albeit, the “New Petition”
was docketed a “Motion for Reconsideration” under Zernik v Connor et all (2:08-cv-01550), and not
as a separate petition:
a. Dkt #5: Motion for Reconsideration Entitled: New Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
17) The payment of $450.00, which was collected for the filing of the “New Petition”, was nevertheless
never refunded to this date.
18) On June 26, 2008, the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, again issued an Order (Dkt #6) denying the
Petition. Albeit, the Order was again unsigned, and it was again served on Dr Zernik by the Clerk of
the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, by First Class US Postal Service with no form of authentication
and with no certificate of service. Exhibit (vii )
19) The June 26, 2008, Order of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, stated:
The court has received petitioner's June 25, 2008 filing entitled "New Petition for Writ of Mandamus."
Petitioner's June 25, 2008 submission does not change the result of the court's June 25, 2008 order.
The petition for writ of mandamus remains denied. No further filings will be accepted in this closed
matter.
20) Later, through a legal services provider, Dr Zernik obtained copies of the face pages of papers, which
were kept at the Office of the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, under the caption of
Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714), and were stamped on their faces on June 25, 2008.
Exhibit (viii )
21) The papers, which were found at the office of the Clerk, US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, under the
caption of Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714), and were stamped on their faces on June 25,
2008 included:
a. New Petition for Writ of Mandamus;
b. Plaintiff’s Notice and Verified Request for Judicial Notice: Exhibits Vol V – Receivership;
c. Nivie Samaan’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Appointment of a Receiver;
d. Plaintiff’s Analysis of Los Angeles Superior Court Records: Why there are hardly any valid
litigation records in Samaan v Zernik…
22) Therefore, pertaining to papers, which were filed by Dr Zernik on June 25, 2008:
a. The June 25, 2008 “New Petition” was accepted by the Clerk as such, and payment was
accordingly collected for the “New Petition”. However, the “New Petition” was eventually
docketed as “Motion for Reconsideration” under the same caption and number as the June 24,
2008 Petition.
b. The Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, docketed only one (1) of the papers, which
were filed on that date, and
c. The Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, failed to docket three (3) additional papers,
which were filed by Dr Zernik on that date, and which provided critical evidence of conduct of
the lower courts.
23) Therefore, in the matter of Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) the US Court of Appeals
issued two Orders. Neither order was signed by any of the Circuit Judges, nor were the Orders
noticed and served by the Clerk of the Court as required by Due Process of Law.
24) Therefore, it is likely that upon review of the matter as a whole, a reasonable person would
conclude that in a matter that was opined as “fraud” by fraud expert, and which was later part of
the evidence referred to in staff report of the United Nations, Human Rights Council, as
“corruption of the courts and the legal profession” in California, the US Court of Appeals, 9th
Circuit, failed to docket the evidence filed by petitioner.
25) Therefore, it is likely that upon review, a reasonable person would conclude that in a case,
where the clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, twice collected court fees for petitions,
and twice mailed unsigned orders, Joseph Zernik, an individual, was subjected to pretense
judicial review, nothing more.
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION
I, Joseph Zernik, have written the forgoing statements and compiled the attached documents (i) through (v). The
foregoing statements are true and correct, and the records compiled in below (i) through (v) are true and correct copies
of records, which were downloaded from the PACER online public access system of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit,
or were copied by legal services provider from the Court file of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
I know the content of the statements above to be true and correct, and the records to be true and correct copies.
I make this declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States and ratified
International Law.
Signed here in Jerusalem, Israel, on this 17th day in October, 2010.
_______________________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
Exhibits
Exhibit (i) Opinion Letter of FBI veteran, fraud expert James Wedick regarding real estate fraud in Samaan v
Zernik (SC087400) at the Los Angeles Superior Court
Exhibit (ii) Emergency Petition Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th
Circuit, and payment of $450.00, receipt #91528.
Exhibit (iii) Online PACER docket of the Petition Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) at the US
Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Exhibit (iv) June 25, 2008 Order denying the Emergency Petition in Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-
72714) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Exhibit (v) Copies of face pages of papers, which Dr Zernik obtained through a legal services provider, as
found at the Office of the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, under the caption of Joseph
Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714), in addition to the “Petition”, and were stamped on their faces
“FILED” on June 24, 2008.
Exhibit (vi) June 25, 2008 face page of “New Petition”, and payment of $450.00, receipt #91529.
Exhibit (vii) June 26, 2008 Order again denying the Emergency Petition in Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-
72714) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Exhibit (viii) Copies of face pages of papers, which Dr Zernik obtained through a legal services provider, as
found at the Office of the Clerk of the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, under the caption of Joseph
Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714), in addition to the “New Petition”, and were stamped on their faces
“FILED” on June 25, 2008.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit (i) Opinion Letter of FBI veteran, fraud expert James Wedick regarding real
estate fraud in Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) at the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Joseph Zernik DMD PhD
Fax: (801) 998-0917 Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
.
.
.
.
07-12-17. Wedick's Opinion Letter re: Pasternak's Grant Deeds
EVIDENCE
OF REAL ESTATE FRAUD
&
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE OF TITLE
by
DAVID PASTERNAK, PURPORTED “RECEIVER”
appointed by the
LA SUPERIOR COURT
In
ALLEGED SHAM LITIGATION OF
SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Source of Records Examined by

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

generated by Receiver
Pasternak, “Receiver” appointed
by the LA Superior Court:
5a. 12/7/2007 Grant Deed ... … 11
5b. 12/17/2007 Grant Deed, certified ... … 14
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 1/20 -
1. SOURCE OF RECORDS EXAMINED BY MR WEDICK
a) The December 7, 2007 Grant Deed

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

This record was found upon search in the Office of Registrar
Recorder of La County, and a certified copy was obtained from
that office. No notice was served by Pasternak of this record,
and no notice was given of its entry in the office of the
Registrar/Recorder.
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 2/20 -
2. WHAT IS SAMAAN V ZERNIK?
It is entirely unclear what Samaan v Zernik was, and is. In part, it

defies definition, since the offices of the Presiding Judge of the
Court, Stephen Czuleger, as well as the in-house Counsel of the
Court, Mr D. Bret Bianco, and also the external counsel retained
by the Court for this matter, all refuse to answer even the most
basic questions regarding this matter:
a) Is Samaan v Zernik a true case duly registered and indexed, as required by
law for a case heard by the Superior Court of California?
b) Is Samaan v Zernik a case listed in the Calendar of the Courts, as required by
law for a case heard by the Superior Court of California?
c) Is there a judge duly assigned to this case, as required by law for a case heard
by the Superior Court of California?
d) Is there a valid, entered judgment in this case, alternatively – is there no valid,
entered judgment in this case?
In recent letter to Mr Kenneth Melson, Director, U.S. Department of
Justice, it was referred to as an “Enterprise Track” case. In his
response Mr Melson doubted that I had sufficient evidence to
prove the existence of such track in the court.
Here, Samaan v Zernik is referred to as “sham litigation”. Some
of the characteristics are: None of the judges had an assignment
order, as required by law. Therefore, none had any authority in
this case either. I appeared before the Supervising Judge of the
Court several times during litigation, with request that he issue
due assignment orders, but he refused to do so.
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 3/20 -
3. MR WEDICK'S RESUME'
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 4/20 -
JAMES J. WEDICK
WEDICK & ASSOCIATES
11230 Gold Express Drive, Suite 310 - #0364
Gold River, CA 95670-4484
916.638.3566 (Direct) 916.290.0999 (Fax)
Website: www.fraudspecialists.com Email: jwedick@fraudspecialists.com
www.FBIexpert.com
FBI INVESTIGATIONS; WHITE COLLAR CRIME; FRAUD
Early FBI Career

Receiving an undergraduate degree at Fordham University—majoring in Accounting—in 1973, Mr. Wedick was appointed
an FBI Special Agent where as an undercover agent he pursued international white-collar-crime and organized-crime
figures. Code named OPFOPEN the investigation launched the FBI’s effort to proactively pursue notorious con-men and
globe-trotting financiers whose criminal strategies included crossing international borders to evade prosecution. Early
notable assignments included undercover roles in the ABSCAM probe where members of Congress were found guilty taking
bribes; indicting the sons of New York mobster JOE BONANNO with wire fraud; and convicting a pension fund executive
with taking $1 million bribe for orchestrating a $50 million loan.
Undercover Probe Concerning California Lawmakers

In 1985, Mr. Wedick initiated the FBI’s historic 3 year undercover probe concerning California lawmakers soliciting/taking
bribes that included introducing bogus legislation and executing search warrants inside capitol lawmakers' offices. Called
CAPSCAM the investigation convicted 5 California legislators and a member of the Coastal Commission seeking to extort
various Hollywood celebrities. Aside from being featured in ABC's Prime Time Live—and guilty verdicts being declared in 6
RICO trials—editorials across the state praised the FBI for its efforts in pursuing corrupt public officials. Because of the
undercover operation’s success, in 1994, Mr.Wedick received the FBI Director’s Award with his performance cited in the U.S.
Congressional record. Using bogus legislation to catch corrupt officials, in December 1994, Mr. Wedick’s unique approach
was featured in the Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine and he was also nominated by the U.S. Attorney for the Attorney
General’s Award.
Local Municipal Corruption

In 1994 with corruption allegations suggesting Fresno area council members were soliciting bribes in exchange for
making zoning changes, Mr. Wedick launched the REZONE investigation—again using the undercover approach to record
conversations and collect evidence—convicting 17 defendants, with 14 pleading guilty to federal RICO and corruption
violations. In the Sacramento Bee and Fresno Bee Editorials—the last titled Operation REZONE’s Painful Lessons—the FBI
was credited with exposing corrupt practices where it was "clear that the local political system…(had been) manipulated for
extraordinary personal gain at the cost of public trust."
CBS and 60 MINUTES

With allegations suggesting Medicaid Fraud had become the crime de jour for sophisticated thieves, Mr. Wedick also
launched 3 Health Care Fraud Initiatives prosecuting 324 medical providers with defrauding funds totaling in excess of $228
million. The successful FBI Initiatives attracted the attention of both broadcast and print journalists alike, including 60
Minutes’ Mike Wallace, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, and the Los Angeles Times who did a nine-part series detailing the systemic
fraudulent abuse. In the 60 Minutes piece, Wallace credited Mr. Wedick with marshaling the resources needed to combat
the crime.
Terrorism
After several officials recommended he receive an appointment to head California’s terrorism effort, in 2004, Mr. Wedick
started his own agency and in 2005 he joined the legal team representing two Lodi, California men charged with making
false statements and supporting terrorism. Because Mr. Wedick was convinced the Lodi men were innocent—commenting
the prosecution was based on a poorly done FBI interrogation, lack of corroboration, and a mishandled informant—he
“battled” the government concerning his expected testimony as an expert that was reported as a “cover” story in the LA
Times Sunday Magazine, in May 2006, and featured in a PBS FRONTLINE documentary titled, “ENEMY WITHIN,” that aired
October 2006. He also secured juror affidavits supporting a misconduct motion and, in 2007—in case dubbed LIBERTY
CITY SEVEN by the Miami media—charged the government’s use of an FBI informant who “failed” a polygraph was a
violation of the Attorney General’s Guidelines on the Use of Informants.
Distinguished Service/Professional Organizations

Lastly, in April 2004, Attorney General JOHN ASHCROFT personally praised Mr. Wedick commenting his successes
represented the finest traditions in the Department of Justice. With almost 35 years experience in the FBI, Mr. Wedick was
frequently rated an exceptional employee who routinely handled the Bureau’s most complicated and sensitive investigations,
including writing/supervising both long/short term undercover proposals/operations, used/supervised criminal informants,
monitored/recorded authorized personal/telephone conversations, was long-term undercover agent, and managed a squad
FBI agents. Currently, Mr. Wedick is a licensed California Private Investigator [PI] and Certified Fraud Specialist [CFS], and
member in good standing with the Association of Certified Fraud Specialists [ACFS], Association of Certified Fraud
Examiners [ACFE], California Association of Licensed Investigators [CALI], Sacramento County Bar Association, FBI Agents
Association [FBIAA], and Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI.
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 5/20 -
4. OPINION LETTER OF MR WEDICK
Mr Wedick, an FBI veteran, commended by

the U.S. Congress, the FBI Chief, and the
U.S. Attorney General, is a fraud specialist.
He examined the Grant Deeds for fraud

concerns, in response to request by the
property owner, Mr Joseph Zernik.
In addition to records copied here, Mr

Wedick was also provided, at his own
request, with a volume of over 500 pages of
records - a comprehensive review of Mr
Pasternak's appointment procedure and
subsequent conduct in Samaan v Zernik.
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 6/20 -
11230 GOLD EXPRESS DRIVE Sl.'E 310 GOLD RIVER CA 95670 916.638.3566
WWW.FRAUDSPECIALISl..S.COM
To: Dr. Joseph Zemik
Date: January 29,2009
From: InvestigatoriE
Subject: Grant Deed file Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK,

Los Angeles Superior Court;
SAMAAN Vs. Zernik [SC087400];
In accordance with reference litigation currently ongoing in Los Angeles

Superior Court, Dr. JOSEPH ZERNIK retained the professional services of former FBI
agent JAMES J. WEDICK as an expert in white-collar-crime [Wcq, fraud and
corruption. Specifically, Mr. WEDICK was asked to examine two [2] GRANT DEEDS
purportedly prepared by Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK for the purposes of executing
a judgment for Specific Performance entered August 9,2007 in Los Angeles Superior
Court-requiring ZERNIK to sell his property for almost $2 million to NIVIE
SAMAAN.
As background information concerning his FBI career, it should be noted

Mr. WEDICK received the FBI Director's Award for a much publicized investigation in
California that concerned several members of the California State Legislature prosecuted
for taking "bribes" with his accomplishments later cited in the U.S. Congressional
Record. Mr. WEDICK is a 34-year Bureau veteran whose performance has been praised
by U.S. Attorney General [AG] JOHN ASHCROFT as being in the "highest traditions"
of both the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice. Commenting on his many successful
investigations, AG ASHCROFT described Mr. WEDICK's pursuits as literally "models"
for other agents to "emulate."
And because Mr. WEDICK was responsible for the FBI's Sacramento
based white-collar-crime corruption squad, his credentials include handling some of the
Bureau's most complicated and sensitive investigations, including prosecuting the sons
of New York mobster JOSEPH CHARLES BONANNO for conducting an illicit wire
fraud scheme; convicting GILBERT W. CHILTON for orchestrating a $50 million loan
from the California State Teachers Retirement System [STRS] to a Denver con-man-all
in return for a $1 million bribe; and prosecuting Beverly Hills resident MARK L.
NATHANSON for extorting Hollywood celebrities actor/director SYLVESTER
STALLONE, music composer BURT BACHARACH, lyricist CAROL BAYER SAGER,
entertainment moguls JEFFREY KATZENBERG, BARRY DILLER, and DAVID
GEFFEN, movie producers BLAKE EDWARDS and his wife JULIE ANDREWS,
IRWIN WINKLER and MICHAEL JACKSON's business manager SANDY GALLIN.
Mr. WEDICK also is responsible for prosecuting seventeen [17] local city
council members, land owners, and developers [in the ClovislFresno area] suspected
soliciting/receiving "bribes" in exchange for favorable zoning requests-all in violation
of the federal RICO and mail fraud statutes-and designed three [3] Health Care Fraud
Initiatives responsible for prosecuting three-twenty-four [324] Los Angeles based
medical providers suspected defrauding funds totaling in excess of $228 million from
California's Medicaid Program.
Reviewing the two [2] Grant Deeds, the first reportedly dated December 7,
2007 and the second December 17,2007, Mr. WEDICK opines the very fact two [2]
Grant Deeds exist for one transaction--each containing different information-suggests
on on-going fraud requiring immediate investigation-particularly before any documents
are allowed to be filed with a court and/or funds are disbursed.
With respect to Grant Deed #1 dated December 7, 2007, Mr. WEDICK

opines reviewing the document he found DAVID J. PASTERNAK scribbled his name in
the wrong location, i.e. where the notary is required to witness the document and further
failed to sign in his capacity as receiver/grantor. Additionally, and most importantly the
Notary Public did not witness and attach a court document identifying/appointing
Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK as an authorized court receiver for JOSEPH
ZERNIK.
With respect Grant Deed #2 dated December 17, 2007, Mr. WEDICK
opines reviewing the document the Notary Public did not witness and failed to attach a
document identifying/appointing Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK as an authorized
court receiver for JOSEPH ZERNIK. Additionally, the notation, "DAVID
PASTERNAK for JOSEPH V. ZERNIK pursuant to case number SC087400," is not a
valid substitute for an authorized court order.
Accordingly, based on above observations MR. WEDICK opines an

immediate investigation should be instituted in an effort to ascertain the circumstances
behind any fraud being committed so that appropriate local, state, and federal authorities
can be notified, including the appropriate court.
SEE ATTACHMENT
California All-Purpose Acknowfedgment as of 1/1/08
State of California )
5ACRAMEIJTO )
County of
On 11'l110~ before me, E. c.. H0 KoM ,a Notary Public ;n and for said Slate,
personally appeared, --
- ~AMES:3, WEOI ClC
who proved to me the basis of satisfactorl evidence) to be the person W
whose name ($) isla,e
subscribed to the within instflJment and acknQl,vledged 0 me that heJsl'tef!f:'teY' executed'the same in
hislh~ir authorized capacity ~), and that by his!AeFAAeir signature ~ on the instrument the
person ~), or the entity upon behalf of which the person ~) acted, executed the instrumenl
I certify under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
"'?rCz'="'=J'.~o I
~- -,- - =: : ._- -,-_~_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -=-~
.0", E C. HOKOM
.' .-.... COMM. #1770388 ~
Signature__ .l Notary Public-California ~
// SACRAMENTO COUNTY
, ....s....ri!f.~,;/·· ~ 'ly .,.,r,1rt1. ~Xli. Sapt. 27, 201 1
(Area for Notary Seal)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _OPTIONAL ----:-----:--:-- _
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the
document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this to another document.
Further Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Attached Document _
Document Date: _ umber ofPages _
Signer(s) or Issuing Agency: _
Capacity Claimed by Custodian

Signer's Nallle _
I• I
o Individual
o Corporate Officer-Title(s):-;- _
o Partner - 0 Limited oGeneral
o Attorney in Fact
o Trustee
o Guardian or Conservator
o OUler: _
Signer is Representing: _
5. TWO (2) FRAUDULENT
GRANT DEEDS
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 10/20 -
5a. 12/07/2007 FRAUDULENT
GRANT DEED
This Grant Deed was presented by DAVID

PASTERNAK in LA Superior Court hearing
on December 7, 2007, purportedly for Court
approval.
This Grant Deed was indeed approved by

Judge PATRICIA COLLINS, as part of an
order that she signed on the same day at
DAVID PASTERNAK's request, and which he
entered in court file, albeit, with no notice to
the owner, Defendant ZERNIK, as required
by law.
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 11/20 -
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
United Title Company
Title #: 80701422-77
APN #: 4328-0024-023
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
Nivie Samaan
SPACE ABOvE nus liNE FOR RECORDERS USC

ABOVE THIS usc
Grant Deed
The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s):
Documentary transfer tax is $1,889.80
(X) computed on full value of property conveyed, or
( ) computed on full value less of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale.
( ) Unincorporated area: () City of Beverly Hills
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION,

CONS1DERATlON, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
Joseph H. Zernik, an unmarried man
GRANT{S) to
hereby GRANT(S)
Nivle Samaan, a married woman, as her sole and separate property
that property in The City of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, State of California, described as follows:
Lot 252 of Tract 7710, in the Oty of Beverly Hills, County of los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in
Book 83, Pages 94 and 95 of maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
Together with all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to that certain Oil and Gas lease, executed by and
between Sammy
sammy Narens and Lylyan Narens, as Lessor, and Standard Oil Company of California, as Lessee, recorded
September 23, 1964, as Instrument No. 3156, Official Records, Los Angeles County, Catiforla
Mail Tax Statements to

Mall Gra=n~tee=:..-"a-,--t-"a-=cdd-,--r~ess=:..--=a-,--bo-,--v-,--e=-
Grantee at address above , _
Dare November 27, 2007
~
2J 2;Q
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 12/20 -
/'
/l ,.
State of ___
J 1 ~1 T ~)(,'r
) ')( __
:'~
I'~if'
I~\ \' ~~
~: > I~
"
County of ,- .' I~
" ft
M
David J.
J, Pasternak, Receiver
, _ I .... • 1_ ,-
On - ;.::
-'-'-..... .1 -
e--"'--~_-''''__
--' _ , _ - - - before
before me,
me, (Solely In that capacity)
capacity)
I "'-- =1 J "- f>
:1 \\~..... .t! ,I. ,--Z v_____
,J - .. 1--\ v'--
a Notary Public,~rsonally
a PublIC, ~l'5Onalty appeared :.)
~',"''';,i
:,.-" J ;) -J-
S :--)):.~-.~
. -:- ~ . ,)~v
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of 'r A <> ,0" <> -<> <> cOt <">.<""» C'b <> At"">, (
evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) i51are

satisfactory eVidence)
"; ,\~~~\-"~, liSA I<.ALAYDJIAN ~
acknowledged to me
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowletlged
that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
\! ',~"';'0' ~':',7 CO,V'k -;; '1('13184 G)
copacity(les), signature(s) on the
capacity(les), and that by his/her/their slgnature(s) \>l-~~~::~"~:.' ~~':~~'~~~: ~;:~,~:~r.:.~'.,~~,c:-. C:'~.~~,':·~~.~;A ()
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which "<, \" .'-,,"-'\/1 L"." ,:'kL~[" L,-,.", ,
the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. i
~",-"".~~
,.~~., _,~~.;·/c=,;:.uJ ["..",:',,:,c.3 (leT is, 2CC9 ..I.
WITNESS
Signaturf !J
~YU1~ttfVJ\
) \
(\ .
~ ,
Name 4)1\,,\0 J. p~~r€tlJ~'Aj /!ic£\w.J.

(typed or pnnted)
FTGIS-j4<l8/90
FTGIS·l'l<l8900 IS area for oIlidal nalanal
IS natanal seal
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE
2 ~I
'LI
RECORD EXAMINATION
- 13/20 -
5b. 12/17/2007 FRAUDULENT
GRANT DEED
This Grant Deed was recorded by David

Pasternak with the Office of Registrar/
Recorder of LA County on December 17,
2007.
No notice was served on the owner,

Joseph Zernik, who retrieved this Grant
Deed from the Recorder/Registrar's files a
few months later.
RECORD EXAMINATION BY FRAUD EXPERT JAMES WEDICK

PAGE 14
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK
12400 IMPERIAL HWY. - P.O. BOX 1024, NORWALK, CALIFORNIA 90651-1024
DEAN C. LOGAN
ACTING
Flegislrar-Recorder/Counly Clerk
If this document contains any restriction based on race, color,

religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status,
disability, national origin, source of income as defined in subdivision
(p) of Section 12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates state and
federal Fair housing laws and is void, and may be removed pursuant
to Section 1~~956.2 of the Government Code. Lawful restrictions
under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing
or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions
based on familial status.
I
This page is part of YI)Ur doc unnent • DO NOT DISCARD ..
;s: 20072759874 ~g~es:
=- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ml l l l l~ I~
Recorded/Filed in Official Records Fee' 1400
'"1111111111
Recorder's Office, Los Angeles County, . .
California Tax: 1,889.80
Other: 0.00
12/17/07 AT 08:00AM
Total: 1,903.80
Tttle Company
TITLE(S): DEED
~
LEAD
III ~ III III ~
SHEET
Assessor's Identification Number (Jl.IN)

To be completed by Examiner OR Title Corlpany in black ink. Number of AIN's Shown
fotlill THIS FOR.M IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED

UNITED TITLe COMPANY
WESTLAKE VILLAGE BRANCH
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
United Title Company
Tille tI: 8070 1422·77 12117/07

APN tt: 4328-0024-023
l l Jl l l l lIl l l ~ 11111 111\l 11111 11111 11111 \I~I I I\ lil\Illl
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO 20072759874
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDERS USE
Grant Deed
,..-------------:r0;:~\-,-
lhe undersigned grantor(s) dec/are(s): ~ y
Documentary transfer ta:( is $1,889,80
(X) computed on full vaille of property conveyed, or
( ) ccmputed on full value less of liens and enc!.JmbranCE s r~maining at time of sale.
( ) Umllcorporated are,l', (~it:y of Beverly Hi\\~,
r:DR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which IS h ~reby acknowledged,

ria~i~ T: ~astetnak as Receiver far JosEph V. Zernick pursuant to case number SCOB 400
hereby GRANT{S) to
Nivie Samaan, a married woman, as her sole and separale property
that property In The City ofBever~HIIS, Los Angeles [Ollnt'!, State of California, described as follows:
Lot 252 of Trac~ 7710, in the City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded In
Book 83, Pages 94 and 95 of maps, In the office of the C lur,ty Recorder of said County.
Together with all of Grantor's right, title and int,~rest in a 1d to that certain Oil and Gas Lease, executed by and
between Sammy Narens and Lylyan Narens, as Lesser, a ld Standard Oil Company of california, as Lessee, recorded
September 23, 1964, as Instrument No. 3156, Official Re :ords, Los Angeles County, Califoria
--------_.------ -_.-.- -
Date
.
State of
County of Lex:., A"li-c/c ';
On (I ~ .:9 'L:.. 0 '7 teforc r11e,
~~tary Public, p~Onal;Y ~~;~~ed ~/{ I" /'?J-'!~l.:.~.

L (;>,JI() J. _~;;:k~z __
personally known to me (or proved to me on the baSI!, of

satisfactory eVidence) to bl~ the person(s) whose name(s) isiare
sul)scribed to the within in~;trument and acknowledged to me ,AAOAAOAAOAA<><>
ttwt 11e/she/tf1ey executed the same in his/her/their iJ'Jthori;:ed

CilpilCity(If.'S), ana that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
~. LlSAKALAYDJIAN
v COMM ti 1613184
~:.
1I"l~,trument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf (If w!:lch (ry co ... NOTARY P~BLlC . CALIFORNIA Gl
the per~on(s) acted, exeC1;,ted the Instrument. ~ l05 ANGELES CCU~JTY ()
I CUlM. EXPIRES OCT. 15, 2009 ..
WITNESS my hand and qJ1'i2:ial seal Jf e 0 Q va '0 vV' VV=<O= V"GIlJ' r:Q:-.(.
Slqnature _~ }-/" r~. ~/(F

, l". Itir . ~,.~ ;f:'' '
I\ame / 1-,.\ r.,__ fr"r; ((', I(~ (! {/ /A....-
bl5 14() 8(9'l

(typed or printed) f J
MAIL TAX STJITEMENl'S f~S DIRECTED ABOVE

This area for offiaal notanal seal
STAMP IS ON BACK OF LAST PAGE
MAR 18 2008
Exhibit (ii) Emergency Petition Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) at the US
Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
1l1cnelle ::>nenaan
y Copy Receipt for Payment 91528

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Thursday, June 26,20088:41:59 AM
~ount: TREASURY 08-72714
Paid: $450.00, Check Number 1760 Account Amount
510000 Writ Of Mandamus $150.00
I From: 86900 Writ Of Mandamus $100.00
)r. Z Orthodontics
965 Foothill
,a Verne,
Four Hundred Fifty and 00/100 Dollars
Deputy Clerk:
Michelle Sheridan
~lerk's Copy· Receipt for Payment 91528

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Thursday, June 26, 20088:41:59 AM
wunt: TREASURY 08-72714
: Paid: $450.00, Check Number 1760 Account Amount
f From: 86900 Writ Of Mandamus $100.00
)r. Z Orthodontics
965 Foothill
,a Verne,
Four Hundred Fifty and 00/1 00 Dollars
Deputy Clerk:
Michelle Sheridan
OR.Z O~+HdQqf\j'[lb$'}~' .
.JOE ZERNIK, DM01XpC '.•
196pFOOTHIL~. LA VERNE!)'· / '." , .
909·596-3003
© HARlAND 2001
-8-
EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER___________
CIRCUIT RULE 27-3
Need Overnight Action, Case may be dismissed
June 26, less than 2 days
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH ZERNIK,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent,
JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL,

Real Parties in Interest.
From The United States District Court

For The Central District of California
Honorable Carla Woehrle, Magistrate Judge
Case No. CV-08-01550-VAP-CW
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS:

COMPELLING FEDERAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
REQUEST TO INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE, REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE & MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES INCLUDED WITHIN;
EXHIBITS, NEW CLAIMS & EX PARTE APPLICATION ARE
CONCURRENTLY FILED.
JOSEPH ZERNIK
PETITIONER
in pro per
2415 SAINT GEORGE STREET

LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90027
Tel: 310 435 9107
Fax: 801 998 0917
Email: jz12345@earthlink.net
JOSEPH ZERNIK,
Petitioner,
vs.

Respondent,
Dated: June 24, 2008 Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH ZERNIK
By_______________________________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
PETITIONER
in pro per
1
(1) Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate
Telephone numbers and office addresses of the attorneys for the parties
participating in Zernik v Connor et al are:
Sarah L Overton
Attorney for: Defendants that are Judges and Clerks of LA Superior Court,
ADR Services, and Ret Judge O’Brien
Cummings McClorey Davis Acho and Associates
3801 University Avenue, Suite 700
Riverside, CA 92501
951-276-4420
Email: soverton@cmda-law.com
John W Patton, Jr
Attorney for: David Pasternak
Pasternak Pasternak & Patton
1875 Century Park E, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2523
310-553-1500
Email: jwp@paslaw.com
Michael L Wachtell
Attorney for: Mara Escrow
Buchalter Nemer PC
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2457
213-891-5761
Email: mwachtell@buchalter.com
John Amberg
Attorney for: Countrywide, Angelo Mozillo, Sandor Samuels
Bryan Cave, LLP
120 Broadway, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Tel (3101 576-2100
Fax (3101 576-2200
Email: jwamberg@BryanCave.com
2
(2) Request for Leniency as Pro Se
In filing this, Petitioner requests special leniency as a pro se litigant - for
his "inartful pleading" (Erickson v Pardus, 2007). In particular, Plaintiff is
not qualified in assessing the validity of legal theories. I ask this U.S. District
Court to ignore any irrelevant or erroneous legal theory I claim, and to do take
into consideration the facts themselves, if they can support some other valid
theory. Haddoc 1985.
(3) Request for Incorporation by Reference of Exhibits Previously

Filed
Petitioner requests that this court incorporate by reference all of
Plaintiff’s filings that are on the Docket in Pacer (1).
JOSEPH ZERNIK
By_______________________________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
PETITIONER
in pro per
1 Pacer Docket of Zernik v Connor, CV-08-01550-VAP-CW
3
(4) Request for Judicial Notice
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 201, Petitioner requests that
this Honorable 9t Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal take Judicial Notice of all
records posted in Pacer, and of records of litigation and purported execution of
purported judgment in LA Superior Court filed today as exhibits:
A. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: EXHIBITS VOL IV –
MINUTE ORDERS & WRITTEN ORDERS FROM PAPER
COURT FILE. FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT, IN SUPPORT OF NEW CLAIMS PER
§1962, §1331, §1332, AND IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
- signed June 22, 2008, emailed June 22, 2008
B. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: EXHIBITS VOL V –
RECEIVERSHIP. . FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT, IN SUPPORT OF NEW CLAIMS PER
§1962, §1331, §1332, AND IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
4
- signed June 22, 2008, emailed June 24, 2008
C. NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE:
CORRESPONDENCE WITH OFFICES OF LASC CLERK AND
PRESIDING JUDGE: Request for certification of entry of Judgment,
alternatively – non entry of judgment
- signed June 20, 2008, emailed to parties June 20, 2008
D. NOTICE TO PARTIES: MOST SAMAAN V ZERNIK
LITIGATION RECORDS FROM LASC ARE INVALID, SUCH
RECORDS PROVIDE DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR NUMEROUS
PREDICATED ACTS PER RICO BY DEFENDANTS WHO ARE
JUDGES OF LASC, AND THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF
APPEAL 2nd DISTRICT WAS AWARE AT LEAST OF SOME OF
IT, THEREFORE SAMAAN V ZERNIK IS MISTRIAL.
5
E. NOTICE TO PARTIES: Significant document concealed under DOC
#52
F. NOTICE TO PARTIES: Significant document concealed under DOC
#56
G. NOTICE TO PARTIES: Significant document concealed under DOC
#58
H. DOCKETING: PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF JUDGE WOEHRLE’S JUNE 6, 2008
MINUTE ORDER, RECEIVED JUNE 13, 2008
I. NEW CLAIMS FOR ZERNIK V CONNOR ET AL PURSUANT
TO §1962, §1331, §1332
6
JOSEPH ZERNIK
By_______________________________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
PETITIONER
in pro per
(5) Facts showing the existence and nature of the claimed emergency
A confluence of recent events eroded any remaining faith Petitioner
may have had in Due Process at the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles,
where he came for safeguard of such rights from abuse by State courts – LA
Superior Court and California Court of Appeal, 2nd District.
By now, conditions in the LA Superior Court reached absurd level:
a. On Oct 25, 2005 complaint was filed by Samaan against Petitioner.
Ever since then Petitioner and his counsel have been denied direct
access to his own court file records. Most of this period, with few
exceptions, they have also been denied any notice of orders, rulings,
7
judgments, etc. A succession of Judges, most of them listed as
Defendants in action in the U.S. District Court presided or ruled in
the case. None of those who presided had an assignment order, and
Petitioner’s requests that such Assignment Orders be issued were
routinely denied. Petitioner holds and believes that the case as a
whole is carried “off the record” of the Index of All Cases of LA
Superior Court. Petitioner is denied access to that court record as
well.
b. On Jan 30, 2006 –Real Party in Interest Connor Presided as Judge for
the first time. Petitioner claims that the evidence shows that the case
was already targeted for fraud on that date, a year before Petitioner
ever appeared in court.
c. On Aug 9, 2007 Petitioner was served in open court by clerk of Real
Party in Interest Jacqueline Connor with an Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by
Court pursuant to CCP §437c (2), for specific performance of a real
property purchase contract of his home by Samaan. Petitioner is
denied access to inspect and to copy the “Judgment Books or
2 Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court pursuant to CCP §437c (Exhibits Vol IV, p97,
8
Equivalents” of LA Superior Court. The identity of such court record
and its whereabouts are unclear in and of themselves. Most likely it
is part of Sustain Case Management System, which the Court holds
to be “Privileged – for the Court only”
d. On Aug 21, 2007 At the conclusion of an Ex Parte proceeding on
opposing party’s request for “Entry of Judgment”, Petitioner’s
Counsel was presented in open court by clerk of Real Party in
Interest Connor with the Aug 9, 2007 Minute Order ( 3).
The Aug 9, 2007 Minute Order says:
“Judgment by Court pursuant to Code of Civil

Procedure Section 437c is signed and filed this date,
and a conformed copy is given to Plaintiff and
Defendant in open Court”.
e. On Aug 29, 2007 Petitioner received by mail from said court the Aug
21, 2007 Minute Order ( 4).
The Aug 21, 2008 Minute Order says:
“A review of the court file indicates that the

Judgment was signed and filed on Aug 9, 2007”
DOC #A)
3 Aug 9, 2007 Minute Order: Exhibits Vol IV, p98, DOC #A
4 Aug 21, 2007 Minute Order: Exhibits Vol IV, p126, DOC #A
9
f. By Dec 17, 2007 a Grant Deed (5) to grantee Samaan was recorded
on said property in the office of Registrar/Recorder of LA County.
Petitioner holds such recording is likely to be deemed fraudulent
conveyance upon review. Such transfer was done against Petitioner
will, with no Writ of Execution, and with no Abstract of Judgment,
by Real Party in Interest Pasternak, acting as Receiver for Real Party
in Interest LA Superior Court, engaging in Taking, after Forced
Entry into Petitioner’s property, which Petitioner was forced to leave
under threat of brute force.
g. By May 27, 2008, Petitioner was reassured through a “reliable
hearsay” that the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court Pursuant to CCP
§437c for specific performance (2) was never entered as Judgment in
Real Party in Interest LA Superior Court’s action named - Samaan v
Zernik (SC087400). And yet, Receiver who is Defendant in the US
District Court action, was purportedly appointed based on such
judgment and stated function was to enforce execution of such
judgment. Receiver took Petitioner’s home by threat of force,
5 Grant Deed recorded by Real Party in Interest, Pasternak, named Receiver in
10
purportedly enforcing execution of such judgment, issued gag-orders
on Petitioner to prevent Petitioner’s speech in opposition to
Receiver’s actions, purportedly based on such judgment, purportedly
transacted the sale of the property for specific performance
purportedly based on such judgment, yet – kept holding all the
proceeds.
h. On June 6, 2008 in response to Petitioner’s fax messages of June 3,
2008 (6), Petitioner received a letter from the office of Assistant
Presiding Judge of Real Party in Interest LA Superior Court, on
behalf of the Presiding Judge (6).
Petitioner requested a certificate, either of entry of judgment,
alternatively - of non-entry of Judgment in Samaan v Zernik
(SC087400). The response from the office of the Presiding Judge-
refusal to issue either (6).
i. On May 19, 2008 and June 6, 2008, Counsel for Samaan filed new
claims, totaling over $360,000, with Real Party in Interest Pasternak,
Real Party in Interest LA Superior Court, Exh Vol V, p 357 DOC #B

6 June 3, 2008 Zernik’s fax and Assistant Presiding Judge Response in re: Entry
of Aug 9, 2007 Judgment, DOC #C
11
named Receiver that action (7).
j. On June 19, 2008 Real Party in Interest Pasternak filed a Motion to
issue payments to Samaan based on such demands (8).
k. In recent weeks Petitioner also discovered that Receiver had recorded
a Grant Deed on Petitioner’s home that is likely to be deemed an
instrument of fraudulent conveyance (9). This Grant Deed shows
even in photocopy signs of alteration/adulteration, and it is
impossible to clearly know what was the instrument that was
acknowledged by the Notary Public in this case. Pasternak refused to
answer questions regarding the specifics of the record that was
acknowledged by the Notary Public (10). The grant deed that was
approved in Court was deceitful as well (11). Petitioner discovered
that the Receiver signed on that Grant Deed in lieu of the Notary
Public. The Grant Deed that was recorded is entirely different than
7 May 19 and June 6, 1008 Demands by Samaan, Exh Vol V- Receivership, p363,
422. DOC #B
8 Notice of Motion and Motion Exh Vol V – Receivership, p469 DOC #B
9 Grant Deed recorded by Pasternak, Exh Vol V – Receivership, p357 DOC #B
10 Email exchange Zernik-Pasternak. Exh Vol V- Receivership, p454 DOC #B
11 Grant Deed approved by Court at Pasternak’s request Exh Vol V –
Receivership, p314, DOC #B
12
the one approved in court.
l. In the California Court of Appeal, a deadline was set for July 14,
2008, for Petitioner’s opening brief and submission of Petitioner’s
Appendix of records on appeal, yet requests for access to litigation
records, for correct listing of the parties, and for including the LA
Superior Court as a respondent in the Appeal, were all summarily
denied.
m. In the U.S. District Court effectively refuses to safeguard Petitioner
right for Due Process: Past requests that the U.S. District Court take
action to remedy the abuse of Due Process rights and denial of access
to litigation records, remained without rulings.
i. The Court remains determined to rule on nothing but dismissal of
the complaint.
ii. On May 15, 2008 a gag-order was set on Petitioner by the U.S.
District Court in the Minute Order (DOC # 57), prohibiting
Petitioner from filing anything in the U.S. District court .
iii. In the June 6, 2008 Minute Order (DOC #63) this prohibition was
never rescinded, while a request for reconsideration was deemed
13
Moot.
iv. June 6, 2008 Minute Order (DOC #63) makes it clear that bias
against Petitioner’s paper filings is now established as the norm.
The U.S. District Court Docket appears irregular and raises
concerns of dishonesty and further abuse of Due Process rights.
Some filings were delayed by a month. There is no correlation
between time of filing and time of entry. Petitioner is repeatedly
told to hold tight to his conformed copies… Petitioner repeatedly
complained about the irregularities in filing.
n. Week of June 16, 2008 - oblique language in July 6, 2008 Minute
Order (DOC #63) and review of the March 5, 2007 summons (DOC
#1), revealed:
i. On March 5, 2008 the valid Summons prepared by Petitioner were
replaced by invalid Summons prepared by Chris, the senior Pro Se
Clerk in District Court.
ii. Such Summons are not docketed in the Pacer Tag listed as
Summons.
iii. Such Summons are instead docketed as the last page in the Docket
14
of original Complaint (DOC #1).
iv. The continuation page, prepared for the Summons, and served
with each and every copy of the Summons, which is valid, and
could mitigate the error introduced on the front page by the Clerk
was not docketed at all.
v. On Friday, June 20, 2008 - Petitioner tried to obtain valid
Summons from the Pro Se unit and file exhibits and other papers.
As soon as Petitioner arrived, he was told that Clerk Office was
not allowed to let him file anything. Petitioner than gave up on
filing, but asked to obtain valid summons. The senior Pro Se
Clerk Chris, who was the one who put in place the invalid
summons started questioning Petitioner: Who told him that the
summons were invalid. Petitioner responded nobody did. Clerk
than asked how Petitioner knew Summons were invalid.
Petitioner said it was obvious once you saw it, albeit, it was
hidden below the complaint in the docket (DOC #1). Again, the
Clerk demanded to know what was invalid about the Summons.
Petitioner answered that he was designated Plaintiff, and the clerk
15
listed him as Defendant, and on top of that, he did not scan and
docket the continuation page which in contrast with the Summons
was prepared by Petitioner, and was correct.
The Pro Se Clerk then admitted that he made a mistake, but still,
would not sign the valid Summons prepared by Petitioner, never
mind that it is not even an act of filing at all (presuming that there
is substance to such prohibition). Moreover, Petitioner was told
not to come on Monday, since they would be able to take care of
him only on Tuesday.
Petitioner tried to explain again the emergency, but the senior Pro
Se clerk was trying to convince Petitioner that it does not matter,
since he has a new First Amended Complaint anyway.
Security Agent G. Munoz was present, and two younger clerks as
well, whose names were John and another Chris, so Petitioner was
told.
Petitioner figured out that arguing would not make anything any
better, and after about 20-30 min he left, determined to go to the
9th circuit.
16
vi. On Monday, June 23, 2008 flight to San Francisco was delayed by
hours, and Petitioner arrived after closing. Petitioner discussed
the matter by phone with staff attorney Caroline, and informed her
that he was late and will arrive Tue, June 24, 2008.
o. On June 26, 2008, in 48 hours, the complaint will be dismissed, since
the Court set in the June 6, 2008 Minute Order (DOC #63) a deadline
that is sooner than allowed by law (120 days).
(6) When and how counsel for the other parties were notified and whether they
have been served with the motion; or, if not notified and served, why that was
not done:
On Friday, June 20, 2008, and again on Sunday night and Monday Morning,
Petitioner sent a notice by email to counsel, indicating his plan to file the Petition, and
explaining that he was not sure of his ability to compete the writing, therefore, will
provide conclusive notice at a later time.
On Monday, June 23, 2008, around 1:00pm Petitioner sent a conclusive email
notice also attached a draft.
On Tuesday, June 24, 2008, as soon as document was ready, another email was sent
to parties with the final record as an attachment.
17
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
U.S. CONSTITUTION
First Amendment
Fifth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment
U.S. CODE
Rule-making Enabling Act
CASE LAW
Nixon v Warner Communications
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT
California Rules of Court, Rule 2.500 et seq – Access to Electronic Court

File Records.
LOCAL LA COUNTY RULES OF COURT
Executive Officer of the Court – in re: obligation to keep “Judgment Books

or equivalents”
Judgment - in re: Judgment must be entered in Judgment Books.
The whole record – no mention of Sustain.
18
INTRODUCTION
The underlying case from LASC appears initially as a pedestrian real
estate litigation between two private parties. Petitioner holds that
substantial efforts were made to make it look that way, but it is far from
that. To give just one example – Countrywide, a large corporation, was
claimed by Petitioner since Dec 2006 to be behind this litigation. All along
Judges of the LASC claimed such allegations to be “conspiratorial
theories”.
But on July 6, 2007, Countrywide appeared first in Court, in a
procedure to issue gag-order against Petitioner, that was disguised as a
Protective Order, but took place under unusual conditions at a time no
protective orders were allowed.
More recently, in the document titled “Case History”, which the
office of the Clerk of said Court claimed was the true and correct “Register
of Actions” Petitioner found out that the procedure on July 6, 2007 was
defined as “off the record”. Many other proceedings of that nature were
detected in such records (DOC #E).
19
Review of the minute orders, which Petitioner got to see months after
the fact, shows most were never noticed, yet entered in the Court File.
More alarming was the finding that almost each and every Minute
Order shows two alternative date of entry, that may differ by up to three
months, and a group of critical minute orders that appear valid in paper
files, were secretly inactivated in electronic file records. The evidence
shows that the Court holds at least two alternative records:
a. Paper file records, which are typically provided for public
review (but were not allowed to Petitioner and his counsel
either).
b. Electronic file records, which are held “privileged”.
Combined, such findings and more, led Petitioner to write additional
claims including claims based on False Claims Act, against
Countrywide, and also claims based on RICO. Petitioner was
advised that the California Attorney General and FBI were interested
in his filing regarding Countrywide, and that the procedure was to
file such claims under seal. However, Petitioner has no confidence in
20
the office of the Clerk in LA, and is bringing such claims here to file
with his Petition.
21
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
A. Authenticity Of Exhibits.
All exhibits accompanying this petition are true copies of original
documents on file with Respondent Court. Any that were not filed, due to
prohibition on filing, were brought here in a form for filing in court, and are
marked #A, #B, #C, #D, and #E.
B. Beneficial Interest Of Petitioner; Capacities Of
Respondent And Real Party In Interest.
Petitioner Joseph Zernik is Defendant in an action for Specific
Performance in the LA Superior Court, where Summary Judgment
hearing took place on Aug 9, 2007, which is the subject of an appeal in
the State Court of Appeals. Petitioner holds that adjudication in that
hearing on the motion for summary judgment was entirely in error, and
probably deliberately so. Since throughout the litigation, Petitioner’s
Due Process rights where methodically abused, to effect conditions
where he and Counsel could always physically attend the litigation, but
22
never effectively participate. Some of the abuses noted here are
generalized, and are considered normal standards in LA County, or so at
least Petitioner was told by Counsel:
No attorney -- and Petitioner questioned on this issue at least a
couple dozen attorneys who appear in LASC -- that Petitioner questioned
even knew the name of LASC’s Case Management System (Sustain). In
contrast, no attorney that appears in District Court that Petitioner
questioned, ever failed to know the name of the Federal Case
Management System (Pacer).
No attorney that Petitioner asked had ever gained access to Sustain
and the electronic Court file records, which are held “privileged” by the
LA Superior Court, in violation of the 1st.. 5th and 14th Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution, by U.S. and California sections of the code, and by
CRC Rule 2.500 et seq (12). But each and every attorney that Petitioner
asked was routinely accessing Pacer for his/her work in Federal Courts.
Based on his study and notes in West, Petitioner concludes that
most likely each and every county in California has a clearly defined
12 CRC Rule 2.500 et seq.
23
Book of Judgments, either on paper or electronic, but Petitioner believes
that conditions where the Book of Judgment or its “equivalent” is not
even clearly defined, and is “privileged” are unique to LA County.
Petitioner’s Summary Judgment hearing took place almost a year
ago (Aug 9, 2007). At the conclusion of that proceeding, the Presiding
Judge stated clearly (Exh Vol – Transcripts, DOC #58, hidden under
an unrelated docketing tag), and also in the respective Aug 9, 2007
Minute Order (3) and in later, in subsequent hearings (Aug 30, 2007),
and Aug 21, 2007 Minute Order (4). And yet, it is by now perfectly clear
that by May 27, 2008, the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court Pursuant to
CCP §437c (2) had never been entered.
It is also clear that this was no accident, the succession of Judges
that presided in this case, many in the Clerk’s room, and even Justices of
the California Court of Appeal and senior staff there, knew by late
August 2007 that in this case Defendant is being defrauded by the LA
Superior Court. And a reasonable person reviewing the case as a whole,
would certainly entertain the doubt that the Honorable Federal Judge and
Magistrate were also in the know:
24
To whit – Petitioner’s original Complaint of March 5, 2008,
described in general terms the scheme of the fraud regarding entering the
Judgment. But Petitioner had no conclusive data, it was all
circumstantial, and he still believed that the Judgment was entered
sometime in Aug 2007. He concluded that something was going to
happen and the Judgment would be found to be defective, or rescinded,
and therefore Plaintiff and the Judges were engaging in the dishonest
conduct as they did. No record after the Summary Judgment hearing ever
referred directly to the Judgment or included a copy of the Judgment,
although Petitioner was routinely blamed for failing to cooperate with
enforcement of the Judgment
Reading in retrospect the March 21, 2008 Minute Order (DOC
#14), one is left wondering about the specific wording, which artfully
skirted around the “entering” of the Judgment:
“The Superior Court of California for the County

of Los Angeles awarded summary judgment in
favor of Samaan…”
“On November 9, 2007, the Superior Court
appointed Defendant Pasternak as Receiver and
ordered him to take possession, custody and
control of the real property in dispute and to sell
25
the property to Samaan pursuant to the award of
summary judgment.”
And nowhere does it address the question of why Petitioner was
never allowed access to his own litigation records, or why none of the
funds resulting from that sale was ever released to Petitioner.
Moreover, Petitioner recently read more about §1968, and he now
realizes that there is no requirement to exhaust State Courts relative to
this section. The March 21, 2008 Minute Order seems to order him
differently.
And if one examines carefully the evolution of the Docket in this
case in comparison to other dockets on Pacer, it appears that operator
“et”, who entered items 1-5, had some ulterior motive, since he./she left
the second item (between DOC #1 and DOC #2) on the docket
unnumbered, an operation that seems to defy the concept and purpose of
a Register of Actions. The Summons were instead hidden under DOC
#1, and the continuation page deleted.
And more recently, after Petitioner repeatedly complained about
the unusual errors in docketing, that appeared deliberate and aimed to
26
harm in critical points (Docket #52, 56, 58), the June 6, 2008 Minute
Order appears to establish such docketing as the norm.
27
Timeliness Of The Petition.
On Friday, Petitioner still tried to resolve the issue with the Clerk,
although already on May 27, 2008, it felt like Petitioner was lucky that his
papers were filed. Had Petitioner’s paper not been filed on May 27, 2008,
including a Request for Reconsideration of the prohibition on filing, and
First Amended Complaint, this case would have been already dismissed.
By Monday, June 23, 2008 Petitioner is in San Francisco, for filing
the Petition, prior to the June 26, 2008 deadline, but as a result of late flight
arrived after 5:00pm. Never the less, earlier in the day he called and talked
with staff attorney Caroline, and informed her of the situation.
Chronology Of Relevant Facts And Procedure.
One can figure it out from the docket, but the bottom line is that all
Petitioner’s requests for access to his litigation records at LASC, which
are essential for his filing in the District Court as well, were left
unheeded. The Court Minute Orders are focused on one issue and that
issue only – dismissal of the complaint.
xxviii
Review of the Docket also shows that Defendants filed only one
(1) record as evidence in support of their motion to dismiss. Petitioner
repeatedly claimed that record to be false and misleading, requested
evidentiary ruling, requested OSC RE: Contempt for deceiving the court.
But it appears that that the Court is determined not to rule on this
issue, which is central to the case, claiming it is irrelevant for the issue of
dismissal. Given that this is the only record filed as evidence by
Defendants for their Motion to Dismiss, and the significance Plaintiff
puts on the record, it is incomprehensible how the Court could find the
issue irrelevant.
a. May 9, 2008 – Petitioner filed Request for leave to file
First Amended Complaint, but docketing was
manipulated to appear late, and the request remained
ignored (DOC #58)
b. May 9, 2008 -Petitioner’s request for Individual
Affirmative Action Plan (DOC #58) that would have
allowed him at minimum to inspect and copy litigation
records and use such in opposing the motion to dismiss,
xxix
is ignored in what at least appears as measures to ensure
dismissal of the complaint.
c. May 15, 2008 - Judge Woehrle imposes on Petitioner
effective gag order (DOC #57), in a critical time for his
complaint, and his request for reconsideration (DOC
#61) deemed moot, while gag order not lifted at all.
d. May 18, 2008 - Petitioner obtains records from
Registrar/Recorder office, and discovers Grant Deed that
he deems as fraudulent Conveyance.(5)
e. May 27, 2008 – Reliable Hearsay – Judgment had never
been entered by that date
f. June 12, 2008 letter from Presiding Judge Office, LA
Superior Court, refusing to certify either entry or non-
entry of judgment, appears to affirm the hearsay, and
raises concern of imminent further manipulation of
records.
g. June 1-15, 2008 - further manipulations in Registers of
Actions detected both in LA Superior Court records –
xxx
that amount to fraud, and in docket of US District Court
listing that amount at least to bias, if not dishonesty.
h. June 14, 2008 – June 6, 2008 Minute Order (DOC #63).
entered only June 9, 2008, received this weekend,
appears as an attempt to establish dishonest docket
manipulations as the new norm, repeat protests by
Petitioner remain ignored (DOC #56, #60).
Alarmingly widening gap between perception of case by Petitioner and
the U.S. District Court, in the face of severe abuse of Civil Rights and
imminent dismissal of US District Court complaint, dishonest
manipulation of docketing, and refusal to rule on critical matters.
Abuse of Petitioner’s rights remains ignored:
a. Four gag orders imposed upon Petitioner:
i. Procedure that was defined “off the record” and started
July 6, 2007, by Judge Jacqueline Connor, LA Superior
Court, at the request of Indeterminate Party Countrywide
xxxi
(see below re; Countrywide Party Designation).
ii. Double Ex Parte Proceedings on the morning of Dec 7,
2007, by Judge Hart-Cole, then Judge Collins, at the
request of Receiver Pasternak, for Party Mara Escrow
(not a party in LA Superior Court, Defendant in District
Court), represented by Counsel whose identity and
client’s identity were concealed in the hearing at Hart-
Cole’s Court, and falsely and deliberately
misrepresented in the hearing before Judge Collins.
iii. At same hearing – Gag Order for interests of United
Title.
iv. Effectively a gag order in District Court
With that LASC and the U.S. District Court in LA seem to be unanimous
in:
a. Attempts to rush and dispose of the case as soon as possible
b. Prevent any mention or listing of corporate entities involved as
much as possible
c. Prevent in any way possible Petitioner’s access to his own
xxxii
litigation records
d. Restrict Petitioner’s speech, to prevent him from documenting
inequities and preserving his rights.
e. Various manipulations or Court records to hide as much as
possible all the above.
CHRONOLOGY OF LITIGATION IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT:
On March 5, 2008 Petitioner sought refuse and protection in the U.S.
District Court, and then filed complaint (DOC #1), when his abuse under
the LASC became impossible to tolerate any longer: Judge Friedman
(LASC) threaten in open court to issue a jail sentence against Petitioner in
the then upcoming March 7, 2008 hearing on OSC re: Contempt. Such
serious threat to Petitioner’s liberty arose from Judge Friedman’s ruling on
Jan 11, 2008, ex post facto, that a non-existent Judge Connor July 23, 2007
Gag Order, had been “in full force and effect” all along. Such non-existent
Gag Order would have been issued as the final outcome of an abusive “off
the record” ex parte proceeding to benefit Countrywide. Judge Friedman
proceeded to rule on Feb 15, 2008 that Petitioner had engaged in conduct in
xxxiii
violation of such non-existent order prior to Jan 11, 2008, and accordingly
set serious sanctions on Petitioner, exceeding $16,000, in a hearing where as
trier of facts he accepted as evidence unauthenticated email
communications, some of which had nothing to do with the non-existent
Gag Order, and were part of Protected Speech between Petitioner, in pro
per, and Counsel for Countrywide.
Initially, no Judge in Los Angeles agreed to hear the case. Then it
was moved th Riverside, and then, I a surprise reversal – moved back to LA
to Judge Woehrle.
On March 21, 2008 Judge Virginia Phillips Minute Order. Denied
the TRO, but also discussed need to exhaust state remedies, which according
to Petitioner reading is not the case at all in this particular type of case.
Similarly, there is not issue of immunity here. None of the judges had
an assignment order, they were presiding off the record.
The wording of the March 21, 2008 also appears to skirt around the
entry of Judgment, presenting the conduct of LASC as fully legitimate.
On May 9, 2008 Petitioner filed Ex Parte Request for leave to file
First Amended Complaint (DOC #58) remains in limbo. He follows up the
xxxiv
filing with a phone call to docket quality assurance, to verify speedy
delivery to chamber, and reassured of that. Same is promised by Clerk’s
office. But the request is not docketed until May 16, 2008, and no ruling
done on such to this very day. The docket shows worrisome signs of
manipulation in chambers, made to delay the docketing date of entry.
On May 15, 2008, that is -- prior to the appearance on docket of
the Ex Parte Request to file First Amended Complaint (filed May 9, 2008,
manipulated by adding some unknown attachments to appear as entered
only May 16, 2008), Judge Woehrle issued the May 15, 2008 Minute
Order (DOC #57) that is deemed by Petitioner as a gag order at most critical
time for his complaint. The Minute Order is received by Petitioner by mail
only on May 22, 2008 (typically mailed in large envelopes, making delivery
particularly slow).
On May 18, 2008 Petitioner discovers Grant Deed that is evidence
of fraudulent Conveyance of Property by Receiver. Documents obtained
from the LA County Registrar/Recorder include a copy of the Grant Deed
for Petitioner’s home, entered in that office on Dec 17, 2007 by David
Pasternak, Court appointed Receiver. Petitioner now believes that such
xxxv
fraudulent conveyance was necessitated since judgment had never been
entered, and Receiver was executing an unentered Judgment in defiance
of the law. No Writ of Execution was ever issued, neither an Abstract of
Judgment.
Such act was the culmination of what Petitioner holds to be
fraudulent conveyance of his residence and his property. The Grant
Deed, as recorded, involved yet additional deceptive, false and
deliberately misleading conduct, such as characterized the “enforcement
of the execution of the Judgment” all along, in particular – the Nov 9,
2007 Order Appointing Pasternak Receiver( 13) , which Petitioner deems
a fraudulent Court Order, meant to bestow the appearance of legitimacy
on this wrongful conduct by the court. This Court Order fails to refer to
any section of the code, failing to refer to the Judgment by Court, and
failing to refer to a Real Property Purchase Contract, when Receiver was
purportedly appointed to execute the Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court per
CCP §437c – for Specific Performance. In fact, the LASC, Samaan, and
13 Order
Appointing Pasternak Receiver Exh Vol V – Receivership, p 166,
DOC #B
xxxvi
Pasternak engaged in taking of Petitioner’s property with no valid
judgment at all.
On May 22, 200814, Petitioner received Samaan’s request for
payment in the amount of $232, 459.94, dated May 19, 2008. The
scheme is clear – since no Judgment was entered, Samaan would
continue making claims, until the funds with Receiver are depleted, then
entered the judgment, to retroactively make the impression of legitimate
execution of Judgment. In short, Petitioner would be left with no
ownership of the Property and no compensation at all., a far cry from
Specific Performance. The demand letter opens with the false statement:
“As you know, on Aug 9, 2007, the Court entered a

judgment against Mr Zernik…”
Had the District Court taken action to uphold Petitioner’s Due Process
rights, we would have known by now that Judgment was never entered. But
the District Court appears resolved not to remedy any of the Civil Rights
abuses, only to rush to dismiss the complaint.
On May 22, 2008, Judge Woehrle May 15, 2008 Minute Order,
which was effectively a gag order was received by Petitioner by mail,
xxxvii
forbidding him to file anything with the court, at a time his opposition to
Motion to Dismiss was overdue, but his timely ex parte requests are simply
ignored, and he is left in the dark whether they were received at all, since
they docketing is delayed, then misused:
a. for extension of deadline for opposition
b. for a leave to file First Amended Complaint
On May 27, 2008, Petitioner assesses the situation as unreasonable,.
Phone calls to Justice’s Clerk, to confirm which records were received in
chambers were left unanswered, Overall situation seen as a potential trap,
made to have him miss deadline out of fear of disobeying Court Order.
Petitioner also detects manipulations of the filing in Pacer that appear to
result in harm to him, whether deliberate or erroneous. Docket Assurance
staff, overall honest and responsive, is willing to correct minor spelling
errors, but refuses to correct docketing of critical documents that are left
hidden. Petitioner is left to conclude that such docketing was done by
Chambers decision.
14 May 19, 2008 Samaan’s demand p 363, DOC #B.
xxxviii
Petitioner filed his first amended complaint, under much concern
that he was disobeying e the Honorable Woehrle Gag Order, and might
suffer consequences. But failure to file the complaint would have resulted
in consequences as well. It is up for speculation how the Honorable Judge
Woehrle expected it to work with the deadline.
On May 27, 2008, Petitioner learnt through a reliable hearsay that
Aug 9, 2007 Judgment by Court pursuant to CCP §437c was never entered
even by the May 27, 2008 date. Petitioner is denied for the third year of
litigation at the LASC access to his own Court File records, and therefore
had to be satisfied on this critical point with hearsay.
On June 2, 2008, Petitioner again filed Motion/Declaration of
Mistrial in the LASC. As usual, Judge Friedman did nothing in that regard.
On June 8, 2008 Samaan issued another demand for pay by Receiver
Pasternak ( 15). This time, the demand is for $128,850. Again, the demand
starts with the false statement:
“As you know, on Aug 9, 2007, the Court entered a

judgment against Mr Zernik, in favor of Samaan…”
15 p 422, DOC #B
xxxix
Had the District Court taken action to uphold Petitioner’s Civil Rights for
Due Process, this ongoing fraud under the guise of legitimate Court action
could not proceed any longer. But the District Court appears in no rush to
put an end to the charade.
On June 13, 2008, Petitioner received by mail the Judge Woehrle’s
(Respondent Court) June 8, 2008 Minute Order (DOC #63). It became
clearer than ever before, that Petitioner’s is not likely to have his civil rights
upheld through this court, and that dismissal of the complaint, filed March
5, 2008 is imminent.
Particularly troubling was the elaborated discussion of difficulties in
scanning and docketing, and accepting such as justification for mis-
docketed records (of Petitioner only), and discovery of some records that
were missed altogether (of Petitioner only).
It all sounded as hand-waiving response to Petitioner’s explicit
complaint of questionable handling of his papers: Docket #60, filed 5/27/08
- was necessary to document such errors.
b.
xl
Plaintiff is the only one required to file on paper, in person. It is
understandable that the court decided not to allow electronic filing to pro se,
although Petitioner would like to believe that such is not a hard and fast
rule. Regardless, there could be ways to mitigate the burden. Instead, this
handicap is used to further compromise Petitioner’s filings.
Petitioner finds himself an expert of sorts on dockets, registers of actions,
indexes, etc.
Therefore, Petitioner is perplexed by following comments, by Judge
Woehrle (page 2):
“6. Multiple documents filed together on the same

day may appear under the same docket number as
attachments. So long as the text of the attachments
can be accessed electronically from the docket, this is
not a problem: the documents in question are in the
record, are accessible electronically, and will be
given all due consideration by this court.”
Petitioner is compelled to state that he cannot accept such statement at face
value as an honest statement by the Honorable Judge. The strange and
unusual idea of hiding records of the same day (and in the past of different
days) under other register records, is contrary to the basic concept of the
Register of Actions. .
xli
Pacer sets much higher standards than either the planned or existent
Court of Appeal software. than the comparable California web productions,
and Pacer sets a high standard for transparency – showing how digital
technology can be a safeguard and enhancer of Due Process rights, where
others exploited such technology to deny Due Process rights. Judge
Woehrle appears in the midst of attempts to overcome the transparency
produced by Pacer, but roll it back only in relationship to selected papers by
Plaintiff. Such bias is unacceptable.
“7. The Court has located several filed documents

which do not appear to have been scanned. They
will be scanned and docketed as soon as staff is
available to do so.”
Petitioner is informed that from now on his filings (and his alone) would be
posted on a selective basis, but the selection would not be his, but somebody
else’s.
“… In light of the filing of the FAC the following are

denied, without prejudice, as moot:
(f) Request for reconsideration, docket no. 61, filed
May 27, 2008.”
xlii
• Petitioner’s May 27, 2008 Request for Reconsideration (#61) was in
response to the Honorable Judge Woehrle’s May 15, 2007 Gag Order
(Docket #57). Yet, whereas Judge Woehrle finds the Request for
Reconsideration moot, she does not state that the gag order she
imposed on plaintiff is rescinded. That gag order was imposed at a
critical moment, and could easily have caused a major damage to
Petitioner.
• Petitioner also believes that his name and contact information must
appear in the docket under attorneys, with the clear statement that he
is party in pro se, so as not to confuse.. Deletion of his name and
contact information from that listing is likely to result of missing
communications from a wide range of people that may want to
communicate him, and is again questionable.
• Same is true regarding Petitioner’s listing under Case Summary.
• Failure to list Corporate Parents is again bothersome. The insistence
on hiding the prominent role of certain corporations in this case
reached absurd levels in the LA Superior Court and the California
xliii
Court of Appeal (see below). Petitioner requests that the District
Court complete the missing information.
In short – Petitioner must now conclude that the LA District Court is not
likely to restore his abused civil rights at all, perhaps only add some abuse.
Judge Woehrle had no intention of providing any protection or any remedial
measure whatsoever for the wide range of abuses Petitioner had suffered at
the LASC.
On June 14. 2008 Petitioner received by mail an order signed by
Paul Turner, Presiding Justice of the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District
– Denial of Petitioner’s request to bifurcate the upcoming appeal into its
two original components. Given that the judgment was not entered yet –
Petitioner requested to hear at this time only the appeal from he Order
appointing Receiver, and Appeal from the Judgment to be continued until
after Judgment is entered. The decision not to bifurcate is compromising
Petitioner’s position in that court - since the LASC is likely to manipulate
the entry of Judgment now to happen after Petitioner files his briefs.
xliv
On June 16. 2008 Petitioner sent a demand for payment to Receiver
David Pasternak, and with it – a demand to notice Petitioner of any attempt
to secretly or otherwise enter the August 9, 2007 Judgment by Court
pursuant to CCP §437c. Petitioner expects that such may be done any day
now, while back-dating such entry to some earlier date, while keeping it all
secret as usual:
a. Since Petitioner make it clear that he figured out by now most details
of the convoluted, interrelated frauds on that judgment, on court
records, on appointment of Receiver Pasternak, on recording of a
false Grant Deed, etc.
b. To allow the California Court of Appeal, 2nd District to immediately
deny both appeals (on the Judgment and on Order Appointing
Receiver).
Abuse of Petitioner’s Civil Rights by the Courts
a. Violation of Free Speech, with gag orders to benefit
Countrywide, Mara Escrow, and United Title,
xlv
b. An array of Due Process violations, too numerous to list,
suffice is to refer again to denial of access to Court File records,
denial of notice of entry of orders, judgments, and other
records, and the ongoing production of false and fraudulent
Trial Court litigation records under the veil of secrecy and
denial of access.
c. Taking of Petitioner’s property for private use, under the
guise of legitimate Court action, but in fact with no legal
foundation at all, and ongoing abuse of what the LASC deems
to be Petitioner’s equity – the proceeds from what the LASC
holds to be a legitimate conveyance or transfer of title.
Even more distressing were the comments by Judge Woehrle in the June
8, 2008 Minute Order. the only party receive notice by mail, at times up to
a week after date of issue. Petitioner is also the only party required to
produce on filings in person in the Clerk’s office, and file and notice all
parties, prohibitive burden on his limited time in waking hours.
xlvi
Therefore, But in between, the LASC engaged in an elaborate
deceptive maneuvers, which involved a number of Judges and Court staff, to
prevent Petitioner from obtaining any conclusive information in this regard.
But in between the two dates listed above, Petitioner was removed from his
own residence, under threat of brute force, and the LASC engaged in forced
entry into the Property (320 South Peck Drive, Beverly Hills, 90212) with
no consent by Petitioner , LASC then proceeded with taking of such private
property for private use, selling it to Samaan, conducting what Petitioner
holds to be fraudulent conveyance, and ongoing abuse of Petitioner’s
purported equity, or funds that the LASC holds to be Petitioner’s equity-
proceeds from the purported sale of said property.
xlvii
xlviii
JOSEPH ZERNIK,
Petitioner,
vs.

Respondent,

PETITIONER PRAYS THIS COURT PROVIDE

DELIVERANCE AND ISSUE:
1. ORDER TO COMPEL PRO SE OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES U.S. DISTRICT
COURT TO SIGN VALID SUMMONS, OR ANY ALTERNATIVE REMEDY TO
THAT EFFECT DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THIS COURT.
2. ORDER TO COMPEL THE DISTRICT COURT TO EXTEND JUNE 26, 2008
DEADLINE FOR FILING SUMMONS TO THE FULL 120 DAYS ALLOWED
BYLAW, OR ANY ALTERNATIVE REMEDY TO THAT EFFECT DEEMED
APPROPRIATE BY THIS COURT.
49
3. ORDER TO COMPEL STAY OF RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS, OR ANY
ALTERNATIVE REMEDY TO THAT EFFECT DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY
THIS COURT.
4. ORDER TO COMPEL US DISTRICT COURT TO COMPEL LASC TO ALLOW
PETITIONER FULL ACCESS TO LITIGATION RECORD, AND OTHER COURT
RECORDS SUCH AS BOOKS OF COURT, OR ANY ALTERNATIVE REMEDY
TO THAT EFFECT DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THIS COURT.
5. ORDER TO LA DISTRICT COURT TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO AMEND HIS
COMPLAINT AND HIS OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON HIS
LASC RECORDS, AFTER HE WAS ALLOWED ACCESS, OR ANY
THIS COURT.
6. ORDER LA DISTRICT COURT TO PROHIBIT LASC AND RECEIVER
PASTERNAK FROM RELEASING ANY FUNDS TO SAMAAN PENDING FULL
REVIEW BY THE COURT, OR ANY ALTERNATIVE REMEDY TO THAT
EFFECT DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THIS COURT.
7. ORDER LA DISTRICT COURT TO ISSUE ORDERS TO PROTECT WITNESS,
VICTIM, INFORMER ZERNIK FROM HARASSMENT, RETALIATION,
50
INTIMIDATION BY THE LASC, ITS JUDGES, AND COUNTRYWIDE OR
ANY ALTERNATIVE REMEDY TO THAT EFFECT DEEMED APPROPRIATE
BY THIS COURT.
8. ORDER THIS CASE REMOVED FROM LA DISTRICT COURT TO SAN
FRANCISCO DISTRICT COURT, OR ANY ALTERNATIVE REMEDY TO THAT
EFFECT DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THIS COURT.
9. ORDER OR TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL
COUNSEL REGARDING CONDITIONS IN LASC, OR ANY ALTERNATIVE
REMEDY TO THAT EFFECT DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THIS COURT.
10. ORDER DISTRICT COURT TO RELEASE TO PETITIONER THE SUM OF
$250,000 AS A PAYMENT REFLECTING EITHER PART OF HIS EQUITY IN
THE PROPERTY, ALTERNATIVELY, LEASE PAYMENTS BY SAMAAN AND
OTHER COMPENSATIONS IF EVENTUALLY IT IS RULED THAT THE
PROPERTY IS PETITIONERS, AS HE WISHES IT TO REMAIN, OR ANY
THIS COURT.
51
52
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this Court should direct
Respondent Court to stay its ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss
complaint and immediately engage in Affirmative Action to restore
Petitioner’s Federal Due Process rights, Free Speech and Possession.
Such have been severely abused in litigation at the LA Superior
Court. Absent protection and remediation of civil rights abuse by the
Federal Court, Petitioner would not be able to effectively reply to said
motion to dismiss and/or attend his own defense and/or effectively appeal
in State Courts either, and abusers would come out benefiting twice –first
- undermining Petitioner’s standing in the LA Superior Court and
California Court of Appeal, and then - in the U.S. District Court as well.
JOSEPH ZERNIK
___________________________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
PETITIONER
In pro per
53
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
No related cases that Petitioner is aware of are at present in the United
States Court
54
STATEMENT OF VERIFICATION
I, Joseph Zernik, am Defendant & Cross Complainant in Samaan
v Zernik (SC087400) matter heard in Los Angeles Superior Court, West
District, I am also Appellant in Zernik v Samaan (B203063 – noticed
10/5/07 and B204544 – notice 12/10/07, at present consolidated under
B203063), matters currently in preparation of records on appeal for
California Court of Appeal, and I am also Plaintiff in Zernik v Los
Angeles Superior Court (2:2008cv01550).
I have written this Petition and compiled the exhibits for it. The
foregoing Petition is true and correct, and the records compiled in
refereced exhibits are true and correct copies of litigation records
collected in the course of litigation. I know the content of the Petition
to be true and correct, and the records to be true and correct copies,
based on my own personal knowledge as Defendant & Cross
Complainant, as Appellant, and as Plaintiff in pro per, in matters heard
in vareious courts as listed above, except as to those matters therein
stated as based upon information and belief, and as to to those matters, I
believe them to be true and correct as well.
55
I make this declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to the
laws of California and the United States.
Executed here in San Francisco, on this 24th day in June, 2008.
_______________________
JOSEPH ZERNIK
PLAINTIFF
in pro per
56
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (CIRCUIT RULE 32(e)(4))
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, rule 32(e)(4), I
certify that the petition is double spaced, with the exception of quotations
that are longer than two lines, and headings and footnotes, as permitted by
Rule 32(c). The petition is proportionately spaced using 14-point Times
New Roman typeface. The brief’s total word count, excluding covers,
corporate disclosure statement, table of contents, table of authorities,
statement of related cases, and certificate of compliance is 5,047, and does
not exceed 14,000 words.
Dated: June 24, 2008. Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH ZERNIK
________________________________
BY JOSEPH ZERNIK
PETITIONER
in pro per
57
Exhibit (iii) Online PACER docket of the Petition Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC
(08-72714) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
08-72714 Summary
Billing
Court Home Case Search Orders/Judgments XML TXT Logout Help
History
If you view the Full Docket you will be charged for 1 Pages $0.08
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 08-72714 Docketed: 06/24/2008
Joseph Zernik v. USDC-CAC Termed: 06/25/2008
Appeal From: US District Court for Central California, Los Angeles
Case Type Information:

1) original proceeding
2) mandamus/prohibition
3) null
Originating Court Information:

District: 0973-2 : 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW
Trial Judge: Virginia A. Phillips, U.S. District Judge
Date Filed:
Date Rec'd COA:
06/24/2008
06/24/2008 1 FILED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED
APPEARANCE OF PROSE. NOTIFIED REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST OF FILING.
06/25/2008 2 Received Petitioner Joseph Zernik's emergency motion under Cir. R. 27-3,
request to incorporate by reference, request for judicial notice with exhibits.
served on 06/24/2008.
06/25/2008 3 Order filed (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MARSHA S. BERZON and MILAN D.
SMITH, JR.)Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the
intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977).
Accordingly, the emergency petition for writ of mandamus is denied. No
motions for reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order shall be
filed or entertained. [Denied;Terminated on the merits after submissions
without oral hearing;Written, reasoned, unsigned, unpublished; ]
06/25/2008 5 Filed Petitioner Joseph Zernik motion for reconsideration entitled "new petition
for writ of mandamus, request for leiniency fro prose filer etc). Served on
06/25/2008.
06/26/2008 4 Received notification from Petitioner of payment of docket fee. Amount Paid:
USD 450.00. Date paid: 06/26/2008.
-1-
https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/Trans...sp&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y&caseNum=08-72714 (1 of 2) [7/3/2008 11:26:46 AM]
08-72714 Summary
06/26/2008 6 Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT, MARSHA S. BERZON and MILAN D.

SMITH, JR.) The court has received petitioner's June 25, 2008 filing entitled
"New Petition for Writ of Mandamus." Petitioner's June 25, 2008 submission
does not change the result of the court's June 25, 2008 order. The petition for
writ of mandamus remains denied. No further filings will be accepted in this
closed matter.
PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt
07/03/2008 11:33:40
PACER Login: dr2600 Client Code:
Description: Case Summary Search Criteria: 08-72714
Billable Pages: 1 Cost: 0.08
-2-
https://ecf.ca9.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/Trans...sp&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y&caseNum=08-72714 (2 of 2) [7/3/2008 11:26:46 AM]
Exhibit (iv) June 25, 2008 unsigned Order denying the Emergency Petition in Joseph Zernik v
USDC-CAC (08-72714) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit.
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 72 Filed 06/25/2008 Page 1 of 2
..
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 25 2008
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
In re: JOSEPH ZERNIK; No. 08-72714
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW

Central District of California,
JOSEPH ZERNIK, Los Angeles
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent,
JACQUELINE O'CONNOR; et al;
Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of
this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v.
United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the
emergency petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
ec/MOATT
Case 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW Document 72 Filed 06/25/2008 Page 2 of 2
No motions for reconsideration, modification, or clarification of this order
shall be filed or entertained.
ec/MOATT
Exhibit (v) Copies of face pages of papers, which Dr Zernik obtained through a
legal services provider, as found at the Office of the Clerk of the US Court of
Appeals, 9th Circuit, under the caption of Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-
72714), and which were stamped on their faces “RECEIVED” on June 24, 2008.
I ORIGINAL ).
..-:::L. •
DIgItally signed by
Joseph Zemik
j} DN:cn=Joseph Zemik,
~ L . email=jz1234S@earthli
nknet,c=US
Date: 20l}8.06.24
EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER 14:00:18 -07'00'
CIRCUIT RULE 27-3

Need Overnight Action, Case may be dismissed
Jooe261essf 2 a.: 72714
JOSEPH ZERNIK, "r-·

(' ': c::
Petitioner, ;I00~
-:-:.(~ '1
vs. :'o,:~
;:r"s.r""i:::';:
--q -......~Oftl
:') --1 -7, n
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, -~.;~: -~2 --t ~:
.. -.. -':J::<
»Mf1l
. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, :.::lUhC!
c.' "C.',
Respondent, :J:: fT1 rT1
c->~
';;:r:x
::::1../)
-(


PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS:

REQUEST TO INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE, REQUESTFOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE & MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES INCLUDED WITHIN;
\.
CONCURRENTLY FILED.
JOSEPH ZERNIK
PETITIONER
in pro per

Tel: 3104359107
Fax: 801 9980917
-3-
JOSEPH ZERNIK
2 2415 Saint George St.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
3 Tel: (310) 435 9107
4 Fax: (801) 998 0917
jz 12345@earthlink.net
5 PLAINTIFF
6 in pro per
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JOSEPH ZERNIK DOCKET: CV -08-01550- VAP-CW

12 HON CARLA WOEHRLE, JlJDGE
13
Plaintiff
14 V; PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE
&
15 JACQUELINE CONNOR
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF:
ETAL
16
17 Defendants CORRESPONDENCE WITH OFFICES OF
CLERK AND PRESIDING JUDGE, LA
18
SUPERIOR COURT, IN RE:
19 CERTIFICATION OF ENTRY,
20 ALTERNATIVELY- CERTIFICATION OF
21
NON-ENTRY OF AUG 9, 2007
JUDGMENT BY COURT PURSUANT TO
22
CCP §437c.
23
24 \.
~.
25
26
27
28
NonCE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF LETTERS TO AND FROM
OFFICE OF PRESIDING JUDGE, LASe
-13-
Digitally signed by
Joseph Zernik
J0 S e phON: cn=Joseph
.k Zermk,
Zern I
email=jz1234S@ear
thlink.net,c=US
1 JOSEPH ZERNIK Date: 2008.06.19
03:23:02 -07'00'
3 Tel: (310) 435 9107
~6r;
4 Fax: (801) 998 0917
5 PLAINTIFF
6 in pro per -~-:!
;:;i-- r:
g
=
:~;;=
;;2:.'~?yg
Qlt; f= ;:7<;:':
~II ~ :r~~E
7
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA~r.1 ~ :~_;_~~-,-,;~
10 >-
,:
f:" ..L.rT;!T1
c: ::~-;:;
--r-~
.z::- :::: u-'
11 -<
JOSEPB: ZERNIK DOCKET: CV-08-01550-VAP-CW
12 HON CARLA WOEHRLE, JUDGE
13 Plaintiff
14 V. PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF:

15 JACQUELINE CONNOR
ETAL CONCEALED DOCUMENT UNDER #52:
16
17 Defendants REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE:
18 MAY 1,2008, CALIFORNIA COURT OF
APPEAL - PETITIONER JOSEPH
19
ZERNIK'S REQUEST FOR
20 STATEMENTS ON THE RECORD
21 PURSUANT TO CCJE CANON 3(E)(2)
22
23
24 \. ~.
25
26
27
28
CONCEALED DOCUMENT UNDER #52- CA COURT OF APPEAL
-15-
Digitally signed by
J 0 S e Ph Jo"ph Z",;k
ON: cn::.Joseph Zernik,
Zern .I k
emall=jI12345@earthll
nkl1et ,=U5
Oate:200S.06.19
03:05:02 ·0]'00'
1 JOSEPH ZERNIK
If
2415 Saint George St.
2
3 Tel: (310) 435 9107
Fax: (801) 998 0917
4
jz12345@earth1ink.net
5 PLAINTIFF
in pro per
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~\.>
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI~? ~
10
rn ;':\ 2:-
1O~' z.
CJI \ N
11
JOSEPH ZERNIK DOCKET: CV-08-01550-VAP-~~ -:
1.2
13
Plaintiff HON CARLA WOEHRLE, JU\\\ =:
14 v: PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF:
. 15 JACQUELINE CONNOR
ETAL CONCEALED DOCUMENT UNDER #56:
16
17 Defendants VERIFIED REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
18 NOTICE:
1. APRIL 18, 2008 CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL
19 COUNCIL PRESS RELEASE - RE: NEW CASE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CCMS) MAKES STRIDES IN
20
CALIFORNIA COURTS., AND
21 2. FALSE AND DELIBERATELY
MISLEADING LITIGATION RECORDS IN
22
SAMAAN V ZERNIK (SC087400) - DATA
23 COMPILAnON COMPARING EXHIBITS VOLUME I,
\. EXHIBITS VOLUME I ADDENDUM, EXHIBITS
24 VOLUME II, EXHIBITS VOLUME II ADDENDUM, AND
PURPORTED "DOCKET" DOCUMENT
25 FILED BY DEFENDANTS WITH A REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE - PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION ON FILE.
26
FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
27 MOTIONS TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT, AND REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHOW
28 CAUSERE:CONTEMPT
CONCEALED DOCUMENT UNDER #56 -REPORTERS~ TRANSCRIPT
-16-
Olgll<lltySlyrll~d
JOS e P by Joseph Zemlk
ON: cn= Joseph
h ;:1\~J1IB45~
'1lIhllnltnet,c=US
Zern i k ~;;~~;~~_~.~~.9
1 JOSEPH ZERNIK
3 Tel: (310) 435 9107
4 Fax: (801) 998 0917
jz12345@earthlink.net
5 PLAINTIFF
6 in pro per
8
,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT "f:.
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSEPH ZERNIK DOCKET: CV-08-01550-VAP-CW
12 Plaintiff HON CARLA WOEHRLE, JUDGE
13 v.
PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF:
14 JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL
15 Defendants
CONCEALED DOCUMENT #58:
16 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
17 EXHIBITS VOL 111-
18 REPORTERS'TRANSCRIPT,
FILED IN SUPPORT OF
19
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
20 MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
21 FILED MAY 9, 2008, >300 PAGES
22
UNDERNEATH THE TAGGED REQUEST
\.
23 FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT.
24
25
DEPT: 640
26
JUDGE: CARLA WOEHRLE
27
28
CONCEALED DOCUMENT #58 - REPORTERS' TRANSCRIPT
-17-
Exhibit (vi) June 25, 2008 "New Petition" filed in Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC
(08-72714) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
MIchelle ~henclan
asury Copy
Receipt for Payment
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth (~ircuit 91529
Account: TREASURY Thursday, June 26, 2008 8:44:00 AM
ount Paid: $450.00, Check Number 1761 Zernik v USDC
Account
Amount
510000 Writ Of Mandamus
$150.00
~ived From: 86400 Writ Of Mandamus $200.00
Dr. Z Orthodontics $100.00
1965 FottHill
La Verne,
Four Hundred Fifty and 001100 Dollars

Deputy Clerk:
Michelle Sheridan
{e Clerk's Copy
Receipt for Payment
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 91529
Account: TREASURY Thursday, June 26,2008 8:44:00 AM
unt Paid: $450.00, Check Number 1761 Zernik v USDC
Account
Amount
$150.00
ived From: 86400 Writ Of Mandamus
$200.00
Dr. Z Olihodontics $100.00
1965 FottHill
La Verne,
Four Hundred Fifty and 001100 Dollars

Deputy Clerk:
Michelle Shetidan
DR. Z OR"HOa(j~'f[9$<""
JOE ZERNIK, DMDAgC "
1965 FOOTHILL, LA VERNE·
909-596-3003
ll::S usc CREDIT UNION

P.O. BOX 512718
LOS ANGELES. CA 90051-0718
FOR 1 ~ __ --,.~NP
I: J 2 20 ? g 55? I: 0000000 ? ~ ~ 8 ~ 0 0 III 1. ? b. ~ -9-
QHARLAND 2001
EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER
CIRCUIT RULE 27··3
Need Overnight Action, Case likely to be
dismissed June 26, 2008 less than 2 4 hours

<~-i
c-) t''', __,
JOSEPH ZERNIK,
Petitioner,
vs.

Respondent,


NEW PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS:

(PETITION 08-72714 FILED YESTERDAY, JUNE 24, 2008)
REQUEST FOR LENIENCY FOR PRO SE FILER, REQUEST FOR
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE & MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
INCLUDED WITHIN;
CONCURRENTLY FILED.
JOSEPH ZERNIK
PETITIONER
11l pro per

Tel: 310 4359107
Fax: 801 9980917
-5-
Exhibit (vii) June 26, 2008 unsigned Order again denying the Emergency Petition in Joseph
Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714) at the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2008
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT u.s. COURT OF APPEALS
In re: JOSEPH ZERNIK. No. 08-72714
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01550-VAP-CW

Central District of California,
JOSEPH ZERNIK, Los Angeles
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondent,
JACQUELINE O'CONNOR; et al.;
Before: REINHARDT, BERZON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The court has received petitioner's June 25, 2008 filing entitled "New
Petition for Writ of Mandamus."
P@titioner's June 25, 2008 submission does not change the result of the
court's June 25, 2008 order. The petition for writ of mandamus remains denied.
No further filings will be accepted in this closed matter.
-7-
Exhibit (viii) Copies of face pages of papers, which Dr Zernik obtained through a
legal services provider, as found at the Office of the Clerk of the US Court of
Appeals, 9th Circuit, under the caption of Joseph Zernik v USDC-CAC (08-72714),
and were stamped on their faces “FILED” on June 25, 2008.
~.
D'9;"IIY';90,d by
I l E [1 .~L ~~:~j:~~~45@"rthh
Jmeph Zernik
ON: cn=Joseph Zernlk,
Date: 2008.06.24
10:39:09 -07'00'
1 JOSEPH ZERNIK JUN 25 2008

2 2415 Saint George St. MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
3 Tel:(310)4359107
4 Fax:(801)9980917
5
PLAINTIFF u(JUv&( ~ fffJ/tfttt
6 in pro per
63 ~1 ~1/&
7
8
9 ," CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSEPH ZERNIK DOCKET: CV-08-01550-VAP-CW
12' Plaintiff HON CARLA WOEHRLE, JUDGE
13 v.
14 JACQUELINE CONNOR ET AL PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE &
15 Defendants VERIFIED REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE OF:
16
EXHIBITS VOL V - RECEIVERSHIP
17
FILED IN SUPPORT OF WRIT
18 PETITION, EX PARTE REQUEST TO
FILE AND FILING CLAIMS PER
19
§1962(c), §1331 & §1332
20 EX PARTE REQUEST FOR RTO'S OSC's,
21
ORDERS TO COMPEL PER §1960 ET
SEQ. REQUEST FOR PROTECTION PER
22 §1960 ET SEQ, AND IN OPPOSITION TO
23
\. MOTION(S) TO DISMISS
24 DEPT: 640
25 JUDGE: CARLA WOEHRLE
26
27
28
NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
EXHIBITS VOL V: RECEIVERSHIP
-11-
8b
:'"
Attorneys for PlaintiffNivie Samaan

7
8
'9
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES -- WEST DISTRICT
11 NIVTE SAMAAN, an individual; Case No. SC 087400
12 Plaintiff, Honorable John L. Segal

13 v. PLAINTIFF NIVIE SAMAAN'S
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
14 JOSEPH ZERNIK, an individual and MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, RECEIVER.
15
Defendants. rMemorandum of Points & Authorities,
16 Declarations of Sherry Aleverson, Moe
Keshavarzi, Jared Harris, David J.
17 Pasternak and Christina Pugh filed
concurrently herewl th]
18
rProposed Order lodged concurrently
19 herewith]
20 Date: November 20, 2007
Time: 8:30 a.m.
21 Dept.: o
22
23
24
25
1 27
I 28
1
1 -12-
EXHIBITS VOL V . RE~IVERSHIP
I
I \\·II~·\\I:ST 1\1\IK\ .J(l(i.j;N'.\' \ ZERNIK V CONNOR 1!'IJ':\AlIlfF'S MOTIO\ TO :\PPOI\T A RECEIVER
/ Digitally signed
by Joseph Zernik
ON: cn=Joseph
~ . jJ Zernik,
1 JOSEPH ZERNIK ) . ~L. email=jzl2345@e
arthlink.net, c=US
2415 Saint George 8t. 20D8 JUN 25 AM 10= / 7 Date: 2008.06.23
2 07:32:40 -07'00'
3 Tel: (310) 4359107
4
5
Fax: (801) 998 0917
jz12345@earthlink.net
PLAINTIFF
1)/-
(./..~
in pro per
6
7
cott1 tf/ fJft!i1-u
8 ({1~ iZ1/L;
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JOSEPH ZERNIK DOCKET: CV-08-01550-VAP-CW
HON CARLA WOEHRLE, JUDGE
12
Plaintiff
13 PLAINTIFF'S ANALYSIS OF LASC RECORDS:
V.
14 1. WHY THERE ARE HARDLY ANY
JACQUELINE CONNOR VALID LITIGATION RECORDS IN
15 ETAL
SAMAAN V ZERNIK,
16 2. WHY EXISTING LITIGATION
Defendants
17 RECORDS ARE CONCEALED BY THE
18
LASC,
3. HOW SUCH RECORDS IMPLICATE
19
SOME TACIT COLLUSION BY COURT
20 OF APPEAL, 2nd DISTRICT, AND
21 4. WHY SUCH RECORDS HAVE
SUFFICIENT ALLEGED PREDICATED
22
\. ACTS PER RICO IN THEM TO SUPPOR
23 PETITIONER'S CLAIMS SEVERAL
24 TIMES OVER.
25 FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS
26
FIRST AJVTENDED COI\lPLAINT, AND NE\V
27 CLAII\1S PER §1962, §1331 & §1332.
28 DATE: NONE ON FILE
-i- -14-
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION ON TRT A T rOllDT' Dvrv.nn.C'

2008-06-24 Zernik V USDC (08-72714) at The US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit - Alleged Fraud On The Court and Undermining of Banking Regulation-S

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2008-06-24 Zernik V USDC (08-72714) at The US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit - Alleged Fraud On The Court and Undermining of Banking Regulation-S

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Digitally signed

a. Dkt #1: Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and

07-12-17. Wedick's Opinion Letter re: Pasternak's Grant Deeds

1. Source of Records Examined by

2. What is Samaan v Zernik? ... … 3

3. Mr Wedick's Resume' ... … 4

4. Opinion Letter of Mr Wedick, notarized ... … 6

5. Two Fraudulent Grant Deeds ... … 10

5a. 12/7/2007 Grant Deed ... … 11

5b. 12/17/2007 Grant Deed, certified ... … 14

a) The December 7, 2007 Grant Deed

b) The December 7, 2007 Grant Deed

It is entirely unclear what Samaan v Zernik was, and is. In part, it

Early FBI Career

Undercover Probe Concerning California Lawmakers

Local Municipal Corruption

CBS and 60 MINUTES

Distinguished Service/Professional Organizations

Mr Wedick, an FBI veteran, commended by

He examined the Grant Deeds for fraud

In addition to records copied here, Mr

To: Dr. Joseph Zemik

Date: January 29,2009

Subject: Grant Deed file Attorney DAVID J. PASTERNAK,

In accordance with reference litigation currently ongoing in Los Angeles

As background information concerning his FBI career, it should be noted

With respect to Grant Deed #1 dated December 7, 2007, Mr. WEDICK

Accordingly, based on above observations MR. WEDICK opines an

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

(Area for Notary Seal)

Further Description of Attached Document

Title or Type of Attached Document _

Document Date: _ umber ofPages _

Signer(s) or Issuing Agency: _

Capacity Claimed by Custodian

This Grant Deed was presented by DAVID

This Grant Deed was indeed approved by

United Title Company

WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO

SPACE ABOvE nus liNE FOR RECORDERS USC

FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION,

Mail Tax Statements to

evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) i51are

Name 4)1\,,\0 J. p~~r€tlJ~'Aj /!ic£\w.J.

This Grant Deed was recorded by David

No notice was served on the owner,

RECORD EXAMINATION BY FRAUD EXPERT JAMES WEDICK

If this document contains any restriction based on race, color,

Assessor's Identification Number (Jl.IN)

fotlill THIS FOR.M IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED

RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

United Title Company

Tille tI: 8070 1422·77 12117/07

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDERS USE

r:DR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which IS h ~reby acknowledged,

~~tary Public, p~Onal;Y ~~;~~ed ~/{ I" /'?J-'!~l.:.~.

personally known to me (or proved to me on the baSI!, of

ttwt 11e/she/tf1ey executed the same in his/her/their iJ'Jthori;:ed

Slqnature _~ }-/" r~. ~/(F

bl5 14() 8(9'l

MAIL TAX STJITEMENl'S f~S DIRECTED ABOVE

y Copy Receipt for Payment 91528

~lerk's Copy· Receipt for Payment 91528

~~tary Public, p~Onal;Y ;ed ~/{ I" /'?J-'!~l.:.~.